RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive227

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 June 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>, <225>, <226>, <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>, (new)(back)

Contents

Firefox 29: more malware[edit]

Firefox updates act more and more like malware. Downloading a "version 29" update that added a bunch of jokers to Firefox. My QuickJava toolbar vanished, and had to be restored by yet another addon. My theme that had all of the various toolbars displaying text alone was scrapped. I had to install two more addons to restore functionality that I used to take for granted, and even so, it isn't back to how it was, and now I have to go huntinbg for "Back" and "Home".

Removing the option to be rid of Javascript was apparently only the start of Firefox deciding to take matters out of my hands. (Way to go there, bros: disable and hide a security feature without telling anybody.) I'd move to Chrome except that I need the functionality of Linky and Bazzacuda, and am not sure that anything there is comparable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Classic Theme Restorer, because seriously, Australis UI sucks. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Bisexual Jewish mixed-race Caribbean Latino, get my oppression points 15:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
LMGTFY [1] [2] [3] [4]. Chrome won't let you remove favicons from the bookmarks bar, but it does cleverly allow you to use the favicon alone for sites you use frequently and easily recognize, etc. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
all i want is a firefox that doesn't hang itself trying to do anything. And maybe a better way folr it to handle flash videos. --Mikal | lakiM 15:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Apart from a few annoying changes, I like it - quite elegant. The few addons I have all seem to work. It's caught up again. But I wonder how long it will go on for. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Mozilla apparently goes out of its way to make the link to downloads of older versions hard to find, but there it is. I upgraded back to 28 and turned off automatic updates. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend the route of keeping 29 and using the Classic Theme Restorer add-on, because 29 does improve performance and memory consumption. But whatever floats your boat, mate. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 16:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's also interesting as an object lesson in how conspiracy theories get started. I've trusted the Mozilla developers a lot less since they removed the control for Javascript from the default capabilities; this too required an add-on to restore. Disabling Javascript (and cookies) is the only way to browse some sites, and gets rid of lightbox nuisances as well. It's as if the developers have taken the side of the websites that want to serve up unwanted garbage and install page view counters, as opposed to the person actually operating the browser. I'm expecting them to find some way to disable ad blocking while proclaiming it's somehow for your own good as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat related: I'm always stunned that Adblock/Adblock plus still work/are still made avaialble by Chrome/Firefox. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fan of updating browsers for security reasons. If it makes something not work, so be it. Sterilesig.svgtalk 17:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've installed Pale Moon now and migrated my Firefox settings to it, and thus far it seems familiar. To be honest, though, I suspect the "you must update or be insecure" business is severely oversold, especially if you already have a working antivirus and anti-malware installed. I mean to continue to use Windows XP until I'm no longer using any of the systems built to run it. For some reason, I prefer this to paying Microsoft for the privilege of getting told that I must drop what I am doing to reboot the system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Oversold? Not at all. Using software that is no longer supported is simply dangerous, and no anti-virus or anti-malware tools will catch everything. It's your risk to take, I suppose, but it only takes one success on the part of some malicious entity to make things hell for you. Consider, for example, the serious vulnerability in Internet Explorer that will never be fixed on Windows XP. You have other browsers you can choose from, but it's inevitable that any browser you pick will reach a point where it can no longer be supported on XP's architecture. - Grant (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I own a web development firm with my business partner. We're small, with maybe a dozen or so clients we manage. Every day, we use our security software to watch dozens of bots attempting to brute force their way into our sites in order to plant malware and other nasty junk, much of which targets security vulnerabilities in old browsers. In the grand scheme of things we're a tiny company with only local clients, and yet it's so easy to program a bot that can shotgun this attempted malware all over the place that we're still not safe. - Grant (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, SoT, tell Java developers that. Sterilesig.svgtalk 17:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That is the truth. Among its many failings Firefox is nowadays the least secure browser. You do not want to be using an old version. --Someon (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, I've migrated to Pale Moon; seems fine so far, more responsive, and loaded all of the add-ons except for the ones I installed trying to restore functions to Firefox 29. Javascript, like Flash, is something I leave off by default; most of the things it does are things I don't want to happen. If I come across a site that won't work without it, I first assess how badly I want to see it.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not oversold. You really do need to keep stuff like your web browser up to date. I seriously advise you to go to FF29, with automatic updates, and the classic theme restorer (I do this too) - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The prominence of the idea that browser security is unimportant is one of the more distressing things I've noted since starting my company. Even a single infected website can take advantage of an outdated browser to cause serious problems, and given how prevalent these types of attacks are on websites, I would think twice (or a few dozen times) about browsing the Internet without a fully updated browser. I wonder how many compromises could be prevented if the majority did the same.
For extra fun, a friend of mine who uses Windows XP refused to stop using IE even after the latest security vulnerability was exposed. His argument was loosely, "What are the chances it could happen to me?" Sigh. - Grant (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm used to running old software. Two years ago, we finally replaced the last machine that was running Windows 98. I routinely use dozens of old applications. Still use Office for Windows 95; it still does everything I call on it to do, and I own it already. I routinely use Corel PhotoPaint 7; again, it's the version I bought and I know it like the back of my hand. I will not buy software on a subscription plan. Now these old applications probably have the saving grace of not involving the Internet anyhow. I don't need the Internet in my word processor. So where software is involved I'm very much of the philosophy that if it still works it ain't broke, and doesn't need fixing.
I've completed the migration of all my home machines Windows machines from Firefox to Pale Moon (a lighter weight Gecko-based browser compatible with most Firefox addons - http://www.palemoon.org/ ). If Firefox is going to disable frequently used features "for my own good" and randomly muck about with my themes, and then tell me that "if you want it back install an add-on", then Firefox can go screw itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with liking old software, but it can be dangerous to run outdated software on any computer connected to the Internet. I understand the points you're making, but you've sort of skirted around the point I made above. Every website you visit is being bombarded by dozens, if not hundreds (or thousands for large enough sites) attempts to implant malware. All it takes is one of those sites to slip up once for you to have a very bad time if you're using old software with known security vulnerabilities. - Grant (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I know. This is why, on your and several others' counsel, for which I thank you, I switched to a currently supported Gecko-based browser. On the other hand, my last XP tabletop at the house is basically backup file storage for everyone else in the house; almost all of the files on the system exist several places elsewhere. It serves this purpose well enough; I'm just not willing to pay Microsoft to change it, and it would be doable but botherous (without immediate benefit) to move the system to Linux. I also have several XP laptops. Not paying Microsoft to change them either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. If you're concerned about updating, I would definitely recommend you move to Linux as your old laptops begin to die. You can always dual boot one machine with Windows for any Windows-specific software you may need, and then the rest of your hardware can just run some Linux distribution. At least that way most of the updating is free. - Grant (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat OT: I've been having this annoying issue with Firefox on Ubuntu for several versions now: I google something, click a search result, then use the back button to get back to the Google result page - except both the search results and my search terms have vanished, and all I see is the Google header with the empty search box. Pressing Ctrl+F5 restores the search results. Doesn't happen every time, but frequently enough to be rather annoying. Did anyone else experience this, and more importantly, any idea how to stop this from happening? --2.39.15.180 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I get that. (Win8). I presumed it was Google. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want a Mozilla based browser that's secure but doesn't have some of the odd stuff that Firefox has decided to go with you could try Pale Moon which also has a proper 64bit version. Here are some diffs https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CT9YLUjMyb5Xf8HHcQ66lVh-SALb7cWTmUKgeJOvk00/pubhtml Project page http://www.palemoon.org/ The forums are rather good and the developer is often around to answer questions. Sphincter (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

argumentum ad aspergerum?[edit]

Interesting pattern. Every ideological culture that is threatened by rational analysis detrimental to its positions has an epithet for rational analysis itself. The left has many and varied epithets depending on the strain, such as referring to logic as fascist or patriarchal. For the right-wing authoritarian set, it's "autism".

"Based on my premises, this conclusion is true"

"Indeed it is, but one of your premises is wrong, and here's why"

"Autism!!1!! Quit neckbearding bro. Your argument is neither right nor wrong; the fact that you are making an argument is what is wrong."

If I shave, my arguments will become more coherent. Even to those who can't see my neck. Burger (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What the fuck are you going on about? --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think he's trying to explain the concept of dismissing an argument by calling the person making said argument autistic. I think? I actually had to read this three times before I came to this conclusion. Zero (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
After rereading this seven times, I think he's referring to the kinda thing Schlafly does when he accuses his dissenters of "LIBERAL DECEIT" or something.--|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg If you post on Reddit, a space whale'll crush your house 19:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like mostly nonsense. "Neckbeard" is a generic internet taunt aimed at perceived losers (now increasingly eclipsed by fedora-related gibes) and has no particular political dimension. "Aspie", "autistic", "retard" etc. are also general taunts and - while they tend not to be used by people concerned about political correctness or marginalising the disabled - they certainly aren't terms particularly belonging to "the right-wing authoritarian set". As for "Your argument is neither right nor wrong; the fact that you are making an argument is what is wrong", nobody says or even implies this sort of thing. And as for "referring to logic as fascist or patriarchal", this is a lame old strawman. If anybody does genuinely believe this sort of thing, it's a bizarre subset of feminism or some kind of hardline social constructionism and not at all representative of "the left". WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
And as for "referring to logic as fascist or patriarchal", this is a lame old strawman. These kinda people got a good deal of exposure via Sokal's excellent book Intellectual Impostures (Fashionable Nonsense if you're in the US). While the fuckfaces showcased in the book are by no means representative of all pomo, a good deal of the book's readers do think that those fuckfaces speak for all of postmodernism (not that pomo itself is any good, but then again, I'm a CS student minoring in physics). --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Everyone gets hugged and turns into Tang 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Argumentum ad cellarium. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Aspergerum... it's a vegetable you eat with Hollandaise sauce, isn't it? --93.71.91.75 (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Been watching Cosmos. Tyson devotees, tell me something...[edit]

I was watching Cosmos last night, and I was struck by the moment where NDGT spoke (briefly) about the important role that Christianity played in Faraday's life. I then flashed back a few episodes to when he used an organ in a cathedral to illustrate some stuff about sound waves. It's clear that much of the show is set up to attack common creationist and other anti-science arguments (the stuff about the evolution of the eye was a key instance of this). But I'm wondering -- does Tyson subsribe to some version of NOMA? He's not really an anti-religion guy a la Dawkins or PZM, is he? I get the sense that he's trying to argue that there's nothing wrong with religion as long as you don't use it to deny scientific truth, or that he's trying to show certain types of religious folk that they have nothing to fear from science, if they get past fundamentalism and literalism and let science and religion each do the jobs they're meant to do... TeenageWasteland (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

