RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive236

This is an archive page, last updated 14 February 2015. 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>, <235>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

She's Back

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/03/christian-homeschool-mom-returns-this-time-audits-zoo-using-her-unique-brand-of-stupidity-video/ I'm starting to think we're going to have to create an article for this walking lobotomy.Necromancer^{If you will not serve me in life, you will serve me in death} 01:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

When I saw "She's back", I thought you meant Margaret Thatcher. That was really scary. I think I may be neurotic.(Agrajag (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

Where did she originally show up? Samstr (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

She was in WIGO Clogs last month: "Megan Fox (not the actress) demonstrates she does not understand evolution."
Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, she's insane. I look forward to a biology lecture from someone who has never seen the word "eukaryote" before.Samstr (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

For a split second, I thought you were talking about the actress. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Here we are now, entertain us} 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt either of them know how to pronounce eukaryote. But at least the actress doesn't go around trying to poke holes in evolution. I started watching the first few minutes of the video and got to a point where she basically pulled a "Why are there still monkeys?" and lost strength for the night. This is going to take a long time to get through. Samstr (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@@Agrajag 'When I saw "She's back", I thought you meant Margaret Thatcher.' You bastard, I may get nightmares. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I was born too late to remember the dark years when Reagan and Thatcher ruled the world. Too bad I still have to deal with the legacy left behind by voodoo economics. Samstr (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Essays

Does anyone read them? (Agrajag (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

I am not sure how often people do but I do sometimes out of curiosity and seeking inspiration for discussion topics for group meetings I am involved in planning. Arachne1988 (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Usually after/while they are written, if the essay has a catchy enough title to attract my attention in the Recent changes. (Which makes the habit of some people to keep tweaking their essays long after publication quite annoying.) Also note that the most regular contributors (as opposed to visitors) don't seem to read many articles either, outside of their editing efforts.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Aaah, ZooGuard; I usually read them before they are written. Scream!! (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

English is not my first language. :) What I meant to say: "Usually while they are being written or as soon as they are published, if..." --ZooGuard (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Whenever they crop up on recent changes, to be honest. Some have terrible opinions. Ikanreed (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Could have fooled me. I've often wondered if ZooGuard isn't a native anglophone expat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ye gods ZG! I'd never have guessed (That English wasn't your first language).

I also thought ZG was a native speaker of English, until I found some discussions in which I found out he was Bulgarian.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 20:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I look at essays when they come up on RC - most often, unhappily, to laugh - only occasionally to really appreciate the effort. Scream!! (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So I found this.

Somebody wrote a petition to the Obama administration to "Urge 'Pants Up, Don't Loot!'" It even has "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white". Joy. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember #PantsUpDon'tLoot got enough crowdfunding to get a billboard in Ferguson. брэндэн (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about stealing your thunder. I think this deserves a note on the clogosphere. Samstr (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS on female slaves

This seems to be getting some traction: ISIA 27 QA's on captured female slaves

But I'm not sure it's legit as it's picked up WND and the Daily Mail. But it looks believable. Is it?--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

MEMRI are a legitimate organisation but - and it's a big but - from Wikipaedia's entry on them

“”Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions.

—[1]

Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

On further research there are those that claim that MEMRI - ...according to its critics, it is also a dangerous, highly sophisticated propaganda operation, disseminating hate and disinformation on an unprecedented worldwide basis.

So, maybe not quite the reputable source they say they are. I would treat their translation with grave circumspection. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

One question and a comment. (1) Does MEMRI quote the so-called Islamic scholar who authored these answers, or do you have to purchase the subscription to get that info? Comment: Question 11 presupposes female property rights, being that a husband cannot have sex with the slave of his wife cause she's somebody else's property. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 20:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

All I know about it is on that link. You can get past the subscription request to read the article. They maintain they are translating a document "Su'al wa-Jawab fi al-Sabi wa-Riqab" which I understand internet search engines may provide more information on. It gets quite a lot of hits actually with the most mainstream I can find being this Newsweek one. But even that goes back to the MEMRO source.--Weirdstuff (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally these leaflets began appearing in Gaza very recently demanding women put on the burka, etc; considering neither Hamas nor Fatah have sworn allegiance to the Caliph, their origin is somewhat suspect. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 22:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How to essay

Could someone link the article explaining how to create an essay please? I can't find it.Necromancer 15:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Err.... go to Main Page - from there go to Essay Portal and, from there click on "Create New Essay" button. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Err.... go to Main Page - from there go to Essay Portal and, from there click on "Create New Essay" button - and find it directs to an empty page. Ooops! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Third time lucky - go to Main Page - from there go to Essay Portal- fill in name of proposed essay and click on "Create New Essay" button. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, this is why I was asking. Thought I could post it for some constructive criticism.Necromancer 15:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we call Israel an Apartheid state?

The recent news from Israel is troubling. I know Netanyahu is about to be out but this recent development of Israel only giving it's citizens "Jewish rights" is troubling, it will only increase strife and even further marginalize the nation's Arab population along with other oppressed minorities. The West Bank literally has bus discrimination at this point </http://www.presstv.ir/detail/383707.html, I hope the rest of Israel doesn't follow.BlackProg (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

De facto, they've been an apartheid state for a few decades now. Whether it's true de jure is mostly superficial. Ikanreed (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

YOU'RE NOT GIVING OUR ALLIES ENOUGH SUPPORT HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ISRAEL ARE YOU AN ANTI-SEMITE?!!!!1111!!!1

-In case it isn't obvious on its own this is a joke and is not representative of my actual opinions opinions. Seriously though I honestly don't know how people here keep letting Israel get away with shit like this. I can sympathize with having a Jewish state, a sort of homeland (although I do think its a quaint notion, ideally I think all nations should be completely secular), but nowadays Israel seems increasingly aggressive and segregated. I really can't stand squarely behind Israel when Palestinians seem so oppressed.Samstr (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The first part of your comment is actually common. I've literally had people call me a Nazi because I am Pro-Palestine.BlackProg (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Palestine isn't a stable state with a positive government history. I'd be much more likely to identify myself as anti-Israel(the government of, not the people therein) than specifically pro Palestine. That stance can seem even more antisemitic, but really, I'd forgive them the moment all their citizens(and born residents) have the right to vote in their own national government. Until then, they're just another backwards, repressive Middle Eastern nation where an empowered upper class of cultural insiders gets special privilege and favoritism over disempowered minorities. Ikanreed (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately both nations are repressive. Personally I think it would do the world a lot of good if nations didn't have official sanctioned religions at all, not the abolishing of all religions, just no religions that are officially supported by any nation.Samstr (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, Palestine has never been allowed to form the strong middle class needed for democracy by the Israeli's petty sanctions. Israel's foreign policy is in essence, a bratty child saying "you can't have the same toys as me!".

Do they forcibly segregate those that are not Jewish? If not, I don't think think we can call the an apartheid state. We can definitely call them a racist state tho.Necromancer 02:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

[2] seems pretty segregationy to me.Samstr (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Arabs in the West Bank cannot ride the same buses as Jews, they living under military law instead of civilian law that Jewish Israeli's live under and face obvious employment discrimination. It's pretty segregationy to me as well. BlackProg (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

PressTV is known for it's antisemitism. Can I get this from a non Iranian source?--Madman (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC) The Madman

No problem, here you go man. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/204744-kerry-is-wrong-israel-is-already-an-apartheid-state Baecardi (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Baecardi BlackProg

Finally done with finals!

Woot! Now I can vandalize Conservapedia articles all day! Necromancer 02:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And in case Ken or anybody from the Los Angeles Times is reading this, RationalWiki does not orchestrate, encourage or condone vandalism of Conservapedia or any other website. Spud (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Except the secret cabal who maintains WP:Goat(note I am not a member, and I'm blowing the whistle) Ikanreed (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on getting finals out of the way, I hope you get the results you want!

No way would I ever suggest that anyone vandalise CP: that would go against the whole idea of what wikis are about! The one time I tried to do so, I foolishly bragged about it on here and deservedly got a rapid ban. My IP block seems to have been lifted, but I'm not sure I could ever be arsed to have another go at that tumbleweed plantation. I get more fun out of reading and adding to articles here. ProblemChimp (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the WP:Goat cabal have an entry in Wikipedia:List of cabals? I wouldn't feel qualified to write it. ProblemChimp (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Megan Fox nuttery reaches criminal levels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRtLsSZeGU&list=UUUTBvu9NrpVQFiICTu3-dvw So Megan Fox has actually started spamming a library with these requests. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws against that sort of thing? Necromancer 02:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if there were a law against it, there's a part of the constitution protecting it: petition for redress of grievances. In this case the grievance is too much factual material at the library. Ikanreed (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? I could only watch a bit before feeling sick. Things shouldn't be shut down because the village idiot realizes they cannot understand what's and it invalidates their views based in ignorance. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure they can't throw her in jail for it. They can make sure she never, ever gets what she wants, though. Ikanreed (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the local law. I have seen it once where some one has been thrown in jail for harrassment if they go wild filing lawsuits and generally impeding normal operations for a long enough time. It wasn't for very long either unless it kept going. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I meant that as a de jure "can't" not a de facto "can't". Ikanreed (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

True. If stupid lawsuits were illegal the jails would be much more over capacity than they are already! I am of the opinion that a stupid suit or two is just a fact of life, but a large number is a criminal waste of resources and bad stewardship depending on who files. The law is different if the claimant is an attorney (instead of a crazy person) and can result in fines, jail time, and disbarment. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Individuals can in fact be declared vexatious litigants - David Gerard (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

