RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive235

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 December 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>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <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>, (new)(back)

Contents

Problem with CAPTCHA[edit]

I tried to edit the wiki from my school and the CAPTCHA was "blocked" and I couldn't edit. Wonder how many other people in the world run into the same problem? ID ten T (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that captcha sucks. If you rack up enough edits to be an autoconfirmed user, it'll go away. Ikanreed (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's like Conservapedia blocking half of the internet to stop a few bad people. I tried making an account on the school computer, fail (it actually said "This site has been blocked" where the CAPTCHA was supposed to be), then I tried using my cell phone, also fail. Tried editing as an anon, also failed. Finally got it to work at home (I'm sick and taking the day off, stupid flu season). I have to wonder though, if I couldn't edit or create an account from two different places, how many people in the world are actually unable to edit RationalWiki because of the CAPTCHA? ID ten T (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
A lot of bots, I can tell you that. RW has long had an issue with bots, spammers, and (more recently) doxxers. In this particular case, I think "2 out of 3 tested locations = 'blocking half of the internet'" is a bit small of a sample size. (School filters, particularly secondary-school/pre-college, are always pretty strict when it comes to these things. Also, when you were trying to edit with your phone, were you using your data plan to edit, or connecting to your school's wi-fi? And in your case, it does work from home, right?) Noir LeSable (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I was using T-Mobile and it wouldn't work. The CAPTCHA said "client error" on the phone. ID ten T (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to also add my two cents on the CAPTCHA. Solvemedia seems to be collecting personal information while not giving a reason nor way to bypass it. Just now (as I was posting the topic below) it would not give me a phrase to type in until I answered a yes/no question on my family history of Type-2 diabetes. Call me paranoid, but why does a CAPTCHA company need to know this? (Example) I know, I know... price to pay for not making an account, right? (-_-') 70.194.198.187 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think about it, the only information they are getting is that you were able to tell that an image was asking for "yes" or "no" as an answer. That is a pretty noisy measurement of family history of diabetes in a web-connected population of people trying to post anonymous comments on various websites. Too noisy to be of any serious use. Persuade me I'm wrong, if you can... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it also gets the time and IP address of when and where it served that image to, meaning it can connect it to other activities on other sites which use the same system. (Hint: TinyPic that I hosted that screen grab gave me a SolveMedia prompt, too) You are correct that THAT on it's own would mean little. But plugged into the right Ad network, that IP could be linked to a social media profile, and then you get a name attached. Answer this: if the answer is worthless to them, then apply the resources to ask? 98.27.220.74 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I suppose. I will maintain that it is our sacred duty as netizens to pollute that information pool as much as possible, to keep their data noisy. What they do with it is their own business.
I don't do much with social media, but my trail through cyberspace is not as obscure as I'd like it to be. The times I've had to deal with a CAPTCHA, I've been able to refresh it until a puzzle comes along that I'm able and willing to solve, so enh... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia's article on us[edit]

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=Rationalwiki&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 Evidently Schafley was so worried about opposing voices getting in he deleted conservapedia's article on us. Greatnecro (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Proof abounds on Conservapedia that black holes do exist. 2.126.87.81 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It was deleted five years ago by Jpatt. Why are you talking about this now? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I am more and more inclined to believe that their username refers to their tendency to raise old discussions from the dead... :)
Greatnecro: In addition to what Weaseloid said, the right place for Conservapedia-related news is Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? and its talk page. A lot of the currently active RW users don't care particualrly about that site.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The very term "Rational-Wiki" has been edit filtered at Conservapedia for ages. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 20:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We might be able to end Polio... with a sharpie.[edit]

Just start changing all those labels to "Ebola" and Fox News will do the work for us! 70.194.198.187 (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS recruiting children[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G07YJgsJckQ&list=UU16niRr50-MSBwiO3YDb3RA&index=3 In a very sick and twisted way, there is a sort of logic terrorists use in recruiting children. Not only does having to kill kids decimate the moral of any organized military, it also gives them extra recruiting power by painting their enemies as child killers. What are your thoughts on this? Greatnecro (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen these? However this turns out, there were an estimated 12,000 violent jihadis in 2001 when the first AUMF was issued; ISIS has an estimated 30,000+ with heavy weapons training and combat experience now, some who will survive to train more followers and carry on jihad elsewhere. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
13 doesn't really count as child soldiers by historical standards and the effect on the opponents moral is likely to be fairly minimal. They make poor soldiers and take heavy casulties due to a lack of tactical and strategic awareness but well numbers are useful in all armies.Geni (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take the bait[edit]

Is this User:Keegscee who keeps sending stuff to my old email account threatening to out me on here or is it someone else? It really doesn't bother me, but someone really has too much time on their hands. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Out you as what? X Stickman (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I just realised how inherently stupid that question is. X Stickman (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there was some BoN trying repeatedly to dox a bunch of people a while ago. I'm not sure it was attached to any particular user, however. DMorris was one of the individuals targeted. - Grant (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It has to be 1. Keegscee, 2. Alyssa Bryant/LBHS Cheerleader/Whatever she's known as these days, or 3. a random drive by. I'm leaning towards the first two considering they had my old email address somehow. Regardless, thanks for the laugh whoever it was; unless they posted some kind of damaging lies accompanying personal info, it's kind of hard to out someone who doesn't keep his real life identity a secret. :-) DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 20:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
We had a Gamergater who thought he could DOXX EVERYONE, presumably for the sake of ethics in game journalism - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if it was Brxbrx? I think he is a gamer. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 20:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it was the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. SophieWilderModerator 00:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You're just saying that because Republican Adam Putnam got reelected. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 00:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
A Republican elected in Florida? Well I never! SophieWilderModerator 10:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How to disprove a conspiracy theorist.[edit]

Basically they'res some girl at my school who thinks the illuminati is real. I've tried reasoning with hear to no avail. Any ideas?--N7.Geth (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I know this kind. They are the entrenched cranks. I usually meet them on the internet. Your best shot is to try to be calm, like a butler. Examine what she says with a critical eye, go over everything she says, the prepare for a smack down with her. Try to remain calm at all times.I would advise you get info to counter Hera. If no work, then leave her be.— Unsigned, by: 82.71.40.120 / talk / contribs 23:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You can't reason with that type. But because we all died on 21 December 2012, it doesn't really matter anyway. There are two basic approaches:
(1) (Nice, recommended) Back away slowly, making soothing noises.
(2) (Nasty, not recommended) Feed her fantasies, telling her some conspiracy theories she didn't know about.
ProblemChimp (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Going along the idea of #2, you could always squirt ketchup through the vents of her locker and convince her that the freemasons did it, if you really wanted to be an ass. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother with it. I have never been successful at breaking a conspiracy theorists from their conspiratorial leanings. I've had good luck with making people see the folly of a particular theory, but it's almost always replaced with another one in short order. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeap. At very best, they replace clearly-batshit conspiracising with merely conspiracising about everyday things - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

#Pointergate[edit]

For those of you on RationalWiki who weren't aware, being a respected mayor and pointing your finger at a black man, who reciprocates by pointing back, is now akin to "flashing gang signs." Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This will die down pretty quickly, IMO. But the most outrageous part of the story is that you want to have people like Navell Gordon, who has criminal convictions, to be doing get out the vote rallies. One of the major difficulties of crime-fighting is rehabilitating/reintegrating felons back into normal society; I'm not sure how "shaming" them for participating in a (rather positive) community service is going to help with that. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently dominant thoughts in the USA on correctional systems seem to have little interest in the rehabilitation/reintegration stuff. Also, note that unlike in Canada, most states practise felony disenfranchisement. In Minnesota, all incarceration, parole, and probation must be completed before a person convicted of a felony is able to vote again. Compro01 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The system in the U.S. has strayed so far from the Constitution it's ridiculous. If someone merely gets arrested for something, it becomes a matter of public record and employers will be leery of hiring that person because of it. They treat withholds of adjudication and pleas of guilty or no contest as convictions, even if they're not. Certain employers (such as school districts) even ask people disclose expunged and juvenile records. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment? Where in the second amendment is government granted the right to deprive one of his/her right to bear arms due to a felony conviction or being on probation? I've known people that have had a really hard time finding employment over misdemeanor marijuana convictions, isn't that ridiculous? DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 20:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do you hate America and love terrorists, you pinko commie? --71.104.75.148 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

XKCD[edit]

Randall Munroe is excelling himself right now with the Philae landing. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean "exceeding"? Typically "excel" is a verb that doesn't take a direct object. Ikanreed (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
excel oneself (Brit.) perform exceptionally well, the keeper excelled himself to keep out an Elliott header. Oxford English Dictionary. So now you know.
And yes, he has excelled himself ProblemChimp (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
A full recap. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Neat. Ikanreed (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And she's down! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
She's down? I missed it? FUUUCK SCHOOL FUCK FUCK FUCK FUUUUUUUUUCKN7.Geth (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I have it on reliable authority that the whole mission was faked up at a remote location in the Mojave Desert several months ago. ProblemChimp (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
What actually happened. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Everyone gets hugged and turns into Tang 23:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I miss the memo?[edit]

I thought the idea was: post new topics at the head of the Saloon Bar page not at the bottom. As I post, the next item down (mildly soporific to non-US citizens) is from 3 November and the next 13 after it are in increasing order of date. Wrong way round, imo. Breaking news should be at the top, not on page 2 or later. ProblemChimp (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The table of contents is easy enough to use, methinks. 04:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Always gone at the bottom as far as I recall - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion pages have always used the "newest at the bottom" logic. This is also the way the "add new section" tab works on talk pages. WIGOs and the ToDo list are the only pages that put the newest items at the top.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. ProblemChimp (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Slow RationalWiki[edit]

I've been getting 30 to 45 second wait times whenever I try to load a RW article, preview, etc. Is this just me? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been happening to me, too, although certain pages are unaffected. ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 05:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Terribly slow. Scream!! (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
memcached fell over. (Telltale: the sidebar is strangely missing lots of stuff.) Back now - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It's moving at the speed of government! Ted Cruz was right! DickTurpis (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with a line to medicine bloggers?[edit]

There's a vaccine-related story circulating in the Catholic blogosphere that would benefit from the attention of the people who usually deal with anti-vax stuff. A brief search couldn't find anything by the usual sources, so perhaps DG should ping Novella or Gorski on Twitter or something.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Orac noticed it after Mike Adams jumped on the bandwagon... Opportunity for networking: missed.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How to cite Rationalwiki's article(s)[edit]

Hello, can someone please let me know how I should cite Rationalwiki's article(s) in a book? -- (Russ.mo (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC))