He's never advocated NOMA, but: "I don’t have the time, the interest, the energy to (be an 'in your face atheist'). I'm a scientist."
I don't find it a problem arguing that you can take an active interest in the natural world and still be deeply religious; that's been the case for hundreds of years. Sagan didn't get so influential by yelling "Your beliefs are a delusion!" to those who disagreed with him - that's always been one of New Atheism's major problems. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall of whatever focus group(s) got involved in the programming of that series, and the choice of imagery used in it. It's pretty clear that it was crafted at least partly with an eye to being a response to creationist claims, a countervailing voice of reason (and science.) I don't recall the cathedral acoustics example, so I can't speak to the subtext of that bit, but large high-ceilinged spaces with hard walls have been widely known for their reverberance for many hundreds of years. There's a big room with a cathedral ceiling that I visit sometimes, and on those occasions I bring a small acoustic driver in the form of a shoulder-mounted box with strings stretched across it, just because the room's response is so rewarding to play with. Also, organ pipes are an easily graspable example of resonators whose size corresponds to wavelength. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't give any credence to religion, but it is simply impossible to counter belief with rational/logical argumentation. The evolution-denying, biblical literalism crowd appears to be an American offshoot of Christianity anyway. I've met people who identify as Christian, yet don't outright reject whole fields of science. I've also met people who believe in all kinds of nonsense, regardless of whether they're Christians or not. That fact is however, that someone who deeply holds a particular belief, will not be swayed from that belief. Arguments only influence people's outlook on something on which they aren't ideologically predisposed. So the New Atheism approach only works on people who weren't that much of a believer in the first place. Tyson and the Cosmos crew probably think that science education works better without attacking the potential viewers' beliefs in every segment. For some segments, like the one on evolution, that may not necessarily be avoided; ergo the negative reactions from the Creationist crowd. Bismarck (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Dividing halfway-sane Christians from the creationists is a plausible strategy. Bill Nye applied it dealing with Ken Ham - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
All the Christians I know are sane. Well, as sane as most. But then I've never (knowingly) met a creationist. Equivalent shows in the UK (such as Wonders) don't seem to pay any lip service to religion unless it's part of the history of the topic. They just talk about the science. There have been programmes about the conflict between religion and science - Dawkins did a series a couple of years ago. But I think most people, even the religious, wouldn't have come into contact with anti-science religion except perhaps in Northern Ireland where it's a bit of a thing. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I had a friend who grew up in my city, with liberal christian parents, and so took her years to actually realize that 1) nebraska is a red state beyond many others and 2) Not all christians are cool people ok with the idea of gay folk. Most christians i know are fundamentalists, but that comes with being one for 18 years. As for this topic, i'm going to agree that not actively attacking religion as a whole is the way to go, tends ot help get past the lawn. That and keep the show on a major TV network.--Mikal | lakiM 15:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
w2ander over to astorehouseofknowledge (aSoK) and try to talk science with PJR. Hamster (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Do I have to? Could I just dig rusty spoons into my eyes instead? Ajkgordon (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only person who finds it genuinely funny that Cosmos comes on Fox? Crustacean27 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The Fox Network and Fox News, while owned by the same corporation, are seperate entities. There's nothing remarkable about any disagreement between the shows shown on the network and the editorial stance of the news channel. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"Sagan didn't get so influential by yelling "Your beliefs are a delusion!" to those who disagreed with him." - well, I haven't watched the original Cosmos series, but I've read the book based on it, and if that is anything to go by, he pretty much did. Religion is painted consistently as a social net negative and as basically pure superstition there. Octo8 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
He did indeed do that, and it's generally forgotten by opponents of new atheism that he did, but arguably it's not how he became influential. Of course, Dawkins and Hitchens were pretty influential before their new atheist books as well - David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

John Oliver is awesome[edit]

Barely off the Daily Show and he gives us this. For those who can't watch/don't feel like watching, he hosts a "mathematically representative climate change debate", with 3 deniers and 97 supporters of the evidence. Conveying just how lopsided this "debate" is seems to be beyond even the supposedly liberal media; Oliver is our antidote. (Apologies if this is old news. Or if it isn't, feel free to WIGO.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WIGO Zero (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That clip - just that clip - convinced me to get HBO. Vampires and boxing? Whatever. Oliver! Yes. MarmotHead (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Can he do the same for homeopathy & anti-vax? Please! (why does Chrome flag "homeopathy" as a spelling error?)Scream!! (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This is pretty much the best thing ever. I love how the media paints climate change as still "under debate". The debate ended 20 years ago. Next up, is evolution real or did Satan plant the dinosaur fossils? --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 15:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
God just put them there to test our faith. That is a genuine argument I heard from someone. Crustacean27 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Angelina murder victim[edit]

Angelina Latice Collier, (before marriage she was Pollard) was an atheist who promoted black non-believers' organisations. Tragically Angelina was murdered in a domestic violence affair leaving three orphaned children. A fund has been set up for the children's college education when they are older, to contribute please go to Angie's Legacy Fund. See Non-Believer Murdered — Let’s Help Her Kids and Black Atheists Of America. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Donating to a college fund for some orphaned kids is fair enough, but I've got to say that politicising this as an atheist cause makes me uneasy. Did whatever happened to this woman have anything to do with atheism? Is giving to an atheist's kids somehow more important than to any other children in similar circumstances? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
She was an atheist activist before she died, Christians look after their own ans so should we. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No argument with that! Scream!! (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"We"? Ajkgordon (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Me an' Prox... :-) Scream!! (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No. We should not just "look after our own". I don't give a shot if the mum was an atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even a member of the WBC- I would support something like this regardless. Her atheism is irrelevant to the situation, and should not play a part in one's decision of whether to donate or not. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 08:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
True, dat. But if Godbotherers won't help (Dunno if they do?) we should make a bit of extra effort. Scream!! (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, good point, though I'm sure that only the most fundamental of the fundamentalists would really abstain from donating just 'coz she was an atheist activist. I think we should just see how this turns out, and if it's getting ignored, or she's copping shit for being atheist, then I think, of course, the atheist/agnostic/sceptic community should start adding a bit of extra effort. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 08:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the name for (cont) …[edit]

… arguing "for" something but so "over the top" that it actually argues against? As an example. Scream!! (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Related to Poe, maybe? Brutal \m/ESSIAH 07:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't shoot the message. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Has not clipped his nail in nearly a year 11:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just parody. Ikanreed (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

More like satire, with an extra helping of reductio ad absurdum tossed in. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Something maybe worth a look (social psychology)[edit]

There's this thing called Social psychology that was allegedly invented after WWII but as a skilled amateur psychologist myself I haven't heard of it until now. It claims to bridge the gap between psychology and sociology but doesn't seem to have much to with either. Qua Wikipedia: In psychology, social psychology is the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others.[1] By this definition, scientific refers to the empirical method of investigation. The terms thoughts, feelings, and behaviors include all psychological variables that are measurable in a human being. The statement that others' presence may be imagined or implied suggests that we are prone to social influence even when no other people are present, such as when watching television, or following internalized cultural norms. Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the interaction of mental states and immediate social situations. In general, social psychologists have a preference for laboratory-based, empirical findings. Social psychology theories tend to be specific and focused, rather than global and general. Scientific? Empirical? Doesn't sound it. How do you study someone's aura in a laboratory environment? That's what they seem to be talking about. Sounds like woo to me guys. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just a discipline of psychology, and I assume by "laboratory environment" they mean psychological studies, the way most disciplines handle them. Psychologists do generally refer to their work spaces as labs. The analogy to "auras" is misplaced, I think, and I don't think this is at all woo or within the purview of RW. There may be a few individuals abusing the underpinnings of social psychology in some way, but I wouldn't know. - Grant (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's legitimate science subject to all the normal strengths/flaws of the scientific method used well/poorly. The above really describes psychology focused on our perceptions of others. If I see my mom as a judgmental disciplinarian (she's not), I'd be more likely to think of her and feel shame/guilt/rebellion when I did something "bad" even if I haven't lived with her in more than 20 years. That's part of what the WP quote refers to. As for "laboratory", some psychologists I've worked with call their cubicle farm and two conference rooms a lab. It's odd, but it's where their research takes place. MarmotHead (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I very nearly minored in psychology (before realizing it was nigh impossible to do that and physics at the same time), and one of my good friends throughout university was a psychologist, so I got a bit of exposure to the lingo. Psychology does tend to straddle the line between the hard and soft sciences, so I can understand why some might question its validity as a subject of scientific pursuit, but I'm firmly in the camp that it is indeed scientific. - Grant (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose well-controlled tests will be tricky to accomplish, since the phenomena being studied amount to observer effects. I don't see what auras have to do with it, unless "aura" is taken to mean an internal notion of someone else's attitude, which can range from more or less accurate to completely imaginary. There have been times in my musical practice when the quality of my playing was influenced by who I thought could hear it, even if they were uncritical, not minding one way or another, or not even there at all. Performance nerves are another thing, perhaps related. Images of people on a TV screen? Maybe, if one is in the habit of talking back to them... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
p.s. Would this be better placed in the saloon bar? SJC 15:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I think so. MarmotHead (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Psychological testing tends to rely more on the kind of studies often seen in the medical world, where trials are undertaken on many groups and aggregate data is then studied. It's always more complicated than that, because there are branches of psychology that focus nearly entirely on the processes that occur in the brain when these types of stimuli occur (these tend to be far closer to hard science than soft science), and most in-depth psychological exploration involves a mixing of these disciplines. I very much enjoy psychology, and it's one "human" thing I'm incredibly interested in. It's a pity my minor didn't work out, as I enjoyed the several years of psychology courses I took and/or informally sat in on. - Grant (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
How does this allegedly differ from other branches of psychology? Unless you think those are "woo" as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

UFOlogist was allegedy trolled by Air Force[edit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alejandro-rojas/exair-force-law-enforceme_b_5312650.html

I skimmed through the FOIA documents, seems like all mundane reporting on the statements and artifacts produced by Mr. Bennewitz in his research of the alien conspiracy. There didn't seem to be any information in there to back up claims by Doty of producing false docs and breaking into the conspiracy theorist's home. However, whoever wrote the article on Dulce base here might find it interesting.— Unsigned, by: 24.107.172.114 / talk / contribs 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, The huffpo article written by this "open minded" guy just recycles old rumors of gubbmint treachery against brave whistleblower UFOlogists. Leuders (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Operation American Spring[edit]

Today is the day for the start of the next american revolution, 10-30 million+ flooding the national mall in DC. So far so go, boots on the ground report about a dozen so far, so they are approaching their expectations! tmtoulouse 14:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't you know that the relationship of number of protestors to time is exponential? Ikanreed (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think after the last few million wingnut marches, we might have to develop an entirely new arithmetic to understand how they come up with their estimates. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
From Right Wing Watch: "Terry Trussell, Operation American Spring’s chief of staff, and far-right radio host Mark Hoffmann are warning attendees to prepare for violence and possibly even a drone strike to “destroy the capital just to get rid of us.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/operation-american-spring-5-things-know-about-rally-overthrow-obama#sthash.imQdkjR6.dpuf" Nutty Roux (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This is is sedition, right? Where did I put all that sedition stuff I was looking at when Jpatt started popping off about armed revolution coming. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Live stream, I count about 15 people. tmtoulouse 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Watched a few minutes of the live stream until a video ad for window curtains came on. Fave part was the guy in a red shirt screaming at the camera "where you at, people!?" complaining of poor attendance. And the woman who explained to the camera that many people couldn't get there because "they're trapped in the camps" (the camps turned out to be campgrounds whose access roads got flooded and closed) Leuders (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

