RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive232

This is an archive page, last updated 11 September 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>, <231>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Is it me or is it getting cranky over here?

Forrest Noble is adding a bunch of stuff to Alternative cosmology‎. I don't know nearly enough about the topic to engage in it, but the whole thing has a cranky feel to it. Anyone know anything about this? --Marlow (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The "alternative" here has about the same connotation as it does in "alternative "medicine"", so of course it's going to be full of crankery (see the last pre-Noble version. About the same stuff, just less of it). It looks to me like Noble just added more examples for us to laugh at. Compro01 (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks perhaps a bit like a Wikipedia-esque almost NPOV-type thing he's doing, is what I see from just briefly scanning over the diffs. Perhaps "confusing with Wikipedia," but it seems that the core of the expoundings are useful info that could be edited to a SPOV later. Jodolf Stitler (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I say revert.--Miekal 19:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sheer amount of information is necessary, but some of those alternative cosmologies are probably popular and cranky enough to be worth talking about here. As such, I don't support the idea of just reverting it. The stuff Forrest is adding certainly seems critical of these cosmologies, if a bit less snarky than RW's usual, so I'm not certain it really requires immediate attention. Perhaps it can be cleaned up later, but most of that material is decent, even if some is a little bit overboard. - Grant (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I say revert mnore because a lot of what i'm seeing, to my eyes, read more as "not bullshit, theory!", If i'm just misreading, then nevermind.--Miekal 20:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the sections make explicit that only one or two people hold such views, or that these findings are only published in fringe journals. While the sections don't outright scream "bullshit," it's fairly obvious (to me at least) that it is. Even if it did suggest "not bullshit, theory," I think it would still be best to simply clean it up with some editing as opposed to reverting entirely. It would probably be more work to revert it and add back the pertinent parts than it would be to edit it as it is. - Grant (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@miekal - revert and delete seem to be your favourite actions. Not everything has to be the best of the best. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Grant, i guess you right. @doxy, i can't write worth a crap so revert and delete are disproportionate in my edit powers.--Miekal 22:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Anybody with legal knowledge/experience?

How legit does this sound? I mean, it makes sense to me, but a couple of my friends are saying that it's bullshit and/or just an excuse to be lazy. While I disagree with this sentiment, I do have some questions about the whole thing. Firstly- how likely is it that the insurance agency would sue these people and what kind of "details" would you expect them to be suing over? Additionally, how likely is it that a case would be repeatedly postponed for, like, seven years? How much time would the band likely have to spend going over documents, being in lawyers' offices, et cetera? Finally, from what you've heard, do you think it's more likely for the band, or the other guy/insurance thing to win? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Adorn the new king…} 21:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can sue anyone, for anything. With essentially only one caveat, if you annoy the court too much, the court will label you "vexatious" and force you to ask for permission from a judge for every future lawsuit. Now, of course most of the conceivable things you could sue about will get you nowhere, just because you can sue doesn't mean you will win, and in many cases a lawyer will advise you not to sue, but that's just advice, you can ignore it.

So, insurers can and do sue the insured, there can be perfectly obvious reasons to do that (e.g. it becomes apparent you lied to secure a payout) and there can be nasty tactical reasons (e.g. you are poor, the person causing a claim is rich, suing you is cheaper and more likely to work than fighting the person causing the claim and they both have the effect of protecting the insurance company's bottom line, so...).

The most likely cause the insurer would have is that Tool lied to them. Show business people often lie in insurance paperwork because their work is (perhaps rightly) perceived as high risk and so attracts a high premium if they're honest. Imagine if a guy who rides motorcycles over a high wire for a living wrote "motorcycle mechanic" as his profession in the motorcycle insurance paperwork. He falls from the wire and breaks his spine so he claims on the insurance. After a few months of paying his medical bills the insurance people read about his life story in the paper - of course they sue. They would never have agreed to insure a high wire act.

Tactically if both sides in a civil suit don't want a decision right away courts will generally let them drag it out for a long time. From the court's point of view a settlement that doesn't waste a judge's time is ideal, and time spent out of court stalling doesn't cost a judge any time. Seven years is a long time if Tool just wanted to get a decision and get it done, so I don't believe that's the situation here, but it can drag out a long time if neither side is sure it has a decisive advantage and neither side needs a quick resolution.

There is no way to know who will win, and there is also no reason to believe that a band who are voluntarily inactive (does the lawsuit forbid them from making music? Not that I can see from this story) will suddenly turn that around when their legal problems are over. It's hard to believe Ænima is almost twenty years old and Los Angeles still hasn't been swept into the ocean or burned to the ground. I'm thinking that might have more effect on Tool than winning some lawsuit. Tialaramex (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC). Edited to strike stuff that Nutty corrected below Tialaramex (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh oh. You've gotten this so wrong that I really regret feeling compelled to give the child the attention he wanted.

"The most likely cause the insurer would have is that Tool lied to them." The most likely cause, and the actual cause, is that the carriers filed declaratory judgment actions seeking rulings that they had no duties to defend the underlying copyright/defamation case. Carriers' have several duties to insureds. The first is the duty to defend, which means the carrier must provide or pay for legal representation to defend any lawsuit in which any "potentially covered" claim is raised. Tool and the carriers have been fighting over whether the claims raised by DeLeon are "potentially covered". Potential coverage is unrelated to actual coverage. Coverage lawsuits like this are as common as the day is long. Tool, in turn, sued the insurance companies for bad faith. Bad faith is a type of statutory extra-contractual remedy for breaches of insurance policies because bad faith breaches of insurance policies can have catastrophic effects on insureds and states think it looks good to at least say their public policy is against insurance companies leaving people in the lurch. Bad faith cases are also as common as the day is long.

"Tactically if both sides in a civil suit don't want a decision right away courts will generally. ..." No, they absolutely positively will not. Judges do not want cases hanging around on the docket, and they sure as shit don't want to hear the same lawyers fighting about the same thing for years. Judges get scrutinized on how long it takes them to dispose of cases. There's a Congressional committee dedicated to documenting how long it takes motions to get ruled on in federal court.

The case isn't being "postponed" for, like, seven years, and the length of time the case has taken to litigate this far has nothing to do with Tool looking at documents or sitting in lawyer' offices. The stakes are high enough that the carriers have made the financial decision that it is worth aggressively litigating the case for 7 years. It's as simple as that. The insurance litigation has been extremely contentious and has included multiple appeals, which can take years, and extended motion practice, which can also take years. Declaratory judgment actions are always complicated by counterclaims and crossclaims. I imagine the insurance companies crossclaimed against each other to determine which would have to pay first if it loses. I have no idea whether this is true for the underlying case in this instance, but it is very common in my experience that underlying cases are delayed to some degree by insurance litigation. Messiah of Doom's last question is ... There is no "other guy/insurance thing" to win. And it's silly to think that, after reading a Rolling Stone article, you could possibly know enough about a 7 year old lawsuit to tell which party is more likely to win. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Coolio. Thanks. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{The epitome of Gods and Men alike} 00:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how they could make such a big deal out of some artwork. How much could the guy have been owed? I'm surprised they couldn't reach a settlement. As far as a new Tool album, just play your Tool favorite album backwards. Bam. Brand new tool album. And it sounds just like all the others. Just like they all do. All the time. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Beats me how much they owed him. It's surprising considering their record covers all looked like something the parents of a kid who got Photoshop for Chanukah would encourage him to put up on Deviant Art. If you really want a new Tool record, you could also find a recording of someone masturbating and write "Tool's New Ræcord" on it in Sharpie. Just make sure it's over an hour long and no one will ever know the difference. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You can both go fuck yourselves. GØØBY PLS ^{Remembrance of the transcending moon} 07:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not our fault you like terrible music or that you can't even make up friends that aren't cretins. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I love the word "cretin." - Grant (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Messiah may be infected because that's one sick burn. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die.} 20:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

1v1 me IRL ill bash u m9. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{What is this that stands before me?} 07:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing tough guy. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It amuses me when people non-ironically threaten other people over Facebook when they don't even live in the same country- particularly over shit like video games and operating systems. DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{I am complete} 12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

1v1 me, no items, fox only, final destination, scrub! Nullahnung (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean like "you like CoD better than Battlefield? thats fucking it. ur fucking dead you little shit. meet me @ chermside 5 pm, ill bash u up". MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Keeping myself alive, through your EMPATHY.} 07:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For review - [1]. Working on it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

François Hollande

Hey so can I restore the page I created for Hollande? I thought the main issue was with the way it was written before so I wrote this page as an alternative to the original because it's now more mission focused. Also unlike Wikipedia I talked about his position on Global Warming and immigration among other things, as well as more detail into his economic positions and poltical leanings. You're all (obviously) free to improve on it but I think it's worth having a page on the leader of one of the larger European Countries. ClothCoat (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good so far, amplify the nuttery as needed to be missiony - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Resurrection of dead threads

A newly minted word (I think) offered for your consideration as a substitute for "thread necromancy" just because: "Necromilia", a compound of Ancient Greek νεκρός (nekrós), "dead body", and ομιλία (homilia) "discourse", the root of "homily" in English. To paraphrase the King, a little less divination, a little more conversation, please. Alec Sanderson (but I won't be bothered if it never catches on) 17:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I’ve never quite understood what was actually wrong with thread necromancy. Is there some explanation as to why continuing old conversations is so much worse than needlessly multiplying the number of threads by starting new ones? Or is it just some sort of Internet tradition? 99.135.185.21 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Main reason, probably, is that the previous contributors to the conversation are no longer "on the site". Scream!! (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

^This. I have seen threads (sort of) successfully revived when a new contributor adds something new to the discussion or takes it in a new direction. But in a lot of cases a new contributor just chimes in to respond to an old comment, which is a little aggravating. Oftentimes the OP is no longer at RW, and if they are they probably won't be much interested in getting into a dispute about something they said three or four years ago. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, what we are writing now is meaningless crap that only an idiot would waste time to read three years hence? A "dead thread" would be one exhausted of all possibilities, whereas one brought back to life was incomplete then and shows interest and relevance now. nobs^{One who's been there.} 22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I hesitate to feed the troll but: 'Yes, Rob, what YOU write now, or any time, "... is meaningless crap that only an idiot would waste time to read ..."' Scream!! (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that, I suppose.

Some things have a longer shelf life than others. Since the time of Mark Twain and before, printers have been well aware of the difference between ephemera and more lasting work. For a run of serious books or maps, more care would be taken with things like alignment or registration than a run of dollar store circulars would warrant.

RW articles, being collaboratively written (and edited, and re-written) can be compared to those works intended to be kept around for a while, for reference or re-reading. Text on a forum or debate page is generally laid down in one go at a time, by a series of individuals, and seldom edited. This latter kind of content goes stale quicker than the stuff that the mob has worked out together. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Could Metapedia actually be good for something?