I don't entirely understand why you would want to cite a wiki directly, but, I'm guessing it's going to be about the same as this guide wikipedia gives for citing it. Same thing, but with big pictures--Miekal 18:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's surprising/disturbing (delete as appropriate) how many people have done so. Try searching "RationalWiki" into google books --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Why stop there? Ikanreed (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
All I see there are results from comments, blogs, and comments on blogs. I think that's more of a statement on how crappy Google Scholar is than on how often-cited Rational Wiki is. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 01:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
You'd be surprised. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Very, Rational...lol -- (Russ.mo (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC))
Also make sure to use a reference date as the Wiki isn't static --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dumb questions from a newbie[edit]

Are you guys aware of the huge amount of user accounts that, I assume, are created by spambots? A bunch of them are mostly gibberish like "CodyMMJtvqltp". They show up on recent changes constantly. Dunno if it's difficult to prevent them; it just annoys me to see so many of them, plus they waste space in the database. Also it would be nice if the site supported HTTPS, though again I don't know if there are problems preventing that. --Ymir (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, aware. There are a few MediaWiki mechanisms used to prevent them from posting crap, but the only way to prevent them from registering is a better captcha, and even that would be vulnerable to people-operated spambots. As for HTTPS, there have been discussions, but I can't remember much of them. I suggest searching through the archives of RationalWiki:Technical support.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I cut into my sleep schedule for this[edit]

I just finished a massive overhaul of our bioidentical hormone replacement therapy article. I think it's ready for Silver status, but I'd like other people to weigh in on it first. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, neat, I learned something. Ikanreed (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Bit short, but looks solid. Hey, go for it - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Nullahnung (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

YEC and expansion of space and starlight problem[edit]

Question: If difference in the rate of expansion of space can be used to explain the Horizon problem, what is stopping YEC to use the exact same method to explain the starlight problem? A stream of photons being stretched in space is probably still a stream of photons. K61824CP≠Child Porn? 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we have methods to check the distance of extra-solar (and extra-galactic) bodies, and those methods suggest distances far larger than 6000 ly in the case of some of the farther out bodies in space. You would need a massive amount of inflation to account for this, as bodies that started at 6000 ly away 6000 years ago would have to move out to many billions of ly away in that period of time. We can fairly reasonably conclude this didn't happen because inflation on that scale within such a recent time frame would definitely leave a trail.
There is, of course, significant evidence suggesting that after the first bout of (potential) inflation when the universe was young (the proposed solution to the horizon problem), the expansion began to accelerate in a much more "controlled" manner. Specifically, we can roughly equate the rate of expansion at different points in the universe's history to the relative energy contributions of matter, radiation, and dark energy during said periods. For the most part, everything after inflation is proposed to occur (very early on after the Big Bang) checks out pretty well. - Grant (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

good books?[edit]

I'm about finished with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Got any suggestions for books to read when I'm done with it? Greatnecro (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Harry Harrison - Bill, The Galactic Hero; and, The Technicolor Time Machine. ProblemChimp (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you've got some sort of kindle ereader then just go random. Let's face it, most books nowadays cost less than a pint of decent ale and if you find that a book isn't to your taste - well, not every ale is a winner either. In addition most e-book sellers have a "people who bought this also bought..." bit and, by following that, I've found all sorts of gems.
So, why no actual recommendations - because I have no idea what you like (beyond HHG). But you have and it's so easy to find it. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally the British Amazon suggests that those who bought HHG also bought Pratchet, George Orwell and Catch 22. You could do far worst than read any of those. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hard to pass up the chance to recommend more top tier British satirical sci-fi/fantasy: the Discworld series by Terry Pratchet. Ikanreed (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I enjoyed the HHGTTG thing. Must learn to forget to hit the ground some time. More recently, I've become a fan of William Gibson. For those who have been out of it on anxiety meds for the last couple of decades or so (see his novel, Zero HistoryWikipedia's W.svg, for how that could work) Gibson is the fellow who wrote "Johnny Mnemonic". If you start with "Neuromancer" you will find what it means to say, "Case, mon, Garvey a tug." Continuing through the trilogies will take a while. Wouldn't mind going through them again, me. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ibn KhaldunWikipedia's W.svg, Muqaddimah. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is.
Michelle Cliff's No Telephone to Heaven is a good read.168.91.255.100 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this related to some sort of crazification factor?[edit]

Where is the other 20+ percent of unemployment coming from? ThiehWho is Terry Koeckritz anyways? 17:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an extension of stalled wage gains since the recession. Decades of pre-2008 inequality + high oil prices + high health care costs + high education costs = Malaise. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
U.S. Dept. of Labor churns out a monthly Unemployment rate based upon a household telephone survey which asks, "are you presently looking for work?" The disillusioned, disadvantaged, drug addicted, and hopeless say, "no", which places them on the "workforce ineligible" list, which makes them subhuman, and they don't count in the number. Same as a deadbeat sitting on his ass collecting unemployment who is not activiely looking for work, however they must purger themselves weekly to attest they are looking for work just to draw benefits. In a nutshell, "The Unemployment Rate" is quack-economic science designed to cater to politicians needs, not econometric science. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"In a nutshell, 'The Unemployment Rate' is quack-economic science designed to cater to politicians needs, not econometric science." I wonder how you would rate the methodological quality of the unemployment rate if we had this discussion sometime around 2004-2007, when Bush was just re-elected and unemployment was still under 6%. Probably very differently. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"Same as a deadbeat sitting on his ass collecting unemployment who is not activiely looking for work" -- is the alternative a deadbeat sitting on his ass collecting unemployment who is actively looking for work?168.91.255.100 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Osake, no seriously. This has been controversial since the U.S. Dept. began compiling statistics (the matrixes data base only goes back to 1949, meaning all the collected data from the beginning (c.1936-38) were trashed, although the term, "unemployment" has been used by politicians, media, and the public as the basis for policy and decision making since the early New Deal. Joseph Schumpeter and others discussed these problems extensively. You're basically trying to prove a negative -how many people are not working. Today, the explosion of home-based and internet businesses, together with problems of counting "independent contractors" and "statutory employees" dating from the 1970s & 80s, have compounded the problem. Professionally trained economists will be the first to tell you, the Unemployment rate is supplied to the political class to meet their needs, and is not based upon real econometric science; it's simply providing a commodity to the market of politicians and media cause economists get paid to do it. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Anon: Look, my neighbor was fired 3 months ago. He files a weekly claim attesting he is actively looking for work. The employer is challenging the claim and he has not received any of his 6 month alotted benefits. He sits on his ass all day with me at my place of business drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes. He is not actively looking for work. Now two questions: Is he unemployed under the scientific method of counting the unemployed? and secondly, is he unemployed under the legal definition of unemployment? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

To mainspace?[edit]

I think Essay:The_Biblical_position_on_transgenderism has enough material to be mainspace. Aye, nay? Any thoughts? What title should I give it? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd check DeMyer's Second Law of Internet Debating for formatting/elaboration. Just saying. K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not bad overall (though it does look like mostly quotes), but it could do with a few tweaks if you mean it for mainspace. You've repeated some text (in the "God hates crossdressers" and "God hates long-haired males" sections). You've also confused some terms when using the phrase "male-to-female transvestites" to describe post-op transsexuals. Transvestites are cross-dressers: men who wear women's clothes, or vice-versa. They aren't necessarily transsexual (gender dysphoric) and it's unorthodox (& potentially transphobic) to refer to a post-op transsexual as a transvestite (which would imply she's still a man, just dressing up as a woman).
The essay also seems a little unfocused on whether it's really about what the ancient authors of the Bible believed about transgender people (which is kind of loaded question since they wouldn't have understood the concept in those terms, if at all) or whether it's about what Christians in our own time can or should believe. Also, who are Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance & are they really a source worth quoting? From looking around their website, it looks like they probably just exist as a website & not much else. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to add: I don't think much of the argument that "By this logic, one should never do anything that wasn't part of God's initial creation or ancient Jewish society . . . This would preclude Christians from flying airplanes or reading books". Believers look to the Bible for guidance on how to serve God & interact with other people, not what technology to use. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@K61824, I'm not sure what you mean.
@Weaseloid, thanks. I fixed the transvestite/transsexual mistake and altered the repeated text. The topic of the essay is on what Christians "should" believe, I suppose. "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" is the official name of http://religioustolerance.org. I removed said argument. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
OCRT are pro-religion but generally a pretty okay source - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What I was saying is try to avoid writing something that consists of mostly quotes. There is someone on Conservapedia that does this and was throughly being made fun of by us and other people (though the main focus was his obsession of something in particular). A piece will probably be mostly ignored if it is mostly a collection of quotes without some substantial amount of things in your own words. Thieh"6+18=24" 01:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Let the 2016 elephant show begin![edit]

Considering 2012, we're two months behind already. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

