RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive225

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 May 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>, <224>, <224½>, <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>
, (new)(back)

A strange sort of propaganda[edit]

So I was bored last night, so I tried to find something to watch on Netflix and stumbled across Atlas Shrugged Pt 1. I think I made it about 15 minutes in before I decided it was too awful to continue with. Was that film made by people who are actually Rand fans? The only way I can figure it, it was made by her deadliest enemies to discredit her. The protagonists are evil-spirited arseholes. Sample dialogue, from memory: "People think you only like to make money" "I /do/ only like making money." I mean, the awful parasites the audience is supposed to be hating on at least have some redeeming human qualities. Were Randroids actually pleased with that film?

Also, while I'm on the subject. Why the fuck does Hollywood have to keep ripping fiction from its context and awkwardly trying to shoehorn the plot in to the present day? It was kind of amusing watching them jump through hoops to try and excuse rail-freight magnates being a class of people that still exist, but its less amusing watching the new, gritty James Bond trying to still be a super-spy with no cold war. Cut that shit out, movie writers. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Was that film made by people who are actually Rand fans?" Osaka Sun (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In what has to be the Holy Mother Of All Irony, the third film had to resort to crowdfunding to exist. Fuckin' crazy. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 22:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Just play Bioshock instead. It's basically an interactive movie about an objectivist dystopia! Nullahnung (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
But wait, there's more!!! Call now and learn FOR FREE the dangers of fundamentalism and American Exceptionalism with its sequel BioShock Infinite!!! --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 04:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Justina Pelletier[edit]

Would she warrant an article? She seems to have become a right wing rallying point. After looking through the first page of a google search, I haven't so far found much evidence to support the hospital. Then again, most of the information seems to be coming from The Blaze. The Conservapedia article gives a summary of the right wing view. It seems there is no equivalent reaction on the left(although a dailykos bit seems to agree with the right wing line) and a "gag order" has been placed on the matter, so that may limit people's ability to form an informed opinion (but I know little of gag orders, so I don't know if that's the case). Perhaps the community would like to look further into this than I have?--"Shut up, Brx." 06:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I had a look in to it and I couldn't really find any information on which to base an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, it's a family matter. There's nothing there for us to concern ourselves with. Just because it's a right wing cause celebre doesn't mean we automatically have to take the opposite point of view. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking that - though I must admit that I've not even looked at it. "Right wing" therefore "wrong" doesn't necessarily work. "Unscientific" or "irrational" therefore wrong would be good though.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Permission Errors[edit]

I have attempted a fix for the "permission errors" bug various users have been reporting, please alert me on the technical support page if it happens to you again and which page it happened on. Thanks! Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How do we solve a problem like Kevin?[edit]

Kevin Martin's back, legal threats, egomania and all, on his talk page. What do we do? EVDebs (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We make sure things are cited or factually provable. Make sure that he can't A. prove it is false or B. Prove actual malice. Also, I am breeding combat goats. P3A58NT86 01:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
EVDebs; I think the best course of action would be to tell him to Die In A Fire, call him dumb, call him an "unhinged thug" and then threaten him with some vague "extortion" charge. I'm pretty sure that if we do that, he'll be prepared to settle down and discuss things like a grown-up. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Send him off to Von Trapp's, of course.--Madman (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman
TW, go look up his track record. He is incapable of acting or unwilling to act like a grownup. If someone could talk some sense into him, it'd have been done before any of us had ever heard of him, before he managed to set pretty much everyone who's ever discussed weather on the Internet against him. But yes, I stand by "unhinged thug", because that describes his pattern of behavior, and extortion, because I'm pretty sure that's what he's trying to do. EVDebs (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kevin is at least slightly bonkers, and obsessed over our page on him. If it is him. He did post a crappy jpg on his site to sort of try to prove he is who he is. Let's invite him in, ask him to do his proving, then we can construct a dialogue, perhaps? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Has anybody considered acting just as childish against him? Next time Kevin goes on a little butthurt-rant, responding in kind may throw him off. We gonna sue you Mr. Martin! The Internet Tough Guys of RW will not stand for this vile slander and libel and we have connections in the government to prove it! We'll take you all the way to SCOTUS and ruin you for ever and ever and ever and ever!!! Captain Wolff (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If anybody think we're ever going to have a reasonable dialogue they should listen to this. (It's linked from the article page but I only listened to it when I was taking copies of the youtube vids we link to.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Fuck… MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 08:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Official RW policy says that he should be banned from editing, since he is making legal threats. Moreover, he clearly is only here to troll and is not interested in anybody trying to be reasonable. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that sourcing and citing all the claims meticulously is worthwhile doing, but we must realise that this is only half the battle. The guy is relying on the threat of suing us, not the threat of him winning against us. Frankly we are between a rock and a hard place. We cannot concede to this fellow or we will end up conceding to everyone, but we also don;t want to antagonise him into suing. There are no good options for us. DamoHi 09:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Good options for us are checking the article for quality, accuracy & sourcing (some of us have already done this but the more the better) and trying to establish what aspects of the article are being disputed (what we're trying to do on the talk page). This is why I don't think banning people the moment they intimate legal action is a great idea, as it cuts off any opportunity to resolve a dispute through normal discussion & editing. In Martin's case, he isn't doing a very good job of intimidating editors with threats or of being clear about what statements in the article (if any) are false. He has listed a bunch of sections he wants removed (most of them, in fact) asserting that they're damaging to his reputation but not that they are untrue as such, so there is no need to concede to his demands. I don't see this as any sort of crisis. Keep calm & carry on. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
He now says Time for talk is over and says he'll sue for cyberstalking unless the entire page is deleted. Spud (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what he's been saying for the last four days. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think there's anything we can do to stop him now. He's not gonna listen to reason, so all we have to do is wait for him to try to sue us. Or not. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 13:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
can we ban him yet? It isn't like there's anything that's coming from not doing so at this point. --Mikal | lakiM
Is he actually a problem? Hasn't he threatened to sue loads of people? I was under the impression that it was just publicity to drive people to his website for ad revenue. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Re normal discussion and editing, he says no more talking I'm suing, it's all or nothing. But then, he comes back with a list of nutty demands, like he wants us to add a para comparing him to Albert Einstein, or say that his weather talent comes from God. He thinks registering his website name as a trademark prevents people from referring to it in public. The man is not in touch with reality. Leuders (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Silver Bullet: Ignore him. Zero (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good ol' pseudolaw. Pseudolaw is so great, it's just like the essence of magical thinking, with all the stops for reality just pulled out. Ikanreed (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
How about some of you stop running your mouths and follow the good advice of people with better judgment and initiative than you to simply make sure the article provides good citations for claims made. Fin. Stop pontificating about the RMF getting sued. You're not lawyers, you don't know the law, and you suck at it. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope, but we are know-it-alls, isn't that just as good? Ikanreed (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I said it over on the talk page, but I'll say it again here. Tell you what - if RW gets sued by this blithering monkeybutt, I will foot the bill and provide the attorney. No sweat. You have my guarantee on that. I have one lined up already just in case. --Castaigne (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Kevin said "Since any article such is not on my server, that will be tough to prove in court." You don't say!. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Behold, the ever changing tides in the rivers of Schizophrenia.[edit]

This interesting woman has a little conspiracy about Egyptian religon, Left-hand path The Temple of Set who secretly worship a Egyptian who is a shapeshifter named SETI(Yes, she does factor that in) who is also Apep, The Atenist heresy, a war in the 18th Dynasty and you know, this is too stupid to describe. This makes David Icke's escapades look sane, though I am unaware of his mental health status.--Madman (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman

That's actually a link to someone selling Hobbit stuff. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Merchandise for a Smaug/Bilbo shipfic, at that. Oops, I'll edit the link to normal. At further examination, it's worst than I thought.
I was trying to be discreet. I guess you have "no idea" how that link got there. Must be "a virus" or something. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It was a accident. For example batshittery:

Today I discovered Amen Ra/Maitreya being torn apart by his throat in segments by Quantum Computer technology. Is this Sandia labs/NSA signal or the Earl of Sandwhiches group>

I fought for 4 hours straight trying to save his life. I was joined by one of his relativees.

My current health is this: There used to be a few labs that watched my deteriorating health or goverment/military special ops who would come into this program to try to rescue people. I don’t know where some of these people are, as of two weeks ago someone from the CIA said one group who was trying to take care of me was put in a simulated reality.

I have found genuine crazy, my fellow RWians. And this is the SFW segments.--Madman (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Still more sane than Witchwind. Well, only marginally so.--Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That appears to be the blog of Diana Napolis, infamous promoter of Satanic ritual abuse and stalker of Elizabeth Loftus. There is an entire blog dedicated to her lunacy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Kent Hovind Sues Us[edit]

This topic may now be found here. (moved 12:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC))

I find this funny. The man won't even pay his taxes. --GastonRabbit (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't be even bringing this up[edit]

While it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie, aren't we WAY overdue for a moderator election? Is the moderator system still active even? It seems we haven't really needed them of late, which is A Good Thing, but we do still have them, right? DickTurpis (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good thinking. (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
See here. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
So… after reading that, I'm still confused… are we having them or not? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 23:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Haha *meow* *flappity flap* When youz wasnt lookin the Bat and I (Cat of the endtimes) haz taken your wiki. All your base belong to Us ! We have graciously ceded day to day power to the mods. ALL HAIL NUTTY !!! That is all , resume yur debatin. Terror Trinka (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Daaaaamnm Trinka, you still around? I thought you left when Maratrean/Zack Martin decided to stop peddling his wannabe cult crazy ass ramblings stupid diatribes disguised as essays religion.- --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 22:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If elected moderator, I promise to moderate exactly jack and shit. Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I trust that promise. Perhaps you're just trying to lull the wiki into a false sense of security so you can, in fact, moderate everything. - Grant (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
MOOOOOOOM!! Nutty stole my platform! --Kels (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think i've only ever used my mod status to give myself ninja rights, so i'd say i've had a successful career.--Mikal | lakiM 03:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Logically if elections are due we should have them. Either that or abolish the institution. Doing neither of these means that we simply have confusion.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
We have that either way. and hey, we were elected, sure it was for a term a year ago but i can predict any further election would amount to "i will not really moderate if elected moderator." so why bother. As for removing them... i like titles :c --Mikal | lakiM 20:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It's been a long time since any moderator intervention (in any meaningful sense) was needed. Some of the abilities that are assigned to moderators may be needed occasionally. Personally, I've no issue with the people who've already got those abilities keeping them, nor with other people who've got a good track record of being mostly harmless gaining those abilities. I've never supported them being consigned to such a small fixed number of people, & the election ritual always seems like a fatuous indulgent waste of time. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That has the effect of leaving the existing moderators as "Moderators for life". I just think that's a bad principle.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If we follow weaseloids idea of officially just making moderator the new version of Bureaucrat, then chances are some of the people with that title atm would be made them anyways, and those people get life terms too, barring abuse, so why feel bad that us existing 7 get life but then be fine with any new people also get life? I think it's been long enough since the days of may 2011 tjhat we can trust more people with power. --Mikal | lakiM 15:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm only interested in clarity. If the will of the majority is that the existing moderators be ensconced for life that's fine by me. My objection to the "do nothing" proposal is that, if any problems arise, then anybody being censored by somebody claiming to be a mod could simply claim the mod had no authority.
I don't honestly think life mods are the best solution but if it's what the majority want then I'm cool with it. I would suggest that such a change should be at least put to a vote though.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's harder to change these poorly drafted rules than it is to have an election. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I just don't see the point in any more elections if it's just "vote for me i wont use my mod powers!" x 9. And i'd like to beleive we have gone on enough as a community we could avoid why we restricted these powers to 7 people in the first place :P If we did change and people didn't like me staying with those powers, ok, ill remove them and be given them later if people feel it's ok. --Mikal | lakiM 20:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
But I want to be a moderator! RW's "community" is toxic to new qualified editors interested in actually advancing RW's mission. I don't see what that has to do with moderators. In the interim, yes, please do go ahead and remove your moderator rights. Nutty Rouxnever mind 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitler and evolution[edit]