Today I tried to research fringe political figures on the far right (Harry Romer if you're curious) and the only site that gave me much information was Metapedia (Romer was so fringe even Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him). They told me organizations he belonged to and so on, and it was actually a decent starting point for reading up on him. Could Metapedia be used as a decent source for researching (or at least starting research) figures on the far-right and, ironically, this information could be used to better track their activities? I'm reluctant to give credit to a bunch of Neo-Nazi whackjobs but they're one of the few internet sites where I can find these people. I'm not saying I don't take it all with a grain (or a pound) of salt but maybe we should mention on their page that they can actually be used for something useful, mainly gathering information that could ironically be used to track and oppose the same fringe groups they support. ClothCoat (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this is something that we need to do. If you can use MP as a launch pad for something then fine, but keep it under your hat. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Treat them as you would any other wiki for research purposes - look at their source material and use that as the basis for your material, rather than MP itself. PsyGremlin^Tala! 07:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's my feeling about it. For obvious reasons they aren't trustworthy people, but for equally obvious reasons they are one of the few sites that actually have information on fringe right figures. ClothCoat (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends what your definition of "something" is. Not long ago, we had a kid here asking if it was OK to cite RationalWiki in a report for school. The kid was told the Golden Rule, "Don't cite the wiki. Cite what the wiki cites". I've just looked at Metapedia's itty-bitty stub article on Harry A. Romer, and it doesn't cite anything. Not much of a starting point if you ask me. So, if by "something" you mean academic research, I'd say, "no". If by "something" you mean looking up obscure racists merely for your own amusement, I'd say, "Why the bloody hell would you want to do that?" Spud (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Metapedia should never, ever be used as a source of anything but crankery. That they got it right this one, and probably only. time is an example of the Stopped clock fallacy, and nothing more. Having them as a source on RationalWiki doen nothing but discredit us. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What chutzpah. 125.129.211.232 (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I used it to find out more about RamzPaul last month after Paul Elam wrote in support of him. It should never, ever be referenced, but it's good to find other links when you know you are aligned at odds to the subject --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If MP has something right, why not cite them? Sure, if there's more credible sources saying the same thing, use them. An actual stopped clock could be a source (not the only/best source) for time being cyclical. That said, I just can't read more than a few paragraphs of MP. MarmotHead (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it's an otherwise racist website. Who cares if they got one thing right? By citing them as a source, we do a disservice to our own credibility. It's in the same vein as Stormfront or CreationWiki getting something right. They are too ridiculous to trust, and even if they got one thing right, the fact that they are otherwise extremely wrong means that, somebody checking that source will see what else that source has to say, find that said source is a source of nuttery, and that our citing them as a source means we are thus believing cranks and racists. It has nothing at all to do with the stopped clock being right, and everything to do with it being wrong about everything else and how that reflects upon us. In short: using Metapedia-type websites as sources is inherently stupid. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true, I'm arguing the land of theoretical truth not where credibility matters. Good point! MarmotHead (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are good points. I'm guessing that because they're such a small "community" they probably know alot about each other since they talk to each other about the same things, like how some Communist Party USA members probably know more about Gus Hall than you're average person or even some historians because they've talked to older members of their "group" who personally knew him so they have acess to information others don't. This is why MP might know alot about guys like Romer without a citation, because an older person in that group may have known him or heard more about him from other racists. But with even that being said most of the information they get from other members is hearsay from people with a very twisted worldview so that's not very reliable either. Anyway my argument wasn't that we should cite them, just that they can be used a starting point due to their obsession with tracking these people (even if it is for the opposite reasons we do).ClothCoat (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"They can be used for information" is an argument can be applied to anything and really has nothing much to do with merit. There's nothing remarkable about the fact that white supremacists know more about white supremacist spokesmen & ideology than the average person. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Go over to the racial realism talk page and you can find a mentally ill former Metapedia sysop "Mikmikev" there. He's trolled rationalwiki for years under thousands of socks calling other rationalwiki members "anti-white", 'jews' or 'marxists". he's even got an ED article that records his irrational behaviour:

• https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Mikemikev

This is the sort of people behind metapedia. of course it isn't to be taken serious. Windir (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that I'm not defending them or saying they're decent, intelligent people (they're not). I'm worried people are starting to think I'm giving a quasi-defense of them when I'm not I'm just speculating as to whether they are purely a waste of space on this planet (well, yes, they are that too) or whether they can be semi-useful for one very specic thing. ClothCoat (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIL update

A short while ago the ISIL militants seized the city of Qaraqosh, the largest Christian city in Iraq. Granted it was pretty much empty when they entered it so massacres will be minimal. The Peshmerga has retreated from several areas over the past couple of days. Several days ago ISIL captured the city of Sinjar sending hundreds of thousands of Yazidi Kurds fleeing for their lives. They are members of a small minority religion, the militants typically give the Assyrian Christians time to leave by giving them the option to pay Jizya (or convert, or die). The Yazidi typically aren't given the option to pay Jizya (almost everyone uses that option to "buy time" to escape). In any case anywhere between ten to forty thousand Yazidis weren't able to flee in time and are stuck on a barren mountaintop near Sinjar with very little if any supplies as the Iraqis scramble to airdrop supplies to them, and the Kurds scramble to open a humanitarian corridor. In the meantime most Christians on the Nineveh plain have fled to Erbil, some are still in Alqosh and the Mar Mattai Monastery (perched on mountaintop it is relatively well defended and would be difficult to capture). The Kurds have slowed the advance somewhat but the reputation of the Peshmerga is damaged and a humanitarian disaster is unfolding before our eyes. My thoughts: I am a liberal, I am not a neo-con, but this administration appears to be in denial about what the situation is in Iraq. A couple days ago the Kurds asked for arms from Washington but the response they got was that it would damage the attempt to create a more unified Iraqi government. What?! IRAQ IS KAPUT! There is no prospect for a "unitary government" the State Department and the Pentagon should get there heads out of their ***** and realize that!. Right now there is one option, arm anyone battling the militants or face a humanitarian catastrophe, and if Kurdistan declares independence than who cares!? Look on the bright side, in the event Kurdistan does declare its independence we will finally be rid of the Sykes-Picot agreement once and for all. I digress, obviously I feel very strongly about this issue, would anyone with a cooler temperament than I wish to offer his or her input? Alsto003 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

President Obama here proves himself the anti-Roosevelt; while President Roosevelt sought to overcome America's inert isolationism after Kristalnacht, the wp:Voyage of the Damned, the Rape of Nanking, aggression against Poland, etc etc, President Obama takes a conservative track of not giving a flying fuck about the oppression of minorities in Iraq or the kidnapping, enslavement and rape of 300 Christian girls in Nigeria. nobs^{One who's been there.} 20:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as the conservative track was to invade the country with no after-plan, I don't see what your reasoning is. Oh hang on, it's you, your reasoning is "Obama BAAAAAAAAAAD". Piss off back to Conservapedia you shithead. Sophie^Wilder 20:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well that's just a steamy pile of shit you laid there: Dick Armey, founder of the Tea Party and form GOP House Leader opposed Iraq while Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton & the sitting Secretary of State (and former Demcorat presidential Nominee) John Kerry supported it. Any more crap you wanna sling? nobs^{One who's been there.} 05:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever will we do when one conservative didn't support the invasion of iraq.--Miekal 05:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Armey voted against the Iraq resolution you say, Robby? Sorry, but he voted for it. You're either a liar or ignorant. I can't tell which, so I'm guessing both. DickTurpis (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say he voted against it, I said he opposed it (as Kerry said, he voted against it before he voted for it). But Armey has been uneequivical then and since, accusing Cheney of "bullshitting" him. Unlike Hillary, who boasted she had been studying Saddam's WMD for ten years and knew Saddam was in bed with al-Qaeda (beginning 10:02:46). nobs^{One who's been there.} 01:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So he voted for a war he opposed? Fuck, that's even worse. DickTurpis (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Worse? that is the exact position of the sitting Secretary of State. nobs^{One who's been there.} 20:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-begins-sending-arms-kurdish-forces-iraq/ and last I heard before that they where going to arm the kurds they just wanted to do it through bagdad for legal reasons. Also you know they aren't calling themselves ISIL anymore right? They changed it from islamic state in iraq and the Levant to just Islamic state. This tends to bother commentators because it's even broder then the Levant, and the Levant is already really large. --NonPerson (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Inb4 "West Iraq" and "East Iraq," and possibly also "Kurdistan" (as a wholly independent state), and maybe even a new Christian Iraqi state thrown right in the middle of it all for good measure. It seems like the only way there will be peace there within the foreseeable future. ... Actually, wasn't there a US general who thought the same? Petraus, maybe? I can't remember. Regardless, though, it's not as if we can reasonably expect a rapid cultural turnaround to secular humanism to give the place a chance of holding together within such a short timeframe. Jodolf Stitler (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not Petraus, Biden (and by extension, Harry Reid). Partitioning Iraq is Biden's plan, and Reid allowed a Senate Resolution on the matter in 2007 (how did Sen. Obama vote?). So now, President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Democrats are in the embarassing position of opposing their own policy. Incidentally, Obama has placed the United States in violation of the 1988 Genocide Convention (the basis of Clinton's Kosovo intervention) in which the parties pledge to “undertake to prevent and to punish” the types of crimes ISIL is now committing. nobs^{One who's been there.} 20:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

An independent Kurdistan? forget it. Landlocked states are totally at the mercy of their neighbors who will tax them to death to export their oil and (what if a 200% customs duty were placed on a $100 barrel of oil to cross Iraqi, Iranian or Turkish territory?) import anything they need. Even the Kurds know and understand this. Only idiots like Biden and the Democrats are that naive. Kurds must function within a federated Iraq. nobs^{One who's been there.} 21:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

An independent Kurdistan? forget it. Landlocked states are totally at the mercy of their neighbors who will tax them to death to export their oil and (what if a 200% customs duty were placed on a $100 barrel of oil to cross Iraqi, Iranian or Turkish territory?) import anything they need. My thoughts exactly. A landlocked state is fine in Europe, or even Central Asia or Central Africa, but in the Middle East? That is crazy. I am of the opinion that the entire region has to be re-partitioned (which means Syria and probably Iran and Turkey too) but the chances of that happening are minuscule. The only way that would be possible is if this war keeps dragging on forcing the regional powers to accept changes to the borders they wouldn't ordinarily accept. This in my estimation seems to be the current Kurdish strategy; i.e. do nothing and let the disintegrate even further so that the borders will change. The current administration doesn't seem to have a strategy, though the reason why none of us liberals are worked up about it is because neocons such as yourself (and every single one of Obama's opponents (except for Ron Paul of course) in both of the last two presidential elections) would be perfectly content to keep the entire region under US military control indefinitely. Alsto003 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

Partitioning Iraq might well end up an economic failure of a strategy; but it seems that a "unified" (scare quotes because it's not particularly unified) Iraq of just a little under half of Sunnis that hate Shi'ites, just a little over half of Shi'ites that hate Sunnis, a small but significant minority of Kurds that just hate Iraqis, and another small Christian minority that, while not as politically significant, is unrelentingly oppressed and languishing, ... sure seems to be a cultural failure of a strategy. I'm sure no expert economist, and I'd not considered the troubles some parties of the partition might face; but, mind, it's not as if the USA has a supreme wealth of particularly competent, reality-versed politicians. When some political construct catastrophically fails -- as Iraq seems to be doing -- the tendency of the USA, of late, seems to be to shove some new stupid plan into the void just for want of a plan, disregarding whether the plan will work particularly well.