One thing we should probably try to keep focus on this time is not writing it in present tense and focus on more important candidates over every possible one under the sun. Unless somebody feels up to going over it afterwards :P--Miekal 15:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The Other Wiki is maintaining a list. It is fabulous. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
One of them is photographed with a Confederate flag in the background. Heh. I wonder if Huntsman will run again... just to make things interesting (if he gets any sort of fighting chance this time).
Anyway, what about the Dems? Is Clinton pretty much an inevitability at this point? (Agrajag (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC))
Unlike Romney (when "no" for him means "maybe"), Huntsman is staying back and I'd say wisely. Clinton is an inevitability. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a Confederate flag there on TOW. Some vexillological particulars: [1] (Tennessee state flag) [2] (Ohio state flag) [3] (Confederate flag) [4] ("Stars and Bars" battle flag) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to this guy, but that seems to be the Ohio state flag draped oddly. Anyway, any ideas on who'll be the Dem. VP nominee? I'd like to see Warren push Clinton to the left, but I wouldn't like to see Warren wasted as VP. Maybe Biden? I don't recall any bans of VPs having more than two terms, and I just love that guy. Failing that, I hope it'll at least be someone interesting - not particularity enthused by Clinton, personally. (Agrajag (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC))
There's no rule against Biden being VP again. However, I don't see that happening. For better or for worse, Hilary is going to have to distance herself from the Obama administration a bit. To some too strong an association will seem a liability. Having Biden on the ticket might alienate those people. I can't see her picking Warren either. Maybe it is just me, but I don't think a completely-female ticket is going to fly for a lot of voters. That being said, I have no idea who she would bring on. I can't say Charlie Crist is a viable option. It would be cool if she were able to get Huntsman on a ticket since he's not crazy. It would turn some heads and be a nice, uniting ticket. AyzmoCheers 21:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you not heard the rumours? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
[ec] Ah, OK. I was wondering if that might be the one... I've added it to the gallery. Is Biden unelectable as president? I like his style. Warren seems real enough to go places too. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the all-female ticket. As for Huntsman, though he is more in the Eisenhower than the Reagan vein, he is a flat-taxer, so that damages his sanity rating a little. Also, this guy is worth noting. America needs its own Screaming Lord Such. Rahm Emmanuel is sane and has good name recognition. Some people are even saying that George Clooney will run. No comment on that one.(Agrajag (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC))
No. Biden is a gaffe machine, Rahm Emmanuel is Josh Lyman and Warren is too liberal for now (but expect her to wield much larger legislative influence). In a demographically-historic election (a Madam President after a black POTUS!) you need to have a Southerner, or at least someone who can appeal to the South, to balance the ticket. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"American Election 57: The Return of Jimmy Carter" - Coming November 2016.(Agrajag (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC))
I don't know if he's unelectable. He makes a lot of gaffes but he also has a lot of knowledge and experience. For me the biggest detractor is his age. I'm of the mind that there should be an age max, as well as minimum, for the presidency. I don't want another president with dementia. Biden is pretty old and would be the oldest president at inauguration. I don't welcome that idea. But no, no conflict with him serving as vice president since he hasn't served as president for two terms (the only qualification required for VP is that they can serve as the president). AyzmoCheers 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The fix is in: Walker/Rubio (just getting that on the record a priori). Biden will be as old as Reagan was he became demented (take your pick which he is being referred to). What if Hillary decides not run? Anyway, the American people are sick of being silenced into submission by accusations of bigotry, so I doubt they will fall for this Democratic strategy after being silenced and intimidated for 8 years. Nice try, but it won't work again.
@Agrajag: Ohio is a confederate state? what kinda drugs are you on? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Walker can barely even speak (but when has that stopped candidates before) and Rubio, well... the bigotry accusations aren't exactly coming out of nowhere, you know. And being silenced and intimidated? You've been shouting from the rooftops what you've wanted for 8 years! Osaka Sun (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nobs The drugs of odd flag drapery :D. The fold made the Ohio star appear to be on a bar. Anyway, I can't see Walker having much centrist appeal - he hasn't exactly endeared himself to labor supporters, and the center is what they'll go for if they have any sense. He does, however, have free name recognition from the recall. As for Rubio, I think that they'll want to keep him where he is for now instead of killing his career in the VP office. (Agrajag (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC))
What about this guy? I hadn't heard of him before, but he sounds pretty sensible. (Agrajag (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC))
Do not fuck with Jim Webb. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Granted, there is a risk with Walker, namely his claim-to-fame is based upon a negative -- pissing off Dennis Kucinich's constitutency. But we've seen how powerful they are in the Democratic party and nationally, what, the 8 times Kucinich has run for President. The positives are is he is NOT Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz. And he won election 3 times in 4 years in a solidly Progressive state (the State that gave birth to the modern Americvan Progressive movement). nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 21:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"But we've seen how powerful they are in the Democratic party and nationally, what, the 8 times Kucinich has run for President." Then why stomp on their power then? ;)
Like I've said before (and GOP strategists are terrified about), your only route to the presidency is a conciliatory, blue state Republican — one, like Romney before, risks alienating the hard-right. Walker is not that candidate, plus Wisconsin has always been a swing state on the state level. It's not on the national. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────When's the last time someone got beat in the general election and lived to be elected later? (Answer: Richard Nixon). No one survives a loss to run again, these days. Both Mitt & Chris Christie are East Coast Republicans, by definition, RINO. The GOP has been based in the West since 1964 & Barry Goldwater (the only East Coast candidates on the GOP ticket between 1964 & 2014 were Bill Miller in '64 & Mitt Romney '14. What evidence do you have for a resurrected east coast GOP when there was not a single GOP congressional seat in New England in 2008? Today, 31 governors are GOP, but is sure isn't the east coast RINOs who reshaped or inspired the victory.

Walker had blue collar, Democrat union members in the streets protesting public sector "Union Greed". This is a game changer. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then. Just watch. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We've upset Free Republic[edit]

Free Republic caught wind of the American thinker article and they decided that they don't like us either. For amusements here's some comments:

"RationalWiki must believe that good Republicans: equivocate; rationalize; cave on the superior knowledge of Democrats and their think-tank allies; will do anything to keep their political power as defined by their best friends, the Democrats; look the other way when a Democrat breaks the law; believes that there are moderate muslims, and praises the efforts of CAIR and other peaceful muslim groups == list continues ..."

"It seems rationalwiki isn’t so rational. Same Dumb@ss Party talking points, same anti-Americanism, same detachment from reality."

No really. Zero self awareness. Matthew Bracken also comments.ClothCoat (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You missed,
Didiots. I guess they would appear on the left wing commie extremist list in that case.
Dripping with crazed venom...so much for being “rational.”
I guess they really can read. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 04:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Robbie symphasizing with the Freepers? That'll go well. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
"Didiots"? X Stickman (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A portmanteau of Demorat and idiot? I dunno...Cryptopygia (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Random article edit race[edit]

How about an edit race? A non participant names an article to improve and we see who can actually research it and have the article updated the fastest. I have articles in mind if everyone else wants to compete for teh honorz. Edit racing is far better for the community than template drive by edit gang wars. Which category jeopardy category sounds better; science, religion or politics? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to name the American Thinker given their horribly half-assed attempt to refute their article but I'm not sure if much else can be said about them. ClothCoat (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to improve the articles of the wiki, why do you need to have somebody tell you which direction to go or "race to improve it!"? Wouldn't it be better to just go improve them without any fancy theatrics? --Miekal 00:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Cool cloth coat; I'll look into it in a few weeks when I'm free, hopefully someone other than you or me adds something to it before than. I wanted to see what other people wanted Miekal, is their no existing forum for request edits? The sport of requested reference racing is a bit unnecessary, and so is theater, which would be the mock trial for the drive by templating of Robots and Star Trek. I was just thinking of ways to actually gauge how good an editor is here in case my competence is questioned by people who don't read the religion articles here. It takes time to go through all of a users edits and statistically analyze how many were good edits, counting on popularity contests that don't send out equal invitations isn't a very good gauge.

What's your opinion on the robots article by the way from a historians view point? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this what you are looking for?--TiaC (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the page link TiaC, I see mostly new religious figures, websites, newspapers, films, and books on that list. Some look interesting though, But that was the old testament, caste, fair trade, and child labor. Feral child could reference theologicus auto didactus. I think the information added to Zombie would make sense for the lobotomy page as well given it requires the removal of brain matter; as would a link to Egyptian mummies. I assume brain transplant wouldn't be mentioned as none of the sci-fi you have pages for feature brain transplants and you don't care who Tezuka Osamu is, not having a page even for anime.
What's your opinion on the robot article? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, a lot of what you just said reads as word salad. There are things on that list that probably should have a page though. E.g. Fair trade, An Inconvenient Truth, Ballotpedia... As to the robot article, it should exist, but what we have is rambling and could be better connected to mission. --TiaC (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
How would you suggest it be better organized without deleting information? It's taken from an encyclopedia not written as 5 paragraph blocks like in grade school. I'll keep my posts shorter so you can follow. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What about charity? Would anyone please help me with my recent edition to that article. In football it's called an assist when together you get it past the goal keeper. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Troll Advertising.[edit]

Vsfvsasfdf.PNG


Whoever put this advertisement on the front page of World Net Daily is a maximum troll.Greatnecro (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Culturalmarxism.net[edit]

I just found this site, and I cannot figure out if it's a Poe or not. Help. --Gulik (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism or Cultural Bolshevism seeks to destroy everything good about a society...."; "Muslim nurses in the UK have finally been given what they’ve demanded—the right to not wash their hands before medical procedures...; "Man Goes To Mexico To Kill Himself, Spends Week Doing Coke And Banging Hookers, Decides To Keep Living"; "Men Imprisoned for Throwing Pig’s Head At Mosque While Muslims Continue Throwing Human HeadsWherever." ; "The U.S. House of Representatives Bows to Allah (complete with pic of Osama Bin Laden in the Speaker's chair." I would say Poe. I would also say I can't believe you had to ask this question. 71.206.109.108 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Laughing at conservative Americans[edit]

There has recently been a series on Finnish TV called The Norden where Americans have been given a taste of Scandinavia, so far they've done Prisons and Religion. The Religion one took a fundamentalist preacher from Georgia and exposed him to Swedish godlessness, enjoy the incredulity. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 00:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting for you to talk about incredulity as regards Scandinavia, especially considering that Sweden has the harshest pot laws in Europe, to no avail. Incidentally, libertarians, who you guys always bash, have been at the forefront of prison reform. In any case, when it comes to violent crime, violent crime went down in the US when the more lenient approach by the Warren Court was reversed. I also wasn't aware that Scandinavians believed fundamentally different things than most Americans. I also didn't think there was much anti-US sentiment in those countries; as opposed to say France. Burkean (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just watched the religion one. I can't really say that Pastor Marty McClane made me laugh (except when he said "MOOS-LIM"). It looks like the programme makers went out of there way to choose a very calm Conservative Christian preacher who wasn't going to yell at people that they were going to Hell because they didn't believe the exact same thing as him. I did find it interesting that all those Swedish people said "No" without hesitation when they were asked if they believed in God. I'd like to see something similar done in Britain. I'm certain you'd get a lot more people thinking about it for longer and a lot more people saying "I'm not sure" and things like "I believe in something but I don't want to call it God". Spud (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
And before this section disappears off the page, I'll say that I've just seen the prisons one too and didn't find the American in that one funny at all. Still, it was an interesting programme and i'd like to see more from that series. Spud (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The point was not about humor per se, but the incredulity of the Americans when confronted with a functioning, and in some ways more successful society that is the antithesis of what they believe in. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease Moderator 08:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I can see that. It did strike me that the American prison officer should have (dare I say it) been a bit more open-minded. I think it's one thing to say, "This wouldn't work in America", and another to just think that it shouldn't be done in Denmark, Norway or Sweden either. Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the direction of those videos, Genghis. I did enjoy watching them. Spud (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Seth Andrews Quiverfull Podcast[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fee6eqIDACw&list=UUeYP27qLtfUMY1b1Cyy3WdQ You guys seen the new podcast The Thinking Atheist has on the Quiverfull movement? — Unsigned, by: Greatnecro / talk / contribs 21:55, 25 November 2014‎

Bill Cosby rape allegations[edit]

