|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive230
Mildly interesting phenomenon[edit]
Last night we had a thunder squall of stupendous proportions blow through the neighborhood. I poured us a glass apiece of something soothing, and went out on the front porch with Sra. Cogswell to watch the rain dash itself across the street in torrential sheets. A few cars were coming by, and it was fun to watch their headlights play in the densely falling, rebounding drops. Occasional flashes lit the scene, rumbling blunders, yada, yada...
Soon I noticed something funny going on in the middle of the street. Intermittently, there was a little circular geyser, about mid-shinbone high. Some of the times it spouted, I could hear the manhole cover dancing in its socket, like the lid of a boiling rice pot. Never seen anything like that before. I assume there was some air pumping going on, with flash flooding pushing against downstream overload. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Lame...[edit]
Anyone else have their July 4th celebrations rained out? Even the fireworks here are postponed until tomorrow. The weather sucks in the northeast right now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sunny and 77 degrees. Heading out to BBQ/fireworks/late-night pool party. Sorry you're not here. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
21:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Light rain right now. If it weren't for the forecast of heavy showers during the day, I'd be at someone else's house by a lake, splashing around, filling up on potluck, and achieving mild inebriation. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Central Florida here. It rained heavily, but only in the afternoon. We were lucky to get the barbeque done just before it started, and we all ate inside. KevinR1990 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- A Friday night in Brunei during Ramadan was never going to be most people's idea of a good time. Of course I was celebrating Loss of Independence Day, - my 28th wedding anniversary.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- A Friday night in Brunei during Ramadan was never going to be most people's idea of a good time. Of course I was celebrating Loss of Independence Day, - my 28th wedding anniversary.
Has Iraq surpassed Vietnam as "THE" war for the US?[edit]
Even though Vietnam's death toll still quite worse (in both total, and just for Americans) has the outcome of Iraq ended up worse for all sides? For whatever you say about Communism, the post war government was A) Stable ,and B) Not warmongering. Granted ISIS hasn't taken Iraq yet, but it seems like its only a matter of time, short of the US redeploying to Iraq. There's no question that ISIS will be FAR more dangerous to its self, neighbors, and the world in general then the Communist government of Vietnam. That leads to this question. Are we going to start saying that "This is going to be another Iraq" or "It's (country name)'s Iraq" rather then Vietnam? --Revolverman (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- much as somalia caused the whole world to sit around with our thumbs up our arses and watch hutu slaughter a million Tutsi, Iraq is now causing us to once again sit around with thumb in arse and watch as Arab slaughters arab. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Did you mistype? That was Rwanda, not Somalia. --Revolverman (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- no mistype. The botched handling of somalia and in particular the battle of Mogadishu killed the worlds resolve to get involved in Rwanda when it could have done some good. The business in Bosnia didn't help none either. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ohh, ok. I gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. --Revolverman (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- no mistype. The botched handling of somalia and in particular the battle of Mogadishu killed the worlds resolve to get involved in Rwanda when it could have done some good. The business in Bosnia didn't help none either. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- You missed a bit out there AMG: "… sit around with thumb in arse and watch as Arab slaughters arab." - and say "Great, they're doing our job for us!" Scream!! (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Did you mistype? That was Rwanda, not Somalia. --Revolverman (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: The original question: No. One, you're basing your conclusion on a bunch of stuff that hasn't happened yet, and nothing is inevitable. ISIS could very well end up losing a lot of their gains once they encounter Shia milita and an Iraqi army backed up by US airpower/advisors. Or they might not. But nothing is a done deal.
More importantly, there are crucial differences between the way the US experienced Vietnam and the way it experienced Iraq (and Afghanistan) that will keep it from becoming the same kind of domestic political and cultural touchstone. One, 90% fewer dead guys. Two. The lack of substantial independent reporting from the field during the war. Unlike in Vietnam, the US military controlled what came out of the battlefield in Iraq and thus for the most part made the war feel far away. Three. The lack of any viable anti-war movement, and related, the fact that the war in Iraq failed to glom onto existing social lovements like Vietnam did. Vietnam was a horrible war and a giant gaping domestic wound for a decade. It played into the civil rights and Black Power movements, it inspired often violent protest and even more violent reactions to that protest. As for Iraq, there were antiwar demos leading up to the attack, but, after that, nothing. No 68 Democratic convention, no Kent State, no prominent race leaders condemning the war, no black athletes refusing to honor a draft notice, no draft dodgers, no nothing. America didn't care. Even the Occupy movement only paid lip service. A bunch of intellectual academics wrote blog posts and books that nobody read.
Vietnam was a cancer that helped bring the nation as close to revolution and/or crisis of existence as it has been since the Civil War. Iraq was a horrible blunder that most people only paid lip service to. It can't have the same kind of impact now, because it had virtually no impact on our consciousness when it happened. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 15:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- its replaced Vietnam as the credibility giving back story for Hollywood hard men. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Iraq was a horrible blunder that most people only paid lip service to. It can't have the same kind of impact now, because it had virtually no impact on our consciousness when it happened." That's a bit of an understatement. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the draft is a major difference between Vietnam and Iraq. There was no draft during the Iraq War. Unlike Vietnam, there were no men who had to worry whether they'd be dragged kicking and screaming into a war they didn't support. Without that omnipresent shadow over their heads, they had much less reason to actively protest the war effort. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 02:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Youre right, and I can't believe I forgot to mention it. Also, the fact that the people who make up a big chunk if not majority of the people in the volunteer army are largely drawn from marginalized communities -- like the poor -- that don't get a lot of liberal/bourgeois attention, unless it's a Christmas Basket drive. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Youre right, and I can't believe I forgot to mention it. Also, the fact that the people who make up a big chunk if not majority of the people in the volunteer army are largely drawn from marginalized communities -- like the poor -- that don't get a lot of liberal/bourgeois attention, unless it's a Christmas Basket drive. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
While culturally, I'll concede the point on. I still feel Iraq will end up have a much greater negative effect on the US, statically, and tactically. The Costs, the Alienation, the Enboldment of Anti-US Non-State actors seems like its really eating away at the States. --Revolverman (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Revolverman, Good questions and good points. ISIS actions are really some Nazi crap, motivated by religious and ethnic hatred. This generation, that is, you guys under 30, have to make a decision about standing up to evil, the way "the Greatest Generation" of the 1940s did. Good luck. I hope you make the right decisions. And the longer it takes for action the more costly and difficult it will be (just like in the 1930s & 40s). nobsJesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does. 18:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I need a name for an article[edit]
written here, please. Please let me know what namespace should that be in as well. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say essay space. As for the name, I'd probably call it something like "God and Lying" or some shit. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER Yo mum's gonna get in trouble- wit mah painis!
04:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think "On the Impossibility of Divine Prevarication" has a fine ring to it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I like the cut of your jib, Sir! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think "On the Impossibility of Divine Prevarication" has a fine ring to it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Jazz musician taking issue with the term "queer."[edit]
The broad background--someone has organized a jazz festival focusing on LGBT musicians. Also, it's important to know that there are very, very few out gay men in the hyper-masculine world of jazz (and, given the extent to which female instrumentalists are extremely marginalized to begin with, even fewer out lesbians), so this is a cutting-edge venture.
The controversy: Fred Hersch, who has been out since the 1980s (and an amazingly brave man just for that) and is arguably one of the top three or maybe top five pianists of his time, is not pleased with the use of the word "queer" in the festival's promotional material. His reasons are outlined in the letter.
As a devoted fan of the music who is aware of the problems the institution of jazz has with gender and sexual identity politics, I am curious as to what people here who know way, way more about these issues than do I, as well as folks who live with these issues every day, think of Hersch's letter. Thanks in advance for your input. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 13:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- From our article on Queer:
- " "Queer" is an example of a reclaimed word: the term was almost exclusively derogatory in the past, and has only recently become an acceptable term, at least within certain linguistic contexts (comparable to the reclamation of "nigger"). The extent to which that reclamation has diffused into the larger linguistic context of the population at large is an open question. It's also an example of language evolution in action; the current sense has only been widespread since the early to mid 1990s or so, and before that almost always referred exclusively to homosexual people."
- This seems a case of incomplete diffusion of such language evolution, where it is still being perceived as a word-never-to-be-used by some people. Certainly it seems taboo enough to me that I never use it. Nullahnung (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Our article also says that "queer" is "sometimes used as a self-identifier by those who wish to tie their sexuality to a radical critique of society", which suggests a whole lot of ideological baggage he has the good sense not to endorse. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree which is why I dislike the adding of 'q' to lgbt as all definitions of queer I have seen can be covered quite happily with lgbt. It seems to be used these days by folk who are upset that being lgbt is no longer makes you dangerous or edgy. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- A lot of people my age (20s) and younger use it. Has nothing to do with being "dangerous" or "edgy". Some feel that the traditional four letters don't adequately encompass everything (hence ones like QUILTBAG). Some believe that by using it we can further reclaim a word that is still be hurled as an invective in some parts of the country. I've used it to describe myself for both reasons at different times. AyzmoCheers 20:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- the thing is, lgbt may not adequately encompass everything and may not be the best identifier, but it is a pretty broad church. Sure it could be broader, but adding letters to alphabet soup doesn't broaden it. It makes it more specific and thus less inclusive that you need to add to it constantly to include everyone not specifically mentioned till it is unwieldy or ridiculous (quiltbag IS ridiculous, let's face it). I take your point about queer, but there are so many different definitions that its next to worthless as self identifier beyond another word for gay. And as I said above, there are some definitions and some people using the term that seem more intent on marking themselves different to 'mainstream' gays than inclusivity. For them its not enough to be gay or lesbian or transgendered or bi, but to be the right kind of gay, lesbian, transgendered or bi. I am not exactly mainstream myself and probably have lot in common with these folk but ultimately the petty tribalism does none of us any favours. Sigh, things were much easier when everything was a subset of gay. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reclaiming terms that are still used as pejoratives is a messy business. Take "nigger", mentioned above: the non-hate speech usage is really just between black people themselves; it's still very much taboo for a white person to use the word, and probably always will be. Similarly, some gay people self-identify as a "fag", "queen" or "fairy", terms which are still usually seen as homophobic when used by heterosexuals. "Queer" has some of the same kind of awkwardness around it, which doesn't help attempts to legitimise it as a tolerant & inclusive term for the LGTB movement & community. As a straight person, I would be uncomfortable describing somebody or something as queer because of the strong likelihood that people I'm talking to will interpret it as a homophobic slur. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- in my more punkish youth, I customised a tee shirt with some common gay slurs in a half added attempt at reclaiming. A lesbian threatened to punch me AMassiveGay (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reclaiming terms that are still used as pejoratives is a messy business. Take "nigger", mentioned above: the non-hate speech usage is really just between black people themselves; it's still very much taboo for a white person to use the word, and probably always will be. Similarly, some gay people self-identify as a "fag", "queen" or "fairy", terms which are still usually seen as homophobic when used by heterosexuals. "Queer" has some of the same kind of awkwardness around it, which doesn't help attempts to legitimise it as a tolerant & inclusive term for the LGTB movement & community. As a straight person, I would be uncomfortable describing somebody or something as queer because of the strong likelihood that people I'm talking to will interpret it as a homophobic slur. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- the thing is, lgbt may not adequately encompass everything and may not be the best identifier, but it is a pretty broad church. Sure it could be broader, but adding letters to alphabet soup doesn't broaden it. It makes it more specific and thus less inclusive that you need to add to it constantly to include everyone not specifically mentioned till it is unwieldy or ridiculous (quiltbag IS ridiculous, let's face it). I take your point about queer, but there are so many different definitions that its next to worthless as self identifier beyond another word for gay. And as I said above, there are some definitions and some people using the term that seem more intent on marking themselves different to 'mainstream' gays than inclusivity. For them its not enough to be gay or lesbian or transgendered or bi, but to be the right kind of gay, lesbian, transgendered or bi. I am not exactly mainstream myself and probably have lot in common with these folk but ultimately the petty tribalism does none of us any favours. Sigh, things were much easier when everything was a subset of gay. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- A lot of people my age (20s) and younger use it. Has nothing to do with being "dangerous" or "edgy". Some feel that the traditional four letters don't adequately encompass everything (hence ones like QUILTBAG). Some believe that by using it we can further reclaim a word that is still be hurled as an invective in some parts of the country. I've used it to describe myself for both reasons at different times. AyzmoCheers 20:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree which is why I dislike the adding of 'q' to lgbt as all definitions of queer I have seen can be covered quite happily with lgbt. It seems to be used these days by folk who are upset that being lgbt is no longer makes you dangerous or edgy. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Our article also says that "queer" is "sometimes used as a self-identifier by those who wish to tie their sexuality to a radical critique of society", which suggests a whole lot of ideological baggage he has the good sense not to endorse. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the word "queer" is his only issue here, as he also says "I do not play 'gay jazz' - if there were such a thing". Billing the event as a "queer jazz festival" or "gay jazz festival" carries connotations that this is an event for the LGBT community specifically (rather than a wider audience) and/or that it relates to a gay subculture or subgenre within the jazz world. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- when I first came out, I immersed myself in culture that I identified as being gay. I am sure that many of the bands, writers and film makers would be aghast at the thought that could be considered gay artists rather than artists that happen to be gay. Certainly most of the stuff produced by gay artists rather than artists that happen to be gay was absolute shite. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- it does appear that I only ever talk about gay stuff on here. I'm not such a one pony in real life, I am more versatile. Sorry, doing it again AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- When I was younger, the opposite of 'straight' in one sense was 'high on something', and in a related sense the opposite was 'cool', where 'cool' meant "tolerant of illegal drugs." I still wince to call myself "straight" for this reason, and don't identify with the label, though all I can really claim are some odd fetishes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- straight still has that meaning in context. Not when referring to yourself but 'did you do much last night?' 'No just a straight one'. And of course 'going straight' means turning your back on criminality. Not heard that one outside of crime fiction though. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Gotta admit, I've never heard the phrase of a straight night. I've heard of "straight laced" but that's it. Are you sure the other is in common usage? AyzmoCheers 20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Strait-laced" means your corset is laced so tightly that the gap in back is narrow, or strait. Straits of Gibraltar being the narrow place in the sea where Europe sees Africa, for example. Strait-laced now seems like a quaint way of saying uptight. There were also times when uptight meant out of sight, in a good way. In the sixties, "straight" meant not high, in the same way "sober" still means not drunk. Never heard of a straight night, but I am not, nor was I ever, a straight-out party animal. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- it was pretty common amongst the folk I knew in Essex during my pre gay days. It was never a straight night, more 'I'm having a straight one'. It helps if you have an Essex accent. I suspect it was probably local to the ne'er do wells of the area AMassiveGay (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Strait-laced" means your corset is laced so tightly that the gap in back is narrow, or strait. Straits of Gibraltar being the narrow place in the sea where Europe sees Africa, for example. Strait-laced now seems like a quaint way of saying uptight. There were also times when uptight meant out of sight, in a good way. In the sixties, "straight" meant not high, in the same way "sober" still means not drunk. Never heard of a straight night, but I am not, nor was I ever, a straight-out party animal. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Gotta admit, I've never heard the phrase of a straight night. I've heard of "straight laced" but that's it. Are you sure the other is in common usage? AyzmoCheers 20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- straight still has that meaning in context. Not when referring to yourself but 'did you do much last night?' 'No just a straight one'. And of course 'going straight' means turning your back on criminality. Not heard that one outside of crime fiction though. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- When I was younger, the opposite of 'straight' in one sense was 'high on something', and in a related sense the opposite was 'cool', where 'cool' meant "tolerant of illegal drugs." I still wince to call myself "straight" for this reason, and don't identify with the label, though all I can really claim are some odd fetishes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- it does appear that I only ever talk about gay stuff on here. I'm not such a one pony in real life, I am more versatile. Sorry, doing it again AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
FIFA and hypocrisy.[edit]
FIFA has been pushing the #SayNoToRacism campaign during this World Cup. However:
- They gave Russia, a really homophobic country, the 2018 World Cup.