Also, "... the Democrats are in the embarrassing position of opposing their own policy." Lolno. The Democratic party as a whole can't oppose its own policy, by virtue of it not particularly having a policy, on this or anything. The Dems form a rather "take all comers" party, perhaps at least in part because the Reps do the opposite and there's much need for the Dems to pick up the slack. Jodolf Stitler (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the news today is the US destroyed Saddams WMD that was carried into Syria and Bashar al Assad handed over. The question remains how much WMD Saddam's Commanders in ISIS retain. And if ISIS becomes legitimate in a partitioned Iraq, should the WTO allow export of Islamic State oil, the revenues of which can be used to spread more murder and mayhem. These questions await the next Commander-in-Chief. The problem only grows more costly and difficult day by day over the next couple of years, but civilized humanity must deal with it sooner or later after we finally get some leadership. nobs^{One who's been there.} 04:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Engaging with "nuts"

I've been thinking that RW's default habits of engaging with outsiders (those who think quite differently than the local median) may be a bit flawed. I'm not sure the nuttier folks, themselves, deserve a platform since nutty behavior can be too disruptive. However, some of their ideas deserve some scrutiny. Our recent and intermittent pedo-invasion is an example. He (I presume) was quite disruptive in how he made his points, but his points had a little bit of merit. His evidence did not say all, or even nearly all of what he thought, but it did say something, specifically, that sometimes CSA is a little less damaging than we'd expect (note use of 'sometimes' and 'a little less'). So, yes, let's shoot down disruptive behavior, but let's examine the wreckage, too, just in case. Stepping down from the soapbox ... MarmotHead (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Many of us have limited patience for that kind of time-wasting. Triage started as a system of dividing patients into three groups:

1. Those who will get better without intervention
2. Those who will not benefit from intervention (dying even if treated)
3. Those that can be helped with appropriate intervention

Note well, only one of those three categories calls for treatment. In a RW context, I don't hesitate to put the CSA troll in the second category, where engagement will benefit neither him nor the wiki. The only appropriate engagement I can see is to block, ignore, and burn the wreckage. He can go play his "poor misunderstood me" game somewhere else. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but, as we escort him out, let's take the one microscopic bit of rationality he left behind. I don't think you, or anyone, should be forced to engage the person. I do think we should look at the ideas and, if the person isn't abhorrent, the person, too. In this case, the person was not quite as nuts as some have been, but easily in the range of intolerable. To be fair, I'm not the best judge of this as I will spend too much effort engaging a person. I made that mistake in this case, but I also see some gem of ideas amidst the insanity. MarmotHead (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that pedophile's claims had zero (microscopic or otherwise) merit. Questioning the need for consent regarding sexual acts, not to mention framing anything in the context of, "watch child pornography like I do and you will see it's not so bad. The abuser is usually a pretty chill dude." This is so far from a useful starting point for a discussion that it's barely worth mentioning. Yes there's hysteria around pedophiles; teenagers being arrested for child pornography production for sending nude selfies to their teen friends, people becoming registered sex offenders for public urination and so forth, but that was not what this guy was talking about. He was literally arguing that molesting children was somehow not reprehensible. --Marlow (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The stuff you refer to? Vile. Completely vile. Yes, you're right. He was arguing for that crazy stuff, but one little piece of his evidence (about harm of CSA) had some miscroscopic merit. The rest? Complete crap. Yep. We (you included) can see the crap, but, if we can stomach it, let's look for the useful bits, too. I think that a better presentation of the useful bits actually negates his main point. MarmotHead (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

To self-reply, the ONLY evidence he had that had ANY merit related just to research results on the self-reported harm of CSA and, even then, he didn't get it right. But that part is worth considering and, I argue, other nuts might have similar fragments. MarmotHead (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I had hoped that particular squall had passed. Tolerant as I like to think I am, I seldom welcome bullshit. The kind of bullshit in aid of justifying predatory sexual exploitation of minor children is particularly unwelcome, more so if it comes disguised as sweet reason. Notice how the sweetness dissipated when he was challenged, turning to accusations of bigotry.

I can think of a few cultures here and there, now and then, where that kind of "love" was more or less accepted in some circles. In the usual stereotype, that kind of voluptuousness goes along with decadence, the kind of society that holds some human lives cheaper than others. That's really all I feel like saying about it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So, how are we going to impose this? And, more importantly, where do we draw the line. CSA is an easy one but what about Jim Jast or that guy who thinks all psychiatry is evil or Earthland (who was mostly harmless but would insist on inflicting his hardline antiabortion stance everywhere) Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, to give a better example, Mikemev or whatever he's called. I loath his views but, because of him, our race articles are more bullet proof. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec)No need to rule by fiat. Just let editors exercise judgement. Also: the actual scientific evidence on our article was pretty damning. Also, the guy wasn't "being reasonable", he was just trying allege an absence of evidence and extrapolate that false premise into the evidence of absence. Ikanreed (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(EC)That example of DMR? Excellent! I was too busy being repulsed by the Mikemev dude's trolling to see how it fueled the bulletproofing. MarmotHead (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

OK - Here's an example that was directly a result of Mikemev's trolling. He kept picking holes, we kept filling them until... it just got better. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I try to stay as far away from discussions that are not likely to at least produce useful material as a side effect (like whatever was talked about above), but engaging that race realist IP I think was pretty useful. Nullahnung (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add to that that sometimes it seems like the discussion is going nowhere because your opposition is a stubborn fool, but keep in mind the wise words in our article on the backfire effect under the "How to fight it" section. Even if you don't manage to convince anyone immediately, seeds have been sown in your opposition and within the bystanders too. Nullahnung (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, most of what's in that diff is stuff I added specifically because I was pissed off at the scientific racists who are still tolerated at LessWrong - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think DMR was referring to the parts of that diff that Placeholder and me added, which was due to engaging with the Mikemikev IP. Nullahnung (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to see me trying to engage a "nut" you can check the clusterfuck that is the talk page of the Thomas Sowell article. There was a time I bothered but eventually you realize that you really can't say anything that'll make a difference, and any good points they make are buried under incoherent ramblings and gish gallops. ClothCoat (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Having been in support of engaging with trolls the current arse gravy that is accumulating on the Race Realism page is truly repulsive and of no good to man nor beast. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was this close to collapsing that "discussion" a few dozen minutes ago. Train wreck, with much blowing off of steam, perhaps cathartic, and with homeopathic portions of value added to the wiki. Looks like pibot is set to archive that thread about a month after the dust has settled. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is as stupid as the Metapedia thread above. The pedophile troll was not a crank like we normally would engage. No, this person is a psychopath and a criminal, and the problem with letting that kind of nonsense be spread on our Wiki is that we do a disservice to the Wiki by making it look like we are OK with pedophiles. It would be similar to if we let some ISIS jihadist try to rationalize the murder of innocent civilians who refuse to convertto Islam. There is no possible justification that they can use that we could engage them on that wouldn't end up making us look bad for giving them the time of day and, moreover, said person will most probably not accept our logic under any circumstances anyways. It's a lose-lose situation for RationalWiki. Instead, I'd rather take a brow-beating from the sickos and psychopaths out there. There is nothing wrong with people Googling RationalWiki and seeing that we don't accept pedophiles in our community. There is something intrinsically wrong when a website that is user-funded becomes a haven for pedophiles (or jihadists, or white supremacists) to flock to so that they can make a show of our tolerance to spew their nonsense and, worse, make us look bad in the process. At least, with something like Tea Partiers, we can attempt logic and no seriously bad PR can come from it. But pedophiles, well, that's something that is so rejected in society that there is no way we could win that one, even if we logically debunked it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Damn motherfucking straight. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Be judged by your suicidal desire}

13:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Reckless, though I'd like to note that it was never my argument on the "MetaPedia thread" to allow white supremacists to run wild on Rationalwiki or to even trust MetaPedia. I was only speculating as to whether their obsession with far-right politics could be used as a springboard for information on obscure figures and everyone started acting as if I was fucking neo-nazi sympathizer. ClothCoat (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, both RNS and MoD. Your (RNS) justification on your talk page a little while back did state the point particularly well in a way that actually helped me (too sappy? deal with it.). This pedo example is just one example and you propose others where engaging is better and less futile. I wished I'd proposed a better example, but the pedo one is one that kicked me in the ass because, honestly, I thought logic would help. I'm naive that way. MarmotHead (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is largely irrelevant appeal to authority that I am committing, but I still gotta point out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection

If Wikipedia doesn't let pedophiles say whatever the hell they want, and let's face it they are a lot smarter than RW at keeping a healthy, constructive and productive community, then we should probably do the same. Nullahnung (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That wouldn't hurt my feelings. (sigh) Why'd I have to use a pedo example in the first place ... oh yeah, that's the first example that personally ran me over. Getting hit by a red herring sucks! MarmotHead (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC

RamZPaul

Have you guys heard of RamZPaul? He's a popular YouTube's with several good videos on politics and social issues. Perhaps you all should see his videos and maybe we should have an article on him?74.14.49.15 (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No. KevinR1990 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

SPLC is very unreliable. :)74.14.49.15 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually we may create an article on him, but not with the same "inspiration" you have. ClothCoat (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

By all means, I do hope RW makes an article about this racist douchebag, especially exposing him for the bigot he is. And to our resident IP fanboy of said racist, you've come to the wrong place to argue bigotry and those who advocate it are a good thing. Arcane (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Unironic use of cultural Marxism. My bullshit detector is already going off. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wonder who started this topic. Totally not someone related to Ramzpaul in any way. I'm not gonna say anything more, just wanted to get my two cents on this discussion. Also edit conflicts are ass. 184.174.159.90 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul Ramsey. Now go away. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 05:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We cover him a bit in the Spearhead section of Manosphere, his antifeminism is the only thing I really know him for. He's definitely a white nationalist though, [2], just one who doesn't make you cringe as much to look at. I doubt many people here would be willing to trawl through hundreds of videos by a moronic racist to expand this, we could maybe do with a section in Webshites explaining his ideology, he's apparently an "American nationalist", although by American he means white American --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thou shalt not

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies, that is. It is a poster, and I think I see Plato facepalming on it. If you've already seen it, well, here it is again. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Which reminds me: I had penned a parody of Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip's Thou Shalt Always Kill a few years ago, but with a skeptical/freethought slant instead of a British pop culture one. I should dig it out one of these days.Noir LeSable (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I stole something else...