When I first heard of that, the fellow called it being an "unproductive litigant," and gave the impression that it was a UK-only thing, maybe Commonwealth, idk. Context was "wouldn't it be cool if we could do that here in the US too." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Vexatious litigant" is deffo a part of English&Welsh law: if a senior judge gets seriously pissed off with a serial nuisance, then the troll has to get permission from the court before being allowed to launch a new action. IDK if the same applies in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or in other countries. It's a damgud idea though, so long as only senior judges can make such a declaration, and such a ruling can be appealed. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's law in a few states at least.--TiaC (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's rare, thankfully, but every case I've ever heard of has been richly deserved - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a relationship between querulous paranoia and vexatious litigation. Not every vexatious litigant is mentally ill, but there's definitely a relationship. Some people ruin their lives trying to right some perceived injustice sometime originally very slight. As they meet with a less and less receptive legal/arbitration system and their lives disintegrate as they alienate their friends and family with their monomania, they develop an increasingly broad paranoid worldview which incorporates each person or group who fails to realize the ever broadening persecution. It can go from some minor bank error to a global financial conspiracy over the course of a few years. Marlow (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh, I always thought of vexatious litigation as more of a civil penalty than criminal. I have seen it where one woman actually went to jail for lawsuits, calls, mail, and even coming to submit complaints. I think it was the first time in state history in a place known for its kooks. She certainly had querulous paranoia and more energy than sense. It is sad to watch a life be destroyed by that kind of illness because there is nothing you can do to help them. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sea Health Plus

Do we have an article about this? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ProSwastika.org

ProSwastika.org, a website that promotes the swastika as a symbol of peace and not a Nazi symbol. Aside from the alien woo, what do you guys think? (Also, a lovely crafts product.) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What's there to think about? It's correct. Spend any time living in India and you'll find rafts of people who don't think of Nazis when they see a swastika. Hell, I used to have swastika milk on my cereal. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly it's a little bit sad that the symbol has become connected with something so horrible. Before WWII it was fairly common to see American sports teams with swastikas. All that being said, as long as it is a symbol of something so horrible I think we should avoid it whenever possible. It is definitely reasonable to be offended by the swastika in modern society. Samstr (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If by "modern society" you mean first world countries in the West and other regions where memories of WW2 run fresh, I guess so. Eventually one has to recognize that not all cultures can be expected to part with one of their ancient symbols due to some other guy half a globe away co-opting it. Nullahnung (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am kind of sceptical of attempts to "reclaim" the swastika. In cultures where Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism etc. are widespread, the swastika has never stopped being used & never lost those associations so there's nothing to reclaim. As for usage in Europe & America, it was never very culturally ingrained. Aside from appearing on some artefacts from the ancient world, it was really a 19th and early 20th century revival for things like sports team emblems, more kitsch than cultural. And given its subsequent adoption by the Nazis, plus the fact that it continues to be used by neo-Nazis & in other antisemitic contexts, I don't see what's to be gained in trying to revive that kind of general non-religious & non-political usage. It's a neat symbol, but that's not enough to erase its indelible associations with one of the most brutal regimes in modern history. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but in a globalized world, you still want to educate people so that, for instance, a Korean Buddhist used to see swastikas on roadsigns for temples, isn't lumped with neo-nazies if he gets one in his house. Also, it would be nice if Vietnam tourist guides didn't have to defend their swastika each time they get their visitors near a Buddhist site.--dx (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

the high commission of India in central London is daubed with swastika to the offence of no one as far as I am aware. Considering the sizeable Hindu population in London and the UK in general, I see some merit in 'reclaiming' the swastika. To be honest, the kind of poeoplke who use the swastika for their Nazi beliefs and people using it with no connection to the Nazis are unlikey to be confused. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

They're unlikely to be confused as long as the people using the swastika are people with a cultural connection to it. But sites like ProSwastika & Reclaim the Swastika seem to be encouraging people with no particular cultural connection to the swastika to just adopt it as an emblem for the sake of reclaiming it. For example, from ProSWastika.org, here a photo of people posing in swastika formation in a pool, presumably just because they like the symbol & want to revive it. But how is any onlooker supposed to know that? Especially as the swastika formation in a pool is already a well-known TROLOLOLing meme (example). Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the 'news' links on the site appear to feature the Raelians. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 16:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough it is the Chinese motion picture industry that now is portraying the swastika as a symbol of safety and security in no less than two recent films, The Rape of Nanking and City of Life and Death. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 17:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ark Encounter update

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2014/12/10/ky-grant-ark-park-tax-incentives/20207341/ So apparently they got their state tax incentive revoked after they made it clear they wanted to hire on religious grounds. BTW, the billboards mentioned in the article are hilariously stupid. Necromancer 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Manosphere and pornstars

I was watching a Machina video on youtube (yeah I know it sucks but I was bored) and it was about Sasha Grey and I noticed in the comments section a seething hatred of her from the MRA crowd that even had hundreds of upvotes about how "immoral" she was. I had a quick look around the awful parts of the web and noticed that hating female pornstars is actually really common in the "manosphere" which struck me as odd since many of them also admit to watching porn and are the target audience for it (young adult males). I was just wondering if anyone else has noticed this and why do they seem to hate female pornstars even more than most women when they have zero issue watching porn themselves? ClothCoat (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

They can't fuck them. They can't fuck any women because they're rotten to them. But they definitely can't fuck porn stars, who I think are somehow particularly sensitive to being treated poorly. Somehow. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be because some of the big female pornstars are also intelligent and savvy businesswomen and when they also have opinions of their own MRA/manosphere types can't cope. I guess it's the "shut up and be sexy"-effect kicking in. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy how well you played off the innocent card in this post. "I had a quick look around the awful parts of the web and noticed..." Face it, you were looking at internet porn. --NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 13:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Who says you can't study while polishing the gun? Especially if you're studying something *ahem* interesting. Samstr (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Polishing the gun", eh? Is that what the kids call it nowadays? --Madman (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

What I call it anyways, among other things. I support gun rights!!! xD Samstr (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol Believe it or not I wasn't actually. I actually don't watch much porn, I was mainly going off of comments on the MRA side of YouTube and some other manosphere type places. It just struck me as such a bizarre hatred to have that I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed it. ClothCoat (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

MRAs will always find ways to hate women. Maybe they don't cater to men's wishes enough, maybe they cater to them too much or maybe they just make men feel uncomfortable by simply existing. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I hate the MRAs. Now they're even giving opposition to porn a bad name. And they're a bunch of fucking hypocrites. (Agrajag (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC))

It's a result of the MRAs' cognitive dissonance that arises from the conflict between their absolute hatred of women and their sexual attraction to them. That's why some wanna go their own way. Still waiting on that GTOW part, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Them going away won't do much good if they still have an internet connection and a keyboard. If anything they might become even more disconnected from reality. ClothCoat (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There are differing views across the so-called manosphere on porn, porn stars & sex workers. One factor is that many of these guys' ideal of the perfect woman is a sort of meek & submissive housewife - pretty much the opposite of a porn star, especially the celebrity/cross-over ones like Sasha Grey. Another is the belief that (modern) women use sex as currency to get what they want, so I guess women who actually have sex professionally are seen as the archetypal example of this behaviour. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

intelligence Authorization Bill

http://pastebin.com/W5BpTzme

Let me guess, the government is so Benevolent, that such a bill will go PERFECTLY...--P.S. (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Some congressmen really seem to like expanding presidential powers. Dunno why. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This.

http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-1.htm This is making me consider taking up drinking. Necromancer 18:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if crazy people recognize the oddity of bolding three quarters of paragraphs. Then again, I'm the worst serial bolder/italicizer on rationalwiki, what am I saying about myself? Ikanreed (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And that is just the first chapter. Here's the rest: http://evolutionfacts.com/Handbook%20TOC.htm Necromancer 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Lyell published his Principles of Geology in 1830-1833; and it became the basis for the modern theory of sedimentary strata,—even though 20th-century discoveries in radiodating, radiocarbon dating, missing strata, and overthrusts (older strata on top of more recent strata) have nullified the theory." No it hasn't. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My personal favorite is when they say that Biological Evolution is founded upon Larmackism and spontaneous generation. At least they get it right that both those were discredited. Necromancer 21:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@@Necromancer I recommend taking up drinking. My brain started to hurt shortly after opening your link. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, this thing is stupid enough to not even warrant a refutation. I think this guy is fractaly wrong. Samstr (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh but please. Refute a point. I want to see how that goes for you. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I take it back. That is one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It has so many mistakes, examples of cognitive biases refuted historical claims that it reads like a parody. Obviously it isn't but it should be.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The funniest line is from the comments page. "Note: To those folk who like to use this service to send foul language, ridicule and death threats; you will get no response--(of course most of you already know that because you are too cowardly to include your real email address) Please note this fact--every time you do this, you are confirming Bible Prophecy because in 2nd Peter 3:3-7, we are told that 'Scoffers' shall arise and what they will 'Scoff' about is Creation and the Flood and that this is a sure sign of the end of time and approaching judgment. So realize that you are confirming the Bible in a very real way!" Juneathan (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Two MST3K stars to riff a movie at atheist convention

Trace "Dr. Forrester/Crow T. Robot" Beaulieu and Frank "TV's Frank" Conniff will be riffing a movie (which one currently unknown) at the American Atheists 2015 National Convention in April, in Memphis: http://www.mst3kinfo.com/?p=18874 . Both of them participate in the thread; although Frank is a very outspoken liberal, he says that "I'm not an atheist, but I am a devout blasphemer." Interpret that as you will. Trace remains playfully coy on the subject of his own beliefs. Thanos6 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That will be hilarious; hopefully there is a way a to view it outside the convention. I wonder what it will be-one of these, God's Not Dead, Left Behind (the Kirk Cameron one), Tribulation-rapture movie paranoid about virtual reality, Persecuted (2014), Ten Commandments or something else. I personally am hoping for Image of the Beast-it might be less known now, but it is the most ridiculous in its series which was the start of that genre of bad Christian, sci-fi horror fanfiction about the rapture. When I showed it to my boyfriend, he said that it seems like the type of movie that MST3K would do-horrible special effects, bad acting, absurd plot, and overall weirdness-worse than Left Behind-linking to youtube video of one odd bit with the Antichrist. Arachne1988 (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming Michael Nelson isn't invited? Burkean (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

BnBn's edits

Now there's nothing wrong with making repetitive posts to talk pages, and then not following up on them, other than it being moderately annoying, but I'm still kinda tempted to make an auto-edit filter that prohibits edits consisting of a topic, followed by a youtube link, followed by no more than two sentences, because it is clogging up recent changes right now. Am I overreacting, and should just let them get bored and go away? Ikanreed (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously interested only in linkspamming, blocked for a few days - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully he will get a bit more under control. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a bit perplexing to me. Does (s)he really think that a couple of poorly made youtube videos will convince us? It's not like we haven't seen these sorts of videos hundreds of times before and debunked every major argument.

