RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive224

This is an archive page, last updated 22 April 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>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Ban Bossy

I watch Thunderf00t still. I frankly don't care all that much for what happened at FTB or whatever and try to take him as his videos and just try to avoid the drama. That being said when he first came out with his "Feminism Poisons" series I was groaning the entire way home with how bad his arguments seemed to be, where saying the phrase "If she let's/want's me to" could have done him quite a lot of good. But that's not really the point. I'm here to speak about Ban Bossy. (For those of you that missed it, watch these: [1] and [2].) I'm honestly sitting here with a dumb look on my face thinking "Wow, this is a surprisingly good argument." at that second video since it seems to be saying that women make their own lifestyle choices based on who they are, not for being women. But something in the back of my head is irking me. He's done a bit of quote mining before (See Anita Sarkeesian) and I have the feeling I'm missing part of this argument. Anybody got something to comment about this video? Zero (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't watch any vloggers, and I don't know what a "Bossy" is. So you can stop reading here if you don't care what I think on those grounds. If you can post a synopsis I can read in a couple of minutes, I would be grateful. That said, the argument "women make their own lifestyle choices based on who they are, not for being women" seems to hand-wave away the fact that women, because they are women, face restrictions on the choices they can make/the options that are open to them. With that one line, it seems as if he's assuming that men and women have an equal basket of choices from which to pick, start at the same starting line, are equally able to exercise power, and that women don't face particular challenges/hindrances/oppressions because of their gender. It's like he's trying to say "every woman is an individual, and since we live in a society of individual equallity, the social categories that give certain types of people advantages and others disadvantages don't matter. Also, using "women" as an undifferentiated group, as though straight women and white women are in the same boat as queer women or women of color, overlooks a lot of the problems in debates about gender politics. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I will skip the synopsis since I can't exactly spend the time writing that up. The only wrench I'm going to throw is that [COO of Facebook and instigator of the Ban Bossy Campaign] Sheryl Sandberg's TED talk which he used clips of is saying the lifestyle choices decide what women will be. Zero (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

When 50% of corporate America's COOs are women, then the fact that a female COO said something about "lifestyle choices" may be a wrench for me. Until then, the fact that the system worked for this one person when it fails most of the others for no other reason than what they have between their legs means that Ms. Sandberg has no idea what she's talking about if she bthinks women just need to make better choices, as if they all have the same choices she did. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@TW: "Ban Bossy" is a protest by the girl scouts (?) against labelling women that want to lead as "bossy", and thus the word should be banned (I dunno. The website is a bit vague, but it apparently encourages having discussions about gender as a social construct with 6-year-old children). I was kind of confused at first because AFAIK, "bossy" implies incompetence and/or disagreeability, but I guess the word doesn't have that meaning in English. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 14:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if the word "bossy" is enough to discourage one from being a leader, one's not leader material in the first place. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 14:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Banning" words is a weird strategy, in that it immediately opens the door for one's opponents to dismiss activists as Orwellian thought police and thus ignore the real stakes of the argument. That said, a campaign to encourage us to rethink why we call women who behave a certain way "bossy" and men who behave in much the same way "assertive," "bold," or something similar strikes me as a good idea. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate wording for sure. 'Banning' words achieves nothing and will get you lots of hate from people who dislike "thought police" as you said. I myself have been trying to stay away from discussion surrounding this due to the inflammatory wording of it. Nullahnung (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had some arguments on the HuffPost and Reddit about these matters. I said I'd support it if the wording wasn't so unfortunate, but that's apparently "tone policing" and thus "oppression". If online feminism (which I haven't followed for a year, along with all other social movements I cared for) has concluded that wording and tone is irrelevant in public discourse, I would suggest for them to shut the fuck up and go back to Communication 101. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 19:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait - so you are of the opinion that the use of tone argument is a valid rebuttal? --Castaigne (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really, but a basic rule of public discourse is that hostile and/or confrontational tones are much more likely to cause a knee-jerk reaction from people. Flies, honey, vinegar. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 11:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

it apparently encourages having discussions about gender as a social construct with 6-year-old children. Shocking. Children should be kept ignorant of the truth, especially those truths that will affect them the most in their lives. Better we tell them that the world is fair and that Noah saved all the animals with his boat. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see how girls would want to avoid "bossy" leadership positions, if they've been preached their whole life that attractiveness is their most important asset. Regardless, I don't think the problem lies in the gender of the leaders, but rather a greatly exaggerated dependence on leaders in the first place. To quote one of my favourite bands: "History's not made by great men!" Bismarck (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure 6 is the right age for gender as a social contract. Maybe 8 or 10? When they have budding hormones at least. I don't want people to live with a pre-defined gender narrative (like I was taught to like NASCAR and sports when I was young because it was manly when I'd rather be watching Sailor Moon) and would rather have them make up their own mind on their own (if that's somehow possible). Zero (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@TW: I don't think 6 year old children have the intellectual ability to understand what is a social construct, but I'm no child psychologist. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 19:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Sweetheart, do you know how when we go shopping for new clothes for you, the girls' clothes are in one part of the store and the clothes for your brother are in another part of the store? And do you notice how boys never wear skirts and dresses? And how the commercials on TV for toys for girls have pretty princess dolls, and the commercials for toys for boys have trucks and guns? Okay. The whole world is sort of set up to tell girls that they need to do some things in order to be girls, and to tell boys they need to do some things to be boys. But really, those are really old ideas that don't really have anything to with what it really means to be a girl or a boy. But those ideas can change. When your grandmother was a little girl, girls were never allowed to wear pants to school, like you do, and nobody thought that a girl could grow up to be plumber like your Mommy, because only boys could be plumbers. And maybe one day, we won't have different clothes for boys and girls, and people will wear whatever they want. Maybe one day, people will think women should drive trucks and men should be kindergarten teachers, because things change. So remember, when somebody tells you that you can't do something because you're a girl tell them that gender is an arbitrary social construct created by a patriarchal society to allow men to exercise power over women to perpetuate gendered power imbalances tell them that there's nothing about being a girl that means you can't be or do anything a boy can." TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A bit lengthy, given the attention span of a six year old (that's very short). I'd side with Zero here and say that it would be appropriate for an 8-year-old. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 20:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also: you initially misunderstood my argument as " Children should be kept ignorant of the truth", it's "Children are fucking dumb" --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 21:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have two younger siblings, a 6 year old brother and a 4 year old sister. While they act like dumb brats, they actually are very capable of understanding. This explanation? They'd be able to get it. Very easily. Kids aren't as dumb as you think they are, good sir. 71.170.110.181 (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be some young children on this site reading this discussion, thinking about how naïve that statement is to them because they can understand the entire thing (and certainly aren't "f***ing dumb"...). Jc86035 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you wondering about 6 year olds or 8 year olds? Since for some reason apparently that makes a huge difference, at least when following the conversation above. Nullahnung (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Children are tiny Platonists. My 6yo was picking up gender identities well before we realised she was, to our slight horror. Fortunately she has her mother as an embodiment of the feminine virtues, e.g. sword fighting, shooting arrows with a bow and wielding power tools - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

aah, I look forward to the day Ms. Gerard brags about her sword collection on her online dating profile (obvious joke had to be quipped). --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 12:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My girlfriend collects dolls, wears lolita (Incidentally, so do I), plays video games and burps like a friggin' sailor (seriously, she does it better than I do). Fuck gender constructs, really. Zero (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, Lolita reminds me of my experience with subcultures/countercultures/anticonformists (don't judge me, 15-year-old me was fucking stupid) is that they tend to enforce their countercultural constructs (for lack of a better term) with way less wiggle room that the culture they're rebelling against, quick to shun members for slights against whatever characteristics they have. So, essentially you try to escape from the cultural monolith by... joining another monolith.

Also, Cracked did a very good article about this. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"So, essentially you try to escape from the cultural monolith by... joining another monolith." Sure, if 'fitting in' or 'being cool' is a big hangup for you. That's why all of those countercultures (or at least the devoted core adherents) are primarily made up of teenagers & people who never quite got over being teenagers. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why no one ever met a goth who was over 22... --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 18:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

1) Pleased to meet you.

2) Clearly, you've never met David Gerard.

3) If in the USA, go to Convergence. If in the UK, to Whitby Gothic Weekend. If in Europe, Wave-Gottik-Treffen. The subculture has aged remarkably well. --Castaigne (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Whitby Gothic Weekend is hilarious. The best thing is that nobody seems to take themselves too seriously. But boy, do they look absolutely fantastic! Ajkgordon (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me as if a general sense of commonality has as much of an influence on the adherents of a subculture as it has on the conformists; only the outcome differs superficially. It's similar to how anti-theists worry more about God than most believers. I don't mind subcultures at all, I just think it's silly when they're elevated to a general criticism of the masses. Obviously people have different tastes and that is good, but professing to be hipper than the masses only leads to what -- the masses aligning towards that particular subculture of course, making it less hip. Bismarck (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The standard text is Subcultures by Dick Hebdige. It's no longer considered the whole story, but it certainly covers everything in this thread. It's also small and very readable - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've always had a bit of difficulty with the descriptor "subculture". In my, perhaps limited, experience, most members of subcultures aren't really in a subculture at all. They typically have a 9-5 job, get married, go shopping, go to the beach, buy the latest gadgets, speak the same language, obey the law of the land, do everything else that the main culture does. But they may look a bit different during the week and have a few ways of looking at things a bit differently. But then at the weekend they smear on the foundation and dress up in some steampunk threads (or whatever). Most sub-culture affectations - slang, clothing, music, sexual mores and so on - are easily appropriated by mainstream culture because they are simply non-mainstream behaviours, not a different way of life. I don't really know what my point is other than commenting that most subculture members are nothing like as revolutionary/anarchistic/different/subversive as they think they are. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is akin to arguing against the corruption of the word "gay" by all those homosexuals. In 2014 - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How is it like that? (And I hardly think most subcultures see themselves as revolutionary- just a lot of them are really pretentious and (especially for "swag") absolutely mind-numbingly moronic.) MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Wired were the eyes of a horse on a jet pilot} 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Not really. It's not a criticism, just a comment. Take bikers, for example. There is a definite biker subculture (or many) such as Hells Angels and so on. They really do lead a different life. It's not just riding a Harley and having lots of tassels. They often live outside the law, have their own communities, their codes of honour and so on. Yet there are many many more who associate with that subculture but aren't really in it. Same with gangsters. You see them in their low-riding jeans and sideways baseball caps coming out of their parents' semi in leafy suburbia. Perhaps it's a useful construct to allow the disaffected or individualist to show some rebelliousness without actually cutting themselves off entirely from their families, healthcare, the job market, etc. I know this sounds patronising - it's not meant to be! It's just that too many of these weekend warriors insist that the rest of us are "sheeple" and mainstream whereas in reality so are they but just with some strange habits and an interesting wardrobe. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just so everybody gets this clear, even if it's not really relevant- "swag" is fucking stupid and I hate it. MESSIAH OF DOOM Yo mum's gonna get in trouble- wit mah painis! 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I may not be aware of the exact sociological definition of subculture, but I thought the prefix sub portended to the fact that adherents are in fact members of larger cultural group, from which they seek to differ in various ways. I was under the assumption, those who actively or radically opposed mainstream culture were identified as countercultural groups, although subcultures, too, occasionally nurture themselves off a disain for mainstream culture. Which is what I criticised. It really is not difficult at all to have an unusual fashion style or unusual hobbies, at least in Western societies. It is a bit silly to oppose a culture, which doesn't oppose the existence of subcultures. I used to joke that street punks don't actually desire to implement anarchy, because then they wouldn't be able to purchase hair spray as easily, due to its production bearing relatively low priority. There's simply no better place to be for an anarchist than a pluralistic democracy with rule of law. I suspect that identifying with subcultures can be a sign of lack of independence or self-esteem, which is why adolescents have a propensity for joining these. Bismarck (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right about the subculture / counterculture definitions. In which case everything I wrote above is guff. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