I personally think that these allegations are a load of crock. The idea that someone as famous as Bill Cosby could perpetrate serial sex crimes for 45 years with no journalist getting wind of it until now is simply laughable. Of course, it's not going to matter because in the court of public opinion everybody thinks he did it. What do you guys think on the matter? Greatnecro (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ammen. Bill Clinton could stick his dick in every girls face he got behind closed doors for 25 years, so what's the big deal as long as he's not a Republican. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
What's also so interesting about this is that rationalwiki is always bashing conservatives when they talk about how many women falsely accuse men of rape, then, when one of their liberal heroes is accused by countless women, they say it must be made up. How convenient. :) Burkean (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Troll Osaka Sun (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, because it's not like it's ever happened before. At all. Apart from all the times it happened.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 02:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Read this, please. End of discussion. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's a video of Have I Got News for You discussing how Jimmy Savile got away with abusing kids for decades. This kind of thing has happened before. As Ian Hislop points out in the video, the only people who knew about it were the people to whom it happened; and they tend to be at a disadvantage, as in not really in the mood for a court trial etc. 37.228.226.78 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Can I just point out that we should all probably stop assuming that he did/didn't do this stuff until we actually know for certain? Like, there's a difference between "I think he did X" or "if he did X, then Y", and "he did X so therefore Y". Just saying.
Can somebody please get rid of Rob already?--Madman (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)The Madman
It's all but confirmed he's a troll so who cares? ClothCoat (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Also I would like to point out how it is super convenient how these women are all coming out now, now that there is no chance of any evidence being found to prove innocence or guilt. I could understand waiting a year or maybe two to screw up your courage to report something like this, but 45 years and nobody told anyone? This just reeks of attention whoring and sensationalist journalism. Greatnecro (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Which is exactly what they said about Jimmy Savile (yes, it's the same link as the one above) Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The rate of false reports for rape is, apparently 2-8%, which is about the same as the rate of false reports for all crimes. Bearing in mind that these figures include as 'false' allegations which have been withdrawn due to intimidation and/or police indifference, suddenly the 'attention whore' angle looks a whole lot more idiotic. Realistically, it's no less likely to be true than any other reported crime by a celebrity. Sure, wait until the legal system has coughed up enough evidence to make a better grounded decision, but with just what we know at the moment the smart money would be on 'true'. Queex (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Many of Cosby's alleged victims told police years ago. Cut it with the "why did they wait" argument and ask "Why were they ignored" and "why didn't I already know this" - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Amazing how good his PR team is at damage control, isn't it. Almost scary, really. --Madman (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Thanks for the blast from the pre-Operation Yewtree past, Greatnecro. "The idea that someone as famous as Bill Cosby could perpetrate serial sex crimes for 45 years with no journalist getting wind of it until now is simply laughable" "it is super convenient how these women are all coming out now, now that there is no chance of any evidence being found to prove innocence or guilt" - yeah, I remember when people used to say stuff like that in the UK. Grumblejaws (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
And, of course, let us not forget the distinction between 'no journalist getting wind of it' and 'no editor prepared to sink their publication publishing it', which is kind of how famous and influential predators operate. Queex (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I said before, I will pass judgment when the media circus is over. Tensions are high and the media is just gobbling it up. I am beyond caring until somebody calms down. Zero (talk - contributions) 21:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As I've said on Facebook, there's nothing surprising about the way this is unfolding. Sexual abuse accusations have been made against Bill Cosby for years. However, he has categorically denied them or remained silent about them. Most of the women stepped down from the spotlight quickly after the media pretty much ignored them. However, things are changing and they are speaking up again. It is not unusual for victims of sexual crimes to wait years before reporting them. There is a lot of shame and guilt associated with being the victim of a sex crime. Many women are still told that they're somehow to blame or that they really wanted it somehow, that it was somehow their fault. Also, it is not surprising given Cosby's power and influence. Who would believe that Bill Cosby could rape anyone? He made everyone laugh. He's so nice. There are a large number of factors that contribute. I don't know if he sexually assaulted anyone. However, there's a lot of commonality among the stories and some verified weird stories (David Letterman staffers were required to sit and watch him eat curry for him to appear on the show) that are clear warning signs of someone who has some issues. This is really going to explode in the next couple months. AyzmoCheers 21:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
What influence? Cosby is a comedian, he has next to no political influence. he certainly does not have enough influence to squash multiple police investigations.Greatnecro (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
are you just not reading any of the multiple links that people have posted? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that the false rape allegations are rare in the general public, is it not reasonable to assume, that they might be somewhat higher in the cases of celebrities, where there are certain amounts of gain available (via media attention, book deals, paid interviews etc.), which is of course not the case with 'ordinary' people.--Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 10:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's possible but "is it not reasonable to assume?" seems like a pretty weak case for suggesting that sort of motivation. Are there confirmed examples of people making up rape stories against a celebrity for media attention or whatever? I'm not necessarily saying there aren't, but I can't think of any. I'm also not going to comment on the Bill Cosby case as I haven't been following it, but clearly there is an ongoing culture shift away from the days when rich/powerful/famous people could just get away with it towards greater accountability & bringing old cases to light. Operation Yewtree has been a big deal in the UK & similar things are going on elsewhere. I think we can expect to see a lot of dirt dug up on a lot of people over the next few years. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well confirmed, as commonly understood, is I think virtually inexistent (for many different reasons, one of those might be the risk of a defamation law suit, ones own memory etc.). So yes, I can't give you confirmed cases. Here are some celebrities though, that have been accused of sexual assault and not been convicted, for whatever reason, maybe because they were not guilty, maybe because they bought their way out, maybe because they used their power:
Kobe Bryant, Greg Kelly, David Copperfield, Ben Roethlisberger, Some Brits I don't know, but seem to be famous.
Btw: I see though that my comment brought me to an area, that I feel very uncomfortable with, cause when I googled it, a lot of MRA sites came up. All I'm saying is that the factor, which protects celebrities from being accused, mainly their power and their public image, might also make them a bit more attractive to be accused. But I guess it more or less balances itself out...--Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Bill Cosby dramatically slides from 3 to 2,615 in list of Most Trusted Celebrities Scream!! (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington Post Union of Bloggers[edit]

Has the information in the section, " The Huffington Post Union of Bloggers been checked for accuracy? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this what the talk page for the article is for?--Miekal 14:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Isn't part of the Saloon Bar's purpose to help gather editors for things that might need them? Ikanreed (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but Proxima already made a section about this on that talk page. We've tended, in the past, afair, to not like having multiple discussions like that across pages--Miekal 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the website itself though, It's a bunch of crank conspiracy bullshit with some actual articles seemingly hidden on other pages. --Miekal 14:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's even relevant at all, actually. Should we pull that section entirely? Ikanreed (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The website itself? Probably not. The stuff about the bloggers and suing HuffPo is probably something worth mentioning though. --Miekal 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How does one get sysops privileges back?[edit]

Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably by not asking for them. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Convincing people you deserve to have them. Doing things like going "either remove mine or theirs!" in the coop and that long complaint about your detractors on your userpage aren't good ways to start that process off. --Miekal 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
He deserves them more than you do. He adds more than he deletes and he knows how to read. Nutty Roux (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been a man on the outside of this, but why isn't Exiled Encyclopedist a sysop? They seem to try hard and want to get things done. Sure, not every edit of theirs has been quality, but that doesn't exclude them from being a sysop. Why, specifically, did they lose sysop rights? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
His "charity" addition just got removed as plagiarism. Pretty sure that doesn't count as adding usefully - David Gerard (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
He cooped Weaseloid, ZooGuard, and WatcherIntheDark over a content dispute. He goes on the talk pages of such users, asking them to prove they are better editors than him. He shows little understanding of the overall tone and mission of RW; many of his additions might seem suitable on a serious encyclopedia: see.for example, Robot. WP got tired of his tendentious ways and banned him. Look at the history of Censored Scribe there, but be prepared to spend some time doing so. Early in his RW career, he went on a bronzing spree that seemed to be based on counting the number of references in an article, and determining whether it had content not covered on WP. In my opinion, this is the kind of editor who takes a lot of cleaning up after. Miekal finally sysopped him to silence his whining (or bleating, as Psy called it) but I think that was a mistake. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
To answer RNS's question specifically, what prompted me to remove EE's sysop rights was him saying, in the coop, "it's time to remove someones sysops privileges until they prove they deserve them again, decide if it's Zooguard and Weasaloid or me." He literally asked for it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What exactly does this man have to prove? What purpose did removing his sysop bit serve? Can he now not do something destructive with his sysop bit that he was previously doing? Do you have any evidence that he was going to do anything objectionable with it? I don't think you do.
"In my opinion, this is the kind of editor who takes a lot of cleaning up after." So do it. Oh right, you don't actually do anything but talk and push buttons. But somehow people are supposed to listen to you, right? Leave the heavy lifting to people like Gerard who know what they're doing and ... do it.
"He literally asked for it." No he didn't. He said something you didn't like and you removed his bit. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
...and all Nutty does is bitch about the permissive atmosphere RW now enjoys. Way to build a community, jerk. His assessment of my activity here is as flawed as many of his other readings of RW events. Nutty is an authoritarian dick, an unreliable narrator, and a capricious abrasive asshole, who carries resentment towards anyone who challenges his authoritah. Fuck off. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
On a more serious note, what is EE prevented from doing that he would need sysop rights to do? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
He's actually more tiresome to clean up after than Pr*x*ma. It turns out that editors who get banned from Wikipedia and immediately come here without changing their ways may be more trouble than is worth indulging - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What does his not having sysop privileges prevent him from doing that is problematic? None of the items above are prevented if he still edit. You still have to "clean up." The contrast between who some of you are insistent on the community being permissive toward and who you want to micromanage is appalling. Sterile (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If by "who some of you are insistent on the community being permissive toward" you mean Brx, where is the "insistence"? He's history. Also, did you know someone drew a dick on your user page? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Wearing my Moderator propellor beanie: Can't say I'm fussed either way, FWIW. Did he actually abuse them in any way, or was he just annoying in text? - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it was right before or right after his "strip me or them!" statement, but he dropped a 3 month block on zooguard for vandalizing his edits. --Miekal 13:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
In Genie terms, I did ask for someone to have sysops privileges removed. David Gerards assessment is accurate in as much as I was kicked off of Wikipedia specifically for fiction and I lost sysop privlidges here after a drive by fiction templating; the comparison ends there though. My categorizations of sci-fi here have been an improvement for Farenheit 451, 1984 and Handmaids Tale.

Sysops privileges would greatly assist me in unblocking myself, which based on my block log and everyone else's happens fairly frequently, if only as a joke between people with the power to unblock themselves. The biggest problem seems to be clean up and rewording a bit more, the references are all fine even if the way I use them isn't always. Most of my edits brought up at the chicken coop managed to get through Watchers goalie net though, like early eugenics support from Presbyterian Episcopal and Methodist churches. I'd like to think we are all on the same team here and that there's no need for 1 on 1 edit edit races, or flash mob gang wars on discussions.