PZ tries to melt the RW server again, by recommending Hitler and evolution. Anyone want to review and polish it a bit? - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We should probably have an article on Salon. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC) (link brackets added by human 22 April)
Well, at least he's giving us free publicity. --GastonRabbit (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Global Views on Morality[edit]

Well, this is fun to play with. Find out how attitudes to things like premarital sex, drinking and abortion differ around the world. Seems Spain is the most liberal place for gays for example.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's cool to see "not a moral issue" as a possible choice, as, with perhaps the question of extramarital affairs, I don't see any of those issues as really having a moral dimension. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. It's nice to see that so many of the traditional Catholic countries of Europe & South America don't really care much about the Church's POV on contraceptives. A shame about the countries in Africa that really need contraceptives/prophylactics and still disapprove of them so strongly. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I do find it somewhat interesting that only three countries seem to lie above the 50% mark on that though. I would have expected there to be more. Of course, I also realize that even without a strict majority, there's little to no chance that these countries will change their policies on this, but it's interesting nonetheless. - Grant (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The percentages for "ok with cheating" worry me.--Mikal | lakiM 18:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised by the idea that significant percentages of people in some counties thought that cheating on your spouse is not a moral issue.
And what's this about Pakistan not liking birth control? I thought that was a catholic thing? Is there a Muslim prohibition too?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much, yeah. The Islamic view is much like the traditional Catholic view: sex is something that must only take place within marriage & for the purposes of creating children. Also, Pakistan disapproves heavily of everything on this list and actually disapproves of contraception significantly less (at 65%) than most of the other things. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that must depend on the country. Indonesia (about 90% Islam) seems to have no problems with birth control, though it objects to everything else. So I think there must be something additional which puts Pakistan at the top of the list.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Local cultural stuff gets bundled into the religion, people from that region will swear up and down that local practice X is religiously justified and necessary. Horrible, deeply unethical practices are welcomed as new aspects of the religion (but uh, just don't tell people from far away because they'll freak out) as part of the deal to "convert" people from whatever religion they had previously to whichever major evangelical religion reached them first. For lay people there is no distinction between actual tenets of a religion (e.g. Jesus dying and rising again) and stuff they remember seeing in a kids book once (e.g. Talking donkey at the birth of Jesus). Why would they distinguish between veil wearing (local custom) and pilgrimage to Mecca (core tenet of Islam) ? Tialaramex (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it vaguely amusing that France is the only country on the list without a majority against extramarital affairs. Compro01 (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Just following the example set by numerous French leaders I suppose.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I Was Told Today That I Should Take the Red Pill: "True" Histories[edit]

So I asked a (infamous) website to convince me of the "anti-zionist" movement, and I was presented with an entire pastebin, and a video!

First, the pastebin: let me introduce the Holy Grail of anti-zionist theories:


I was astounded at this pastebin because it goes ON AND ON AND ON...and I'm thinking, should I even bother going through any of this to fact check? It might kill a few hours of an afternoon. Also I love the bit in here where it says "As much tinfoil has been removed as possible..."

And then here's the video, (but the pastebin was the best part in my opinion):

1932, A "True" History of the United States

Again with the length. But I guess it's that redpill truth that needs a lot of groundwork to get going?

So I start watching it, and some of the experts that are shown are of a similar background. For example, at 7:07 there's a guy named Nick Walsh who is a part of the LaRouche PAC, aka Lyndon LaRouche. Surprised? Neither was I. -- (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
So... ShopPING is when you buy stuff, whereas ShopPANG is a a composer. Right? -- (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't assert that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing without ending up in bed with a bunch of crazy racists. But that doesn't mean the country isn't engaged in ethnic cleansing. Ikanreed (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a nice article on the subject. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 15:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay? I'm not familiar with everything in that article, but most of it, and I... don't know what you're trying to say? Ikanreed (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Should you find yourself in need of a source of such topics without all the crazy antisemitism in tow. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Am about to read the article he posted but I assume he's agreeing with your statement about being in bed with crazy racists with that article.-- (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Snow job[edit]

A conspiracy theory leftover from this winter that I just found: The gummint is geo-engineering fake snow! Right up there with chemtrails -- both of which HAARP is responsible for, no doubt. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we got a saloon bar discussion of that when it was proposed, I'm pretty sure. Every time anyone mentions weather control, I'm always mystified as to what they think anyone gets out of the Sahara continuing to exist. Ikanreed (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably along the lines of "Something something environmentalists/conservationists". Compro01 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Snow! Zero (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The Sahara is where all the heat gets put when they steal it from the USA. Whis going to notice the desert being a bit hotter? Hamster (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Upgrade complete, error fixing[edit]

Okay the main thrust of the upgrades are complete though there is some clean up that needs doing so there might be some erratic behavior off and on today. But hopefully not.

In addition to the upgrade I have attempted to address three major issues that have been lingering for a while.

  1. The permission error as stated above
  2. The subst signature issue
  3. Gadgets not working properly

Hopefully these issues have been resolved, but if not please post to the technical support page with any information you can provide. tmtoulouse 16:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you--"Shut up, Brx." 17:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
So that thing i've been noticing about my sig wasn't just on my end? Wooo--Mikal | lakiM 17:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been finding that the Watchlist page locks up Safari on iOS. I'm not sure what information I can give you other than that though. EVDebs (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Nutty saw this on aSK as well. Sounds like something MediaWiki of a certain vintage is doing, hence would be a bug for Apple - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"Recent changes" on my iPad haven't worked for about a month and my watchlist (even on my Win7 PC) has been broken since January, despite having completely cleared it all I get returned is a completely blank screen. At least my subst sig is working again. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 08:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Watchlist is individual (and we have no idea what the bug is, but I suspect Liquid Threads which I would happily throw away if we didn't have piles of discussion stuck in it). How is recent changes on other tiny wikis not running the very latest, e.g. aSK or Conservapedia? - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks all right on Teflpedia. SophieWilderModerator 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Genghis Khant[edit]

Can you try your watchlist again and let me know if it works? tmtoulouse 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to have mine back.... Oh well. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Is yours not working again? I had fixed your a few months ago and you never mentioned it was broken again. tmtoulouse 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it "works", but we lost 6 years of work. That's what I meant. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, it does work now. Thanks. Before I pared it down I cut and pasted everything into a text file - only about 1600 lines I think, so much smaller than Human's. I'll try updating it later. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 10:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, pseudoskeptics[edit]

A new user on the FB group showed up with some stuff "debunking black-holes". However, he's also touting on his personal page an Austrian guy named Viktor Schauberger - the "water wizard" who I had not heard of and on whom we do not have an article. Anybody know anything or is he just too obscure? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 03:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just looks like garden variety free energy/holism/Wunderwaffe crap. Doesn't seem very notable. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 07:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I like how notability is still an unwritten rule around here... Nullahnung (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)(was being off-topic) Nullahnung (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Learning about black holes reduces bible-reading time, therefore they don't exist. Aschlafly 14:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
But bible-reading time reduces church-attending time! Therefore, the bible doesn't exist. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
But Church-attending time cuts down on goat-milking time! Therefore churches don't exist. SophieWilderModerator 12:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
But you're eventually going to run out of goats to milk if you don't buy more. Therefore, money doesn't exist. --GastonRabbit (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's Happening Again[edit]

There can be enough terrible movies, and I can't wait for this one. One day I'm going to grab a 30-rack and just sit down and marathon them. Shadow of Lords talk 21:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Do private schools just not exist?--Mikal | lakiM 21:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Make it really cheap, no-brand beer. They don't deserve much better. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Or make it something real strong. You might need the alcohol. Compro01 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You can have both. Just try some Olde English (warning: might turn you into a redneck). --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That movie's supposed to be a comedy, right? It's been a while since I took a biology class but I don't recall there being any rubber chickens. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 00:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not only is there a chicken, but he's choking it. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 00:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The evilutionists want you to believe that chickens evolved from eggs because they hate God and want you to go to hell! (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Christian Libertarians[edit]

I don't get it. Why do these two ideologies go together so well? Excluding prominent libertarian atheists like Jenn Pillette or Stan Doughope, almost every libertarian I personally know is also a Christian. Not just culturally, but a really hardcore professing Christian. In theory, I don't care what people believe, but in practice that combination is really frustrating. It seems like on every issue where libertarians could be right, like abortion or gender issues for example, Christian libertarians inject their other favourite ideology, claiming that every fertilised egg has a soul so we can't kill it, and that God put out clear gender roles for us to follow, to the point of ignoring even biological border cases, like anencephaly or intersexuality respectively. What was God's plan there? Is the purpose of Christianity to cover up libertarianism's moral bankruptcy? I remember Ron Paul's go-to argument for patients who can't afford health insurance was to send them to Christian charity hospitals. Bismarck (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As a Socialist Libertarian, I suspect it's the other way around. Justifying their un-christian actions as what is moral. Cloaking it in horseshit poured out by Lew Rockwell or Cato, or Austrian school as clearly the just thing to do. --Revolverman (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not that surprising. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Another point: Why would people who reject rulers feel such desire to believe in a single overlord? Bismarck (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have a hypothesis that most "Libertarians" that are cropping up are actually Republicans ashamed to admit they're Republicans. Though to be fair, "Voluntaryism" would allow a person to either live in the woods on their own, or submit to some authority -like an invisible tyrant- so long as they could freely make that choice. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering they both have a fixation on small government (unless it involves people's sex lives and often religion, at least in the case of Republicans), yeah, the Liberterian Party seems redundant at times with the Republican-except-in-name type of Libertarian. --GastonRabbit (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) The thing with the Christian god is, however, that He's supposed to rule over all humans and, for example, to kill them at will, if He so desires. You don't have much of a choice in regards to that authority, which doesn't really fit well with the idea of voluntaryism in my opinion. Bismarck (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not every libertarian-leaning Christian is against abortion, or legal equality for minority sexualities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes some people on here get too hung-up on the Christian stereotypes. Most people are just people, you know? Ajkgordon (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In fact, before there was a direct attempt to politicize it, protestant denominations weren't associated with anti-abortion positions. It's one of those many cases where keeping church and state separate is good for both. Ikanreed (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Just so. Perhaps the worst heresy in the history of Christianity is the idea of 'Christendom', a social and political order governed by a Christian church or saturated in Christian values. The New Testament was written by people who imagined that the pagan tyranny they lived under would last until the end of days. Its entire political counsel can be summed up as "don't make any sudden moves and back slowly away." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"In America, religion and profit jump together." -Edward WinslowWikipedia Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is real sad but a little funny[edit]