4/1/2014

So today is that day. Please share any interesting April Fools jokes you have come across. I'll start with an update to the most indestructible and legendary mobile phone in history. Enjoy the funnies! Zero (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the 4th of January? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh you brits and your backwards dating methods. Zero (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

April Fools day is terrible--Mikal | lakiM 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, YOU drive on the wrong side of the road, etc, and so on forever and ever amen. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Over on CP, Aschlafly fell for one of the more obvious ones in The Gruniad. He saw "left" and went right. Right round the bend. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This, For the Win. TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Ajkgordon (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy "Internet is Useless" Day! --CoyoteSans (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Dorn's Klingon Rosetta Stone because today is a good day to learn Klingon--NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 20:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Assryian new year,have you been enlightened by the airborne particulates of islam yet?--Madman (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Madman

I told a bunch of my students I was docking them 25% of their final grade for being messy bastards the previous week. I'm a troll IRL and online. ^pathetic 13:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The colour blue

It seems Reince Priebus has blown the irony meter. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Godsmos?

Apparently a response to Cosmos, replacing scientific "how" with divine "wow." Caught mention of it out of hte corner of me eye. I thought I saw glimmerings of a possible Poe, but I can't be asked to watch crap like that. Anybody feel like taking one for the team? You'll have to google it for yourself. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Can't be asked?" gggnnnrrrgghh ...must not strangle... Sophie^Wilder 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty narrated the GODSMOS episode from a gold-plated marble throne, gesticulating confidently as he laid out the facts of the multiple creation stories offered in Genesis."

Definitely a gag. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Creating a God's version of Cosmos is pretty easy: just air a screen for five seconds before every episode saying: "This is what God has been up to lately ..." Bismarck (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

first thing i remembered--Mikal | lakiM 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ha. You too? Someone was doing a redneck version for every episode of the new Cosmos series. Of course, a DMCA complaint by Fox got them taken down last I checked. Because of course. --OverworldTheme (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Godsmos: The Creation Science show on youtube ^{— Unsigned, by: 192.96.67.4 / talk / contribs}

#CancelColbert

In which Stephen Colbert calls out racism via satire, and is then called a racist. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 21:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

One might argue that this is a case that would fit in this website's intermittent conversations about privilege. While I see the point of the satirical approach, at the end of the day, Colbert is a straight white guy who is, because of that identity, largely immune from the kind of verbal assault that he is using ironically/satirically. Yes, he's acting as an ally, and I have no doubt he's being sincere. But I would hesitate before using a similar tactic myself, because, at the end of the day, those words aren't mine to reappropriate. TeenageWasteland (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty much what I was thinking. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@TW: Yes, I guess. But it's still not racist. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of re-appropriation, it struck me that Park (the creator of #CancelColbert) chose the pseudonym "Suey" because of its connection to (American) Chinese food. But so far as I've seen she doesn't have any recent Chinese ancestry, her parents were Korean. It's also telling that even Andrew Ti, who more or less owns the "We have no obligation to be accurate or fair, we're just really angry on behalf of everybody who isn't White" brand with YoIsThisRacist doesn't think Park made the right call here - although it doesn't hurt that taking a contrary stance got him a little extra media coverage.

The standard argument made by anti-racist crusaders of Park or Ti's sort is that satire is ineffective against racism because the racists remove or don't even see the satirical context. Thus, "Where the white women at?" ends up as a two second clip on Youtube removed from its context in Blazing Saddles and, in their minds at least, ends up reinforcing racism rather than criticising it. I don't think their instincts about this are right, but the producers of the Colbert report will have known this sentiment exists. Tialaramex (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the same question as "does doing a satirical take on the damsel in distress reinforce sexism rather than dislodge it?" to which each side seems reasonable. I say stay safe and don't use the satire. Nullahnung (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a problem with twitter reaching an audience greater than you would on TV. Its clearly satire if you know who Colbert is and are familiar with his work. Less obvious if this is the first you come across him or from a culture where such satire is not that common. it doesn't help that the language used is exactly that of racists (i know thats the joke, but poes law aznd all of that). There is also the wider issue where the internet has destroyed peoples ability not to take things literally or at face value. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also reminded of criticism of the Alf garnet character - for every one person who recognised him as a mockery of racists, there were there were a dozen racists agreeing with whatever bile garnet was spewing. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

there is also the feeling that 'satire' is being used not as satire but an excuse to tell racist jokes - When Bernard manning does it he's a racist, when Ricky gervais does it, he's being satirical. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

^^ This Ajkgordon (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember that the infamous tweet was on the official show account, not @StephenAtHome (see @TeamCoco compared to Conan O'Brien's separate vanity feed, they do the same thing), so it was likely done by a Comedy Central intern/someone on their social networking team.

Still, it looked pretty bad without context. I demand a firing of the perpetrator and subsequent skit on the show. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, I agree that a satirical joke, which racists could laugh at, is not really a satirical joke. (Unless the joke is on those who do laugh at it.) However, I don't see how that excerpt from Colbert's show is racist. Sure, the "Ching Chong Ding Dong" and maybe even the "Orientals" probably ticks a few people off, but no racist will laugh at that, unlike the racist in question is really dumb and laughs at any supposedly funny noise. ("Ha, ha", he said, "Ching Chong Ding Dong.") Clearly that is not the point of the joke, which people should be able to realiste, unless I'm seriously overestimating the level of humour on Twitter. It's different, for example, from the common jokes about Asian drivers, which actually do work solely on a negative stereotype, but hardly trigger much of a backlash. When seen in context, Colbert's excerpt is obviously not racist, so what Colbert is accused of here is essentially thoughcrime: he may think like a racist, due to his privilege of course. I'd expect someone in the position of Colbert to be fully aware of his privilege, and accusing him of the opposite is pigeonholing in reverse: "Rich, middle-aged, white men can not possibly be aware of their privilege". Bismarck (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

as I said above, clearly satire if you know Colbert and watch his show, less clear in a context free tweet. As a tweet, it is just as easy to interpret it as a dig at Asian support groups combined with a dig at Asians in general. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

But who finds that tweet funny without the context? I don't think even racists will. Criticising and calling Colbert to be cancelled over one out-of-context tweet is really ignorant. One might as well boycott tires because their colour symbolises the oppression of black people. Bismarck (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

People say that the challenge of being a comedian comes with how much offensiveness you can get away with. It's not completely acceptable to even say "Ching Chong Ding Dong" in a satirical way, especially if you're a rich white guy, but he's a comedian, so he gets some leeway. Nullahnung (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What language/accent/dialect doesn't get imitated for comedic purposes? Bismarck (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what it's like to be a Chinese kid growing up in a middle-European environment where a mere uttering of the phrase "Ching Chong Chang" induces hysterical laughter from everybody but you? Unacceptable. In principle, that is (I still give some leeway to comedy that tries to be equally offensive to everybody, like South Park "City Wok/Shitty Wok"). Nullahnung (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally do not give south park any such leeway. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Family Guy (& Seth MacFarlane in general) goes for that kind of humour a lot too. Lots of tongue-in-cheek jokes around clichéd ethnic stereotypes, to the point where you have to wonder whether it's really satirising these stereotypes or just perpetuating them in a jokey way. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the same sorta thing with Spodermen, which is obviously an excessive parody of modern "swag" culture, and the homophobia/sexism that accompanies it- though, when he talks about "fukin liek 837 biches" daily, I think that it's made pretty clear. And then there's the Uncle Dolan show, which is essentially so fucking incomprehensible and absurd that Dolan saying "fagt" a few times is really the lesser evil (the show is still fucking hilarious though, in a terrifying moronic kind of way). I personally sometimes make satirical race/homophobia/sexism/whatever jokes, but I always try to make it clear that it's satire- usually by either giving some form of "winking smiley", or by going on to make a whole bunch of attacks on whatever prejudice I was fucking with, or by using them in a situation where the given context makes it very obvious. And the thing is, with Family Guy (also hilarious), Colbert (again, hilarious), and other shows, it is often kind of difficult to do that kinda thing, and I sort of understand why people are getting upset about this- it's just that I personally think that the intent and context can change the meaning, and that calling for an entire show to be cancelled over a single out of context joke is somewhat excessive. But then, being a straight white heterosexual cisgender educated male (yeah, I tick all the boxes), I guess that I obviously don't have any experience with this sort of discrimination, so, when it comes to what is and isn't offensive, I'm not really a strong authority on these matters. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{And joyously screams out its pain} 12:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember, if you're STEM, you tick another box! --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 12:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Science technology engineering and maths? What do you mean? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Yo mum's gonna get in trouble- wit mah painis!} 11:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I never make jokes, I only formulate absurd notions triggering instinctive physical reactions of emotional expression in interpersonal communication. Bismarck (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Last night, Colbert did a segment on this. He didn't back down, he explained himself, tossed some more satire in there regarding the original point of the joke (the Redskins owner), and he even tried to get people to stop harassing her (not sure how many people are harassing her at the moment, but she's claiming there are a lot). Incidentally, some people took offense to that last one. The best part? How he never mentioned her name, only briefly showed her picture. He responded brilliantly, intelligently, essentially shot down her whole attack... all while giving her zero publicity. 10/10. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 18:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

By defending her, he's being discriminatory? How the fuck are you supposed to win something like that? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{A sea on earth is a sea of tears} 09:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The only way to win the Oppression Olympics is to not play. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 18:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Park calls for revolution!

