RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive231

This is an archive page, last updated 20 August 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Incoming

Actually, already here: Special:Contributions/Forrest Noble. Homework. --ZooGuard (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

FIRE

(As always, feel free to delete my little pet peeve here if you need to.) FIRE bad! FIRE bad! The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, that is. I'm developing a serious hate-on for these guys. They're the guys who claim to be protecting people's 1st Amendment rights by resisting anti-bullying and anti-discrimination regulations. Those so-called cases at the end of God Is Not Dead? These are the guys claiming there's persecution. The guys who want to exclude gay people from Christian groups? They turn to FIRE. The people who want to be able to harass classmates based on sexuality? They turn to FIRE. Now a guy who is alleged to have sexually assaulted a drunk 17 year old and got kicked out turned to FIRE. He's suing the college that kicked him out. So while he gets to be protected as John Doe, FIRE went ahead and doxxed the witnesses. And they've decided that even if someone's drunk enough to black out, so long as they sent a text message, they must have been in a rational enough state of mind to consent. To quote their Senior VP, "By classifying sex while drunk as rape and stripping students of due process protections, Occidental and the federal government have rendered vast numbers of students unwitting rapists- and ensured that being accused is nearly the same thing as being found guilty." User:PsychoGecko 02:35, 23 July 2014

I recall hearing that they gave my alma mater a bad rating because the school newspaper refused to publish some racist cartoon back in the 1990s. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a crowded theaterIkanreed (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish Hogarth were still alive to paint The Activist's Progress. This group degenerated into the sort of misbehavior associated with confident assurance of your own righteousness damned fast. I have some sympathy with their original goals. It's a basic principle of our civilization that public accusations of felony crimes have two acceptable fates: guilty, proven beyond reasonable doubt; or not guilty, at which the matter is dropped. People should not be found half-guilty of felonies by college tribunals under the weakest possible burden of proof, and where such slight technicalities as the right of the accused to a lawyer or the right to confront and cross-examine your accuser can be handwaved away for ideological reasons. This approach is simply inconsistent with some principles that should not be compromised. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's important to remember the distinction between a criminal trial in a court of law and a hearing about misconduct on a college campus. Civil stuff always has a lower bar for evidence. The police already refused to file charges, so the only thing this guy faced was being kicked out of the college. I have a little bit of sympathy if it's two adults who both happen to get drunk. A little less so when it's drunk jailbait who needed counseling afterward. But they had to have known what would happen by releasing those names to the internet, and they're going so far as to claim that a person can consent when they're too drunk to remember anything. The way they word it, how long it takes them to even bring up the alcohol, I get the sense they don't think incapacitation prevents consent. I'm a little iffy about the part where they hired their own private investigators, too. Sounds creepy. Is that normal in these kinds of circumstances? -- User:PsychoGecko 19:57 24 July 2014

Drunken sex is a problem anyway, the fact that it means lots of people have sex that's at least arguably non-consensual is just one more reason to think it a bad idea. Here's a proposal for a sociological intervention: Work hard to disconnect "sex" and "sleeping". Sleeping is an entirely natural thing to do when you're drunk, and having a bed to sleep in makes sense for us given our body plan and advanced tool making capability; but the existing connection between "lay down in bed" and "have sex" is weird modern human bullshit. Other primates don't think a bed is a place for fucking, or that nap time and sex are things that should be scheduled together. If most human sex happened at lunch time, in a play room, rather than at night in a bed it would be considerably weirder to have sex with the person who came back to your place after drinks and is now lying in your bed barely conscious. Tialaramex (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Drunken sex may be a problem. However, there are some problems where legal, institutional, and media attention will only make it worse, and I suspect this is one of those. At least in the United States, these are the sorts of things we tend to handle poorly; it's too easy to start moral panics, and every such narrative needs to identify a scapegoat. And trying to protect young people from drunken adventure is never going to sit well with me; sober people are untrustworthy. Can you think of any enterprise likelier to come to grief than an agency of the US government trying to regulate the sex lives of college students? I can see futures where this is low comedy, but I don't see any where it ends well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with regulation of sex lives. It's all about the principles of basic contract law. One of the most basic aspects of contracts is that to be consensual, you have to enter one under sound mind. You should also be a legal adult or have a guardian approve the contract if you aren't. In situations involving contracts, courts try to see to it that both sides negotiate fairly and in good faith. It's the same sort of standard that created the doctrine of contra proferentem, which says that ambiguity is to be interpreted against the interests of the person who added the ambiguous clause to a contract. All these factors combine to say that a drunk person was harmed when having sex with a sober person, or that if one is a legal adult, the underage one was harmed. --User:PsychoGecko 11:35, 26 July 2014

My understanding is that this sort of proceeding was instituted at the strong urging of the US government, which sent every university a memo that said in essence that they all had to erect kangaroo courts to try sexual assault cases, that the lowest burden of proof in these proceedings was the only acceptable one, that the accused were not to be given a right to counsel or to cross examine their accuser in these proceedings, and that failing to establish such tribunals would be considered sex discrimination per se and subject the schools to Federal litigation. And several schools have been sued for allegedly dragging their feet on this. I do think there are several legitimate problems with the way this is being imposed, the tribunals themselves, and whether this is something any government ought to mess with. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a proceeding to be disciplined by the college. They aren't getting a court order saying he has to pay them millions, and they aren't putting him in jail. For that little punishment, I can see why the burden of proof is so low. And I support efforts to stifle sexual assault. The U.S. government does too, under criminal law, and by having colleges handle it on their own, they're actually allowing colleges a lot of autonomy in order to handle this as they wish. This is in spite of all the colleges and college students who receive federal money, meaning the current system IS the small government solution. -- User:PsychoGecko 18:17, 27 July 2014

FIRE is the prime example of how Americans like to misinterpret the First Amendment to stifle opposition. Once there was a showing of an Islamophobic film at a university, which the Vice-Chancellor condemned in a mass email. FIRE took this criticism to mean that the guy wanted to "take away free speech." They seem completely ignorant of the fine print of cases like "Tinker v. Des Moines", "Bethel School District v. Fraser", or "Morse v. Frederick". Wykked Wytch (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is "the First Amendment", a specific legal text in the U.S. constitution. There is also "freedom of speech", a political value of which the First Amendment is one expression. Freedom of speech does not begin or end with the First Amendment. So if the issue is whether someone's statement or action reflects an inadequate appreciation of freedom of speech, it isn't good enough to claim that the First Amendment wouldn't be violated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to what you are trying to say. What I was trying to express was that FIRE holds to a particular extreme interpretation of the First Amendment that discounts the reasonable limits that must be placed on it to keep a safe environment. (Nobody would argue, for instance, that if I verbally harass someone with the intent of harming them emotionally, that is still considered harassment under the law. Except for FIRE, of course, who seems to think that "emotional harm" shouldn't be considered bullying.) Wykked Wytch (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"My censorship agitation only involves boycotts, the heckler's veto, and shouting matches. None of this is government action to which the First Amendment applies, according to (case law). Therefore, freedom of speech is not an issue." Sorry: when freedom of speech is involved, that is not good enough. (And "emotional harm" is, if nothing else, a very slippery slope.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

According to that logic, we should just repeal all the high school anti-bullying policies that deal with cyberbullying, malicious gossip, and name-calling because it doesn't cause physical harm. Wykked Wytch (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater doesn't technically cause physical harm either. The people do that to themselves due to suddenly being emotionally agitated by thinking they are in imminent danger of dying. Ignoring all the ways psychological health in a materialistic brain is linked to physical health, you still have the fact that the classic example of a restriction on free speech applies to bullying as well. User:PsychoGecko 18:44, 27 July 2014

Shouting "Fire" ... FIRE... am I the only one who sees a connection :P Wykked Wytch (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading Sam Harris is like watching a dog chase its tail

Why Harris' response to TML contest is more of the same. Assume utilitarianism! Hand-wave is-ought problem! Make vague analogy to health! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh, Sam Harris has some good points but his continued insistence that his semantic argument is correct despite a mountain of good criticism behind it is somewhat maddening. Its really an arbitrary point he's making, why not just give it up and be cool? --NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 19:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

$20k Nebuchadnezzar (talk)

Stalin apologetics

Holy crap, Stalin Society. Holy crap, soviet-empire.com. I didn't know either site existed before today. TOP TOP FUCKING KEK.

soviet-empire.com is fucking hilarious, by the way, for middle-aged suburban dads who infuriated themselves in their youth trying to get socialists and anarchists to be other than useless motherfuckers as much as one sympathised with them, like me.

Fucking tankies. I spent the last two days reading actual fucking Stalin apologetics, something I literally had not realised existed. I'm fucking horrified. I'm tempted to go back to Roko's basilisk.

I'm busy actually arguing with these fucks over on the RW FB. It's like discovering a new species of Holocaust denialist, literally (Holodomor denialists). I thought the Internet libertarians were annoying. I'm actually missing the 'berts, and would love to see the 'berts and the tankies at each other's throats. Bad references at dawn!

These people really are JUST UNBELIEVABLY VILE, and politeness ACTUALLY MAKES IT WORSE. It is literally the same as having polite and cultured Nazis show up in your forum to argue their viewpoint on history. The holodomor was that bad, and denial of it is that odious.

Christ. At least my middle-aged nostalgia is for useful things, like post-punk indie rock records.

So. Never say the FB group does nothing for the wiki. It caused yet another go-to article which appears to cover ground just about nobody else on the Internet is. So that's good! I'll have another bottle to recover though - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are you shocked there's Stalin appolgists? Hell, to this day many people don't know that Mao was a bloodthirsty dictator, and still buy the line that poor weather caused the Chinese Famines in the 50s and 60s. --Revolverman (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

YOU can write that article. I'm still being horrified by these previous fucks - David Gerard (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you know I can't write. I still have two damn pages in my userspace I won't post because how shitty I write. --Revolverman (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Every atrocity generates its own apologists. Now, for that article on Brutus apologism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

We actually have an article on Maoism! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{But is no potato. Is hallucinate from malnourish.} 03:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

These guys are super common on leftist circles around Tumblr. Another common deflection tactic is, "Well, capitalism has killed more people altogether, therefore Stalin wasn't so bad!" Wykked Wytch (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've also seen a couple Stalin apologist posts on my dash. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Fuck Yeah Marxism-Lenism takes pride in being called a tankie. *facepalm* (Also, that Tumblr theme is awful, why would anything think something that unreadable is okay?) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Even other Tumblr leftists consider fuckyeahmarxismleninism an embarrassment, from what I understand. Partially for being a brony (which is not received well on Tumblr), and also for defending Bashar al-Assad and the North Korean regime. In other news, I also once saw an American leftist ask for evidence that Stalin's anti-Semitic purges were unjustified. Wykked Wytch (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Crank magnetism applies here. It's not uncommon for tankies and other Reds to be into conspiracy theory and historical revisionist crap (fitting, considering Reds are not noted for their ability to learn from history). Just like their right-wing counterparts! (By the way, unreadability seems to be a trend amongst Tumblr "website" "designers". For the worst website design in the history of time, check out this twatterbrain. ).