Schizophrenia + fear of the gay + religious fervor equals this. -- TechCheesekvetch 02:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

All that equals poorly faked Yahoo Answers posts? Tielec01 (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Lame. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The blog was pretty funny though. I nearly woke my family laughing at the Jimmy Fallon video. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
the what it was was was nasty. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

List of signs of bad science[edit]

On a chemistry site. Pashley (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's a little discussion seed for y'all...[edit]

In light of the little debacle in Nevada involving militia, I've been fantasizing about how I would handle the situation, and expanded into this scenario: Through a series of skillful political machinations, your are now Dictator for Life of the United States. The military is unswervingly and eternally loyal to you, and Congress rubberstamps all your acts before standing for a rousing rendition of the national anthem. Same thing goes with SCOTUS. What policies will you enact/actions will you take, and why? What do you hope to see for America by the end of your regime? Captain Wolff (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would make beer gardens mandatory for each community, although attendance would not be compulsory. And since this is a fantasy, everyone would be super friendly and get along. Leuders (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Single-payer healthcare, confiscatory inheritance tax on any inheritance over $5mm, Massive increase in the gas tax. Hipocrite 15:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Abolish all excise taxes on items for human consumption. Kneecap copyrights and patents. Ban on interstate banks. Legalize psychoactive drugs generally, and widely expand the range of over the counter drugs available. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
While I know where you are coming from, as a writer and inventor I object to your kneecapping my rights to my contributions to humanity. That said, I hate the "Disney Laws". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Although copyright may be essential for the profit of some, it amounts to a violation of the public's property rights, which is not acceptable. -- (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Why does my owning my own creations violate the public's rights in any way? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Say "April Fools!" and restore democracy. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Voter ID restrictions reduced to a an absolute minimum (something like a sworn affirmation or perhaps a single piece of mail); campaign donation limits of $50/year/candidate, and only from individual human beings; radical reduction in defence spending including a reduction of the nuclear arsenal by 95% with a promise to negotiate full disarmament with other nuclear powers; abolition of all right-to-work laws; constitutional amendment banning gender-based pay discrimination; full marriage rights for all consenting adults regardless of gender or number of people entering into the marriage; repeal of all drug laws/creation of an infrastructure for the regulated sale of recreational drugs/full amnesty for any person incarcerated for non-violent drug-related offenses; wages for adults working as stay-at-home parents/eldercare providers/guaranteed annual income; abolition of the death penalty and solitary confinement. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I will answer your questions in order. 1. I would return the so called "United States" to the proper legal control of the United Kingdom. This ending an insurgency which has been allowed to prosper for far too long. 2. I would do this because it would be the right and moral course of action. 3. I would expect the US to prosper under UK governorship and eventually learn the benefits of parliamentary democracy and a monarchy.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
All money will be funneled into NASA because 1) space exploration 2) spaceships are cool, and 2 all focus given to science. we will be poor, but we will be advanced. --Mikal | lakiM 16:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I dunno Bob, us Canadians probably wouldn't appreciate you stealing our schtick. --Kels (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
But the questioner did not offer me the opportunity of obtaining Canada's 'shtick". (Whatever it or they might be)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Just don't mess with our hockey schtick and we're good. --Kels (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also -- renegotiate all land claims/settlements/treaties with First Nations peoples and implement reparations for slavery in the form of cash grants and community-chosen funding for relevant education/health/jobs training programmes. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Abolish NSA. Hell, abolish the entire intelligence community, maybe except some rumps. Drastically reduce the military, too. As in, only a fragment of the current size. In return, establish true UHC, and expand money spent on education and social help. Oh, and some for the infrastructure, too. But not NASA. Looking to space is a waste. Also, establish a true progressive tax system. Oh, and establish some limitations on any (future :p ) executive. And some actually effective oversight for what the executive does. With public results, at best. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Octo8 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The US military could run on $500,000 a year. That would be enough to hold off the crazy Canucks and Mehicans. Then defending the Atlantic and Pacific oceans? thousands of miles we could have patrolled my our allies on the cheap. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Fulfill the secret duty of all leaders of The United States. Becoming a patriotic-themed powered armored superhero.--Madman (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Space is a waste? LOL! Ajkgordon (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Who needs satellites? All they do is beep and waste taxpayer money! Frederick♠♣♥♦ 07:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, satellites have a use of course. They're economically usable. But expeditions to the Moon or Mars, or the ISS? Eh. I don't see any great use there. Octo8 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Humans explore. It's what we do. It's how we find out new things. We won't know how useful they are (economically, artistically, medically, scientifically, culturally, socially, etc) if we don't find them. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"It's what we do" is not a great argument. It especially shouldn't be here; this community should know about the is-ought problem. And while we can't be sure, we can make pretty good estimations on how worthless Mars is, for example. Octo8 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not an argument. It's an evolved behaviour in humans that has made us successful. Curiosity has given us our technology and our civilisation, good and bad. By figuring out how the universe works, our species has progressed to where we are now. If you want our species to continue to progress, then you need to let us continue to figure things out. Studying Mars, for example, might help us understand all sorts of things about our own planet. It might be better to study Mars directly with human eyes and hands. Ask a geologist. The moon and Mars are the easiest places to get to. If we don't go there we will never go anywhere else. Sure, there's still lots to discover here on this planet. And we can discover things about the wider universe through telescopes and other instruments right here on earth. But space exploration is an incremental process. You can't just say, oh let's leave it for a couple of hundred years until we're smarter. Technology and engineering doesn't work like that. It needs to progress through step-by-step action. And boring a hole in space in low earth orbit teaches us about long duration space flight. Apollo taught us how to build launch systems, celestial navigation systems, huge engineering project management, public support for big science and so on. It's also inspirational - a useful social pressure. And it doesn't have to be that expensive. Certainly not compared to a lot of other crap we spend our money on. And if as a dictator you cut out space, then you'll lose the race. You might not worry about that - maybe it's China's turn to lead. But at the moment they are an unaccountable totalitarian regime which represents an ideology more than a people. I'd say space is as important as any other human exploration. Kirk out. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You did use it as an argument, though. Your argument was "We have always done so, so we must continue doing so". This not valid, though; in this "x hence y" there is no real causal connection between x and y. Now, there might be some scientific data to be won on Mars, for sure. But will it be worth the cost? Also, I disagree that space exploration is incremental. What can happen is that if you don't do it for a time, you lose practical hands-on experience in how to do things associated with it. But technology, that's another matter. Like all fields of application it doesn't really drive technology forward; it depends on the level of technology already existing around it. Also, a useful social pressure? What for? To waste money? So give all that, I don't see any "race" happening. Let the Chinese land first on Mars, if they want. What would it gain them? A bit of prestige. Who cares about that? The only thing I agree with is that in comparison to certain other fields (like the military) we don't spend so much on space anyway. So I suppose space exploration could get some minor crumbs from the table... but nothing more. Octo8 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"Humans explore. It's what we do." It's not about "oh we've always done that so let's continue". It IS WHAT WE DO AS A SPECIES. We ask, we inquire, we explore, what more do you need? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Mars is actually of great scientific value. We're looking at a planet that probably once existed within the habitable zone of our star, and could quite possibly have contained all of the building blocks required to support life. Even farther out bodies like Europa could provide us with new information on how life can form. Sure, Europa is very far from the Sun and could never have existed within its habitable zone, but Jupiter's tidal forces heat the moon to a great degree, producing plate tectonics and keeping the vast oceans covering Europa's surface mostly liquid. Here on Earth, we're disadvantaged. The core of this planet is a giant ball of molten metal and rock surrounding a solid metallic core. We can't actually examine the core in any great degree, as the structure of the inner and outer core makes it very difficult to study (specifically the fact that the structure from inside to outside roughly goes "solid -> liquid -> solid"). In a "dead" planet like Mars (entirely solid; no more internal heat generation) with a relatively similar size, structure, and likely history to Earth, this is not the case. Space exploration is indeed incredibly valuable from a scientific perspective, and suggesting that we stop exploring space is akin to suggesting we hobble science just because it's too expensive. - Grant (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually Octo8, I didn't use it as an argument. I was showing that exploration is a corollary of our curiosity and is innate in us as a species. It's what drives us forward. It's not an argument in itself but it's an explanation for how we've arrived where we are and shows just how much we can achieve by exploring, much of the time with surprising unintended discoveries. There are too many huge unintended discoveries that have come about through simple exploration to list here. If you don't want that and see our future as a sort of hi-tech pastoralism then fine. Luckily though you won't be El Presidente! Ajkgordon (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to hobble technological progress at least, and for that science is required. But since we only have a finite amount of resources, we need to prioritize. Discoveries in biology, for example, can help with medicine, cure diseases, make us live longer. Discoveries in physics and chemistry can also help us. But how exactly would knowing all that stuff about Mars and Europa help us? Is there any practical use in it? I certainly don't want 'high tech pastoralism'. I do think there are very interesting times ahead. But all the interesting stuff will, of course, happen here on Earth. It will involve such things as biotech, AI development and so on. Space... will not play a great role in that. And no, I won't become El Presidente, sadly, but then, space exploration is only getting crumbs from the table as is ;) Octo8 (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"...but then, space exploration is only getting crumbs from the table as is This is true! Ajkgordon (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Insights into how life might have begun on this planet could lead to significant progress in biotechnology. Going further, learning how life could develop on bodies that aren't so similar to Earth (such as Europa) could offer even more. As per your point about physics, since this is my area of expertise, I can tell you now that space offers far more of interest than you think. No matter how much you ramp up the LHC, it will still pale in comparison to the energy released by a supernova. Obviously for particle physics, being able to study higher and higher energy collisions is incredibly important. Even now, random cosmic rays are still capable of causing higher energy collisions than the LHC can (though obviously not in a controlled or easily observable manner). The idea that "all the interesting stuff will ... happen here on Earth" is so far from incorrect that it's hardly worth commenting on. - Grant (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it difficult to justify massive spending on a space program when there are so many problem- poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
A fraction of the world's money could be diverted to social programs to eliminate those problems, and there would still be plenty of money to divert to scientific research, including a space program. These are systemic issues you're referring to, and if we had to choose which programs to cannibalize first to fund solutions to these problems, I would not be taking money from scientific endeavours. - Grant (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
To put this into perspective, if we ignore economic considerations and only consider the cost to buy bulk food, the U.S. military budget would pay to feed almost half of the people currently considered under-nourished by very conservative estimates. - Grant (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Octo8: What I mean by hi-tech pastoralism is about looking after what we've already got, a shepherding of finite resources. This is what would happen ultimately if you turn your back on space (i.e. the rest of the universe).
@AMG: "I find it difficult to justify massive spending on a space program when there are so many problem- poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc." Does this apply to any discretionary spending that isn't directed at alleviating these things? How about the arts or sport? New roads or railways? How about anything above the bare minimum just to keep the state and its essential infrastructure functioning? Space exploration, even at its height, is a small percentage of public spending. In today's money, the whole Apollo programme cost the US $200 billion. That sounds a lot. But it's much less than what it cost the UK to bail out its banks. Or only a fifth of the cost to the US of the war in Iraq. Or about the same as Americans spend on alcohol every year.
Watch Brian Cox waxing lyrical about this and other things at a TED speech. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, being that I live in Australia, I'd do a few things. Serious stuff first! Firstly, I'd get rid of Australia's "stop the boats" thing, because it's a disgusting violation of human rights. Then, I'd let let the gays get married- do I need to explain why? After that, I'd make prostitution legal, because why the fuck not? Once that was done, I'd make everything (food, water, university, housing) free, and stop the usage of money (except for usage in foreign affairs, imports, et cetera) in a sort of pseudo-communism, because I suck at money, and can't be bothered to actually economy. I'd make sure that everybody had some form of for job for them to do, whether it was cleaning, or hardcore science shit. I'd make it so we only had a very small military force, which would only get involved in the most serious of conflicts. Oh, and I'd have a huge-arse science programme, in which I'd encourage research for EVERYTHING, from space, to microtechnonanonuclearsuperalienbotthingies, to cancer, to renewable power. In other words, I'd essentially create a peaceful egalitarian utopia that would prolly never work IRL. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 08:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Soo ... your first step as effective dictator of the USA would be to invade Australia?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I live in Australia, so I can't see why I'd be dictator of the US, considering that I don't really give that much of a fuck what the US does for the time being. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 23:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand you live in Australia. However the question was what would you do if you became dictator of the United States. It was not - what would you if you became dictator of wherever you live. In terms of the qustion asked you would first need to take over Australia in order carry out the changes you wish. But I understand it's all in fun. :-) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Constitutional amendments to:
    1. make the house a proportional party elections(and federally run primaries to sort candidate rankings within a party), keep the senate FPTP to help battle conflicts of interest
    2. grant the president the right to replace one supreme court justice of their choice when they are elected(per term, and with senate approval), now fixed at 9 justices
    3. public financing of all federal elections
    4. require SVN/wiki style versining on all bills prior to passage, with the language being inserted being directly tied to the representative entering it
  • then immediately resign, hopefully allowing a bit more of a fluid, modern democracy to emerge, not expecting it to be perfect, but better. Ikanreed (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ban fedoras, possession punishable by MILLION! YEARS! DUNGEON! lifetime prison. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 20:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Same, but with SnapBacks, wearing pants down to your knees, and anything that says "YOLO" on it. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 23:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I will point out that a well-tailored suit is still quite well complemented by a properly fitting (and matching) fedora. You should be more selective with your fedora-banning. - Grant (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No. Better stick with a porkpie for the foreseeable future. Fedoras are tainted. EVDebs (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Porkpies are out of style for the most part. While I don't wear hats myself, it's still quite common to see a fedora matched with a suit. That said, note that it's never considered appropriate to wear a fedora without its matching suit. - Grant (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
the horrors of the clothes of someone else's tribe. Truely they are worse than Hitler. Also, you all sound like my dad. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If your Aunty had balls... J0nnyL (talk)