...Is a smashing success! At least 2.7 BILLION have turned out to bring Washington D.C. to a grinding halt! Barack HUSSEIN Obama was seen to deliver a tearful apology, where he took personal responsibility for Benghazi and 9/11 before resigning and running out of the city, chased by hundreds of bald eagles! And just as it seemed like things couldn't get any better, JESUS descended upon a feathery cloud and took up the newly vacant office of President, but not before smiting anybody who dared to associate with the Democratic party or the mainstream GOP! --Captain Wolff (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You forgot that the whole country entered into spontaneous applause. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I've got canned heat in my heels tonight, baby 17:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
And then President Jesus made that speech out of Independence Day. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait!!! I count about 30 people now. This protest is growing rapidly!!! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well it is a 100% increase. If it keeps growing at that rate, they'll only need 15 days to reach a million! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Owww that wind noise, did nobody bring a mic muffler? SophieWilderModerator 21:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Operation American Spring Failure. tmtoulouse 19:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I also found this pretty amusing, got to see this live glad someone captured it [5]. I am easily amused. tmtoulouse 20:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Did anybody even think of the logistics of getting 30 million people into Washington, D.C.? Not even that many people show up for the freaking Olympics or the World Cup, and cities still shit themselves and spend billions of dollars building infrastructure capable of handling that many people. Did no one stop and think "Hey, how are we even going to fit that many people on the National Mall", or did they pull what sounded like an impressive number out of their butts and just try roll with it as if it would actually happen? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Meh, Woodstock and Jesus would have it covered. What confuses me is this: Operation American Spring. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
So... their plan was to make john kerry (if im remembering my line of succession right) president? --Mikal | lakiM 03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Not quite; President pro tempore of the Senate comes before the Secretary of State. Patrick Leahy would have become President, provided they planned on sticking to their "we'll do this Constitutionally" promise. - Grant (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Order is VP, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, followed by cabinet secretaries starting from SecState, followed by SecTreas, SecDef, AG, SecInt (current one not eligible), SecAg, and so on in order of creation, with the Secretary of Homeland Security rounding out the list. Then again, given that the copies of the constitution these people seem to be reading appear to be splattered with whiteout, it's possible they feel the Presidential Succession Act is unconstitutional. Compro01 (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, let's be honest, these blatherskites would settle for President Boehner. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 04:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The back-pedaling[edit]

Okay, seeing as this is already coming apart, we need a sub-section for the putsch-putzes trying to minimize their embarrasment. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

From Google+: "Only Liberals count the Tea Party out because they want so bad to "click their Ruby Slippers" while living in a dream land of OZ - Tea Party is working under the radar and the proof will be in November!!!!"

wow 10 million people dont look like much. Maybe they spread out around the monument ? Hamster (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The invisible majority. Vulpius (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
But see the glorious web page. (Don't laugh, please) Scream!! (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
snrk. ...ptfbbt... stifling it as best I can, boss (they gots no capable writers on staff, by the look of it) 68.187.216.117 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
"Assumptions: Millions of Americans will participate"--"Shut up, Brx." 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I could imagine millions of americans doing this if apathy wasn't a thing. --Mikal | lakiM 03:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow, yet another wonderful tasty bunch of nut-jobs! Where is article? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Waiting for an interested party to write it, I suppose. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks as if they're not interesting, amusing or big enough to justify the effort. After a glance at the twitter hash and a couple of the vids, I certainly don't think they're worth it.Scream!! (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much, yeah. They're a footnote in some other article -only their hubris is notable. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Trawling around the web I found this[edit]

it seems to be an a new erowid, but with a forum out on the front porch. They also purport to haz it a brandee-new, bright, shiny wiki, but they seem to have retained the quaint Romanian custom of TOTAL control which is, of course, anathema for a wiki project.

Question: Does we haz it peoples who know of this and is it a, thing?

C®ackeЯ 18:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Police light.svg
- Blue light be this thing. Leuders (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
You mean, drug forums and wikis? Sure, that'd be a thing. I'm not sure what the question you're asking here is - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The wiki's management reeks of Citizendium. I remember how fun was the drama at the CZ and WIGOCZ talk pages. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg The best part about Reddit is the drama 03:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Matt Drudge[edit]

...has apparently deleted all of his tweets, thereby destroying a fantastic archive of internet nuttery. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why clear your mind when you don't use it for thinking anyhow? --Kels (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had an unusually religious weekend...[edit]

...It started on Saturday with a dress rehearsal for a Miracle play of Noye's Flood, by Benjamin Britten. My church was putting it on as a sort of year-end culmination for the various youth and children's choirs. Immediately after the rehearsal, I went to a Sounders game, and ran into a dozen or so Jeezus Fundies parading around outside Centurylink Field. I don't know who they're affiliated with, but they're fond of big yellow signs saying "Holy Bible". Anyways, I approached one of these guys and began questioning God's divinity (I enjoy playing Devil's advocate) using arguments from this here site. The poor soul tried to argue back, but gave up after about three minutes and roared in my face "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL FOR CHALLENGING A DISCIPLE OF THE LORD, SO THERE!!!" The best part is: His microphone and attached bullhorn captured the whole exchange, so afterwards he was getting some very nasty looks from the sports fans, and horrified looks from the other Jeezus Fundies. This unusually Jesus-filled weekend stretched to today, where we actually performed Noye's Flood. Hence, I have seen both the lighter and darker sides of Christianity in the course of 24 hours. --Captain Wolff (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What church do you attend? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
First Presbyterian Church of Bellevue. About as liberal as Christianity gets. --Captain Wolff (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't tell me you're a counter-tenor... early music has led to some of my favorite memories. Bass-baritone here, mostly bass, but can cover tenor parts if I don't have to sustain the high tessitura. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh yah? can you do Amfortas' lament? an all time favorite. nobsJesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does. 22:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
q: Say. old man, can you play the fiddle?
a: Don't know, I've never tried.
Not much of a Wagner fan, and I'm not sure how well he fits under the "early music" rubric anyhow. Drifting away, to free my soul again, are you, Rob? My first flying instructor used to hum the Ride of the Valkyries whenever he saw Hueys on the tarmac... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Corporate Christianity[edit]

New article on corporate Christianity.

Sophie Wilder suggested it, so I went ahead and started it. Forgive the Proxima-esque intro; I focused more on the body of the article, and much of it needs expanding and rewriting. But I think it's a start. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good start, Stabby! I'll try to do what I can- as a side note, would you mind helping me out with virus and personality disorder? Thanks. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 21:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a name for the informal fallacy of a feeble source seeming authoritative because it appears in many places?[edit]

I am tempted to call it argumentum ad saginatum, perhaps poorly declined dog-Latin for "argument from spam" where a "source" is replicated in various places on the net, to give it the appearance of carrying more weight than it actually does. Does this species of bologna already have a name? It may be related to the earlier phenomenon of a copyist's error being transcribed and repeated. See, for example, "dordWikipedia's W.svg". Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Saginatum means "stuffed" or "well fed". You might be better served with argumentum ad farcimen; I presume that Romans would treat spam as a sort of sausage, and farcimen is any foodstuff made from minced and pressed meat. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That is just sort of difficulty up with which one must put when using dictionary "translations." I was going to go with a translation of sausage, forcemeat, or farcemeat, but wiser heads than mine, it seems, have already dealt with that bit of diction. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
How is that anything more than you indulging the informal logical fallacy of poisoning the well? Whether or not a source is "feeble" in your opinion is irrelevant to the truth value of claims made. — Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs
argument ad populum ? Hamster (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Adding a bit — people commonly point to creationist quotemines, uncritically repeated by credulous creationists all over the internet, as bad sources of information. I do not think it is fair to dismiss them out of hand, as the argument is won on the merits by exposing the inaccuracy of the quote in that context (or simple misrepresentation), and therefore showing it to be an unresponsive non-sequitur. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
He appears to be asking whether he can discount the claim simply because it's "feeble" and appears more authoritative because it gets repeated. The informal fallacy of the argument ad populum rests in the claim that a statement is true because it has been widely repeated. It is a special case of the non-sequitur, as it is actually an empty claim incapable of reaching the truth value of the underlying claim. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
What I am patently asking is if there is a name for this particular flavor of ad populum. It could be related to the limited utility of the "Google search results" metric for determining notability on WP, so it might also be called the argument from SEO. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Related to Publication_bias? TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, a bit. There might also be a connection to the Gish gallop, but with nearly identical snippets distributed in the "publication domain" instead of subtopics spread out in a restricted time domain. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Might be easier to recognise the phenomenon if you gave one or two examples of the thing you're describing. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Most recently I noticed it in a search for Zinčirli, prompted by something at talk:YHWH. It turned up a lot of stuff that looked like copypasta from a bloggy source on WP:Amurru (god), the key being "Cappadocian Zinčirli inscriptions..." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
n.b. That volcano god business doesn't look so much like a case of someone deliberately stuffing a text into various sites to inflate its representation, as a case of the source smelling funny because widely copied. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
"Seeding the field" (analogous to "poisoning the well")? "Error propagation"? "Illusory multiplicity of sources"?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorists consider this sort of thing good evidence: they are attracted to sheer weight of repetitions and redigestions, with no apparent interest in the notion that you can trace how the memes evolved. I saw this lots researching Project Blue Beam. It's like how New Agers and alties feel about appeal to tradition, which they pretty clearly consider much stronger than whether something actually works or not - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Echo chamber? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Nay, it's circlejerk. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock? 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's somewhat related to the idea of the big lie. The difference is it isn't necessarily lie, but (as with a big lie) an iffy source seems to become more believable the more it's cited. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
There is always a relevant xkcd Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Even better, another wiki has a narticle on circular reporting or false confirmation which seems to be just the ticket. Thanks, reddit! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not for me (I'm acrophobic in the extreme) ...[edit]

... but looks real fun (video) Scream!! (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Holy fuck, that's awesome. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 21:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wingsuits. The answer to the Fermi Paradox. Compro01 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd do it. Friggin' love me some roller coasters and would probably be thrilled about this one! Zero (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Next gold article?[edit]

What's a good silver article that's suitable for cover article status? - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Asshole. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
9-11 conspiracy theories, Obama citizenship denial and perhaps Pseudopsychology and Jack Chick --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Put de lime in the coconut, call me in the mornin' 22:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Moon landing hoax is way overdue. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Nommed. Check the talk page. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Bisexual Jewish mixed-race Caribbean Latino, get my oppression points 00:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Pseudoscience was so rated following brief discussion. Frostbyte (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, we actually have a process: Help:Cover stories It's a bit longer than that - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just committed bureaucracy at Pseudoscience too - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to push confabulation to gold for some time. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
NaturalNews, naturally. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A question about LGBT rights in Albania[edit]

I just read about Albania and how despite the fact the majority of Albanians are overwhelmingly opposed to homosexual relationships leaders from both major parties (Edi Rama for the Socialist Party, Bamir Topi for the Democratic Party) support further rights for LGBT couples, including support for same sex marriage. Why are the party leaders opinions on this matter so much saner more progressive than that of their constituents? Are politicians in Albania just awesome? Is it to keep the EU happy? What's going on? ClothCoat (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably both, plus the fact that a) Less than 40% are strictly religious (an aftereffect of the Hoxha years) and b) the bureaucracy has taken laïcité seriously. Like Turkey, we've seen that democratic institutions are essential for long-term pluralism. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Albania also has this: http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201403/burrnesha-albanian-women-living-as-men Bismarck (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit stats?[edit]