- They gave Qatar the 2022 World Cup. Nevermind the slave labour that was used to build the infrastructure. And the whole Sharia law thing.
So, what's the message here? Fuck racism, but homophobia and slavery are a-ok. (Although to be fair, bribes were involved in Qatar). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ 
They were trying to combine themselves to form some sort of molestation Voltron 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- #SayNoToRacism, #SayYesToBribesAndHookers. --Revolverman (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- China didn't get the 2008 Olympics because they're so environmentally conscious and well-developed, they got it so they would have an additional incentive to develop themselves and improve their environmental policy. Just sayin'. Nullahnung (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Seoul 1988 did make Seoul and South Korea as a whole a much nicer place, so you have a point. I doubt the same would happen with Qatar's human rights record, or Russia's homophobia, but only time will tell.. On a side note, given how Qatar legally enforces Ramadan, combined with their terribly high summer temps, it would mean the games would get really slow really fast. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 22:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Seoul 1988 did make Seoul and South Korea as a whole a much nicer place, so you have a point. I doubt the same would happen with Qatar's human rights record, or Russia's homophobia, but only time will tell.. On a side note, given how Qatar legally enforces Ramadan, combined with their terribly high summer temps, it would mean the games would get really slow really fast. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- China didn't get the 2008 Olympics because they're so environmentally conscious and well-developed, they got it so they would have an additional incentive to develop themselves and improve their environmental policy. Just sayin'. Nullahnung (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
FIFA and hypocrisy? What do you expect with Sepp there is no racism in football Blatter running the show AMassiveGay (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Cue John Oliver explanatory rant. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- FIFA's stance on racism isn't because of some high-minded principles, it's just to reflect the nature of its membership. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd rant on about how much I hate FIFA but John Oliver does it so much better. Thanks for the link, OS. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- FIFA's stance on racism isn't because of some high-minded principles, it's just to reflect the nature of its membership.
- I thought racial equality is different from equality for sexual orientation? Afterall, they DIDN'T say equality for all. It kind of takes time to get an organization from like 1965 to the 21st century. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sye Ten Bruggencate Matt Dillahunty debate[edit]
i hope this is the right place for this but aside from the 1 wigo there is no page or even a mentionNailo1 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's a shame that whe wiki software doesn't allow the general public to write articles on topics that are possibly of interest to the project. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- My take is that Sye Ten is limited in the tactics he uses in debates. His modus operandi involves:
- Transcendental argument for God.
- God doesn't lie. (Quotes Bible here)
- Putative knowledge claims from opponent can only be explained through Goddidit
- Ergo, God exists.
- It might be the opponent that seems more interesting, but I haven't been paying attention to who he is debating. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sye Ten is one of the few people I've seen who is more stupid than Ken Ham, and that takes some doing. His argument can basically be summed up as "God exists because God exists, and everyone knows this." DickTurpis (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- This was the first time I had seen Ten Bruggencate in action and I thought that he was absolutely useless. His performance made a mockery of the word "debate". ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 06:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- This was the first time I had seen Ten Bruggencate in action and I thought that he was absolutely useless. His performance made a mockery of the word "debate".
- Sye Ten is one of the few people I've seen who is more stupid than Ken Ham, and that takes some doing. His argument can basically be summed up as "God exists because God exists, and everyone knows this." DickTurpis (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- My take is that Sye Ten is limited in the tactics he uses in debates. His modus operandi involves:
Image copyvio[edit]
Hey, I'm not sure where to put this but it seems that File:Dcpentagram.jpg is a copyvio; I've uploaded a replacement map image that's under a free license. What should be done with the copyvio image? Jc86035 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- If it is truly a violation, then delete it on such grounds. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Vaporized, thanks for the advice. Jc86035 (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I wish all Wiki problems were that easy :-) Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Vaporized, thanks for the advice. Jc86035 (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- If it is truly a violation, then delete it on such grounds. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
RIP Rik Mayall[edit]
Wow, I am a month late on this, but Rik Mayall has died. RIP, Flashheart. (Woof!) :( Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was, like, almost crying when I found out, to be honest. GØØBY PLS The epitome of Gods and Men alike 23:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Rollin' coal[edit]
Obama's comin' for our tailpipes! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Somebody get Axel Murphy to look into this. We're gonna need some bananas in the tailpipe. User:PsychoGecko 18:41, 8 July, 2014
- I can't even tell you how many times I've seen shit like this. I actually know a guy that does that kinda shit. AyzmoCheers 20:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone can embrace stupidity, but it take a certain type to dive head-first into a pool of it. DickTurpis (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- At least they'll be bankrupting themselves soon enough, with Gas prices set to rocket, and never come down again. --Revolverman (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm reasonably sure it's possible to produce excessive amounts of noxious fumes whilst obtaining functional fuel economy. For example, yanking the cat will improve performance and fuel economy by a significant amount. I would presume that pulling the particulate filter would also improve fuel economy. It still won't be good fuel economy, compared to a smaller vehicle, but I assume they have such trucks for some reason beyond their use as mechanical strapons. Compro01 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, you think the stupidity is your ally, but you merely adopted stupidity. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t think until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but confounding! Shadow of Lords talk 20:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- At least they'll be bankrupting themselves soon enough, with Gas prices set to rocket, and never come down again. --Revolverman (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone can embrace stupidity, but it take a certain type to dive head-first into a pool of it. DickTurpis (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't there some emission standards that are enforced my the DMV/EPA and requires you to check your vehicle every now and then? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Psycho, did you intentionally confuse Axel Foley (the character, and origin of the name Axel F for the famous theme music) and Eddie Murphy (the actor who played that character) ? Or did some joke just fly over my head ? Tialaramex (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Compro01 Can you explain or shove a link in my face about what yanking the cat is? My sense is as follows(and seems to be laughably wrong) a lot of emissions are caused by incomplete combustion so shouldn't cleaner cars get better millage because they use more of the fuel? Seriously I need people to explain cars to me I know jack shit, I live in new York city and commute by subway. Ayzmo tell your friend that strangers on the internet think he's an asshole for me will you ;) K61824 I don't know the specifics but it is illegal to remove a pollution control device from cars in some states. Don't know about why(if?) this crap is legal in others. I have no idea how to indent this, oh well. Should we start an article on this stupidity? --NonPerson (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The catalytic converter only deals with the exhaust gases - it doesn't make the engine any more efficient. It cleans the exhaust by converting CO and NOx into CO2, water, O2 and N2. The exhaust gases have to pass over and through a matrix which restricts the exhaust robbing the engine of power and efficiency. It's much less of a problem than it sued to be because modern engines, with very accurate fuelling, don't need anything like the same amount of exhaust cleaning as before. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This rolling coal thing is honestly one of the most stupid, pointless, pathetic and petty things I've ever seen. I find it hard to even get annoyed at it because my brain can only feel pity for the type of person who thinks this is a good idea. It'd be one thing if they just enjoyed making smoke (like how some people mod their car/motorbike to make as much noise as possible), but to explicitly do it just because liberals don't want them to is just sad. Actually sad, too, not the euphemistic way people say "that's sad" nowadays. I actually feel sad for their mental state. X Stickman (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Who needs weed...[edit]
When you got beer with THC? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Does it cure cancer? Генгисunbelieving 18:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I could use some weed. Gimmie gimmie NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 22:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- It cures brain disease.
What a strange site this is[edit]
Despite the claim of 'Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement' it would appear to me that 'rationalwiki' is a feminist marxist propaganda machine. Not rational or scientific at all. Controlled by a small cabal with a 'religious' ideology. Bizarre. 86.164.194.154 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Drink! Zero (talk - contributions) 21:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Of course. I am on the single malt whisky as I type. 86.164.194.154 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- But don't worry. I am a computer scientist and an atheist. But I am gone from here. 86.164.194.154 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Don't let the door hit you on the way out! (Spoken from a computer scientist and atheist) Zero (talk - contributions) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why are there so many computer scientists around here? Must be their affinity to getting active on the WWW. Nullahnung (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Protip: You're not original BoN. --Revolverman (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- One would think Marxist feminists would allow you to point out the primitive streak is obviously the basis of the lunar effect given the fourteen day correlation. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Goldurn postrelativist femimarxist communazi statheists! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Was that Dirk who just poked his nose in and promptly left? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Dirk was awesome. He was a fun troll to read, and his nonsense was Time Cube-level. We don't get those very often (the INTERNATIONAL SERVER MASTER guy got really tedious really fast). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ If you ceased to exist yesterday / I'll erase yesterday from existance 02:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Good guess! Dirky Steeley it is! Have a new IP addy.. so just thought I would just pop in to see how all my old mates are doing before I get another life long ban!! Nice to see nothing has changed.... Also spam code to add was 'good riddance' Ha! 86.164.194.154 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Dirk was awesome. He was a fun troll to read, and his nonsense was Time Cube-level. We don't get those very often (the INTERNATIONAL SERVER MASTER guy got really tedious really fast). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- Was that Dirk who just poked his nose in and promptly left? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Goldurn postrelativist femimarxist communazi statheists! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- One would think Marxist feminists would allow you to point out the primitive streak is obviously the basis of the lunar effect given the fourteen day correlation. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Protip: You're not original BoN. --Revolverman (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why are there so many computer scientists around here? Must be their affinity to getting active on the WWW. Nullahnung (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Don't let the door hit you on the way out! (Spoken from a computer scientist and atheist) Zero (talk - contributions) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- But don't worry. I am a computer scientist and an atheist. But I am gone from here. 86.164.194.154 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Of course. I am on the single malt whisky as I type. 86.164.194.154 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- It definetly came off as someone pretending to be new to sock puppet support an old argument. New users don't home in on the saloon bar to rant about non-specific articles. Sorry that feminism is more evidence driven than you'd like. Ikanreed (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is he really gone already? I was looking forward to hearing all about his totally objective, rational and scientific views on politics, that is always hilarious!
- I don't want to to be unnecessarily argumentative, but for a site called Rational Wiki, there's an awfully high proportion of smug/angry mud slinging. I completely agree with much of the site's content, but the leftist lean is pretty transparent. Effort should be made to maintain neutrality and logical arguments, while still called bullshit bullshit (none of this religious apologism nonsense). The comment below is a good example, I don't even have any idea what kind of argumentative fallacy this is. Elementary school fallacy? — Unsigned, by: 72.235.49.123 / talk / contribs
- I completely get what you're saying; I myself often find that the tone (yes, I know, tone-trolling, etc.) can be needlessly immature, condescending, smug, and counter-intuitive. However, I would also like to point out that RationalWiki is not, and does not pretend to be, neutral, and that the majority of editors here hold a left-of-centre political viewpoint. Finally, about the comment below, and others- I realise that, without context, this may just seem like people are just being knobs; however, this is due to the editor they are addressing, Dirk Steele, is/was renown for his trolling habits. Anyway, I hope you stick around! DØØM MĖSSIÅH I want you to see from behind these empty walls 07:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I completely get what you're saying; I myself often find that the tone (yes, I know, tone-trolling, etc.) can be needlessly immature, condescending, smug, and counter-intuitive. However, I would also like to point out that RationalWiki is not, and does not pretend to be, neutral, and that the majority of editors here hold a left-of-centre political viewpoint. Finally, about the comment below, and others- I realise that, without context, this may just seem like people are just being knobs; however, this is due to the editor they are addressing, Dirk Steele, is/was renown for his trolling habits. Anyway, I hope you stick around! DØØM MĖSSIÅH I want you to see from behind these empty walls
- I don't want to to be unnecessarily argumentative, but for a site called Rational Wiki, there's an awfully high proportion of smug/angry mud slinging. I completely agree with much of the site's content, but the leftist lean is pretty transparent. Effort should be made to maintain neutrality and logical arguments, while still called bullshit bullshit (none of this religious apologism nonsense). The comment below is a good example, I don't even have any idea what kind of argumentative fallacy this is. Elementary school fallacy? — Unsigned, by: 72.235.49.123 / talk / contribs
- "Deeerp let me tell you about my totally value free value system. duuuuurrrrr" Ultan (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Unlike Marx, I do not have the view that politics is a science. I do however think that first use of force is not moral or ethical. This view is obviously subjective. I therefore have libertarian leanings. 86.164.194.154 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is he really gone already? I was looking forward to hearing all about his totally objective, rational and scientific views on politics, that is always hilarious!