Everybody has to change their name to Cal McCallum. My official title is "Great and Glorious Leader of All That is Supreme and Holy"- anyone referring to me in any other manner will be decapitated. The only national holiday is my birthday, on which everybody must give me a gift of at least $700 value, lest they be hanged. Also, if my porn downloads internet is too slow, 5 people are taken from their houses and shot at random until it's fixed, and if anyone ever hurts my feelings EVER, their whole city is nuked. Unless they live in my city, in which case, they, their friends and their family are sent to a city I don't like, which is then nuked. Trapped inside this octavarium 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you guys even trying?[edit]

That's some grade-A weaksauce I see from you guys. I don't think you're even trying!

  • Switch the federal and all state legislatures to a unicameral mixed-member proportional representation parliamentary system.
  • Turn over all federal and state-owned land to the Native Americans.
  • Merge the fifty states into ten states.
  • Make affirmative action mandatory at all levels of the civil service.
  • Ban interstate and international banks from the U.S.
  • Force businesses to pay for all negative environmental and health-related externalities they incur.
  • Legalize sympathy and "unauthorized" strikes. Abolish the National Labor Relations Board, allowing new unions to form without interference.
  • End the war on drugs, and institute reparations for those harmed as a result of its policies.
  • Force the Treasury and Federal Reserve to embrace modern monetary theory.
  • Universal health care, including comprehensive mental health care.
  • Free child care and higher education.
  • Abolish patents and copyrights completely.
  • Replace the current patent-driven, profit-obsessed approach to scientific research and development with massive direct government funding.
  • Replace the current copyright-driven, profit-obsessed approach to media and the arts with strong government support of the arts and locally-owned media.
  • Strengthen free speech rights for people while regulating the shit out of commercial speech.
  • Allow state and federal highways to deteriorate. Replace the system with comprehensive high-speed rail.
  • Institute a carbon tax.
  • Expand public transit, building a comprehensive system of subways, light rail, and bus rapid transit in every major city.
  • Strong renter's rights.
  • Kill surburban growth with mandatory minimum density requirements for all residential areas.
  • Government assistance for anyone trying to relocate out of rural or suburban areas.
  • Limit the funding size of the military to the equivalent of the next two largest militaries combined.
  • 90% income tax rate for all yearly income — including capital gains and gifts — above $250,000.
  • 100% estate tax rate.
  • Minimum wage of $20 an hour.
  • Generous national pension system.
  • Step down and retire after everybody's used to the changes and it's too late to undo them.

Let me know what I missed. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how about this?
  • The compulsory serving of asparagus at breakfast.
  • Free corsets for the under-fives.
  • The abolition of slavery. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Scrap States' Rights. One country, with one set of laws applicable to all. Ditto one bar exam for all lawyers (although an annual cull of 1/3rd of all lawyers will be implemented), one driver's test, etc. PsyGremlinSpeak! 08:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Cliven Bundy (what a great name!)[edit]

Should we have an article on him?

[1] And I think our favorite lesbian commentator had a go at him, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If we have articles on other "anti-government whack job"s, then we can have an article on him. It depends on how significant he is though, since I've never heard about this dude until now... but again, I don't know a lot of people in the first place. ^^' What kind of significant "deeds" has he accomplished to warrant an article? What makes him different from the literally thousands of other whackjobs in this country? LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
At the moment I don't think that this warrants something more than a footnote or a bullet point example somewhere. This may change if the situation degenerates into violence.
And any such article should be about the dust-up, not about the person. At the very least because they are not the only wacko involved.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
That's why I asked, instead of banging up some crappy stub. Keep an eye on him, he's probably going to do something really stupid soon. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Might go under Freeman on the Land? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
See also: White supremacy. TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
He's not really a freeman and racism isn't part of his agenda. He's basically just a liar who's been stealing from the govt for more than a decade now conveniently exploiting the eagerness of armed tea party radicals to oppose the govt under a strongly implied threat of violence. There may be some parallels to Ruby Ridge and posse comitatus, but he doesn't appear to have any coherent principles beyond the self entitlement and righteous indignation common in the far right. Nutty Rouxnever mind 13:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's something Maddow brought up: Posse Comitatus. According to clips she played, he keeps saying the only authority is the county sheriff and not the feds. Zero (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
That specifically relates to a persistent misrepresentation of a statute granting the BLM authority to maintain a police force to enforce the federal law. The word sheriff is in it, which brought the "constitutional sheriff" cranks out of the woodwork. Rank and file wingers passed it on uncritically until the basis of his bulkshit argument was obscured. Nutty Rouxnever mind 13:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The idiot in question is getting close to being noteworthy, but I am still not sure he meets our guidelines for an article. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in Birther Land.......[edit]

Supreme Court Judges Say Obama Birth Certificate A Fake. And by "Supreme Court judges," we really mean 2 out of 9 Alabama supreme court judges. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they could ban Obama from entering Alabama... and nothing of value would be lost. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing of value would be lost, you say? So, let's see... Georgia has peaches, Florida has oranges, Mississippi has a river, and Texas is big. What does Alabama have going for it again? --GastonRabbit (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
College football; Clyde May’s Conecuh Ridge Alabama Fine Whiskey; and being the birthplace of Dinah Washington, W.C. Handy, Bobo Jenkins, and most importantly Sun Ra. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it looks like Mr. Obama is going to miss out on a lot if he's banned from entering the state. --GastonRabbit (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Al-Obama!!! It's a conspiracy!!! -- (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"They say Alabama's the Crimson Tide, call me Deacon Blues" [2] ħumanUser talk:Human 02:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion re: the rules re: lawsuit threats[edit]

Someone -- an IP address -- claiming to have an interest in the Kevin Martin article has posted renewed demands to be met in order to prevent a threatened lawsuit. This is a different BoN from the one that made the previous round of threats, so, it could be anyone. But it won't be long until people take their e-dicks in hand and begin to respond to this new set of demands with insults, name-calling, and suggestions that he "bring it." Not a promising scenario for constructive dialogue.

If this were my wiki, I would run it this way: anonymous legal threats would be memory-holed. A person making a threat without the courage to attach a real name to it is not worthy of a response, but, as a courtesy, a template directing the relevant party to the website's legal affairs page could be placed on the relevant user's/BoN's talk page. If they are serious enough to actually sue someone, they are serious enough to send a real e-mail to the powers-that-be to ask for a change/deletion/whatever. Whoever answers the e-mails at that address can then forward specific issues to the community-at-large as deemed necessary. Wiki-anarchy and the law do not work well together. TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is supposed to be our response to legal threats to my understanding -if nothing else, it would be a better reply than "bring it". --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup, posting that link is all the attention legal threats from a BoN should be given, IMO. The IP tracks to Corona, CA, so it's most likely him, but let him email the RWF, ID himself and go on the record. Otherwise it's just hot air. Leuders (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ahem* sorry, TeenageWasteland, I was being redundant, we're on the same page about directing people making threats to the Legal FAQ. I disagree with the deletion of edits, because "Obvious Vile Trolling" (which a lot of that "Let's you and him fight" stuff is) is not often oversighted, unless it involves actual dox-dropping. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"anonymous legal threats would be memory-holed" - so if the IP goes to the trouble of making an account and calling himself "John Smith" (or any other name one might use) then we assume that it really is that person? Why? In reality named accounts are just as anonymous as IP's. We would still have no idea if it were really "John Smith" talking to us. In fact IP's are less anonymous than user names - as IP's can be looked up by anybody.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright then, "legal threats that cannot be reasonably verified to come from a legitimately interested party would be memory-holed." (And having an ip that comes from roughly the same patch of geography does not count as reasonable. A duplicate of the original post on the website of the person in question, say, does). I'm easy. TeenageWasteland (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's still a rather arbitrary distinction. Either all legal threats are handled offsite or they're not; dealing with some onsite & some offsite makes little sense to me. My approach to this situation as an editor is to pretty much ignore the legal threat (which is the RWF board's remit) but treat the complaint about article content the same as any other, regardless of whether it comes from an IP or a user account & whether it comes with added legal posturing. I.e. evaluate what the article says, how it's sourced, what statements are being challenged or disputed etc. I don't think memory holing comments or blocking users is good for this process. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as policy goes for this type of stuff, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Everyone interested in this should review Wikipedia:No legal threats, we should implement a (shorter) version. Basically the person making the threats should be blocked while the duration of the threat is active, and they should not be engaged on the site. If they want to come and discuss content with out the threats we can work with that, and should welcome it. tmtoulouse 00:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The phrase that matters is "you must not edit [the wiki] until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." ħumanUser talk:Human 02:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Should it be added to the Legal FAQ page, or be a separate policy page? Ideally I think there should be some sort of warning before going straight to block - e.g. a template advising that legal threats will not be tolerated onsite, with a link to the Legal FAQ/policy page and a warning that you may be blocked if you persist in threatening legal action. Blocks should also leave the user talk page editable. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with what Trent said, especially since it solves the problem of people like Kevin Martin trying to use legal threats to bully us. We don't know how serious he is being, but that we let him continue to spew shit here while defending it with "I'll sue you!" has made dealing with him intolerable. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Cracked quality falls another notch[edit]