In which she shows zero self awareness. Choice quote:

“” Q: What is the best way to work with white people, to get them on our side? A: I don’t want them on our side. Q: You don’t want them on your side. A: This is not reform, this is revolution. Q: So what do you want to see happen in your revolution? A:I mean, it’s already happening I think. The revolution will not be an apocalypse, it’s gonna be a series of shifts in consciousness that result in actions that come about, and I think that like, at this point is really like, ride or die, in terms who’s in and who is out. I don’t play by appeasement politics, it is not about getting my oppressors to humanize me. And in that sense I reject the respectability politics, I reject being tone-policed, I think we need to do away with this idea that these structures are … that the prisons can undergo reform and somehow do less violence as a structure. But any example like that.

—Ms. Park on revolutions

Seriously, I can't make this stuff up. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 18:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Welp, she went from being a relatively clueless but well-intentioned race activist to a supporting a full-on revolution against whites. Would it be accurate to say "that escalated quickly"? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{A sea on earth is a sea of tears} 21:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, having read it, I think she might have been joking. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{And the rain will kill us all} 21:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait, wait, nope… okay, I have no idea whether she's joking or not, now. In all seriousness, I think it may be an attention ploy, but I don't know. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Prying open my third eye} 21:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay just finished it. All in all, she said some okay stuff, some "ehh…" stuff, and quite a bit of "wut" stuff. Oh well, I have other things to which I must attend in a second. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Unite with thy oracle} 21:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for interest

Ospreys on the nest in Colorado. Scream!! (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Butthurt"

There's one rape joke that's often used on here which has always grated and that's "butt-hurt". I wish people would stop using it. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought "butthurt" is actually originally a hemorrhoids things. You can't sit comfortably, so you whine and complain about whatever minor irritant you can blame without drawing attention to the embarrassment. Wasn't it? But, even so, I don't think I can really complain about a thought-terminating cliche going the way of the dinosaurs. It's definitely not a term that helps anyone. Also, on reflection, I feel like I need to withdrawn my above concerns, because they do read a bit like an argument from personal incredulity. Ikanreed (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it was originally to do with getting a childhood spanking. But so many people now take it as meaning anal rape that I personally think it's become inappropriate for a site like this (or anywhere). Ajkgordon (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Butt-hurt is from "somebody raped you in the ass so hard". It is a slur deeply rooted in homophobia and rape-culture. But, like with "that's so gay", people will defend using it until they die. The reason: "I didn't know that when I started using it, so I will keep using it even though I now know why it is used. I don't care about the wimminz and gays that still know and are hurt by it". [conflict of editing] Dendlai (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I did a search, and I couldn't actually find good history of the term, at least no history that wouldn't be blocked by work filters. I never use the term, because, well being mad or angry doesn't make people wrong. How are you certain it's of homophobic origin? Ikanreed (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Know Your Meme, it does refer to spanking. The association with anal sex/rape came out much later. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 16:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It originated in the gaming culture. You know, where "I raped you" is used when somebody wins some game against somebody else. "You are just butthurt" then came to mean "you just complain because you lost". The implication being clear: Some other player "raped" you. You are male, because no women plays games. Hence butthurt. And the source at KnowYourMeme is Wikipedia. Checking their article, butthurt is mentioned zero times. Dendlai (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Butt hurt is actually the feeling one gets when a person falls from his/her high horse. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 16:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what we're trying to establish is not whether you believe specifically that, but how you know. I mean, it's one intuitive interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily imply both intent on the part of the speaker, and a history that validates the assertion. Ikanreed (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Butt-hurt is from "somebody raped you in the ass so hard". It is a slur deeply rooted in homophobia and rape-culture. Do you have an etymological study that proves that? I always thought it meant getting your ass kicked. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters much what it meant then, only what it means now. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That is true, but also, notice how the "I wanna use this slur" crowd only demands "etymological studies" from those objecting to continuing using a slur. And, of course, "I raped you" being used constantly in gaming, and then "butthurt" being used to refer to those who lost who complained... Coincidence! Dendlai (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't use the term, nor endorse it. I'm trying to find this out to see how credible the claim is, as an entirely separate interest. Isn't that okay? Ikanreed (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

as was pointed out by Akjgordon, it is credible because that is now a fairly common intepretation of it. Many examples of that during history. Almost as many examples of people using the "I grew up with that!" as an excuse to keep using it. Credible? Whether it originated from "I raped you" to -> "butthurt" or not, that is how it is now often seen in the targetted groups, those with little power. Need any more reason to condemn it? Then you are the problem. Dendlai (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Steady, Dendlai. I think Ikanread is simply interested in the history. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I have ever considered butt hurt to mean anally raped, but then I can't say I have ever considered it anything other than a lazy and asinine insult. It should not be used for that reason alone. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That is true, but also, notice how the "I wanna use this slur" crowd only demands "etymological studies" from those objecting to continuing using a slur.Please don't ascribe motives to me without grounds. I'm really more curious than anything else. I'm not objecting to condemning the term, and if I learn that a term is offensive, I tend to try to stop using it, and not argue for reasons to continue using it. Thanks. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Godfuckingdammit. Dendlai's jimmies are so zetta rustable. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 17:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The origin of any word or term is really of academic interest. Just about every word we use used to mean something else in time passed. The search for original meanings as the "true" meanings of something is flawed. The question is what is the word or phrase currently understood to mean.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the question is what the phrase is currently understood to mean. I know my anecdotal experience doesn't count for anything, but I personally am hearing about this implied meaning of anal rape for the first time in my life (excuse me for living under a rock if I am! People shouldn't be expected to be familiar with every bit of 4chan etymology, imo... I'm still recovering from the fact that apparently "faggot" means "normal person" on 4chan, can you believe that?). Nullahnung (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, our Webshites page says that 4chan is positively civilized compared to Reddit. I wholeheartedly disagree and redirect you to /pol/. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 00:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, yes; the most academic discipline of academic disciplines: the etymology of 4chan Internet slang.

Although Dendlai has a point in its current meaning being offensive (and I have no idea why he brings power dynamics into this). It'll still be used as long as 4chan exists, sadly. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

After some brief research it turns out that Dendlai, is, surprisingly, correct. Looks like I'll need to find a new pejorative way to describe somebody's indignance--"Shut up, Brx." 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The ever-popular "jimmies rustled" is nice. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 19:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Argh, you can't leave me hanging on this research. I gotta know! Ikanreed (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it OK to say "screwed", "boned" or "fucked", as in "they totally screwed us on this deal" or "if we can't finish this in time, we're fucked" etc.? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be a sad day if those words all became offensive to use in the public eye... there is such a thing as going too far in policing the vernacular vocabulary. Nullahnung (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Some language policemen also decided that "crazy", "insane", "dumb", "stupid" and "lame" are ableist speech and should never be used. If we banned words because they were once used as slurs against a group of people, the English language will run out of negative adjectives really fast. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 00:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Butthurt" has got to be one of the dumbest words in existence. I don't use dumb words, not without quotation marks around them. Bismarck (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has opened my eyes to the way I use words without even thinking. From now on I will only use violence and murder based taunting and avoid anything that might be rape related. Minoreditor (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I honestly thought butt-hurt comes from the same line as "a bear with a sore bum" - i.e. pissed off and irritable. And that's the context in which I will continue to use it. If it makes you all butt-hurt, tough shit (which, apparently is REALLY offensive to people who suffer from constipation.) PsyGremlin^Hable! 09:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Until recently, I thought it was just a sort of expletive infixation where butt is added to the word hurt as a fairly meaningless taught. What is a buttmunch or an asshat? Are these real things? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought "buttmunch" essentially meant "an individual who performs annilingus". As for asshat… lol. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{A sea on earth is a sea of tears} 11:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think an asshat is an assclown in training. I had never seen "butthurt" until I started visiting reddit, and I've taken it to mean feeling spanked, or nursing resentment from a perceived injury. It is not in my working vocabulary, but not because it might put a hair across the ass of some sensitive blossom. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think putting "ass" in front of something necessarily makes it an insult, you asshunting, assdancing asskiller! (Also, FYI, ass means mule. Arse means butt). MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Deserved doom shall be unto you} 11:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A mule is a mule, a hybrid of an ass (which we more usually call a donkey) and a mare. In US English, just as sure as Vegemite is superior to Marmite, ass also refers to the hind end of a person or animal. In archaic US usage, fanny means the same as ass, but let's not go there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Pah! Vegemite is just Marmite Lite. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Fanny"means "arse" in the US? I always knew you guys was confused. How come the American birthrate remains so high?--Coffee (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Because they think they're doing anal when they penetrate the girl's fanny? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{And the rain will kill us all} 21:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There was a joke about that in The Office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDsfzJXGAo8 - Bismarck (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Haven't watched that show in ages. That's very funny. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Unite with thy oracle} 21:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If we are doing the "always thought" thing, I've always thought that it comes from "having one's ass kicked". "I kicked your ass" is another common taunt in games...--ZooGuard (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Never (as far as I can recall) used it but I'd have to agree with ZooGuard - never considered it to be anything else. Scream!! (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Article protecting

Why is protecting articles the new thing? It seems like the standard response to a solitary vandal - or sometimes just an edit war with someone who has an opposing viewpoint - now seems to be protecting the page rather than (or sometimes as well as) something more sensible like vandal binning, a short block, or just opening a dialogue with the editor involved. This doesn't seem like a good thing. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a good thing in principle, but people have rapidly deteriorating patience nowadays, so understandable. Also, someone said the Vandal Bin had technical problems (brxbrx, I think). Nullahnung (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I, for one, have not been able to use the vandal bin. Attempts return 403 forbidden. Also, the most recently protected article has been protected because the vandal/edit warrior in question has been using multiple IPs.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I hope you are not talking about this. If you want to open a dialogue with some fuckwit edit-warring MRA BoN, be my guest. In my experience, blocking IP addresses is a hit-or-miss proposition. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but this, proclaiming that article protection is the right thing to do when a single IP makes a couple of page-blanks or reversions, and similar recent occurrences. Surely, dealing with the troublesome individual is preferable to making an article a members-only area. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If the "troublesome individual" is not interested enough to return and engage the mob after a twenty-four-hour time out, then they are just a passing troll, and inviting them to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut seems appropriate. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So why not give them a twenty-four-hour time out rather than giving any potential new editor the same? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Because IP-hopping. You have the buttons to unprotect articles and block IP's if you choose. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Some articles are amazingly bad, stale , and outdated. Efforts to update and improve are met with the same claims to a wiki-fiefdom reminiscent of CP sysops. nobs^{Jesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does.} 00:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"inviting them to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut" is my favorite phrase ever. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 00:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Weaseloid on the second example he provides, in that I doubt a single drive-by editor dropping some crap, getting reverted, and dropping crap once more justifies protection. I would wager that many vandals stick around for one (or maybe two) reversions before losing interest and leaving. That said, in cases where the vandal bin isn't proving effective or blocks are being bypassed through IP-hopping, I think page protection is the next logical step. I will also add the caveat that I don't really support using page protection to stop edit warring, provided the edit warring isn't clearly vandalism. - Grant (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but I personally think that we should not protect pages just because we think they might get vandalised in the future- for example, the MRA page. Until we start getting loads of people vandalising the titties out of the article, we shouldn't protect it- and even then, it should only be for a week, a month at most, if it's the first few times. After it starts happening, like, 10 times, with several people doing it, we can start protecting it for even a year, but even then, we shouldn't be doing "preemptive" protection. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Unite with thy oracle} 05:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We should put the whole wiki under protection and demand dogecoin for edits. NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 10:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Protecting articles should certainly be a last, and not a first, resort.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback takes one click. Is that so hard to do? Sophie^Wilder 13:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

God, I remember when I got yelled at for banning an IP for replacing a page with just vulgarities back when I first got janitor powers. Times have changed. --Revolverman (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses can be used by totally different people within hours, apparently, that's why they should only be given short blocks. Dunno how true that is - anyone?. As Sophie says, "Rollback" is oner click. It might get annoying to repeat & repeat but better than protecting IMHO. Scream!! (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I, for one, have never noticed signs of multiple RW editors using one IP in a short time frame. It might happen with a group of kids at a school or library, as it occasionally does on WP. OTOH, I have seen more than a few cases of IP-hopping by one vandal.