I have a mental shortcut that youtube links are anti-citations that make your point less reliable, with the possible exception of documenting that a thing occurred on video. I sort of had that before, but seeing drive-by posters on rationalwiki has turned that to a strong presumption. Ikanreed (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to watch them, even the quality ones. At least with scientific articles, I can scan it, get to the meat, and decide whether I'm interested enough to devote more minutes. MarmotHead (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

They can be effective if your point is that the video is wrong. For example, if I wanted to debunk homeopathy, I could link this, and it would help show how insane the pushers of it are.--TiaC (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It would only "help show" that to a reader who's willing to sit through an 8 minute video based on a short comment you've made. Whether "your point is that the video is wrong" or the opposite, what you're asking of the reader is the same. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

People like this tend to believe that the "truth" is so compelling that it's basically self-demonstrating, so they don't have to do anything but present it in order to convince people. Their fallback position is that the people who don't believe them are shills / sheeple. It's a worldview powered entirely by raw smugness. As for getting rid of the links, I don't think anything of value is lost, and IIRC leaving them might lead to google counting them as referrals and promoting the sites in search results (that's what I always figured those page-making spam bots were for, anyway). Keeping them is just going to make the talk page look like there's far more support for these ideas than there actually is. King Skeleton (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to try & reach some consensus on how to handle these posts as there have been a lot lately, mostly NWO/illuminati related and sometimes in big blocks. Some of us (myself included) are inclined to delete these as spam, while others (Nutty, RNS) have been undeleting them. There have been conflicts over this (see here, here & here). ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in just leaving those posts on the talkpages and summarily ignoring them. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sick of the same group of people arbitrarily deleting comments. There's nothing wrong with "drive bys" posting something they want others to see. WIGO:CP sees a fair number of "drive by" comments. IP editors are theoretically welcomed, although it seems to me that's not remotely true in practice. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment sounds suspiciously patriarchal to me, Nutty. You should be punished. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Just make sure to call me an MRA or the like. Hey my buddy gave me his grandpa's Borsalino fedora. He very well might have worn it while entertaining Al Jolson after a show at the theater he owned in Toledo. All these terrible symbols. It might as well have a swastika on it. I guess that makes me extra awful, right? Nutty Roux (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never found any harm in leaving such posts be. If you don't like the fact that they appear to be drive-bys, ignore them. How hard is it? Meanwhile, we used to have an ethic on this site (which was treated as a generally accepted guideline) where we didn't delete talkpage comments unless they were A) obviously malicious or B) we could tell they were obvious spam. Also, with the Nofollow extension, it isn't as if we need to worry about attracting page hits to cranks and spammers. So, I'll restate, what is the actual harm (aside from personal inconvenience that is easily avoided) in keeping said posts on talkpages? Noisemobile (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to just start removing Mikal's rights and blocking him when he thinks his judgment is good enough to tell us a "drive by" isn't up to snuff. Like there's any big difference between the horseshit some of you assholes post and what you disagree with. Nutty Roux (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with keeping the posts, at least for a while. All things considered BnBn has been fairly polite, clearly completely batshit insane but polite nonetheless, they haven't actively vandalized any articles only talk pages. If we ignore him/her long enough they'll probably get bored and eventually leave. Samstr (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure anyone cares, but he is socking to do the same shit again as User:InsomniaManiac - EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As above, he's not causing any problems, nor does he want to edit mainspace articles, just their talk pages. Compared to many we've had her he is but a minor irritation in our free speech society. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I would give a heads up. This conspiracy nonsense he is spouting is almost 2 decades behind the times so it's not like it's more than funny. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

D.C. Clothesline

Exactly how reliable is that site? It has such articles as:

Top Adviser To The Chinese Government Calls For A “Global Currency” To Replace The U.S. Dollar

OBAMA CALLS FOR COLLECTIVIZED NEW WORLD ORDER

And

Five nations forming their own world bank: Is this the new New World Order?

So, who runs this site? And how reliable is it? Who is it affiliated with?--67.5.232.125 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's got more nutbags than America's gross annual consumption of mid-flight airline snacks. Other stories include alien life on Mars, the nuking of Chicago in 2015, claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax, the toxicity of vaccines, etc. The website doesn't look like it's original writing -- mostly aggregating news from a variety of known conspiracy sites (InfoWars, The Daily Sheeple, PrisonPlanet) and their authors. So to answer your question: A) likely a vehemently anti-establishment conspiracy theorist who probably doesn't care enough to at least organize his posts, B) nearly entirely unreliable, and C) nobody, although the page's author seems to be very fond of other conspiracy sites and writers. Noir LeSable (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

All right. Thanks. I have a really paranoid personality, but I'm starting to come to the conclusion that life-changing crap like this on such an obscure website is obviously B.S. I'm PRETTY SURE mainstrewam media would talk about setting up a world bank, or switching to a world currency, or a one world government, EVEN IF they're controlled by some secret society. It shouldn't be that hard to pass it off as a good thing by these guys right? I mean they have the capability to fool everyone and be more competent than the CIA, while acting like The Riddler (Putting their million symbols everywhere as clues).--67.5.232.125 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What, everyone knows they don't allow you to post anything on the Internet that isn't true. --Ymir (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Daily Sheeple" Is that like The Onion for conspiracy theorists? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there an archive of instances regarding hilarious butthurt persons in the pseudoscience category attempting to troll this wiki?

I'm relatively new, but can someone name any memorable instances of, say, a creationist or climate change denier attempting to do such? Or link me to a list, if it exists?

Thanks. Juneathan (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I remember someone who threatened to sue this wiki. LEFTYGREENMARIO 03:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Rationalwiki:Pissed at usбрэндэн (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, babe. Juneathan (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, look at the fossil record of any talk page of any article of sizable length and scope. example. Ikanreed (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Forum (yes we have one) is currently being flooded by assholes - it's good for a lark! Space Turbo (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't let the anti-choice crowd find out about this

most birth control methods increase the likelihood that any pregnancies that do occur will be ectopic. I can already see how people are going to use this to justify a brand new strain of "Birth Control causes abortions" nonsense. If they were the kinda people who care about science, I'm guessing it'd already be in the news. Ikanreed (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Enlightenment ideology has been found to have major problems see here

That means you can tell people the facts and they won't "get it" tragically. The human brain is much worse than we thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.38.60.35 / talk / contribs 08:28, 14 December 2014‎ (UTC)}

At last! A voice of reason and rationality on this site.. 78.147.164.89 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I could tell this video mostly discussed how humans reason and perceive the world. What this means is that we can't solely use logic and evidence to convince people of an argument. If that is all you are trying to say I will agree with you wholeheartedly, if people could be swayed solely by evidence and logic there would be a lot fewer young Earth creationists (I'm sure that many would still remain because they simply haven't been shown a fair analysis of the evidence). If, however, you are arguing that we should abandon rational thought because of this fact I must disagree. I don't think there is necessarily a problem with enlightenment philosophy but more how we present it. That's the beautiful thing about the truth, it's true whether or not you believe it.

The philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment (Hume, Smith, etc.) were ahead of the game, then, because they said the same thing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Atheist Terrorist Groups

Do these even exist? I mean, unless you count the numerous acts of terrorism committed in the name of communism, I can't seem to find any.BlackProg (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I know there was anti-clerical action taken in some central American countries but I think most of them were, as you said, commmunist. I know some so-called "radical liberals" instituted anti-Church measures in Porfirio Diaz's Mexico but I don't know if it was violent or necessarily atheist. ClothCoat (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty non-religious terrorist groups around, some of them openly rejecting religious thought. But they usually group together under the banner of nationalism, socialism/communism, anarchism or environmentalism. I guess they don't find atheism alone sufficiently motivating as a cause. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist in favor specifically of atheism? No, of course not. There's no point. Atheism just doesn't make strong claims about how things should be. Terrorism is a thing that comes from strong motivations. Terrorists who are' atheists? Almost certainly. Nothing keeps us from having strong motivations about other things. Eliot Rodger, for example, was an agnostic. Ikanreed (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I just find it so interesting that apparently the SWAT police across the nation were practicing drills and one was "Atheist terrorist group takes over Church or something". I'm just like "this wouldn't happen".BlackProg (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

care to place a hypothesis to be tested? Ikanreed (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Atheist terror group?? What is the likelihood that a group of people united only by the lack of a single supernatural belief could ever become sufficiently organised to form to form such a group? It's pure fantasy.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Its my birthday

GIVE ME MONEEEEEY ^{— Unsigned, by: N7.Geth / talk / contribs}

Merry birthday. Nullahnung (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've just developed a new cryptocurrency called ikankurrency. I'm delivering the entire market of it to you. It's embedded in this hash "aGFwcHkgYmlydGhkYXk=". Don't spend it all in one place. Ikanreed (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. You are now one year closer to your inevitable demise.

Sorry, just not feeling it today. --Castaigne (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

С днем рождения брэндэн (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Beatam diem natalem annumque completum tibi spero. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Outsider science

I see where pseudoscience and anti-science fit into the RW mission, but what about outsider science (as in "outsider art")? There are people making well-meaning scientific proposals who aren't professional scientists. Prime example: Alternative cosmology. These people don't seem to be cranks in that they aren't making crazy conspiratorial kinds of claims. Even if their arguments are sometimes (often?) unfounded, they're not anti-science (maybe odd-science). Do we cover them or just wait 'til they make big waves by saying/doing something crazy? MarmotHead (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Amateur scientists definitely can and have made a number of observations (one of the largest areas is the identification and discovery of new asteroids). I certainly don't deny that but I don't think its really relevant to our wiki's mission. We already discuss things like credential bullying which I think are more relevant and connected to this issue. I think the bigger problem is scientists who think a degree in one field makes them an expert in another, that's where all of the more silly and stupid arguments from authority come from. Samstr (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If they can get it peer reviewed, published and generally accepted then it's science. If they can't then we would hardly be in a position to support or even comment meaningfully on them. Reviewing alternative science is simply outside of our remit and would simply attract cranks. In the case of alternative cosmology we may already have done so. What next? Alternative gravity? Alternative magnetism?