Pronunciation templates this time. I originally swiped them for the Anime article I'm working on, but I think they could be used for other things like YHWH or other uncomfortable to pronounce words. Cheers. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would we need it? The IPA isn't very self-explanatory for the layman, and in the case of Japanese (where the international transliteration was developed with English speakers' phonetic pronunciation in mind), it really doesn't seem very necessary. "Anime" and "manga" are much easier for the average reader than "ænɨmeɪ" and "mæŋ.ɡə". Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A bit over the top for us. Scream!! (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you're going to find an IPA pronunciation for YHWH, unless you've got an ancient Kabbalah master living in your basement. RachelW (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've used IPA in a couple places; then again I do have an ancient Ka-Bala master living in my basement. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop turning this place into Wikipedia. IPA stuff doesn't really belong here, unless pronunciation is somehow germane to an argument we're trying to get across. Sophie^Wilder 08:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

How do I block again?

I want to block this idiot for racism regarding the Ebola crisis in Liberia, for about persay...3 minutes. Problem is, I have no idea how to block after a long hiatus.--Madman (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Go to user page & look down @ bottom left: "Block user". ("persay"? Either "say" or "Per se" of which the second makes no sense in context. ) Scream!! (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As blocking is usually the result of an edit - if you look at recent changes then, after the user name, you'll see (talk|contribs|block). Guess what the third option does. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that my usergroups have been changed, somehow.--Madman (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)The Madman

The question is, are you still a "troll"/"Child", given those were the reasons you lost them.--Miekal 13:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am curious to see Where this chap was apparently racist. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in the last week, most of which has been relatively tame WIGO editting. We could give a tempban to Madman, though. You know, just to see how it feels. Ikanreed (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quinnspiracy

Streisand effect + lousy ethics + gaming community = A deathmatch in which every single side is wrong.

And yes, Know Your Meme is actually the most neutral and objective source on this. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets} 16:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation to one place. If you want to discuss about it, go here: [3] Nullahnung (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's already collapsed, for good reason. Considering barely anyone had heard of Zoe Quinn until this week, it's another Sarkeesian-style SNAFU in the waiting. The Internet gaming "community" is a really dumb place. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In waiting? No, sorry. It already happened. Ikanreed (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the gaming community expects to happen at this point, it's just getting worse: [4] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought I told you guys to keep the discussion in one place... Oh well, I realise you don't have to listen to me. Nullahnung (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to move it all to Clogosphere? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

While we're on women in games...

I'll just leave this here. Sophie^Wilder 19:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't use this in my essay that I wrote to convince dedicated gamers, because mobile gamers are universally regarded as their own group outside of "tr00 gamers" in the "gaming community". Here's a better one: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/04/09/nielson-study-majority-pc-gamers-female-solitary/ Nullahnung (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mobile games are as useful for telling us about the gaming industry as a whole as indie games made with rpgmaker are.--Miekal 19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that because they're cheaper, is it some kind of snobbery ("it's not a proper game unless it's a dedicated platform")? Sophie^Wilder 19:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's labeled "casual gaming" as opposed to dedicated gaming. As in, Angry Birds, candy crush, etc. far outsell the hottest "real video games with a certain level of depth, effort, interactivity and learning curve put in to it" like Call of Duty (which is labeled casual gaming by PC gamers compared to "real first person shooters like Quake, TF2 or Doom", which is termed "PC snobbery" in the gaming community). Those mobile games far outsell everything else on every other platform due to their simplicity and accessibility, making mobile gaming casual gaming. In short, you could probably call it snobbery, but it does mean that mobile gaming is not that interesting in terms of what it can tell you about the video game industry at the moment. Nullahnung (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's about the time you put in to finish the game/explore it fully. Sophie^Wilder 20:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's about whatever people find convenient for satisfying their collective identity, and sense of eliteness. Like protestants not finding Mormons or Catholics "Christian" for completely arbitrary distinctions. Ingroup/outgroup divides, and the level of respect given to them is innate to our human nature, and it is my belief that you should never really let these arbitrary divisions stand. Gamers are: people who enjoy playing (video) games as a hobby, per self-identification. No more. No less. Ikanreed (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sure, but when we talk about sexism in video games you'll notice that we haven't been interested at all in Angry Birds or Candy Crush or Fruit Ninja or other casual games. The concerns are always raised in AAA titles and indie games of dedicated platforms, which means we have to look at the demographic of people who play these kinds of games. Nullahnung (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and it also hasn't involved lots of other games, like Mariokart or Halflife 2. There's no doubt in my mind that you're right: in that the kinds of people who'd object to the notion of gamers being "people who play games", with some kind of arbitrary machismo requirement, are exactly the same sort who'd engage in other varieties of outgroup hostility. Ikanreed (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: Yes, but with the emphasis on "explore it fully." For instance, Candy Crush Saga currently has over 1000 levels to complete, which (assuming you didn't want to give King any money) could feasibly take much longer than many "non-casual" games. However, most levels are comprised of the same fairly simplistic match-three puzzle with slightly different mechanics and obstacles between them. If you've seen a few, you've pretty much seen them all.

I'd also have to add that "casual games" are generally designed to be played in short bursts, such as during work breaks and while waiting for a train to arrive. It doesn't take very long at all to play a few rounds of Candy Crush, take a shift in Diner Dash, or harvest and plant a crop of strawberries in FarmVille. You don't need to keep track of meandering plotlines or remember complex game mechanics -- you just pick up, play a bit, and move on with life. Noir LeSable (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The same could be said for Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Tetris, Bomberman, Lemmings, Worms and many other classic games. The fact that games with more elaborate graphics, gameplay and narratives have been developed doesn't mean that these are the only "real games". Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually hold the view that many classics have turned somewhat into casual games. Consider how many cell phones (pre-smartphone) came with Tetris or Snake as a built-in game. Also, I didn't make any comment on what's a "real game" vs. what's not a "real game", but rather what is "casual" vs "non-casual". Casual games are still games, after all. Noir LeSable (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of platformer games seem to be released on mobile nowadays, the Sonic the Hedgehog games being the first example that comes to mind --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some overlap between all areas, no doubt, but the article Sophie posted read like all these women were playing were things like Candy Crush or Temple Run. It's an old stereotype that simple puzzle games like Tetris and Bejeweled are really popular with bored women. Overcoming such non-progressive stereotypes requires more articles about women in video games mentioning "tr00 vidya gaemz", and by that I mean non-casual ones. Nullahnung (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Can We Spam It? Yes We Can!

Anyone know what the deal is with the person putting up Bob the Builder character boxes on talk pages? Noir LeSable (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the same person who was doing Thomas the Tank Engine stuff a while back. But who it is is a mystery. Some weird bot gone wrong, even? Sophie^Wilder 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked RNS is they could do anything about it with the filter.--Miekal 21:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it Human? Генгис^evolving 12:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would it be Human?--"Shut up, Brx." 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Human was a leading contributor to Conservapedia's articles on construction tools. Генгис^mutating 07:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess he was banned when he refused to acknowledge the hex-socketed screw as the ultimate tool of deceitful liberal engineering. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{An example of the downfall of humanity, and will lead to World War III} 19:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

New Hampshire gets really boring. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{"Ritsuko, the truth is[...]" "Huh. You liar"} 15:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You are all wrong. It's most likely this WIkipedian wandal. I am working on some code to deal with it right now, but it is in the testing phase (i.e: not active). Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Republican plans that soon became Democrat plans

I know of two, namely cap-and-trade (a pro-business solution to climate change) and the individual mandate (a pro-business solution to healthcare problems). I feel like there are others that I'm missing, but I can't recall them. — Melab (Talk) 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was brought on board for "welfare reform" and "bankruptcy reform"; remembering this stuff is one reason I don't want Hillary. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 21:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Hillary is quite aware of the consequences of those things. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-free trade rhetoric has mostly cooled down, there's tacit support for LNG (as a stop-gap measure), and agreement to reform the corporate tax code (the US is in the completely nonsensical position of having one of the highest rates in the world and no businesses actually paying it). I also predict Democrats would eventually accept lifting the retirement age if average life expectancy wasn't so poor.

But I don't think these are necessarily "conservative" ideas anymore. Pigouvian (e.g. carbon) and consumption taxes are very pro-market tools (and have become the norm for OECD welfare states), yet they're now anathema to Republicans. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Enterprize zones. Ronald Reagan proposed Enterprize Zones each year in the State of the Union and the goddamn Democrats didn't do a fucking thing to help predominantly blighted urban neighborhoods (Reagan had at least one house in opposition for 8 years); then, when Clinton was elected with Democrat control of Congress, low-and-behold the Democrats finally became concerned about poverty in urban areas. Fuck those hypocrites. nobs^{One who's been there.} 18:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The enterprise zone idea is perhaps the worst idea yet; it's "free trade" on a smaller scale. Governments bid against each other for the favor of businesses by promising not to govern them if they open up here rather than there. The net result is that governments are no longer sovereign, being made into private security services that keep the populace in line for the benefit of their owners. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fuck off RobSmith. There's a reason why barely any developed economies use UEZ/SEDs, see Reagan's homeland. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hey, you ain't even a dimocrat, whatsa problem? I suppose Democrat cronyism and vote buying (as in the case of Clinton's Empowerment Zones) is preferable to a free-market & opportunity. That figures. nobs^{One who's been there.} 20:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Whatsa (sic) problem?" My problem is that you call Clinton's EZs "Democrat cronyism and vote buying" while Saint Ronnie Almighty's proposals were "free market and & opportunity." It's telling.

I don't care what party does it or not: if your policy works, then good on ya. If it doesn't, then expect distain about it (as you can see at the beginning of this topic on Clinton). Osaka Sun (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here's another Repub idea that becomes Democrat: Isolationism. Seems Obama & Rand Paul have much in common, namely open immigration and no concern for problems outside our borders. nobs^{One who's been there.} 23:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Osaka Sun (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Fuck you, Osaka. The fact is you don't know jack-shit about American politics, so stop pretending and putting your 2 cent nonsense in every fucking discussion of US domestic politics. nobs^{One who's been there.} 23:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ehhhh--Miekal 23:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Rob I'd dislike you if it wasn't for your article giving me a heads up about Kara Duhe, thanks for that man I appreciate it! ClothCoat (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a chat with my great-uncle about the insanity in Ferguson.