Rollback is a fine thing. I use it all the time. I have also seen IP's come to the talk page after having their "contribution" reverted. Usually it's an excuse to take a drink, but at least it is an attempt to engage in discussion.

When an IP blanks a big chunk of a contentious page such as Misandry four times in as many hours, that starts to smell like intent to continue edit warring without any desire to talk about it. Guess I'll go back to blocking such IP's for an hour to see if they get bored, and protect the page only if they pop out of a different hole. Would the mob object to 90-minute protection in cases like that? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Short blocks and very short protection periods would be acceptable. Anything over a day is just laziness. As my darling said above, "rollback" is only one click away. ħuman 03:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, we must all acknowledge that protecting Misandry was the right move--"Shut up, Brx." 16:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And what if I don't? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^Cermeneserm! 20:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Article protection should be reserved for instances of long-term trouble or specific difficulty. Take racial realism for example, an article that has been repeatedly been the target of Neo-Nazi trolling for years, and in which case the IP is always different. What should be taken into account is if the wandal is IP hopping and, if so, what it will take to get them to go away. Sometimes, it only requires you to lock an article for an hour or two. In case of something like racial realism, it's far more long term and they are almost assured to come back an hour later. If no IP hopping is involved, then there is no reason at all to lock a page, and there is very little reason ever to lock it to the sysop level. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What apparently all these racial realists are lacking is the required reading comprehension in the face of the papers they refer to that are apparently supposed to support them, but they really don't... Nullahnung (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Miracle health device raises US$730k on indiegogo!

Plot twist: Is total bullshit. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 22:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This was an interesting read - especially with all the follow-ups. I wonder how many people get scammed on platforms like Indiegogo? Surely not an insignificant amount; as an aficionado of fine pens I remember monitoring a reasonably famous kickstarter fountain pen project that promised the world and delivered a 20 cent Chinese manufactured pen (not a problem but claimed to be made in Germany) that allegedly stopped working a few weeks into use. Tens of thousands of people fell for this particular scam. Tielec01 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this is worse than the people who take kickstarter money, then fail to deliver, like that one game developer. Because these people are going to think their health is being taken care of. Ikanreed (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation claim

Made here regarding an uploaded image.[3] Sorry for the funny link, I was having trouble with that fullstop in urls/403 error thing that's been plaguing us of late. Scream!! has opened discussion on the talkpage. It was suggested that I should drop a note here. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is highly relevant to the article and the photographer is free to share the high rez version. ħuman 01:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Messiah or Abomination?

I thought you might like this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26870598 93.198.48.52 (talk)

I want it. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Hehehehehe WHEEEEE!} 00:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Improving the CAPTCHA

I'm assuming the CAPTCHA goes away after some level of editing. You might want to add such text to the CAPTCHA itself, so new users don't think they have to look at ads indefinitely. Typing in advertising is something i'll do at first to prevent spam, but not indefinitely Thinkahead (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

when you have been here a few days and haven't made a mess someone will get tired of the red ! exclamation points in recent changes and make you autopatrolled or sysop. That gives you skipcaptcha and upload rights. Welcome to the wiki. Is mormonism a favorite topic of yours ? Hamster (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thinkahead. I understand your frustration. I'm sure someone will escalate your privileges before indefinitely comes along. Stick around in the mean time? We get a fair amount of manual spam attempts — there are actual human beings sitting behind those keyboards shackled to rings set in a bare concrete floor, so Captcha's are trivial. We take care of those spams with an automated edit filter. The Captcha catches automated spam and vandalism. From the operation manager's perspective, we must make a reasonable tradeoff between inconvenience and the site running smoothly. 18:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As Thinkahead suggested, it might be a good idea to include a notice for the CAPTCHA that tells people not to be scared off, because they will get autopatrolled soon enough and not have to endure those advertisements. If there isn't a similar notice already, that is. Nullahnung (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the trains running on time is all we need to know to judge the quality of a leader. ħuman 01:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

K. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Impurity is the secret} 05:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in classrooms?

Forbes article advocating just that, as a means of teaching critical thinking. Basically, this sounds like a fine idea but could teachers handle it well? And would some parents, school boards, senators, preachers, ... get upset? Pashley (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My eighth grade science teacher showed us a video debunking stuff like water dowsing. Doing a full unit, or even having a full class on skepticism would be wonderful. Fields like alternative medicine would never recover.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Remarkable that the word "creationism" does not appear in the article. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Teaching kids to debunk creationism would definitely never fly--"Shut up, Brx." 14:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. However, the journalist who wrote this article ignored the elephant in the room. There is no way that creationist alarm bells are not ringing at this transparent attempt (...and I thank God someone made that attempt) to try to open a door to get students interrogate the nonsense some of them encounter with lessons that "teach the controversy" or attempt to explain that their is a plurality of ways to explain how we got here. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Creationists already literally regard critical thinking as the enemy, c.f. the 2012 Texas Republican platform - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be awesome, but I doubt the teachers or parents could handle it well. I remember everyone flipping shit over something as trivial as writing an article critical of Bush in the school newspaper (I even went to a science magnet school, in liberal mecca Portland, no less). --NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 21:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is something I've thought is a good idea for a long time. Anything that moves away from the current model of science (or any other subject, for that matter) as a Stack o' Facts toward a more critical approach is a good thing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea if carried out truthfully. What about those creatards, homeopathetics and other woo merchants who will misuse it to demonstrate the "truth" of their things? Not too hard to bend once the whacko stuff is allowed in ostensibly to disprove it? Critical thinking ought to be "taught" (can you teach 'thinking'?) but there'd have to be guidelines so strict as to make it counter-productive, failing which it'd be abused. When it's just a matter of tone of voice - try saying "Of course evolution is right" or "Vaccination is obviously the way to go" in several different tones from factual statement to high sarcasm - it'll be a losing battle. Scream!! (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to use Nova's Kitzmiller v. Dover documentary in my next composition course, but I worry that my very conservative community college will burn me at the stake. Got a new chancellor, though, so we will seeDowdicus (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Book of Mormon

We should really have a better article about the claims of the Book of Mormon. I mean, Wikipedia seems to do a better job at criticizing the thing than us.--Seonookim (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

{{sowriteit}} - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We should also have access to free goat cheese and coffee. Oh David...--64.135.206.64 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

this book of mormon? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Allrighty, one Battlestar Galatica page coming right up.--Madman (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman

what can you say about mormons than Protoprophet Smith, Gold tablets, Angel Meroni, and magic underwear ? Hamster (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Jaclyn Glenn

Just curious - what's her standing / status within the skeptic community? I see she was off doing some presentation thingy with Dawkins (PBUH) Recently came across her vlog and she's entertaining, but further Googling (in a totally non-stalkerish way, of course!) doesn't reveal much else, except that it seems she was hawking pro-Christian videos not so long ago. PsyGremlin^Hable! 13:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Owner of a bleeding heart

"I looked at some of the data dumps from vulnerable sites, and it was ... bad. I saw emails, passwords, password hints. SSL keys and session cookies. Important servers brimming with visitor IPs. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, c-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. I should probably patch OpenSSL." How about us? Osaka Sun (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No https, so no. --Someon (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I found this list of sites very useful. Placeholder (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well shit. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with challenging Ohio's Constitution.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, or even if you guys can help. But I was reading through Ohio's Constitution, and it breaks itself, and the United States Constitution. In it's Bill of Rights, there is this section (bolding is mine): "§ 1.07 Rights of conscience; education; the necessity of religion and knowledge (1851) All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction." But by saying "Almighty God" they are giving preference to monotheistic religions that believe their god is almighty. Should I try and start a movement to fix this?ZeroIsLogic (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you so desire. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 22:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Anything to get you out of the basement. TeenageWasteland (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The wording about Almighty God isn't ideal, but is it actually used to justify any sort of exclusion of atheism and alternative beliefs within Ohio? Or are you just objecting to it on principle? If so, it may be better to focus on examples that Americans nationwide encounter far more frequently, like "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or "In God we Trust" on banknotes. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), laws imposing legal disabilities on atheists have generally been recognized to be unenforceable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of it being used to justify any exclusion. It's partially principle, but mostly that it seems silly that it gives preference while saying it can't give preference.ZeroIsLogic (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Do computers, like, automatically turn people into douchebags?

So, on Facebook, one of my friends asked for good comedy movies. I said the Monty Python movies, The Pick of Destiny, and a couple of other things, an this girl I've never even met before comes and is like "You're a fucking moron. How about you watch a real comedy like The Heat?". And I said "Personally, I actually thought that movie was kinda lame, but meh". And so she says "Yeah, well that's just your fucking opinion, which is totally worthless and irrelevant, so how about you just fuck off and never speak again?" Well, I decided that I was just gonna leave that whole thing before it got out of hand, and I went to YouTube to watch some music videos. A guy said that he didn't really like the song, and got called "a fucking fag nigger". I can't help but wonder- what is it about the Internet that turns people into such mean, aggressive, arseholes? I mean, it's all over the place- how many people would wish death, suicide and rape on somebody IRL vs on the Internet? Anybody have any ideas? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 09:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Proximity. You can say things on the internet without fear of getting your nose broken. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 09:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a text-only medium (mostly) and for your lizard hindbrain, the opponent is just words-in-a-box, not a human being displaying reactions to your actions that may cause aforementioned hindbrain to empathize with them.