Cracked quality has never been great, but this lovely new attack on logic is a new low. Brenden (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

if your looking at cracked for any logical consistency or moral guidance you are on a hiding to nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Point taken but that is a spectacularly awful article right there. --DamoHi 06:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a guy who regrets ever being good at math. Bismarck (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah, just a cheap hack who was asked to churn out some filler. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but Chris Bucholz is one of the site's best writers. Although I'll concede that he should only stick to "pure" comedy articles rather than most things factual. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 13:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Ahem. You've obviously haven't read this.--Madman (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Medicine isn't everything. What kind of exercise/diet do you RationalWikians use to stay in shape and minimize the necessity for pharmaceuticals/drugs?[edit]

For example, I do A LOT of running (I'm on my school's track team) and a little bit of weightlifting to keep in shape. And since I'm rather skinny, I consume as many protein and starch-based calories over the course of a normal day as possible (usually around 3000-4000) The end result is a resting heartrate of 55 and quick recoveries from sicknesses. How about the rest of you? I'd like to hear about it.--Captain Wolff (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I count calories. At the moment I'm nearly done losing weight (dropped 50 lbs so far with 15 to go before I hit my goal of ~160). I also work out three times a week and walk regularly to make sure I'm keeping a half-decent muscle base. Aside from that, I just make sure I get enough carbs and protein on my workout days, and otherwise just make sure I'm within my calorie goals for the day. Nothing special. - Grant (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Good man. And congrats as well on dropping 50lb. Hopefully it works out for you.--Captain Wolff (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and good luck with track! - Grant (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I cycle to work.
  • regular exercise
  • green
  • cheap
  • pisses off motorists
Placeholder (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I cycle to work (as well), which is 30 minutes one-way, but I do that because I don't like driving a car, which stresses me out. Then I cook pretty much every day, with fresh ingredients, because it's cheaper and it tastes better anyway. Apart from a few medical conditions I was born with, I rarely get sick; my last cold was over 1 year ago. But I don't fool myself that the two aforementioned aspects are the biggest reason for that. I simply don't encounter masses of people in my average day (small company, no canteen, no public transportation), so the chance of catching a disease is really, really low. Bismarck (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I cycle to work, and have 2-3 long rides a week, and do some powerlifting when I can (5-6 times a week). I'm also a vegetarian, so I assume I get a good mix of vitamins and nutrients. Despite all this I get sick 3-4 times a year. Must be binge drinking... Tielec01 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I am on a low salt diet at the moment, and am trying to eat more veggies, even though it goes against my strict carnivorous diet. I've also recently started to combine regular aerobic workouts of about 35-45 minutes a day and, when the snow is melted, so lots of bicycling. Of course, this excludes the full body workout of "mosh pits" which I participate in about every other week for about 2-3 hours at a time. No, I'm not kidding. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I follow the local way of eating. That is too much animal fat, diary, alcohol, etc. But also fresh fruit and vegetables, very little packaged food, almost always fresh. I exercise quite a lot but probably not as much as I should. BP 120/80, resting heart rate of 50-60, low cholesterol, 85 kg @ 1m90, and other reasonably positive vital signs for a 48 year-old. (BTW, the French Paradox is only seen as a paradox in the anglo-saxon sphere it seems. It's not considered anything but perfectly normal in France.) Ajkgordon (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's fantastic, Grant! I track the amount of calories I eat to what I'll need any given day considering activity level; that includes drinking less and being acutely aware of what I put in my body. I also eat a lot of fiber from legumes and greens (covered in mineral rich dirt, I reckon), drink a lot of water, and try to eat on a strict schedule. My biggest problem is that I don't get hungry. I only know its past the time to eat when I start feeling sick, so eating on a schedule helps keep me feeling good and avoid having to binge on crummy food. I walk everywhere I can and ride my bike when the roads are clear. Cardio and weight training 2 days a week. Simple stuff. I'm also genetically blessed with being amazing. Suck it. Nutty Rouxnever mind 13:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Nutty. I found that was my biggest problem. I never ate much to begin with, and I was never terribly overweight. However, I was creeping up the pounds, and it was all because I wasn't paying attention to when I was eating. Inevitably I would find myself starving after putting off dinner for too long, and I would eat a ton of snacks to quell my hunger. That's not exactly conducive to good health. Just tracking calories makes a world of difference though. - Grant (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots of walking (for general commuting, plus the pooch gets 3 X 1/2 hr walks/day) long bike rides (20-30 miles) on the weekends. Gotta start hitting the weight room for my upper body/core, though. My legs are are like tree trunks. If the rest of me looked as good, women would literally faint as I walked by. Trying to cut down on refined carbs/sugars and eat more protein/veggies. That's really, really hard, though. I fucking LOVE pasta/bread/rice/spuds, though I don't have too much of a sweet tooth. TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing I would caution about sugars is that there's actually very little evidence that refined sugar is any worse for you than natural sugars. At the end of the day, high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, and fruit sugars contain near identical quantities of fructose and glucose, so the difference between them is minimal. I believe high-fructose corn syrup is generally a 55:45 fructose:glucose ratio, sucrose is generally 50:50. While fruit sugars are better than sucrose for diabetics, the effects of fructose on the body are nigh-identical to those of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup. - Grant (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
High-fructose corn syrup and table sugar are both empty calories though. So either way, simple sugars are best avoided or at least moderated.--Captain Wolff (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sugars in general are best moderated, as it is with all things. Sugar is not useless, after all, since it's fairly useful for quick energy boosts during or after exercise. My point was that it's possible to eat a properly balanced diet and meet any calorie goals without differentiating between sucrose and fruit sugar. Keep in mind that there aren't really any benefits to overloading on vitamins, so if you're already consuming enough of various vitamins, the difference between a forty calorie apple and a forty calorie piece of chocolate is negligible. - Grant (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I really like fat, sugar, and salt. Any recipe that includes all three is good by me. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe moving to France is an option, then? --Kels (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Petition[edit]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pass-sanctions-against-absolutist-theocratic-monarchy-saudi-arabia/ktvZBVHt Thoughts? Good idea, or not? --Spaceman98 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense petition. Just looking at the first one in that list - the Saudi government being the chief funding source of Al Qaeda - isn't backed up in the subsequent Telegraph link. If you're going to run a petition, at least make sure your opinions are properly backed up by the sources you quote. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/02/saudi-arabia-barack-obama-syria-fighters.html# This source would also indicate that its more than just private funding between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda. ("Estimates of the number of Saudis fighting in Syria range as high as 2,500. Some are hardened veterans of earlier jihads in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Iraq. A few are compatriots of Osama bin Laden. Others traveled to Syria from the kingdom, despite individual travel bans imposed for dissident activities at home. Some traveled directly through major Saudi airports, leading many observers to conclude they were encouraged by the authorities to leave the kingdom and go fight Assad"). On the other hand, the link does indicate that, with US pressure, the Saudis did withdraw their support from extremist groups. --Spaceman98 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no specific action proposed - just an ill-defined reference to "sanctions" in the title. A petition whose only purpose is to complain about something without offering a solution has no hope of going anywhere. As for the weblinks, is that normal? They just add to it looking shoddy, in my opinion. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
RE: Item 2. Death-penalty states have no business calling out other death-penalty states on what they impose the death penalty for. The death penalty for murder and kidnapping is no less appalling than the death penalty for homosexuality, apostasy and adultery. TeenageWasteland (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Heaven is for Real[edit]

It's rare that Liberapedia has a better article than RationalWiki but for the moment we have. The humiliation!

Are there any contributors who have read that book and can improve the article, Heaven is for Real? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Longer" is not necessarily better. And the situation is unsurprising, given who's the creator of the RW article...--ZooGuard (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Our stub article is pointless & should be deleted. I don't think this is a priority subject for us anyway, & I'm not very impressed with either of the articles cited above. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Typical PC crap. Who cares and what is it? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty big right now (the movie is playing at the theater where I work and there's lots of people seeing it), and I think it would be good to have an article criticizing it. Which we now do as I have expanded it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Duck Dynasty Redux[edit]

So their proposed live stage show in which the bunch of redneck bigots use "a mixture of songs, and speeches, on how the family lives the American dream and keeps 'family values,'" has been cancelled, due to low ticket sales. In Missouri. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what went wrong here. Why aren't more people spending money to watch a family of self-described "Louisiana redneck" millionaires from a TV show about making duck calls get up on stage and make speeches about Jesus, America, and why "certain folks" are evil and you should stay away from them? I heard they're going to sing some songs too! RachelW (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A terrible, horrible week for people who try to believe in a post-racial America.[edit]

A SCOTUS ruling upholding an affirmative-action ban that led to a one-third drop in African-American admissions at the U. of Michigan; the latest conservative rock star revealed saying that blacks today have never learned to pick cotton and asking if they were better off under slavery, and an NBA owner asking his girlfriend not to hang out with black folks. Everything is fine in the United States. (Meanwhile, all of you Canadians getting ready to get smug about how much less racist your country is, this happened)...TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those days are over and they ought to be over.--Madman (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman
I don't think we have an article for it, but is there a word for the post-racialist belief that all instances of racism are invented by the media and racial tensions only exist because the media won't stop talking about nonwhite people? I suppose it would be related to the notion that gay people didn't exist until they were acknowledged on TV (a corollary to the 'they just want attention' theory, I suppose). I work at a rather anti-intellectual community college and I hear this line of reasoning from far too many instructors and students Dowdicus (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Privilege blindness?--dx (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, privilege isn't the same as overt protection of your interests as a socially empowered group, so most people just assume everything is good. The notion that a similar percentage of both black people and white people could be racist, and that could still result in social regress by means of existing power structure occupation is a difficult and nuanced one compared to "maybe you should let everyone sit where they want on the bus" Ikanreed (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking for tips on a project I'm doing...[edit]