- And of course my view that psychiatry, like homeopathy, is a medical pseudoscience. 86.164.194.154 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason Im being condescending is because I have an honours degree in political philosophy and you are advocating a political philosophy which is total and utter shite! Ive studied rightwing "libertarianism" specifically, under an An-Cap prof. and it is grade A bullshit! It is totally irrational, its riddled with with awful arguments, like "body property" as an argument for private property, that are either begging the question or circular and is suffering from a crypto-dualism. The homesteading argument for private property doesn't even follow flow from its premisses. It is repeatedly inconsistently applied, like in the rent vs taxes debate. Its ridiculously biased and ahistorical, its America centrism is legendary! The homesteading principle seems to more about justifying the American western expansion than an actual logical argument. It invokes Locke one minute to defend private property but then ignores other parts of the same quote the next minute when the implications of it don't suit them when it comes to scarce resources! Its practically non-existent as a political movement anywhere outside of North America! It is barely even existent there! It repeatedly uses shifting of goal posts and redefining terms in ways they were never used anywhere else at any other time by anyone else outside of America and by "libertarians". The name itself is an example of that! As is von Mises redefining socialism to just mean state ownership and then pretending libertarian socialism, which is the original, is self contradictory! (Which by the way, based on rightwing "libertarian's like himself's views on intellectual property and homesteading is tantamount to theft!) That is a classic example of the equivocation fallacy and/or moving the goal posts by redefining terms to suit yourself and then declaring victory over a point in a debate nobody is making, its basically just straw manning! It is repeatedly inconsistent with regard to state enforcement and free association. The state creates corporate entities as a legal fiction but supposedly small state rightwing "libertarians" are ridiculously fond of them while often hostile to free associations of people that don't require the state's enforcement to exist, like labour unions! It runs foul of basic logical principles like transitivity when it argues that the state is necessary for the protection of the ever central private property, including "body property" but that the state has no requirement to keep anyone safe from anything other than physical attack to enjoy those rights. It claims to promote freedom but whenever freedom and private property clash it is always property that wins! Taken to its logical conclusion the NAP involves advocating slavery, child labour and being allowed to starve your own children for you own amusement! Many rightwing "libertarian" websites like LewRockwell have been found advocating just plain Nazi level racist pseudo-science like innate racial hierarchies! Its wrapped up in a pseudo-scientific economic model that isn't even respected on the free market right because it is so totally uninterested in actual real life evidence! Im not even going to get into all the other not strictly logical questions like the funding and the demographics! — Unsigned, by: Ultan / talk / contribs
- Don't worry, I wasn't explicitly pointing fingers at you; I understand where you're coming from. In fact, I was talking more about mainspace articles than anything else. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Yesterday seems as though it never existed 10:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Fuck my fucking arse with hot curry powder!!!! You have a honours degree in political philosophy??????? Jesus save me from your shite... 86.164.194.154 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- 'It is totally irrational, its riddled with with awful arguments, like "body property" ' Yeh... of course I do not own my body. It is a tool ' What a strange site this isw... with views from strange people with a secular 'religious' funde-mentalism. Strange for a group that attempts to be rational and scientific. But small groups can dominate if their sociapathy dominates reason ....86.164.194.154 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Dirk Steele? I thought his shtick was "Psychiatry is pseudoscience because Szasz and Popper!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- 'It is totally irrational, its riddled with with awful arguments, like "body property" ' Yeh... of course I do not own my body. It is a tool ' What a strange site this isw... with views from strange people with a secular 'religious' funde-mentalism. Strange for a group that attempts to be rational and scientific. But small groups can dominate if their sociapathy dominates reason ....86.164.194.154 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Edit Warring at Water Fluoridation[edit]
Someone with multiple accounts is repeatedly adding outdated data with a conspiracy theory bent to it. I tried to step in and now I'm not a sysop anymore. Time to play Civilization V. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- 1. I only have one active account. Please prove otherwise, or STFU, 2. You were asked to provide more specific reasons for your removal of the cited material, instead you kept on removing it. That's edit-warring. I'm actually not invested in the article or the material, but edit-warring isn't cool, so I reverted the article back to the version which had the material in it. The explanation you gave fails to address most of the fairty mundane material about where flouridation is practiced, etc that you removed]. 3. You're not a sysop anymore because you vandal-binned two editors for no good reason. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Its outdated, it suggests a whole lot of stuff that fluoride is a conspiracy, no one brought the large amount of changes to the talk page. If I am incorrect about the multiple accounts then so be it, its not that hard to correct the mistake. With the speed of the edits and the multiple account names all defending the same action, it seemed very much like someone with at least two or three accounts. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Go to the relevant talk page and write about which specific passages give you icky feelings inside, and argue your points. When the discussion is resolved, then either remove the material or don't, depending on the outcome of the discussion. Don't fuck with other users' rights based on a stupid conclusion you draw for no good reason. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 19:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here goes... Talk:Water fluoridation#My issues with the recent "AmateurEncyclopedia" et. al. edits NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Go to the relevant talk page and write about which specific passages give you icky feelings inside, and argue your points. When the discussion is resolved, then either remove the material or don't, depending on the outcome of the discussion. Don't fuck with other users' rights based on a stupid conclusion you draw for no good reason. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- Its outdated, it suggests a whole lot of stuff that fluoride is a conspiracy, no one brought the large amount of changes to the talk page. If I am incorrect about the multiple accounts then so be it, its not that hard to correct the mistake. With the speed of the edits and the multiple account names all defending the same action, it seemed very much like someone with at least two or three accounts. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Without wanting to fan unnecessary flames, but so it is here in this thread's record: plenty of RW editors have a sense of the fellow here known as Father Vivian O'Blivion, his persona, interests, areas of expertise, and some of his history IRL, in general terms. Some of the same editors probably have a sense of what motivates the former Wikipedian now known as Amateur Encyclopedist.
I will say that their styles and interests are different enough that it would take obsessive effort and consummate skill for either one of them to masquerade as the other. Pretty sure that Fr. Viv has enough other fish to fry that maintaining a sock like that would not interest him at all. That's all I want to say about that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Father Vivian is still edit-warring, ignoring the talk page, and not engaging any of my points. Doing the exact same thing AmateurEncyclopidist was doing with the same points. Time to play online chess. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 20:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Before I got away from computer for a few days here's what I think. Both sides could be behaving better(which is par for the human condition honestly). NerdyWizard did most definitely make a mistake using the vandal bin. Frankly though it looks at least superficially like both sides are using admin powers to win a dispute(which is bad duh). I Strongly oppose the same change that NerdyWizard objected to. I think he is right when he says the sources are of extremely poor quality. The language stinks of false balance and Wikipedia Policy: Undue weight. Got to run now. --NonPerson (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well I admit I was initially super pissed about the edit war and jumped to conclusions. The mob says I acted overly heavy handed so therefore in the future I will check myself before I proverbially "wreck myself". It also upsets me when someone has an entirely different opinion on the contents of an article, doesn't start a discussion on the talk page at all, and fights over inserting their opinions onto a piece that they've previously had little input on. I could see someone who has a vested interest in an article getting into a tiff over a difference of opinion then taking it to the talk page, but to just come along and present a pseudoscientific or conspiratorial bent entirely in passing with no engagement and to begin edit warring seems like vandal status to me, however compared to actual vandal status I suppose not. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 11:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The first sources were of bad quality, those figures were decades old and only covered a handful of countries. The newest figures I added to the talk page are from a 2012 WHO study and much more comprehensive. Conspiracy is not the right word, but it's certainly suspicious that fluoridation required such a massive advertising campaign. There's corruption and greed when business enters politics all the time, just look at the Banana wars or these examples of ridiculous wastes of money by the U.S. government. (http://dailysignal.com/2013/08/20/morning-bell-15-pictures-of-ridiculous-government-spending-guaranteed-to-make-you-mad/) Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- IMO we should leave suspicions out of this, since it is a topic where you can know everything that needs to be known by looking at the science. Nullahnung (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm back. There's nothing suspicious about needing a campaign to get people to accept a foreign chemical in their drinking water(no matter how safe it is). Said foreign chemical is not necessary to insure safety of water or even related to water safety. It just sounds scary. We are too young to remember(I am anyway) but boy was there a shit storm over water fluoridation people thought it was a communist plot to mess up our water supply. Frankly had I been around back then my first thought would of been OMG chemicals are they safe? Isn't this just whoever provides Florine trying to make money? --NonPerson (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your shill gambit doesn't make up for the fact that the scientific consensus is that fluoride has been a major contributor to the worldwide decline in tooth decay and that it's completely safe in small doses. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 22:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm back. There's nothing suspicious about needing a campaign to get people to accept a foreign chemical in their drinking water(no matter how safe it is). Said foreign chemical is not necessary to insure safety of water or even related to water safety. It just sounds scary. We are too young to remember(I am anyway) but boy was there a shit storm over water fluoridation people thought it was a communist plot to mess up our water supply. Frankly had I been around back then my first thought would of been OMG chemicals are they safe? Isn't this just whoever provides Florine trying to make money? --NonPerson (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- IMO we should leave suspicions out of this, since it is a topic where you can know everything that needs to be known by looking at the science. Nullahnung (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The first sources were of bad quality, those figures were decades old and only covered a handful of countries. The newest figures I added to the talk page are from a 2012 WHO study and much more comprehensive. Conspiracy is not the right word, but it's certainly suspicious that fluoridation required such a massive advertising campaign. There's corruption and greed when business enters politics all the time, just look at the Banana wars or these examples of ridiculous wastes of money by the U.S. government. (http://dailysignal.com/2013/08/20/morning-bell-15-pictures-of-ridiculous-government-spending-guaranteed-to-make-you-mad/) Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well I admit I was initially super pissed about the edit war and jumped to conclusions. The mob says I acted overly heavy handed so therefore in the future I will check myself before I proverbially "wreck myself". It also upsets me when someone has an entirely different opinion on the contents of an article, doesn't start a discussion on the talk page at all, and fights over inserting their opinions onto a piece that they've previously had little input on. I could see someone who has a vested interest in an article getting into a tiff over a difference of opinion then taking it to the talk page, but to just come along and present a pseudoscientific or conspiratorial bent entirely in passing with no engagement and to begin edit warring seems like vandal status to me, however compared to actual vandal status I suppose not. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 11:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Before I got away from computer for a few days here's what I think. Both sides could be behaving better(which is par for the human condition honestly). NerdyWizard did most definitely make a mistake using the vandal bin. Frankly though it looks at least superficially like both sides are using admin powers to win a dispute(which is bad duh). I Strongly oppose the same change that NerdyWizard objected to. I think he is right when he says the sources are of extremely poor quality. The language stinks of false balance and Wikipedia Policy: Undue weight. Got to run now. --NonPerson (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Who's shill gambit mine? if you where talking to me I must of failed to make myself clear. I find water fluoridation to be utterly uncontroversial and an all around good idea espcially in this era of sugar. I was just saying if I was around when water fluoridation first started it probably would of required outreach/advertizing to convince me. That said just for the sake of argument it's possible economic interests are behind water fluoridation. This is completely and clearly independent of weather or not it's a good idea. since florine is not known to fall out of the sky someone probably makes money off of water fluoridation (just like every other essentially service like electricity). Actually there's money in dealing with water to and that does fall from the sky. Capitalism ho! --NonPerson (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to Amateur Encyclopedist's "suspicious that fluoridation required such a massive advertising campaign" statement. I apologize, I should have been more clear. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 02:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank Galt![edit]
While searching for some links for the Objectivism article, I happened upon some fantastic news: Ayn Rand's lost novel will be published for the first time in 2015! Surely, this will become part of the philosophical canon -- right up there with Aristotle, Plato, and Heinlein. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Gotta hand it to marketing for slipping this in the middle of the usual 2016 election hysteria. Even the dead are on in on right-wing grifting now! Anoxia93 (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Lost novel? Oh dear. Objectivism just got a little less serious for me. Teasing a lost novel? What the hell, is Lenny trying to make it look like those cheap surprises? — Melab (Talk) 17:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Goat simulator redux[edit]
It is on sale @ steam. Has anyone tried it out yet? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Meh". "It's OK". "Not really that good." "Get's boring after a short time." If you enjoy juvenile humor and infantile shenanigans, Goat Simulator might be for you. As for me... it rapidly settled into "probably won't play that again" territory. Javasca₧ watches lame bluejays burn 16:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Escape Goat has much more reason to be RationalWiki's game of choice. Vulpius (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Escape Goat has that problem where you (I) figure out how to solve the level, but then can't quite put it into action, always making some minor error and being obliged to start over. In 1985 the reason you had to start the level over was because there wasn't enough RAM to make other possibilities real. This is 2014, and while I'm glad to see it doesn't have lives (reason those exist? to make you put more money into the arcade machine, yes, I know, you didn't have an arcade machine, but the game designers were making their living from the arcades) it annoys me by making me keep playing a level after I've solved the puzzle and stopped having fun. For an example of how to do this right, play Portal 2. Part way through the game (no spoilers) you suddenly need a portal right now. Ordinarily Portal's puzzles give you at least a little time to figure out what to do, decide how to approach it, and execute. But plot drives a sudden decision at that moment in the game. Realising that a portal will fix it is an "Aha!" moment, that feels good for the player. But if in that second they get the wrong end of the portal it won't work, which means trying again, dull, feels crap, undermines the "Aha!". So the game ignores which button you press at that moment, if you summon a portal at all it turn out to be the right one and you're safe. The moment is delivered for every player, instead of only those who happened to keep track of which end was where without knowing it would matter. Tialaramex (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I officially have impulse control issues, tried the demo, liked it bought it. Oh well, the price is right. escape goat not goat simulator. edit: I forgot to sign yesterday! anyway good game I finished the main game and unlocked an more stages with an insane level of difficulty. yay! --NonPerson (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Escape Goat has that problem where you (I) figure out how to solve the level, but then can't quite put it into action, always making some minor error and being obliged to start over. In 1985 the reason you had to start the level over was because there wasn't enough RAM to make other possibilities real. This is 2014, and while I'm glad to see it doesn't have lives (reason those exist? to make you put more money into the arcade machine, yes, I know, you didn't have an arcade machine, but the game designers were making their living from the arcades) it annoys me by making me keep playing a level after I've solved the puzzle and stopped having fun. For an example of how to do this right, play Portal 2. Part way through the game (no spoilers) you suddenly need a portal right now. Ordinarily Portal's puzzles give you at least a little time to figure out what to do, decide how to approach it, and execute. But plot drives a sudden decision at that moment in the game. Realising that a portal will fix it is an "Aha!" moment, that feels good for the player. But if in that second they get the wrong end of the portal it won't work, which means trying again, dull, feels crap, undermines the "Aha!". So the game ignores which button you press at that moment, if you summon a portal at all it turn out to be the right one and you're safe. The moment is delivered for every player, instead of only those who happened to keep track of which end was where without knowing it would matter. Tialaramex (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Escape Goat has much more reason to be RationalWiki's game of choice. Vulpius (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The Process Church?[edit]
I've noted that this bitheist offshoot of the Church of $ isn't really mentioned on the Church's page and wish to know the thoughts of the wiki on my adding a mention, due to it being a popular scapegoat in more obscure conspiracy theories about the Mansons. In addition, I've seen conspiracy theories on David Berkowitz being connected as well.--Madman (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman
- Is "Church of $" supposed to mean Scientology? Can you explain this more? If it is related to Scientology, there should be no objection to a mention of it on the page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Church of Scientology's early years were wrought with schismatic groups and new religions forming from these, the most prominent being the Free Zoners. The Process Church was a more Abrahamic-themed version of Scientology, with three deities taking their names from the Abrahamic lore. Basically, replace Thetans with "Satan". Manson is speculated to have borrowed some of his philosophy from them, as detailed in Helter Skelter. I can't really find any print literature published by them, as they went a social collapse decades before my time.--Madman (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman
- For added hilarity, the Process got charitable status in the UK as a religion pretty much straight away, and the Scientologists still don't have it. SATANISTS ARE MORE OF A RELIGION THAN SCIENTOLOGY - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Church of Scientology's early years were wrought with schismatic groups and new religions forming from these, the most prominent being the Free Zoners. The Process Church was a more Abrahamic-themed version of Scientology, with three deities taking their names from the Abrahamic lore. Basically, replace Thetans with "Satan". Manson is speculated to have borrowed some of his philosophy from them, as detailed in Helter Skelter. I can't really find any print literature published by them, as they went a social collapse decades before my time.--Madman (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Germany wins World Cup[edit]
Winning goal scored by Gotze. Surely RationalWiki can bask in some reflected glory from that. 