Also, please keep using Facebook for your social needs instead of RW.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

im 12 now m8 i can do wat i want. (Just so you know, that was a joke about the overtly confrontational manner in which immature Internet kids speak. I don't really mind). MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 13:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a certain irony behind reading Youtube commentary after getting annoyed by Facebook commentary, but yeah, anonymity (in the sense of an assumed immunity from retribution) plus the opportunity to have a voice pretty much brings out the worst in people. Before the internet, the same phenomenon could be observed in, for example. the letters to the editor published in newspapers, which were and still are defined by righteous indignation and ignorant opinions displayed on the part of the writer, albeit edited for print, so the newspaper reader was at least sparred from the profanity so common on the web. At the beginning of the 20th century it actually was a sport among the nerds of the time to get as many subtle yet funny falsities slipped by the editors of one of the more philistine Viennese newspapers. I guess nowadays these two forms of letters to the editor would be considered "concern trolling" and "trolling for lulz", respectively. Apropos comedy films, didn't I tell you to watch "The Room"? Bismarck (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So, essentially, it's because of an "immunity" from any consequences from real people.

I haven't checked that one out. What happens? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 10:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be a variant of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Nullahnung (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I think facebook has disproven GIFT for good. People post under their real names there, for the most part, so no anonymity, and they're still dicks. Octo8 (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

But you might be less of a dick if the person you're commenting to knows you IRL. In this case, said girl was some kind of stranger still, so probably didn't think much about berating another stranger on Facebook. As I said, may be a variant of GIFT. Nullahnung (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Aye apparent immunity is I think the source of the problem, coupled with a long ingrained internet culture of hurling any and all kinds of abuse one can imagine for shits and giggles. As said above, it is far easier to act on your darker (or at least dickish) impulses when one is under no danger of a physical beating. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, because the threat of violence is the only thing that might keep people from speaking their mind, IRL? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly did I suggest that? Its just the most obvious reason of many for people acting like bigger pricks online than they do IRL. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 13:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In the post right above, and no it isn't. In many (or most) situations in an ordinary person's life, one in under no danger of a physical beating, but there is still a very strong imperative not to hurt people's feelings, create social awkwardness, generate conflict or disruption, & get a bad reputation, especially with people you are likely to encounter regularly. The difference with online interaction is it's much easier to walk away from this stuff or tune it out without facing the kinds of consequences you would in real life (again, not talking about violence here). Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There's always the possibility that deep down people truly hate each other and the veneer of civilization is only being held together by <religious, political movement of your choice>. Leuders (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Room is supposed to be a serious drama about a love triangle gone bad. But it's actually one of the funniest films ever created. Bismarck (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I second this, and recommend everybody here purchases the book "The Disaster Artist" in order to learn just how fucking insane the creation of the film was from the outset. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Will check out The Room. Currently, 300: Rise of an Empire is also an excellent choice if you want an unintentionally hilarious movie. Sword and sandal is such a reliable genre. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Do computers turn people in to d-bags, or are d-bags just attracted to computers? TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I just spent ten minutes looking at that shit- it's like a fucking train wreck. That said, I'm not entirely certain that I agree with posting people's twitter names and everything, though, in those cases, I could probably let it slide. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fuck 'em. You say it, you own it. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 22:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're right- and if it's something like twitter, it's already a public forum, so you're not really exposing private shit that was just supposed to stay between, like, them and a couple of friends. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 23:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking for an Internet Law

I was wondering if there is a Godwin-esque internet law to describe smearing a group based on the actions or words of an entirely ignored/non-influential and/or completely maligned and despised individual or sub-group which counts itself as within the main group. I.e Smearing all gays because of NAMBLA, all Christians because of the Westboro Baptist Church, all feminists/anti-transphobia activists/progressives in general because of SJWs, or simply everyone who disagrees with someone online because of the actions of a few trolls. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this may be a variation of the association fallacy, though I'm not certain. I personally see this all the time, usually, but not always on teh interknots. Whenever I see somebody saying that feminists are bad because Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin, or atheists are bad because Mao and Stalin, I always point out that all of the offending individuals also have noses- therefore, if you have a nose, you are automatically a crazy evil bastard- and, following their logic, it's not at all incorrect, either. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 12:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a combination of Association with a malicious Hasty Generalization. Generally with a hasty generalization it is assumed the cause of the fallacy was ignorance (I've only seen white swans, so no black swans exist), but I think there is a case to be made that if somebody is just willfully ignoring contrary evidence that it could also qualify. Shadow of Lords ^talk 13:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't help when they deliberately pretend they speak for a large group. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nutpicking - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap, an RW article I hadn't heard of! ^sshole 14:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone wants Obamacare repealed or just delayed

I came across, Should Obamacare Be Fully Repealed or Just ;;Delayed?

Well I think Obamacare should be implemented fully as soon as reasonable, I know how we in the UK value our National Health Service. The questions may or may not be loaded, I'm not an expert. Still the title certainly encourages people to vote either for delay or repeal, therefore I doubt that this is a scientific poll. Anyway I thought I'd bring this to your attention so Americans on RationalWiki have a chance to vote. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked to find out that Newsmax is running a push poll! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Newsmax is loaded questions, clickbait and conservative bullshit. Moving on. Zero (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Please Note: In appreciation of casting your vote, Newsmax will keep you automatically updated on poll results and other breaking news with FREE daily email alerts." - Yeah, so there's also that. ^{d hominem} 14:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people want Obamacare repealed or just delayed. That's not really news. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

But in answer to the question I would have to answer with "no". MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Somebody should ask Obama. At least Andy is effectively on the right side by suing Obama to stop delaying the employer mandate. His case has the best shot as sustaining standing. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy? Schlafly?? The man is an idiot and anything he does is of no consequence legally or politically. TeenageWasteland (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

His AAPS case against the employer mandate delay could surprisingly become notable. Doctors have standing to compel enforcement of Obamacare. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I will bet you a fifty dollar donation to the charity of the winner's choice that the AAPS suit will not be successful. Make your check out to my local LGBT advocacy organization. TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm angry (politically)

I feel that liberals have their heart in the right place (on issues like universal healthcare, poverty reduction etc.) but their policies that they craft because they think it's politically expedient are just retarded, and conservatives, who in my view have a better intellectual grasp of economics, just don't give a shit about anybody. It's a no-win situation. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel better now you got that shit off your liver? --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 21:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not really. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that saying liberals' policies are retarded and conservatives don't give a shit about anybody isn't a realistic refection of the reality. By American standards, most countries in, say, Europe are extremely liberal and their policies seem to work well on the whole. And there are plenty of very generous, charitable and decent conservatives. You may want to redirect your political anger. As with most things, it more often than not comes down to individuals. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@ConservapediaEditor -- Son, you need to stop taking it so personally. The real difference between the Left and the Right is that we on the left will lube you up before we fuck you in the arse. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 22:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit personal. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but only in the way a prison rape's personal. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should stop taking personally, but I would like liberals in the US to start supporting a guaranteed minimum income, true universal health care, not this hodgepodge known as Obamacare, etc. The benefit phaseouts that result from the current tax structure is killing the working poor. Now, conservatives would take this point and say let's abolish all benefit programs, I say let's extend benefits to the working poor as well. For instance, all Americans should get tax credits for health care, not just the extremely poor and extremely rich (through the employer). /rantover ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably a lot of US liberals would support a guaranteed minimum income & true universal health care, but they would meet with a lot of resistance from conservatives, a fair amount from moderates, and objections from the healthcare/insurance sector itself. Obamacare isn't amazing but it's an achievable compromise between the ideal of public healthcare & the de facto private insurance system in the US. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A yup. It will take something like an earth-shattering paradigm shift for the insurance companies to accept their redundancy. Meanwhile, I'd like to see more about ConservapediaEditor's claim that US conservatives "have a better intellectual grasp of economics". I have seen no signs of that in the various iterations of the Ryan budget, nor in chronic deficit scolding, nor in trickle down job creation. What am I missing? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Weaseloid. There were a lot of attempted universal health care initiatives on the past, and I think even F.D.R. wanted to implement it, but he didn't want to go too far to risk losing more supporters. Nowadays, it seems to me that to even propose universal health care is political suicide. LEFTYGREENMARIO 01:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither conservatives nor liberals want people to be poor or sick. In my opinion, conservatives tend to overestimate their own responsibility for not being poor, from which they derive that those who are poor had mostly themselves to blame, whereas liberals tend to underestimate the inclination of humans (including themselves) to primarily look out for their own good and that of the few people around them, from which they derive that everyone would be on board with sacrificing a little for the sake of other (anonymous) people. Bismarck (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with this: "liberals tend to underestimate the inclination of humans (including themselves) to primarily look out for their own good and that of the few people around them". That looks more like the libertarian position: arguing against state welfare & healthcare programmes on the basis that charities and voluntary community projects will pick up their role instead once people are left free to decide how they donate. Most liberals recognise that this is a pipe-dream and that state welfare is needed because most people are too selfish & apathetic to invest in social welfare more directly if it were left up to choice alone. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like liberals in the US to start supporting a guaranteed minimum income, true universal health care, not this hodgepodge known as Obamacare, etc. - You think people don't support it? People do, and would love it. But given that 50% of the US political sphere is so dead against that sort of thing they'd rather cause a nuclear catastrophe and destroy the world that let that dreaded SOCIALISM happen, then it'd be a complete waste of time trying to put any effort into implementing it in reality. So instead, the compromise is the only practical implementation because it's effectively the compromise or "Right Wing Politics Rulez OK 4EVER!! IDST!!". The option to turn the US into a socialist paradise just isn't available in any realistic sense. ^pathetic 12:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Guaranteed minimum incomes are hard. I would consider myself liberal but I don't think I support a minimum income. I would prefer to guarantee a broad range of services (healthcare, housing, travel, that sort of thing) to be free at the point of access. I am OK with my taxes paying to heal any random person in the country's broken arm, no matter how privileged that person is. But I've met people and if you just give them the money they make stupid choices. Even for the broken arm case, I can guarantee somebody will go "Huh, $15000. Well I could get my arm fixed, but I think I'll buy scratch cards with the money instead. Wooo". Maybe that's selfish of me, just seeing everything through my own value filter - but it feels to me intuitively as though there's a categorical difference between "I think everyone deserves access to basic services so we should pay for them out of general funds" and "I think everybody should get free money". Maybe these are equivalent statements in some economics textbook, but I don't think they are in the real world.

One argument against service provision is that the services you actually get are a bit... random. For example the UK decided everybody should get hospital care, old people should get bus travel, everybody gets radio shows, children get education, everybody gets garbage collection. But you have to pay (there are mechanisms to exempt the poor, but unlike universal free delivery this means most poor people won't try to use them) for dental care, clean water, television, train travel, sending a letter... It is easy to imagine swapping some of these items around without it making any less, or more, sense. But I don't think this argument convinces me that it's better to just give people free money and let the Free Market handle it. Nevertheless that is how it's done in practice with most of today's "entitlements". Tialaramex (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Weaseloid: What you are saying is actually my point. Liberals like there to be a well-meaning system, but any system is only a result of the actions of multiple people. You can't have universal health care if people aren't willing to pay for somebody else's misery. That appears to be the main point of criticism by American conservatives: Everybody should pay for their own insurance, with costs according to their medical needs, and those who can't afford it should be covered by charities. Now, we can of course argue that this point of view is selfish, backwards and wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that (usually healthy, working) people think that way.