Anywhere here we can check to see edits over months? Kind of curious if this place is still decently active. ROPChain (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

LArron is yer fella for all that stuff, he has collected stats for some time now, though you'd need to have a good look to find the most recent data. Worm (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
You can have a look at RationalWiki:Active users and LArron's image uploads.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
a few years ago I made a prediction that recent changes would eventually become unusable as more and more people joined. That hasn't happened yet (for me anyway - two daily looks at RC covers everything). What I have noticed is that people joining is balanced by peple leaving. Even prolific editors like Human and Ty slow down or even leave altogether. The early talk page archives are like a museum of users. TL;DR - the place is still roughly as decently active as ever. SophieWilderModerator 20:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Nono, the recentchanges is becoming unusabe, they are just spam accounts and not editors.--Miekal 20:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't you have that javascript thing that lumps all the new users into one big red chunk? SophieWilderModerator 21:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
lazy. --Miekal 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey[edit]

This reads like a Poe, but I'm pretty sure that it's not. --Edgerunner76...and a hotplate! 19:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a Poe. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
For those who don't want to read the site: it looks like a local (Kansas) version of The Onion. --KevinR1990 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing?[edit]

I deleted this page after someone said its content was a dox drop. Did I do the right thing? SophieWilderModerator 20:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a dox drop. Well done. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I already brung it, bitch. I brung it, opened it, and set it on the table, bitch. 20:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 05:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

UK citizens/residents[edit]

Don't forget to vote in the EU elections tomorrow. Voter turnout for these is always low in the UK (one of the lower in Europe in fact) and parties with an anti-Europe/immigration agenda profit from it, with UKIP expected to make big gains this time around. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

i've just had Brian paddick at the door urging me, or more accurately my flat mate, to vote lib dem. Prior to this, we have been inundated with lib dem leaflets. I think they fear a massacre. Unfortunately for them, I have been disenfranchised by living arrangements and I don't think my flats mate will bother. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I recently moved and didn't re-register in time. Joy. -.- Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It's on the 25th here. And yes, various kinds of wannabe-Nazis are out in force. I need to make a few pictures of the posters. Worse, a lot of them seem to be tying it to religion. :( --ZooGuard (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
What I've observed is that FPTP electoral systems absolutely crush civic interest. Makes people feel powerless. Ikanreed (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Except the EU elections are PR. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep. The PR system is one of the reasons why wingnuts like BNP can win seats in the MEP elections; the other reason being widespread apathy among mainstream voters (hence the low turnout) vs more militant voting behaviour among fringe agenda parties. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I notice widespread inference indifference to the European elections. I would like to pontificate about causes.

  1. When you vote in a national election whoever wins takes power. You see a tangible result. In the European elections various groups are sent to Brussels where they join some coalition or other. The result is a lot less tangible.
  2. When time is up in national elections you can look at your elected representatives - who have been in power - and evaluate their performance and change your vote next time if necessary. It's a lot harder to evaluate the performance of MEP's.
  3. Usually (in Spain anyway) the people who get to go to Brussels are second rate politicians who are being shuffled out of the way. There is not a big name amongst them with a consequent reduction in interest.
  4. Somewhat more contentiously I'm not sure democracy scales very well. The bigger the electorate the more unwieldy and less representative is the result. (Though I have no solution for this.

The upshot of all this is a low turnout. And low turnouts can favour weird fringe groups - like UKIP.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I take it you mean widespread indifference? I was struggling to comprehend the first sentence of your comment before reading the rest. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Indeed. Sorry about that.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not sure who to vote for (German here, not British). Which is, three days to the elections (held on Sunday in Germany) rather unusual for me. The problem is I do want to vote for an anti-European integration party... but the all those parties are reactionaries with disgusting views on women, homosexuals and in general social liberty. On the one hand, given my low regard for the European parliament, it might make sense to send clowns to there... basically, a sort of minor voter sabotage, heh. But on the other hand, I'm loath to give such reactionaries any kind of victory at all. Die Linke (the party left of the centre-left main party) is rather against many aspects of how the EU is executed, but not against the general idea... still, might be an option, too. Or I don't go to vote at all, showing my dissatisfaction with the whole thing by contributing to a low voter turnout... but then, all official complaints aside, who *really* cares how many people went voting? So, yeah, in the end, I'm still rather unsure. Octo8 (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking of voting Pirate or Humanist.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Since it wasn't just the UK which got to vote yesterday, I also cast my vote. I was really divided up to till the end on what to vote, but ended up going with the Pirate party. To be honest, I really dislike their image; the whole pirate thing seems really amateurish/immature to me and it concerns me that they might be to focussed on a single issue. But their political agenda lines up the most with mine, and they haven't done anything faulty so I'm giving them a chance. --GTac (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion of my political platform[edit]

What is your opinion regarding my political platform? You can see it on my userpage. Restoration of a Godly America (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Troll Also, this guy makes ListenerX look like Marx himself in comparison. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I've got canned heat in my heels tonight, baby 22:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This guy looks a lot more like MarcusCicero, though I see the screed is written in American spelling with minimal typing/spelling errors so I guess probably not.WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Did MC ever issue such a ham-fisted tedious bloviating manifesto? I think not, but memory is unreliable, and my observation has been incomplete, as spotty as this one's bottom. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, many times over. See here and here for some examples that I can dimly remember. There have been many others. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Tedious bloviating manifestos were his specialty. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Bisexual Jewish mixed-race Caribbean Latino, get my oppression points 01:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but more along the lines of tooting his own horn than ham-fisted, as far as I remember. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This one does both, really. I don't think MC converted to ultranationalist fundamentalism somewhere among the line. Frankly, this reminds me more of some bizarro Ehrenstein where he is obsessed with Reds, Satan and Red Satanists rather than Nazis and rape. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 01:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, why are we whispering!? --Revolverman (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

They're running on an anti-Satan platform? I didn't even know Satan was running in this election. --Kels (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

He'd be a better candidate than Mitt Romney. I'd only vote for him if Cthulhu was his running mate, though. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg RAPE RAPE NAZI RAPE RAPE 16:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, Satan's got some pretty good campaign signs. Plus, I keep hearing he's responsible for everything from booze-filled orgies to civil rights. Why settle for a lesser evil? --User:PsychoGecko 12:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How active is RationalWiki?[edit]

Occasionally, someone asks how active RationalWiki is, if we're growing our editor base or not. Sometimes people worry that the site is too big, and soon won't fit the old ways of doing things. To answer these questions, I collected all the active user data I could find. I give full credit to LArron for producing all of this data over the years.

My criteria for who is and isn't an "active user" used the definitions supplied on RationalWiki:Active users. Anyone who makes more than 0.1 edits per day (roughly, 3 edits per month or more) counts as active, anyone who edits less than that wasn't counted. (This cutoff has the benefit of excluding almost all spambots, many one-time vandal accounts, and legitimate new users who, for whatever reason, never make more than a couple edits before disappearing.)

RW active users per month 2007-11 to 2014-04.png

The earliest data I could find is for November 2007. Gaps mean no data was collected for that month. The red and blue colors don't mean anything, they just make it easier to tell years apart.

Some observations:[edit]

  • RationalWiki didn't grow at all through 2008 and 2009.
  • RationalWiki was a small community of about 90 users until our user base almost tripled in June/July 2010.
  • 2011 was our peak year. For sheer number of active editors, it's the most active we've ever been.
  • After 2011, barring the occasional spike, our user base stagnated around 250 active editors per month.
  • Any concerns about the community's culture scaling with growth are pointless — our active user count has shrunk since 2011, not grown.

I find this stagnation concerning, to say the least. Our traffic is growing, and last I checked with Trent, RW gets between 1.5 and 2 million unique visits per month. Our community, however, is not. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Whats the red and blue mean?--Miekal 01:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing, that's just to make it easier to tell years apart. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Graph does not look accurate to me. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
How so? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Active-editors-RationalWiki-7-28-monthly.png
  • There are various definitions of the term "active editor" which are used simultaneously on this site. The curious jump seems to coincide with a change of the observation period used by MediaWiki, from "(Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days)" to "(Users who have performed an action in the last 28 days)"
  • After 2010, the diagram matches my version quite well, I think (take a look at the dark gray area).

--larron (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How to get editors, and how not to repel the ones we get?[edit]

The readership is going through the roof. Increasingly, we're a skeptical go-to resource. So how do we get contributors, and how do we keep and not repel the ones we do get? - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet conversely, the RW Facebook group is going through the roof. I wonder if it's a wiki thing. I was over at WP's Did You Know section recently, and that's less active too - two updates a day instead of the three or four it had a few years ago. Is there a problem around wikis as a whole? SophieWilderModerator 09:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's because with Facebook, etc, you just type your comment and press send, whereas with wikis you need to know how to do wiki shit, and even simple stuff like signing and indenting can feel odd. Also, a lot of my IRL friends whom I have tried to get to edit on RW have said that, when it comes to main spaaace, they don't really feel comfortable making edits, because they don't know much about the subject, they're worried about fucking stuff up, et cetera. I don't know what you can do about that, but that's just my guess. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 10:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
At least I'm learning! IWAFU TALK ME UP 03:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, but it's easier if you can talk your way through potential edits and changes first and that lowers the barrier to entry. HOWEVER, it's also very difficult for a new person to get to grips with even discussing the edits they want to make because the talk-page etiquette and technique is fucking opaque, unintuitive and the single worst aspect of using the site. Regular editors just don't notice that because they got used to it eventually. But it is awful, and it stifles participation. The next problem is that Liquid Threads is not exactly the greatest implementation of the solution so we're dammed either way. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The Facebook group is super-active for discussions probably because "everyone" has a Facebook account (almost by default, it seems). So the barrier to entry for a Facebook group is practically zero - you just click a button. While RW at least requires account information and log in (even if you can edit without it technically) so that's a barrier. This is one reason why it's a good idea to let Facebook handle your log-ins for you (though the main one is password security) but that's probably not going to be implemented into MediaWiki any time ever. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 16:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Keeping the interpersonal venom some people have between each other might help. It's not a good look when it always looks like we're strangling each other. --Revolverman (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more active, better behaved, and more respectable because it's a completely different dynamic that's not, and couldn't be, crippled by RW's bogus egalitarianism and embrace of anonymity. It's got a strict hierarchy of users who are empowered to unilaterally grant whatever permissions they wish and get rid of trolls and disruptive users. People use their real names, which entails real accountability and reputation, and makes impossible some of the anonymous and pseudonymous nonsense RW encourages, for some reason. Nobody's living out their psychiatric problems on recent changes because there is no recent changes. You say weird stuff that ends up on your friends and family's feed and you're responsible for it. Simple enough. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It's also potentially worth noting that groups/pages on Facebook don't have a complete run of the place. If a member reports another member, it's Facebook that decides what penalties to dish out, not the group. When everyone is forced to be held accountable to a third party, people tend to be far better behaved. I'm sure many disruptive folks on RW test their limits because it takes longer for editors to coalesce around a meaningful consensus in all but the most egregious cases of bad behaviour. On Facebook, there are no appeals, and there's no need for consensus. Not only can group/page administrators give people the boot with no warning, but Facebook can and will do the same for violations of their user agreement. - Grant (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
What Revolverman said! Scream!! (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Optimal size?[edit]

Why say "stagnation" when "leveling off" says something similar without the negative connotation? Count me with the ones concerned about culture scaling with growth. I've noticed that group dynamics shift towards bureaucracy when a company grows beyond a couple hundred people. I don't know that there is a bright line, but at four or five hundred, signs of "process for its own sake" can easily be seen.