And if go down the road of alternative science - how can we object to alternative medicine?--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's not notable unless they are pushing crank positions. The example that comes to my mind is amateurs or other laypeople making archaeological finds on or near the surface. This then gets analyzed and incorporated into research. Nothing really notable there, unless said amateur is now claiming that the finds are actually evidence of aliens or something. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. If I develop cold fusion in my garage, it's irrelevant until it reaches the world as, say, a conspiracy theory or a scientific revolution. Thanks! MarmotHead (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There have historically been lots of amateur scientists who did mundane work in natural sciences, most of which is probably redundant but whatever, we have plenty of space on the internet for all kinds of pictures of weird beetles or clouds or whatever!Calamondin (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Snowy brain?

Break out the Santa hats! Unleash the snow! The holidays are right around the corner, and the brain in the corner is just itching for some snowy action. Do the magic! ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ In Soviet Russia, the dazzling catamite passs YOU! 04:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who can do images can do the Santa hat, it doesn't require sysadmin magic - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have snow. Michigan is currently engaged in a brown Christmas.Necromancer 13:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

we had snow in wisconsin, but it melted yeaterday ;-( , maybe a white xmas yet though. Hope everyone has a good new year. Hamster (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Attack of the lunatics

I must say that we seem to be getting more than our usual share of lunatics posting here at the moment. Or perhaps just one who is legion.

While I was a little irritated at first I am now really starting to appreciate the comedic value of some of this nonsense.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I post so much. Ikanreed (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of fun but talking to a nut is like talking to cleverbot. The crazier and less turing capible they are the easier it is to point out their ideas are nuttier than squirrel poop...but the less likely it is for them to realize it. Then it is down the rabbit hole or they run away giving very little satisfaction. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, but I'm off sick at the moment so it's giving me some mild entertainment between coughs.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, that sucks. Hope you feel better soon. I can say it is fun to do when at home feeling like crap and on cold medicine. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :-)--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the latest round of cranks is that none of their nonsense is fresh. I'm an admitted crackpot junkie, and my tolerance has gotten too high. I need the pharmacy grade pure uncut crazy. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not enjoying the constant NWO/illuminati WAKE UP posts. I'm sure they must all be coming to us from somewhere (e.g. RW being mentioned on a crank forum recently or something) but I haven't been able to figure it out. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

We were mentioned on Free Republic AND The American Thinker fairly recently so I'm assuming that's it. ClothCoat (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Have the levels really been that different. Can we get a decent p value for any objective definition of "lunatic"? Are these people drawn to rationalwiki because we're so in their face about disagreeing with them, or because they perceive our skeptical attitude as secretly aligning with their craziness of choice? Honestly, I get more questions than concerns when it comes to this sort of thing. I don't actually understand them. Ikanreed (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the point in this wiki?

I have seen a lot of wikis in my time, but there are none so worthless and useless as this! I mean what the hell is this? What is the point of this wiki and what does it aim to achieve? ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.167.196.109 / talk / contribs 16:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)}

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

We have 8,048 articles for your enjoyment. Ikanreed (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That information really should be put somewhere obvious. At the moment it's hidden away as the first thing you see on the main page. I can understand our IP editors confusion.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to point out how ironic it is that the user who answered the OP is named "I can read". Abed Nadir (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, this is a wiki? 94.1.131.150 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's actually an intergalactic space monster posing as a wiki. Common mistake. Ikanreed (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

..."there are none so worthless and useless as this..." Seriously? You haven't seen many wikis, have you? :-D Refugee^{talk page} 20:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll have you know that wookiepedia, memory alpha, friendswiki, and wickerpedia provide an important service Ikanreed (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not as important as RationalWikiWikiWikisWiki. Sophie^Wilder 21:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that goes without saying. Ikanreed (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

as long as we stay better than timecube. wikis have points ? Hamster (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Not another disciple of Dirk Steele. Yahoo! 78.147.164.89 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This wiki was created by godless liberals that wanted to corrupt the minds of young internet users with evolution, communism, atheisticamist oppression on America's god given religious rights, and science. Juneathan (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I will endeavor to use atheisticamist all over the tubes from now on. 94.1.137.43 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions?

I can't be the only person who thinks that our current article on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is terrible. I've drafted another article, User:Brenden/Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and would appreciate any feedback. брэндэн (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to favor yours as well. Conservatives aren't wrong all the time. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Superiority of masculine characteristics

People say stuff like "Real men don't abuse women. If you don't understand and strive to apply self-control, you can't claim masculinity. Self-control isn't a specifically masculine trait, but it is a component for any claim to masculinity. Having a penis is no more a feat than being born a certain skin color or in a certain location, and is thus not a measure of value or character in itself."

So basically, the subtext is, masculinity is superior to the alternative; therefore, you should strive to have those qualities that together comprise masculinity. What are the alternatives, though?

Femininity? So then, the qualities that come more naturally to most men are better than the qualities that come more naturally to most women?

Gender-neutrality? So then, the gender-neutral are inferior to the masculine?

Stereotypically gender-appropriate characteristics? So then, effeminate men are inferior to masculine men?

Or is this referring to a specific kind of masculinity, namely adult masculinity? This implies that either (1) a man is superior to a boy in general, or (2) those who have the body of a man should also have the mentality and behavior characteristic of men.

So it ultimately boils down to either a sexist, cisgenderist, or ageist theory, or an exhortation for age-appropriate behavior.

Why not just cut to the chase and say "good people don't abuse women"? That too, though, oversimplifies things, because goodness and badness of a person are not binary; they're more of a spectrum. So one could just say "it's bad to abuse women" or "it makes you a better person if you don't abuse women" and leave it at that. Landmartian (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If anybody dared say anything like "If you don't understand and strive to apply modesty, you can't claim femininity. Modesty isn't a specifically feminine trait, but it is a component for any claim to femininity," I'd wager there'd be hell to pay. And of course there would be: it's an obnoxiously officious and judgmental thing to say. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 05:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Who are these people who say these things? Any examples? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

People who are selling something? If someone says, for example, "real men eat steak," you can guess what that person is selling.

There are people who think themselves as big masculine men, and pointing out that punching a smaller person who is not likely to fight back can bruise their ego. Which seems like an appropriate use of shame for people who like to think of themselves as big tough guys. The rest seems a bit off by generalizing to "people" based on zero people actually saying anything about that...and asking a bunch of questions based on statements no one made. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not appropriate, as it deprives them of the basic right of self-defense. --Someon (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that this is a saying, not some kind of law. It's not appropriate, but that's not the reason. Ikanreed (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a PR oriented phrase designed to appeal to people who have obsessive ideas of masculinity, and to appeal to the insecurities that implies. It's sexist as all hell from a number of different perspectives, but the people it's aimed at are also sexist. There are a number of phrases of this sort that target bigots through their bigotry. I can't speak to whether any of them actually succeed. Ikanreed (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia in atheist circles

I've seen a lot of Islamophobia from a number of atheists. For instance in this video Jaclyn Glenn, who is normally fairly sane, essentially claims that all Muslims are extremists, then of course you have [Dawkins] and at some point I remember Bill Maher saying that there isn't enough criticism of Islam in the United States (which seems absolutely ridiculous given how the media portrays Islam). To me it seems like they have much more ire towards Islam than they do towards Christianity. Why is this so acceptable in this community? I highly doubt I'll ever convert to Islam (or any religion for that matter) but I don't think believing in Allah inherently makes someone a radical, sure the Koran has some fucked up shit, but so do the Bible and the Torah. Samstr (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's my impression that most Western athiests talk more about Christianity than about Islam as it's the religion which most Western people are most engaged with. Indeed, I've heard the opposite complaint - the many western athiests are too soft on Islam or ignore it.