@Tialaramex: The problem with a system of provisions is that it's cumbersome; people paying for their own needs with a basic income will tend to be more efficient and allows them to actually take care of themselves (and feel that way). Bismarck (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Different markets have different economies of scale, so individual action is only sometimes more efficient than centralized action. Supermarkets are good at providing food, so food stamps work better than bread lines outside of emergencies. However, national defense at an individual scale would involve each individual paying mercenaries or somesuch, which is so stupid that a socialized military provision is not controversial. From the performance of the US health care system vs. the rest of the world, I'm inclined to put health insurance in the "centralized is better" category. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never understood why we seem to trust the rich more with tax credits and handouts, but not the poor. We want to drug test the poor if they get handouts at the public cost. I'm conservative and libertarian, but that is not a libertarian idea. I'd be more okay with abolishing UI Insurance outright than having drug testing for it. Same logic goes for food stamps, public housing etc. I don't understand why we think it's okay for the government to shame people for getting these handouts, but we never shame people for getting tax credits. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Responsive main page

For anyone that cares, I've been working on a responsive layout for the main page. You can easily see the change just by resizing the browser winder. It's still a little rough design-wise, and the mobile resolution one still needs tweaked, but overall I think the column re-sizing between big monitor resolution and netbook resolution works pretty well. Suggestions/feedback welcome, but be aware that I don't have any actual intentions of putting this up on the real main page. ^postate 12:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Whilst responsive layout is close to my heart, signatures that work are even closer. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a shiny fan, and it's not intuitive that the right column comes to the front when you shrink to one column. Otherwise it's great. ^talk

Would suggest dropping the multiple use of "... portal" - the subject alone would be enuff. (the word "portal" has now lost all meaning to me because of the constant repetition) Scream!! (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(And someone might sort that WIGOWorld icon out before Genghis has a conniption [hint, there's only two poles - not 4]) Scream!! (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The order when it shrinks has been bugging me. The way floats seem to work means it won't do it... but I can take another crack at it. ^pathetic 16:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't access vector.css on my laptop... strange. Oh well, never mind. ^{d hominem} 16:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it's not showing me the effects of the last change I made to that file. Even stranger. ^gnostic 16:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I find that the shiny icons clash with Vector. I also think that any main page should contain an "about" section. RW is more obscure than Wikipedia, and even they have a welcoming message with an introduction in a nutshell on their front page ("Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.") No comment on the column thing.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're doing it the hard way, you need to set a min-width for each column until you get past a break point. I don't see any kind of grid system or typographic baseline for the main content. Those and sensible media queries that hide less critical content and reorganize other content to adapt to the different priorities of mobile and tablet users are particularly important. Eg. Have a look at how Twitter Bootstrap handles responsive and mobile. There are very simple responsive 960 grid frameworks that do desktop/tablet/mobile elegantly that require relatively few CSS rules. Also CSS3 columns are currently implemented in all browsers, and although several don't go back very many versions (I believe Google has simply stopped supporting IE8, which goes to show how little designers are willing to accommodate recalcitrant and luddite users anymore), but it does degrade gracefully and you can use Modernizr.js to seamlessly fake proper CSS3 implementation in older browsers. 17:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look through that. ^theist 17:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Columns! Of course! ^postate 17:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network attacks the concept of rape culture!

Have the mighty fallen? Is this a necessary tactic to shift the blame to individuals? You decide! --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 01:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's old news.[4] But it's pretty messed up. Do they think every rapist is Ted Bundy?--"Shut up, Brx." 01:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how this adavances their goals here. It reminds me of the "normalization of deviance" of the Shuttle disasters, the Stanford prison experiment or (closer to home) how Norway is preventing sexual assault in the military - identifying a systemic problem with the institution does not downplay the crime of one individual, especially if it's facilitating even more incidents. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a logic I can see here, sort of. Preface: I have no doubt that Western culture is a rape culture and that this is one of the most important social issues of our time. That said, looking at the comparison with the Norwegian military, say, the Norwegian army is a limited system and as such easier to shape with rules, education, policing and justice. "Western culture" is a giant, diffuse thing than looks different on the Upper West Side of Manhattan than it does in 8 Mile than it does in Compton than it does on the Downtown East Side in Vancouver than it does in Madison, Wisconsin. It looks different in frathouses, in the boardroom, in the townie bar and at the comics/cosplay convention. In many ways, it is everything that is wrong with society. And if you try to focus on everything, you risk focusing on nothing. If your organization's goal is to do the most it can to lessen the occurrence of rape in as short a time as possible, interrogating every lingerie-clad model on every billboard, every "bitch" and "ho" dropped in a hip-hop song, every wet-t-shirt contest at spring break, every attempt to get a girl to play beer-pong at Kappa House to loosen her up, and every gyration of Miley Cyrus's left butt-cheek means that you're in for the long haul, and it will be a while before you see much fruit. Changing the immediate focus to the immediate problem -- that man and what he wants to do to that woman -- may be a more viable strategy. TeenageWasteland (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am simply unconvinced that contemporary Western or American culture approves of or condones rape. Is there a state where it's legal or something? I think it's more like everything else that has to do with human sexuality; it's complicated. Some of the stuff that's condemned as "rape culture" is stuff I'd prefer to keep, like the presumption of innocence; our current article condemns the collection of evidence needed for credible prosecutions as somehow dehumanizing the victim. The serious sexual abuse coverups all have to do with community institutions with active, publicly accepted fandoms, like religions and sports teams. That isn't "rape culture", it's divided loyalties and simple human weakness. As always, I'd rather understand than judge. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Globally, there are still plenty of states where it's legal. And even in the western world ending that was a rather recent development. Of course, that's probably not what you had in mind when you thought of "rape"... which is exactly the issue. Society condemns "rape", but it has a very narrow definition of what "counts" as rape in this sense. Basically, it's all stranger danger rape, even though most rape cases happen between people who know each other. I mean, that's the image we all have in our mind when we hear "rape", right? A stranger violently attacking a woman. Sure, if that happens to a woman with no prior history of above-average sexual activity, partying or anything like that, then society, both public opinion and the law, will condemn it. For anything else, society has a tendency to make up excuses for the perpetrators, or to outright blame the victim.... she got drunk, she passed out, she wore revealing clothing... etc etc etc. Octo8 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, I think that a person accused of a serious felony has a right to present whatever defenses he or she has, convincing or not, lawful or not, and politically correct or not, and let a jury decide. If that's all the accused has, so it goes; everybody in that position still has a right to be heard. This, quite simply, is more important to me than any of the concerns addressed by the idea of 'rape culture'. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the accused, though. When that one CNN reporter showed more sympathy with the Steubenville rapists at the court sentence than with the victim, do you think that had been set in motion by the accused? Of course not! It's about how society reacts to and treats rape.Octo8 (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am simply unconvinced that contemporary Western or American culture approves of or condones rape. - this isn't the definition of rape culture as used by the people who use coined and utilised the term. I would suggest reading Octo8's comments, and when you don't get it, read them again. Specifically the part that reads: "...society has a tendency to make up excuses for the perpetrators, or to outright blame the victim.... she got drunk, she passed out, she wore revealing clothing... etc etc etc." This is what we're talking about, this is what people are against. It has nothing to do with accused rapists not having the ability to defend themselves in court. They do, and they often win on a balance of evidence because it's a crime for which evidence is very difficult to obtain (and even more difficult to obtain while retaining any respect or dignity for the victim). ^narchist 11:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm going to do whatever I can to encourage people to look sympathetically on people accused of crimes. And I can see absolutely no good coming from any public campaign that seeks to broaden the definition of rape, lead people to interpret acts as rape that they would not have considered rape before, or encourage more accusations and prosecutions to be brought. Let's not do Satanic ritual abuse again, OK? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's really got nothing to do with it. We aren't trying to say "everyone ever accused of rape doesn't deserve a trial/sympathy/whatever". We're just saying that we should stop immediately assuming the victim is a "lying slut", and stop saying that she brought it on herself. I hope that clarifies it somewhat for you. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{And the rain will kill us all} 21:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Could or should rape be classified in terms of severity or premeditation, like murder is in some legal systems? Might it be right to differentiate between the cold-blooded predatory rape and the drunken-heat-of-the-moment-carried-away rape, similar to 1st and 2nd degree murder? A thousand apologies if this has already been discussed here. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. On one hand, it might make certain forms of rape seem "okay", or not "troo rape"- but on the other hand, it, in my mind, it sorta feels like a good idea. I don't know, somebody's gonna come and rip me to shreds for my ignorance in a sec, but that's just my uneducated opinion. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{And the rain will kill us all} 21:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. We do the same for murder and nobody ever say that third-degree murder is "less murder" than first-degree. Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Now all we need is a politician willing to step forward with a bill that says that some varieties of rape should be punished less harshly. Then they need to persuade their legislature to vote for the bill, and get the Governor to sign it. I can totally see that happening. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that it should honestly depend on the amount of psychological and physical damage caused, if there was somehow an objective way to measure that. ^{— Unsigned, by: 101.169.170.167 / talk / contribs}

Honestly, the skeptic in me finds the concept of rape culture relatively undemonstrated from a scientific perspective. It honestly feels like an awfully poor supported concept to be used to so vigorously attack people who have done no one any harm. The sense of self-justification rapists have is the only component of the theory(that I know of) with any real sociological backing. Ikanreed (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

reletively undemonstrated - try this meta analysis. Placeholder (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then you haven't been paying attention. Whenever an accusation of rape comes up, the victim is automatically assumed to be a liar and a slut. Any consensual encounters she's previously had are held against her. Rape jokes are common, and vehemently defended. Pickup artists, men's rights activists, and fraternities insist that "she wants it," and that no doesn't really mean no. Women with any public presence, particularly if they speak out on women's issues, are assailed with rape threats. On both sides of the political spectrum, you have people defending rape (Whoopi Goldberg: "It wasn't rape rape"; Republicans: "legitimate rape"). High profile figures, with large followings, are defending rape. When an investigation into an alleged rape is made, the victim is asked if she had been drinking, or flirting, or wearing revealing clothes. Often they have to pay for their own rape kits, and even then countless used rape kits are laying around, with no investigation pending.

The predominant advice to prevent rape? Women shouldn't go out at night alone. They shouldn't wear revealing clothes. They should drink alcohol. As though it's their fault they're victims.