That's not even the worst of it. A friend of mine (whose blog I won't link here, for the sake of her privacy) has a theme that takes seven centuries to load, an annoying feature where you have to click to "turn on the light" every time you to go a new page, some annoying anime song on autoplay which you can only turn off with some barely-visible box in the corner, and pink bubbles raining down from the top of the screen that "pop" when they fall on your mouse. Every time I open her site I am afraid my browser will crash. Wykked Wytch (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, the brony hate got ten times worse than.... whatever the bronies did. Yes, they are annoying and draw tons of porn of the show but so is literally every other fandom out there. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions?} 21:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think most of the outrage about bronies comes from the fact that they are a mostly male and adult fandom for a show intended for young girls, and that they sometimes fail to keep NSFW fanart out of areas that may be accessed by underage fans. Since the brony fandom seems a lot larger than other fandoms, and because the show is targeted toward a younger demographic than those of most fandoms, this only amplifies the effect. (For instance, there is also NSFW fanart for Star Wars, but that's marketed to a more diverse age demographic so it's not so shocking to see ten bajillion permutations of Leia in a slave outfit.) I have some friends who are bronies or pegasisters but I personally don't care about their hobby. Wykked Wytch (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The more I hear about tumblr, the more it sounds like the moonbat answer to the libertarians of reddit. Reminds me why I never read the bottom of the internet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Tumblr has a lot of stupid bullshit on it but I think all in all it gets a bad rap. Because of how users reblog each others' content, it does have an "echo chamber" effect of sorts which makes it very easy to end up with a lack of diversity of opinions on your dash, which can also skew one's perception of the political views of the website as a whole. So if you're looking for moonbat craziness, you'll simply amplify the moonbat craziness. There's actually a fairly large libertarian and conservative portion on Tumblr (such as user cultureshift, who's been featured several times on FSTDT). Wykked Wytch (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There are also many neo-nazis and neoconfederates and other wingnuts on Tumblr if you know where to look. I say they're worse than the ones on Reddit because at least Reddit has no-doxxing rules. Occasionally, the moonbats horseshoe back into wingnuts, such as when ciscrimes reblogged a neo-Nazi thinking it was about "cultural appropriation" (a valid concept that, when applied as a mindless and slogan without nuance, turns into racial separatism). All in all, it's like a giant open air mental asylum. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Like my hand on a Sunday afternoon: beats the shit out of me!} 14:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter, etc. and even FaceBook have largely passed me by. I feel I'm missing out but I'm not sure I really care. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I dare say that you also missed out on "popping candy under the foreskin". Don't worry, you're life is probably far richer in other spheres. Генгис^pillaging 14:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

They are awesome places for getting cute cat pictures and porn, though. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{But does planting trees help bring people to Christ?} 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And porn pictures of cute cats. Uh, not that I'm into that or anything… GØØBY PLS ^{Clam down dere, matey!!1} 13:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Good news for sock puppeteers

Here comes ReaganBook! They won't make the same mistakes as Tea Party Community, they're going to make all kinds of new mistakes! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of the early days at CP. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Pass the brain-bleach. Someone has posted a goatse. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

They "won't make the same mistakes"? Really? Even though they're using the exact same off-the-shelf software? And making the same never-going-to-happen promises about no censorship? They'll go down the exact same way. Be trolled, become paranoid about trolls, start abusing blocking technology to smite anyone who doesn't fall exactly into line, dwindle to a half dozen genuine posters, and try to beg as much cash off their tiny userbase as the manipulative scumbags running the thing can manage.

Edit conflict: is it bad that I know exactly which internet troll-hive is doing the goatseing? Ikanreed (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(EC Twice) It was a joke. They're going to fuck up the exact same way, I'm sure. Smartasses may hasten it, but the decline of such sites are inevitable. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm more curious about the name choice--Miekal 14:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's gone all 503 on me. For shame! Cloud Yeller (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Page not found" Scream!! (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that you can't actually run a social network on a 1/64th share of a dedicated server. Ikanreed (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It is now in "offline mode" and you need to have an account to see anything other than a spash thanking "all those who participated in the pre-release of ReaganBook.com" for "helping us build a more secure site." I find that ammusingly cute AlvidBarza (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Damn, beat me to it.--Madman (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Are there any actual conservatives at all on the site? - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The guy who founded it and five other guys. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Stay by my side / Mabushii sekai wo misetai} 19:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Monarchism

I've been digging into the libertarian movement some more and I've started to notice that there are some very…eccentric currents within it. I'm finding monarchists, people who long for the Middle Ages, and a variety of other pre-Enlightenment philosophies. What gives? This is very strange stuff. — Melab (Talk) 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See Hans-Hermann Hoppe. That's where most of it seems to come from, in addition to the overlap with the neo-reactionary movement. I have been meaning to write an article on him for some time. In short, his argument (put forward primarily in Democracy: The God That Failed) is that an anarcho-capitalist society is most desirable but is not always practically attainable. In these cases, we could see democracy and monarchy as two alternatives. In Hoppe's view, monarchy is superior and the key concept here is "time preference." In a democratic system, the government falls victim to the tragedy of the commons. Politicians in a democracy have a very high time preference (i.e., value immediate gratification) because they have to please their constituents in the span of a term in order to get re-elected. Thus, democracy is short-sighted and favors short-term gains over long-term losses. Monarchy, on the other hand, is the opposite. Monarchs have low time preference for three reasons: a, their reign lasts for a lifetime, b, they will pass their kingdom on to their heirs, and c, they have total ownership of their kingdom. Point c is especially important because, in the libertarian view, private property is better maintained than the commons (which is democracy, in this case). Thus, monarchs have a greater incentive to maintain their society. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that actual autocratic monarchs have tended to treat their nations as private slush funds, and tend to come to grief that way; Charles I of England, Louis XVI of France. Another problem is that "anarcho-capitalism" is really only conceivable in historical periods that well postdate the time of absolute monarchies; when the kings were around, neither the infrastructure nor the ideologies in place for anything resembling capitalism was in place. The dominant economic model during the age of kings was mercantilism, an economic philosophy based on hoarding gold. This failed only when the Hapsburgs discovered that having great gobs of gold and silver around just meant that over times things cost more gold and silver.

That said, proprietary models of government have produced protracted periods of agrarian prosperity and good order. I'm thinking more of the gentry of England and much of Western Europe. But that was no capitalist utopia either. Social mobility was frowned on; actually an advantage, but anarcho-capitalists won't think so. There was also a stiff dose of paternalism and a local but real welfare state. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the others in the "movement", but isn't autocracy contrary to the premise of libertarian thought? --Madman (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Hoppe argues that democracy may seem preferable, but it quickly degenerates. Democratic politicians must appeal to their constituents, who inevitably demand things that require the violation of the rights of other citizens. Voters will continuously elect politicians who pay them off at the expense of other citizens through public programs. This leads to higher taxation, increasing debt burden, and violation of civil liberties. Because the democratic politicians have high time preference, they have no incentive to limit these programs. Thus, cronyism will increase to the point where the system collapses. In monarchies, on the other hand, the low time preference of the monarch will lead him to not enforce a level of taxation that will inhibit productivity. Therefore, monarchies will be a more stable form of government in which property rights are better protected and hence, individual liberty is greater. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, though, isn't Hoppe the guy who also came up with the idea of "covenant communities" (think, neighborhood associations on steroids) that would locally enforce cultural conformity to an extent we'd say violated civil liberties. Your basic freedom is the freedom to move away; the idea is that these communities would be racially and culturally homogeneous enough to share a stronger identity and group cohesion, which would make governing them efficient. When libertarianism proposes making people less free, you have to wonder what's the point? Again, I can see this working in agrarian settings, but not in a labor force full of skilled specialists who may prefer not to join the local cult, nor in a society saturated with electronic communications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, though I don't think he calls them that. (He does use this terminology.) According to Hoppe, these communities protect the fundamental rights to private property and freedom of association. They would also have an obligation to expel "democrats" and "communists" for being threats to society. So there goes freedom of speech. But if you consider freedom of association to be the primary civil liberty, then these organizations would not violate civil liberties. Hey, I didn't say these arguments weren't ridiculous. I report, you deride. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at his argument/scenario/whatever and it comes across as horribly, horribly muddled: covenants that run with the land are not contracts. They're covenants. Like so many libertarians, he uses an incredibly idiosyncratic conception of law. I've seen Rothbard's TTToC and libs seem to use it everywhere they can, but I started to become suspicious of it when one ancap said parents could sign a contract to transfer custody. At the point, I was like "Wait a minute. They're pulling this stuff out of their asses.". Custody of children involves no "title-transfer" and though it may involve agreements between parents, those agreements are not contracts. A similar thing happened when I saw one lib say that seeds that stray into one's farm via the wind are a "violation of property rights". They apply these terms very sloppily. — Melab (Talk) 14:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If we were to take the property rights to their logical conclusion, we would have a legal system of gargantuan (and impossible) proportions dedicated to lawsuits every time, say, a bit of particulate matter from a car exhaust flies up your nose or a an airplane flies through the airspace over your house (unless the airlines buy up rights to all the airspace). Either that, or we would all have to go around in hermetically-sealed hamster balls. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You know how hard it would be to get laid like that? It'd take balls. --User:PsychoGecko 22:57 23 July 2014

perhaps you are all unaware of zorbing? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Children are interesting though, in a limited sense. Babies are clearly property. They aren't people and thus they can't very well own themselves, so they must be owned by the parents. But society has a colossal interest in this property, far more than, say, a dog (you can own a dog, but society has decided you aren't allowed to beat the dog with an iron bar for your amusement). Further unlike the dog though, most babies will spontaneously become people, and thus ethically come to own themselves. This transition is subtle and difficult to diagnose, so we are reluctant to raise it as an issue in law except at the extremes. Is it enough for your child to pass the mirror test? The smarties test? To pass a school test on Algebra (the line Dick draws in his short story inspired by Roe v Wade) ? Tialaramex (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope no one minds that I've used some of this as a basis for expanding the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article. I've blatantly plagiarized the "neighborhood association on steroids" line. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Reason why women don't like to enroll in STEM fields (human nature)

Came across this well argued piece recently, basically it steamrolled the common liberal arguments for diversity in academia.74.14.72.22 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Too bad the "variability hypothesis" is wrong. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Too bad he also accepts a Forbes article as fact. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a Forbes article, a Forbes-hosted blog post. Compro01 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically, we only ever see that as an ad-hoc hypothesis of various forms whenever a sexist situation is brought up. It's never given the seriousness as an idea by its proponents that such a dramatic assertion would require. Human beings vary based on secondary sex characteristics, the story goes, thus we should accept whatever amazing disparity exists uncritically.

The strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, thus we should accept horribly bigoted allegations about female intelligence with absolutely no empirical support. It's intrinsically a non-sequitur, and we do have evidence for higher departure rates from the tech field among women, with prejudice being a commonly enough cited reason to support the "ether of sexism" argument. Ikanreed (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Goats: 1001 Uses

Now 1002. 205.175.225.12 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Help Meh

This may be a bit nooby, but how do you do the little coloured text thingies at the end of your name? Serious business for me. DÎŁDØ THÊ BÛTT PÎRÂTÊ (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Can i choose to forcibly keep it a state secret from you?--Miekal 05:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Help:Wikisig should explain it all. GØØBY PLS ^{Why weepest thou?} 06:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

But whatever you do, don't make your sig too large or it will incur the wrath of other editors. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I already find the colours and images in the signatures rather childish.. But at least most people refrain from using animated gifs, I guess. --GTac (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppets Around Here

I'm new around here so if there is something going on that I don't know about feel free to call me a moron. It seems like every time I look at the Special:Log page I see half a dozen brand new users registered (like user:HermineW39 or User:CourtneBastyan) within a few minutes of eachother. Is there something going on here? AlvidBarza (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Only spambots. Every wiki or web 2.0 site gets them. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, there are automated filters that keep them from making user pages in fractured Engrish with links to "their blog." When I see one slip through, I like to replace the contents with {{spam}}, following the lead of some Great Lakes punk (who has mended his wicked ways, become a useful contributor to society, and may even be taking a math degree as we sit here reading RW.) Sysops such as yourself, Alvid, have other remedies at hand. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that. And now that you mention it, it makes a lot of sense. So much so that I feel that I should have figured it out on my own. Oh well, live and learn. AlvidBarza (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Size of government

Has anyone besides me never felt that the "size" of government conveyed much? I'm pretty much a fan of the incorporation doctrine putting the kibosh on anti-civil liberties laws in any of the states, but this often gets bemoaned as "big government" by theoconservatives, paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, or whatever the ilk may be. It wasn't only until recently that I started using and thinking in terms of the "size" of government and "state intervention", but I still find it unsatisfactory. As an example, I'm a supporter of youth rights and I've seen claims from the right that this involves "the state intervening and taking over children" or whatever. My thoughts were always like this: "How is granting children more rights a form of 'big government'? Is punishing murder an act of 'government intervention'?". Phyllis Schlafly argues that men have a right to rape their wives (no doubt, some paleolibertarians would argue marriage is a contract to enable this), but making this a crime is hardly "big government" or "government intervention". — Melab (Talk) 04:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that the government is intervening (true small government is rare, afaict, amongst the american conservative movement at large, see DOMA for when big government is great!), the problem they have is simply "the side we don't like did something we don't like so we need something to yell besides "we don't like it!", and "the government is overstepping the bounds our founders set" is incredibly convenient to use. --Miekal 04:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a snarticle on it many moons ago. Seems like people couldn't decide whether it was funspace or serious. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Small government" is a meaningless phrase that played well with focus groups. For something that's treated like an objectively moral goal, it's so rarely discussed in objective terms as to be pointless. Ikanreed (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In the United States, minimum wage increases, housing the homeless, gay rights and a host of other social issues today are being addressed by "small government" at the state and local level. This is largely the result of the wp:Republican Revolution of 1994 which shit-canned big government solutions of the New Deal and Great Society. nobs^{One who's been there.} 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember a time when the glorious small government revolution championing gay rights was busy smashing them in the face, so dont even go for that. Also, gay rights keeps getting appealed to the top, so it isn't being solved at a state level.--Miekal 00:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Duh, the gay marriage movement is all being fought out with local county clerks and at the small state level. The one-size-fits-all aspect of DOMA and big government were tossed out by SCOTUS in it's only case. So that's only two actions (2) by big government to intrude on personal liberties, the 1996 legislation and recent Supreme Court ruling. Why don't you (as a fern-er) learn something about US politics before commenting, otherwise don't even go there. nobs^{One who's been there.} 04:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm amused by this notion that there is something wrong with "one-size-fits-all". First, it doesn't apply in every case. Second, if something is wrong, then what's wrong with squashing it? — Melab (Talk) 13:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

it is an anathema to me to that something can legal and accepted in one part of a country but not in another part of the same country. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Long live the glorious unitary state master race. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{EVERY SINGLE MISSILE HIT THE TARGET!!! AAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!!} 15:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘On the other hand equal protection under law shouldn't be a suicide pact for genuinely unreasonable laws, I guess. Ikanreed (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should communities have the ability to define themselves and their shared values? At least some laws ought to differ from town to town, just like units of measurement should. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Minimum wage is a great example. A federally mandated minimum wage acceptable to voters in California and New York (populous states with above median income and large Congressional delegations) creates an unequal burden in poorer states like New Mexico, South Dakota, or Mississippi. Prohibition was a "one-size-fits-all" effort; now localities regulate alcohol sales themselves (as they do with the "community standards" and titty bars). Even in DOMA the SCOTUS ruling granted big government recognition of gay marriage only in states that recognized gay marriage. nobs^{One who's been there.} 01:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The most amusing (totally serious) sentence from a sociology abstract I've ever read

[1]

however, men given feedback suggesting they were feminine expressed more support for war, homophobic attitudes, and interest in purchasing an SUV.

I mean, there's nothing intrinsically funny there, except for the mental image of pushers of those things as 5 year old school children yelling "you're a giiiiiiiiiiiiiirl" at fully grown adults. Ikanreed (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I do find that amusing. It also explains some of the attitudes one is likely to encounter, at least in the US. See, MRAs? Patriarchy hurts men too--"Shut up, Brx." 20:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the law

We need an article on Homosexuality and the law. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why? Which law? Which country's laws? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It would have to be every country, wouldn't it? I think "Homosexuality and law" without "the" sounds more international. On the other wiki, both "Homosexuality and law" and "Homosexuality and the law" redirect to "LGBT rights by country or territory", and just glancing at that page shows what a mammoth task creating such an article could potentially be. Spud (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It would be a huge article. Do you actually intend to make an article that covers every country? Only the ones where it is il/legal? The "important" ones? I guess you could separate it out into categories like gay marriage, no criminal penalties but not equal, jail, and death. That would make it easier. Then you could list the countries for each category. You'd probably want to provide a rudimentary history on the progress of gay rights and the current spread. You'd probably also want to talk about how the current situation is bi-directional. Could actually be done rather easily if done correctly. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia already does this sort of thing better. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We already have an "attitudes towards homosexuality" article, which includes a (rather patchy) commentary on laws and attitudes in various countries. It would be better to work on improving that rather than creating another page going over pretty much the same ground. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

True, especially as laws change overnight (eg Uganda's notorious anti-gay law has just been struck down in court) but attitudes change more slowly. Casionaut (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh. TIL Jamaica is the most homophobic place on Earth. Well, now I have another reason not to go there (also, snakes). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Ate at a Chinese restaurant therefore is literally Hitler} 16:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Goat babies

Need I say more?--"Shut up, Brx." 20:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Baby goats are kinda overrated. To be honest, goats in general are overrated; I mean, I like their eyes and and they reasonably cute, but they don't really move me that much, you know? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Why weepest thou?} 21:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you one of those dirty jerboa types? Snarl... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ew, no, those things are fucking hideous. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Don't read look every behind second you word} 21:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My only problem with goats is that they shit everywhere and eat everything. Show me a goat that goes in the litterbox and won't devour my wallet, and my cat will have found a new friend.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

My cat would most likely disembowel the goat and strangle it with its own entrails. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Suffer the storms} 21:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Years ago, a couple of friends came to town with their pet kid, Harold. He would follow them like a puppy, and it was fun to watch people on the street go "what a cute puppy... oh, wait, WHAT!!?!! dafuq?!!?" all without saying a word. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

How old was the kid? THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Unite with thy oracle} 21:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't know. Not even knee-high, but able to walk on his own and eat solid food. Friendly little cuss, had never been swatted with a stick, according to the fellow they bought him off of. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

But didn't it shit all over the place uncontrollably?--"Shut up, Brx." 22:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I read somewhere that they piss all over themselves to be sexy or something… so, uh… yeah. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{And the rain will kill us all} 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sexy pissing sounds like an adult thing. Harold was a tidy beast, and was let indoors without fouling anybody's nest. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I wanna know the fate of the goat. Did they have it fixed before adulthood? Did they keep it into adulthood?--"Shut up, Brx." 22:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't know. I lost track of those guys after that visit. Goat's probably in a better place by now. Some other wiki says their life expectancy is fifteen to eighteen years. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Any Koreans here?

My flatmate ordered some clothes from a south Korean company 'ByTheR', via eBay. On arrival, a couple of free gifts were included in the package. One gift was a couple of tea bags of what is claimed to be traditional Korean tea, packaged in sealy bag with a card printed with the company logo. Sounds very nice, I will try that in the morning. The other gift, packaged like the tea, was a south Korean condom. Is this a standard free gift or is someone in the company messing? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Koreans, but free condoms with purchases of clothes (or other trendy items) is a gimmick that's been around for ages. What's more puzzling is that you describe it as a "south Korean condom". What' is distinctively Korean about it? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Condom wrappers have text on. If the wrapper says "Republic of Korea" that's a huge give away, and arguably under the circumstances any Korean text at all gives the game away because their northern neighbour isn't exactly an industrial power house. Tialaramex (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

indeed, the wrapper was covered in what I assume to Korean text and adorable little condom people. On refelction though, that it was a south korean condom was neither here nor there. I guess I do not purchase enough enough clothes online to have come across this gimmick before. It seems a little odd to me and was sure someone was just messing. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Korean-American (with a hint of Japanese) checking in. There are a number of companies that package along little free gifts with purchases, but this particular choice... certainly sounds unusual to me. Then again, raised in America, never ordered clothing from an online Korean supplier before (mostly CDs, electronics, stationary/desk stuff, and the odd tchotchke), and it's the first time I've heard of ByTheR. My best guess is that it's a thing specific to ByTheR, but I'll poke around and see what I can find. Do you happen to have a shot of the wrapper? Noir LeSable (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hodor!