ГенгисGum disease 06:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, to be a fan at Brandenburg Gate. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Shit. I was rooting for Australia (lol like that's gonna happen) or Portugal. Looking back, this has been one helluva weird World Cup. GØØBY PLS Hehehehehe WHEEEEE! 09:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was supporting the Germany team, so kudos to them. It was only one goal, but it was good. Nullahnung (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the end the best team won. Argentina gave them a good run for their money but suffered from an inability to put the ball in the back of the net. Germany showed what they have shown throughout - football is about teamwork and they're a great team. Cloud Yeller (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Final score by someone named Goatse? Never heard of the guy. Let me go google him to find out more. DickTurpis (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the end the best team won. Argentina gave them a good run for their money but suffered from an inability to put the ball in the back of the net. Germany showed what they have shown throughout - football is about teamwork and they're a great team. Cloud Yeller (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Football is only about teamwork if you've got a bunch of good players to begin with. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 10:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was supporting the Germany team, so kudos to them. It was only one goal, but it was good. Nullahnung (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Shit. I was rooting for Australia (lol like that's gonna happen) or Portugal. Looking back, this has been one helluva weird World Cup. GØØBY PLS Hehehehehe WHEEEEE!
So, how many times was Nazi and Nazi related phrases said over social media this time? --Revolverman (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure, but since Argentina was home to so many Nazi fugitives, I'm willing to call the whole thing a wash, Nazi-wise. DickTurpis (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Scary/fucked-up music?[edit]
What is this most disturbing and/or terrifying band/song/whatever that you know? I don't mean, like, in terms of stage performances, or music videos, or band image or anything- just purely the music/lyrics themselves. I submit Khanate, for both their music and lyrics. DØØM MĖSSIÅH I know the pieces fit, because I watched them fall away 05:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I could probably list bands and songs forever, but I'll just give two for now. Chicken Farm by the Dead Kennedys, which is a song about the Khmer Rouge. The second one is Teenagers by Devil's Coachwhip, which is a song about relationship violence and rape. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Chicken Farm always kinda used to freak me out as a kid. If we're going to the whole sexual abuse thing, I'd have to say Prison Sex by Tool- about how the singer was molested as a child, and abuse can be a cyclical thing- the music video is pretty fucking scary as well. However, I still think that Khanate's tortured, schizophrenic vocal delivery and absolutely fucked-up lyrics (seriously, have you had a look at that shit?) makes them probably the most evil and unpleasant sounding band I've ever listened to. Still awesome, however. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Too close enough to touch 06:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from the metal bit, there's also some very good dark electronica out there, that can be as fucked-up as fuck in the *ahem* right conditions. As an example, I present Dark Soho. Ditto just about everything by Merkaba. PsyGremlinHable! 10:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Chicken Farm always kinda used to freak me out as a kid. If we're going to the whole sexual abuse thing, I'd have to say Prison Sex by Tool- about how the singer was molested as a child, and abuse can be a cyclical thing- the music video is pretty fucking scary as well. However, I still think that Khanate's tortured, schizophrenic vocal delivery and absolutely fucked-up lyrics (seriously, have you had a look at that shit?) makes them probably the most evil and unpleasant sounding band I've ever listened to. Still awesome, however. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Too close enough to touch
- For That Sort of Thing, Swans and Sunn O))) (never sure if I'm spelling that right) are my typical resorts. Swans - my favorite live version of Eden Prison. Sunn O))). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just about anything made by Venetian Snares, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or The Flashbulb. My favourite would be Venetian Snares' All The Children Are Dead which is... freaky. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Never got enough hugs as a kid 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- SUNN O))) (almost right, but you forgot to capitalise) is amazing, but nowhere near as freaky as Khanate (fun fact- they both share a guitarist). I'm not really that much into the kinda ambient/techno kinda freaky shit, but I'll check some of it out. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER Suffer! Bastard! 22:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- SUNN O))) (almost right, but you forgot to capitalise) is amazing, but nowhere near as freaky as Khanate (fun fact- they both share a guitarist). I'm not really that much into the kinda ambient/techno kinda freaky shit, but I'll check some of it out. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER Suffer! Bastard!
lol doom messiah why'd you link to a pag ewith all there lyrics?138.130.252.229 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Because I couldn't decide which subject matter was more disturbing- sawing someone's leg off, skinning someone to make a jacket from their skin, choking someone to death, desolate self-hatred, the guy killing someone he loved "because I could", forcing someone to stay in a box/corner/ditch and threatening to beat/cut/drown them if they speak, or even tremble, or being driven so insane that he wants to literally kill himself and every other living thing. GØØBY PLS Fuck all you gun-toting hip gangster wanna-bes 23:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Maggie" by the Exploited although it was a lack of context that made it disturbing to me. The chorus line "Maggie, you cunt" seemed like over-the-top anger at an innocent person ... until a couple years ago when I figured out who the Maggie in question was. I still don't like the song, though. MarmotHead (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Music-wise, maybe Einstürzende Neubauten...or Edgard Varese. Lyrics-wise, Anal Cunt, duh. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anal Cunt… they're really no more disturbing than ED, and the fact that it's obviously not genuine, and are intended to be a joke, makes them just seem tasteless rather than disturbing. With Khanate, you always have to remind yourself that you're not really listening to the thoughts of a serial killer. Einstürzende, I haven't heard much of, but they seem kinda creepy. Edgard Varese, I've never heard of, to be honest. MESSIAH OF DOOM Prying open my third eye 07:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, there's nothing more cynical than listening to Church Humn for the Condemned over and over again. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Anal Cunt… they're really no more disturbing than ED, and the fact that it's obviously not genuine, and are intended to be a joke, makes them just seem tasteless rather than disturbing. With Khanate, you always have to remind yourself that you're not really listening to the thoughts of a serial killer. Einstürzende, I haven't heard much of, but they seem kinda creepy. Edgard Varese, I've never heard of, to be honest. MESSIAH OF DOOM Prying open my third eye
- Music-wise, maybe Einstürzende Neubauten...or Edgard Varese. Lyrics-wise, Anal Cunt, duh. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
| A sample of lyrics by Khanate. |
|---|
|
Every goddamn thing Am I dying? I hope it's soon These people Screaming with their walking and talking They're making me die They're making me die Hell This time it's real bad This hell This dying I want this dying Screaming, these people talking I need dying Make it soon They On fire screaming Living It's all bad Get out - my head It's all bad my head my hell You're all hell
Hell is every god damned thing Everything poison The sky The dirt People Hell Herds of people Insects Grin dog faced Walking streets Awake In my hell
Hell is every god damned thing Roaches, stepped on You're all hell Stained on my boot Who's laughing? No one If they're on fire You're on fire In my head In my hell Who's laughing? No one If they're on fire You're on fire In my head In my hell
Hell is every god damned thing Children deform You can hear them Hopefully in pain Screaming love songs In my head In hell
The daily death blow Birds sing promise of a day pathetic I'll break your wings and you'll stop singing Like breaks window Brings hope Absurd It's all bad It's all bad again It's all bad It's all bad again
Hopefully It should be all of them I'd step on them if I could If I could
Maybe I'm dying I'm the one On fire It's all bad It's all bad again
I hope it's soon These people Screaming with their walking and talking They're making me die They're making me die Hell This time it's real bad This hell This dying I want this dying Screaming these people talking I need dying Make it soon They On fire screaming Living It's all bad Get out - my head It's all bad my head my hell You're all hell Hell Hell is every god damned thing Everything poison Even flowers disgust The sky The dirt People Hell Herds of people Walking streets Awake in my head in hell It's all bad It's all bad It's all bad again Again It's all bad again It's all bad Get out - my head. |
Yeah, I know, they're weird. However, these aren't really their most disturbing, and most of the effect lies in the delivery. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I just really started this thread to talk about Khanate. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Mortality is truth… 10:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I submit "Komm, süsser Tod", a cheery "Hey Jude"-esque piece about despair and suicide. Bonus points for its original context (NSFW) which features drawings by abused children. 96.61.58.35 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Kyou no Hi wa Sayounara, from the same franchise. Context. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER. 16:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Kyou no Hi wa Sayounara, from the same franchise. Context. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Gloomy Sunday, also known as "Hungarian Suicide Song". But mostly because of its supposed history rather than because of the music or lyrics. Although, some versions (like Ella Fitzgerald's) are pretty haunting.AlvidBarza (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The first time I heard "I staple tape worms on my penis", it completely desensitized me to disgusting lyrics for a few months... Not really my kind of music. Nullahnung (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- What the fuck...!? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Never got enough hugs as a kid 16:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- most of these suggestions seem to be trying too hard to be disturbing or frightening. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if we're talking the kinda stuff Nullahnung mentioned, there's always this. I should probably point out that this link is NSFW. Do we have a template or something for that? MESSIAH OF DOOM Reaching out to embrace the random 23:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if we're talking the kinda stuff Nullahnung mentioned, there's always this. I should probably point out that this link is NSFW. Do we have a template or something for that? MESSIAH OF DOOM Reaching out to embrace the random
- most of these suggestions seem to be trying too hard to be disturbing or frightening. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- What the fuck...!? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Stalaggh is a noise/dark ambient band from the black metal scene. "We have used mental patients on all our recordings. We want the pain and suffering in the vocals to be real and not acted. One of our members works in a mental institution in Holland, so this is how we got access and permission to record. All patients who have worked with us gave their full written permission." Anoxia93 (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've heard of those guys, but I'd always thought the mental hospital thing was just a rumour? GØØBY PLS Please don't breathe 03:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's what they claim in all the interviews. But never proven true or false, the members are anonymous and haven't been outed yet. I'm pretty desensitized to most shocking things at this point but Stallagh is one that always seems to get under my skin if I listen to it for a while. Some other disturbing bands that actually have great music as well are Silencer (vocals and lyrics) and Woods of Infinity (famous for paraphilic lyrics about pedophilia, piquerism etc.). And then there's this simulation of aural psychosis from a university which is not technically music but is definitely worth a listen at night when you're alone: Auditory Hallucinations - An Audio Representation Anoxia93 (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I'll check this stuff out. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Dancing on the corpses' ashes 00:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I should throw in a mention for Univers Zero and/or Art Zoyd as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- As far as fucked up music goes, I agree, Swans, Khanate, and SunnO))) are amazing. Australian death metal band Portal put on the most fucked up live show PORTAL - Glumurphonel and make very insane music. I also enjoy the French black metal band Deathspell Omega. Si Monumentum Requires, Circumspice Full Album NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 00:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I should throw in a mention for Univers Zero and/or Art Zoyd as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I'll check this stuff out. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Dancing on the corpses' ashes
- It's what they claim in all the interviews. But never proven true or false, the members are anonymous and haven't been outed yet. I'm pretty desensitized to most shocking things at this point but Stallagh is one that always seems to get under my skin if I listen to it for a while. Some other disturbing bands that actually have great music as well are Silencer (vocals and lyrics) and Woods of Infinity (famous for paraphilic lyrics about pedophilia, piquerism etc.). And then there's this simulation of aural psychosis from a university which is not technically music but is definitely worth a listen at night when you're alone: Auditory Hallucinations - An Audio Representation Anoxia93 (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Lew Rockwell "clears up" Ron's domain snafu[edit]
A little bit after the fact, but here we go. Anyone able to spot the glaring holes in his argument? (Hint: Anyone who understands how the internet works can.) — Melab (Talk) 17:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Ron is not calling on the UN." The next two lines. "Yes, it is associated with the UN." THEN HE'S USING THE GOD DAMN UN SHITHEAD. --Revolverman (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm? WIPO is a UN specialised agency. Here's another example of a UN specialised agency, the Universal Postal Union. Before the UPU existed, here's how you would send a letter from the United States of America to a small African country. First, you would go to the post office and you would consult their records about the likely route the letter could take. Maybe it would go to the UK, then France, then Morocco, then Egypt, and then to your destination. OK. Now you need to buy stamps. From each of those countries, plus the US. If you don't include enough postage for any step of the journey in the designated stamps of the country handling that step, they'll consider it unpaid and it may never arrive. Good luck getting Moroccan stamps from the US at anywhere vaguely close to their notional price. Today, thanks to the UPU, your local post office can charge you in local currency to send the letter the whole way at a fixed price. Now, when Ron Paul sends a letter do you, or even his staunchest opponents, really say "Well he couldn't do that without the UN" ? If you don't like the example with letters, there are equivalents with other such agencies for air travel, telephones, shipping, banking, and pretty much anything you do across national borders. The relationship between the Specialised Agencies and the UN itself is of mutual convenience, but some of them pre-date the UN (including the UPU) and if the UN itself ceased to exist for some reason, most of the Specialised Agencies (and I'd include WIPO) would continue because it's unthinkable to do without them. Tialaramex (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- They are still supranational orgnazations that both Looo boy and Ron have called for the US to leave. I guess their ok when you guys use them, eh Looo? --Revolverman (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm? WIPO is a UN specialised agency. Here's another example of a UN specialised agency, the Universal Postal Union. Before the UPU existed, here's how you would send a letter from the United States of America to a small African country. First, you would go to the post office and you would consult their records about the likely route the letter could take. Maybe it would go to the UK, then France, then Morocco, then Egypt, and then to your destination. OK. Now you need to buy stamps. From each of those countries, plus the US. If you don't include enough postage for any step of the journey in the designated stamps of the country handling that step, they'll consider it unpaid and it may never arrive. Good luck getting Moroccan stamps from the US at anywhere vaguely close to their notional price. Today, thanks to the UPU, your local post office can charge you in local currency to send the letter the whole way at a fixed price. Now, when Ron Paul sends a letter do you, or even his staunchest opponents, really say "Well he couldn't do that without the UN" ? If you don't like the example with letters, there are equivalents with other such agencies for air travel, telephones, shipping, banking, and pretty much anything you do across national borders. The relationship between the Specialised Agencies and the UN itself is of mutual convenience, but some of them pre-date the UN (including the UPU) and if the UN itself ceased to exist for some reason, most of the Specialised Agencies (and I'd include WIPO) would continue because it's unthinkable to do without them. Tialaramex (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- "He is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules…"
- "Its own rules"? WTF? ICANN owns the domain name system? ICANN administers it.
- "A URL is not private property in the normal sense. It is a license…"
- A domain name is not a license.
- "…and ICANN is a private, non-profit organization."
- ICANN's status as this has nothing to will any of this.
- "…the UN is not a State."
- Yeah, it's ~193 of them!
- "…since it involves private agreements."
- Domain name registration is not a "private agreement". It's domain name registration.