Since he was in his late 20's during the race riots of the 1960s, I figured he would have something to say about the matter. What he was most annoyed about was that most interactions between the two sides are in the form of hundred to two-hundred person shouting matches. If people could find a quiet place, and discuss their problems in small groups (E.G. police chief talks with black community leader) then their intelligent sides would show and the problems relating to Ferguson could be better solved. To support his point, my great-uncle related a story from when he lived in Washington D.C. shortly after leaving the Marines. In the week or so after Martin Luther King was assassinated, the entire city was shut down due to rioting, and the neighborhood where my great-uncle and his wife lived felt like a ghost town. A few days into the rioting, my great-uncle left the house to restock the groceries. While he was walking along the street he heard footsteps behind him. He turned around, and it was a black man. The first thing my great-uncle thought was "Oh, God. I'm gonna get mugged." But he stood, and waited to see what the man would do. Rather than attacking my uncle the black man walked up to him and asked if he could walk alongside. It turned out that the black man was in the same position my great-uncle was: He needed to restock his pantry, and the nearest grocery store that wasn't burnt down was in my great-uncle's neighborhood. So the two of them walked along and chatted, and my great-uncle found out that the black man asked to walk with him because he was terrified that he could be the victim of a white reprisal for the race riots. The two of them got their food and made their way home, and the only conflict they had ran along the lines of "No, let ME pay for your groceries." I don't know if my great-uncle's opinion or his story means anything, but I figured I may as well put it up and see what you all think. --Captain Wolff (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it didn't help that the Police in Ferguson were openly attempted to antagonize people, directly on the streets, and online (See: The Gofundme campaign that THEY started for the dude who shot the kid) --Revolverman (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice story Captain W. Генгис^marauding 14:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I too,remember the 1967 race riots (pre-King assassination). I was a child of coarse, but attended a funeral & burial with my parents as the curfew was lifted for a few daylight hours. It was weird, deserted streets in a large city, kinda like scenes in Escape from New York or The Terminator. And we got stranded cause most gas stations were closed. nobs^{One who's been there.} 00:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had two thoughts about the situation in Ferguson. One thing I have immediately noticed is that these demonstrations are rather subdued, seriously, weren't a lot of you guys around in the early 90s? What going on in Ferguson right now doesn't even come remotely close to the sort of mass unrest in Los Angeles in '92 or even the Crown Heights Riot. And the instances which set off those two riots were decidedly less horrific than the one that happened in Ferguson. The second thing I noticed was that either the foreign media is biased against our Government (It would make sense, after all, our media is biased against theirs), or the foreign media doesn't have a clue about US domestic politics. A German New Site, Zeit Online said and I quote, that "the situation of African-Americans has barely improved since Martin Luther King." What?! There is certainly racism in this country towards Black People and Ferguson is a prime example of that but to say that the position of African-Americans has "barely improved" since Martin Luther King died is simply to stupid for words. In short there are a lot of big problems that these events point to in our society that need fixing. We can't have trigger happy cops patrolling the streets shooting (or in this case, more like executing) a guy who has just surrendered. Alsto003 (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

Swedish Neo-Nazi fighting in Ukraine?

I just came across this bloke named Mikael Skillt and I was wondering if anyone knew anything about him or people like him, that is, European fascists fighting as volunteers in international conflicts? 74.14.51.195 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to find these things. During the Spanish Civil War many Rightists from across Europe volunteered to fight for Franco whereas many Lefists did the same for the Republicans. If the European neo-nazis/fascists believe their involvement will help their cause, which is rightfully shunned nearly everywhere else, then they may fight in European conflicts due to having nothing to lose. How large scale this is is unknown however. ClothCoat (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be limited so far. Interesting since far-right parties in Europe got egg on their faces for praising Russia earlier in the year. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not just in Europe, the American right went into fan-squee mode about Putin too. Sophie^Wilder 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RWA followers are the dumbest morons. They went for Hitler and Mussolini in '35-'38 too. I mean, they really are still rooted in cave-man society belief systems. "Physically strong (looking) male leader who will use violence at those who threaten us" is about all they want. The general rule is: wherever those people are looking, head the opposite direction. Ikanreed (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So... physically unimposing man/woman who will also use violence against our enemies"?--Miekal 19:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone got any more info on far-right figures fighting in Ukraine and why? 74.14.51.195 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mark Galeotti (NYU) is one of the better-known scholars on the whackjobs on both Ukrainian and Russian sides. And there's been lots of talk about the ultranationalism (of the Zhirinovsky sort) suddenly framing Putin's thinking, and how Ukraine will deal with Sloboda and the Pravy Sector in the coming months. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys

I'm an old user on a new account (long story) and wanted to submit the Zoe Quinn thing (see above) to the suggestions page, but my account's still too new. Could somebody help me out here? Abed Nadir (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering Zoe Quinn wanted this to blow over and we'd be mentioning the slanderous rumours in the article, I don't think it helps anyone to immortalise that particular shitstorm. Nullahnung (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're right. If it's still being talked about in a couple of months or so we should probably make one though. I think it was Raysenn who said above that KYM is the best site for covering it right now. That's a bad place to be. So we could step up if the controversy does continue a while longer. Abed Nadir (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone's personal life is any business of Rationalwiki, no matter how many people are talking about it for however long. Articles about who fucked who are definitely not on mission. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about the sex, rather the controversy regarding the women's gaming production she supposedly tried to sabotage. (See the "Rebel Game Jam" section on the KYM page.) I don't know the details of what happened which is why I was hoping for an article here on it. I agree that sex shouldn't be a part of the discussion. Abed Nadir (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand what any of this has to do with rationalwiki. Even if any of what's on that page is true, she's still isn't doing anything to justify an article here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia mods have imposed an informal lock on her page (to prevent the hivemind from even mentioning it) should tell you something. Wait until the dust settles, and who knows how long that will take. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur. It's an ongoing shit magnet, we've had the fuckwits trying to put the shit here already 'cos they can't put it there, and the whole thing is welcome to fuck off for now. Let's see what we think in a year - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You guys complain, but this whole shitstorm is the apotheosis of schadenfreude. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone} 15:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How is there not a progressive metal album called "Apotheosis of Schadenfreude"? Somebody needs to get on that. Abed Nadir (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

K brb. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Weird attention whore} 12:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy concerns on talk pages

We've all seen it happen: some BON comes along and says we're wrong about the content of an article. Sometimes they're obviously wrong/trolling, best ignored; but sometimes they aren't, or nobody can really tell. Do we have any sort of standard for how to address this? I'm looking in particular at Talk:Pentti Linkola, which according to our anonymous friend is quite inaccurate, but as I've never heard of this Linkola outside RW, I have no way of knowing. Nobody else has contributed any thoughts or altered the content of the article since these concerns were raised a week ago. Don't we have ways of verifying things? Why do we end up with articles criticizing public figures and nobody to defend the criticisms? Abed Nadir (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most people have some set of interests that motivates their editing, and that also determines how likely they are to chime in if an article's contents are in dispute. Some of the lesser known individuals and topics on the wiki probably aren't in the areas of expertise or interest of existing editors (perhaps their creators have left or developed new interests), so nobody ends up stepping in to address the BoN's concerns. - Grant (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that the article has since been trimmed; thanks FuzzyCatPotato. In general I question whether we should retain pages like this. Specifically, if a subject is so obscure that another editor couldn't find any more information about the subject to verify the claims originally made then the subject probably isn't worth our time. Abed Nadir (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Shutdown II: Electric Boogaloo

Somebody restrain Ted Cruz. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Life's greatest mystery is at last solved.

Go home, everyone. We've cracked the code. --Madman (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)The Madman

"The revelation leaves open the possibility that the series could be revived on screen." Why would it need to be revived. It ended. the story was over. --Miekal 04:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You know Hollywood.--Madman (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)The Madman

"Why would it need to be revived." - $£¥€₱฿, etc. Compro01 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, but this was q question to the article writer, not the industry. I know their reason.--Miekal 15:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sopranos 2: Pasta Fazul Rising starring the resurrected corpse of James Gandolfini. NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not referring to [5]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Easy Meat by Peter McLoughlin (Islamic Grooming Accusations)

I have a family member who is posting a lot of very suspect anti-Islamic rants. A recent one seems to refer to this on Scribd. Does anyone know anything about this guy or about this document. Can anyone point me to a decent article (or the like) that looks at these accusations more generally. Googling brings up the usual right wing tripe so thought I'd see if the hive mind of RW might save me some time. I've seen this RW article already.--Barryjon (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not aware of any because really there still a lot of uncertianly. There are a few things to consider:

1. The crown prosecution service will only take cases where there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. The problem is in most of these cases the only evidence is the testimony of the girls in question. Since most of the girls were, well the prefered term is "vulnerable", the defence would have been able to shred them without much effort. Thus no reasonable prospect of a conviction. Rolling all the cases into one was a bit of an inovation that finaly got around that problem.
2. In the early 90s it was pretty common for the white "Jack the lad"s to be chasing after girls as young as 13 or so. Social shifts have probably reduced that.Geni (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Make a wikipedia entry"

So for this semester one of my courses was "Historical Methodology" which is, more or less, a intro to being a history major course. I was looking through it's syllabus just now and noticed our final project: "4. Creation of Wikipedia historical entry. You must use Chicago Style Manual for citations and bibliography. The subject if of your choice but make sure to clear it with the instructor. Your entry must vary significantly from any similar or existing topic, term, or concept in Wikipedia. 20% of the final grade. Though that last part seems a bit iffy, most of what I would write is probably already covered by wikipedia. In depth.--Miekal 19:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more like a drive to beef up Wikipedia than a real academic exercise. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What if you write a great article but they delete it for lack of notability? Abed Nadir (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more like a lazy instructor trying to crowdsource the evaluation of students' work than a real benefit to the encyclopedia. Every now and then a topic I watch on WP gets a flood of "school project" editors. More often than not, it is a disastrous cluster fuck, but it can be fun to watch them interact on their user talk pages. At least once I've seen the professor's account exhorting one of the students to increase their word count. Yeah, right, like that's a valid measure of quality.