Some types of people thrive in a large structured organization. Others do better in less formal settings, smaller independent groups. For a first approximation, I believe about a quarter of the general population fits in the small company model, with 75% being more comfortable in a big established outfit.

If RW's editor base does grow too much, it runs a risk of becoming Wikipedia's crappy tag-along. That's fine for those who don't mind "bratty and creative" being nothing more than the sign on the front of the building.

I'd be interested to see a legit way to measure and track signal/noise ratio in online communities, but my guess is that such measurement would be labor-intensive and subjective, if it were even possible at all. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

About increasing reader base[edit]

So, I feel like the surge in readership comes from the fact that rational wiki is actually moderately citeable as a "here's why X is stupid" thing that wikipedia doesn't quite live up to with their slightly more gentle NPOV position. You shouldn't expect that people who need that are the kind of people have are going to be experts at articulating new arguments against woo and the like for article writing purposes. Ikanreed (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Has it really been seven years?[edit]

Balloons.svg

Wonderful balloons, we must have a party! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's right, yes, May 20ish is our animalversary! Have a goat or three on me! (Credit to Hojimajong, of course).
Goat pilaf.jpg
ħumanUser talk:Human 04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Happy days are here again. Sterilesig.svgtalk 13:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Very cool, happy anniversary, everyone.--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Goats!Goats!Goats!Goats!Goats!Goats!Goats! One for each of the seven years! Why does the cake not have seven goats?! Still, Happy Birthday to RationalWiki. I'm sorry I missed the first 6.85 years but I'm glad I'm here now! --Captain Wolff (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Having worked here for a month now[edit]

I have to ask... I work in the dish room of a regional supermarket chains restaurant, and why does nobody finish their food. Or better, why do they eat almost none of it. I've seen plates that had like no food eaten from it and it's just "Why did you pay money if you weren't even going to eat this"--Mikal | lakiM 16:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a lacking in their sense of civil responsibility.
You are bringing up a very important issue. Food waste is one of the key areas surrounding sustainability in waste management, since there is SO FREAKING MUCH of it. A major focus in that should be to minimize the amount of food people throw away via campaigning to change their behaviours (a sign saying "don't buy unless you intend to eat it" may or may not work) as well as to try to optimize towards people's needs (for that we need inventive, disruptive ideas like maybe making the servings flexible and customer-oriented in terms of their quanity, reminding people to take only the amount that they know they can finish). Nullahnung (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
China's on it [6]. From my experience there, it's standard practice, at least when eating out, to order far more than anyone is going to eat. --Marlow (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the food sux ass? 18:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
In my country, finishing your meal while eating out is considered outright rude. But this one is deeply rooted in classism. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg An example of the downfall of humanity, and will lead to World War III 20:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As compared to where I grew up, US-American food portions at restaurants are out of hand. It's no wonder some food goes to the dumpster if you're gonna put 1800 calories on my damn plate. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Though you could give the food to another person in your company- for every person who doesn't eat shit, there's usually another who'll hoover down anything you put on a plate in front of them. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 20:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I largely dine alone, or in the company of my partner, who tries to eat even more sensibly than I. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Hadn't thought about that. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 21:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We should make it so that you can order food in varying portions- just telling people to stop isn't gonna do anything. In addition, I've noticed that not eating everything is sometimes a result of social pressure- if you eat it all, you can sometimes feel as if everybody else is gonna think of you as a fatass, especially if everybody else is ordering small-ass portions, or not finishing food. But that's just my non-expert opinion. The SockPuppetMaster (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I never quite understood why people target the consumer in the food waste thing. I guess they drive up demand? I'm not sure. Food is a perishable good. Whether I eat everything on my plate or whether I throw it away, it's not really "wasted". It has a short shelf life and it's not like that food can be shipped to somewhere that needs food, and it's not like me forcing myself to eat something when I'm no longer hungry is somehow morally or ethically better than just chucking it in the bin. If anything, restaurants and other food-serving places (hospitals, whatever) should be serving smaller portions or better yet, ordering less food stock to begin with. X Stickman (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I definitly agree they need ot do lesser portions, (especially rice, good lord) but still. The plate that made me go "what" was, afaict, not even touched, besides maybe just a little bit and not enough to have been anything substantial. --Mikal | lakiM 23:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
(EC)First of all, a comprehensive approach is needed, that means targetting the consumer, the producer, the middleman, everything. Everything should be optimized to minimize food waste, ideally. Yes, that includes restaurants serving portions that are specifically tailored to customers so they can finish their food, you are right about that. And then obviously they won't need to stock up on as much. Of course they'll need to keep their supply running, so food will still perish, but hey, it would still be better than before.
Second of all, food waste is a huge issue in waste management. We spend a great deal of effort treating organic waste and while the products from processing such waste may be useful as fertilizer or biogas, etc., overall waste prevention has been determined to be the highest priority in the waste hierarchy for the purposes of sustainable development. Nullahnung (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The restaurants I've worked in have treated it as standard practice to sell food waste at a bulk rate to local pig farmers, so it gets cycled back into the system and is less of a waste issue. But I understand that not every restaurant does stuff like that. --Kels (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a good policy, but it's not feasible for a huge number of American restaurants. Las Vegas and Phoenix are surrounded by desert, so their options for organic waste disposal are pretty limited. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
When I eat at home, more or less everything on the plate is eaten, I have been known to lick the plate. Likewise a week's groceries all gets eaten. I don't buy things I won't eat. But, in restaurants a number of factors lead to me leaving things on the plate. Portion sizes are sometimes out of control, particularly in the US but it happens everywhere that more is confused with better. Specific ingredients and ingredient ratios I would never choose for myself, may come out of a cuisine I'm unfamiliar with, or just one cook's preferences and then I've to either eat something I dislike or leave it on the plate. Dishes with a lot of ingredients make it difficult to ask for a series of modifications without sounding like an asshole. I can bring myself to say "Is it possible to have that without tomato?" but not "Can you do that without the tomato, the cucumber, the mushrooms, the side dish of relish, the inexplicable garnishes that are theoretically edible but obviously intended to be left, and that weird green stuff?". Overall I would say that I leave a lot less on the plate in restaurants where I'm a regular (so I know their menu, and they know my tastes) and at high end restaurants where they're focused on quality not quantity so that anything I'm willing to eat will likely be delicious and there won't be so much on the plate that I can't eat it. Tialaramex (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
And then, there's the whole "take five bites, then realise you weren't actually hungry" thing. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 10:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Take the food home and eat it later, maybe. Nullahnung (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I usually do- saves me from having to pay for more shit later. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 12:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
In my varsity days I worked as a waiter in a steakhouse. It was a huge bonus for us if a plate came back with half a fillet on it, or even better, an untouched sundae... --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Some years ago I read a (chat room) board that was ex-pat Murkins commenting on their biggest gripe with UK. First was "Only having single wash up sinks in kitchens" (i.e. not being able to rinse soap etc off plates after washing) Second was small portions in restaurants and absence of 'doggy bags' to take home left overs. Thought that was a little strange then & now I read the above, I am rather nonplussed. Scream!! (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
When I was a GI in California, a few of us liked to go to a Japanese bar in Seaside for nicely presented ramen and sushi. (Ramen seems a lot nicer when the presenter manages her sleeves graciously while putting it on the table.) It was there that my pineapple friend explained that we were meant to leave a scrap or two in the dish, to signify that we were well and truly sated, incapable of another mouthful. Nipponese manners may remain inscrutable to the rest of us... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Did you ever tip extra for particularly gracious sleeve management? Or just silently applaud, in awe? Robledo (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
As quasi-regulars, we did whatever we thought it took to stay in their good graces. As you may know, it was a kinder, gentler time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps nobody informed people at your restaurant that there are starving children in Africa. People always expect that to give someone they're lectuing an appetite. Like "Screw you, starving kids. I'm gonna eat all this myself." User:PsychoGecko 21:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I never got what this argument is about. Would me eating it somehow cure world hunger? Would me not eating make it magically appear into the plate of an starving Somalian child? Do you even economics? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 21:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do people like Chrome so much?[edit]

I like to use Chrome, and everywhere in the media, it seems that all other browsers are portrayed as crap. I mean, the browser isn't what makes the internet fast or slow, it is the strength of your internet connection. My friend, Rémi, says that he likes Chrome, simply because it looks cool. But it's the same, just with a new design. That's what Apple does. Redesign and sell it for a higher price.


Opinions, please.