However, while Christian fanatics are more likely to be involved with getting Creationism taught in schools or whatever, Muslim fanatics are more likely to be involved in killing people. So when criticism of Muslim extremism is voiced it perhaps more likely to be more intense.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 14:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, the only difference between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists is that, in the countries where Christian fundamentalists usually operate, the rule of law is often strong enough to clamp down on their worst impulses. And when that's not the case, you get what we have in the less developed parts of Africa, where you still have literal witch hunts. (And that's not even getting into Uganda's track record on LGBT rights.) Likewise, when Muslim countries have the rule of law (as in Turkey and Malaysia), you still have cranky fundamentalists trying to push their religion on everyone, but they do it in much the same way that the Christian Right operates in the US -- through ballots, not bullets. KevinR1990 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's simple really, all people are fully defined by the subset of similar people who make the news. Clearly no further examination of facts is necessary beyond that. Ikanreed (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason why many Western atheists are islamophobic is largely the same as the reason why many Western Christians are islamophobic; Islamic culture is seen as inherently inferior and morally reprehensible compared to Western culture (specifically Western modern (secular) society or Western traditional (Christian) society). In the case of atheists, their islamophobia may seem like a logical extension of their general anti-religious stance (and to some extent, it can be), but when you look at the generalizations made about Muslims and the whining about some Muslims not dressing according to Western dress norms, it's quite clear that the perceived "problem" isn't the religion, but the people and their non-Western customs. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's even simpler than that: bigotry is easy. It takes no work at all, mentally, to just hard classify people and be done with it. It takes work to treat groups of people as diverse individuals. Ikanreed (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It also takes exposure and immersion to help overcome preconceived ideas, so if you are already bigoted against a group you are much more unlikely to spend any time with any members of that group. Instead you are much more likely to spend time with the people who hold the same views as you, and so you can end up reinforcing your own prejudices. Add in the fact that humans just love to form tribes and, well, yeah…-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a moment and acknowledge that rationalwiki is one of those tribes. There. I've acknowledged it for the sake of self-awareness; I'm now going to go right back to off-handedly dismissing entire categories of arguments and beliefs. Ikanreed (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't an atheist by definition be considered Theophobic, Christophobic, and Islamophobic? As identity politics goes, Islam isn't really in the same group as blacks, women, or gays. The only thing that identifies a Muslim is their belief in a sky-daddy and fairytales. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 02:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Atheism, as most atheists define it, is simply a lack in the belief of a God. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily make someone oppose religion as a whole or any religion specifically. I don't think many atheists really fear Christianity or want to prevent people from practicing it, we just don't hold the same beliefs. Samstr (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, but there's a lot of militant atheists that want to eliminate any public display of religion. While on one hand we have people putting those coexist bumper stickers on their cars and pushing tolerance and diversity, militant atheists are like "I don't believe in God and I don't want to see or hear any of that religious crap." DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 14:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ugh please use better language, they don't want to "eliminate any public display of religion", just the parts that are so egregiously contradictory to the secular government that we were supposed to have! The fact lawmakers are constantly trying to shove Christianity into peoples' faces ("In God we Trust" is the most crappy and worthless example of mandatory religion ever, and all those 10 commandments statues are ugly as sin) has nothing to do with the popular perception that there are any militant atheists period. Radical ones, sure, that is a thing they are literally being. Calling them militant is ludicrously misleading. Calamondin (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember something Christopher Hitchens once said that I rather agreed with. He basically stated that Islam is more dangerous than the other two monotheistic religions in its finality. All three religions make grandiose and absolutionist claims. However, Islam is different in that it claims to be the final revelation, that is, no other words from God could ever happen that would be able to change the Koran. I might not have put it so eloquently as he did but I think the point is there. A religion that claims that nothing new will come after it, that nothing can change the message, seems to me, to be a rather dangerous one. I would also argue that increased islamaphobia in atheist circles may have to do with the reality that we live in a culture (Western countries) where Christianity is, for the most part, under control and non-violent. What we see is a radicalized Islam in the Middle East and a recent history of terror attacks by radical islamists. Frankly, it isn't surprising. Ayzmo^Cheers 22:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense, but it makes more sense to focus specifically on radical Islam. I would imagine that in general many Muslims ignore many of the more...unpleasant...parts of the Koran particularly in the United States. I don't think the real problem is so much the religion as religious governments that not only allow Sharia Law but actually govern from it. Samstr (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that many atheists are islamaphobic, as such. Criticism of Islam is legitimate: it is a system of beliefs that is often brutal ("faggots in the fire of hell", anyone?), espouses immoral practices that cannot be conscienced in a rationalistic worldview (aggressive war, slavery, polygamy), and factually incorrect. A surprising number of Muslims do support violent actions "to defend Islam from its enemies"(Pew), and saying that extremist groups represent an entirely negligible portion of the world Muslim population is flat-out wrong. Also, the widespread support expressed in countries such as Egypt and even Turkey for Islamist parties has to be noted. Stating these facts cannot be considered islamaphobic; they are facts, and phobias/racism are/is by definition irrational. However, there is a vast difference between criticizing religious beliefs and noting trends in the worldviews of a group and the disturbing view of Muslims expressed in much of the American media and by many members of society at large. Most Muslims disregard the more distasteful aspects of the Koran and actually do practice Islam as the religion of peace that it is often claimed to be. This shows their strength as individuals - they are overcoming the brutality of their holy text and developing positive worldviews despite it.(Agrajag (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

In my opinion the really dangerous thing is the mixture of politics and religion. I know that Islam does have a disturbing number of people who approve of violence, but I think a lot of that comes from modern culture and a fairly justified anti-American sentiment. Historically Islam hasn't been more violent than Christianity, indeed with the crusades it seems that Christianity was more prone to violent extremism. In that sense I don't think it is just the religion, it's also the culture and how that culture interprets religion. Multiculturalism is a difficult subject but I guess my rule of thumb is, my tolerance extends as far as your tolerance for others. Tolerate all but intolerance. Samstr (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Tolerate all but intolerance". I can't agree with that. Tolerating others can't be the sole measure of moral rightness. I agree that it's a pretty good yardstick, but it isn't the sole arbiter of anything. Sure, you should accept people who wear funny hats and sing strange songs and all that (you should really celebrate it), but there is a limit. Something can be wrong even if no-one's forcing it on anyone. Burka bans are wrong; so is polygamy. Of course, the government/the rest of society can't stop people from doing certain immoral things if those things don't hurt others, but it/we can still condemn them. I do agree that Islam's mixture of politics and religion is to be expected - when a lot of people believe something, it becomes political pretty much no matter what. Islam itself isn't really to blame for it, and I'm sure that Christianity/Judaism/the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be just as bad if they had the grasp on society in the West that Islam does in the Middle East.(Agrajag (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC))

I think it's more a rule of thumb. I don't think any moral rules can truly be applicable in all situations. I just like it because it's something my Father said, and something that I thought was very insightful. As for the second part that we both seem to agree on: that's why separation of church and state is so incredibly important. I can't say the world would be better off without religion, but I think it would be a hell of a lot better off without religious governments. Samstr (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a growing schism within the atheist movement/community (such as it is), including within RationalWiki, over attitudes towards multiculturalism, and Islam in particular. It's not getting as much press/blogging attention as the schisms over attitudes to feminism (elevatorgate etc), but it's there nonetheless & draws on many of the same blind spots. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of a few things. One being a trickle-down effect from Hitchens and others cribbing neo-con talking points in line with Hitchens. Another is a superficial knowledge of geopolitics. Basically, they try to apply "Religion bad! Smash!" to complex political issues and it doesn't work out so well. A third is the overzealous dismissal of any criticism of Islam as Islamophobic, which in turn leads the atheists to dismiss real Islamophobia and not being able to separate legitimate criticism from xenophobia and crankery. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Normally this would go to the talk page but since it's relevant to this discussion what about Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I've tried to place her under the "Islamophobia" category but there's a very, um, energetic user who fervently defends her and hates my guts. As far as I can tell she walks the line between "critic" and "crazy" so I thought she belongs under both categories but I don't know what would you guys consider her? ClothCoat (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Never read anything by her, but her connection to AEI raises my eyebrow. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

She has experienced Islam in ways we cannot imagine. This entitles her opinion to some weight, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's actually kind of sad, she was given the cold shoulder by all the liberal activist groups for telling the truth about radical Islamic cultural practices and could only get a job...at a Neoconservative think tank? Hilarious, way to support humanity, liberal fools! Calamondin (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we have to make shit up about Muslims to criticize them. There's enough legitimate criticism already. Necromancer 02:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And here's the problem: you're criticizing Muslims and not Islam. Often people do that by extrapolating statements about some Muslims to all Muslims, and that's a problem. There's not one thing you can tell me about all Muslims besides that they believe in Islam. Ikanreed (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This ^^^^ 192.231.234.1 (talk)

There's a great deal of Islamophobia throughout the West because, well, we've always been at war with Easasia. The Atheist community - whatever that means - is no more immune from this than any other. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Islamophobia in atheist circles - I've seen a lot of Islamophobia from a number of atheists." Gimme a break, that is anecdotal flame-baiting one-eyed nonsense. "A lot of", "a number of" - oh, come off it, that is classic weasel language. And, what, exactly, please, is an "atheist circle"? please elucidate, I've never heard of any such nonsense. Don't just post a cherry-picked video or two. One of the innertube cesspits I visit (Yahoo Answers - Religion & Spirituality) is infested with (self-styled) Christians criticising atheists for not being islamophobic enough. I'm calling Poe on OP here; I hope I'm right, the alternative is truly depressing. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That Yahoo Answers page is a gem. I haven't laughed that hard for about a week. Seriously. (Agrajag (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC))

"Jaclyn Glenn, who is normally fairly sane" - unless sprouting forth about how awesome Thunderf00t (or the Amazing Atheist, I forget which) is, how bad feminism is, and how awful Muslims are. I used to watch her stuff, until I realized that she'd just another vacuous bobblehead, with no credentials at all, making money off YouTube videos, with the ever-more reprehensible Dawkins as her little fanboy. PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 12:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not that atheists are a bunch of sexists. But a number of prominent atheists have either said some unfortunate things (Dawkins) or tuned out to be full-on sexists (Thunderf00t and the Amazing Atheist). I would expect sexism from biblical fundamentalists; I would expect it from New Age earth-mother bullshitters. But from rationalists? Many of the Gamergater people were sane enough to be discomfited when Colbert denounced the hashtag. One even said that he expected Neil Gaiman to insult him or Edgar Allen Poe to rise from his grave and hit him. These people are often "people like us" (to briefly get tribal).(Agrajag (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC))