Rape culture is quite real, and as a skeptic you ought to know better. As skeptics we need to counter claims that it isn't. It is a moral imperative.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

At the same time though we risk turning sensible advice into defending rape. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and to me, that just doesn't demonstrate the concept at all. Sexists are more likely to be rapists or accepting of rape? How does that lead to the common conclusion that jokes about rape perpetuate that situation. It makes a strong case that sexism should be attacked more strongly as a motivator of crime. I mean, I consider myself a strong feminist, but I tend to be very wary of arbitrary things being thrown into the basket of being problematic. I don't know if I can articulate my position well, but I guess I'm seeking clarification on how the problem isn't cultural conservatism, and instead the focus comes on humor(frequently). Ikanreed (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that making jokes about it isn't ok, but going out at night alone in certain areas without any form of defensive weapon is quite dangerous. My advice would be to carry at least pepper spray, mkay?--Madman (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Jesus Harold Christ. We don't blame murder victims for getting murdered, you know.Dowdicus (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Blaming murder victims for their murders doesn't make any sense, just like blaming rape victims for the rape doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter what kind of provocation was involved, they were not the perpetrators. Nullahnung (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. But we shouldn't confuse safety advice with blame. There's a difference. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. "Stay out of bad neighborhoods" is not blame, it's advice. Seriously, what the fuck are you doing at MurderAssaultCarjackpolis at 02:00 am? --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 19:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

some of us have to live there AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think to some extent this advice (at least in its conventional form), while sound, is often used in a manner that isn't appropriate. Suggesting an individual avoid a dangerous area or neighbourhood is fine. Suggesting that only women avoid a dangerous neighbourhood because men are big and tough carries a bit of latent sexism there. It's always sound to take steps to ensure your safety when travelling alone, especially at night. It's important to note, however, that this advice applies universally. - Grant (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately criminals are also sexist. They are much more likely to assault two women than two men, which is why having a man accompanying some women at night is deemed prudent. Nullahnung (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

To some extent, sure, though I imagine it comes down to numbers and comparative weaponry (e.g. if the criminals have knives) more than anything else. I imagine a mugger (or group of muggers) would be looking for an easy mark, regardless of gender. - Grant (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. (Though I can hardly imagine what sort of woman would not be considered an easy mark by the common criminal... maybe a woman clearly displaying a gun, like a policewoman) Nullahnung (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't see many men who wouldn't be considered an easy mark either. A mugger with a knife is a pretty big problem for anyone who doesn't have some serious self-defence training. - Grant (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to provide an example of self-defence training that renders muggers with a knife an easy problem? I haven't seen and would like to see a self-defence system that makes it easy for an unarmed man to deal with a mugger armed with a knife assuming the mugger knows how to use the knife. Forces (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't necessarily say the person was unarmed, and I didn't say that it would be an easy problem for someone with self-defence training. Easier? Sure. I'll also point out that some pepper sprays have a fairly long spray range and can cause a world of hurt for a potential attacker, assuming one knows how to use it properly. - Grant (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(Police/military typically undergo fairly effective self-defence training I understand. But that aside:) Gain some muscle mass in the gym. Muggers with knives are less likely to attack you, the more you gain (unless it's someone with murderous intent, then good luck). Or gain some friends, the more friends coming with you, the less likely you'll be attacked (even if they're all wimpy-looking). Prevention of an encounter happening at all, through qualitative or quantitative appearance, is the best self-defence. Nullahnung (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"some of us have to live there" Damn, my still lingering classism is leaking. My bad. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Truther Toys

Yesterday, while waiting for the bus, an old lady approached me, pointed into the sky and asked me if I had ever seen clouds like this before. I didn't answer straight away, since I was trying to remember what that particular cloud formation was called; I did in fact look up different cloud patterns in some book some years back. But while my brain was blowing away cobwebs, trying to access long forgotten information, the woman blurted out at me: "Of course not; these are artificial clouds!" As the look on my face turned into bumfuzzlement and before I was able to counter with a "I think not...", she gave my a hurried rundown of the inner workings of weather manipulation. Apparently the government owns radiation ray guns, which they use to shoot radio waves into the clouds, which bounce back onto aluminium foil hidden away in hay bales, allowing "them" to control the weather. After I listened carefully, I tried to question her explanation, but she quickly grew vexed and angrily countered, that "we" were too complacent, failing to notice what was happening around "us". Fortunately my bus arrived just then...

Anyway, while I was researching this particular conspiracy theory --which turns out to be a mere Chemtrails variant-- I stumbled across an image series called "Truther Toys": Children's toys based on conspiracy theories. I found these very, very funny and took them for brilliant satire. Which, as it turns out, may not actually be the case; although that only adds to the humour. Long story made short, look at these and laugh: http://www.denbeauvais.com/truthertoys.html

The "Fema-Price Mandatory Evaluation Terminator" is my favourite: http://www.denbeauvais.com/TrutherToys/Toys/Eugenics_IQ_Evaluator_Guillotine.jpg

Bismarck (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sad there isn't a Denver Airport set, though I was happy to see the Guidestones. Just for the fact these idiots think these evil masterminds will publicly announce their plans like that, but NOT send out the Monsanto powered Biomechs to force all the patriots into FEMA Camps. --Revolverman (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What in the actual fuck is this shit? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{A sea on earth is a sea of tears} 13:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Denver Airport set would be a hell of a toy, given that DIA is the largest airport in the United States by size (54 square miles). --Seth Peck (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most people would just see "giant swastika" at the DIA toy. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 18:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr Auschwitz Trooth-Brush - Eugenic Fluoride Pump o__O --MtD^{Pert yet flexible} 19:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

People really do make conspiracy theories about silly little contrails from jets!? You know, if that lady tried talking to me about it, I'd just raise an eyebrow and stare at her; later, I'd laugh about it. Poor old woman. People think darndest things sometimes. As for those toys, I... I can't decide which one is my favorite, although that Barbara one made me smirk, especially with that New World Order billshot and all. 173.60.168.240 (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Loved the link. Some of the weirdest shit I have ever seen "almost" well presented. Makes me need a bagel. Cinnamon reason with cream sheep and marmalade. ħuman 05:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hilarious! It can't be real though, its just too good to be true. NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 10:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Enter the artist's name into your search engine of choice. From the looks of it he's definitely drunk the Kool-Aid. Bismarck (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Dr. Auschwitz one should have been an EZ Bake oven. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Achtung! We must issue a Final Solution!...

...to complicated, no-good ovens! --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 19:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Breatharian Barbie

This might be the creepiest thing I've seen in quite a while. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say something sympathetic, but that would take too long, so I'm just gonna say the immediately obvious- that is kind of fucking terrifying. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 08:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wanna be more creeped out? Watch the Vice documentary on her. --NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 09:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fuck you Nebuchadnezzar, I wanted to sleep tonight! --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 19:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OMF'inG--Barryjon (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

CIA/Dubya torture

No more ignoring the past: If this report can spook one of the staunchest supporters of PATRIOT/NSA surveillance, what will be the implications? Osaka Sun (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It will be ignored and the torture proponents will continue to hurl PRATTs in classic big lie fashion. Compro01 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to spoil the party, but torture and warrantless surveillance are two separate issues. Don't get me wrong, both ills fall into the same broad category, and opposition to both tends to come from the same place (civil liberties advocacy), but opposition to one does not necessarily imply mandatory opposition to the other. My point is that it's entirely possible for one to oppose torture while not believing PRISM has any problems, so bringing up torture in a debate over NSA reform is essentially committing a non sequitur and is not likely to be effective. The One They Call Mars (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fucking CIA man.Talk to Civic Cat 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

" torture and warrantless surveillance are two separate issues." Or they are each manifestations of the actual problem, the entrenching of a greater amount of un-checked power in the executive branch. TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If we want a specific example, take me. I find torture abhorrent, I think it would be unethical to use it even in hypothetical "ticking time bomb" situations and that attempts to conceal torture underscore the fact that the torturers knew this was unethical. I believe that the decades (centuries?) of US Presidents who have tacitly permitted torture will eventually be seen in the same light as "great men" who kept slaves.

But I don't have any problem with the general programme of PRISM. They're spooks, the entire purpose of this part of the NSA is to spy on everybody. The pretence that in the 21st century these spies would restrict themselves to only spying on "bad people" (which for a lot of Americans seems to mean "brown people" or at least "non-Americans") relies on choosing not to have any concept how their job is done, and how we detect who the bad people even are. Some countries tried in previous centuries to just not have any spooks. I would commend this, it seems a sound policy decision. But it's also profoundly dangerous, your "allies" will of course have spooks still anyway. In all the cases I am aware of the policy was eventually reversed. It is a unilateral disarmament, so I cannot imagine the US choosing this route. If you're going have spooks (and the US has done for a very long time indeed) then it's futile to pretend they're prohibited from sneaking into the supreme court chief justice's house and going through his porn stash. Because doing that sort of thing is exactly what spooks are for.

Often comparisons to East Germany (or to Poland, say) are brought up here. The important difference, the vital thing you must watch for if (I think inevitably) you will have spooks, is not that they don't spy on your own citizens, or on rich white folks, or whatever nonsense, but that they are not given any powers of enforcement, whether direct or tacit. Secret police terrorised countries not by knowing who was sleeping with who, but by what they were able to do with that knowledge. So long as the worst thing the NSA can do to you is tell a White House committee meeting that you're a bad guy, the US is not slipping into the East German terror.

And so we circle back to torture. In practice if the NSA tells the White House you're a bad guy one of the things that might, in the exceptional cases, happen is that you'll be transported by the CIA to a distant country and tortured to death. That is something worth fighting. Tialaramex (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

seems like government spying on you and coming round to rip out your finger nails are kind of linked. I am personally a tad depressed about how few people seem to care about being spied on AMassiveGay (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You (addressing Americans) are specifically paying for an entire government agency to spy on people. The existence of this agency was "secret" only in the rather asinine sense that sometimes government officials would refuse to talk about it, so, the way mistresses are secret, or Christmas presents, not the way that Ultra or Manhattan were secret (where few people knew about them and great effort was expended to keep it that way). If you do not want an agency to spy on people, and thus on you, then you should definitely cease paying for this agency. But if you want government to spy on other people but not on you (or equivalently not on people like you) that's crazy, and any rational government was right to disregard this demand. If you believe that any agency which spies on people will lead to someone's fingernails being ripped out, then you should try to impress this viewpoint on others and get the existing agencies dismantled. I'm not sold personally and think we should focus on the actual fingernail ripping, and the covering up of aforesaid. I note in passing that spies are one of the best ways you can find out whether anybody is doing this, because obviously they won't be doing it in broad daylight in Central Park. Tialaramex (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Double post (but I don't care). Is Conservapedia permanently down?

ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not for me, it isn't. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, this site can be used to check such things. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You're better off not being able to read it -let them cower under their security blanket. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Environmentalism and video gaming

New Civilization title bases its plot on "The Great Mistake", seemingly inferring in its trailer that climate change destabilizes the global order and forces humanity to colonize space. Considering that it could be the most hyped game to tackle it head-on, it'll be interesting to watch the knee-jerk reactions once everything is revealed. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Or they could say it's a "what if" scenario that could make a good basis for a video game. You can enjoy a game about an alien invasion without having to actually believe in aliens. Sophie^Wilder 09:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but that explanation isn't likely to cut much ice with those nutters who insist that climate change is a hoax. Spud (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a toy, not a science lecture. Sophie^Wilder 10:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are some marked differences between toys and video games, even in the case of Civilization. For one, video games pose challenges to overcome and most of them have failure states, though a lot of them tend to just let the player play around, learn and explore like they would with a toy. Another difference is that increasingly video games carry messages or interpretations of cultural or other phenomena, while with toys that is limited.

It's a fuzzy boundary, but one that has been emerging. Nullahnung (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you play with it and it doesn't produce anything useful, it's a toy. Sophie^Wilder 11:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's another topic, but it doesn't seem like you're interested in discussion, so nevermind. Nullahnung (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So it has a post-apocalyptic setting. This is hardly anything new. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The connection to environmentalism seems very loose, if it exists at all. The devs are saying the player can fill in the gaps themselves on what happened in the apocalypse using their imagination, though internally they've written out what events took place. [5] Nullahnung (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me of a minor discussion I had of whether Deus Ex: Human Revolution promoted conspiracy theories. Some people just take this stuff way too seriously. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 14:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to make. There are a lot of...religious video gamers out there that don't want any of their hobby horses criticized in any context. "OMG we destroyed the planet? So CLICHE and OVERBLOWN. Worst thing ever!!!" Osaka Sun (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say it's derived from a fear of change, coupled with a generous dose of negativity and a respectable serving of non-self-awareness.

Seriously, the gaming community is pretty fucking vile. The Steam forums are nice, though. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 01:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That shitty Left Behind game where they had the fucking gall to censor one of the best known-works of art, The Creation of Adam, comes to mind. As well as that Bibleman game.--Madman (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)--Madman (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman

You guys are not making any sense to me :/ . How is complaining about the plot of a video game being cliched (which is unavoidable, really, when is a plot not cliched to some degree?) the same as not wanting to have any hobby horses (whatever that refers to) criticized? And what does any of this have to do with censoring a piece of art in Left Behind? Oh well. Nullahnung (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The game is basically Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 2, which featured the same scenario. It's even made by the same studio (2K is publishing this one, though, and EA likely still owns the rights to the Alpha Centauri name). Alpha Centauri touched upon the themes of environmentalism, jingoism, control of democracy by corporations, and even religion. Nobody batted an eyelash. Yes, a few people will probably throw a fit, but that's true of everything, especially in the age of the internet. Bioshock Infinite was far more hyped and recognizable in the mainstream, but even The Blaze didn't find any reason to get up and arms about that. I don't see any Noah-esque uproar on the horizon over this one either. --OverworldTheme (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It also used transhumanism for a few victory conditions/endings, and took place on a planet in which the Gaia hypothesis was verifiably true. The faction that in the real world would be disregarded as the New Age quacks they are the most sensible ones in the game. Point is, it's a work of fiction meant to be fun and explore at shallow depth a few topics that don't crop up much in video games. --CoyoteSans (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If anything, SMAC showed me that global warming was pretty much a guarantee, since nobody would want to scale down their production, especially when the other players continued to pollute. In single player, the only viable solution was to build lots of forests. Bismarck (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Civ 2 showed that global warming is an inevitable thing. Enjoy your entire map turning into swamps around 2020 or so.--Mikal | lakiM 14:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually in Civ2 you could control pollution rather easily, unless of course everyone started using nuclear missiles. Bismarck (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Loomio

Hola, RWians. I'm well antiquated with the creators of this nifty tool. They are looking for crowd-funding. Please throw it a couple bucks, or don't. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang on- is that just for climate thingy, or for any kinda problem in general? It's kinda confusing. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Loomio sounds like a rapper name from the 90's. --Kels (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Or a quirky indie game. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 01:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a strange use of the word "antiquated". But it's Ace, so... ħuman 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, hearing Ace talk embiggens my wordbankly skills. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 03:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe he meant "acquainted". Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 06:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ed Brayton is asking for money to help fight a lawsuit.

Ed Brayton says a white supremacist is suing him and he needs donations to cover his legal costs, see Please Help Me Fight a Lawsuit. PZ Myers supports Brayton, see Not another lawsuit! Does Ed qualify for legal aid? We should know more when he's had time to consult a lawyer, either paying himself or through legal aid. I personally am not going to urge other people to contribute without knowing much more. Does anyone here know anything? Does anyone have email contacts who can find out more? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Even an obviously losing and frivolous bullshit suit from a lunatic can take a few thousand dollars to get rid of. And even pro bono legal work costs money. Even if he gets a judgement for attorney fees, the question is then whether the legal attacker actually has any money. Ed's call for help strikes me as not disproportionate - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also it's scary, when you're up against someone who files frivolous bullshit you should be able to get away with turning up pro se, saying "This is total bullshit" and letting the court clean up the mess. But there's always the nagging doubt that you could be the one to get unlucky and some judge says "This suit claiming your purchase of a can of Coca-Cola constitutes a tortious interference in plaintiff's balloon inflation company seems sound to me, and since you used the word suspenders in court you're sanctioned under obscure rule XIV 44.2d and you owe the plaintiff $50M and a golden goose" - and then you'd feel really stupid for not hiring an actual lawyer. So, because you're scared you will hire a lawyer. And you still have to pay the lawyer even when the judge literally laughs out loud at the bogus lawsuit, in fact even if the lawsuit goes away without getting as far as a judge at all.

This sort of fear (on a smaller scale) is why I hired a conveyancer to buy my new home. I'm pretty sure I understand the relevant rules and procedures better than she does. Pretty sure. But what if I'm wrong? And she has insurance, if she screws up it's very likely the insurer just writes me a cheque for a few thousand to make the problem go away. If I screw up on my own, maybe I lose the place I'm trying to buy and all the money. Tialaramex (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's bizarre, isn't it... yet that's the way it has to work, otherwise you'd end up with non-frivolous cases being dismissed easily which would restrict peoples' access to the legal system. Still, you can put some reasonable barriers in place. The Hovind vs RW one stumbled a bit when it transpired Hovind and co. couldn't read the instructions and didn't bother formatting their claim correctly. ^{Don't click here} 10:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In principle, this works well, provided access to such services is affordable and easily accessible. A little while back, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada released a very interesting white paper on the issues with Canada's justice system. One such issue was the lack of accessibility, both in terms of wealth and complexity. It's probably not a great thing when defending your rights under the law often isn't worth the trouble. - Grant (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hovind has years in which to get his suit written correctly. He's in no hurry. ħuman 03:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again

So, it seems someone left suspicious bags unattended at the Boston Marathon finish line, causing authorities to go apeshit (as they have a right to do in this situation). I'm not following the events too closely, but I'd wager heavily that it's just some dipshit trying to cause a stir with some harmless bags. The question is, assuming they figure out who did it, what sort of charges will he/should he face? Is leaving an unattended bag going to be a felony? If this guy is looking at a serious charge, is anyone who walks away from their backpack for a few minutes potentially staring down a prison sentence? DickTurpis (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. Surely there is some sort of "threatening behavior" statute, and fucking around like that should fall under it. Why would anyone walk away from their backpack? ħuman 03:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Simply forgetting is the obvious answer. I'm sure that's not the case here, but there are times when I've inadvertently left a bag somewhere, and I'd hate to be charged as a terrorist for having done so. I'll watch this situation and see what happens, but there is a chance for a pretty bad precedent to be set. DickTurpis (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The dude was apparently going around wearing veils and shouting while leaving the bags behind. Seems to be an obvious troll. The ACLU still in me wants to say it's all "symbolic speech", but I don't see a court buying that easily. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't they destroy any evidence they might have against him?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect they have the whole thing on video. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but how do they know he left a bomb if they destroyed his backpack?--"Shut up, Brx." 04:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that they'll take the debris to the Batcave or some similarly equipped facility where they'll figure out whether there was anything in the explosion they didn't add themselves. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

they have been blowing up unattended packages for years on this side of the pond. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Going on fifty years at least. We didn't think of memes back then, hell, we hardly had urban legends, but tales abounded, of frilly undies fluttering in the air over the UXB/EOD site after the "make it safe" charge was touched off. 68.187.216.117 (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't find another source for this:

'Stephen Fry : "(from the Independent) An army bomb unit was called to investigate a suspicious looking package outside the territorial army unit in Bristol. They blew up, with a controlled explosion, the package, only to discover that it was a parcel of leaflets explaining how to deal with suspicious packages!"'

Scream!! (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't they, like, check them first? Or are they just like "there's no time, quick, blow the shit out of it"? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 12:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Checking them" would involve exposing personnel to danger. There are such things as "anti-tampering measures", i.e. shit blowing up if someone tries to "check" it. There's also the possibility of a timer activating just as the "checker" approaches, or an observer operating a remote detonator.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 23:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems Relevant

At the moment anyway. Zero (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting, however, that Free Speech as a legal protection, and Free Speech as a principal are actually distinct. Do you want your platform to stand for the free exchange of ideas? If so, banning people for opinions is hypocritical, and it's a valid criticism. If not, you should at least ask yourself why. The underlying ideal of free speech is that ideas can't actually harm anyone, and only actions based on those ideas can. So when people say "Consequences of your opinion" they're fundamentally asserting that the opinion itself is harmful, and acknowledging a disagreement with the principal.

Yes, there are plenty of good reasons for why a platform shouldn't embrace free speech: topical signal to noise, safe places, working together to present a common message to the outside world, maintaining friendships, and lots of others. But everyone going "Free Speech, man" isn't an ignoramus trying to apply the US constitution to a private platform. They're asking "Why do you feel that ideas are hurting anyone? Are you sure you're not just trying to shield yourself from different ideas from your own?" So yeah, this is a 2 dimensional attitude that barely manages to stand above the 1 dimensional attitude it purports to shut down. Ikanreed (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Principal Free Speech was a major bossy douchenozzle when he was head of my school. --Raysenn ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 19:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oftentimes people screaming about free speech are ignoring the fact that either it's their behavior (ie Thunderf00t at FtB, any given Internet troll) or the fact that their "speech" is intended to disrupt or harass (Brendan Eich, our boy Kevin here). As an admin on the FB group, I try to avoid swinging the banhammer at someone simply for what they say; it's the 500-post threads, personal attacks, and general stubborn boneheadedness that I whack people for, EVDebs (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I just whack 'em 'cos I'm literally Stalin. Tovarishch - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)