- Rockwell's trying to shoehorn the sui generis nature into the framework of a static ideology.
- — Melab (Talk) 00:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain "trying to shoehorn the sui generis nature into the framework of a static ideology" in small words and few of them, as suitable for a bear of very little brain such as yours truly, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rockwell and other Rondroids are trying to claim that he's not using the UN by claiming that this is a matter of contract (they like contracts a lot) and that ICANN is just your average private organization when this clearly isn't the case. I've seen some yap about how ICANN is a monopoly or, conversely, that the domain name system is a "free market" when neither of those concepts apply. Libertarianism is incredibly rationalist, to the point of needing a theory of homesteading to explain why using humans as shield is wrong. — Melab (Talk) 00:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- So it's the unique nature of the ICANN registry (if that's the right word) being jammed into the framework of (some variety of) libertarianism? What's using humans as shield got to do with this particlular instance? Not trying to be a wise-acre, just trying to understand. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty much. You ever notice how much of what they say loops back to a single "principle"? There are situations where applying it just doesn't work (as it doesn't here) and so Lew tries to rationalize from a libertarian framework by distorting the nature of ICANN. As for human shields, ask yourself: Who needs to use a theory of homesteading to tell you human shields are wrong? I give that as example of how deep into theory libertarians are. It's like Marxists scrambling back to the drawing board on class struggle. — Melab (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, that helps a bit. I've only ever met one self-proclaimed libertarian IRL, a good old boy with some interesting attitudes. I did hear him say "taxation is theft" one time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what Rockwell is saying in regard to ICANN. I looked at its site, WP page, and some other articles and I can't find anything connecting it to the UN other than some UN advisers having contact with it. The only other thing I can think of him trying to say is that the arbitrators ICANN uses are affiliated with the UN. Or maybe Rockwell just has no idea what he's talking about, which is always a good possibility. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Given his statements about the BP oil disaster, I think thats a safe bet. --Revolverman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rockwell's claim is that Ron Paul went to ICANN and going to ICANN means using WIPO. He's not using "the state", he's just using a "private arbitrator" or whatever garbage anarcho-libertarians have come up with as a replacement for law…and he also has no idea what he's talking about, too. I knew he was a snake oil peddler when he lied about Gary Johnson's position on Gitmo detainees in an effort to smear him. Fucking snake. — Melab (Talk) 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what Rockwell is saying in regard to ICANN. I looked at its site, WP page, and some other articles and I can't find anything connecting it to the UN other than some UN advisers having contact with it. The only other thing I can think of him trying to say is that the arbitrators ICANN uses are affiliated with the UN. Or maybe Rockwell just has no idea what he's talking about, which is always a good possibility. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, that helps a bit. I've only ever met one self-proclaimed libertarian IRL, a good old boy with some interesting attitudes. I did hear him say "taxation is theft" one time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty much. You ever notice how much of what they say loops back to a single "principle"? There are situations where applying it just doesn't work (as it doesn't here) and so Lew tries to rationalize from a libertarian framework by distorting the nature of ICANN. As for human shields, ask yourself: Who needs to use a theory of homesteading to tell you human shields are wrong? I give that as example of how deep into theory libertarians are. It's like Marxists scrambling back to the drawing board on class struggle. — Melab (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- So it's the unique nature of the ICANN registry (if that's the right word) being jammed into the framework of (some variety of) libertarianism? What's using humans as shield got to do with this particlular instance? Not trying to be a wise-acre, just trying to understand. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rockwell and other Rondroids are trying to claim that he's not using the UN by claiming that this is a matter of contract (they like contracts a lot) and that ICANN is just your average private organization when this clearly isn't the case. I've seen some yap about how ICANN is a monopoly or, conversely, that the domain name system is a "free market" when neither of those concepts apply. Libertarianism is incredibly rationalist, to the point of needing a theory of homesteading to explain why using humans as shield is wrong. — Melab (Talk) 00:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain "trying to shoehorn the sui generis nature into the framework of a static ideology" in small words and few of them, as suitable for a bear of very little brain such as yours truly, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense then. Rockwell's response is totally laughable then. BTW, you didn't notice that he was a snake oil salesman when he has been promoting literal snake oil on his site for years? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, as in oil made from actual snakes? Usually libertarians in my experience don't understand much outside of economics, so they end up butchering these other topics. Like what David Friedman has to say on the separation of church and state. — Melab (Talk) 10:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Opinions on the RationalWiki community[edit]
What is your opinion on the RationalWiki community as a whole? What are its strengths? How could it be improved? In my opinion, I see the community as, mostly, a group of interesting and awesome people, who are all like-minded and yet incredibly different at the same time. However, I feel that one big thing the community needs to improve on is civility. This falls into two main categories: to outsiders, and to other community members. IMHO, I think that we could really be a lot less condescending to people who disagree with us- I mean, "snark" (that word kinda annoys me, but whatever) is one thing- being arrogant, rude and smartarse is a completely different story, and while I understand that we're not Wikipedia, and that sometimes, shit really needs to be pointed out for being absurd. But, at least in my opinion, that generally does not mean we should go around freely calling people morons and shit just for holding these views (and, really, aren't you all sick of the "RATIONALWiki" template yet?). As for the second category, this refers to how editors interact with each other. While this is generally not a problem, and there are certain editors who could improve this more than others, I still think that the silly little feuds just really add nothing. I find that people attacking each other just becomes disruptive, and can just make the whole place a lot more unpleasant- particularly, but not exclusively, for the people involved in the conflict. So yeah, that's my shitty, worthless opinion. What's yours? DØØM MĖSSIÅH Yesterday seems as though it never existed 12:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Skepticism selects for stroppy arseholes? - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Pardon? I don't understand what you mean to say. MESSIAH OF DOOM What is this that stands before me? 12:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Gerard hits it out of the park. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 12:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I just don't know what he means. Fuck, this "communicating" shit is hard. GØØBY PLS Masquerading solemn beauty 12:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Gerard means that the RW community is somewhat dysfunctional because it tends to attract strongly opinionated people who don't necessarily care too much about conforming to some ideals of civilized conduct. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 12:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, essentially what I said, but using about 500 fewer characters? I agree, that metaphorical ball was hit out of the metaphorical park. MESSIAH OF DOOM …But spirit is foulest, devoid, askew 13:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that, by our very nature, we tend to care about the content. This wouldn't matter if we really were one hive mind but, and here we get to the other part, we tend to attract those with an axe to grind. Admittedly this can be beneficial. I used to just be "pro-choice" in a general woolly sort of way until I ended up defending that position across acres of this website (ah, the heady days of Earthland) and, in the process, became a bit of an expert - well, in pub discussion terms - on the various positions over when life begins.
- However, when newcomers arrive with extreme views, however worthy, our reluctance to allow them to change the whole tone and perspective of major, front page articles means that we come across as aggressive and hive mind. This tends to result in edit wars, vandal binning and the newby leaving regarding us as collective arseholes - usually with a "and I thought this was..."
- As to the various private feuds that go on around the place - I don't see this as a problem. They tend to happen on users talk pages and, very occasionally, in the Bar, neither of which are places where newbies tend to hang out.
- So, yeah, of course we could improve and, in many ways, over the seven years or so, we have improved (the Coop is barely used nowadays) but, quite frankly, were about as good as it gets for an internet community. Cloud Yeller (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- So, essentially what I said, but using about 500 fewer characters? I agree, that metaphorical ball was hit out of the metaphorical park. MESSIAH OF DOOM …But spirit is foulest, devoid, askew
- Gerard means that the RW community is somewhat dysfunctional because it tends to attract strongly opinionated people who don't necessarily care too much about conforming to some ideals of civilized conduct. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I just don't know what he means. Fuck, this "communicating" shit is hard. GØØBY PLS Masquerading solemn beauty
- Gerard hits it out of the park. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- Pardon? I don't understand what you mean to say. MESSIAH OF DOOM What is this that stands before me?
- I have to ask, is this in any way inspired by the Nutty Roux thing? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- What is the "Nutty Roux thing"? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- They changed their user name to Former editor, called one (or possibly two) editors who asked about this "creepy", "self-entitled" and "mentally ill", and then complained to me for templating an IP editor at Privilege. Basically LANCB as below --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- The "creepy" editor in question is Doom Messiah. Drowninginlimbo was concerned that the editor was being offensively put down with something like "mentally ill", to which Nutty answered that the descriptor came from Doom Messiah himself who had sent him a private message describing a mental illness of some sort. I think it's best to let this matter lie and not make hasty conclusions about it, since it is not clear what the full extent of communication was between Nutty and Doom Messiah and currently we're only hearing one side (if it can even be described as a full side) of the story, due to Nutty supposedly paying a severely reduced amount of attention to RW. Nullahnung (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and about the templating thing, there are some problems with using that as a routine response, yes. Nullahnung (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm personally going to stop using the template. Using "mentally ill" as a pejorative is pathetic regardless of context --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify exactly what happened in the thing. So, a couple of months ago, Nutty made a comment about the value of my contributions, to which I overreacted. I think I might have sent him an email wherein I apologised and explained the factors in my life that lead to my life- my mental illness being one (I thought that I didn't press send, but I'm not certain). Anyway, that was at the same time that I was LANCB due to IRL stuff. Anyway, when I came back, Nutty would occasionally say a couple of things critical of myself. Then, one day, in a fit of bad judgement, I sent Nutty an email where I asked what he actually thought of me, and described how I have a tendency to have crazy self-image due to, again, my mental illness (technically, its's a personality disorder, but whatever). He sent me a brief, but relatively friendly response. I assumed that he was fine with receiving a response, and so I did, which he ignored. Then, a week later or something, I was bored and tired, so I blocked myself a few times with lyrics from various violent songs for temporary boredom-killing. Nutty misinterpreted this as me attempting to "live out my psychiatric problems on recent changes". And then, I mostly ignored him (except for a couple of times when he attacked me). Then he renamed himself to "Former editor", and removed his user rights and stuff. I was like "what?, so I asked him on his talkpage, and then sent him a very brief email asking why. He told me to stop emailing him, so I did, and I thought that was that. I have now found out that he has returned and called me creepy and mentally ill and shit, which, as I'm sure you can tell, is completely understandable, even if not overly nice. I don't really mind and I respect his opinion. If you're reading this, Nutty, I'd just like to say that I'm sorry for the way I acted, and I understand that it was unacceptable and creepy. However, I was not aware of his return until you mentioned it here, so, no, that was not what motivated this post. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Clam down dere, matey!!1 08:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think he only came back briefly to respond to you posting on his talk page and sending him an e-mail, and he briefly flicked through recent changes while doing so. I think in general we won't be seeing much of him and he won't read the Saloon Bar unless notified on the talk page. He certainly gets annoyed when a practical stranger sends him e-mails out of the blue. Nullahnung (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't blame him. I was really being a knob; that said, it would probably be best not to directly disturb him on his talkpage, considering that it would likely just annoy him further. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Too close enough to touch 10:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't blame him. I was really being a knob; that said, it would probably be best not to directly disturb him on his talkpage, considering that it would likely just annoy him further. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Too close enough to touch
- I think he only came back briefly to respond to you posting on his talk page and sending him an e-mail, and he briefly flicked through recent changes while doing so. I think in general we won't be seeing much of him and he won't read the Saloon Bar unless notified on the talk page. He certainly gets annoyed when a practical stranger sends him e-mails out of the blue. Nullahnung (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- They changed their user name to Former editor, called one (or possibly two) editors who asked about this "creepy", "self-entitled" and "mentally ill", and then complained to me for templating an IP editor at Privilege. Basically LANCB as below --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- What is the "Nutty Roux thing"? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's a reason "LANCB" is local jargon - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I personally think blaming a perceived problem with the website on one or two associated users is absurd. As long as the articles are written from a certain perspective, and it seems that the ones in question had been for a while, then new editors will come and contribute as others leave. Wikis aren’t the place for independent research, they exist to document research that has already been done, and it’s frustrating having to deal with the loud opinions of people who have not done much reading within these fields, which is possibly why these templates were written. I personally don't understand how the website simultaneously has covered topics related to gender for years but still not reached even a general consensus concerning keeping the articles on website or not --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- In addition to selecting for obstreperous assholes, RW has a fairly low barrier to entry, in that anyone who can type in something that passes for English (or one of a few other languages now) and has an internet connection can contribute. Tis both a benefit and a deficit, in that a wide variety of input is to be cultivated for obvious reasons, but, for equally obvious reasons, the "contributors" on the low end of the Dunning-Kruger spectrum can linger on for quite a while before gettng bored and moving on, or pissing off enough of the regulars that they get a lengthy block.