On a positive note, your wiki-experience will most probably be helpful to you. (p.s. by which, I mean: the familiarity with wiki markup & procedure that you've gained at RW will ease the learning curve for editing the other wiki. sjc 12:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly lazy professor. OTOH, researching and writing up a Wikipedia article good enough to survive will definitely be good for you ... and help your ability to add article content to RW :-D - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a contradiction. Use the Chicago manual of style for the wiki? Whatever happened to this? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

...for citations and bibliography. See wp:Wikipedia:Citing sources #Citation style.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Gosh kid, I envy you. Wikipedia has exactly jackshit about the famous, notorious, breathtaking Robinson-Rubens affair, and it's not for lack of sources. nobs^{One who's been there.} 17:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Uberfeminist blog

A nice real feminist blog that swings away from and points out the hypocrisy and badness in what people considered feminism: http://uberfeminist.blogspot.ca 74.14.72.65 (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Cute, the cranks are advertising on RW now...--ZooGuard (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

They should consider editing it into the Webshites section, it wouldn't surprise me if it was one of the more comprehensive lists of MRA websites --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

|}

Robin Williams

I felt remarkably sad yesterday upon hearing this. I shall burn some oil from my lamp tonight for him. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

PZ

On the other hand, I cannot believe somebody wrote this. It just drips with disrespectfulness. You can care about both things at once. Why does this need to be an article that was written? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're acting like there's something mysterious about this. PZ Myers is a shrill prick who does a disservice to the skeptical movement. FFB and his comments sections are an echo chamber. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I may ask, are you one of those "They are dividing the atheist movement with their radical feminism!!one!" people?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

While I disagree with Nutty's comments about the man and FTB in general due to my fondness for evidence and truth, this is a pretty crappy piece on PZ's part. I understand the idea, but at the very least he should give people twenty four hours before writing something like this. Mourning a beloved entertainer is not a journalistic conspiracy. User:PsychoGecko 18:58, 12 August 2014

I don't get it, after all one can just take it to the next level and argue that the shooting of Brown is media distraction from the even much larger political and humanitarian crisis caused by ISIS as ignore every rule of international law and human decency in their efforts to purge anyone who doesn't fit their pure ideology. As bad as things are in Ferguson, it isn't shit compared to northern Iraq.

But wait, can't the media and people discuss more than one topic? Well of course they can. Just because they talk about Robin Williams, doesn't mean suddenly no one is talking about the police killing in Ferguson, or the crisis in Iraq, or the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, or the current Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, or Net Neutrality, and so forth. Every one of those subjects were covered in the hour of news radio I listened to on the way to work.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Things are being done about ISIS and there is a lot media coverage. What is being done about Ferguson, except sweeping motions that point to the underside of a rug?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

PZ didn't need to write it with such disrespect towards Robin Williams, I agree. This whole thing just makes me think that the news is a big waste of time, politics is always dishonest, celebrities shouldn't exist, cynicism deteriorates people and depressing things can hit the most cheerful-seeming of people. Nullahnung (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

PZ's criticism is that the media is saying, in effect, "Don't look over THERE, look over HERE!" Unfortunately, in my opinion PZ's post is guilty of exactly the same thing. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"Don't 'forget' to look over here" would be a more accurate representation of his point, although he probably could have worded things better.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think PZ does share this sort of aspect with Dawkins from time to time. I can understand the message that he's trying to give -- unfortunately, it's the delivery that can be problematic. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, what everyone above said, especially the point about starting a ridiculous oneupmanship over the perceived gravity of news issues. PZ is also showing uncharacteristic parochialism here (from what little I know about the guy); as serious as the Ferguson shooting is, it's a national issue whereas Robin Williams has a global following, so there's probably something of a feedback loop between news agencies as more and more people go on the record to pay their respects. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(EC)A famous person died -of course some people try to make it all about them --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Look and me! I'm so not racist and you're racist for remembering Robin Williams' death! The article in a nutshell. What the fuck. Some people seem to not abide by the whole "due to the dead".|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{If you ceased to exist yesterday / I'll erase yesterday from existance} 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think there's a difference between "remembering Robin Williams' death" and using it to eclipse other important issues?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I quite enjoy FTB and many of its contributors (Ed Brayton in particular). PZ and the strange creatures that inhabit his comments section, however, is a blight on that fine site. PsyGremlin^Tala! 00:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm looking for too many connections but I see shades of Dawkins' 'Dear Muslima' and I think that both are aspects of the Not as bad as fallacy.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's an article that was in my Twitter feed. And speaking of Dawkins, he disagrees with Myers on this as well. Woodgod (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like how that article started out with the message "Let's focus on joy, laughter and the hope of getting over depressions!" and then ended on a negative note and outrage, reflected in the comments section as well. HowDoIArticleStructure? Nullahnung (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I also think it's a bit premature to assume that this is all about depression -- the Coyne piece notes he had no formal diagnosis that he ever went public with, and at this stage an accident can't be ruled out. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Accident can't be ruled out? Perhaps, but being found dead with a belt around his neck is not a likely position reachable by accident. But, yes, we are still in the stage where the reported facts and the underlying truth may not have adequately converged. MarmotHead (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Man, I've lost count of how many times I almost accidentally strangled myself with a belt. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{A single piece of bread is just an open-face universe sandwich} 21:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. You'd probably never believe where I find my shoelaces sometimes. It's just not hygienic!!! MarmotHead (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd have much rather been spending all this time looking up the continuing evolution of the informal Robin Williams bench memorial than have to both condemn PZ's piece and sift through the rabid anti-PZ hivemind that hijacks almost anything at the mention of his name. As for the cause, it's pretty normal for funny people to suffer depression or other mental anxiety. I wouldn't rule out depression. I'd just rather be watching the man's work right now. User:PsychoGecko 20:17, 13 August, 2014 (UTC)

Yah, any of you ever have a close friend or relative kill himself? Do you have a clue how much guilt that selfish act leaves behind to survivors? You keep telling yourself, "If only I were there...", or "what could I have said or done in the past that could have encouraged him...", or "where was I when he needed me...". Clueless motherfuckers. nobs^{One who's been there.} 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rob, everybody knows how painful suicide is for others, guilt just one awful thing. Yours isn't exactly a unique insight. But what we're looking at here is the culmination of a terrible illness, the end result of which was Williams's death. Tragic, yes. Horrible for those close to him some of whom may be going through those sentiments you describe. But it doesn't mean Williams was selfish. It does mean he was ill. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think he was condemning PZ's piece, but that may be me projecting. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{A single piece of bread is just an open-face universe sandwich} 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Psychoanalysts for nearly a century theorized depression was caused by repressed anger; then Big Pharma got involved in the early 80s and said, "no no no, depression is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. Here, take a pill". This should be of major interests as an inquiry into junk science.

My younger cousin, raised like a brother to me, killed himself in 1980 while I was 350 miles away. All this theorizing about disease doesn't relieve the angst and guilt my family feels when we gather for Thanksgiving or Christmas 34 years later and collectively feel we all failed him. nobs^{One who's been there.} 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, I am really sorry for what happened to your cousin, and I can only imagine what you and your family went through, and I know that it is easy to feel hurt and betrayed, and to feel angry that all of this grief and suffering was forced onto you; but, the thing is, that doesn't make your cousin selfish. Saying that being suicidal or wanting to commit suicide makes you selfish or cowardly does not really help anything, and, the thing is, you need to put yourself in their shoes. Have you ever lived your life, waking up, day after day, and feeling like a worthless waste of space, like a fucking awful, disgusting creep, like an insignificant piece of shit that would not e missed if he was to hang himself? Have you ever lived your life, going to bed every night, and just hoping and praying that you don't have to wake up to live through another day of failure and misery? Going through your day, and jut wishing that it would all just stop, that you could just not have to deal with it all anymore? It fucking gets to you. While I have no idea what it is your cousin was going through, I can tell you that it must have been fucking awful for him to take his own life away. What suicidal and depressed people need is for people to recognise their struggles, and to help them, not to be called selfish, and made feel even more ashamed and guilty for being unfortunate enough to be in that situation. I suggest you read this. It's aimed at people who are suicidal themselves, but it provides good insight for those who have to deal with suicidal friends, relatives, et cetera. DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{Raining blood, from a lacerated sky} 13:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you're getting very much to the heart of the matter: those closest to the person who commit suicide (and Williams certainly was loved and endeared by his fans) cannot help escape feelings of guilt that somehow they failed the person who committed suicide. Eventually you have to come to the conclusion that it was not your fault, and entirely the action of the person who did it. In the act of suicide they reject all responsibility to family, as well as love, compassion, and help. This truth in itself, which is the only explanation in most cases, creates a new set of traumatic realities if you can get the guilt to subside. nobs^{One who's been there.} 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Szasz said “Suicide is a fundamental human right. This does not mean that it is desirable. It only means that society does not have the moral right to interfere, by force, with a persons decision to commit this act. The result is a far-reaching infantilization and dehumanization of the suicidal person.” DS

And of course Thomas Szasz committed suicide after he had read his page here on RW and realised most humans have the intellect of chimps.

When two heterodox schools of thought meet

The results can be rather strange. Anyone else wonder how it is that to find an ALFer who is also a libertarian? There's just something interesting about what bringing two schools of outlier politics together would produce. I feel like locking Mises or Rothbard or Rand in the same room with several other wingnut/moonbat specimens would be so entertaining. — Melab (Talk) 06:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... look at that background. Not even seamless. This CLEARLY violates NAP.~epix^{Say What?} 06:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was the flirtation with the New Left by figures like Rothbard and Karl Hess back in the day. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Libertarians have long tried to woo others. Let us not forget the Cato Institute, with Brink Lindsey's "Liberaltarians", too things that would struggle to be further apart. I very much doubt they will find many friends in the ALF though - and I can't figure out how any self-respecting libertarian can sqaure his "money has feelings too! non aggression against property" with the ALF's penchant for burning stuff down. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

About the Spider-woman model

I've heard that the interpretation itself is a rather poorly-rigged case. Here is a much more reasonable interpretation.--DoomTay (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannerism Vajrapani (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Spider-woman has a penis? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this one, but the Dino Ignacio one stays true to the original picture. In this one the head tilt is different(looking down instead of straight forward), the shape and angle of the hips (fuller buttocks for example), the slant of her back is less pronounced, there is more distance between her hands etc etc. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

of course in a in a comic book about a woman who can stick to walls its her badly drawn posture that's the most unrealistic thing that garners all the attention. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering one of the defences of the Damsel in Distress trope made by the detractors of Anita Sarkeesian is that women are physically weaker than men in reality so it's only logical if they are victimized and made helpless much much more than men. To argue that reality takes a backseat in this case is hypocritical(not you, but the argument).