In summary, don't drive by template or mass categorize, use correct grammar and proof read to prevent double posts, and reword what ever arbitrary amount Watcher decides is enough to get the reference past their goal tending. I'd like to think we are all on the same team and judge one another on our abilities to fulfill all the roles, defense, offense, center and assistance; not just the ones we like to do and are good at. I'm good at center offense, but it's time to try another position. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

EE, you got sanctioned for doing maintainance work and adding content? Jesus. When is this site gonna get on mission and take on the European Union for banning bovine growth hormone with quack science. Jobs are at stake here, ya know. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this community, but from what I've seen, +1.
Cut'n'pasting text and shuffling a few words is plagiarism and in this case appears to have been copyright violation. I would suggest this is a good reason to leave you blockable - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh wikidrama, where would the world be without your mostly reasonable editors and the fights they pick as if to prove that they're not always reasonable? Ikanreed (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I just got blocked for not respecting Marlow enough on my talk page; I would like sysops privileges so I don't get pimp slapped by more internet gangsters protecting their turf. Check out my block log.

Also, WatcherintheDark never reverted Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism, but did revert mention of the Methodists support for eugenics. It would be a lot more effective if someone else went through the 6 or so good edit I've had reverted that I mention on my user page; given Watcher is wrong on Methodist eugenics and Miekal was wrong on Presbyterians refusing medical care being important for arguing against those religions.

Statistics would really help settle arguments, ratios for rational wiki. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

How come...[edit]

...no creationist has even brought up the wonderful example of transitional fossils in the fossil record, the story of hominoid evolution. I already detailed it in a post to sci.bio.paleontology as well as alt.atheism under the title of "HOW CAN CREATIONISTS EXPLAIN HUMAN EVOLUTION" or something similar, although most of the post is a brief overview of ape evolution, a brief note added to address the creationists is at the end, (which has only gotten like around 3-4 replies by two people).

Anyways, here is the post.--Palaeonictis (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

From the point of view of a creationist, Transitional fossils do not exist and the fall caused all the difference in human structure you may have seen in fossils. Just saying. K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 14:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but surely some creationist group must have wrote an article denying it somewhere.--Palaeonictis (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure someone does, but it really depends on the creationist in question. Creationism isn't a belief system with any specific agreed-on story. One guy says the fall of man did it, another says the flood did it, another says it's traps left down by Satan--or even by God to test your faith. There's a video by Aron Ra--pretty cool dude, he argues for creationism out of schools and doesn't afraid of anything--which touches on the problem of transitional fossils. Take a gander when you've got ten minutes to spare. --Maxus (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We've upset the American Thinker[edit]

Perhaps we should talk about it on the American Thinker page. Apparently we don't pick on Leftists or left-wing conspiracy theories at all. ClothCoat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

American Thinker - link added to save anyone else the physical exertion of typing it in. I assume that is a commode that AT is sitting on? Very appropriate. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The American Thinkers series on the Cloward-Piven strategy some deem prophetic. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
So, so prophetic. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
By "prophetic" I assume you mean "fucking retarded." Leave the thinking to the big boys, Robby; you suck at it. DickTurpis (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you gonna tell me the Obama amnesty isn't based on Cloward-Piven? can't any of fucktards read? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
He's not granting them any social benefits. Troll Osaka Sun (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, a greencard, driver license, voter registration, EBT, the Obamacare refundable tax credit and taking jobs from blacks and minorities who already suffer high unemployment isn't a social benefit? You don't have a fucking clue what your talking about sitting there in London or wherever the fuck, reading your commie talking points from commie rags. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And trust me, if there's any truth to this, my church group and me will be working with them personally very soon as they come up here from Carlsbad to get out of the cold weather. We provide food and shelter for the homeless, and our shelter has longtime been used as an overnight stop on the underground railway for illegals heading north. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 06:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Providing food and shelter for the homeless? That sounds awfully Communist to me. What would Republican Jesus think? --Ymir (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
FFS, Ymir, Rob's politics may be a shade to the right of Attila the Hun but that doesn't mean he isn't a decent human being. His work with the homeless has been long documented on this site and even Repub Jesus is for feeding the poor. It's just socialised medicine he's against. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's one group we work closely with; there is a history of feeding Albuquerque homeless somewhere on the internet I wish to update if I could find it. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, while it is nice to do some for those in need I think it still makes someone a monster if they actively campaign against other things that help. I understand one person can only do so much to help. It's a problem to say it's okay to feed/shelter those in need...but if they are sick, in need of helping finding a job, or need more than temporary food/shelter fuck them. It only prepetuates the issue instead of providing a solution that causes more frustration, pain, and despair for those in need which almost seems like torture. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, me & the groups I work with do a whole lot more than a bowl of soup and blanket on a cold night. Most, virtually all, persons I come in contact with are "down on their luck" because of a spiritual problem. Granted, there are many deadbeats and freeloaders who never get the message, but when a person seeks to change and get their life in order there's a whole lot more help available beyond just attending a jail prayer service or eating a sack lunch on the street. And we in the private sector are much better positioned to help the downtrodden gain their footing than a government handout. Incidentally, one of the churches here in town that gives free lunches recently started taking FEMA aid to keep their program running; FEMA requires no preaching, sermons, proselytizing, handing out tracts or praying before they eat. Peolple say this Christian church now is serving Pharoah. And FEMA money to church programs came about under George W. Bush's Faith Based Initiative. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I find it difficult to reconcile your charity work with your disrespect for those receiving your charity AMassiveGay (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That's cause you're an idiot. Bottomline: people have spirituals needs, for example companionship and sense of belonging to a fellowship or community. The government dole cannot supply that. In my town, the city now funds private apartments for the homeless. The first person placed was a dear friend I've known for ten years. She was featured no less than 3 times in the local newspaper as the poster child for the success of this program. She died anyway, after "getting off the streets", with a syringe in her arm on the same street corner she lived on as homeless for more decades than I can count. Putting her in an apartment only isolated her more and made her more lonely. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's some links (you may have to answer a question or two to read the articles); you can see from August 2011, until December 2012 when she was memorialized, the government program was supposed to "change her life". Well, it did (her name is Debra Harbold). She told me she had been on the streets and addicted to heroin since 1969. 6 months in a government paid apartment did jackshit to address her problems. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I was not referring to 'spiritualal needs', I was referring to your labeling of people in need as 'freeloaders and deadbeats'. How very christian of you, you sanctimonious prick AMassiveGay (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you invite a guy in your house, he eats all your food, steals anything of value laying around, leaves a syringe in bathroom and doesn't even say thanks. What would you call him? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 18:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
in need of help help I would imagine. You can't expect to help the homeless and not be prepared for deeply troubled individuals. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Amen bro. So these folks feed the homeless once a year. Good for them. And they pay the taxes for all the government handouts, but the people handing out the government handouts never cook a meal or serve a table for the homeless. My church group does it twice a day, six days a week; I work closely with at least five other groups who do it, some once a day five days a week, others on the days the larger churches take a break. The pitiful thing is, the un-thankfulness of people, and this sure is not limited to homeless drug addicts and petty thieves. That's one of the biggest spiritual crisis' in today's world -- ingratitude -- from the air we breath, to opportunities that arise, to the freedoms we enjoy, to simply waking up in the morning. PRAISE JESUS....I'm getting wound up.... nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well Rob, I agree with you up to a point. But it's not unique to any particular group. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting Rob, spend 10 meals feeding to homeless and preaching to them. However, if they need medications to stop the schizophrenia, or their medical bills put them there, or they can't work with a record from their teens...well, changing that would be socialism. Also, great demonization of other Americans with "...the people handing out the government handouts never cook a meal or serve a table for the homeless" since I bet you have met all of them across the country. Jesus loves that. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In street parlance, Social Security Disability Income for schizophrenia is called, "a nut check" (I love this one, a "duel diagnosis" for bi-polar and PTSD is called a "double whammy"). Yes, I have personally aided several individuals with severe mental disabilities to regain housing or receive their "nut checks". One instance was a woman retarded since birth who came here from another city with a live-in payee who died. After his death, she was evicted and stopped receiving checks. Homeless, on the streets, extremely untrusting of other people, particularly case managers and institutions (she grew up in one), I befriended her and won her trust. I appeared in court with her over a peeing-in-public charge. She actually was on the street for four years. Her checks piled up. Now she lives nearby the eating places, has a small circle of friends, and I see her fairly regularly. But she was helpless in her former sitution, and didn't know who to trust or what to do (there's actually much more to this story regarding a gross medical ethics vioaltion and forced abortion). nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 00:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul Austin Murphy (American Thinker guy) "replies"[edit]

That guy who wrote the American Thinker piece replied to our reply. This guy's so over the top I'm tempted to give him his own page.

"It also mentions my accusation that RationalWiki doesn't have a piece on left-wing conspiracy theories: it doesn't. However, in response to that it supplies a link to a piece on “moonbatery”, which is certainly not the same thing." (Doesn't mention that his original piece also basically said we never criticize leftists)

"The worst aspect of RationalWiki's riposte is to conflate anthropogenic-global- warming scepticism with“pseudoscience” and “conspiracy”."

"However, I suspect that the average RationalWiki writer is between 17 and 24 and is either a university student or a recent graduate. (I may be wrong: that assumption rests only the pieces I've read.) Hence the smugness and juvenile politics."