Atheism isn't really about rationality, more like skepticism? Anyway there are tons of sexists around apologizing for anti-feminism. Calamondin (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose sane is more or less a relative term. Most of her videos are about how stupid fundamentalists are but she certainly does hold a lot of questionable beliefs including her strawman caricatures of feminism and Islam. Also she's apparently a gun nut... and she does seem to like the Amazing Atheist... So yeah I guess she really isn't all that sane at all. Samstr (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki would be an example of a (largely) "atheist circle" and it's not hard to find examples of Islamophobia - propped up with such platitudes as "there's no such thing as Islamophobia" or "Islam isn't a race so criticising Muslims can't possibly be racist". Just take a read through talk:Islamophobia for plenty of examples. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Islam isn't a race so criticizing Muslims can't possibly be racist". How is this wrong, exactly? (I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this, but whatever)TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When it's functionally indistinguishable from plain old ethnic discrimination, as in the UK - where the neo-Nazi groups have suddenly decided that hating Muslims is a safer and more marketable option than hating blacks - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an apologetic strategy that seeks to represent islamophobic claims in a non-racist light, meanwhile downplaying the xenophobia and Western supremacism (which are quite similar to plain old racism) inherent in many of them. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Geez, this is the same sort of contorted conspiracist reasoning one finds in reading jihadist publications. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 23:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's wrong because it's a simplistic attitude that gives racism a free pass when it's cloaked in superficial concerns about something other than race. In case you haven't been paying attention for the past forty-odd years, overt expressions of racism have become unfashionable. But this doesn't mean racism has just gone away. Look beneath the surface at the implications of Islamophobia, or birtherism, or immigration panics, & there's frequently a lot of implicit racism passed off under the guise legitimate social concern. But of course, you can just pretend it's not racism if you want to since nobody is talking directly about race. That's how dog whistle politics works. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So if I criticize Islam it's because I'm harboring racism? I'm confused. Is it only in certain situations?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No but if you do it in a way that sounds like Fox News then the chances go up that you are. Criticizing Islam needs to be done with a great deal of awareness, much like criticism of Christianity works best when hasty generalizations are avoided. There is a great deal of internal conflict within Islam-many Muslims are fighting against ISIS and burning the ISIS flag was a thing Lebanese Muslims did. I think it is important to remember that both violent and peaceful Muslims are true Muslims. Terrorism must be considered in light of how we have behaved towards them-they are indeed immoral for their actions but the US and Israel suck for killing civilians and committing other abuses. Human rights violations are a more serious problem where Sharia law is enforced-most victims for these are Muslims and ex-Muslims. Arachne1988 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think at least at this site that talking about Muslims in the same way that Christians are talked about would be considered "racist" then. Plus, there are plenty of white muslims, and the majority of Muslims are South-east Asian. Associating criticism of Islam with racism is basically based on the conception that they're all "brown people" (doesn't even matter if they're one race or not) and therefore criticizing an aspect of their lives is racist. Associating a race with a religion, though, is actually kind of racist in and of itself, since you are assuming that a certain religion is an inborn trait of that race.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not doing that, we're really playing off the bigotry of the people who support Islamophobia. Think about it, when Republicans say "thug culture", we know they're talking about black Americans but are too cowardly to say it. When people criticize the Muslim "terror"/etc, we know they're talking about Arabs and other Middle Eastern groups. It's nothing more than dog whistle politics and hidden racism.BlackProg (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No what I was saying is that awareness and qualifiers need to be made when we criticize groups so we do it accurately. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Islam or criticizing Muslim extremists, but you have to be clear about who you are talking about and that you do not treat Islam like it is a monolithic bloc or make No True Scotsman fallacies. The death cult vs religion of peace thing is a false dichotomy. Neither is true. We criticize/describe fundamentalist Christians and liberal Christians on this site in very different ways and are clear on those, and the same should be true for fundamentalist Muslims and liberal Muslims. There is nothing wrong with saying that Sharia law is bad and hurts Muslims, but acting like it is coming to the US to take over is just insane. Saying ISIS is bad and run by some Muslims is correct, but denying that so very many Muslims hate it and oppose it is ignoring the facts. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has some religious motives, but it is fallacious to act like that is primary and has nothing to do with the foolish decision to give Jews already inhabited land. Islam has problems but the specifics are complicated and need to be described without use of hyperbole/logical fallacies. We can even be mocking and snarky about Islam, while still being honest. Arachne1988 (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• As much as it pains me to say atheists have a good argument on something, Islam is probably one of the best things for a militant atheist to use in argument against religion; I think most of the world would agree that terrorism committed by radical Muslims is a detriment to society. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 14:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Militant atheists. Fucking lol. Since you're talking about detriments to society, let me just point out the obvious here: fundamentalist christianity is far more dangerous in the US, where we're in more danger of our children being raised to be morons incapable of critical thought and who believe the earth was created by a savage creep of a desert god 6000 years ago than we are of getting our limbs blown off. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

To say Islamophbia is cloaked racism is an apples and oranges argument; by the same reasoning one can extrapolate that un-Christian and anti-Christian (and maybe even atheist) sentiments are racist. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 19:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

People do it. Just as public examples, Andy Martin and Bryan Fischer have spouted off about how Obama as a secret Muslim because, well his name and his father. Not anything about what he actually does or believes, his faith, or his actions over any period in his history...since those are all lies. It just adds another layer to the "outsider" like a tribal fear of strange people. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we see your point; does that make Obama a jihadi or the proponent of beheadings and things people fear, simply because a guy who is not a Muslim was an organizer (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica) of Louis Farakhan's Million Man March? nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 20:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)!

Name the fallacy

Assuming that this is some sort of formal/informal fallacy. A snarky climate denier has linked this list of things caused by global warming. Obviously the intent is to say 'look at those stupid liberals, they blame EVERYTHING on global warming!'
For starters, while there are many silly items in this list, there are also many real and non-trivial items.
Furthermore, even assuming some people blame really stupid things on global warming, that doesn't undermine the data and science behind it.
Is there a name for this dishonest tactic? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Rnun of the mill non sequitur. Assuming you're correct in your characterization, the author's intention is to present the pro-science arguments as paper tigers. To the extent pro-science supporters do not hold these positions or they're misrepresented, they're simple straw men. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it's a gish gallop of red herrings. Ikanreed (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not even close and I see a lot of this kind of facile misuse of terms like this from you a lot.

Run of the mill non sequitur. Assuming you're correct in your characterization, the author's intention is to present the pro-science arguments as paper tigers. To the extent pro-science supporters do not hold these positions or they're misrepresented, they're simple straw men. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Run of the mill non sequitur. Assuming you're correct in your characterization, the author's intention is to present the pro-science arguments as paper tigers. To the extent pro-science supporters do not hold these positions or they're misrepresented, they're simple straw men. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it's a gish gallop of red herrings. Ikanreed (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok saw the list. Many items are arguments that have been raised, although I'm not sure how often or if they're raised by scientists vs. as extrapolations, which themselves may actually be appeals to adverse consequences. The author's list (This site is devoted to the monitoring of the misleading numbers that rain down on us via the media), being so long, is overwhelming. Although he doesn't bother to make any actual argument beyond this " misleading numbers" claim, it's akin to a Gish Gallop in the sense that it would be pointless to attempt to respond to such a large number of vague claims. Claiming that these arguments are false and then listing them as if pro-supporters advance such a huge number of bogus claims, the list is also implicitly an appeal to ridicule. These are all instances of non sequiturs.

I'd like to point out that I see the term "logical fallacy" get used incorrectly more and more, although I do recognize that it's become a colloquialism for "something's fishy here". Some may be informal logical fallacies; some are special or specific cases of actual logical fallacies. I don't get the impression that people who like referring to logical fallacies as a way to dismiss arguments rather an engage them or explain why they're difficult or unworthy of a response know what they're talking about. I sometimes see crummy ddbaters, like I've seen among some of our recent influx of editors, talking into an eho chamber and reinforcing their biases as they pile on. Things like The Gish Gallop are not logical fallacies at all. They're tendentious and uncharitable rhetorical strategies, which I think this list is best characterized as. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave an informal impression of what was wrong and you unleash a bunch of bullshit on me about how I'm contributing to the demise of the logical fallacy. I'd rather you didn't. Ikanreed (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point I believe your username is unironic. As to me alone, I've now seen you struggle with the truth and reading comprehension. There's no bullshit in my brief comment about you - just what did I "unleash" and where did I say anything about you contributing to the demise of the logical fallacy? Your problem seems to be the you don't know what these informal fallacies are that you casually refer to. I'll be happy to dissect one of your exchanges this weekend if you wish. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A. My username has always been ironic. I mean come on. What other interpretation is there?

B. Don't pretend it's not about me when you said, verbatim "You're not even close and I see a lot of this kind of facile misuse of terms like this from you a lot. ". I had a pretty damned good reason to say exactly what I did.

C. I know exactly what these damned terms mean, and exactly why I chose them. The page is just a big long list of distractions from meaningful argument. My impression, that I described as an impression was totally fucking reasonable.

You're a real piece of shit, you know that? Smug, and condescending, and over the pettiest goddamn thing. I was pretty content with MarmotHead's "not aligned in desire for precision" interpretation below, up until this "How dare you accuse me of exactly what I did"... thing. Ikanreed (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You two just weren't aligned in your desire for precision. I agree with Nutty that terms like "fallacy" are overused. It's a compelling word that sounds definitive, but isn't it better applied to the kinds of mistakes that can be well described using 'P', 'Q', '->' and so on? The Gish Gallop is just "P & Q & R & S & ... & I win because you didn't have time to address my alphabet soup." It's bullshit (to be imprecise), but not fallacious.

OTOH, it was fun imagining a bunch of sunburned fish galloping like Duane into the sunset. MarmotHead (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

One possible symptom of groupthink: my attempt to smooth over differences ... MarmotHead (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, about half these links must be to that bastion of scientific integrity the Torygraph. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Has the propaganda reached your town yet?

My local catholic church has been trying to raise awareness for a "free" (at the cost of your brain cells) movie veiwing at the local theatre. I dont have a problem with it, except for the fact that they keep getting students to put up flyers around my (public) school. The movie in question? "God's not Dead." Needless to say the name kept me away from it. But I found out that towns other than mine had this movie showing too. So it made me wonder if this was organized by a religous orginazation around my local area, or just a weird coincendence that all these local churches had the same idea for the same movie?^{— Unsigned, by: ‎LAN Megalodon / talk / contribs}

God's not dead probably just hit some point where it's availalbe for non-ticketed mass showings, like being out on DVD or something. It's an awful movie who's central purpose isn't establishing theological validity, but instead fueling persecution complexes. It shouldn't be condemned for having a stupid religious message, but instead for the viscous and hostile stereotypes it throws out. Ikanreed (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly it was a bit entertainingly bad, sort of like Troll 2. It's basically Atheist Professor: The Movie, so naturally it has one of the worst straw men atheists I've ever seen in my life. Samstr (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen it (not worth my money), but I heard both Christian and atheist friends talk about it a lot when it first came out. I am surprised it had not gotten to everyone by now-extremely popular because it is a rich source of confirmation bias for Christian fundamentalists-it supports so many of their unquestioned stereotypes plus an urban legend. There were a lot of reviews and commentaries I ended up reading on it-if you are going to read any I recommend the AV club, very mocking.