In my English class, we are doing a composition project, and my group ended up with politics as our topic. We decided that we would stage a mock congress, with each member of the class a congressperson representing a special interest group (UAW, Moral Majority, American Petroleum Institute, etc) and having them battle over mock bills. The rules of the game would be:

-5 points if a bill your group disagrees with is passed
+3 points if a bill your group agrees with is passed
+6 points if you successfully get a bill amended so it agrees with your group
-9 points if a bill your group is neutral on or agrees with is amended so your group disagrees with it.
Anyways, the goal would be to acquire as many points as possible. I was wondering if any of you could help me pick out some special interest groups (both left and right wing) to use in the mock congress.
--Captain Wolff (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Lizard people. Minoreditor (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The rules seem a bit staggered towards "you lose" rather then making people win--Mikal | lakiM 22:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That's the point. It's a matter of preventing yourself from losing rather than making actual progress. The goal is to turn the mock congress into a simulation of today's do-nothing congress and thus get across our point: Special Interest Groups and Lobbyists hurt democracy.--Captain Wolff (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
But... then i;d just use my special interest powers to make sure all bills die in commitee and odnt make it to vote then! :c --Mikal | lakiM 22:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
if you really want discussion on fringe topics put up a bill legalize NAMBLA. Hamster (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Is the group actually illegal? TeenageWasteland (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
According to our own article, technically not. But I would like to mention that this is a high-school project. So whether or not NAMBLA is legal I'm definitely not including an organization supporting pederasty in the project.--Captain Wolff (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Orthogonal to your project about special interest groups, but as long as you're showing problems with our current implementation of democracy, you forgot one big influence: everybody must be blue or red, and you lose a lot of points by supporting a bill proposed by someone of the opposite colour.--dx (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

National Home Education Research Institute[edit]

"a nonprofit organization that conducts homeschooling research on a national level.

The option to homeschool is a resolution for parents who fear that formal education is not suitable for their children for a number of reasons, including overcrowding of classrooms, the possibility of subjecting their children to a possibly dangerous environment, the need for personalized education due to a physical or mental disability, religious beliefs or general dissatisfaction with the quality of public school education.

Dawn Shelton, who teaches a homeschooling co-op class once a week, let her students explain the pros and cons of being homeschooled and what led each of them to the nontraditional approach of learning.

“My mom decided to homeschool me because she wasn’t happy with what we were learning in public school; which was basically nothing,” said Gillian Andersen, 14. She said her favorite school subjects are Latin and soccer and hopes to be a professional soccer player when she grows up.

“You probably can’t tell now but I was born with dyspraxia, a minor speech issue,” Andersen’s co-op classmate, Issac Ballweber,14, said. “The individualized attention I get in home school helps. As a child who had difficulty with speech I’ve never had to worry about shouting out to be heard in a classroom if I needed help.”

Ballweber said his favorite subjects are logic and math. He hopes to be a writer when he grows up."

And blah blah blah. We need an article on this junk organization. National Home Education Research Institute ħumanUser talk:Human 06:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Between a hard boiled egg and eternal bliss, what would a logician choose? Of course the hard boiled egg, for nothing is better than eternal bliss, and a hard boiled egg is better than nothing. -- (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Problems such as "overcrowding of classrooms"? Everyone knows bigger class sizes = better education! DickTurpis (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the implied blanket condemnation of homeschooling. I would consider it, if I had a kid. I've known a handful of homeschooled kids both socially and as an educator and they've all been normal, bright, well-educated kids. Homeschooling doesn't have to mean "learning that evolution didn't happen." TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Homeschooling isn't bad, provided there's some regulation involved and the students are still able to pass standardized tests. My understanding is that in the States, it's far more often to see little to no regulation for homeschooling, so it becomes a bit of a free-for-all. - Grant (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Grant, as always, the Voice of Reason (tm). TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I think at one point our article on homeschooling was pretty smart. But that might have been years ago. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It isn't necessarily used for indoctrination, but how do you ensure it isn't? Even having standardized tests won't prevent that. I don't doubt that home-schooled kids can have the same level of academic and social competence as others. It's instead indeed a question of preventing indoctrination. Free societies must ensure that everybody does not only have the theoretical right to make decisions for themselves, but also the practical ability. Hence children must be "corrupted" by exposure to mainstream thought, if they don't get that at home. That way, later in life, they can choose between the social mainstream or whatever sectarian beliefs their parents may have held. And the only way to really ensure that children get that exposure is to ban homeschooling. Octo8 (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
What about parents who, like the ones I've known, chose to homeschool their kids for something other than "sectarian" reasons? TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Like TW, I've known quite a few homeschoolers who have done well, and even made it into top-tier colleges. Homeschooling is not always fundies just trying to shelter their kids from the evils of Darwinism and secular humanism. As for indoctrination, we all know that public schools would never do that! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I will also note that if parents are looking to indoctrinate their kids, they will do so regardless. School can offer an alternative viewpoint, yes, but so does having standardized testing that involves things like evolutionary biology. There is little practical difference between a parent choosing to tell their kids that what they learned at school is wrong and telling their kids that the stuff they need to learn to pass standardized testing is wrong. - Grant (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
But there is a difference. Indoctrination rests to a large part on avoiding exposure to alternate points of view. Why do you think so many parents are opposed to teaching of evolution, or sexual education, or mentioning homosexuality in class? Because that does make a difference. Standardized tests are not a solution to this problem; parents can tell the children what they should write down there but that they shouldn't believe it. But if the kids are honestly confronted with alternate points of views then that's something else. Their parents can tell them it's all wrong, but the seeds of doubt have been sown. Those seeds may prosper or not, but the important part is that this does help the child to later choose what world to follow - and that's the important part. It isn't even important what decision the person makes. The important part is not that we get more people upholding the scientific principle and evolution. They can decide against it and for creationism. The important part is that they should be enabled to make that choice, and that requires exposure to mainstream thought as children. Sectarian parents fear their children may be "corrupted" by mainstream thought in schools, and for good reason - I say it should be mandatory that they should be "corrupted"!
Now, true not all homeschool parents have those motivations. Unfortunately, we just never can be sure what motivations lie behind homeschooling a children. I do think it is best to simply forbid it all together and make class attendance compulsory, as it is here. Octo8 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to agree with you here. Around my parts, standardized testing is mixed with regular audits to ensure that the homeschooling parents are appropriately teaching the provincial curriculum. There are ways to regulate homeschooling that work. As well, I'll point out that telling kids what to write on these standardized tests is certainly not different. I should point out that these tests are administered by the Ministry of Education, at least in my location. The parents don't get to see the tests at all, so if their kids aren't proficient with the source material (i.e. unable to write an essay on the topic), they very likely won't pass. Around here, most parents don't homeschool their kids from high school on because the reporting and curriculum requirements get incredibly cumbersome. - Grant (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the main reason for homeschooling was because obviously your kid is really a genius and all schools are terribly inefficient at actually teaching the material (although it does make me wonder when the whole three years of high school physics are taught in little more than one week at university...) Nullahnung (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I used to think that way (about the high school physics thing at least), but after tutoring many high school students in the subject, it's clear to me why things are done that way. It took me my entire university career to get a firm grasp on the material I had learned even in first year, and I shudder to imagine what it would have been like without those three years of relentless drilling in high school. - Grant (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That could be true, yes. Maybe the way most schools teach is a necessary evil on the way to higher education. Schools are also supposed to teach more than just the material, for example social skills and how to conform to things (although these effects would be unquantifiable if they exist, and I'm not sure that we really need schools for those secondary things). Nullahnung (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Spam accounts[edit]

So I know that they generally don't make it through to editing pages anymore these days, but do we know if there a particular reason they seem to love trying to hit us so much?--Mikal | lakiM 02:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Every machine everywhere wants to show off to its fellow machines, these days. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a robot eat robot world out there. - Grant (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Lol Human and Grant. Yeah I think all wikis and blogs get them. CP gets as many. RW isn't special. If you don't want to see them, which is sensible since they don't usually edit as you note, crib the jQuery from my monobook.js and remove account creations from RC. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Useful, thanks, Slutty! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Jesus and Mo makes a goat joke[edit]

Given RationalWiki's interests in the silliness of religion and in goats, I figured you guys might like this: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2014/04/30/goats/ DataSnake (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I bet their mothers are proud. --Kels (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy Richter hijacks Christian hashtag[edit]

And it was hilarious. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In order to parody what was already a very obvious parodist. That's not hijacking; it's missing the joke while thinking you're the one making it. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. I mean, the account he was retweeting was called "Not Colton Burpo" for god's sake. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing the account was renamed & the "Not the real Colton Burpo" statement added in recent days. But at the time Richter was responding, the account was already posting things like "Even in heaven, the wounds of Jesus bleed. They forever bleed.", "Heaven has every cereal.", and "I am just a normal kid. I love football and Minecraft and I have met Christ." Doesn't take a genius to recognise it as satire. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, okay. But yeah, still pretty obvious. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 23:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Liberals thinking they're being clever when they don't even grasp an obvious parody. What a shocker. And I actually liked conan back when he was funny and in new york. Now the show is about as bland as unbuttered toast and conan sounds like a whiny paranoid loon with a massive chip on his shoulder, convinced that at any moment Jay Leno will jump out from behind the bushes and sodomize him. Oh well. Burkean (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Meeting Neil deGrasse Tyson[edit]

When I heard that he was going to give a speech at Monroe Community College (90 minute drive in the middle of a crazy downpour) I could not jump at the chance to go soon enough. Which is good since it was an absolutely sold out crowd with even an overflow room. I got lucky to show up an hour early and find a decent place to plant my tripod (my hands have this uncomfortable constant shake, preventing me from hand firing anything without a support), in the front of the second group of chairs, on the lectern side. Honestly the "warm up" was a DRONE. Introduction, keynote, science education, *yawn*, meh. Bring me the man of the hour (more on that in a second) so I can learn something!
Unfortunately all I learned was that people, the media and religious nuts are idiots and Neil deGrasse Tyson is THE FUNNIEST COMIC I'VE EVER SEEN. Seriously. If he ever comes to give a speech nearby to you, drop what you're doing and get to see him! I've never seen somebody make astrophysics and such completely laughworthy but he pulled if off with a stellar (ha ha!) performance. I resisted the urge to just quote him on facebook as a distraction, but I did manage to get in a couple of "shouts" when they seemed to be perfectly called for (click the FB link if you really want to know). I expected his speech to go until about 20:30 and then he would kick in his book signing. Nope, he went all the way until 22:00 and according to some people I know, he went on book signing until at least midnight.
During this signing I decided I would ask for a picture with him. I mean, how do you cap off the night if not to get this most awesome of pictures.