Hodor! Hodor (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I am Groot. User:PsychoGecko 21:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest Israeli military activity in Palestine

I don't exactly get it. What is making whatever Israel has been doing to Palestine any more morally defensible than say, whatever Syria has been doing? People supporting peace or even simply condemning violence somehow get labelled as anti-semitic. With that kind of attitude/atmosphere it is difficult not to have conspiracy theories about the Jews and the media. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus among those who actually study these things is that this ground offensive is a bad idea, so I'd suggest you stop right there with that last sentence.

The unyielding division between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian supporters in the public debate is just a reflection of what's happening on the ground; it's politically unpalatable for anyone on either side to admit these four conclusions all at once: a) That the status quo in Gaza/the West Bank (and lack of a two-state solution) has failed miserably; b) Israel is killing a disproportionate number of people than rocket attacks can do from the opposite (though instigating) side; c) Hamas really is an organization of whackjobs that is not acting in Palestinians' best interests; and d) There cannot be further Middle Eastern resentment towards a Jewish state. What has changed since 2008 in these respects? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Proof that God really exists: lets put several different groups of people who all follow different religious ideologies into one area then tell them that I specifically give them exclusive claim to it. But seriously, the argument that being against the Israeli ground assault therefore makes you anti-Semitic is as fallacious as saying that criticizing the religion of Islam, in any shape or form, is Islamophobic. It simply does not follow. NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the ultimate roots of the conflict are not religious in nature, but political. (Zionism was originally a secular Jewish movement.) The Palestinians see Israel as a violent state founded on war crimes and confiscation of their land, which was taken from the Palestinians by the British and given to Zionist Jews. But peoples tend to resort to more extreme and militant politics and religions when they are in times of distress, hence the rise of Hamas, the PFLP (which is actually secular and communist IIRC), and so on. Wykked Wytch (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Middle ground is an (Choose!: Israeli/Anti-Israeli) conspirancy theory!!!. If you don't think (Israel and DA JUICE/Hamas and MOOSELEEMS) is literally UNADULTERATED, PURE EVIL you are (ISLAMOPHOBIC CHRISTOFASCIST/ANTI-SEMITIC NAZI)!!1!!!111! <- Every online argument I've had on these matters. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin'} 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Deserved doom shall be unto you} 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, if people stopped shoehorning ethnicity into this debate, it would be so much less tedious.

Thing is, both sides have been godawful. Hamas is a bunch of anti-Semitic, terrorist nutjobs, and Israel's offense is a terrible, terrible idea. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Because I'm a terrorist!} 16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious this is a scorched earth wp:Carthaginian peace strategy. First attack the hospitals, then the power supply, then fresh drinking water supplies. Eventually allow refugees to escape to wherever they are accepted (doubtful if Eygpt, Jordan or Assad wants them; maybe ISIS or Turkey will take a few; the rest are destined for Italy, Los Angelas, and Detroit). After the city is depopulated, it'll be dynamited, leveled, bulldozed and turned into an Isreali seaport and military base with housing settlements. nobs^{One who's been there.} 23:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Palestinians are Semitic. But I think I lost that case of pedantry many decades ago. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

18:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

/but Khant, they are the wrong kind of Semetic. Just cause you look incredibly similar and have similar (and even moreso, if you go by the stories) origins is irrelevant. --Miekal 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Semitic is a language family, not an ethnic or racial classification (at least not a current one, anyway). The word "anti-Semitism" was coined by German racial scientists who wanted a more scientific-sounding name for Jew-hatred, and since many at the time believed Jews were of the "Semitic" race, the name stuck. However, it has always exclusively referred to hatred of Jews. Some people like to substitute "anti-Jewish racism" or "anti-Arab racism" to avoid confusion, however. Wykked Wytch (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So people on TV generally have not studied that, including the newscasters and correspondents? Or is it just Sinclair's law in action? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

They're all in AIPAC's pockets anyway.--Madman (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Stop. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back?} 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, somebody's denying the existence of a lobby that seeks to promote the state and militaristic government of Israel within American politics and media. Despite the obvious implications of such claims, I would like to point out that the lobbying group mentioned within my previous post is guilty of espionage against our government. Clearly, I must be a anti-semite! --Madman (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman

We're not denying the lobby exists. But you're heading into conspiracy territory. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I recently recalled something could be done when the permanent security members vetoes shit and that was used in cases that involves Israel: "Uniting for Peace" from the UNGA. Anyone mind take a look on how to get that to work? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If the UN are such badasses, why don't they do something about their schools being blown up? Oh yah, they can't even govern the planet without fucking that up. nobs^{One who's been there.} 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears RobSmith doesn't know anything about the history of Resolution 377. Oh wait, should I be surprised? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? you think those badboys at the UN are gonna send troops to kick Isreali butt cause their school was attacked? nobs^{One who's been there.} 01:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

UN peacekeepers cannot be authorized on the ground without Security Council approval; they can't, in your own words, "be badasses" because they rarely have the ability to do so. The "United for Peace" requests that are mentioned the most often are the first two: the Korean War and the Suez Crisis. Those were extraordinary situations (both could have escalated into nuclear crises) and, despite the violence, Operation Protective Edge is not at that point yet.

"No one is talking about 'peacekeepers'" Hello, there is no UN-backed 'security force' today apart from the Blue Berets (that's why I mentioned Korea for context, it didn't even exist when 377 was first used). So don't be surprised that UN facilities in war-torn areas can't be protected when vetoes are in play.

And don't bullshit about Suez being just about "acting without consultation," relations between the Western powers soured for quite a while after the Protocol of Sèvres. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yah, that's cuz the Europeans didn't want any NATO commitments outside Europe, not until Afghanistan in 2003. That left the US to pick up the slack in many former British & French colonies. Incidentally, it was FDR who committed the American people to something they never felt comfortable with. And it was another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson who wanted to fight for the glory of France 10 years after Dien Bien Phu. nobs^{One who's been there.} 02:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Moral defensibility? It seems a terrorist group getting arms from Syria and Iran has been shooting missiles and mortars into Israel. They have stated many times, from many places, their goal is wipe Israel from the map. They have sent in suicide bombers, snipers, and saboteurs to intentionally kill civilians. They have succeeded at elementary schools, buses, marketplaces, and other areas. I can see a moral defense to striking back. I feel very sorry for all the nonterrorists killed and injured. But I know the terrorists, in Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan, commonly use mosques, schools, and hospitals as operational bases and do not hesitate to utilize "human" shields. Israel would love to get out of Gaza and never set foot in there again. It is a wasteland filled with people indoctrinated with hate. The reason they are there again and again is self-defense.

The Israeli government had multiple chances to prevent Hamas from accumulating power. ("Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.") And demonizing Gaza as an "indoctrinated wasteland" won't do anything but make an anti-terrorism strategy more difficult. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What's his name seems to be back

and spamming up the site with how mean we are to pedophiles. --Revolverman (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I'm honored that he thinks we're mean. Although I'm now pretty sure he isn't Ehrenstein. --Marlow (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its Ehrenstein. Its Tinsen, or however it was spelt. --Revolverman (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If you mean Tisane, I don't think that's him. Not his style. Actually, this one may just be a troll, and not an actual pedophile. Unless you mean someone other than Tisane, in which case my comment has no relevance and should be ignored--"Shut up, Brx." 01:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought Tisane was banished to the ninth circle of MisesWiki. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's any of the site's long time troublemakers, given how this guy lacks any of their idées fixes. So, yes, random BoN troll. Kill with fire. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin'} 02:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on some good edit filters as a stopgap measure. One is in place already, so let's see what happens. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just popping in to confirm IE has nothing to do with this (in fact, I've convinced IE to spend their time doing more productive and beneficial things on the Orain wiki farm). Also, IE has confirmed to me that they just want to move on from RW and have no further desire to stir up any trouble here in any way, a course of action I myself recommended. As for Tisane, I dunno, but I as far as I know, he seems to have mostly disappeared from doing a lot of wiki editing, so I don't believe it's him either. Finally, wanted to wish you guys the best in making sure this apparent pedophile/troll stays away from RW. Arcane (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Aye, I figure that, had it been Ehrenstein, it probably would have gone more along the lines of "I downloaded child porn, and I think your articles on pædophilia are biased and false. Additionally, YOU'RE ALL NAZI RAPE APOLOGISTS!!!!!1!1!!!111!" DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{…But spirit is foulest, devoid, askew} 08:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Who? Any number of BoN vandals we have? Inserting useless dribble into articles. Drown it with water! --NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 09:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Did a check of a few of the IPs used by this idiot, seems to be Tor related. Most definitely should enable Torblock to stop this pervert. Arcane (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We have other tools at our disposal before it comes to an outright block of Tor. I'd give more detail, but that's strategically a bad idea. I am out in the wilderness today, but I will try to be around and keep the edit filters maintained to kick this guy out. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't Brazov a huge fan of trolling RW via Tor? --Revolverman (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As was Linuxian and as was Fall down before him. Let's not jump to conclusions and, instead, let's just assume this is a new troll. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocking Tor and proxies is something we can do relatively easily (uncomment the proxy blocker in the server config), but RW's fairly radical openness policies are such that I would be reluctant to switch it on unless it was pretty clearly the consensus of the mob. Besides, RNS's filter sk1llz are benefiting from the workout - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter was blocking IPs indefinitely. I've set it so that edit filter blocks now last 314159 seconds by default (which required twiddling the defaults) and undid ancient indefinite blocks on IPs - if they catch the edit filter again, it'll block them rather than put the edit through - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

$wgAbuseFilterBlockDuration = 'indefinite';
$wgAbuseFilterAnonBlockDuration = '314159 seconds';

- David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Bother, that only works in recent versions. It's 314159 seconds for all again - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Damn, I got excited thinking Marcus was back... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Doing the wrong article for the right reasons

I've thought for a while we could do with an article on libertarian arguments for pedophilia, given that they keep making them but other berts keep denying such arguments are made, and the Internet could do with an article collecting them. OTOH, it may be a ridiculous magnet for stupendous fuckwittery. Opinions? - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm… yeah, I think it should be a thing- however, I personally believe that the article, at least the title should be broader than just "'tarian arguments for pædo shit", and mostly focus on the whole "freedom" side of it. But I'm a useless shit, so you can completely ignore my opinions. GØØBY PLS ^{Yesterday seems as though it never existed} 13:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea, but doing the necessary research sounds nauseating.