-Orlyn

Because it doesnt eat resources like firefox does. also becaue firefox is now copying it--Miekal 04:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't. It's development tools don't exist and for the stuff I use like WebGL it's painfully slow. Zero (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Internet Explorer FTW. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 06:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Chrome doesn't eat resources? Have you tried having more than, like, 3 tabs open? It's kinda jaw-dropping, the memory usage of Chrome is through the roof compared to Firefox. Dendlai (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Chrome's memory consumption is infuriatingly stupidly programmed. Every tab is its own process. This would be only stupid in most cases, but what makes it infuriatingly stupid is that every tab eats up a metric fuckton of RAM. What were they thinking? --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg The best part about Reddit is the drama 14:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I tend to have 4-10 tabs open at all times on my cheap old laptop and it works fine.--ZeroIsLogic (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I use both Chrome and Firefox at the same time. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I prefer Firefox, because it has a couple features I use that Chrome doesn't. I sometimes stumble across a website with a cool background picture. Firefox has a handy "view background image" option in its context menu, while Chrome doesn't. I have to fuck around with Chrome's "view elements" thing, which is awful. Same with downloading the occasional flash or audio file (even every download add-on in the world won't detect the media on certain pages) — Firefox has a relatively accessible way to force download certain media via the "Page info" dialog, while Chrome, again, forces you to use their terrible "view elements" thing.
I recall trying to import my bookmarks into Chrome a couple years ago, only to be horrified when it expanded all folders by default (great way to display a meticulously organized library of over 26,000 bookmarks, Chrome. Thanks for making it harder to find any given folder.) Repulsed, I swore to never again bookmark anything in Chrome. And outside of the toolbar, I haven't. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
26,000 bookmarks? Seriously, do you just bookmark every site you have ever been to? I have 61, and I could get rid of 20 and wouldn't notice. DamoHi 08:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not that hard to rack up a few thousand bookmarks, stuffed into a few hundred subfolders and a few dozen main folders. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
delicious.com is a wonderful invention that allows you to save bookmarks and find them again. Sterilesig.svgtalk 16:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Chrome is pretty fast. On the other hand, using Chrome means I give more control of the web to Google, a company I've been beginning to dislike in recent times, while using Firefox means I give more control of the web to Mozilla, a non-profit that works for the public interest. (also Firefox is more geared towards web developer tools, not that most people need any of that). Between the two browsers it's a tough choice for me, tbh. Nullahnung (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I like Chrome because it's efficient, user friendly for most functions, & unintrusive. When I've used Firefox I find it too high-maintence - it's always nagging me to install or update add-ons or plug-ins or whatever when I really want to just get on with looking at web content. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I've never used Chrome. I was fairly faithful to Firefox, but sometime last year they rolled out an update that took away the user's ability to easily turn Javascript on and off, which annoyed me. There are so many sites that you don't want to visit with Javascript enabled, including practically all newspaper and news aggregator sites. The mucking about with the interface, including removal of the ability to make the interface pure text with no icons, was the last straw, so I moved on to Pale Moon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
They did that because most people who use that find NoScript to be a better, more user-friendly choice for doing that. They left that control to plugins. Ikanreed (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The plugins are one of two reasons I stick with Firefox. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg i mustn't run away i mustn't run away i mustn't run away 14:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Compatibility with the plugins is the reason I moved to Pale Moon. Sorry, Firefox, but removing the ability to control Javascript "for my own good" just sounded to me like "eat your goddamned lightboxes". I hate them so much I'd rather read a broken version of your website than endure them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I used NoScript and Ghostery, so I don't mind. I stuck with 29 because Australis really grew on me once the initial shock of "GASP! THEY CHANGED IT!!!" passed. Or it may be some sort of software Stockholm syndrome. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Bisexual Jewish mixed-race Caribbean Latino, get my oppression points 16:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand smerdis's complaint--Miekal 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Mozilla said they removed it because increasingly, JavaScript was becoming an essential part of the web, with most websites not functioning as intended or at all without it. What do you mean "for your own good"? In my mind, they removed a functionality only people who already used NoScript would bother with. Being able to decide what sites to run JS from is amazing. Most sites, there's 5-10 "forbidden" JS sites and 1-2 I've allowed, and to my eye, everything works as intended. I wonder what the JS from those other sites do... <3 NoScript. Though I have been pondering moving to Pale Moon myself. Two add-ons installed to get my old look back with the Australis change, and still not fully there. But almost...Just need a bookmarks star in the URL-field that works with "icons + text" mode in CTR. Dendlai (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
There's Firefox 24 ESR if you don't like Australis. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I already brung it, bitch. I brung it, opened it, and set it on the table, bitch. 16:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I use it for the same reason I used Firefox back in the day. It doesn't have ridiculous UI in your face. Minimum UI, maximum actually being a fucking browser. I'd go back to firefox in an instant if they had another round of trimming the years of accumulated bullshit in their browser. Also, as much as I don't like the faked up window decoration Chrome uses, the ability to click-and-drag to detach tabs is nice. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The key thing about Firefox is that it has a customizable UI, even without add-ons. With add-ons it's a few million miles ahead of all the others. You can get an UI as minimalist as Chrome's in Firefox with ease, if youo want to. Replicating most Firefox UI settings in Chrome on the other hand is impossible, since the engine puts heavy limitations on what you can do. Like, it's technically impossible to have your tab bar below the main window. Dendlai (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that's the way to sell a browser. Oh, the UI is shit by default but you can download a random assortment of mods and you might be able to make it good. Meanwhile, a browser that's decent by default is eating their lunch. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I can only have my tabs above everything else, it just looks weird to me otherwise. Also, that can be applied ot any add on jeeves: if it was good enough it wouldn't need X and Y mod--Miekal 16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
That made no sense. What's a good UI is personal of course, and I never said it was "shit by default". You don't like it, you like the Chrome UI. I think the Chrome UI is shit by default, and doesn't allow barely any customization at all. Seriously, that was... a very stupid thing to say. Trying to make customization a "bad" thing... Right. Better with a One Size Fits All approach. We decide what's best for you. And again, without any add-ons at all, you can customize the Firefox UI to be pretty much Chrome. Chrome on the other hand... Dendlai (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It speaks volumes that Australis cut down on the customization but it's still more flexible than Chrome's UI. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Ate at a Chinese restaurant therefore is literally Hitler 16:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yet strangely, from a standing start and with no advantages not given to Firefox, Chrome has managed to gather the largest share of the browser market. It's almost as if good UI isn't personal opinion, but an engineering discipline that people study. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
No advantages except Google continually advertising their web browser on their websites, and paying for billboard and television advertising for their web browser to lure the IE crowd. What is this bollocks, "no advantages"? - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Depending on what site you trust, Either IE or Chrome is the biggest. Some measuring sites have Chrome in 3rd after Firefox. And some markets like Germany have FF as the biggest. And of course good UI is personal, that it's an engineering discipline doesn't change that, because it boils down to "this is what the largest group wants". Also, Ever heard of a search engine called Google? That constantly nags you to change to Chrome if you use it with some other browser. Standing start and no advantage not given to Firefox? That's... An incredibly unbelievably stupid thing to say. Are you serious because... If so, you seriously think using Google Search (and other related products) to promote their browser is a standing start and no advantage not given to Firefox, then... Right... (Also, FF with Australis is very Chrome-like at base, but unlike Chrome, you can change it to what you want. Explain again how this is a *bad* thing). Dendlai (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
My preferred browsing habit is to keep things I want easily on hand in tabs rather than bookmarks. I have an older computer with 2GiB RAM, and Firefox is currently running over 300 tabs just fine. My understanding is that my computer would punch me if I tried that with Chrome. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
300 motherfucking tabs... about 300 different processes... I think your computer would have more fun if the Gurren Lagann drilled the CPU. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg All you need is some monkey magic, and all will be alright 19:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I've never bothered to try Chrome, and recently have a deep seated hatred of Google due to their wrecking my business. That said, a few weeks ago Firefox did an "upgrade" and swapped the tab bar with the bookmark bar thing. Thanks for messing up my entire user experience. Also it (and Thunderbird) has crashed about five times combined since then. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Classic Theme Restorer undoes most of the damage of Australis. Dendlai (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
At first I switched to Chrome because Mozilla's CEO was anti-gay, and I didn't want to support that, but then I realised all the stuff that I'd wanted for firefox was in chrome. A simpler and sleeker UI, extensions for awesome customization, and just stuff like that in general. Also the fact that Google uses a lot of FOSS, to that's nice; it's something I pay attention to, as a GNU/Linux user. Like look at this, I have a bunch of tabs open, 2 terminals, Banshee media player, a bittorrent client, and a game (all in other workspaces) and I'm only using 1.5Gb of ram, and this is with a 2.3Ghz processor. That's why I like chrome. IWAFU TALK ME UP 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
11 tabs and 1,5 gig? 10 tabs in FF currently, and it takes 372 meg... Dendlai (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Bringing Reddit /r/rationalwiki to life[edit]

HeidelbergKid created the RationalWiki subreddit and it lay pretty much inactive for a while (and even he gave up moderator on it). I've just grabbed mod on it. Anyone want to add relevant stuff, we can - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

do we really need a reddit? --Miekal 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It's nice that you have gained control over it, but I'll ask the same question as Mikal. RationalWiki is enough of a circlejerk without being represented on CirclejerkHub.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
David's a little more responsible than to let things get out of hand to the point they have here. This community sucks. David knows how to do it right. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if this will be useful, or how much fascism will be required. I must admit I'm not bubbling with ideas for content myself ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It just seems like it'd be another saloonbar/facebook group, and we already have those.--Miekal 22:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Not if dipshits like you aren't there it won't. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
My feelings. They are hurt.--Miekal 03:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Reddit, half a step above 4chan. Dendlai (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
But a quarter step above Tumblr. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 16:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh... Dunno, kinda prefer social justice warriors to open misogyny, racism etc... Dendlai (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If you think Reddit is mostly MRAs, most likely the only subreddit you read is /r/ShitRedditSays (or /r/AdviceAnimals). --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg All you need is some monkey magic, and all will be alright 17:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's all it is. But Reddit doesn't exactly discourage extremely questionable content (in fact, if anything they encourage it. At least until the media finds out). Violentacrez etc. Dendlai (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind, a social network's culture is judged by its worst. 4chan has the culture of a heavily-populated IRC with images, and the bulk of on-site stuff is accordingly IRC-esque antics, but that doesn't stop people from joking about pedophiles and trolls. Twitter is the largest comedy and pithy quote generator ever invented, but that doesn't stop people from joking about boring hipsters livetweeting their bus rides. The most popular blogs on Tumblr are photo blogs, and it hosts what is probably the largest population of professional artists on the web, but that doesn't stop people from joking about social justice warriors.
So it's not that Reddit in general is bad. It's that its worst is out of proportion to what its population would suggest. Facebook has an estimated 1.23 billion active users, Twitter 255 million, and Tumblr 30-50 million. The sheer number of people on them ensures a proportional amount of repugnant stuff. Reddit has 43 million active users, which puts it about on par with Tumblr. Despite that, Reddit has surpassed them all in its ability to curate the most repulsive subcultures out of any of its peers. Their pedophile community was shockingly robust, and the site's owners only deleted them after enormous public pressure. If pedophiles had gathered on any of the other large social sites out there, they wouldn't have lasted a month before being mass-banned and deleted. The still-present MRA community (not just on r/mensrights, either, but also r/foreveralone and, for a while, r/feminism) is notable because it's more active than even dedicated MRA forums and sites. Even if the vast, vast majority of users (over 40 million!) aren't a part of it, it's still way larger than the equivalent subcultures on Twitter, YouTube, or Tumblr. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The reddit admins hesistated to delete the pedo communities because they drew in a lot of profit. Even with the media kerfuffle, zero advertisers pulled their ads. Yeah, what the fuck.
Also, the MRAs are not very widely accepted outside their covens. Well, except /r/AdviceAnimals but at least that subreddit is universally considered a shithole outside its regular posters. They are loud, but that's like judging all of Tumblr solely by the DIE CIS SCUM people or This Is Thin Privilege.
And one last note: I said Reddit is a quarter step above Tumblr because Reddit bans doxxing and are very strict about it. Tumblr doesn't. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 20:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It's because Reddit panicked when Violentacrez identity was revealed. For those who don't know, he was the man behind a lot of extremely questionable stuff, like the jailbait reddit. All with the blessing of reddit staff, who he communicated with regularly. Reddit circled the wagons. To them, the problem wasn't the jailbait reddit and various racist crap, it was that Violentacrez was found out, and thus held accountable. Some people don't like accountability, and reddit thrives on it. Dendlai (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope, the rule that was implemented during the Violentacrez kerfuffle was the "No child pornography or sexually suggestive content featuring minors." rule. Anti-doxxing rules were in place since day one. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg "R.I.P. Kurt who agrees" "Well, no one's going to disagree that he's dead..." 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
And you don't see the problem there, allowing crap like that but not "revealing" their identities? Revealing identities isn't by itself a bad thing, as the Violentacrez case shows. If that hadn't happened, reddit wouldn't have implemented the rule you just mentioned. Accountability again you see. This anonymity holy grail is not automatically a good thing, on the contrary, it is very often a bad thing. (cyberbullying, starting jailbait reddits etc). Doxxing can be a force for good, more often than not. Dendlai (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, no. By itself it's not wrong, but it doesn't occur in a vacuum. Doxxing is malicious more often than not. It's vigilante justice, mostly. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg An example of the downfall of humanity, and will lead to World War III 20:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Isn't doxxing illegal unless it's done by/for the police, et cetera? DØØM MĖSSIÅH But flies will lay their eggsDolan.png 21:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If it is, then it's practically the jaywalking of internet crimes. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Depends on the method used to find somebody's identity. Revealing it is in and of itself not a crime. Dendlai (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