Also he really likes Uncyclopedia for some reason. ClothCoat (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to leave a comment under "anonymous" (but telling him I was from Rationalwiki) explaining where he was wrong and it's now gone. In fairness I'm not sure whether it's because of the shoddy design of the site or because Murphy actually deleted it. ClothCoat (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any conservative slanted media of any sort that don't delete disagreeing comments. It's my default assumption that a forum for the right-wing will have a de-facto ideological purity test. This isn't hyperbole. I honestly can't think of any. Ikanreed (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone else read "Counter-Jihad" and think "Counter Currents"? Lol. This guy is great. BlackProg (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
These guys really live in their own little world of fantasy. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
ClothCoat's comment was deleted, but the moronic insult remained -Murphy is feeding his persecution complex --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )Moderator 23:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
So should I give this guy a page or is he too obscure? His writings have plenty to prove that he's one paranoid SOB. ClothCoat (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Obsc. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make a page for this idiot, I say go for it. I don't think the site's running out of disk space. --Gulik (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If there's enough to say about him, and it obviously answers the question "so what", then by all means go for it - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Officer Wilson resignation[edit]

So what do you guys think about Officer Darren Wilson resigning from the police force? Personally I think it's the smartest thing he could have done to try to end the riots. Greatnecro (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If one was too much of a fucking pussy to wear a taser because it made poor Darren all uncomfortable, then clearly Wilson is in no way cut out for public service. Hopefully, he goes the Simpson and Zimmerman route by getting arrested for a unrelated crime. --Madman (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Agreed.Greatnecro (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

US political discourse gets even dumber[edit]

It seems that old Freeper incident attacking Obama's kids for the most nonsensical reason was not a fluke. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So she apologized. BFD. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 00:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Fuck you Rob you dumb cunt. Oh sorry about that I wasn't thinking clearly. See I apologized you have no reason to be upset. ClothCoat (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Us yanks just ain't as refined in our discourse on the First Family as you Commonwealth sophisticates. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 18:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, spread this crap far and wide to insult kids for no reason other than being a bitch...then disgracefully apologize in obscurity on her Facebook page. There's class and civility by those who complain about everyone else not having any. I am pretty sure one of the number one traits of being an extremist is projection as the GOP goes farther and farther down that rabbit hole. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
She did give what seemed to me to be a sincere and honest apology over it, rather than those non-pologies that have become so standard these days, so I'm hoping she learned something from the experience and move on. But yeah, her initial post was reprehensible. DickTurpis (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
G.O.P Aide Regrets that Attack on Obama Daughters Overshadowed Insults About Their Parents - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Rob, you've made the shit list.--Madman (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)The Madman

At least she had the class to resign, probably with a great deal of encouragement. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

kek[edit]

http://carm.org/religious-movements/wicca/if-youre-wiccan-please-read Claims in previous article to have studied Wicca extensively, then proceeds to assume that they believe in the same mythos.Greatnecro (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The irony, it burns. Going into the whole postulation of questioning how Wiccans can believe in something without much real evidence besides some old books, and postulates that they might be doing bad when they think they are doing good because of a bad foundation of their beliefs, then proceeds to go off on how Christians are always good no matter what they do because an old book tells them so. Otherwise demons have got you. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The irony gets even worse. In the introduction article, the author states the following: "The fact of the matter is that truth is independent from what we want and what we perceive". Lack of self awareness much? Greatnecro (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I missed that part at the start. I guess I am so used to these nuts saying that crap I am used to the asshattery. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing quite like the hostility brought by majority religions against minority religions to help you forgive the flaws in those religions' tenets. Ikanreed (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VII teaser[edit]

Farewell, George Lucas. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Dose lightsabers though--Miekal 19:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
What? No lens flare? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Because I'm a terrorist! 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
A very tiny one. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
But to be fair, the many lens flares in Star Trek had more to do with some really bright sets rather than VFX. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Yo, gatorade me bitch! 03:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's made by JJ Abrams alright...Greatnecro (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'mma take the Pascal's Yahtzee's Wager approach to this and assume it will be a disappointment until it comes out. Noir LeSable (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I like the crossguard lightsaber. It makes it feel more like a "sword and planet" weapon than the old style of lightsaber did. --Madman (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Watching the trailer again, it seems that the Sith will get the really cool shit. Again. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333 05:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Crossguard lightsaber annoys me because the crossguard serves no real purpose in lightsaber fighting. If they got into a saber lock and the other guy's saber slid down to the hilt, it'd just cut the crossguard's emiter off rather than actually be trapped there. X Stickman (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Could always jab it into somebody--Miekal 12:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
re crossguard : Unless the emitter housing was made out of cortosis or some other lightsaber-resistant material. Compro01 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
In which case, why didn't they make the whole cross-guard out of it? That way it will be also less likely for the user to lose a thumb.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Because this is the same Force tradition that thought creating the means to their own temporary demise was a excellent idea, not using Sith Alchemy to make EVERYTHING on them resistant to Jedi lightsabers was utterly rational, and that the name "Darth Bane" was a great idea.--Madman (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)The Madman
My take on the crossguard thingies - combination corn cob holders and cookers. The corn cob holder seems utterly non-existent in Star Wars, and I say it's bally well time that they were introduced, what.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 03:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's strange that the internet has jumped all over the crossgaurds and ignored everything else going on with that lightsaber. Example, the blade(s) look like road flares as opposed to being coherent beams. Also why does the lightsaber not make the characteristic "hum" sound? On a separate note, why the hell has speeder bike technology devolved to the point where it looks like you're riding a giant bar of soap? --Inquisitor (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
For the same reason that speeders went from the slick design in episode 2 to the clunky and similar looking design in episode 4.Greatnecro (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you couldn't get speeder parts by episode 1: A New Hope (the prequels are episodes 0, -1 and -2) because all the tech was geared towards building the Death Star. On the same lines, I'm wondering why the TIE fighter design hasn't changed for the new film. Maybe it's set in an out-of-the-way backwater where the tech is old and dated, just as in WWII Britain and Germany had jet aircraft and Malta still had biplanes. SophieWilderModerator 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@sophi
I beleive I read somewhere that was the intention of the original films, that everything was old and degraded. @everyone else: you people should stop watching films if you can't stop sucking the fun out of everything AMassiveGay (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The lightsabers have had a less coherent look for quite a while in the EU, especially the comics. Some of them look kind of flamey like the one in the trailer does, especially the sith ones. Kit Fisto has a custom underwater one that shows up in the clone wars miniseries, as seen here. X Stickman (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Inquisitr: Thing is, Sith lightsabers are made with synthetic crystal components, which provide a stronger blade, but risk being less stable due to failing to precisely imitate the geological processes in naturally formed crystals. Also, the metals and materials that are lightsaber resistant are incredibly rare or difficult to acquire and generally make it impractical to form large portions of the saber from it (otherwise you'd think people would use this stuff as armor). I did not totally just look all this up two minutes ago. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
"otherwise you'd think people would use this stuff as armor", they do. a lot. actually. Lightsaber resistant material is rare in the same sense kyptonite is.--Miekal 18:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

While we're on Star Wars, this is sad news. :( SophieWilderModerator 22:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

But it was James Earl Jones who voiced Vader... |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die. 03:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure we coulda worked this voice in there somehow--Miekal 03:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
An actor's "lines" don't just mean words, there is a physical aspect which contributes to the character and Prowse still had to deliver lines (even if they were changed in the voice-over) when interacting with other characters. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease Moderator 12:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, George has his own special editionN7.Geth (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And now...[edit]

Pi to ten thousand places - recited by the Count from Sesame Street. Enjoy. SophieWilderModerator 12:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I love this quote from the comments: "Quite possibly the most stimulating, sublime and thought provoking monologue that could ever challenge so many artistic preconceptions on so many levels simultaneously. The absurdity of the narrative is balanced perfectly with an obscure, yet willful focusing of ones attention to the purity of the numerical cascade - the pinnacle of which must be the rapture at 4h33m42s. After this epic, beautiful and yet tragic moment, the feeling of tedium overwhelmed me where upon I decided to change the cadence of my nights entertainment, and masturbate feverishly over my sleeping wifes face and tits." Greatnecro (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Fun article for Sithis[edit]

Is it Ok if I make a Fun article for Sithis? I fell like I must for the glory of the Dark Brotherhood. NecromancerIf you will not serve me in life, you will serve me in death 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It would work best if you could find a real world subject to make it a parody of. Ikanreed (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ye olde bitcoin[edit]

A while back I read a collection of great anecdotes about bitcoin written as if it was a premodern currency, something along the lines of, "Verily I did tender Sam the Feeble Minded 300 gold pieces most true, in return he had sworn to grant me a device which, using the power of three lively hamsters would produce gold from the aether. Where upon immediately after recieving the device, here found to be carved of wax and held together by means of cat entrails most foul, and placing there in the most robust hamsters known to my family, two of the hamsters fell dead of exessive exertion and the third scampered off down a rabbit hole. I herby declare Sam the Feeble Minded to be not but a nave and scoundrel most scurrilous, be sure to barter for your means of aether gold production elsewhere." There where a bunch of these, but I can't seem to dig them up with Google. I might well have been linked to article through here. Any idea where I might have seen this? Maybe somewhere in the depth of Reddit? Marlow (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Drink game challege[edit]

Break out the microbrews, it's time to get tipsy. Watch this video in conjuction with Fun:Creationism Drinking Game:https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153427675984899&fref=nf NecromancerIf you will not serve me in life, you will serve me in death 19:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Better yet, read the comments and then settle down with a bottle of Old Crow for the night. Shadow of Lords talk 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fascist oppression[edit]

The capitalist system seeks to demonize oppressed minorities so that people will not blame the real enemy. It is necessary to fight for revolutionary rights and liberation for the oppressed groups in our society, such as immigrants, LGBT people and paedophiles. These poor people are so victimized by Capitalism and its oppression and need to be liberated by social revolution. We need to stop this capitalistic, fascist war on immigrants, LGBT people, paedophiles and other oppressed minorities (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange: was just looking up the source of: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." You could probably replace "America" with "UK" or "France" or ... Scream!! (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy mother of god, racist beliefs are popular[edit]