How would the freedom arg fit in? As in freedom to do unto others who can't stop you from doing unto them? Pre-government freedom? MarmotHead (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Every once in a while some whack job comes along and starts a topic or an article on an iffy subject... Usually the mob applies a bit of détournement to it, bringing it into line with the mission, usually not in accordance with the original poster's intent. This could be one of those times, but I'll be clipped to a live circuit and jolted before I do any of the research. Better anyone else than me, and I'm guessing I don't speak for myself alone with that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We're situationists? That's one dream fulfilled! MarmotHead (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The best option is probably an article on pedophilia (currently existing only as a redirect to child sexual abuse) which could sections of pedophile advocacy movements & arguments. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC) \

Hyperbole in internet lingo/acronyms

Now, I find it unlikely that when someone types ROTFL, that they are/were actually rolling on the floor laughing. It also seems impossible to conceive of somebody's ass literally coming off because of laughter, such as in LMAO.

But I'm curious, when people type LOL, did they actually laugh out loud? Often, I find that when I type LOL/lol, I merely chuckled out loud, smiled, or even just laughed on the inside. The other day, I even made the joke (funny or not) of saying "I chuckled out loud. COL?"

RationalWikians, when you type el-oh-el do you really laugh out loud, or are you just expressing that something was funny, even if it wasn't laugh-out-loud funny?

^Ignore if stupid^--"Shut up, Brx." 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I once said "lol" in real life instead of actually laughing. No joke. Still ashamed. (In answer to your question, for most of us it's probably just expressing that something was funny instead of an actual laugh, in the same way that the "kekekeke" that originated from the Korean version of "lol" in the video gaming scene, when used by Westerners invariably loses its original meaning of being an actual laugh and only expresses that something is funny.) Nullahnung (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

lol (figuratively) I think lol often when I encounter something funny, but I've managed to stop myself from ever saying it aloud.

I always wondered what kekekeke was about, since I encountered it at a young age while playing Pokemon. I used to think it was an onomatopoeia, like "haha." I wondered if Japanese people actually laughed like that. Interesting to know, thanks--"Shut up, Brx." 14:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Teenagers say "lol" in speech these days. I am saddened - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I say BRB IRL all the time. --NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 18:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

ROFL and LMAO are used exclusively by idiots. I've used LOL very seldom, AFAICR in situations where I did actually laugh out loud. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would expect nothing less from the Weaseloid--"Shut up, Brx." 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I kinda agree with him. However, the one that really pisses me off is "TBH", though that's only really because it reminds me of my brother's generation with their shitty "omg lms 4 a tbh lol ily kk <3<3" Facebook posts. Oh, and when people say "IKR, right?" and "I ILY you", like, srsly? ROFLOLMFAO. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Play the best song in the world, or I'll eat your soul} 06:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, what a bunch of grumpy old farts. Why, I remember when people talked properly and didn't resort to the jargon of the day. We didn't use 'bad' to mean 'good', no, no, no! Cloud Yeller (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

And so on. We need a pithy macro that links people to http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/3/2/169 or the text thereof. Almost 4000 years ago, in Sumer, old people were already moaning about young people enough that someone took the time to permanently record some of their main points on the subject using a new technology called "writing" that young people would undoubtedly soon corrupt in some way if left to their own devices. Tialaramex (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

lyk omg gaiz ur so rite! tbh these guise r killin ma #swag lololol jk. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Impurity is the secret} 11:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I heard a linguistics expert on NPR's science Friday a couple weeks ago who alleges that "lol" has evolved to mean something different. Where it may have had something to do with actual laughter when it was invented by the Internet shut-ins of old, it currently has two primary meanings.

1. A way of expressing an understanding of nuance on a text message just read. They alleged this usage is critical because of the way that nuance can be missed without verbal/body language cues(or the length and context of "old school" writing).
2. A way of taking the edge off your own statement, to make it more friendly.

Taking "lol" to mean anything about actual laughter is long-since gone. Ikanreed (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Long-since gone" is too much of a jump for me. Was this linguistics expert speaking from a well-researched position or just expressing some musings from experience? Nullahnung (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Long since is my description. Ikanreed (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok. If that's how you interpret the situation, fair enough. Nullahnung (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the uses of "lol" seem to indicate substantial semantic drift: I pushed the fat guy in front of the trolley for the lols. Didn't mean to save anybody. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 01:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the correct usage is "lulz." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The stigma of being an atheist in the US

I found this BBC article pretty interesting. Is it painting a realistic image? If so I am quite happy to live in Old Europe. Even in my seriously conservative catholic community/region atheism would not be a topic for anyone holding an office or running for one. 194.246.46.15 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Remember that the contiguous 48 United States stretch for two or three thousand miles (say, three to five thousand km) "from sea to shining sea." There is no single culture applying to us all; imagine the difference in attitudes between cosmopolitan citizens in Istanbul and some of the more traditional villages in eastern Turkey, and expand that in various dimensions. Still, I believe the Pew Research Centre does their homework well, as far as honest surveys go. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hemant Mehta of the Friendly Atheist blog pointed out they were wrong about the red lanyards. They were for students whose pictures shouldn't be posted online in case they are outed. I don't know if that means they couldn't talk to them, but it definitely meant no names. There are definitely places where you don't feel comfortable being an atheist, most notably being in the Deep South. The guns, beer, and football portion of the country, where coaches end every practice with a prayer, begin every game with the Lord's Prayer, and bus students to some Fellowship of Christian Athletes thing as something that's required just for a high school sport. Plus, some people would be intimidated by a school faculty member known for headbutting people who wear helmets sitting down to run that BS about "If you've ever sinned in your heart, you're a sinner," by you. I hear it's worse in some of the more heavily-Mormon places, though. Shunning, pets winding up killed and left on your lawn, that sort of thing. Still, kind of amusing to hear your own sibling say, "You're an atheist and a liberal, but you're one of the nicest people I know." User:PsychoGecko 17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In the last place I lived people knew I don't believe in God. I was used to explaining why I think scientific rationality is good and why I think it's right to campaign against irrational religion. In the area I now live I don't lie about my lack of belief if asked but I don't go out of my way to mention it either. Most people where I now am are OK about lack of belief but a few older people are prejudiced and it's not worth the hassle. As to youngsters being driven out of the family home, forced to Bible camp, physically chastised, I’m sure that happens in intolerant Fundy families in liberal parts of the USA in in liberal parts of the UK in liberal parts of Australia, wherever. Intolerant Fundies are like that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining you being able to hold back attacks on religion prox.--Miekal 18:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As Sprocket stated, the United States is immensely culturally diverse, more so than I feel most Europeans realize. PsychoGecko is correct in his assessment that some areas being an atheist publicly can cause real problems with the community, family, and even employment. However there are large swaths of the country where "coming out" atheist will cost you little, if anything at all. People outside the United States tend to see the news stories about the very publicly devoutly religious and assume the majority is like that, when in fact they are the distinct minority outside of a select few regions. I live in Chicago, and to me street preachers on the megaphone preaching about damnation and salvation while holding up signs like "turn or burn" is just as foreign as it would be to most Europeans. I never come across these people, ever, unless I am travelling out in the country in the old South, certainly not anywhere near where I live. I am an atheist and my family (who is evangelical Baptist), coworkers, and friends know. No one has ever cut me off, even my family, all I get is the occasional "I pray for you" from my mom when I chat with her and even then I know it is more a pray for my health and safety than for a soul.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have lived in the northeast my entire life, and I agree. It is not a terribly big deal here outside of certain pockets. Although New York does have quite a few street preachers, but most people don't take them seriously. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Another Northeasterner, here. I know people rejected by family members, but outright violence (in the US) is new to me. When I stopped going to Mass, my Aunt never declared that I should be burned at the stake, and certainly didn't build a bonfire for me. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It all depends on where you are and who you're with. On most college campuses it's perfectly normal. In most Wal-Mart parking lots, your car would be vandalized if there was some kind of pro-atheism sticker on it. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"God's not dead"

A blogger expresses dismay at depictions of atheists. I'm dismayed the blogger expects anything better from Evangelicals. Additionally, does anyone else think it's funny Kevin Sorbo (acting and producing for this film) became famous playing the long-haired son of a god? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the blogger expects anything better, he just wants his readers to know what prejudice there is among American Evangelicals. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

...among evangelicals in Mississippi, don't you mean? Note well, the title of the blog is "Godless in Dixie". Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not simply regional, Kevin Sorbo's from Minnesota. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it regional. The blogger lives in Mississippi, so I picked on that state as a f'rinstance. Frothing evangelism inhabits pockets here and there, which may lie more thickly upon the ground in certain states than in others. Partial disclosure: I've lived in lotsa places here and abroad, including Georgia, Carolina, California, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, Ohio, Indiana, and Oklahoma, to name a few. The most redneckery I ever experienced was in southeast Michigan, but that area has had an interesting history of interstate immigration to work the steel mills and auto plants, so it isn't the pure German/Scandinavian heaven on earth some of its own denizens might like to think.

With all that said, I've never encountered vehement crusaders of any stripe. Closest thing was being eight years old in mid-coastal California around Monterey, where one of the first things my peers would ask a new kid was, "what religion are you?"

The expected answer would be either Catholic or some sort of Protestant. It was more a way of getting to know someone than a shibboleth determining whether said newbie would get pestered or not. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You've had a more interesting life than I have, that's for sure.

I have seen that question as a shibboleth -I knew two very conservative and very religious people (a coincidence, I'm sure!) who were fond of each other, but never considered a single date, because she was a Roman Catholic, and he was a Southern Baptist.

As for my OP, I understand I came off as very "Boooo, Christians!" But it's really frustrating that people were lining up to see a movie about good Christians doing some sort of spiritual battle against evil atheists. I should hope I'd hate the same in reverse, but the reverse has never happened, at least in my limited knowledge of cinema. Alexander Nevsky may count, the Priests are collaborators with the Germans/Nazis/Teutonic Knights, and Nevsky's Christianity is ignored. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I was a military brat, which had several facets, some favorable, some not so much. From what I've read (thanks to you pointing it out) the movie is a disturbing symptom, a piece of divisive propaganda. I can only hope that the bulk of the US public learns to slot the voices of dickotry, bigotry, and ideologically based inappropriate excessive control into the remote pigeonhole they deserve. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You OK PsyGremlin?

Sister and brother tell me there's been quite a big quake over there on the reef. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

All ok here, thanks, but yeah, it was quite a big trembler - 5.3 on the RS. Felt across most of the country, even in Botswana. No damage here, altho somebody was killed when a wall fell on him near the epicenter in Orkney, and there's cracked pavements in Hartebeespoort. Clearly God was smiting us for something you liberal Yanks did again. PsyGremlin^Sprich! 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I was touching myself. Glad to hear you're ok, but you may want to prepare for some aftershocks later on when I get bored. User:PsychoGecko 18:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You're the reason we can't have nice things. PsyGremlin^Sprich! 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, fuck me rigid with marshmallow; somebody used "epicenter" in the right way. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Continuous semi-periodic account creation.