That's not the point though. The point is comic books do have this line of using near contortionist physical poses and anatomically impossible body shapes of women to sexualize them. For example, this Mary Jane pose. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

While i am sure there is an issue with unrealistic and sexualisation of female body shapes within comic books, the original cell and subsequent 3d rendering has fuck all relevance to that. AMassiveGay (talk)

No seriously, what is up with that thing on...her crotch? --Madman (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)The Madman

I think it's her toe. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{The epitome of Gods and Men alike} 14:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Spider-Woman looks kind of like a cleaned up & sexed up version of Kayako from The Grudge. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Lovely App!

Stop evil with an app Scream!! (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

tor

Watching something about internet privacy and how governments and corporations are a bunch of nosy cunts. Tor is mentioned as a useful tool. Anyone know anything about it or something similar that an imbecile like me can use? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

See here Scream!! (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know more than wikipedia does, but the long and the short of it is: you connect with people who volunteered their computers to run on TOR(encrypted the whole way there, of course), and then anything you send gets bounced around like crazy, and some other volunteer releases your message on the other side (at what's called an "exit node"). It's easy to install and run as a web browser, but don't expect it to be fast. It depends on volunteered connections. Ikanreed (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

how safe is it? Is it safe from the kind of exploits that normal browsers are continually updating against? Can these 'volunteers' decide to fuck me over somehow? I have no particular secrets to keep or conduct dubious activities online, but it burns me that technology has progressed to a level that accusations of a big brother society is no longer hyperbole. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty safe, I know people who use it regularly, mostly to avoid tracking. You could use it for those purposes if you wished to, I personally don't care much if my actions are tracked so I don't bother. I'd recommend reading into it before trying so you don't make mistakes --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A good way for a lay person to think about it might be that Tor is basically like that scene in an old movie where somebody makes a call from a payphone. But that's all it does. It does not magically hide your identity for example. If you sign into RationalWiki via Tor, that's still you posting; and if you have a distinctive style that will still show through of course...

Tor does not defend you against most of the sort of browser exploits you were talking about. Mostly those just want to take over people's machines, or blackmail them, or whatever, and they don't care who gets hit. So Tor would hide your origin, but they don't care where you came from so long as you fall into their trap. Tor is neutral in this regard, no better and no worse.

If you run software provided by anyone to do anything, including access Tor then, yes, in theory they could hide something nasty in that software. As (presumably) a non-programmer you aren't in a position to make a useful judgement of your own, so you'd have to rely on other people as you're doing by asking here. In my view the Tor system itself is provided by good people and if I were in your position I would trust them. But as described above it is not magic.

A much smaller change in habits, that would also make things awkward for nosy people, is to prefer encrypted connections wherever possible. You might notice for example that Google searches are these days always HTTPS, and so is Facebook. That's because this good habit took off with the people who run those sites. If you use email software, rather than web mail, see if you can turn on encryption for sending and receiving your email too. Even if the US government is specifically snooping from inside those sites (evidence of this is controversial) it can't do the same to every site, and it shuts out all the snoopers who aren't working for the US government so it's worth doing. Tialaramex (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks all, this a lot to think about. It just pisses me off that everyone knows this snooping goes on by virtually everyone you need to go online but for a layman like me,there's so little I can do about it but suck it up. And too think that we even know about the government snooping has lead to those whistle blowers becoming fugitives from justice or locked up for a long time. I may invest in some tin foil head gear. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Online security is never an easy or simple thing, unfortunately. The nature of the beast is that if someone really wants your information and it's out there on the Internet somewhere, they can find it. Even if you encrypt every piece of information that leaves your computer, it's still possible for some asshole to sneak a keylogger onto your system through some browser exploit or hacked website you visit. Since online security is always a cat-and-mouse game, there's never any guarantee that your information is safe beyond disconnecting your computer from any network and keeping it that way. Of course, there are quite a few steps you can take to make it ridiculously hard for them to do so (Tialaramex laid some out above), but anything you do online will always be vulnerable to at least some degree. - Grant (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

indeed. See the on going discussion in the clogs for all of that. Its galling that on top of the illegal stuff you got to deal with all perfectly legal data thievery. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tialaramex - A useful tool for that purpose is the EFF's HTTPS Everywhere addon. Automagically kicks you to the https version of sites they know about. Available for Firefox (incl. Android Firefox), Chrome, and Opera. Compro01 (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading this post, I just realised that RationalWiki does not support HTTPS. Is that something we can expect in the near future? Origin (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Practically, offering HTTPS requires an additional expenditure, I believe the argument has been that it's not worth it. HTTPS does two related things, it conceals what is sent back and forth, and it optionally authenticates one or both parties (if you don't know who you're talking to anybody can actively snoop on what you say using a technique called the Man In The Middle). All popular web browsers assume you want both, and so RationalWiki would need not only to enable HTTPS itself, but also to prove its identity. The only widely accepted way to do this today is by buying a "certificate" from one of a handful of companies every year or so. Obtaining such a certificate costs money. The project to eventually make these certificates unnecessary - named wp:DANE - has not seen much traction, perhaps because there's a lot of money to be made selling certificates.

Historically there were two other things that made HTTPS cost more for smaller outfits, these are less relevant today. One was that you weren't originally able to use cheaper "virtual hosting" for HTTPS. This was fixed by an improvement to HTTPS called SNI, and by then waiting for all the old browsers that couldn't do SNI to fade in relevance. That's now happened, so SNI would be suitable for a site like RationalWiki. The other was the overhead of the encryption software itself, either imposed as an extra charge by a hosting companies or as more hardware investment and electrical bills for the operator of the site. This was fixed by better software, the margin is now about 1% and thus negligible, and you can move to a different provider if yours charges way more than that. Tialaramex (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago David Gerrard (who's a board member) said here that there was no intention of installing https for RW. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't at the time. But at the most recent board meeting, we concurred that https is a good idea and we should do it; basically it's spending extortionate sums on a cert (SSL certs are a COMPLETE FUCKING RACKET) and then some faff setting it up to work. So we resolved to spend the money (that was the bit requiring board faff) and then Trent and/or I will faff about with server stuff. No timeframe for this, no. Main incentive was actually Google rankings - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(By "complete fucking racket", I mean that a high-quality cert that gives you a green address bar in Firefox or Chrome recently cost my work US$1,297 for two years from Thawte. Fucking fuck me. We're looking into buying a wildcard cert for work and that'll cost even more. And the green address-bar cert will probably be what RationalWiki wants, so that's $648.50/yr of donations from the kids and grannies for something that's probably actually necessary for our educational purpose, 'cos you can bet the scammers we write about will buy Google ranking if it's on sale so cheap. Fucking racket - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC))

What about startssl? As I understand they provide free certs for non-commercial use and are included in every browser. --Someon (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)·

I've messed around on Tor a tad, played with the Cicada 3301 puzzle - other than curiosity Tor and deepweb is terrifying. You will come across the most depraved, scary stuff you can imagine. Jrock1203 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about? Tor nodes are hosted by your average Joe and traffic bounces through them at random. After 3 bounces it's basically impossible to backtrack where the traffic came from. Nullahnung (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I misread, but I swear I was reading about how some of the nodes are monitored. Perhaps I read it on a drunken browse in AboveTopSecret's nutjob forums. It's being attempted I'm sure, but yes, it bounces at random so I don't see how it can be tracked.Jrock1203 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things: One, yes, it is widely presumed that intelligence services, including the NSA, control many of the Tor nodes. Why not? But of course so long as no one service (or group of co-operating services) controls more than a fraction of the nodes that's not enough to track people. That's where number two comes in. Traffic analysis. If you use Tor to download or upload large amounts of data, snoopers with control of the right nodes can correlate the large quantity of data going into Tor at one place and out of Tor in another place, without caring where it went in between and it's as if Tor vanishes from the resulting picture, leaving you as exposed as if you'd never used Tor at all. Smile! This isn't easy, but then nobody pays the NSA all that money to do things that are easy. Tialaramex (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 at RationalWiki

Edits per month	Editors Aug 2014	Pages Aug 2014

Please take a look here. --larron (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I need a life. (Like running the Twitter wasn't enough. Hmm, must add that to the sidebar ...) Surprised WIGO:CP is still so active - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Boring repetitive revisions to established articles"

Go Science! 210.92.171.35 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, we're left wondering if you have a point to make. Ikanreed (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I really do. You are a PC nutcase and no scientist. 210.92.171.35 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, a fucking neonazi called me "PC" for actually respecting the conclusions of the paper I read. What an unmanageable accusation. Maybe next a murderer will call me too polite. Ikanreed (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody else knows what you fellows are talking about, so maybe the Saloon Bar isn't the best place for this conversation, hmm? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Same ol' Anon IP troll(or serious nazi, who cares, really) bouncing around different pages complaining about the fact that we accurately use a source on Racism and/or Racial realism. It would be easier to just ban on sight, wouldn't it? Ikanreed (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it is pretty easy to see what is going on here, since the BoN started talking about PC this and that. This means that the BoN is some misogynist racist homophobe essentially. They are the only ones who starts shouting "PC!!!!!!!!!!" when their racist misogynistic homophobic ways are rejected. They are easy to identify that way. And oh, the BoN is from MetaPedia and Stormfront. What do you think the best place for a conversation would be? (Edit conflict) Dendlai (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"And oh, the BoN is from MetaPedia and Stormfront." How do you know that? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IP in ROK, style is consistent with a racial realist who's been doxxed here before. Quacks, flaps, swims, dabbles while sticking its ass/arse up out of the water just like a duck... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Circumgender

Anybody else hear about this? Tumblr is up in arms again. Apparently there's a user claiming that she was born female but identifies as a trans woman and has coined the word "circumgender" to describe this. And then trans people say she's not actually trans/unable to appreciate what a trans woman goes through without being born male/appropriating words from the trans community/etc. And then there's TERFs claiming that all the arguments against "circumgender" are just like the arguments that they (TERFs) make against trans women, except with "trans" replacing "woman/female" and thus trans people are hypocrites. It's all very confusing and painful to read. (I couldn't find the original tumblr post but here is a TERF complaining about it with a screencap of the original.) Abed Nadir (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a handy list of Latin prepositions. May as well start ringing the changes, since it seems in the fullness of time all will be found needful by someone: antegender, contragender, prætergender, postgender, supergender, clamgender, infragender. I've decided to call myself a simulgender. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(EC) That's one of Cathy Brennan's sites, and it clearly links to the original Tumblr post. Having read through a few pages of their Tumblr, I see this is apparently a 13 year old, who (since this original post) later backed down from identifying as trans, and has also written about self-harming in response to this drama & getting therapy. There's a distinct possibility that the whole thing was a bad taste hoax from somebody stirring up trouble, but either way it's best to let this blow over. This is the first I've heard of this (as somebody who rarely pays any attention to Tumblr), but I see this was all over a month ago and over in a matter of days - is Tumblr really still up in arms about it? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tumblr Dramr. Meh. Sophie^Wilder 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And the Oppression Olympics continue...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Stinks of /pol/ trolling Tumblr's SJ sphere, volume 89,256,741. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone} 23:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I generally stay away from the SJ-y aspects of Tumblr, where anyone can post anything and it will be believed or swallowed up by someone. (Like, seriously, nonbinary gender identities for haunted animatronic robots?) Noir LeSable (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The TERFs are right. You can't say that identity is king and say that parts matter. But it does read more than a little bit as trolling. And no one likes being trolled. Ikanreed (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes most arguments against it will be like some of the arguments TERFs use. This is because it's a very similar semantic shift. Trans woman is to the gamete terminology what circumgender woman is to the gender identity terminology. They fundamentally use the words in different ways, and confusion arises when this is not seen, or when someone tries to argue for the One Real True definition of words. Brianpansky (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Less than a dozen works with atheist themes per medium on wikipedia, and a list but no category for fictional atheists.