Worth mentioning, The God's Not Dead thing gets worse. They plan on making a sequel. Unfortunately, it will not be named, "God's Not Dead Undead: Zombie Jesus.Arachne1988 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So who can give the best sequel title? "God's still not dead." "God's not dead yet." "God rides again." --Weirdstuff (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How about a prequel? "God - Before Creation!". (It could be uneventful and rather long.) ProblemChimp (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Prequel? I an think of an exciting one. "Young God!" - the story of how a young super-being became involved in homosexuality, premarital sex, shrimp and making clothes from wool and linen woven together. How he then turned from all that and created a people who would be forbidden from doing any of those things(or anything else mildly enjoyable really). That could be quite exciting - though the weaving might need some spicing up.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how one would get involved in all of that, but it sounds like a weird German porno... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Germans, the most important question I have about this movie is whether the "God is dead" statement was ever explained the way Nietzsche explained it, or was it just left as a dangling phrase, left to be interpreted as the fundamentalist audience wants to interpret it. Ikanreed (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't explained. The bully atheist teacher just demands that all his students sign a declaration that "God is dead" in order to get a passing grade. I don't think Nietzsche or Thus Spoke Zarathustra are even mentioned in passing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is rather odd, it seems like a more atheistic standpoint would be "God never existed in the first place." I guess they never thought of that. Of course it isn't like there's anything about atheism that this movie accurately portrays. How the fuck did that professor pass any classes in philosophy? Isn't debating over things like God the entire point of a philosophy class? Samstr (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair the movies tactic of propping up a straw man of what others believe, projecting their issues onto it, and arguing to that would result in an F in a 101 class. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If we ever had a rationalwiki protest(about what, I dunno), I've now made up my mind that I'd burn a straw-man argument in effigy. Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just wish people would stop using it. I get so tired of people accusing others of things they have never said, and don't believe, because that is what the caricature in their mind believes. In my experiance all it does nothing but make the person who does it look like an asshole or a liar. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Many evangelicals do not understand what atheists actually believe. Too many of them can't imagine that other people can hear about Christianity and totally dismiss it. To them it seems like you can't cease believing in god so surely if you claim that you do then you must be really hurt and are mad at god. In conversations with friends in RL, many of us have been told by Christian family that being an atheist is "just a phase." Such short-sided views can't see that they actually have created a straw man argument-the straw man looks legitimate. Arachne1988 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing that seems funny to me about all of the chick tracts. Does Jack Chick believe that there are any Americans in the modern world who haven't heard the story of Jesus' life and the Crucifixion and all that? Samstr (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think he sincerely does. I grew up around independent fundamentalist baptists and they always made it sound like Christians were very rare. They describe the world so it sounds like hardly anyone has actually heard about Christianity outside the church, its missionary activities and affiliated groups. Christianity was defined rather narrowly, of course. There were a lot of very egocentric interpretations of what people outside their group believe and why they do. Their exposure to what other groups actually think is extremely limited. Arachne1988 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We all know that people who don't follow my particular sect aren't True Christians™, so it's necessary to preach The Truth™ to show them how they've been deceived by Satan. --Ymir (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Why the world is moving towards religious fanaticism?

Why is this? Why people are attracted to religion? --LobPo (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right - the US should invade right now! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering that some U.S. states still have (unconstitutional) laws barring atheists from holding public office, I have to agree: Send the Marines to Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas! Oh, and Scotland too, apparently, since it's specifically mentioned in the Indie article. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about Scotland: with its sectarian history, having a CoS and an RC representative on education boards makes sense to me. Neither will have an interest in promoting extremism.

Interesting that the Indie dug out a picture from something that happened five years ago to head its article. ProblemChimp (talk)

Well, I think we all need to understand that religion is generally more of a tool used to put people in line when it is mixed with government rather than a show of honest belief. It is a tool of oppression and deny belief in the state sponsored faith is to really take a lot of power away from the state. That is one thing I really hate arguing with other Atheists on, especially when it comes to the Middle East, so many of them are so quick to say" "Islam is the problem in the M.E" and I'm like "Really? It isn't the massive poverty, inequality, strict gender norms, authoritarianism, vestiges of European colonialism and imperialism, ethnic and tribal tensions or the amount of foreign aid given to "secular" dictators"?

Sorry, went on a bit of a tangent lol. TLDR: Religion is being used a political weapon in many of these places, as long as there is authoritarianism and a need to rule others, religion will provide a handy tool of doing so. -BlackProg (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

massive poverty, inequality, strict gender norms, authoritarianism, vestiges of European colonialism and imperialism, ethnic and tribal tensions or the amount of foreign aid given to "secular" dictators

You can say that again. Sadly, religion, like a lot of other cultural features of questionable utility, is organically entwined in societies all over the world. Untangling all that will not be a simple matter, nor swiftly done. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply put, LobPo, it's because of futureshock. --Castaigne (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at LobPo's original post there are really two quite distinct questions. You can have fanaticism without religion and vice versa. Now, I don't particularly like either but they don't actually have to be linked.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, people can be fanatics about anything...and not everyone who is religious is a fanatic. That kind of overgeneralization is not very honest. It also demonizes people with religion while trying to speak against being demonized.

There are fanatics that wish everyone believes like them. I think it is because their believe is so flimsy, and with such crazy ass shit (like Bryan Fischer), that pointing out the problems with their beliefs causes painful cognitive dissonance. Better to have everyone think the same so you can turn off your brain. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cat of the Endtimes here : there should be MOAR fanatics worshipping ME ! catnip, cream and toy mice are acceptable offerings. I offer less rending during the FINAL BATTLE ! Terror Trinka (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Arnold J. Toynbee says a Universal Church (see his definition) is the result of a breakdown of civilization, each group getting what it wants: the dominant minority a Universal State to preserve its position, the internal proletariat a Universal Church to preserve its norms and values, and the external proletariat a bevy of barbarian warbands to bring about revolution or jihad. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 21:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In point of fact I think the premise of the initial question is even more wrong. I don't think "the world" is becoming more religious - or more fanatically religious. Even the states is becoming more secular according to the polls I read. Typically the better educated people are, the less religious they are (I understand there are exceptions.) The consequence is that the bits that remain in the dark ages show up even more clearly.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I do think the world is getting less religious overall, but I am not sure I would attribute it to increased education. In one sociology class I took there was research that focused more on the significance of uncertainty and existential risk in religious fundamentalism and religiosity. It fits with how superstitious beliefs are often used-when things are predictable and controlled superstitious behavior tends to go down; when things are unpredictable superstitious behavior increases. Apatheism common in European countries' low religiosity also fits with this. Religion definitely has a strong motive to impose order in an irrational way, but its decreased influence isn't necessarily the result of rational decision making. Studying psychology, I wouldn't expect much rationality from human beings regardless of what their views on religion are. Arachne1988 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Need to add Creative Commons 4.0 support

Minor thing here, but rationalwiki's license list for uploaded content isn't up to date. We only support 3.0, but content is being published under 4.0. I'm pretty sure sysop status isn't sufficient to do that. Ikanreed (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Licenses once we have the pile of templates - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

3.0 isn't obsolete simply because they released a new version. 3.0 and 4.0 appear to be compatible anyhow. Btw 3.0 applies to all content unless stated otherwise. Users may specify any license, whether they're the grantor or grantee, they wish for uploaded content. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but it helps to document the right thing, right? If it was released under 4.0, we should show 4.0. Ikanreed (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not actually wrong. The laundry list strikes me as excessive already, but these are all actual use cases. Forest of templates to reference first though. - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw, that 4.0-licensed image you uploaded gives me a thumbnail error. Is there a problem with the image or is my browser just outdated? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't have any trouble. Hard to make a diagnosis. Try refreshing bypassing cache? It's just image/png, which isn't going to be a browser specific thing. Ikanreed (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yup. I hard-refreshed and now it's working. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hard-refreshed? Does that mean you threw out your computer and bought a new one? --93.71.73.187 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I'm too poor for that. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Help.

I want to put an {{#if:}} parser function in an in-wiki link.

That works great if I use a character. For example "[[User:FuzzyCatPotat{{#if:Yes.|o|}}]]" produces "User:FuzzyCatPotato".

However, using an # symbol doesn't work. For example "[[User:FuzzyCatPotato{{#if:Yes.|{{Number sign}}test|}}]]" produces: "[[User:FuzzyCatPotato#test]]", and fails to actually link.

Similarly, "[[User:FuzzyCatPotato{{#if:Yes.|#test|}}]]" produces [[User:FuzzyCatPotato

1. test]] and fails even more.

However, not using the {{#if:}} parser function and using # the link itself works. For example "[[User:FuzzyCatPotato#test]]" produces: User:FuzzyCatPotato#test.

So there seems to be something about having both the # symbol and the {{#if:}} parser function that doesn't work.

Ideas? Solutions? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Set ParserFunctions on fucking fire?

I was intending to beat MediaWiki 1.23 onto rationalbeta at some point in these weeks (1.19 is EOLed in May), but it's been a busy holiday season with few opportunities for five fucking minutes to think (the loved one had a hernia operation, it went wrong and will need redoing, her dog is going nuts from not getting hours of walks a day, kid is home for holiday, etc., etc., etc) and at that point we can have Lua and write complicated shit in an actual language.

As for the actual problem, no idea. Does anyone actually understand ParserFunctions? - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

When you get time, please do. Lua'd be lovely. Thanks! :D Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Crank ideas of "Institutional Racism?"

Here is an excellent article by the esteemed John Glanton on the topic of the so-called "institutional racism." What is therein writ can be used to cite our own article on instituional racism because this is a moonbat woo that is definitely relevant to the mission. What do you folks think? 74.14.72.118 (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This guy doesn't know what he is talking about, he literally misunderstands the term and the institutionalized racism is prejudice that isn't open and can be the vestiges of formerly open prejudice. He also seems to have an infinite amount of SJW straw men.BlackProg (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he misunderstands what the phrase means and his analysis fails at the outset. Institutional racism isn't the product of conscious prejudice; it's the product of unconscious prejudice. That's what makes it so insidious.

As a general rule we do not think highly of neoreactionaries around these parts. (Also what the hell does this guy have against the Beatles? Is he just trying to get a rise out of his readers? How old is he?) Abed Nadir (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As a child, I must admit, I scoured through the dictionary looking for "cuss words". After becoming an educated adult, I reached for the dictionary with ever decreasing frequency. Since that time (and based on this post), I wonder if the words "excellent" and "esteemed" have taken on new meanings. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles are part of the Progressive Cathedral, destroying True Art™ with their decadent degraded jungle music. And don't forget Lennon was an atheist commie pacifist! The neoreactionaries hate pretty much everything about post-18th century society, including the art, which they think is consciously pushed by The Cathedral to destroy people's faith and trust in traditional society. Compare the Nazis (who were exemplary reactionaries despite how desperate most of the neos are to paint them as "progressive", and apart from not being big on monarchy would fit right in with the neoreactionaries) ranting against "Jewish art" and the Soviets deeming "bourgeois" anything other than socialist realism. --Ymir (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I used to think music has just gone downhill since Papa Bach died. But no, it's been all downhill since Pope Gregory died. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Anything under 300 years is all the same and is modernist rubbish. Capitalism, communism, liberalism, libertarianism (the modern right-wing version) and social justice warriors are all the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You have a problem with the Beatles you have a problem with me. I can't think of a single band or artist who has been more influential in the world of pop music. Samstr (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Meh, the only notable thing about the Beatles is how completely out of proportion and out of their senses their fanbase was. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@@BoN, you clearly weren't around at the time. You're talking out of the wrong bodily orifice. The Charts in October 1962 were dismal. Then, Love Me Do came on the radio, and we all went "WHA?"