Has anyone else noticed that there's a continuous pump of accounts being created of the WordoneWordtwo format that never do anything? The parts look like they lifted random name lists on the Internet. Has anyone figured out what kinda bot is doing that? And why? They happen fairly consistently at about 1.5/hour Ikanreed (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

it's a bot somewhere creating automated spam accounts. They don't post anything because an edit filter stops them. Sophie^Wilder 19:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Zirbas updated his Orgy of the Will thing

http://orgyofthewill.net/

He's progressed past the intro and has started writing his idea of philosophy. 'Bomb China to solve the debt problem' and 'sex & murder are truly connective activities because I am too mentally ill to grasp love and relationships' being prime examples. --Trar, the one true Scotsman (och, talk to me laddie) 17:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I just read the manifesto of a serial killer or a mass murderer. I need a cold shower. KevinR1990 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Many moons ago, some fucknut spammed the RPG.net forums plugging some shit called HYBRID, which was advertised as an RPG which accurately simulated life. In reality, it was some random, nonsensical formulas with some idiotic, nonsensical philosophy. It read exactly like this. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Good job guys. You were so busy karate fighting that you let Jesus escape.} 16:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read a fair bit of HYBRID, back when its author was cluttering up reg.games.frp.misc with it. I exchanged emails with him once, and I'm pretty sure he's actually mentally ill in some way. Who is Zirbas, and what the heck is this thing? --Gulik (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Darren MacLennan, in the revised version of his infamous review of FATAL, said in that HYBRID is not a game or an RPG as much as an unfortunate artifact of mental illness and that the author deserves sympathy and professional help. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back?} 15:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Facebook

I could continue asking individual users, and I could keep hoping that somebody reads my userpage; however, I'm not, so yeah. If anybody would like to do so, please add me on my FB account that I use for RW and a few other Internet people (not all of my IRLs mix well with my internets, so I have separate profiles). The account name is "Cal Doommessiah", because apparently "Doom Messiah" isn't a real name or some shit. Anyway, thank you for giving me attention. I shall go now. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Masquerading solemn beauty} 11:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Danbo wants to be your friend. PsyGremlin^Sprich! 16:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

PsyGremlin just told me he desperately wants to be your Facebook friend but can't find the right button to click! Maybe you should put up a direct link to make it easier for the scads of people itching to pal around with you. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ehrstein wanted to both friend me on facebook and tumblr, which only solidified the whole "well aren't you creepy" thing.--Miekal 01:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Friending you on Facebook or Tumblr would be creepy. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You personally, yes, very much so. But i love you too Nutty.--Miekal 10:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering the things he has said and done, I'd say it's one of his less creepy moments. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die.} 02:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dunning

So, it's official, Brian Dunning's been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Not sure what this means for Skeptoid or any of his other myriad projects. Rebecca Watson seems to have already commented on this on her website. What about you folks? Have any comments/opinions? Noir LeSable (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So, all I can find to bin him in with some group I hate so I can pretend he's "not like me" is that maybe, maaaaaaaaybe he's a libertarian. But no really, skeptical beliefs aren't equivalent to being a decent person. Ikanreed (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about him personally, I've never listened to his podcast thingy or visited his website, but to be honest I quite admire him. He found a flaw in a bit of software and exploited it to get millions in payouts. That's not something everyone can do. I tend to prefer to report security vulnerabilities I find, but if millions of dollars were on the line what would I do? Can't say I've ever been in that situation. As crimes go, I can't really view nibbling a fraction of cent from the occasional dollar in revenue the world's premier online tat bazaar makes is the end of the world. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Like his podcast but watching him on the Joe Rogan Experience made me think that he is perhaps a better writer than he is at talking shop. Also watching this made me put the master of JAQing off, Joe Rogan, on my todo list. NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 22:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I know about him is his podcast which I quite like. As for the rest - well it shows that nobody is perfect. However while a conviction for one thing goes not mean that the rest of his ideas are wrong it, unfortunately, does damage his creditability.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This was one of the bigger concerns I had as well. Like Hovind (remember that guy? He's set to be released almost exactly a year from now), I think this'll end up giving less scrupulous folks quite a bit of ad-homunition. Noir LeSable (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

New Chick tracts!

Here and here.

• In the first link, I think Chick needs to brush up on his angelology, because a cherub basically is an angel of light. And they're also a bit more complicated looking than in his depiction, but I'll give him artistic license on that one
• The second one is tl;dr, homosexuals are pedophiles. Chick also seems to contradict himself by saying Coach Brad turned gay after being raped and then saying that he chose to be gay (hey, Chick, if you can choose, why don't you prove it to the world by sucking a few dicks?)--"Shut up, Brx." 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My theology is a bit rusty but when exactly was the war in heaven between Lucifer and his "angel buddies" supposed to take place? According to Mr. Chick it happened before Adam was created which would imply that it was either on the morning first day (according to Creation Story #2, what I call the Poop Story) or in the first week (the Pee Story, of course)... mustn't have been much of a war... AlvidBarza (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, when you're fighting against an omnipotent being and twice as many angels as you (according to Vatican estimates, I believe about a third of the angels fell- although if the Vatican came up with it, you can doubt Chick believes in it), you'll probably get knocked out on the first punch.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the first one's the best thing he's come up with in a good long while. I can't help but admire his skill as a storyteller: whatever you think of the content, when he comes up with a good one you're hanging on every word. And he doesn't always hide his sense of humor, which will be what actually gets him into Heaven in the end. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather Chick burned in hell, the horrid little shit. Well, the first one's a rehash of Christian mythology that's in Milton's Paradise Lost but not in the Bible. Nothing very special, if you ask me. The second one about the "Homosexual Agenda" is rather nastier. Still, I have a feeling that the "I'm Ray, I'm gay, and Jesus loves me" picture from the second tract will get slightly cropped and appear out of contest all over the internet. At least, I hope it will. Spud (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Chick in Hell. Imagine the disbelieving expression on his face. "But... but...!" Sophie^Wilder 19:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The first one isn't that bad, but the second... The coach being gay means he is of course a pedo who just can't help but try and rape every teenage boy is he alone with, because that is what all gays do, amiright? Also in what world does a freshman in high school needs a babysitter?!?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh be fair, you can hardly ask fundie christians to abandon the old "Gays will rape your children" line for such petty reasons as facts, logic, and basic human decency. Telling moronic parents that the gay illuminati will sexually abuse their kids should they ever get human rights is the last real weapon in the anti-gay arsenal, and its terribly unsporting of you to ask them to give it up. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian Hackers

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if RW impacted by these guys? AlvidBarza (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is meatless. We couldn't even begin to know if it affects us. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough here's the origional article that broke the story. I was mostly wondering if there was any way that someone could tell from this end if RW had been affected. This kind of computery stuff is just this side of sufficiently advanced for me and I cannot even begin to understand it all. AlvidBarza (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless the security company contacts us, we're sorta out of luck on knowing if we were affected since we cannot see the data. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not directly. MediaWiki salts passwords, so even getting the password database wouldn't let you figure out what people's passwords actually were. However, if one of the user/pass combinations from another site was also being used here, that user could conceivably be affected - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki's current algorithm ("B") is garbage. The older algorithm ("A") is even worse garbage. I don't have time to go into great depth, but basically the magic word is "pessimisation". Got to catch a train, back later. Tialaramex (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur. But also [2] - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. You said MediaWiki's salting means "even getting the password database wouldn't let you figure out what people's passwords actually were" but that isn't true. I point out that the algorithms used to try to "protect" these passwords are crap, and you say you concur. So, maybe put some strike tags through that previous claim?

It might seem as though in principle the hashes (with or without salt) make it impossible to know which password was used, but that's actually only true if passwords are like "=v7_3kf84%V1@892{#k\kHfr32m00" rather than "pass1234" or even "iLUVcats" because of an idea called cryptographic entropy. Bad guys can find out your password by trying possible answers. The slower (more pessimised) the hash, the longer it takes them to try enough to find yours. If you password is "password" then the stronger hash doesn't buy you much time. But if you've picked something at least halfway decent like "jo19ninety" then it might buy you long enough to change it, or for the bad guys to just give up because life is too short. MediaWiki's "new" B hash is much, much too fast to buy ordinary people any time. Imagine a door is between you and a raging inferno. You call for help. They're coming, just stay out of the fire! A door made of paper will result in you burning alive. Whoops. A cheap internal door with no substance might buy you sixty seconds, not enough. But a decent fire door with heat seals will buy you fifteen minutes, that's long enough for a fire truck to arrive, people to get out, put on breathing equipment, fight their way through the flames and rescue you. So you know, if you have a room that might suddenly catch fire, like a kitchen, maybe buy a rated fire door for that room. If it might have to protect millions of people's passwords, use a real password hash. Tialaramex (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There is not one single bit of data here that's of any monetary value to any hacker anywhere on planet earth. Username/password combos to access your bank account? Or are you worried about someone editing with your wiki account? Don't worry. They won't be treated any worse than you will as a new editor. Nutty Roux (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Very few editors here go by real-life names (DG is a notable exception) so even getting my P@55w0rD isn't going to help anyone break into my bank account. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Subreddit /r/rationalwiki

I grabbed this a while ago but can't actually think of much to do with it. If anyone else is particularly interested and can think of something useful to the wiki to do with it, I'll add you as a mod - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't the general op8inion "ehhhh" last time?--Miekal 10:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems most people here have a sour opinion of Reddit, anyway. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333} 13:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't say about most people, but I don't go there much any more. It is a silly place. The proportion of 14yo internet-enabled opinion-sharers in the comment threads no longer amuses me. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I think reddit's average population is substantially higher than 14. Ikanreed (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the greater internet fuckwad theory should include an apparent maturity scale factor, to account for that difference. Arf. I am totally not a dog. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Reddit's metasphere (/r/SubredditDrama, /r/BestOf) is pretty nice if you can handle the smug. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Like my hand on a Sunday afternoon: beats the shit out of me!} 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to deal with any site who's threading system is as bad as reddit's. Its like someone decided after a Taco bell and meth bender to build a website around Blog comment systems circa 2004. --Revolverman (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of going way off topic, what's wrong with the threading system? I've always thought it was a lot better than most... this one included, certainly a lot better than most message boards with the volumes of quoted texts in every post or the tumblr/youtube travesty that has already been mentioned. I am genuinely curious, what's wrong with it? AlvidBarza (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Reddit is the bottom of the internet without the accompanying top half. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends. People on RationalWiki are normally drawn to the bad examples, the worse the subreddit the more attention. Nullahnung (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Enh. For a while I was visiting a couple of low-traffic specialized subs, the kind you might think would be good examples. Even there the ignorami dispensing stupid advice in confident tones were starting to overwhelm the ones who actually knew whereof they spake. Also one of those subs was moderated by a "businessman" I know (from personal dealings) to be a scamster, again with the authoritative sounding stupid assertions. Window-dressing and fancy style sheets are a poor substitute for solid content, in my view. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

But at least Reddit's threading system is better than, say, YouTube. Or Tumblr. Or Disqus.