Is it just me, or have the worst kinds of racism just had the worst kinds of resurgence lately? I really can't understand what's leading people to rally behind others posting racial realist nonsense, and how unfair the mere existence of political correctness is. Is it just me? Ikanreed (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dunno. Some specifics or examples of what you're talking about would be useful. Do you mean racism within RationalWiki or within society at large? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Defenders of Watson on slashdot. Just ugh. Ikanreed (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
We have made it easy to be daring once again, easy to shock the respectable into displays of righteous incoherence. We've allowed various orthodoxies on race and "gender" to become sore spots that give rise to the same indignation that taking the Lord's name in vain once did. This was a serious mistake. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 15:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Nah, the neo-racists don't say the n-word because they think it's a magic word that makes you racist, rather than it simply being offensive due to the associated history of the word, and how it reflects a callous disregard for the feelings of others. They think that they're better than their pseudoscientific forebears, because they're not emotional about it, not understanding that they're exactly the same. Ikanreed (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'm hoping that what we're seeing is an extinction burst. Queex (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I see far too many young tech types going in for it. It's not just an old vanguard dying off. Ikanreed (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
(ECx2)I assume you mean on the internet, and by inference, society itself. I've been pondering more or less the same thing for the last couple of years: is the conspiracy believing reactionary (you can throw in racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, etc. too) mindset that appears typical across broad swaths of the internet representative of actual widespread beliefs? I've also felt a rise over the past year or so in the volume and mainstream coverage of these folks, but that might simply be a result of an increase in my interest. Something like Gamergate typifies precisely the fear of political correctness that Ikanreed refers to. The thing is, I think there's an economic explanation to the apparent rise in middle class white male reactionary thought. I've brought this up before, but the middle class white male is losing ground. Things like political correctness or rather mild critique of video game content are just visible examples of how formerly white male spaces are slowly opening up to outsiders, they simply become the lightning rods of white male ire. The problem is, work prospects for everyone are difficult, largely due to factors unrelated to political correctness: globalism, mechanization etc. Young middle class white men look at their fathers and grandfathers job security and salaries, earned through merit and hard work they are told, but see a precarious road ahead for themselves. No longer is a decent stable job just waiting for them, hard work may no longer be enough. Not only that, and here's the important part, but they are now beginning to be forced to compete for an increasingly thin slice of the pie with people who where, in their father's and grandfather's time, completely marginalized. It's that competition that drives these reactionary attitudes. The popularity of things like "racial realism" or Gamergate is do to their role in attempting to maintain the racial and gender homogeneity of white male economic spaces. The problem is they're grounded in bullshit so they can't get much traction in the mainstream world, thus the belief in wide reaching conspiracies. Why would geneticists reject the obvious fact that black people are inferior? Why would journalists at the NY Times refuse to cover the nefarious feminist assault on video games? It must be the JEWS/cultural Marxists attempting to bring Western civilization to its knees. The internet just amplifies the voices of the most marginalized sector of the middle class white male group as they're the ones with the most time and energy to comment. 16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
GamerGate isn't really that popular. It's just that its followers are really loud. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions? 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, not in the general populist sense, because most people couldn't give a shit about it, they have lives to live. But it's popular enough to spread to every corner of the internet where any idiots congregate. Ikanreed (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Idiots gunna be idiots. Unless we outlaw idiocy, but that means I'll have to be on the run for my entire life. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg It's dangerous to go alone! Take this. 23:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
No government body, no political party, and no politician in the USA is willing to take on the global financial markets and trade networks. These things essentially make the settled existences and life-long jobs that people had thirty years ago out of reach. No one has any concrete proposals to bring them back. The contemporary hard right feeds this vein of anger while advocating policies that actually make these problems worse. Some day, a terrible reckoning will come. The thing is, stable jobs and stable lifestyles are in fact legitimate things to desire. But having them will require a government powerful enough to act independently of the financial markets and able to keep out foreign manufactured goods. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It is people getting left behind in the current economic climate. In years past the US was on top, undamaged by world wars and bloody civil conflicts, so even the lowest class white male could earn enough for his family. While privilege would mean even the lowest white male was always set above the minorities and women in possibilities, pay and status. Now competition has opened up where not only are they competing with those groups, and they are not held down by social conventions, but what was higher wage manufacturing has moved to lower wage countries as the US attempts to compete that was different then when they (and their parents) grew up. As well as those who lived in rural farming communities being acquired by larger and larger farming corporations.
Now they are in the boat with everyone else. Compete, work hard, and hope for the best. You can’t screw around and get a pass because you are a white male, though your parent’s connections and your wealth now have the biggest impact. As social mobility in the US gets harder because of income inequality they blame the people different than them in misplaced rage. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately equality is a zero sum game. In order for marginalized groups to gain ground, someone has to lose some of their privlidge. There was a similar uptick in white rage during the 1960s as southern blacks had their status lifted by the civil rights movements. Letting black people ride at the front of the bus didn't have much of an impact on upper or even middle class whites, but lower class whites did lose some of their already marginal status, they could look at black people and say, "At least, everyone who matters thinks I'm better than them." The Republican party owes most of its contemporary existence to the populist anger that still exists among poor white people in the South. Who knows what nasty political groups will emerge from the contemporary social justice movement. Marlow (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about "zero sum". People giving up their right to be free of black people isn't equal to black people getting the general freedom of travel, e.g.. But it does involve giving up something, and entitled people will be aggrieved by that fact. Ikanreed (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it’s a zero sum as I don't think privileges are a positive. People had the privilege to inflict harm on a black person because they don’t have equal rights in the 1960’s. I think taking it away is removing a negative, where granting equality is something that should have existed in the first place. A net gain. Depending on what people do as part of social justice it can be good or bad as a name doesn’t change the quality of actions, or goal, done as part of it. So far it’s hard to find anything negative associated with it, | while it is easy to see negatives in reaction to it. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, the left's (and right's) obsession with subjective and tribal matters of social influence, to the point where we're talking about the economic impacts of free trade and global financialism in terms of "white privilege", is wonderfully helpful only if your goal is to exclude people from your audience. Who benefits from all the energy and argument redirected into a deliberately divisive, gestural politics about things that don't matter? Whether it's about racist names of football teams, or about securing the sacred right to brandish guns in public, who benefits from keeping people divided over such things? (I know, asking this question means I haven't been properly educated about how Very Important all of that crap is.) When people are postponing marriage and families indefinitely because the goddamned economy won't let them feel safe enough, you don't really need to be a racist to wonder who will replace the people like us that used to live here. These are legitimate concerns, and only people who speak the language of racism are addressing them. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
No. To hell with that line of reasoning. This was a people making the argument that black people are inherently less intelligent than white people. This isn't some framing thing about language. This was fucking harmful as hell racism. Ikanreed (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Defenders of Watson on Slashdot? (FWIW, Watson's an old man who says old-man things. I'm inclined neither to judge him harshly nor to gloat over his circumstances.) Now, what I'm trying to say is that we need a Left that can actually engage the "They took our jobs!" folks people and their legitimate concerns directly. (You're so fucking afraid for your goddamn jobs, and you think this is freedom? I wish these people were babies, so I could shake them.) But tribal identity politics is specifically not helpful in this context. Racism does tend to bounce back when people feel that their way of life is being changed by circumstances out of their control. They need to be re-oriented to see what the real problems are. But if being morally superior to them is your first concern, you probably aren't going to reach them with that message. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 21:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? It's not identity politics to call outright shitty behavior what it is. Let me reiterate, this wasn't defending Watson. This was "Black people have a genetically lower IQ", in the context of defending Watson. It's driving me nuts that this is a popular viewpoint on a non-stormfront non-freep website. Ikanreed (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I concur with what you say about anxiety. When people talk about privileges and the suchlike, there is sometimes a hint of "you're afraid because now we're going to take your job". I certainly feel dim feeling of disquiet, alienation, or tiredness when race/gender gets brought up. People who write about racism are seen as "coming after me". I see myself as "on the receiving end" of social change. There is a feeling that people arguing for equality are arguing against my security, that they just want the freedom to compete against me. These feelings are not justified or intellectually valid, and if I were unable to recognize this, I might be a racist of the type that is becoming increasingly common. I believe that if people examined their own motivations more, they would not be racist. However, the primary concern in debate often seems to be humiliating your opponent instead of convincing anyone. It is true, though, that sometimes you simply can't reach people and you can't just ignore them. You have to make sure that the ignorance doesn't spread.(Agrajag (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
My chief point is that these people aren't upset about losing "white privilege"; they're actually worried about losing the security and slack of the New Deal to the 80s world, with its functional government, more regulated economy, and collective bargaining in the workplace. These are legitimate complaints. Racists and similar malefactors have a message that plays into this. Their message is wrong and immoral but they at least are listening and responding. Some people on the Left have better explanations for what has gone wrong and how to fix it. But the Left is perceived as a hostile tribe, and reciprocates the feeling. The current Left spotlights doctrines like "white privilege" that announce they aren't listening. Predatory righteousness is part of the Left's message and image problem. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 23:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
But it's not just the security of unionized late industrial America that the white male middle class is losing, it's increasingly forced to compete for jobs with groups that just a few years ago were completely shut out. Whether you want to call it "white privilege" or not, white men are slowly losing their special status in the working world. Some people can see this as a move towards equality, a long term positive for society, but others seem blinded by fear and cognative dissonance. These people are, at least from my perspective, the members of the reactionary cluster of ideas that we see manifested on the internet. Marlow (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
But to what extent do you think that they can be reasoned with? My personal inclination is to believe that most can. I think that we all want a group of people to just completely trash - Gamergate, for instance, or these racists. But I can see myself taking slightly different decisions in life and being vulnerable to being sucked into one of those movements, and I would like to think that I'm a reasonable person. Dismissing them is not a good move - it will alienate them further and push them toward extremism. That's not a good thing. (Agrajag (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC))
There ought to be ways to reach them. With or without feminism, we might agree to agree that a single income ought to be able to house, feed, and educate a family that includes a full time homemaker and several children. With or without racial equality, we might agree that no one should be made to eat a great deal of excrement for the grace of remaining employed. The sheer terror involved in the threat of unemployment is unworthy of a free people. With or without the online social justice movement, we ought to agree that everybody ought to have the leisure and energy to contribute to churches, schools, and communities. Whether by design, by inattention, or by conspiracy, the contemporary left seems unable to communicate this message well. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
And you know... I'm done with slashdot. They just hit my limit. I can't take anymore of communities where racists are embraced as moderate, and being hostile to them is perceived as impolite. I need a place to discuss news without just having to see the worst people all the time. It's draining. Ikanreed (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Slashdot's readership is trivial these days (2001 slashdotting: 150,000. 2013 slashdotting: 2,000) so only the worst people even bother, everyone's left for pretty much anywhere else - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
But what news aggregators don't have absolutely awful communities? I mean WIGO here is moderately informative, but I want something that's got a largish audience to discuss news without the echo-chamber vileness of reddit or whatnot. Ikanreed (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty certain news aggregators only have articles and diarrhea (comments) anymore. I remember reading Slashdot when it was geeky fun until the cranks came. It is sad they have driven it that low. It makes you realize how many crazy people are actually out there without anything else to do but act like assholes to other crazy people. I guess it keeps these wackos inside and busy going from site to site to site. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Cranks and assholes can muster and sustain a level of energy that no sane person can compete with. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's shocking that people on the internet are so openly racist since people with these opinions would be rightfully shunned if they expressed them in public so they vent on the internet. About kids though there are many unhappy teens at the schools I've attended that tend to be looking for some radical social change that they feel would improve their lives and to help define themselves by going against the mainsteam by expressing highly unorthodox and offensive views. Nothing has changed, many young adults turned to the radical left in the 60's/70's to accomplish this but now that the far-left appears to be discredited after the fall of communism in both Russia and China (albeit in different ways) they've turned towards utopian ideologies on the political right that would serve them such as extreme libertarianism, reactionary ideologies, white nationalism, etc. I've noticed that libertarian students of today sound very similar to Marxist students in the 60's in their extreme idealism, paranoia of the US government, and "silver bullet" solutions but with "nationalize it" just being replaced by "privatize it". ClothCoat (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Just so. We've allowed multiculturalism, certain aspects of feminism, and racial equality to become priggish orthodoxies. People have learned that they can provoke disproportionate reactions by posing as racists or sexists. This creates a set of perverse incentives, and creates an environment in which racism suddenly becomes daring and interesting. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 16:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Deceased man believed God would cure him[edit]