"I call it the Colbert Pose"

I was on complete cloud nine. Zero (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So are you going to, in 20 years, be the host of the NEXT COSMOs reboot and talk about the day you met Neil? --Mikal | lakiM 15:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh I wish I could be that awesome, but my field is computer science, not cosmic. Zero (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Zero looks like bespectacled Tommy Wiseau. If Tommy Wisesau had an awesome jacket. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 15:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I wish i could see this picture--Mikal | lakiM 15:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It was awesome. Tyson was dangling from a cliff, waiting for Zero to arrive and rescue him. But alas, Zero was fighting the Dhanert the Demonic Six Headed Dragon, who breathes poisonous fire. All this happens under the cold, uncaring stare of the Triple Suns. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't really known much about NDGT until I recently came across an old Radiolab episode that he was on. That led to my weekly getting-my-mind-blown sessions with Cosmos and downloading a whole bunch of his podcasts. The man is amazing -- I would love to have the chance to hear him speak live one day. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
He's coming to my town, but I can't afford the ticket price. Sad face. --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 20:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
What are they asking? My tickets were a whole $15. Zero (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Re "funniest comic": In Austria there's a very entertaining trio of a comedian, a theoretical (astro-)physicist and an experimental physicist, called Science Busters, who've quite successfully brought a mixture of natural sciences and comedy to the stage, coupled with the occasional quack debunkery. (One of them is also a leading member of various German-language skeptics societies.) As opposed to German humour, Viennese humour is actually quite good. Bismarck (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
That actually sounds much like the NDT show I just went to. Zero (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

People articles[edit]

This does represent one of the pitfalls of writing about individuals rather than their ideas. Of course, I don't for a second believe that ripoff report is a threat, nor am I particularly worried about Kevin Martin. But there are a million and one idiots on the internet and beyond. I don't see the use in having an article on each of them. I say it's preferable to write about homeopathy rather than each homeopath. I'm not proposing we cease writing about people altogether, but the next time somebody thinks to write an article about a crank as low on the food chain as Kevin Martin, perhaps they should reconsider, and instead check to see if their pet bullshit already has an article. If it does, then maybe the crank in question could be used as material for the article. And if they're completely unique, like Mr Timecube, then consider whether there's any point to "exposing" them at all. I think this will improve the overall quality of articles on the wiki. Instead of indulging in petty feuds with Dana Ullman or Kevin Martin, and wading into their history of online absurdity, we could provide a useful resource for people who want to know more about pseudoscience and alternative medicine. In fact, deleting some articles might not be the worst idea. Granted, that should be done with care and forethought, and will result in a lower article count, but I would say it's better to have quality than it is to have quantity.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I actually sort of have to agree- I mean, if we're talking people like TF and AmazingAtheist, I think that it I relevant, as they can sort of gather a mini pseudo-personality-cult thing, which can cause otherwise rational people to be all like "yeah, fuck feminism and shit" (I speak from my own experience as an MRA and an immature fuckhead). In addition, I believe that historically notable and mission-worthy people (Stalin, Hitler, etc.) are obvious keepers, as are the most relevant conservapedians (though the only ones I can really think of are Assfly and maybe TK). However, when we're talking obscure conspiracy nuts who add nothing new to discussions, I agree that we only need to cover their arguments/beliefs, and maybe quickly mention them once or twice- having whole articles on them is not necessary, and is probably just gonna lead to more shit in the long run. So, in conclusion, +1. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 11:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. For one thing, having articles on specific people highlights just what scammy, abusive or otherwise bad behaviour goes down in certain circles in detail. We could point out in the homeopathy article how many practicers are just scammers, but this has more weight if we have a dozen article on scammy homeopaths including what they have done. Second, I always understood this wiki as a resource for arguments if you happen to have come into a debatte with an "irrationalist". But often those people don't say "homeopathy cures all!", they say " Dr xyz can cure everything!". So this wiki needs to contain information about those people, about the bad things they have done, as a resource for those who come into the unfortunate situation of having to argue with supporters of those people. Oh, and third, it isn't like we couldn't expand articles on homeopathy or whatever AND keep the articles on those people. At least some work has gone into many of those articles, in some cases quite much work. Why simply throw that away? Octo8 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Also disagree. There are a few too many articles that say little more than, "Look, it's a crank!" However, that is more a problem with stubs than people-related articles in general. That could be fixed easily by expanding the article. The person articles also give more space to focus on their, er, unique contributions to their preferred field of crankery. Many 9/11 truthers, for example, repeat the same talking points. But then you have people like Judy Wood and her "space beams" idea. That definitely falls under "documenting the full range of crank ideas." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
You have a point, Nebuchadnezzar (you too, Octo8). I stand by my initial post, but I won't deny that there is truth to your words as well. I suppose the "Look, it's a crank!" articles are what bother me most. I feel they are of low quality and serve little purpose.
I should say that while unique specimens of crankery might provide justification of an article on an individual, what matters to me is if that person's beliefs or propounded beliefs are of any import. I'm sure the homeless person I saw once shouting a conversation at nothing has some unique bullshit he believes in, but does he warrant an article? I'm not claiming any equivalency, but I would like to see a line drawn. I think the line should be drawn in a different place than you. I realize that that's not wholly in line with the mission, but I don't necessarily see the mission as perfect.
Octo8, I recognize the utility in identifying each crank out there, for the public good. But that will only bog us down if that's what we aim to do. Surely, "Dr xyz" claims to be a homeopath. The already existing field gives him legitimacy (and possibly the legal right to call himself a doctor). Writing about homeopathy in exclusion to him would be a lot easier.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Please don't encourage people to sue the RWF"[edit]

Um, people saying this don't understand Trent's original mission, which was to build the site, then incorporate it, then GET SUED by crazy people. It is his long term goal to be dragged into a courtroom by idiots. Ask him if you don't believe me. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that so long as Trent has all the logistics in place. Somebody mentioned that even a frivolous lawsuit would cost us a lot of money in terms of requiring a lawyer. Until money isn't an issue, intentionally trying to get sued by crazies is still a bad idea.--Captain Wolff (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I reiterate, it has been Trent's long term goal to be sued by crazies. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The current board seems to think it would be a major pain in the arse and not a desirable thing to actually happen - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I laughed! Gerard's my hero today! Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What is to be gained from getting sued? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
a warm sense of martyrdom?AMassiveGay (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as a well-thought-out plan, unless Trent's brother is a lawyer who doesn't mind doing a lot of pro-bono work. Do you have anything in writing to back up your assertion, Human? An old talk page post from the days of HeartOfGold, PalMD, Bhodan, and Susan/Toast/Terri (Terry?) editing as a man until the place proved itself to gave a modicum of female-friendliness? TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

None of your business, TW. Private communications. If Trent wants to double down on my claim, he can. If not, no big deal. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been aware of your claim for almost 5 years. What is relevant is that, I hope, everyone would agree that it's totally unfair to put someone else in the position of having to spend money to defend a lawsuit simply because you think they ought to. That's not your business. Even if your claim is true, there are nobodies like Hovind, Otis, and Martin who would be filing frivolous lawsuits for the wrong reasons and that wouldn't be likely to focus the pro-science community's attention on some kind of dangerous or pervasive pseudo-science. These are strictly claims of defamation caused by anonymous editors (sometimes suspicious single purpose editors) unrelated to the reason these people should being covered pursuant to RW's mission in the first place. Hovind is a third rate creationist. Not one single one of us knew Otis existed before the lawsuit. Martin's threats to all and sundry are tedious and would ultimate bankrupt him if he pursued them; and they're entirely unrelated to his meteorological claims. Let the business organization that has to pay for all of this be responsible for drawing its own fouls (that is, hopefully drawing none because editors here are responsible enough to accurately source articles, use appropriate language and tone, and not treat subjects coming to complain like garbage). Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You haven't known me for five years. My claim is rooted in simple fact, but if Trent and/or the Board have changed their tune I am cool with that. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I can understand the publicity getting sued regularly would gain us, but even a lawsuit that gets laughed out of the courtroom by the judge and jury would cost us money. Deep pockets or pro bono lawyer friends are necessary before we go around getting people hot under the collar.--Captain Wolff (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
See, I'm concerned about you putting this amorphous "us" in with the RMF. You are otherwise correct about the expensive of defending even a frivolous lawsuit, however it is also not your business to put this "we" in with the RMF to decide when it's appropriate to get the RMF sued. I view this misapprehension of the role of RW vis and vis the RMF to be dangerous to the RMF and I am going to correct it where I see it.
To all, I am sorry that I get unpleasant about board business. It is because I'm more dedicated to protecting the wiki and the RMF than I am to most of you. I don't care for how this community has turned out in the last several years, but I care deeply about seeing that the resource continues and improves. I do intend this to be a genuine apology even my justification for my unpleasant behavior isn't going to make many of you more sympathetic to my approach. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend that anybody confused about the subject peruse the RMF's bylaws. To me, at least, the position and (significant) degree of separation of the Foundation compared to RW is fairly well laid out. Specifically note the definition of the word "Community" as used to describe the Board of Trustee's appointment procedure. - Grant (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: If those bylaws have changed (since they use the old name for the RMF, it's possible), things might be somewhat different, but it should at least give you the general gist of things. - Grant (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I will address this as best I can. You have to put this in the original context in which it occurred. This was a couple conversations where I was musing off the cuff about the potential benefits of a lawsuit. This was before we even incorporated a Foundation to run the website and most of the bills were paid for by me and the site was being run off a machine in my apartment. It was sparked by a conversation about notability requirements for a WP article and how a lawsuit would bring potential attention and coverage to us that could really benefit us in the end.

Four years later, the site and the management of the site have drastically changed. We have grown exponentially, and I and others have worked very hard to create a way for the site to have financial and infrastructure stability outside of what I can provide. Our generous users have more than met our needs financially and we have great people working to keep the site going and improve it on a constant basis. Our reach is greater than I thought it would be.

We are going to have to face the issue of lawsuits as we continue to grow. I think we should be focused on a two-prong defense, first improving our articles to makes sure we are sourcing claims, and watching our language to avoid actual libelous or defamatory statements, second helping the Foundation build up the funds needed to address legal issues when they arise quickly and effectively.

The Foundation will also do its part, solidifying our relationships with legal resources in the community at large, and developing plans and procedure to allow us to address problems efficiently and quickly.