MH370 Conspiracies...[edit]

Got in a Taxi yesterday evening and the driver spend the entire journey using racist language to explain why it was all Jacob Rothschild. Been away for a month and not been online much before that anyway so might have missed a discussion on this. Where does this all come from?--Barryjon (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

recently Missing plane in the south east asian area that we've not ever found wreckage for. Obvious conspiracy bait.--Miekal 22:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Occam's Razor: The 'Thorities can't find the plane.
Conspiratorial Pass 1: The 'Thorities aren't looking for the plane.
Conspiratorial Pass 2: The 'Thorities don't want the plane to be found.
Conspiratorial Pass 3: The 'Thorities are hiding the plane somewhere.
Conspiratorial Pass 4: The 'Thorities are turning the plane into a secret drone
Conspiratorial Pass 5: The 'Thorities are turning the plane into a secret NSA drone
Conspiratorial Pass 6: The 'Thorities are turning the plane into a secret NSA drone to enable an Illuminati/NWO/UN takeover
Conspiratorial Pass 7: The 'Thorities are turning the plane into a secret NSA drone to enable an Illuminati/NWO/UN takeover with the help of Nazi zombies from SPACE!!!
--Captain Wolff (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Nazi zombies from spae ? thats just silly. Nazi zombies come from the secret base under antartica. Hamster (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
As always, I blame Cobra Commander. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
From OUTSIDE Antarctica. The Earth is flat with Antarctica surrounding the edge, remember? --Captain Wolff (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Spent the day enraged (Guns + woman-hating).[edit]

Spent the day focused on the Elliot Rodger story, reading, tweeting and discussing with IRL people. And then I saw this and my head nearly exploded. The next man who says the words "not all men" in my presence might get punched in the nose. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, what the fuck. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 23:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh... what? Someone took the image down. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Here we are now, entertain us 23:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
10000% sure its a troll, hell the two comments are people condemning it. --Revolverman (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Raysenn: I can still see the file, so that's odd. But anyway, this dickhead Elliot Ridger shot some women because he was mad about bring rejected, and the file showed a screenshot of a Facebook page that called him a "true American hero". And you're right, it is probably a troll, but you can never be sure with the Internet. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 00:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's a troll, the best thing you can say about the guy who made the page is "confronted with an instance of terrible tragedy, thought it would be funny to use it as an opportunity to say something hateful." Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

People who idolize mass murderers and similar types are nothing new. There was a wp:Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fandom, I've seen similar pages about wp:Seung-Hui Cho, though not on Facebook. And that's not necessarily people who share their stated ideology.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Although this one is totes a troll.
Also, the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fandom. Oh god, the motherfucking Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fandom. At least that one is based entirely around Dzhokhar's photogenic face and not around his ideas. Mostly. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 15:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It might be a troll, but it has 17 likes. And some dipshit called Michael J Lewis carrying on about free speech and more evidence that women are stupid for turning him down. PsyGremlinRunāt! 07:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Something we can do...[edit]

Here are the categories for gun control and gender issues. They need a lot of work. "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them; women are afraid that men will kill them" (Margaret Atwood) is quite relevant today. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Though it would not have served Atwood's rhetorical thrust so well, I think that might more honestly be re-written as "People are afraid that women will laugh at them; people are afraid that men will kill them". Tialaramex (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RW has an anti-fan at the JREF Forum[edit]

In a thread for submitting particularly stupid claims by conspiracists, someone posted a few links to RW in a comment (not as an example), then another user pulled the "stopped reading them, not rational" canard. When asked for details, they provided this. Guess before clicking what's their motivation...--ZooGuard (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

MRA or libertarian? Aldon (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I bet Randroid. Dendlai (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Ron Paul voter or Illuminatus. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 09:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I picked misogynist. Let's see ... yep - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Not giving any spoilers, but, to be honest, I was kind of disappointed. I was expecting absolute, sheer and utter insanity. Instead, I got, well, I'm sure you've heard it 9001 times. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 11:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is the JREF Forum after all, not Godlike Productions.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
MRA, Randroid, LIbertarian, misogynist... all of the above? Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 14:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
We do a good line in pissing off that particular demographic. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 14:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Is he an MRA or a misogynist? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
See for yourself Generally, a conspiracy-debunker prone to feminism-bashing when the opportunity arises. Not a raving misogynist, but at least once has cited GWW, so yeah... MRA.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not defending him, but beyond my feeling that the subject of gender has gotten out of hand on RW as totally off-mission though worthy of discussion elsewhere, the MRA article actually does have some of the same kinds of serious problems that make other articles here unreadable to me (and I'm not alone). He's correct about some of the bias. But the culture at RW is such that it's difficult to criticize it without being branded an MRA oneself. I'm not. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think gender articles should be relegated to a spin-off wiki, but I know that zero people here agree with that. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Here we are now, entertain us 16:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I was searching "rationalwiki" on Twitter and found someone recommending transgender and transsexual as sensible high-quality material to someone else, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If the feminism stuff is off-mission, we should still keep it just for that reason. The site can provide both a valuable service and also get increased traffic. Seems like a win-win--"Shut up, Brx." 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Aw, I liked 000063. Why'd he have to go and be an MRA? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 18:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a worrying overlap between New Atheism and MRAs, for whatever or other bizarre reason. It's why A+ split off from it (and then died because it didn't fix any other of New Atheism's problems and added some others, but that's a tale for another time). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg "R.I.P. Kurt who agrees" "Well, no one's going to disagree that he's dead..." 19:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Once you understand that patriarchy determines all political, economic and social relations, the overlap between MRA and Gnu Atheism is less remarkable. If something is everywhere, it will be found anywhere. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Now, let's not descend into self-parody. "Those skeptics sure dislke us. Luckily we have this here global conspiracy to explain it away" --Someon (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) *cringe* I would have phrased that otherwise...--ZooGuard (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't even my point. What I meant is that they have an disproportionate overlap. The MRM is a fringe thing, and just because they are loud on the internet does not mean it pans out IRL. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan! 22:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The JREF Forum is a skeptics* forum, not necessarily New (or old) Atheism forum. It's also more politically and, errr... generationally diverse than RW.
(* With a few cranks and trolls for color. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.)--ZooGuard (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OMG, we are "more biased" than Wikipedia? I'd hope so. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice lead[edit]

https://www.facebook.com/greenrenaissance/photos/a.538612082823247.126933.120085081342618/567352873282501/?type=1

"The Sour Sop or the fruit from the Graviola tree is a miraculous natural cancer cell killer 10,000 times stronger than Chemo. The National Cancer Institute performed the first scientific research in 1976. The results showed that Graviola’s “leaves and stems were found effective in attacking and destroying malignant cells.” Inexplicably, the results were published in an internal report and never released to the public… Since 1976, Graviola has proven to be an immensely potent cancer killer in 20 independent laboratory tests, yet no double-blind clinical trials–the typical benchmark mainstream doctors and journals use to judge a treatment’s value–were ever initiated…. A study published in the Journal of Natural Products, following a recent study conducted at Catholic University of South Korea stated that one chemical in Graviola was found to selectively kill colon cancer cells at “10,000 times the potency of (the commonly used chemotherapy drug) Adriamycin…” The most significant part of the Catholic University of South Korea report is that Graviola was shown to selectively target the cancer cells, leaving healthy cells untouched. Unlike chemotherapy, which indiscriminately targets all actively reproducing cells (such as stomach and hair cells), causing the often devastating side effects of nausea and hair loss in cancer patients. A study at Purdue University recently found that leaves from the Graviola tree killed cancer cells among six human cell lines and were especially effective against prostate, pancreatic and lung cancers.

Does this work, have any of you tried it?"

It's probably pure bullshit. Let's look up the Journal of Natural Products and the Catholic University of South Korea first. Then we will write articles about them, and Graviola at RationalWiki. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Of interest: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/can-graviola-cure-cancer Acei9 02:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds similar to laetrile. South Korea seems to be a bit of a magnet for positive research into these sorts of things. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now that my hangover's over, let's see what I found.
The Journal of Natural Products is a legit biochemistry journal run by a legit scientific authority. What doesn't seem to exist is the article in it cited by them—made up on the spot, it seems. I also struggle to find the first-party study conducted by the UCK, so I'll take another wild guess and say it was pulled out of their intestinal cavities.
Soursop IT'S guanábana YOU ANGLOPHONE ASSHATS itself has a good deal of woo surrounding it and I'm totally gonna start working on it right now. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 13:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Started it. I'll need some help, given how right now I have classes to attend. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back? 14:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Take me to f-cking court — I don’t care’[edit]

So in a nearby town, our local atheist group wanted to voice concerns over some more than appropriate religious civic celebrations of memorial day. The mayor basically told them to fuck off and sue him if we cared that much. I just don't understand where they think that'd really win anything for them.--Miekal 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Who, the atheists or the mayor? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The mayor has every right to include a religious service as part of his town's Memorial Day celebrations, but telling those who voice valid concerns to fuck off will not bode well for him if this actually goes to court. Whoever does his PR will have a lot of shit to clean up. --Captain Wolff (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, they may have been totally in the right but what a stupid choice of target. If ever there was a way of portraying atheists in a bad light it's having a go at Memorial Day. And that goes redoubled in spades in Nebraska. Placeholder (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Why? & Where's the evidence they were "having a go at Memorial Day"? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)¬
He also said "Minorities are not going to run my city,”Which is what some of them are focusing more of the response to compared to the whole "citizen raises concern about city funded religious ceremony on memorial day. gets told off" thing, though the official response is "we're citizens who have a right to be heard if we have a complaint" --Miekal 01:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The mayor apologized, “I am truly sorry that my response to this representative caused backlash against the City. I was coming out of a very emotional event at which local veterans who were killed in action were recognized, and my reaction was certainly emotional in nature. It is my hope all sides can move forward together." [7] Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Real Madrid wins 10th UEFA Champions League[edit]

Soccer fans, I hope you watched it because what a game of football! 'Twas a 4-1 match, for the record. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 21:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel sorry for Athletico tho - 2 mins away from winning, then get drubbed in extra time. Still Real deserve it, after beating Bayern 4-0 in Munich. Still not as good as the Liverpool v AC Milan game in '05. PsyGremlinRunāt! 07:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I am lost in Law to Charlton to Best - Goal! That said I do enjoy Futbol Mexicano when it is one my basic cable. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Pele's layoff to Carlos Alberto. No more need be said. SophieWilderModerator 20:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I was to busy watching bastard referees rip off Queensland like fucking usual State of Origin- although, from the few bits and pieces I have seen from the football game, it does look like it was quite a fine game. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 12:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

Just wanted to say hi and present myself: Josef M. Schomburg, living in Paris, France and Wikipedia editor (as 'ThePromenader') since ~9 years now, but I had no idea you guys existed... thanks!

What brought me here is my involvement in the Wikipedia 'atheism' article, an effort to remove 'Hitler/Stalin/Lenin = atheism' 'info' that I began there a few days ago. I saw on the talk-page that there's quite a bit of confusion about the definition of the term 'atheism' (with no thanks to a few attempting to divide/confuse/obfuscate), and in my searches for a ~real~, existing definition, the best I could find was here. Yet, when it comes to referencing the term, this is next to impossible because it seems one can find a reference to almost any 'definition', from its literal translation ('without god(s)') to 'one who affirms there are no god(s) and seeks to eliminate religion'.