Woman keeps dead husband's body for six months.--Cms13ca (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just waiting for that one in 2000 years occurrence. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging Moderator 22:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, he was consistant in giving the management of his life over to god. I wonder why god failed him. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
God didnt fail him, he is now in Valhalla drinking Mead (prove me wrong) l-) Hamster (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fred Phelps' mantle taken up[edit]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/06/kill-all-homos-pastor-its-the-governments-job-to-execute-gay-people-video/ So what do you think? Troll or actual bigot? NecromancerIf you will not serve me in life, you will serve me in death 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither, I think he's a homosexual trying to come to terms with his sexuality. Why do I feel these things, I MUST BELIEVE HARDER! ...at least I hope, I hope no one is really that bigoted. Samstr (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bad Religion[edit]

How the fuck do we not have an article about bad religion — Unsigned, by: ‎N7.Geth / talk / contribs

You need to specify it first unless you can make the article yourself! LEFTYGREENMARIO 06:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
For the record, we have one about Greg Graffin, but I ignored it too long and it got moved to Funspace because I was lame and didn't make it better. Let's go ahead and make one! Bad Religion is one of my all-time favorites! Noisemobile (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's the rockband, lol, I thought it was literally bad religion ^^' Well, if it fits with our mission statement, then go for it. LEFTYGREENMARIO 06:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Rejoice, for /pol/ is at last dead.[edit]

It's official, as per Moot's post. Now, I suppose they have to dump all the Nazis somewhere.--Madman (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

8chan? Also, anyone holding a betting pool for the establishment date of 16chan?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
They'll just go to other boards and stink up the place. They came from /news/ in the first place, which was shut down for the same reason /pol/ has presumably been shut down. X Stickman (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I always thought they only kept /pol/ around to keep them away from /b/, /k/, and /v/. --Revolverman (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe the KKK keeps racists out of your cooking class, but that doesn't mean you have to host them in your town rec center. Let them meet elsewhere. Ikanreed (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This Chick tract[edit]

Is it just me, or does it have some really unnecessary asides? "But Mama, I'm not a virgin" "Will he rape the queen right in front of me?" --Tanis (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Must resist Godwin's Law with Haman.--Madman (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman
I don't know about unnecessary asides, but I noticed the tract's glaring omission of the Talmudic injunction to get blitzed:
Excessive drinking is actually an obligation on Purim, to the point where one cannot distinguish between "Cursed be Haman" and "Blessed be Mordechai"!
Also haman taschen, especially the poppy seed ones. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
What Chick Tract doesn't have unnecessary asides? Jack Chick is the king of ADHD.NecromancerIf you will not serve me in life, you will serve me in death 22:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Aha, this gives me a good idea, post your favorite chick tracts! My personal favorite is [Angels?]. Who doesn't love a rock band with such inspired lyrics as, "We're gonna Rock, rock rock, rock with the rock."Samstr (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Last Generation. Absolute craziness that results in hilarity. http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp NecromancerIf you will not serve me in life, you will serve me in death 00:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
As a proper Halloweenie, my favourite Chick tract has to be Boo! What wonderful dialogue! Who can resist the sheriff saying, "'Tis the devil himself", or the tortured soul in Hell who says, "You rat" to Satan? Classic! Spud (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Still confused on how he managed to get the domain Chick.com before a porn service. NecromancerIf you will not serve me in life, you will serve me in death 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget that, how does he afford enough for a mobile version of the site?--Madman (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Nassim Haramein's new IndieGoGo campaign[edit]

is gloriously stupid. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions? 20:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty baseball (that's an inside joke)Samstr (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
$37,176 raised towards a $150,000 goal when I looked. Holy spitball, Batman! I've got royal Nigerian relatives who can work wonders for much less than that.
Only $37k so far? sheesh, just – sheesh. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
But it's flexible funding, so he will get all the money collected even if he doesn't reach 1.5k.
Protip: Flex funding = slimy-ass motherfucker. Like, 95% of the time. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet. 00:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
xD, I think that rule definitely applies in this case. Samstr (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Roger Schlafly is a raci... errr....has issues with non-white immigration to the USA[edit]

"We do have an immigration policy that appears designed to repopulate the country with non-whites. Do our political leaders really believe that this is necessary in order that the whites be saved by the non-whites?" 71.206.109.108 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Who? SophieWilderModerator 21:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's the less crazy, less political brother of our conservapedia dictator-in-chief friend. Still crazy. Just less. Ikanreed (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. I seem to have been around so long that my Post-Conservapedia snark doesn't work anymore. I know who Roger is :) SophieWilderModerator 23:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I got that one if it means anything to you. :) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I got it, but only after you said. Woohoo, the moderate voice for this discussion!--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 11:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
What's a "Conservapedia" indeed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How serious are we about picture IP?[edit]

I guess even asking this in the first place would make any lawyer working for the foundation go "No, you can't do that, especially with aforethought to the law!" but here it goes anyways. If there are images that go around the internet more than a little bit, are they okay to upload to the file namespace to link in articles, or do you like to be very stringent about IP law a la wikipedia? Ikanreed (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the fair use images uploaded here don't even have the template. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If it's an image with an identifiable owner, we should honour that (even if people elsewhere on the internet don't). I.e. we should avoid using it, or only use it within a proper fair use context, or should seek permission from the copyright owner to use it otherwise. If it's something memetic like a lolcat that's all over the internet without any known copyright owner/status, then we're probably OK to use it. What is it you want to post? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I just want to include the old "RARRGH NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MURDER MILLIONS/All I want to do is kill all the jews, you have some growing up to do" cartoon on some pages, maybe tone argument. Ikanreed (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
What a fantastic idea. That will definitely appeal to adults. You might even attract some new editors interested in missional material who were delighted by the poignant window dressing. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. That's the whole point of tone argument as a page, nutty. Chill. Ikanreed (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"Fair use" laws differ from country to country. For example, "fair use" is a term which doesn't exist in British law ("fair dealing" is the same sort of idea, but different in lots of ways).
Ask yourself these two questions. (1) Am I ripping the author off? (2) Will the author mind? If the answer to both is "no", go ahead. But, always give credit where it's due. Sez this retired IP lawyer. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a US charity with US servers, so RMF is covered under US law. Individual editors are liable for their actions and edits, e.g. if RMF were sued for my actions from the UK the proper thing would be for RMF to say "nope not us, sec 230, go sue that idiot David directly" and they could get me under UK law. (Sec 230 is quite good for a wiki because Wikimedia has gotten a case thrown out at summary judgement stage using it, so it seems to hold as written. Of course, that's no reason to be complacent. As I noted, being able to establish general good practices helps a lot, and Wikimedia's are superlative. OTOH, they're much harsher on fair use than we are to do what we do.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
If you're in doubt and feeling nervous - ask the author for permission, I can think of some who would be only too happy to see their creations uploaded or linked into RW. (If otherwise decent-seeming authors ask for money, post their names here so that we can deride and avoid them.) ProblemChimp (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Scenario #1. "I would like to thank fine public-spirited citizen AB for permission to upload this image {RW link}".
Scenario #2. "Yanno what? that dipshit CD refused me permission to upload this image {non-RW link}."
And yet some say that no publicity is bad publicity... ProblemChimp (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I asked, and got permission, from Mike Stanfill to post some of his Far Left Side cartoons with attribution. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving Moderator 10:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a lawyer, but (a) extensive experience at the sharp end of Internet copyright threats from the likes of Scientology (b) extensive experience at Wikimedia (c) on the RMF board, so this is actually my problem ... [puts on board member hat]
I've worried slightly about this, because we have a metric arseload of screen captures with no tagging whatsoever, and a lot aren't even linked any more. Basically every single one should have at least the fair use tag and claim.
The key thing about fair use is that it is a defence in a copyright claim. i.e., that if we get sued for copyright violation, we can say "bugger off, obvious fair use for discussion in the public interest, away with you" (in proper diplomatic legalese). Putting a proper fair use tag on an image says "no, seriously, I'm going to defend my use here, and you can't claim in good faith that you didn't know this."
As an educational charity, we can get away with really an incredible amount on this score - discussion of the material in the public interest, evidence of a controversial claim in the public interest, no commercial interest, etc., etc. Fair use can be up to 100% of the material being reproduced, and we can claim that for quite a lot of what we have up IMO. I would go to bat for quite a lot of the important stuff we include 100% of, particularly when the creators seriously object to us doing so (because of course they would).
That said, we (which has so far not included "I", or it would have started already) need to go through basically all the untagged images, see if they're in use and nuke them if they're not. Because due diligence gets you a long way if you want to defend some other piece of fair use that is actually important to you.
I'm pinging the board to think about this and comment too - it is a bit important that we have our ducks in a row on this one - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
is there a way to modify the upload page such that a license has to be picked? Do all the bots automatically put on a template?
And, yes, of course we're serious about it. Sterile (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)the
I'll see if there's a way to force it, but of course we can't force people to properly fill in FU, and Capturebot2 doesn't (and I don't have the keys to whatever box Capturebot2 runs on, and not breaking Capturebot2 is important) - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to defer to David on this, since I have no expertise in this matter. I do think it's important for RationalWiki to make it clear that, fair use excepted, it seeks to respect others' copyrights as much as possible. I can start sorting the untagged and unused images as soon as finals are over this week. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Even fair use should respect them, i.e. "this is copyright xxx as far as I can ascertain, and I assert fair use because yyy". But basically, good sense will get you a long way here.
Nutty, you're a lawyer though not our lawyer. What are your not-our-lawyer feelings on this sort of thing?
(I'll note the other thing to be cautious of, as we were when the Kent Hovind suit was still not dead, is that even defending against frivolous rubbish will waste lots of money, time and energy, so having our fair use noted properly is important.)
For going through them: most of it will be screen captures. (Most of our images are screen captures.) Any that are just not used anywhere should almost certainly go. Any that are used but aren't tagged should be (I am guilty of more than a few of these) and we'll benefit from a list. The rest of the FU, we should make a list and go through it ... well, someone should ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that screen captures of content that's actually being commented on are better candidates for a claim of fair use than the window dressing that many uploads are. I don't think there's anything to say about this other than that we ought to be diligent about ensuring that all claims of fair use have non-frivolous justifications that go through the elements relevant to that analysis. I haven't done any IP in a long time, so I don't recall what's relevant. I don't know if our template goes through the relevant elements for a claim of fair use.
I just had a quick look at the API and it looks like one can query parsed comment text using prop=imageinfo. We'd want subsets of a list generated by querying for every single image on the wiki — 1 for comment fields that contain a REGEX calculated to get to "fair use" and derivatives an 1 for all images that have no license template transcluded from the comment field. I wrote a script that pulled every single link from every single mainspace article a while back for the dead links project (only a few hundred left from the old list *cackle* and thanks for all the work guys). I would love to say I have time to write a similar app for this problem but I don't. I've literally never been busier in years. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)