None of this is helped by goading people into suing us, though in the end I think if someone is going to do it they are not going to spend a month threatening us with it on a talk page. Happy to address questions people might have. tmtoulouse 17:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As someone who regularly visits jail (as our Lord Jesus commanded), Hovind is exactly the kinda guy you wish to avoid. Prisoners nothing better to do all day than put all their energy into rehabing their reputations. There also are good jailhouse legal advisers (on process, at least). And Hovind, like Ratainalwiki, feels the publicity of a lawsuit likewise is beneficial. nobsJesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does. 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of the board...[edit]

Speaking of the board aren't the elections somewhat overdue? I suppose that we are not going to do the same as the moderators and leave them in place for life?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those were over and done with over a month ago. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah my bad. Sorry about that. I looked at RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation to see who is on the current board, but it clearly has not been updated.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing ever gets updated around these parts. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
We are trying to move most of the board info to the foundation website, since the foundation and the wiki aren't entirely the same thing. Sterilesig.svgtalk 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
"Trying" to copy and past is such hard work. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In other words, feel free to update the article, Bob. It would be a welcome change from you talking. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't be a dick, you're on the board, do it. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've long advocated that RMF business be removed from the wiki entirely. The RMF isn't RW or vice verse, as Sterile points out. So you do it. You know where the edit button is. and you in particular know what the results of the election were because you and I discussed them. See below. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So now you want me to edit the RMF Board's business details as a lowly wiki member? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Bah. I'm sure somebody on the board will get round to it sometime if they think it's important to have such things up to date. But Hey! Thanks for your suggestion Nutty! You're always so helpful.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you update the article you were asking about yet? I aim to be helpful where I can. I'm not much of an editor anymore, but you sure are! Nutty Rouxnever mind 21:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I answered your question above Nutty.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It's irrelevant. I updated the page with the new trustees yesterday. - Grant (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Grant.--ADtalkModerator 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ground rules[edit]

I think it is obvious that the Board need to edit their pages on the site as needed - promptly, and stop mocking users who wonder what is going on. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this. Sterile's comment above was the first I'd heard of the foundation's website, which doesn't appear to be linked anywhere else at RW, including on our RationalMedia Foundation page. For whose benefit are you posting board minutes online if you don't tell the RW community where to look for them? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The most recent minutes haven't been approved. And heaven forbid if it takes some time for us to make a transition! No one's paid here. Further, they are far less important than characterized, as per usual, and not every nonprofit puts their minutes on-line. We certainly aren't going to post the board's discussion of legal matters on-line. Sterilesig.svgtalk 10:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I am the secretary now. I take responsibility for keeping minutes. Trent is responsible for posting them on the main RMF site, which was done before this section got out of control, probably because of me. The minutes are corporate formalities. They are on the main site for anyone who wishes to see them, not solely for the RW community, as the RMF's aim is to reach out to a broader audience and it was always troubling to some of us that we were putting too much on RW. There seems to continue to be some kind of misunderstanding about the role of the RMF. That part, at least, is addressed in the RMF page. The disappointing oversight here was in not making sure that rationalmedia.org was prominently displayed where relevant. I honestly thought it had been since Blue made the extremely helpful suggestion that I snatch the domain up when we were spoke near the beginning of last term. I'm very sorry that I didn't know better and was a dick about that. In my self-aggrandizing non-defense, Nutty Roux is frequently a dick online, but a rockstar everywhere else. We did our job other than making sure you were well-informed of that one fact. The only changes you might wish to make to the RMF page are reflected in the minutes for our last meeting, which haven't been approved yet. They are, nonetheless, presently on rationalmedia.org, though may contain a few trivial changes once we vote on a pending motion. This is more detail than you asked for, but I hope I could help. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The talk page seems to be replete with people asking about minutes from this time last year. The answers do not seem to be particularly helpful.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for final approval from the board for the few existing publication on the page before publishing about the new site on wiki. The goal will be to fishbowl the existing articles on the RWF/RMF and move everything over to the new site. tmtoulouse 16:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you find compelling about the old minutes, Bob? What decisions were interesting to you, and what suggestions do you have? Sterilesig.svgtalk 18:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite frankly I have very little interest in year-old minutes. What I do think is important is that the board should do the things that it says it is going to do. If the board says it going to publish them then it should do so and not attack individuals who ask questions about the subject.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Who promised you this when? Seriously, I don't understand the obsession. Minutes are usually approved at the soonest at the next possible meeting. It's a luxury sooner. Sterilesig.svgtalk 20:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I also don't see where it's written that the RMF is beholden to RW at all. I'm not trying to be contrary in saying so, but I've read the RMF bylaws and I don't really see these requirements some people are talking about. - Grant (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it is not stated. But it is elected by the RW community and an election certainly implies that an elected body should be responsible in at least some sense to its electorate.
But even putting that aside, my point is that surely if it says it is going to do something then it should do it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
We have an obligation to consider what people send us and to seek input in matters that overlap the wiki and the board, and for other projects if we ever get there. We have the an obligation to give an overall direction of the foundation, for which minutes are not the best form of communication. I'm less certain about minutes and smaller details. That is all. Sterilesig.svgtalk 20:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
minutes should be the list of items discussed and action points of who is going to do what and by when. Minutes should be issued withing about a week of the meeting so any action points in error can be advised and corrected. Leaving minutes till the next meeting can lead to unproductive meetings in my experiance. What is the relation between the RMF and the wiki ? How is the RMF funded ? I find many of the comments above to be just confusing. Hamster (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In most organizations, minutes approved by the people at the meeting at the next meeting such they can verify they are accurate. For example, MediaWiki Foundation doesn't post their minutes for several months after the meeting, for example: [3] At the current time, all of the money raised by the foundation via the fundraisers here goes to running the wiki/blog or keeping the foundation in order as a nonprofit. It's conceivable they could be used for legal costs. We've have no other projects "running." One could imagine a donor giving money for endowment support or some other media project. Sterilesig.svgtalk 23:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This would be all well and good if the RMF Board actually had "meetings", which they haven't in years. They discuss via an email group, so the pretense of "minutes" falls by the wayside. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Great, so the board gets scolded for being not nice, and yet Human comes back with not only a rude post, but one that is factually incorrect. Didn't you "observe" last year? Sterilesig.svgtalk 17:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I will say that, looking at the latest minutes, I am pleased with the work you guys seem to be getting done. Don't let the naysayers bug you, Sterile. You've always done a hell of a job as Chairman. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

New user with an obviously trolling username[edit]

Don't know what the policy on these guys is, but check Recent Changes, he's there. Last time I pointed something like this out I was told to fuck off, so whatever. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

He shows up sometimes. Sometimes we rename him, othertimes we go "eh"--Mikal | lakiM 23:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Is he by any chance Premarital sex is unbelievavbly sick, sinful, evil, amoral, degenerate filth. The fact that such a heinous crime against God Almighty does not warrant the death penalty is a sign of how morally bankrupt we are? --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 01:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
No, that makes two such usernames, though I'm sure they're the same guy. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 06:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh, that was an example from three years ago. There have been many such usernames, not just two. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to call out usernames that sound obviously trollish, we'd have to include many regular admins and contributors to this wiki. Because your username sounds "trollish" doesn't mean you don't have anything meaningful to contribute in all situations. --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 07:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? A guy who chooses a userame advocating shooting LGBT people might turn out to make productive & meaningful contributions to this site? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, NW, I'm talking about blatant and disturbing advocacy of violence here. As in, if the guy actually believed the shit he puts in these names, I would wonder why he isn't in prison. But it's obvious he's just trolling. I don't know to whom you're referring but I certainly wouldn't describe the name of any regular here as "blatantly trolling". Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"Jew Destroyer" was another one. That was the one that, when I pointed out that it was inappropriate to allow on here, I was told to "go cry myself to sleep" or something similar. This kind of thing is why I don't like talking to people, on here or in general. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
He's been doing that for YEARS. Hell, back when Rationalwikiwiki was a thing, he had his own page. --Revolverman (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but can we come up with a coherent policy about how to handle people like this? I don't know of any. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"Do the obviously sensible thing and rename these fuckwits to a numerical code"? - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking to rename them to snarky things, but that works too. Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 11:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Already covered under RW:CS #Renaming users. There's no particular guideline on what to rename them to, but who cares? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel
I would rename them "some bored middle schooler" on the occasions when I feel mature enough, and "Twattycake McDickinass" at all other times. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 13:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
-1 - Replacing homophobic usernames with different homophobic usernames. Way to go. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so how about change homophobic usernames to homoerotic ones? Compro01 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Heard that wooshing sound? That's the joke flying over your head, miles away. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 15:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. Would you mind explaining it to me? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the Yahtzee and South Park references, there's the deliberate hipocrisy in me accusing the trolls of being "some bored middle schooler" and me stating my immaturity. It seems it was a tad too subtle for you. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Deliberate hypocrisy is one of those comedic devices that suffer a lot from the conditions of online text communication and thus often needs some amount of setup work to go with it online. Nullahnung (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
How about "Totally Not Gay"? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Fucking again[edit]

*sigh* Check Recent Changes. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Open your heart, it's gonna be alright 21:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


1963 pages were edited in Apr 2014, but only 134 pages were edited at least ten times. These pages are represented by the pie diagrams. The size indicates the number of edits, the color the namespace of the page. The contributions of the top ten editors to a page are shown as slices of the pie, the edits of any further editor are grouped together. The circles are inscribed be the name of the page (for the full name, you have to take into account the namespace). Below the name, you find the number of total edits and the number of editors contributing to the page. The top editors are named.

--larron (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

WIGO:CP is only the second most edited page? It's clearly time to let it go. Vulpius (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a possible arguement to be made about the existence of The entire space just for CP topics, i guess, if previous months also only have just/almost entirely WIGO:CP edits :P--Mikal | lakiM 16:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have found Conservapedia to have become largely irrelevant on the Internet, to be honest. I think that we should probably start weening off it in a little while. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
But, of course, it's not down to me, and if the community wants it, that's fine. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 21:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Just thinking back, that's probably the 240th time a similar suggestion has been made - the first was probably in 2007. Scream!! (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
(Earliest I can find is actually 2008: Debate:Boycott time) Scream!! (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Heh. That's interesting. But if so many suggestions are being made, what is the general consensus across the community? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that everyone thinks it'd be a good thing to drop CP references & stuff, but then someone there does or says something and it all starts up again. Scream!! (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess that makes sense. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
My general idea has been keep some CP stuff, say about the sysops (Andy and TK would deserve articles of their own, for being the spearhead and TK for being one of the main reasons it died as a possible place to use, the rest could have sections on a article), WIGO CP, maybe something else we could justify in mainspace and thats about it. --Mikal | lakiM 22:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

*Sigh* That shit again?

Monthly edits per namespace by non-anonymous editors
  • Contributions to the Conservapedia namespaces are to an all-time low.
  • Material on Conservapedia attracted many editors to this site in the past, but that won't happen that much in the future, with Conservapedia being the 97th most important conservative website....
  • I'm all for pruning trees, but against cutting off vital branches.
  • In 2011, we had more than twice as many edits per month as in 2014. I don't see how "weening of Conservapedia" will change this trend.
  • I enjoy many aspects of RationalWiki, but it can sometimes be quite taxing. Amusingly the discussions on WIGO Talk:CP are the most uncontroversial exchanges on RW, so, it is really the place to relax...

--larron (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry, I don't really have access to the stats, and am (relatively) n00 here, so I wasn't aware that this was a common thing. I thought that I was being different, and changing shit up a little, to be honest. But if what you say is true (which it is), then I guess it makes sense to keep the big things. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 23:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems like somebody requests a deletion of the Conservapedia space every other month. It would be sort of fitting if the death of Conservapedia also ends up killing RationalWiki. --Yukabacera (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Westonbirt (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC) : Nah, I while CP is why we are here and a large chunk of what interests people here, it's not gonna "kill" RW, much like the demise of Fox News wouldn't necessarily kill the Daily Show. Personally, I spend more time on RW looking up woo and logical fallacies content and such. It's also content we can be quite proud of.