Man, it seems no one does decent threading systems these days. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Here we are now, entertain us} 20:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To see a very different way to approach things, check out Moo Bunny http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/ - the actual discussions there are uh, embarrassing, but the threading system is certainly interesting.

General discussion is hard though. The reality is that most of "general discussion" even on a specific topic, will be people rehearsing the same opinions and arguments over and over. It can't help but be boring. If the community is small it will even be the same people saying the same things, if the community is large there's an endless supply of noobs who haven't yet learned the ground rules, so there are permanently discussion threads covering e.g. why it's not OK to throw poop at people you disagree with. Having a purpose makes up for some of this. After a day spent telling 14 year olds that it's not actually funny to replace the entire Obama article with "The president is a poo poo head" you can at least remember you were building an encyclopedia, not just administrating a politics forum in which the most sophisticated creations are basically "The president is a poo poo head" but written by someone who owns a thesaurus and can quote the Ancient Greeks. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me. Worst threading system in the history of time. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{"Ritsuko, the truth is[...]" "Huh. You liar"} 21:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ehh, after one 'bert too many, /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam is a delight. I was chatting with someone at Wikimania today about a friend who'd gone from Mozilla to Reddit. Apparently she gets less horse cocks in her email than she did at Mozilla, and still considers working there a vastly better experience than being an en:wp admin - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A refutation of the Anti Reactionary FAQ...from a conservative

Take a look at [[spam removed] this]. A well thought out and thorough refutation aimed at Scott Alexander's anti-reactionary FAQ. What do you all think? 74.14.75.23 (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked at work;DR. Ikanreed (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, are you referring to Moldbug's quoted reply? Because that post is debunking Moldbug's response to the FAQ, with some shots at Alexander thrown in. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No. I was referring to the original post. I'm complying with a perceived social order of continuing threads to deeper levels unless complex threading is called for to communicate something nuanced. Ikanreed (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Also check out some other threads on that forum, it has some pretty excellent discussions regarding neoreaction and progressivism.74.14.75.23 (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I got as far as "the only reason black IQ is that close is that approximately 20% of their genes come from Europeans.", and then I needed to have a little lie-down. :-P --Gulik (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

...And it looks like it's only going to go downhill from there. "niggershines"? WT actual F? --Gulik (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What? OP is wrong on just about everything. It was hardly a refutation, largely agreeing with Alexander on the weakness of neo-reactionary arguments. It wasn't well thought out or thorough, just a run down of Alexander's FAQ with a brief unsupported complaint when the author feels Alexander wasn't being racist enough. What is that forum anyway? It's like Stormfront for hipsters or something. --Marlow (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

https://encyclopediadramatica.es/My_Posting_Career yeah, apparently. A BoN linked it before in this very Saloon bar thread, though someone undid his edit. And no, I'm not him 94.160.217.13 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

74. appears to be an exciting new spammer seeking publicity for his forum. Links to mpcdot dot com removed, they're in the history if you care. (And anyone who is confident in their use of the AbuseFilter, feel free to add it.) The ED article is actually apposite and informative - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added that site to our spam abuse filter. THe problem should go away now. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And it seems that the edit filter is now engaged in fisticuffs with Pibot. It seems that Edit Filter is the superior bot indeed... - Grant (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I fixed that, too. It seems there was a logic problem in the program I wrote that caused the filter to completely disregard the statement that I was only going after certain types of editors. Thus, if anybody (even me)had said a particular phrase that Pibot was attempting to archive, they would've been blocked. Once I figured out where the logic was bad, I fixed and and tested it a few times to make sure it was working properly. Pibot should be safe again. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It was quite entertaining to see one bot banning another at the top of recent changes! I imagine poor old Pibot tried to archive a page containing something that tripped the filters. That said, as much as your fix was quite useful, I wonder if it wouldn't be more entertaining to give Pibot the ability to unblock itself and block others in retaliation. Botting block war, anyone? - Grant (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

ED can only be compared to a fine crème filled éclair dipped in shit. It's an éclair, sure, but the shit drives away any eater. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone} 01:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the best atheist book to read?

I am not an atheist. However, I believe that before rejecting an idea, one should endeavour to acquaint one's self with the best arguments in its favour. So, I have decided I should read a book which contains a serious advocacy of atheism. But which would be the best book in that category for me to read? Maybe Dawkins' "The God Delusion"? Or is there a better book? I am a Christian of a generally liberal persuasion, I try to investigate ideas as best as I can with reason. I feel like it is less than completely rational for me to reject atheism without reading its best defence, but I am not sure of which book best defends it. (I don't have unlimited time, so I would prefer if someone could nominate one or maybe two key books to read, rather than a lengthy list of them.) Also, I am interested in books which address religion/theism generally rather than focusing on the specific claims of a particular religion such as Christianity (such as the Bible or the Resurrection) - I feel like one should address the basics first. Having lurked on this site in the past, I am hopeful someone here might feel qualified to give me the recommendation I am seeking. Thanks, Theophilus (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Portable Atheist might be a good place to start. Christopher Hitchens has a tendency to be a bit... let's say vitriolic but he did compile a variety of different perspectives on atheism, the denial of the existence of gods, and the problems of religion from many historical periods and a few different cultures. I found that it sometimes got a touch repetitive and was sometimes technical but it does give a broad sampling of what a lot of smart people have thought on the subject.AlvidBarza (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Second the Hitchens collection as a good overview. Dawkins' The God Delusion is actually not all that great - I'm strictly an amateur philosopher, and found it infuriatingly simplistic - but its core argument (the unlikelihood of God as a testable hypothesis, and particularly the versions of God that people actually believe in in any numbers) is a strong one IMO. And it has in fact convinced lots of people - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hitchens' god is not Great is a rousing polemic I greatly enjoyed, and is one of the few audiobooks I have any time for (read by Hitchens). Focuses less on arguments for atheism than on arguments against religion as a social ill in itself, so may not be what you're after in arguments - David Gerard (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a book available in many versions, reading which should convert anyone to atheism. What's it called? Oh yes: The Bible. Similar books are available for other religions. Scream!! (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Haha. Only if the only options are scriptural literalism and atheism. Not all Christians espouse the view that the entirety of the Bible is the word of God in every little detail. (Of course, I'm sure you know that already.) To me, the Bible contains the Word of God, but mixed up with merely human notions; God is trying to speak to us, and the Bible is a historical record of our fallible and imperfect human attempts to listen. And I'm willing to extend the same status to the scriptures of the other major religions too. Theophilus (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I do know a pile of the sort of Christians whose theology is so rarefied it leaves even me going "whuh". And who know their Bible well. And can often quote the Greek - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but, after digging for awhile you will often find there is only a sliver of difference between these Christians and your average well read Atheist. Most Christians would probably not identify with their beliefs. Tielec01 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one, Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America's Soul, by none other than Gary Weiss. nobs^{One who's been there.} 02:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, do you want to discuss the Resurrection or the impact of atheism on American society? nobs^{One who's been there.} 03:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

" I feel like it is less than completely rational for me to reject atheism without reading its best defence" - This is an inversion of the burden of proof. The onus is on religious people to provide evidence in defence of their belief. You should be looking for books providing hard evidence to justify a belief in any particular god, not the other way around. In any case, I found The God Delusion pretty good. Danoso (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want the strongest, best formulated atheist arguments, skip Dawkins. Get J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism instead -- a thorough refutation of all the main arguments, packs 100x the philosophical punch of TGD at half the length. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've also heard very good things about Graham Oppy's Arguing About Gods, if you are looking for something more recent. I can't say I've read it, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a not-an-atheist myself, the atheist polemic I thought I got the most out of reading was Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Dennett more or less starts with the assumption that religious belief is unlikely, and proceeds to ask the question, if the truth of religion is unlikely, how did it come to be so widespread? - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dennett's book is not the best if you are looking for something along these lines. You're better off with Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust or Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained, which he heavily cribs from. These also have the benefit of not being larded up with his memetics nonsense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I am a 'bad atheist' but I have read none of these books nor do I intend. Religion for me has nothing to do with rational arguments for or against the resistance of god but everything to do with belief and leaps of faith. I have none of the belief and cannot/will not make the necessary leap of faith therefore atheism. i find the various apologists making rational arguments or using science as evidence for god are missing the point somewhat. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Even though its not an "atheist" book per say, I'd strongly suggest The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. While it only briefly touches on belief in gods, its an excellent primer on rational/scientific thought in general. Belief in god(s) is on the exact same level as belief in other supernatural phenomena. The same argumentation and appeals to other ways of knowing.NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 10:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Any book, really

The amazing thing is that if you approach any book in the frame of mind of questioning whether the ideas it makes are valid, it helps build the frame of mind that drives atheistic thinking. Read the bible, and get a lot of perspective on the people who wrote it, the mixture of distinct roman and colonial ideals, and build a very atheist framework. Read a good science fiction novel, one that raises questions about how culture might change, and you can start seeing how we got to where we are. Read non-fiction, and build a broader understanding of the world at large. Every book can be atheistic; they're all written by people and all give perspective on the world that does exist. 15:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Neoliberalism page needs serious rewrite

The neoliberalism page is so off it claims Paul Krugman is a neoliberal when he's arguably one of it's greatest critics (except when it comes to free trade). If someone with more knowledge in this area could help me rewrite this page that would be great. ClothCoat (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Moderators

What's the deal with the whole mod thang? It's my understanding that RW used to have, like, yearly elections or some shit? Is that gonna happen, or…? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{A sea on earth is a sea of tears} 09:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And the last time we needed the mods to step in was.... well, I can't remember. They've faded out of use because we don't need them any more (thank heavens). Cloud Yeller (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Given how the last election was so inspiring, i'm sure setting up another would just do so many things--Miekal 11:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What happened at the last election? Is the community absolutely certain they're not needed? If so, what happens to the current mods? DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{Why weepest thou?} 12:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing happened, except low voter turnout. And MarcusCicero got elected.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am, like, 99% sure MC was elected in jest. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The devil found it objectionable, so he banished it to Dollarama} 18:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I voted for MC on the grounds that, if he became a part of the system he was so opposed to, then he'd have nothing to bitch about, fuck off, and leave us all alone. Turns out, that was a heck of a payout on that gamble. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