All they have is atheist authors and with books with atheist themes. Compare that to the category Christian novels. That means according to wikipedia there are no atheist novels, just atheist themes.

I really wanted to make this category on Wikipedia, I just wasn't sure on what the definition should be. I'm thinking it should be for works where it is shown there is no afterlife, rather than works without deities. However I don't that definition would fit Star Trek the Original series where Gene Roddenberry said they are all atheists in the federation, and Star Trek is a definitive atheist work.

This would fit a lot of sci-fi as well as fantasy I would think. In death note there's no afterlife for anyone, the death gods can die. I'm pretty sure the Cthulu mythos should count as well, it's not even considered a series with atheist themes by Wikipedia. In Farscape the main character talks about not believing in the afterlife after almost dying from air loss or something, but that's not listed.

I know this is because the absence of god doesn't constantly come up as much as main character who are gods, so the one or two times it gets brought up are said to be off comments when the reboots have to appeal to everyone.

So, what other works of fiction should be considered atheist fiction? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

what is the difference between atheist themed fiction and atheist fiction? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Christian X is an entire subculture of media, and to a degree, society. They have that category because Christian is it's own genre. Also, "I'm thinking it should be for works where it is shown there is no afterlife,", what, on earth, does that have to do to qualify something as "atheist" fiction--Miekal 22:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I know the actual definition would be works which expressly mention that there are no gods, but I wanted to include death note which expressly mentions there is no afterlife but has things called gods. I know atheist fiction isn't publishing genre like Christian fiction is. Also because the creator specifically said so and so many scientists love it. It's a category Star Trek really needs to belong to to show atheists produce fiction with atheist themes. There were almost chaplains aboard the Enterprise bridge but Roddenberry fought it, I think that shows atheism is central to Star Trek even if it isn't mentioned in the show. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This part of what you fail to grasp about categories on Wikipedia or here for that matter. Simply because it is written by an atheist and contains some themes related to atheism does not make it fit for a category called "atheist literature." The Hobbit was written by a Christian and is filled with Christian themes, does it belong in "Category: Christian novels"? --Marlow (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

'Christian X' is a mostly American evangelical phenomenon. For some reason some evangelicals get it in their heads that while ordinary hair metal is the Devil's music, we can have our cake and eat it too by creating Stryper. There are Christian themes in lots of literature, but when I think of 'Christian fiction' I think mostly of sexless romance novels about Bible-thumpers. Atheists haven't assigned large areas of popular culture to their spiritual enemy, so they just don't need anything this goofy. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 01:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

", I think that shows atheism is central to Star Trek" I don't think you understand star trek if you think lacking a belief in god was central to the show.

@smerdis, I mostly meant american evangelicalism, just didnt specify as i figured most people who'd care to read this would know that.--Miekal 01:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Star Trek didn't say much one way or the other about religion. Neither did Lost in Space, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon or any other mainstream TV sci-fi shows of the mid-twentieth century. This doesn't make any of them "atheist fiction", and neither does that the fact that Gene Roddenberry said something (outside the show and decades afterwards) about seeing Federation inhabitants as atheists. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

there are a couple of religious things in Star Trek. a line from Who mourns for Adonais - "Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate."interesting that, having learned the Greek Gods were simply Aliens, Kirk does not apply the same idea to Jehovah. And the whole plot of Bread and Circuses (aka The Roman One), where a group of persecuted heretics claim to worship the Sun...until at the end when it's revealed that they actually worship the Son. Sophie^Wilder 14:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what Atheist Fiction would be. Let's take some SF examples to see why there's a problem here. Spoilers!

Surface Detail is the Banks space opera about (among other things) a war on Hells. Banks did not believe in (the Christian idea of) Hell, but the story posits many civilisations sharing the idea of an afterlife of punishment for the wicked and (once their technology is capable of doing so) making that idea come true. But then the story also features characters who have been reborn figuratively (Special Circumstances agent Yime has agreed to have her memory wiped so that she can work in another part of the Culture under cover) or literally (such as the lead protagonist Lededje, who has been murdered by her rapist and owner but is reborn on a Culture GSV). Symbols everywhere. So, is this Atheist Fiction?

The Diamond Age is an early Stephenson post cyberpunk novel. I don't know anything about Stephenson's religious beliefs. The books discusses a lot of concepts that are more recognisable today than they were when it was written, most particularly of course the Primer itself (which today you could explain as an SF extrapolation from Wikipedia and the iPad, but this was written in 1995) itself. But it doesn't really talk about God or religion at all - the Mouse Army doesn't worship Nell, they are her willing and enthusiastic subjects. Is this implicitly Atheist Fiction?

Solaris is the most famous of Lem's works. Lem was raised Catholic but eventually identified as atheist. The characters in Solaris do speak about religion, but I'd argue (and I wouldn't be alone) that Solaris isn't about that, or about the "human condition" or any such thing, but about his central thesis that we would inevitably lack a common reference with any aliens that is needed for us to understand each other. In my view Fiasco and some of the short stories do a better job of getting this across, but people love Solaris enough to keep trying to make movies of it. Anyway, is this Atheist Fiction? Tialaramex (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek as a whole probably wouldn't count since it depends on the writer. The Next Generation had everyone in the Federation refuse to consider Q a god but merely a being with god-like powers, and Picard refusing to take advantage of his perceived godhood to Command an alien race to be good. The wormhole aliens in Deep Space Nine are treated the same way (noncorporeal transdimensional beings of non-linear existence - outside of time and space, just as Swinburne describes God), but are accepted as gods for the sake of being culturally-sensitive. Perhaps 'humanist' is a better term than 'atheist' in some of these cases.-- Forerunner (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek voyager has the episode Barge of the Dead where it is strongly hinted that Gre'thor' (Klingon hell) and its counterpart Sto'Vo'Kor (Klingon heaven) are real, which means at least some form of the afterlife likely exists in the Star Trek universe.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I now see there's enough onscreen comments on Star Trek contradicting Gene Roddenberry, and they don't really talk about atheism on the show enough times to warrant labeling a single episode of Star Trek atheist fiction. Unfortunately I cannot think of a single example of a work where atheism is actually central to the plot and not just inferred from the authors atheism or the lack of priests aboard space ships. I believe the minimum amount of entries needed for a category to be formally proposed is generally at least 3 at Articles for Creation.

Currently Wikipedia's atheist fiction categories are so small, they can't be an accurate reflection of what's out there. Books with atheist themes include 9 works, television contains 6, half of which are episodes of Southpark, there is no atheist themes in video games category.

The list of fictional atheists page includes Dr. House, Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Who and about 50 other fictional atheists who are not labeled as such, unlike religious characters. Some of the references used are questionable, like a single line suggesting Homer Simpsons an atheist; however in other cases it's less debatable, like the several episodes of House that deal with his atheism, (House vs. God). Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do we care about wikipedia catagories, exactly?--Miekal 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Inasmuch as WP is only used here as a source of references, I would suggest that we couldn't give a flying fuck what categories they have. Scream!! (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Christian Literature is a (not terribly good) genre, frequently sold in Christian bookshops. There is no large scale atheist equivalent of a Christian Bookshop (thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster!) Neonchameleon (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I struggle to see how making atheism the central focus can make for interesting fiction. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that atheism, strictly speaking, is the lack of belief in one single supernatural entity. Apart from that you can believe whatever you like and still be an atheist. It's like not believing in the lock Ness monster. Can you imagine a category of fiction based on not believing that the monster is real?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I could actually see that, if it went at it from the angle of a mystery novel and discovering what they thought was nessie was really..--Miekal 15:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. But it could never be a category. Never be a genre. Otherwise you would need a category for books by people who don't believe in Santa, or faeries, or ghosts or whatever.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Who needs a hobby, like tennis, or philately?

I've got my hobby, rereading Lady Chatterly!

To quote the judge the day that he

Acquitted my Aunt Hortense,

To be smut, it must be ut-

terly without redeeming social importance.

--Tom Lehrer

Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) (who does not collect stamps) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

To a certain extent I would say The Gods of Pegāna is an atheist work (despite being about deities on the surface, its fundamental message is about an ultimately amoral universe -- somewhat akin to Lovecraft, which could be read the same way. Its gods are really more like personifications of amoral laws of nature.) When Mung tells a mortal man "Were the forty million years before thy coming intolerable to thee? Not less tolerable to thee shall be the forty million years to come!", for instance, that's referencing a quote by David Hume about why he's comfortable with rejecting the idea of an afterlife. But it's tricky, because in writing a book with atheist themes you often also end up writing about the supernatural -- this was a problem I had with His Dark Materials, which rejected organized religion but which seemed to be replacing it with a sort of vague spiritualism. I'd argue that modern fantasy often has strong atheist themes in that it frequently portrays deities as basically just being superpowered humans rather than categorically distinct, and (perhaps more importantly) presents the "supernatural" as really just being natural laws in its setting, which can be understood through rational study, and most science fiction at least contains clear atheist assumptions; but some books (like, again, the Gods of Pegāna) take it a step further by constructing and examining their setting in a way that comes across as a critique of the theistic thinking of their time, and in that respect I'd call them atheistic. --Aquillion (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

its curious that all the suggestions are sci fi/fantasy. Is this evidence of the limited potential oof 'atheist fiction' or are you all just massive geeks? Or both? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably the latter. Off the top of my head, some authors who include atheism as a literary theme: Camus, Sartre, Lorraine Hansberry, Richard Wright, Salman Rushdie, Charles Bukowski, George Eliot, Primo Levi. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

you will be pleased to hear I have recently read the stranger. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Trying to label literature as Atheistic is falling into the hands of the twits who think that there is some sort of consensus among people who simply don't believe. It is silly, arrogant and insulting to many. You do not speak for me for one. Sphincter (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)