- That makes sense. I personally think blaming a perceived problem with the website on one or two associated users is absurd. As long as the articles are written from a certain perspective, and it seems that the ones in question had been for a while, then new editors will come and contribute as others leave. Wikis aren’t the place for independent research, they exist to document research that has already been done, and it’s frustrating having to deal with the loud opinions of people who have not done much reading within these fields, which is possibly why these templates were written. I personally don't understand how the website simultaneously has covered topics related to gender for years but still not reached even a general consensus concerning keeping the articles on website or not --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- The low bars to entry, and the lack of a 90/10 rule, mean that editors can show up and spend their keystrokes socializing or promoting their own interests and needs instead of supporting the RW mission. This is one of the things Nutty complained about a lot, not without basis. To me it seems paradoxical to favor tighter control of who gets to contribute to an anti-authoritarian wiki, but the noise often does seem to overcome the signal here, in my view. I've seen similar things happen in co-operative housing, where disruptive residents (or even non rent-paying "guests") were difficult to eject, because a significant set of other people living in the house held "acceptance" as dogma. Where does a sane constructive community draw the line between the kind of dissent that stimulates productive discussion, and bad-faith trolling or other assholery? I don't think it is a bright sharp line. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, do you remember the fuss before we banned Marcus! Oh, no, the hand wringing, the endless debate between the needs of the community and Marcus' "right" of free speech. Golden days. Seriously, folks, we're doing just fine. Cloud Yeller (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the general run of RW climate, that was a line of squalls that lasted a while. Most of RW's sticks and string still seem to be standing. Putting a different metaphor into the mix, and without naming names (mostly because they aren't that memorable), there may be a low-grade infestation of wiki-parasites coming and going, but for the most part they don't hold the wiki back much. Doing fine indeed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, do you remember the fuss before we banned Marcus! Oh, no, the hand wringing, the endless debate between the needs of the community and Marcus' "right" of free speech. Golden days. Seriously, folks, we're doing just fine. Cloud Yeller (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- The low bars to entry, and the lack of a 90/10 rule, mean that editors can show up and spend their keystrokes socializing or promoting their own interests and needs instead of supporting the RW mission. This is one of the things Nutty complained about a lot, not without basis. To me it seems paradoxical to favor tighter control of who gets to contribute to an anti-authoritarian wiki, but the noise often does seem to overcome the signal here, in my view. I've seen similar things happen in co-operative housing, where disruptive residents (or even non rent-paying "guests") were difficult to eject, because a significant set of other people living in the house held "acceptance" as dogma. Where does a sane constructive community draw the line between the kind of dissent that stimulates productive discussion, and bad-faith trolling or other assholery? I don't think it is a bright sharp line. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The wiki community is ok, excepting certain elements like Ehrenstein. Speaking of which, what's his ban evasion newest account?--Madman (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman
- I'd say, for the most part, that our articles are good and despite the best efforts of trollers and BoNs, that they reflect a positive rationalist perspective on a great number of different subjects all while lambasting pseudoscience in a hilariously snarky manner appropriate for a Wiki that prides itself on "refuting the anti-science movement". A minor criticism/observation is that I wish the cover stories were more topical perhaps, or up-to-date and changing, and that there was more of a clear standard and moderation of the "braining" bronze, silver, gold system for articles. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- RW is really doing well IMO. Back in the day there were ALOT more open wars. I mean that one about the Facebook last month would have been minor background noise in 2009-2011. --Revolverman (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The largest problem I have with the RationalWiki community is its tendency toward groupthink and, moreover, the user bases' immaturity in dealing with people they generally disagree with. Somebody earlier in the discussion brought up Earthland, and I can think of no better example of somebody who was editing in good faith while diametrically opposed to some of our viewpoints and while being mocked openly as such. But there are other cases that I think are detrimental to RationalWiki's goals of expansion as a whole. As another example, the CONservapedia-spaces tendency to paint people with personal attacks are another such case where we do a disservice to our site. I remember that the primary reason I stopped caring for the Conservapedia side was because of some of the outright homophobic attacks being leveled against Ken and, more especially, attempts by others to paint Ed Poor as a pedophile. I, myself, have even been guilty of some of this (albeit, mild by comparison). If RationalWiki wants to seriously, it needs to keep an eye on the general groupthink of the community. Not everybody is going to see eye-to-eye, and not everybody comes here with the same goals. But if we mock them for those things they care about, it's harder to take us seriously. And if we stray away from slaying peoples' nonsense with logic and resort instead to personal attacks and trolling of our own to get rid of them, we run our community into the ground and drive our mission off a cliff. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Brilliantly said. DØØM MĖSSIÅH I am complete 09:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, let's look at Earthland. Nice enough guy except.... He was a single issue editor who felt that anyone who didn't believe that life begins at conception was an evil monster. He wanted to turn RW into an anti abortion site and was not in any way open to discussion on this. We didn't mock Earthland until it became obvious that he was not prepared to budge an inch from his extreme views. Believe me, I tried.
- So, yeah, how do we deal with the Earthlands of this world, those that want to use RW as a platform for their views, views that go against the consensus - call it groupthink if you want - of the community? Should we have let JimJast have his way or that guy who thinks all psychiatry is abuse or one of those FotL's who turn up regularly who wants to rewrite our articles on FotL or one of the MRA crowd who want to completely rewrite our feminism articles or.... In short, where do we draw the line? My answer to that is we have arrived at a consensus on most of our views and anyone who wants to radically go against that has got to provide a pretty convincing argument. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- And where do you draw the line with attacking people without actual logic? Nobody, not even I, will defend JimJast or MRA assholes. But on that note, we need to stick to the facts when it comes down to dealing with people. I brought up the Conservapedia watchers for good reason, and that is because they are some of the worst when it comes to drawing conclusions in order to make personal attacks (again, Ed Poor is a creepy pedophile as an example). I don't like Ken Demyer or Ed Poor either, and wouldn't care for them if they show up here. But if we focus on attacking people just for the sake of attacking them and hurling insults, that is where we do the disservice. Not that they aren't cranks, but when your only defense is to hurl insults until they go away, it speaks volumes about the level of maturity of this community. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am of this opinion as well. Even when you see that someone just will not listen to your well-reasoned arguments, you can still say "Until you address these well-reasoned arguments I have laid out, I will keep reverting you." Well-reasoned arguments are the answer to everything! Nullahnung (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. We don't need to go making ourselves look like a bunch of total arseholes. If I was to go onto a website myself that did not agree with me, I would be more inclined to listen to, or at least respect, their opinions if they weren't to go yelling and screaming at me. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Unite with thy oracle 11:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- all this civility will collapse in the next bout of unpleasantness amid a barrage of insults, memes, fallacy bingo and willful misrepresentation of peoples opinions. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. We don't need to go making ourselves look like a bunch of total arseholes. If I was to go onto a website myself that did not agree with me, I would be more inclined to listen to, or at least respect, their opinions if they weren't to go yelling and screaming at me. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Unite with thy oracle
- I am of this opinion as well. Even when you see that someone just will not listen to your well-reasoned arguments, you can still say "Until you address these well-reasoned arguments I have laid out, I will keep reverting you." Well-reasoned arguments are the answer to everything! Nullahnung (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- And where do you draw the line with attacking people without actual logic? Nobody, not even I, will defend JimJast or MRA assholes. But on that note, we need to stick to the facts when it comes down to dealing with people. I brought up the Conservapedia watchers for good reason, and that is because they are some of the worst when it comes to drawing conclusions in order to make personal attacks (again, Ed Poor is a creepy pedophile as an example). I don't like Ken Demyer or Ed Poor either, and wouldn't care for them if they show up here. But if we focus on attacking people just for the sake of attacking them and hurling insults, that is where we do the disservice. Not that they aren't cranks, but when your only defense is to hurl insults until they go away, it speaks volumes about the level of maturity of this community. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Brilliantly said. DØØM MĖSSIÅH I am complete
- The largest problem I have with the RationalWiki community is its tendency toward groupthink and, moreover, the user bases' immaturity in dealing with people they generally disagree with. Somebody earlier in the discussion brought up Earthland, and I can think of no better example of somebody who was editing in good faith while diametrically opposed to some of our viewpoints and while being mocked openly as such. But there are other cases that I think are detrimental to RationalWiki's goals of expansion as a whole. As another example, the CONservapedia-spaces tendency to paint people with personal attacks are another such case where we do a disservice to our site. I remember that the primary reason I stopped caring for the Conservapedia side was because of some of the outright homophobic attacks being leveled against Ken and, more especially, attempts by others to paint Ed Poor as a pedophile. I, myself, have even been guilty of some of this (albeit, mild by comparison). If RationalWiki wants to seriously, it needs to keep an eye on the general groupthink of the community. Not everybody is going to see eye-to-eye, and not everybody comes here with the same goals. But if we mock them for those things they care about, it's harder to take us seriously. And if we stray away from slaying peoples' nonsense with logic and resort instead to personal attacks and trolling of our own to get rid of them, we run our community into the ground and drive our mission off a cliff. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- RW is really doing well IMO. Back in the day there were ALOT more open wars. I mean that one about the Facebook last month would have been minor background noise in 2009-2011. --Revolverman (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
If state-ownership is socialist…[edit]
Then does this mean we can call the people who oppose the separation of church and state leftist? — Melab (Talk) 01:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying separation of church and state ensures a free-church-market? --NonPerson (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Socialism doesn't imply state ownership. Socialism says that the workers should have control of the means of production. The word "state" in socialist terms refers to an oppressive organization that must be removed to achieve socialism so a socialist would not call for state ownership at all really. 86.29.161.22 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a good argument to the effect that separation of church and state did lead to a free market in churches, which caused competition, which made churches very effective at getting membership, hence the high religiosity of the United States in contrast to the UK, where there is a state religion (in name only, of course) and religiosity is plummeting.
Don't click here 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that's most certainly true. I don't think state church has anything to do with socialism and weirdly enough has actually prevented religion trying to control politics so that people have an education system that doesn't teach creationism and other irrational teachings influenced by religion. 86.29.161.22 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
"Eat Charcoal to Relieve a Bad Stomach"?[edit]
I've been hearing this a lot recently. Firstly it was my boyfriend's father, but he's really into woo stuff, so I lol'd and moved on. But now I've heard it a few other places. I encountered it on /r/AskScience over on Reddit earlier, and many responded in the affirmative... but none were an authority on the matter, and there were few study sources or biochemical explanations. Google brings up a lot... but it's all suspicious stuff (pretty much all anecdotes or uses of the phrase "Natural Remedies", which throws red flags up everywhere).
Anybody here know anything on this topic? Am I right and it's some quackery, or is it actually true? DarkFire (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've heard that it kinda acts by filtering out crap in your gut. Its why its used in water systems to purify. Don't quote me on that though. --Revolverman (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're thinking of activated carbon, which IS actually used to filter water, because the carbon structure has been specifically manufactured to contain lots of porous surface area that particles can get adsorbed by. I don't know about this charcoal business, it sounds unhealthy. Nullahnung (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I can't comment on the efficacy of this but this is not a new thing and is a recognised treatment in the UK. I certainly remember charcoal biscuits being around 60 years ago. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 06:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. This charcoal is actually activated carbon... Nullahnung (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
From what I understand, it is legit for a few poisons (for corrosives, iron, lithium, etc., it doesn't really work), as it gets rid of the shit before it's absorbed by the body. However, it's not the best goddamn treatment ever!, and is definitely not used just for stomach pains. MESSIAH OF DOOM Wired were the eyes of a horse on a jet pilot 10:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's amazingly stupid. everyone knows you should eat chalk to deal with an upset stomach. note: don't actually eat chalk that's not cleared to be consumed as food. --NonPerson (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understand you can take charcoal pills if you are plagued by particularly whiffy farts. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Chalk to neutralize acid, charcoal to soak up toxic matter. I remember transporting a patient to a locked psych unit with blackish smears on her face that she got in the ER from the charcoal shake they gave her. I assume there had been something like ipecac-induced emesis as well. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's a common prescription here in France for upset stomach. Little sachets of the stuff mixed in water. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Odd. The web says it's useful for trapping toxic chemicals, but doesn't seem to indicate it works for anything else. I wouldn't rule it out offhand, but I wouldn't accept it out of hand ether. What kinds of causes/symptoms of upset stomach is it suppose to be affective for anyway? --NonPerson (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon#Medical_uses useful for trapping all kinds of pollutants, doesn't really discriminate just the toxic chemicals. Nullahnung (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. I just assumed that it was one of those things where it could work in some cases, but people are all like "it works for that? Must work for everything!", and I had really never heard of it used for stomach crap. I'll try to do research in future. MESSIAH OF DOOM Suffer! Bastard! 05:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. I just assumed that it was one of those things where it could work in some cases, but people are all like "it works for that? Must work for everything!", and I had really never heard of it used for stomach crap. I'll try to do research in future. MESSIAH OF DOOM Suffer! Bastard!
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon#Medical_uses useful for trapping all kinds of pollutants, doesn't really discriminate just the toxic chemicals. Nullahnung (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Odd. The web says it's useful for trapping toxic chemicals, but doesn't seem to indicate it works for anything else. I wouldn't rule it out offhand, but I wouldn't accept it out of hand ether. What kinds of causes/symptoms of upset stomach is it suppose to be affective for anyway? --NonPerson (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's a common prescription here in France for upset stomach. Little sachets of the stuff mixed in water. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Chalk to neutralize acid, charcoal to soak up toxic matter. I remember transporting a patient to a locked psych unit with blackish smears on her face that she got in the ER from the charcoal shake they gave her. I assume there had been something like ipecac-induced emesis as well. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understand you can take charcoal pills if you are plagued by particularly whiffy farts. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Possible Kevin Martin stunt today[edit]
Can't tell if this is real or just hot air, but it could be amusing three-man-facebook-headquarter-protest-on-tuesday-july-15-2014. Leuders (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- A real cupid stunt by the sounds of it. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 18:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- His big plan must have unraveled because the channel never went live. There's only a two day old Youtube video containing the usual weird rants and threats. Leuders (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I remember Cupid Stunt! And I remember my mom trying to explain why the name was a joke without saying the word "cunt" or telling me what it was. Good times. Thank you, Kenny Everett. X Stickman (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- His big plan must have unraveled because the channel never went live. There's only a two day old Youtube video containing the usual weird rants and threats. Leuders (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Question about ban hammer policy[edit]
First of all I want to say I'm pretty sure that we aren't policy wonks here and I'm not sure there's actually a problem. I was going through the block list and it looks like some blocks have cannot edit own talk page. It says on our blocking policy that we shouldn't do that so people have an opportunity to protest their block. In several cases it looks like their edits where also obliterated due to being blatant spam which also removes the evidence. Should we be leaving a bit more of a paper trail? It kind of bothers me as it goes against the wiki's stated historical hate of burning the evidence. Though I actually don't think hypocrisy is inherently bad as long as it's recognized(an extremely odd stance I know). So basically: Is this a problem? If so should we even fix it? If we should fix it how should we fix it? --NonPerson (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- If it's spam, letting them edit their own talk page only lets them post more spam.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you mean the ones i did, i blocked them because of an article they tried to create in april ads well that was deleted soon after, and they tried again on their userpage, so i figured best course was "no talk page"--Miekal 03:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a problem if the reason their talkpage privledges were removed is because they were a spammer. Spam is what it is: obnoxious crap on that takes up space on the internet. The reason we were historically against burning the evidence is because they do such on CONservapedia, and abusively so without question from other sysops there. Here, almost everybody is a sysop, so the system balances itself out in that respect. Also, we have strict rules that we follow when, say, a page is deleted or a page revision is deleted. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- If someone's just being a troll/vandal, I see no harm in letting them edit their talkpage- however, as it has been said, spam doesn't really add anything, jut wastes space, and a spammer probably isn't gonna go arguing their block or something. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Yesterday seems as though it never existed 05:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I redid a block yesterday for a spammer who had originally posted to their user page and then returned to post the same crap on their talk page so I have no qualms with that. Even trolls try to engage with us in some way but spammers are nothing but internet litter louts. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 06:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I redid a block yesterday for a spammer who had originally posted to their user page and then returned to post the same crap on their talk page so I have no qualms with that. Even trolls try to engage with us in some way but spammers are nothing but internet litter louts.