I quite naively opened the question on the Talk:Atheism page (well, it was on-topic), but perhaps it has been already thoroughly discussed. I'd really be willing to have a discussion about it, though (or pointed to an existing discussion), as it pains me to see the term bandied about and even misused to paint freethinkers in a bad way. IMHO, I think that atheism is but one facet of "not accepting affirmations without proof", but it seems that the general public has been trained to use the term to represent all freethinkers. This seems important, though, because the number of people consulting the term 'atheism' has spiked over the last years (I also do SEO with Leapforce/Google).

Thanks, and take care,

SirSefu (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by, SirSefu, and thank you for joining! Unfortunately, I'm not sure what to do about Wikipedia. Their policies do a reasonably decent job at keeping unciteable garbage from the articles, but the problem arises when there are too many, mutually contradicting, sources. I've heard tell that their philosophy and Middle East pages also suffer from this exact problem: the scholarship out there encompasses such a broad range of views that you cite a dozen sources for literally any point of view, resulting in an endless tug-of-war throughout the page histories. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, most modern athiests simply say that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated and leave the burden of proof with with those making the claim.
Historically however there have been those who have claimed to hold arguments which show that God cannot exist.
This is compounded by the problem that, although people think that we are talking about the same thing when we say "God" this is clearly not the case. For example, the Problem of evil can be used to dismiss one version of God but not all Gods. It does not do away with Zeus for example.
Both the historical context in which the word has been used and the question of which God is being denied make, what is apparently a simple question, a little difficult.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I'm beginning to dislike the term 'atheism' altogether, for one: for the presence of 'god' (theism) in it (which, in a way, gives credibility to 'god'), two: for its many different definitions (much of this thanks to the 'add 'new' meaning and confuse' tactics of threatened theists), and three: it was a theist creation (as an insult). Yet the term is so widely used that it must be 'fixed', especially for those looking a possibility of disbelief for the first time...
If it were just me, I think it would be simpler just to come up with a new term for "refuses (ignores) affirmations without proof" that they can't screw with. SirSefu (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
We've tried things like that before. --Miekal 19:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
As it happens I dislike the term too. It refers to one particular class of supernatural entities whose existence I doubt. In intellectual terms it's one small part of a whole gamut of things which I consider to be unproven. In some parts of the world however this particular bit of rational thought is blown up out of all proportion for social reasons. We talk about it bit here.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, atheism is but one facet of a mind capable of independant thought and criticism, no need to find a 'matching term' at all, and in fact that would be silly and pointless... I'd rather find a term that englobes an entire rationale, say "using scientific methods (of thought)", and just simply ignores religion altogether. Is this the right place to talk about that, though? Thanks for your answers, cheers. SirSefu (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's a different thing, and while there's an obvious overlap, atheism is by no means synonymous with applying the scientific method. Personally, I've got no problem with the term atheism, but don't much care for the strong/weak distinction & identifying one's atheism as either a positive belief or an absence of belief: "I believe there is no god" vs "I do not belief there is a god". It's a distinction that really only applied within philosophy & semantics; in practical terms, there is no difference, and it's not distinction people are expected to make in relation to other areas of non-believe (unicorns, Santa Claus, aliens, bigfoot, etc). WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So there actually ~is~ a 'base meaning' to atheism? The wikipedia article on this is such a mess, but I guess that is the work of those seeking to confuse and add negative connotations to the term. I find that the weak/strong vs. gnostic/agnostic 'secondary' terms add even more confusion... which one of those two is the norm today? I'm working on the Wikipedia article, but won't change anything unless I'm sure of my propos. SirSefu (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw the other day that you were working hard over at WP. I am getting increasingly convinced that there is altogether too much fine-line drawing and in respect of this particular lack of supernatural belief. We don't do it in respect of zombies - why do it for gods?
But perhaps we are coming to this from the wrong perspective. As far as I am aware modern athiests maintain that the burden of proof in respect of any being that might be called "God" has not been met and so they don't believe in It. But you can imagine other reasons for being an atheist: people might grow up in atheist families and never question the belief (like most theists); people might feel that they somehow intuit that Gods don't exist; there may be some who feel that they can accept the burden of proof and prove no Gods exist; for all I know some may believe they had received a telepathic communication from the Andromeda galaxy saying there are no Gods.
So any definition of atheist would, presumably, need to include these people too. It seems to me that the best way to approach things would be to say that atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods and then consider why people might hold this belief.
(Going back to the beginning, I would suggest a zombie test - if the word "God" can be replaced with the word "zombie" then the sentence is probably OK. If you find yourself writing about "strong anti-zombie beliefs" as opposed to "weak anti-zombie beliefs" then you are probably in fine-line territory.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's ridiculous[edit]

Is this a Deep cover liberal? Should I waste more time with it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, assuming one micron counts as deep. Obvious parodist is obvious. Stop, unless you like having pointless arguments with total strangers. SophieWilderModerator 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Even if he isn't a Deep-cover Liberal, people who comment on Wikia tend to be even less intelligent than Youtube commentators, if that is even possible. Either way, you seem to have wasted your time, much like I once wasted mine on trying to debate somebody on Youtube. All it did was make me angry. --Captain Wolff (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I once debated with a guy on Youtube who denied Smale's paradox because it went against his "intuition". There's really no hope for these people. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 00:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
(Follows Link, two minutes later...) Oh God, my brain. I won't attempt to deny Smale's Paradox but I'm staying the hell away from it. --Captain Wolff (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgotten politicians now so desperate for attention they'll pay for your eyeballs[edit]

This just appeared in my Twitter feed:

John Bolton Twitter Ad.png

Now, I'm gotten used to seeing ads for services ("Effective social media control!" and the like) in my feed ever since Twitter started their ads thing. But I'm a little surprised Twitter's ad program allows straight-up politicking.

The best part, of course, is that John Bolton is a has-been. He was barely worth discussing even when he was farting around the United Nations making the U.S. look bad. Even less so when he was a minor player in the Bush Administration.

This ad wasn't from Republicans. This ad was from John Bolton. John Bolton is so desperate for your eyeballs that he'll pay Twitter — and is there any form of advertising that smacks of desperation more than Twitter ads? "Don't forget about me!" says John Bolton, "I exist, and have Very Important Opinions about Obama!" It's too late, John Bolton. I've already forgotten. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bolton seems to buy Twitter ads every now and then. I've had them pop up in my feed before. I usually leave some polite variant of "no thank you" to whatever he's peddling, if only because each reply to the ad costs him. --OverworldTheme (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think Bolton himself is financing these? It seems more likely to me that one of these superpacs is using him as a stooge ROPChain (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Priests committing child abuse is like priests parodying mass!"[edit]

So I've seen a couple articles on the web mentioning that Pope Francis is taking a stronger stance on child abuse, but many of them mention, almost offhandedly, that Francis says that priests committing child abuse is comparable to (Priests?) celebrating Black Mass. Does anybody else feel like this is more evidence that nobody at the church really gets it? I mean, I figured from the start that they wouldn't really do anything recognizably different when it comes to child abuse, they'd just point out that they're still doing things related to it. But, nobody seems to be pointing out that this shows us part of the giant disconnect the church has on this issue. They claim to be taking child abuse seriously, but they can't help but compare it to something really silly like somebody parodying their religion. They just really don't seem to get it at all. --Shadow of Lords talk 13:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're trying to explain to Catholics how wrong something is, it makes sense to frame that explanation in Catholic discourse. It looks silly to you and me, but he wasn't talking to you and me. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It's also something that might be seen as a parody to non-Catholics, but to those true believers of the Catholic faith - especially those like Pope Francis who take a literal view of demons and devils - a priest celebrating the Black Mass is a very, very serious thing. It's not just heretical or parody; it's evil. - Grant (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've got to agree with ShadowofLords here. The child abuse cases are serious crimes at a civic level which by rights should be a matter of police investigation (something that a 'black mass' probably wouldn't be). The Vatican is still treating the issue very much as an internal matter for its own investigation and resolution, and framing the discourse about it in theological terms (like the black mass comparison) just reinforces this attitude. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that their attitude is still incorrect, but as far as analogies go, I'm not sure I would read anything into this one other than a comparison between child abuse and another grave sin. It's not surprising that the Pope would use a spiritual analogy here, and I'm not sure there's anything more to it than that. There's plenty of good evidence that the Church isn't handling this properly or with the gravity it deserves, but I don't believe this statement really says much in that direction. - Grant (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
(EC)What they should be doing is treating it not only as an internal matter, but also as a public matter of serious crimes at a civic level. The two are not mutually exclusive, see. It is theoretically a good thing that the Vatican treat the issue as an internal matter for their own investigation (as long as it is also at the same time being treated as an external matter for the police's investigation). Plus framing it in theological terms may come natural to people who have grown up in such a religious environment, so I think Father Vivian and Grant have a point. Nullahnung (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand that he is speaking to Catholics but he is still comparing something which just about everybody would consider to be deeply morally wrong to something which the majority of the people on the planet would consider to be just something a little bit odd.
One of them would be a serious criminal offence in most of the world while the other would be a criminal offence in virtually none.
Historically we know which one the church would have expelled its priests for and which one it wouldn't. Is the church's response to these two things now identical?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem is the hyper-religious won't understand you when you tell them that celebrating the Black Mass is just some silly odd thing, as they are quite out of touch with the views of the world which are mostly atheistic. Nullahnung (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but that's only a 'problem' when you're talking about celebrating the black mass, and it's a problem that's created needlessly when the subject of black mass is introduced irrelevantly when talking about something else. I also don't buy the idea that "he's just talking to Catholics here" is a good defence of comments the Pope makes in a press conference. He's the leader and public figurehead of a huge international religious organisation which has suffered a certain amount of reputational damage over its handling of abuse: addressing comments about this issue to Catholics alone (if indeed that's what he intended) seems a little short-sighted. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Most sources seem to suggest that in that same press conference he referred to the abuse as "a very grave crime." While this certainly doesn't excuse the Church's lack of action on this subject (or the pitiful actions it has taken so far), I'm not sure why it's a problem that in the same conference he would make a religious analogy. It's not just PR here; this guy actually believes this stuff. Considering that Catholicism is still the largest religious denomination in the world, I'm not sure why it's short-sighted that he would choose to address a particular comment to Catholics alone. A better point to make may be that most Catholics these days don't believe in things like the black mass, at least not to the extent that Francis does. However, the Pope making a religious analogy as part of the comments he made on the subject doesn't seem terribly noteworthy to me. - Grant (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I really don't see how this analogy could aid anyone's understanding or change anyone's mind about anything. Are there really people out there who can't understand why it's wrong for a priest to sexually abuse a child unless it's explained to them in terms of demons & witchcraft? Who are these people? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Who knows? You have to believe some pretty odd things to subscribe entirely to the Catholic faith. Either way, it's a fairly common thing to try to quantify things we consider to be evil. It's fairly common to compare and contrast things in that manner. - Grant (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Grant's reasoning (I mean the post above this last one) sounds good to me. It may not have been a particularly smart or useful thing to say on the part of such an important personage, but it wasn't very noteworthy either. The man's hyper-religious, he's bound to make non-sensical analogies. Nullahnung (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)