MarcusCicero? Why don't people like him or whatever? I've only seen his username on a talkpage, like, once, so yeah. GØØBY PLS ^{But flies will lay their eggs} 22:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the site's biggest (concern, tone, bureaucracy, every single kind of) trolls. He kept complaining about THE SYSTEM and why everyone here is a terrible asshole. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Advocate for the liberation of Willzyx} 00:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Was he, like, just a regular contributor who annoyed people (e.g. old school Brx [no offence, Brx, you're pre' chill from what I've seen]), or was he there just to troll and do nothing else (e.g. Dirk Steele)? GØØBY PLS ^{Sorry if I piss you off} 08:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Mostly the latter. But I miss him because he's insanely quotable. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Yo, gatorade me bitch!} 21:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been any serious HCM, so people feel that moderators are no longer necessary. This attitude will prevail until the next serious HCM (which, if we're not careful, will erupt over an argument as to whether we still need moderators). If I recall, the last conflict of note on this site was spillover from Facebook drama, and special user rights weren't necessary to deal with that.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because there hasn't been any HCM doesn't mean that mods are redundant, it's just that the need for such a frequent replacement seems less pressing. I always thought that 6 months was too frequent; maybe in Internet terms where things move quickly, 6 months is quite long, but my own view is that we need people who are going to stick around as well as having a track record of being part of the RW community. MC got elected and promptly biggered off apart from some dropping some lovesick odes in the SB. We had a big hullabaloo over the board elections but several electees seem to have gone AWOL and I understand that the general lack of interest was one of the factors that made Nutty Roux quit the board. I specifically did not stand for the board because I knew that I couldn't commit to the meetings. If we are to progress as a resource rather than just as a fluctuating community then we need people with some commitment to the cause. Генгис^mutating 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm extremely interested in serving the board in principle. I cannot speak for others, although I trust that they didn't run for the board for the same reasons some of the clowns you all elect run for moderator. There's no point in discussing my reasons for resigning.

As to the RW community itself, I disagree with GK only in that a track record of being part of the community should mean nothing compared to merit. I assume he's referring to what I view as a corollary of that when he mentions RW as a resource rather than a fluctuating community. At this point, the inmates running the asylum is causing irreparable harm.

If you're going to talk about holding elections, you might consider whether you've had the right criteria in mind. Some of RW's current or former moderators leave a lot to be desired in terms of competence and proper motivation. So, if I were you, I'd leave good enough alone or you'll end up with Brxbrx and Mikal. I cringed. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the inmates running the asylum is causing irreparable harm. Sure, yeah, the wiki's dying without you.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Given my lack of a backbone, i can't really see me being able to run the asylum, let alone into the ground. I still advocate turning moderators into what crats were, more or less, because i'd like to be hopeful and think may 2011 won't happen a second time--Miekal 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Marcus was an inspired choice for moderator, and as has been pointed out, being elected effectively made him lose interest in the site. I'm not sure if this is such a good thing, I was always fond of his rambunctious ways. Vale MC.

In any case it will be nice to see the spectre of another layer of bureaucracy slide into the past. Some moderators have been inspired, others have been insipid cretins - overall I'm not sure the experiment really did anything except introduce a mildly amusing election campaign period and some nifty election posters. Tielec01 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It was an attempt to revive the Loyal Jerkoffs as a means of fixing a short-term (albeit, it was drawn out at the time) problem. Once the dust settled and the noise died down, RationalWiki moved beyond the need for moderators. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Umm… what happened in 2011? GØØBY PLS ^{Too close enough to touch} 22:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

this and This and don't forget about This. Blues arching of RWW articles has proven useful! --Miekal 00:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually remember all of that back from when I merely lurked! It was epic. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin'} 00:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait… all of that shit happened because one user changed the user rights of, like, two other users? What the fuck? DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{I want you to see from behind these empty walls} 09:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Try reading Archive 14 of the Chicken_coop. What fun we all had. Cloud Yeller (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as I suspected. This website has been defeated by the dark forces of internet nerdiness and a lack of a sense of humour. Over-run by annoying little fascists with their massive e-dicks, they ejaculate every time they censor a comment on the internet, as this allows them the grim satisfaction of consoling themselves that every time they masturbate to midget porn, that they are somehow relevant to something in the cosmos. Pfffttttt hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh my God I miss MC. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Because I'm a terrorist!} 18:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that the reasoning behind "We haven't had problems recently; moderators are for problems; therefore we don't need moderators," is all that sound; however, I'm not sure our system is the best, either. Sterile (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think "not doing anything" is a reasonable substitute for "works" in this case - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I also am not convinced by the argument that as we have not had problems recently then we can let our mechanisms for dealing with problems atrophy.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the solution to the problem is still there: Chicken Coop and the Current Moderators, it's just we haven't done an election for the latter ones yet. we could, but what would it really change besides the name of the 7 people who almost never have to do anything with the powers.--Miekal 12:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Another point is that we don't need seven moderators. There just aren't enough good candidates, and there isn't the need for seven. Four or five would do. I nearly resigned as mod recently but that would have let the candidate who came eighth in. Brx for mod? No way. Sophie^Wilder 08:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Aww, don't worry, I don't believe I got enough points to be an alternate--"Shut up, Brx." 22:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Persecution of internet commentors by liberal thought police

See article

"One of Sweden’s biggest newspapers, Expressen, used criminal hackers to break into Disqus and get the email addresses and identities of commenters online, and to reveal the persons behind the nicknames or anonymous user IDs. The newspaper sent a reporter and a cameraman to one person’s home and asked them about things they had written on different websites. Expressen published the names and photos of some people, which led to at least one person losing his job."

74.14.22.58 (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Source: CBN. Do you seriously think that that is reliable reporting? --Marlow (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What's with all the BONs posting screeds about racialism and Cultural Marxism political correctness recently? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's mostly this single racist spammer - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I took the trouble to actually watch the video. OK, so a Swedish tabloid uses Daily Mail type methods to unmask those making racist remarks on internet fora. These remarks are, apparently, sufficiently extreme to cause one person to lose their job. Now those posting such filth cry foul. Seems like they're not prepared to stand by these views in public. but, of course it's all the fault of immigrants from "backward" countries that are dragging Sweden into the third world. Then there are interviews with carefully selected journalists who compare Sweden to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. (Typical voice over - "there are other countries that use such methods to suppress views" - whilst showing film of Moscow Mayday parades). Same old same old. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Virgin Media! (?)

As reported by a Twitter fan. Anyone here on Virgin who can verify/test? - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm on Virgin Media, but I think I was grandfather claus'd into not having to make a choice on the filter, so I'm assuming it's off. X Stickman (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Austrian justification of intellectual property

The pseudo is strong with this philosophy. These are probably some of the most clueless, inept, and bizarre political arguments I've ever seen. Since when the hell is the science of economics relevant to matters of jurisprudence? Both sides I see on this site are guilty of this. Look at this little nonsensical nugget: "There must be a property right in the market value of things, because otherwise a legal system is impossible.". Um, non-sequitur. It's followed by this: "All legal rights are property rights, all legal wrongs are property violations. Legal remedies aim to restore property ('make the victim whole').". Not all legal remedies aim to restore damages. Do these people even have a civics-level understanding of law? Now, I have no problem with IP or even software patents, but these arguments are just so…stupid. — Melab (Talk) 20:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to ask: has anyone else seen this type of argumentation coming from Austrians? — Melab (Talk) 00:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"All legal rights are property rights..." Looks like someone went full Rothbard. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Never go full retard Rothbard. This blogger's proclamations are so strange. Take this: "A viable legal system is impossible without market prices on damages for the same reason that a viable economic system is impossible without market prices in general - rational economic calculation positively requires it.". How does this even make any sense!? — Melab (Talk) 04:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal damages aren't fixed by a marketplace in any case; they're fixed by judges or juries based on testimony and lawyers' arguments. The most curious thing I've always found about (pseudo)libertarianism is the number of legal ideas it presumes would remain in the absence of the kind of government that brought them into being. The confusion becomes fairly obvious when dealing with stuff like copyrights; on the one hand, they are "property", but they've just as obviously been brought into being by a government. It is not obvious that anyone can own a text or a picture, or that anyone ought to, and for most of human history no one did. The creation of copyright is a contingent, political decision; there's no "natural law" that says that copyright must exist. (Some libertarians may well claim that natural law requires copyright, which just goes to show you one of the problems with "natural law.") - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 15:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Another Rational Wiki!

From IBM. - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why so intolerant of formal object-orientated design? I thought this was supposed to be RATIONAL wiki. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

SERIALIZE!!! (Doesn't have the same punch as drink, but I couldn't think of anything better...) Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell article?

We all know how much of a crank Malcolm Gladwell is, but we still don't have an article for him. I have on hand one source that we can start the article off from. Here. ^{— Unsigned, by: the racist spammer known as 74.14.75.23 / talk / contribs}

A Malcolm Gladwell article would be a good idea. Using Steve Sailer as source, not so much. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And this morning he is on Desert Island Discs. Генгис^marauding 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

How is Steve Sailed a bad source? 17:29, 12 August 2014‎ ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.14.22.58 / talk / contribs}

Steve Sailer. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a public

Meeting a fair few RationalWiki fans at Wikimania - Wikipedians I know who know I'm part of RW. People really like the wiki! We're a skeptical resource! We're useful! We make the world a slightly better place!

I suspect the next frontier is to really start hitting the local skeptics' pub meetups. Won't help the demographics much, but may recruit actual new editors and contributors. Anyone here into that sorta thing? - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome news DG. I've been thinking the same thing re recruitment at clubs. I think RW is a great resource and wanna see it expand. It would be good to ground issues as well, I'm sure there's some local issues that need engagement, there's a lot of woo around wind turbines here and it would have been good to have RW as a resource for that debate...also does RW have a budget for advertising? Is there a plan for when pressure is put on RW, cos that probably will happen eg mirror site.

I was wondering about how to integrate content from different countries. What's a good way to do that? cheers. Skinnytony1 (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Free Energy Machine

TB4000 Free energy machine. Seems legit --Gulik (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure fly telekinesis is cancelled out by the equal and opposite attractive force imparted by the corned beef's homoeopathic memory of cow shit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Rednecks have been using a system like this for years. They drive over cow patties and let the flies build up in the wheelwell, which gives them more horsepower when they go muddin'. RachelW (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)