- If someone's just being a troll/vandal, I see no harm in letting them edit their talkpage- however, as it has been said, spam doesn't really add anything, jut wastes space, and a spammer probably isn't gonna go arguing their block or something. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Yesterday seems as though it never existed
Mandatory Fun[edit]
Anybody pick up Weird Al's new album? It might speak to the hearts of people here, as it certainly did to me. "Because I'm Tacky!" Zero (talk - contributions) 12:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at current pictures of him, he should change his first name to "Creepy As Fuck." PsyGremlinHable! 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- His song "Word Crimes" was very catchy. Never heard the original, but this one's a good grammar lesson. User:PsychoGecko 19:44, 16 July 2014
- It's "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke. It's unfortunate he'll be getting money from Weird Al's version - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fuck, he's onto us! Zero (talk - contributions) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well that's just ridiculous. You wouldn't need a boom mic to fake the moon landing, because in space no one can hear you scam. User:PsychoGecko 23:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Weird Al is merely controlled opposition. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well that's just ridiculous. You wouldn't need a boom mic to fake the moon landing, because in space no one can hear you scam. User:PsychoGecko 23:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fuck, he's onto us! Zero (talk - contributions) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke. It's unfortunate he'll be getting money from Weird Al's version - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- His song "Word Crimes" was very catchy. Never heard the original, but this one's a good grammar lesson. User:PsychoGecko 19:44, 16 July 2014
World Cup 2014[edit]
I tried to combine football (i.e., soccer) with basic combinatorics at Essay:The Math of Becoming Second at the Fifa World Cup and the UEFA Euro. I'd appreciate your input. --larron (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In case you are wondering[edit]
...what brought about the recent wave of vandalism, RW has been the subject of a thread on /pol/. The initial cause of derision were the Rape culture and Feminism articles. Oh, and some of them are wondering "how long it would take to lock the site."--ZooGuard (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, /pol/ is universally loathed by all the other boards on 4chan. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ "Ritsuko, the truth is[...]" "Huh. You liar" 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- That thread was a strong reminder that my skin is too thin for the internet. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 15:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- What's the thread ID? Zero (talk - contributions) 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 15:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The thread seems to have devolved into islam bashing. Apart from that, same group of folks saying the same sort of thing. That being said, I really think the Anonymous article is in dire need of help. I've been around the internet a long time and I question the hacktivist collective being just misogynists. Oh it certainly exists within the group, but it doesn't define it. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- While not the most defining part, maybe the most eye-catching part from the perspective of the current RW community. Nullahnung (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Feels to me that all male-heavy internet communities tend towards alarming amount of misogyny these days. Vulpius (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, it's not that. It's that reasonably sane modernist or post modernist attitudes get awful representation through tumblr et al. The impression simplistic people get is that mutual understanding comes from touchiness and rebelliousness, because touchy and rebellious people are noisy. It's the next generation of conservatism beginning to metastasize. Ikanreed (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Feels to me that all male-heavy internet communities tend towards alarming amount of misogyny these days. Vulpius (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- While not the most defining part, maybe the most eye-catching part from the perspective of the current RW community. Nullahnung (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The thread seems to have devolved into islam bashing. Apart from that, same group of folks saying the same sort of thing. That being said, I really think the Anonymous article is in dire need of help. I've been around the internet a long time and I question the hacktivist collective being just misogynists. Oh it certainly exists within the group, but it doesn't define it. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- What's the thread ID? Zero (talk - contributions) 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- That thread was a strong reminder that my skin is too thin for the internet. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- The great thing about /pol/ is that they're morons. The worst they can do is be wrong repeatedly. Ikanreed (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You know you suck when the rest of 4chan hates you, and you're only kept around so you don't shit up the other boards. --Revolverman (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Imagine being the board that's kept around only so it won't shit up /b/ - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The thread has been deleted. As a guy who has never been to 4CHAN before this, and only knows it by reputation -- what do you have to do to get a thread deleted there? Because blatant racism, misogyny and obvious threats against another website seemed to be okay earlier today. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 22:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, they cycle through and expire naturally, so it's entirely dependent how fast the posting cycle of the board in question is - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's actually really rare for a thread to last more than a few minutes. A few hours, tops. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back? 23:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- That must frustrate the hell out of people who research online sociology, etc. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 23:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, we have our ways: http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/32490683/ ·FemiliskSJ 07:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are rules but they're enforced arbitrarily if there happens to be a mod around who gives a shit. Racism & misogyny are ignored; on /b/ & /pol/ they're expected. The thread might have been deleted if it was inciting vandalism here, or it could just have expired. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mods are pretty much just there to delete illegal content. Although they disappear from the website, most threads are backed up off-site, at least on boards that have opted in for this to happen. You can find this particular thread here: [1] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- That must frustrate the hell out of people who research online sociology, etc. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- It's actually really rare for a thread to last more than a few minutes. A few hours, tops. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- Oh, they cycle through and expire naturally, so it's entirely dependent how fast the posting cycle of the board in question is - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The thread has been deleted. As a guy who has never been to 4CHAN before this, and only knows it by reputation -- what do you have to do to get a thread deleted there? Because blatant racism, misogyny and obvious threats against another website seemed to be okay earlier today. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
So when smoke from near by fires is so thick...[edit]
That it still appears to be night time, even at 8 AM, thats bad, right? Because thats what it is here in Prince George. My clothing stinks of a camp fire, and I have only been outside 20 mins, and nowhere near a campfire, I can assure you. --Revolverman (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Some pictures of what I'm talking about --Revolverman (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I remember friends talking about the fires in the Kelowna/Penticton area some ten years or so ago -- is it as bad as that was? Surprised it's not being featured more prominently on the CBC.... Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 15:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if its as bad, as no part of Prince George is being avacuated, and it seems like its lifted someone (it doesn't look like a nightmare scape anymore) but it still stinks of smoke bad, and is hazy as all get out. --Revolverman (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Definition of laissez-faire[edit]
I'm looking to add a better one to the article and the best I can up with is "unregulated business". Any suggestions? — Melab (Talk) 01:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- The one on the article seems appropriate to me. so why change it again? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia Air tragedy -- is the Russionalwiki guy still around?[edit]
Given that the Ukrainian rebels are fucking with the plane wrecjage and keeping inspectors from seeing the site, while the Russian media spins the story totally away from how "the West" is framing it, it would be cool if someone who reads Russian can maybe do something about the Soviet Russian conspiracy-theorizing for us.... — Unsigned, by: Father Vivian O'Blivion / talk / contribs 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- "The Russianalwiki guy" is User:Bertran. I understand Russian to a degree, but I don't follow Russian sources.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- (Imagine the headlines) August 1, 2014: "Skeptic website combating MH17 conspiracy theories gets banned from Russia" Osaka Sun (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The tyranny of the cathedral[edit]
http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/74.14.73.163 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- This post is the definition of the Plen-T-Plaint. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- No it isn't, they also have support of reason magazine— Unsigned, by: 74.14.73.163 / talk / contribs
- Our plans are going swimmingly. We at the Cathedral shall soon gather 'round the Round Table (made of the finest black marble, of course, and in a dimly-lit greenish room) and proceed to discuss Phase 37 of the plan that shall put the Antichrist in his rightful place. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ RationalWiki, did you kill Rita? 01:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I figured you had bigger plans for Obama. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- He's kind of like the Aquaman of the Cathedral. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 01:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- And here I was thinking more along the lines of Heinz Doofenshmirtz. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would make Obama's opponents a child with a triangle-shaped head and a walking platypus, which I would strongly doubt. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I am thoroughly confused. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Obama's wife faces off against platypus, photographic evidence. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I am thoroughly confused. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would make Obama's opponents a child with a triangle-shaped head and a walking platypus, which I would strongly doubt. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- And here I was thinking more along the lines of Heinz Doofenshmirtz. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- He's kind of like the Aquaman of the Cathedral. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- I figured you had bigger plans for Obama. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Our plans are going swimmingly. We at the Cathedral shall soon gather 'round the Round Table (made of the finest black marble, of course, and in a dimly-lit greenish room) and proceed to discuss Phase 37 of the plan that shall put the Antichrist in his rightful place. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- No it isn't, they also have support of reason magazine— Unsigned, by: 74.14.73.163 / talk / contribs
Daily-Mail-o-Matic[edit]
No need to read the real thing now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't this in our Daily Mail article already? Vulpius (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. Research fail on my part. :( Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
New Weird Al Yankovic video satirises conspiracy theories[edit]
I'm new to RW and have only posted a few articles. I did think of RW when I saw this video though! It's also created somewhat of a shitstorm in the comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0TEJMJOhk Origin (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I posted about Mandatory Fun above, but yes, the comments? Fucking gold. Zero (talk - contributions) 05:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
HCM in the Kremlin[edit]
Advisors calling out Putin publicly? Uncharacteristic "everything's fine" speeches? Oh to be a fly on the wall. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Roko's basilisk[edit]
The crazy is seeping out into the rest of the internet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- And doesn't even mention us! - David Gerard (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- The conclusion
“”I worry less about Roko’s Basilisk than about people who believe themselves to have transcended conventional morality. Like his projected Friendly AIs, Yudkowsky is a moral utilitarian: He believes that that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is always ethically justified, even if a few people have to die or suffer along the way. He has explicitly argued that given the choice, it is preferable to torture a single person for 50 years than for a sufficient number of people (to be fair, a lot of people) to get dust specks in their eyes.
|
- which has been my position on the whole
completelyLessWrong thing for some time. Cloud Yeller (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)- I am a little confused. Isn't this the plot to terminator? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, these fools need to watch Back to the Future to understand how time really operates. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously watching science fiction is the best way to learn about science. Obviously. Nullahnung (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Moral utilitarianism is one of those things that triggers a lot of people's "ick" factor. The popular alternative is basically to wish the universe were a nicer place. It ends up reminding me of John Oliver's rant about the American Dream, everybody wants to believe that they're special, that they're going to be a winner and so they believe a system that heavily favours winners is really a system that favours them, even as they lose and lose. Bad news everybody, you are not secretly a magical princess, those are your real parents. Tialaramex (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously watching science fiction is the best way to learn about science. Obviously. Nullahnung (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, these fools need to watch Back to the Future to understand how time really operates. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am a little confused. Isn't this the plot to terminator? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- which has been my position on the whole
I presume Roko's Basilisk is the inspiration for Stross' abandoned FTL-without-time-travel premise. He wrote two books before abandoning it as unworkable, but the way he avoided time travel was by having an AI that doesn't want people using time travel in case they go back and prevent it being created. In that setting FTL works, but the AI will stomp on you if you use it to arrive somewhere before you left (which is otherwise pretty easy for "hyperdrives" and other science fictional transport systems). It announces its initial arrival / creation by first scattering all of humanity through some sort of mass teleport, and then firmly declaring "Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone". He wrote himself into a plot corner with the AI though. His current "real" SF series just accepts that the easiest way to avert time travel is to not have FTL at all. Tialaramex (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The way I see it, if you were going to be judged only for the morality pertaining to some hypothetical AI that would create and torture a copy of you, that would be a good incentive to be an evil asshole. That way, at least you know the copy would probably deserve it. Which, come to think of it, explains why a supposedly benevolent AI would be such an ass: it knows that a better, more powerful, and more benevolent AI is going to come along later and do the same to it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you induce a headache in people who like to overthink things. User:PsychoGecko 10:43, 21 July 2014
- Where does it say that you would only be judged by that? Anyway, GiveWell and similar evidence-based charities seem popular with the LW crowd, so it would appear that even the people losing sleep over Roko's Basilisk haven't let it get in the way of actual morality. --RiotRhythm (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am not going to think about it and let the christian god duke it out with future AI god over who gets to poke me with sharp sticks from beyond the grave AMassiveGay (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is Tialaramex really endorsing utilitarianism? I'm not saying it's core idea is bad, try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The problem is when people take this idea and then try quantifying good. Life is a 'game' where there is a large margin of uncertainty about the score. Uncertainty about the exact results of actions is great too. But more importantly lots of people who have done very good things weren't utilitarians. Utilitarianism is just one tool among many to decide if an action is good or not. --NonPerson (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm endorsing utilitarianism. Arguing that it's hard to choose a good metric is missing the point. The alternative to utilitarianism isn't "having a better metric" because that's still utilitarianism, the alternative is "I got mine so now fuck you all". NICE is a utilitarian approach to healthcare. Resources are finite, so we don't get to say "Why not both?" all the time, and we have to make ugly choices. Admitting that we're making them on a utilitarian basis (in the case of NICE, QuALYs) is better than "I like Sue, so Sue gets medicine, but I don't like Bob so he can die in agony". Tialaramex (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is Tialaramex really endorsing utilitarianism? I'm not saying it's core idea is bad, try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The problem is when people take this idea and then try quantifying good. Life is a 'game' where there is a large margin of uncertainty about the score. Uncertainty about the exact results of actions is great too. But more importantly lots of people who have done very good things weren't utilitarians. Utilitarianism is just one tool among many to decide if an action is good or not. --NonPerson (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I feel like a hipster. I thought Roko's Basilisk was stupid before everybody else did...--"Shut up, Brx." 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Brxbrx, You must of been the first person outside of less wrong to read about it then. --NonPerson (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's shocking that no LessWrong user thought that you could dismantle the Basilisk by pulling the goddamn plug. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ A vain death of a plump bird. 04:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- But it could trick you into not pulling the plug! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Would RationalWiki be a good reference for a school project?[edit]
I'm working on a school project, and the best source of information was RationalWiki. Would it be an OK reference? Should I reference the pages references?— Unsigned, by: 203.104.11.4 / talk / contribs
- Wikis are rarely a good reference for academic papers, but RationalWiki covers some topics that receive little attention elsewhere and at times can be the only source of collected info on a topic. It is cited from time to time by other reputable places on the internet such as Snopes, but again we aren't talking about a high scholarly level here. You should check with you teacher as to what kind of standard they are hoping for. --Marlow (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- No. The best RW can do is point to valid references in the real world. If we cite something from somewhere, chase that source down and use it. If we don't, poke around until you find that information in a proper source. (I'm assuming you're in some sort of post-secondary/college/university setting. If you're in American high school, not bringing a gun to class and proving basic literacy should be enough to get you an A, and anything beyond that means you're working too hard.) Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all. Rationalwiki is the ISIS of the wiki world -- convert from Christianity or suffer the consequences. Hardly rational, at all. nobsOne who's been there. 00:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you have no other sources currently, the best thing to do is follow the references attached to the article in question, that is, if they are academic papers and not web articles. Even so, I'd use a website like jstor or your library over it if possible. If it isn't work that is being marked then you might be able to get away with it though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess it depends on your grade, and the nature of the project- like, if it's exploring different perspectives or whatever, then I guess it could be okay, but if it's like hardcore science or whatever, follow the references. Also, what articles were you thinking of using? Some are better than others. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM But flies will lay their eggs 05:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Never cite a wiki in a research paper. (Unless it's about wikis.) What are you researching that is so obscure that you can't find anything outside of RW? Random YouTube cranks? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I second what Nebuchadnezzar said. It would help to know what your topic is. "School project" is vague. For instance, say you are writing about a health topic, let's say, "arthritis" for example, or similar, in that case, the best advice would be to go to a source that is generally highly regarded and accepted by the community of professionals that have to do with the topic. Using the "arthritis" example, you would check, perhaps: www.arthritis.org and www.webmd.com/arthritis/ and www.mayoclinic.org/diseases, and perhaps a government site such as http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/arthritis.html. These would most likely have helpful, credible, proven information on your topic. Now on the other hand, if your "school project" is more along the lines of an 'exploration' of a subject, or a theory, musings along the lines of a what if this or that, and reasons why you believe a certain way on a subject that is debatable, then Rationalwiki might have some alternate viewpoints or ideas that you could include that could spark a discussion, that other wikis haven't covered. I agree with others here who have already said that in general, wiki's (even Wikipedia) are not good references to cite, as the information changes, and is written and re-written by anyone, with no requirement that the person be an expert in a particular field, and while many times they may have good, credible info, it's not guaranteed. Refugeetalk page 05:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Aye, that's essentially what I meant- if it's talking about people's different opinions on a debated subject, it could possibly slide- and, again, it's different if you're in seventh grade compared to university. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Push the envelope, watch it bend 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Aye, that's essentially what I meant- if it's talking about people's different opinions on a debated subject, it could possibly slide- and, again, it's different if you're in seventh grade compared to university. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Push the envelope, watch it bend
- I second what Nebuchadnezzar said. It would help to know what your topic is. "School project" is vague. For instance, say you are writing about a health topic, let's say, "arthritis" for example, or similar, in that case, the best advice would be to go to a source that is generally highly regarded and accepted by the community of professionals that have to do with the topic. Using the "arthritis" example, you would check, perhaps: www.arthritis.org and www.webmd.com/arthritis/ and www.mayoclinic.org/diseases, and perhaps a government site such as http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/arthritis.html. These would most likely have helpful, credible, proven information on your topic. Now on the other hand, if your "school project" is more along the lines of an 'exploration' of a subject, or a theory, musings along the lines of a what if this or that, and reasons why you believe a certain way on a subject that is debatable, then Rationalwiki might have some alternate viewpoints or ideas that you could include that could spark a discussion, that other wikis haven't covered. I agree with others here who have already said that in general, wiki's (even Wikipedia) are not good references to cite, as the information changes, and is written and re-written by anyone, with no requirement that the person be an expert in a particular field, and while many times they may have good, credible info, it's not guaranteed. Refugeetalk page 05:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Never cite a wiki in a research paper. (Unless it's about wikis.) What are you researching that is so obscure that you can't find anything outside of RW? Random YouTube cranks? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess it depends on your grade, and the nature of the project- like, if it's exploring different perspectives or whatever, then I guess it could be okay, but if it's like hardcore science or whatever, follow the references. Also, what articles were you thinking of using? Some are better than others. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM But flies will lay their eggs
- Not at all. Rationalwiki is the ISIS of the wiki world -- convert from Christianity or suffer the consequences. Hardly rational, at all. nobsOne who's been there. 00:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- No. The best RW can do is point to valid references in the real world. If we cite something from somewhere, chase that source down and use it. If we don't, poke around until you find that information in a proper source. (I'm assuming you're in some sort of post-secondary/college/university setting. If you're in American high school, not bringing a gun to class and proving basic literacy should be enough to get you an A, and anything beyond that means you're working too hard.) Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- No. We're biased. We're biased in a way I personally think is truth oriented(pro-skepticism, pro universal rights, anti-traditionalism), but it's still a bias, and academic integrity requires you to avoid(or at least honestly distance yourself from) biased sources. Ikanreed (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rather than use RationalWiki as a reference, you should use it as a tool. If our articles are any good then they will have the necessary references or contain the information which you need to find your own references for. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rather than use RationalWiki as a reference, you should use it as a tool. If our articles are any good then they will have the necessary references or contain the information which you need to find your own references for.
Roulette systems[edit]
This turned up in one of my inboxes. It seems to rely on a number between 25 and 36 (or 0) not coming up 6 times in a row. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's risk-free and it always works! With endorsements like that, what could possibly go wrong? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Without spending too much time on it it looks like the martingale is still alive and well in the 21st century.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's an old system, but when it comes right down to it it's betting a lot to win a little, which is not a good long term strategy. Eventually, you will get those 6 losing numbers in a row, and will lose everything. DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, anybody who actually sticks to this will usually lose everything without seeing six losses in a row. The trick (compared to a Martingale) is that it hides a lot of your losses in shorter runs. Say you lose three in a row, then win. In a Martingale you're back ahead, but with this strategy you've lost $6 overall. You had to bet $2, $4, $8 and $16 (a total of $30 from your capital) and you're only getting back $24 in "winnings" so you're down six dollars even though you feel it's working. Somebody stupid enough to do this will most likely feel they got ripped off somehow, because they kept "winning" yet their capital whittled away until they had to quit. Tialaramex (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mmmm. Now I got bored and wrote a Monte Carlo simulation. Most losing sessions end with the player having no more than five losses in a row but a significant minority have six losses (typically where the player gets lucky early, then loses badly and is wiped out). In my simulation I assumed that a player who has $7 left and is next supposed to bet $4 on 1-12 and $4 on 13-24 goes home with $7 in their pocket from that session, in practice they'd probably lose it all because they're dumb enough to try a system like this. According to the simulation a player trying for the $1500 per month plan loses on average about $1200 per month, one aiming for $4500 per month loses about $3000 per month. Tialaramex (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reading through it quickly I thought it was martingale, but I guess there are subtle differences. Either way it has the same flaw. Honestly this system works perfectly... if you have an infinite amount of money. But if you have an infinite amount of money, sitting around roulette tables to win $10 is probably the single biggest possible waste of time imaginable. DickTurpis (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- This system is astronomically slower than a Martingale for making $10 with an infinite amount of money. The soft losses mean that whereas a Martingale is never more than one lucky round from paying out this gets exponentially worse over time. I simulated a dozen players with infinite wealth trying this system and assumed a spin of roulette takes overall one minute. Most of them walk away with $10 after less than half an hour, and having not dug very deep into their pockets. Some had to spend a few hours, and fish out a few Benjamins to get their $10. But one of them got into deep trouble immediately, and the way this system works they're just more and more unlikely to ever recover over time. Since they have infinite wealth they never have to stop, but they should. After playing roulette continuously for a working lifetime (one million spins) they were down about $135 000 and there had never been more than a few thousand dollars on the table. The house wasn't even sweating, that's not crazy Martingale money that couldn't exist, it's just some schlub losing their life savings very slowly. Tialaramex (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, time to get real work done so I'm stopping the simulator. The loser was simulated for almost 8.5 million spins, at which point they had lost a total of just over a million dollars. Here's an equivalent game which doesn't involve confusing yourself with money, whether infinite or otherwise: Start tossing a coin, when you have tossed at least twice as many heads as tails you win. Like "the system" it's likely but far from certain you'll win quickly. It's theoretically certain you'll win eventually. But I won't wait around to see it happen. Tialaramex (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mow I'm intrigued about your twice as many heads scenario. You say it's theoretically certain you'll win eventually? I guess if you do infinite tosses that might be true, but I guess that's why one usually doesn't do math with infinity. It seems to me if you throw 2 tails in a row you're pretty much screwed. DickTurpis (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do know that casinos love players using a Martingale type system. Even if the player has infinite funds there is usually a table limit which will come into play. A roulette wheel that allows $1 bets almost certainly has a limit of, lets say, $1,000 or a run of ten loosing bets. Cloud Yeller (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mow I'm intrigued about your twice as many heads scenario. You say it's theoretically certain you'll win eventually? I guess if you do infinite tosses that might be true, but I guess that's why one usually doesn't do math with infinity. It seems to me if you throw 2 tails in a row you're pretty much screwed. DickTurpis (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reading through it quickly I thought it was martingale, but I guess there are subtle differences. Either way it has the same flaw. Honestly this system works perfectly... if you have an infinite amount of money. But if you have an infinite amount of money, sitting around roulette tables to win $10 is probably the single biggest possible waste of time imaginable. DickTurpis (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's an old system, but when it comes right down to it it's betting a lot to win a little, which is not a good long term strategy. Eventually, you will get those 6 losing numbers in a row, and will lose everything. DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Without spending too much time on it it looks like the martingale is still alive and well in the 21st century.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
A little help, please[edit]
I am trying to create some new edit filters to deal with a lot of the constant page-specifc wandalism on this Wiki. An example would be the racial realism article, which is constantly locked because of BoN race trolling wandals. Another example was an edit filter I created to kick Kevin Martin off of trolling his article and its talkpage. Where I need help from the community is in identifying pages we are constantly locking because of wandalism and trolling, and examples of the sort of wandalism that said articles see. That way, I can tease it out so that it will no longer be a problem on those pages and, more specifically, we can keep those pages unlocked for the editors in good faith. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. Lately the racist stuff has been active, as you noticed. Every now and then Nassim Haramein has a defender popping up to tell RW how biased the article is. Libertarianism gets some of that too. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just wait till I get Stalin apologetics done. Lotsa upset tankies rocking up to the FB group - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Roll in the tankies. I'm ready.
21:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC) - Most of what I've seen seems to gravitate around the whole feminism and MRA stuff, if that's of any help at all. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM And the rain will kill us all 13:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- The feminist and MRA split makes sense as the online atheism community (Youtubers especially) seem to be divided on the subject. I'm not particularly surprised about the Stalin apologists either, most forums that are open to socialist ideas tend to attract them, sadly that includes academia to some extent --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Feminism is a touchy subject in Red circles. Depending on their dictator of choice, they may or may not be against it, with tankie Reds being more reactionary to it. But are we really surprised that people who advocate stupidly oppressive and unsustainable regimes are sexist? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333 00:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Brocialists are a real problem in leftist circles. User:David Gerard/Stalin apologetics is in progress - David Gerard (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well the Paris Commune was a pretty feminist government for the time. There are sadly not as many as you would expect though considering Marx and Engels own relatively feminist views. I'm enjoying the in progress article so far --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Most Reds don't follow Marx's original views, instead opting for Mao or Lenin or some other tyrant. I used to think tankies were to Reds what ancaps are to anarchism, but... |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ The moist fruit of bombing! 10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Most Reds don't follow Marx's original views, instead opting for Mao or Lenin or some other tyrant. I used to think tankies were to Reds what ancaps are to anarchism, but... |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- Well the Paris Commune was a pretty feminist government for the time. There are sadly not as many as you would expect though considering Marx and Engels own relatively feminist views. I'm enjoying the in progress article so far --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Brocialists are a real problem in leftist circles. User:David Gerard/Stalin apologetics is in progress - David Gerard (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Feminism is a touchy subject in Red circles. Depending on their dictator of choice, they may or may not be against it, with tankie Reds being more reactionary to it. But are we really surprised that people who advocate stupidly oppressive and unsustainable regimes are sexist? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- The feminist and MRA split makes sense as the online atheism community (Youtubers especially) seem to be divided on the subject. I'm not particularly surprised about the Stalin apologists either, most forums that are open to socialist ideas tend to attract them, sadly that includes academia to some extent --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Roll in the tankies. I'm ready.
- Just wait till I get Stalin apologetics done. Lotsa upset tankies rocking up to the FB group - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Our planet from the air[edit]
As an antidote to listening to the ignorance of YEC or climate change deniers, watch this programme from the BBC. It's a little whimsical but it's beautiful and it presents science very well to a general audience. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I can tolerate a little whimsy with my science if it gets the scientific message across. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Available in UK only. Is there a workaround for others? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Try Hola Unblocker. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Stay by my side / Mabushii sekai wo misetai 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Try Hola Unblocker. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- Available in UK only. Is there a workaround for others? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Multi-Column Lists[edit]
In my habit of plagiarizing stealing taking ripping-off extorting at gunpoint "repurposing" things useful from Wikipedia, we now have this to use. Clickbait inspired me to go looking for the code for this I feel this list is going to get somewhat longer soon. There's a couple options not available yet since I have to run back to what I was doing, so they're coming. I take requests by the way if you provide me the bullets template you want. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've been attempting to improve the quality of my citations by using the "cite news, web, whatever" template and I just noticed that our page is empty, I bet there's even tags I'm not aware of using that could be repurposed from Wikipedia. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 23:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- That page isn't empty (look in "edit") - it's just too much for RW - much more than we need. God knows how anyone manages to use it on WP. Scream!! (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen it used once or twice in articles with really long "See Also" lists. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ A vain death of a plump bird. 00:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sweet merciful crap! I had no idea, that is a ton of stuff! NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 07:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- One of the things I do on Wikipedia is tart up other people's tatty bare URL links (or even worse those little blue numbers in brackets) by adding the correct cite news or cite web template. I had no idea we had them here. Mind you, on Wikipedia, there's almost always an article about the newspaper or website to link to within the template. There's often one about the author too. That's not the case here. Spud (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sweet merciful crap! I had no idea, that is a ton of stuff! NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 07:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen it used once or twice in articles with really long "See Also" lists. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- Please don't use the "cite" template(s). They are tailored for a very specific environment. RationalWiki is not Wikipedia.
- As for the mutli-column template... Zero, if I were you, I would be working to streamline my last trainwreck before jumping on the next one.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- YMMV. Proper citation templates would arguably be useful here. However, we'd need old ParserFunctions versions for now - we don't have Lua installed - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- That page isn't empty (look in "edit") - it's just too much for RW - much more than we need. God knows how anyone manages to use it on WP. Scream!! (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Random observations I found poking around rational wiki[edit]
First I have an unrelated question, why do we have BONs in the Vandal bin? Anyway here's what I found, probably no news here to the old regulars but I thought it was interesting.
- First there is no such thing as May
- "Iran is a place where women could fail jail or corporal punishment for going outside without the ubiquitous veil"
- we apparently have something called evolutionwiki which was silently dropped at the end to 2010 and I assume absorbed into rational wiki? a few pages where anyway. Any articles that could go there can probably go here anyway As it falls under um lets see: "pseudoscience, anti-science, crank ideas, fundamentalism and occasionally Analysis and criticism of how this subject is handled in the media."
- oh and apparently someone thinks rational wiki is a poor investment.
Disclaimer: this whole thing is border line trolling, and I realize that the horrible persecution women face in some parts of the world is not funny, typos are however hilarious. --NonPerson (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Err ... "border line"? Scream!! (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that the lack of financial reporting was a contributing factor to Nutty Roux's resignation from the board. The blog is not a wiki but an aggregated effort of several contributors, they are human and make typos but there is nobody coming round behind them and making corrections. EvoWiki is something that we took over to host after the previous owner decided to give up on it. Although it is also a wiki the article format and tone is different to RationalWiki and there have been several discussions on how we could best incorporate its content into RW. Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a good plan. I believe that the Rip-Off Report thing has been discussed here, I think it's believed to have been posted by one of our monomaniac trolls who got pissed off with us. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 13:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that the lack of financial reporting was a contributing factor to Nutty Roux's resignation from the board. The blog is not a wiki but an aggregated effort of several contributors, they are human and make typos but there is nobody coming round behind them and making corrections. EvoWiki is something that we took over to host after the previous owner decided to give up on it. Although it is also a wiki the article format and tone is different to RationalWiki and there have been several discussions on how we could best incorporate its content into RW. Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a good plan. I believe that the Rip-Off Report thing has been discussed here, I think it's believed to have been posted by one of our monomaniac trolls who got pissed off with us.