In answer to Smerdis: downhill? try Mama Hildegard of Bingen. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In my rock history class (I know how awesome is that?!?!) we spent a whole 3 days exclusively covering the Beatles. For comparison we spent 1 and a half on Led Zeppelin. From what we covered I feel pretty confident that the Beatles had some influence on virtually every genre of rock that came after. If you want to see just how insanely creative they were remember that they wrote, yesterday, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite, and Helter Skelter. In three songs you have three completely different styles and textural features. If not the best band (honestly I'm going to give that title to R.E.M. another very innovative and interesting band), they were one of if not the most innovative and varied. Samstr (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Howard Goodall has a great take on The Beatles. Генгис^unbelieving 13:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also I should take the time to note that this article is a piece of shit. I almost get the impression this guy doesn't even know what institutional racism actually means (it really isn't that complex it's exactly what it says on the tin.) It doesn't matter how institutional racism came in to being, all that matters is that it exists in the United States, and that is a fact. Samstr (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He's just a typical racist. "It’s no wonder, then, that people whose ancestors lived millennia on entirely different continents, evolving independently, creating institutions of their own, find American ones to be less than a custom fit." Non-whites just "evolved differently", so they just naturally can't benefit as much from "white-created" institutions than whites? What a crock of shit. Of course, he provides no evidence for this, and couldn't if he tried. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 06:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Binge Watching

Found out Death Note is on netflix instant streaming. Let the binge watching commence! Necromancer 21:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tried multiple times to watch various animes but I could never get into any of them. Perhaps I should try this one though, I have no idea which ones are any good. Samstr (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's not Dragon Ball Z, Fist of the North Star, Samurai Champloo, Code Geass or Sgt.Frog you can avoid it my dude.-BlackProg (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I loved Samurai Champloo, liked FotNS, and can't stand DBZ. So tastes vary. In any case, I just can't do anime series anymore. --Inquisitor (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This thread is so out of date!... Haven't any of you watched Madoka? The sheer intensity of that show is insane. Abed Nadir (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you like Death Note may I also recommend:
Darker Than Black
Higurashi no Naku Koro Ni
Sword Art Online (powerful stuff)
Cowboy Bebop
Attack on Titan
and if you want something that doesn't spoon-feed you everything, and forces you to think past the surface - The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi (there should be lists out there saying which episodes to watch in which order, the broadcast schedule was based on the light novels which jumps around the timeline - a lot).
And of course, you've got your staples of Neon Genesis Evangelion and Bleach-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot Big O, and Outlaw Star.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I forgot Cowboy Bebop! Such a good show!-- BlackProg (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion really doesn't help with the common assumptions about the demographics of the wiki.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Introverts? (There's science for everything). Ikanreed (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We are caring about other lewdies' assumptions, when now? Yarbles to them bolnoy bratchnys, dat's wat I skazat.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I love Terry Pratchett, and Wee Free Men was awesome. Ikanreed (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I love Pratchett as well, but sadly I don't think he ever wrote a Discworld version of A Clockwork Orange ;-)-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh darn. That went completely over my head. I need to read more, clearly. Ikanreed (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I highly recommend A Clockwork Orange, the book has some wonderful subtlety to it, far more so than the film.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Inga Swenson is a delight in every episode of Benson. Available on Netflix streaming. My Two Dads was a trailblazing commentary on the reality that two gay men can raise a moderately well-adjusted although vain and materialistic girl in Chelsea. At your public library. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)–

how about Trinity Blood ? Hamster (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Interstellar

I just saw it today (yeah I know it came out a while ago but I've been busy). Anyways, I thought it was an awesome movie, but I've been wondering if anyone else got the vibe that a lot of that world's problems came from an anti science mentality. We (my family and I) were discussing it after we got home and speculated that there might have been some sort of cultural revolution in the United States before the film took place. We thought this because the government seemed to actively discourage people from becoming engineers or scientists. Also there was the scene that was both amusing, disturbing and irritating where the teacher suspended Merth from school for telling other students that the Apollo moon landings were real. PS: very 2001 a Space Odysseyish Samstr (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this was all but said, with the "whole bombs from the stratosphere" comment made by Brand.--Madman (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Agreeed. However:

Love is the only force that transcends all dimensions.

Brandt gets a New Age vibe. Annoy. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I gathered there was some climate change issue wherein much of the world's crops were devastated. There was also some kind of blight that wiped out many of the world's crop types. This resulted in lots of starvation from food shortages. In such a society, where food is at a premium, it would make sense for farmers to be a valued commodity. Also, the anti-science view seems to come from a similar idea. If there's no place to escape to than you'll make every effort to improve the place you are. Focusing on keeping the Earth sustainable is, in theory, more easily attained if people are more focused on doing that than reaching the stars. Frankly, there are bigger problems than that in the movie. The two lander vehicles shouldn't be able to leave the atmosphere of planets so easily for one. Ayzmo^Cheers 07:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It seemed like a combination of climate change and mono-cultures of plants brought on by modifications. It seemed to ignore more heritage breeds and seed vaults as there were implications about lack of genetic diversity. It did bother me a lot that it seemed okay for the plot that people should be taught false propaganda instead of being honest but practical. Not as bad as some of the other issues with the movie. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really notice that, although biology isn't really my field. The physics was ok, but not stellar, especially when it hit the new age bullshit hard. Samstr (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Same here, not sure why I caught that. What got me is that people can tell a lot about a planet by sitting in orbit and looking at it, even with robot probes (faster/smaller/could have packed them into 1 smaller rocket), but they never did. They just decided to land on the planet with the craziest physics first that would be 7 years for each 60 minutes instead of ~year round trip for the others. They stayed there for about 80 minutes - 20 minutes before the wave/action/take off sequence if it was in real time and 1 hour to let the engines dry out - and it took 23 years (er, huh). By the time they hit the New Age bullshit I had already decided they were the most idiotic crew since Prometheus. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Tru dat, too much woo. Although to be fair virtually all sci fi eventually gets sort of bullshitty, especially cinematic forms. Samstr (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

its as if you have all forgotten the fiction part of science fiction. You shouldn't be allowed to watch films AMassiveGay (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And here I was thinking "science fiction" meant "fiction based on science". Why not just call it "fiction" if you're going to throw the "science" bit out the window by making shit up? 203.129.50.121 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

that's a very limited view of what is classed science fiction. There has never been a requirement for it to be based on real science - that's where the fiction bit comes in. 'Making shit up' is entirely the point. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

North Korea internet blackout

So did you you hear? North Korea got it's internet shut down by a DDOS attack. How much you wanna bet they shut it down so nobody could access The Interview? Necromancer 23:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you telling me they actually allow their citizens to access the internet on a regular basis? :O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but I suspect quite a few people with access would still have watched it. Necromancer 00:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Did The Interview even get leaked yet? I thought Sony was still keeping it pretty well-secured. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is precedent. After, Hitler had a copy of the Great Dictator.--Madman (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC) The Madman

UPDATE: As of 1000 GMT, some Internet services in NK have been restored. NK officials have yet to officially respond. Noir LeSable (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your daily dose of idiocy:

https://answersingenesis.org/ Enjoy. But be warned, your IQ will drop rapidly. Arguably the most entertaining article there was was their bullshit on "methane explosions on Mars". On my webpage, Creationist Crap, I tend to stay away from the hideous bullshit the charlatans offer. I instead tend to focus on the crowds, but hey, I can't even go on a cretinist webshite for more than a few seconds without my brain disintegrating.--Palaeonictis 07:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We're already quite familiar with them. Ikanreed (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Baphomet statue

http://www.vice.com/read/oklahomas-satanic-statue-is-coming-along-nicely I don't know about you guys but I actually think that the park in Oklahoma might actually be a pretty cool demonstration for American plurality. Make it like a sort of exhibit for all of the different religions that exist in the United States. That's assuming the local government doesn't chicken out. What's your thoughts? Necromancer 01:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I always thought the best way to protest intrusions of religion into the American government was to use those new rules to advocate non christian religions. I would personally go with Islam (because I feel like there are more people who actually do seriously believe in Islam) but I think this works well also. I can't wait for a wingnut to unironically claim that this infringes on their rights while supporting gigantic monuments of Christ. Samstr (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Islam in this context is that it doesn't lend itself to making statues. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's go with Hinduism then-they are the third biggest religion and their gods look freaking cool. Arachne1988 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You could always make some literal pillars of Islam. Compro01 (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how are they going to smooth out that weld across the mouth.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've always thought that Zoroastrianism had a nice aesthetic to it. (Agrajag (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

Baphomet isn't Zoroastrian, it's a made-up god that the Knights Templar were accused of worshiping. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 03:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it's going to sit next to a Ten Commandments monument, a golden calf would be more appropriate. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

But then people will just think it's about the stock market. --Zipperback (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Mencius Moldbug

What do you all think of Moldbug and his writings and especially his hypotheses for American progressivism?74.14.72.118 (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of him or of it. Links? Scream!! (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Founder of the Neoreactionary movement apparently, so at a rough guess he's probably a gigantic prick. Sophie^Wilder 21:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"His political treatises are heavily informed by the works of J.R.R. Tolkien and George Lucas. What set Yarvin apart from the typical keyboard kook was his archaic, grandiose tone, which echoed the snippets Yarvin cherry-picked from obscure old reactionary tracts."[3] Hmm, not keen so far. Sophie^Wilder 21:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Couldn't be arsed to google him if the BoN couldn't give us a link or two. Scream!! (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

His prose can be entertaining in small doses, but it doesn't come packaged that way. I still don't get how he imagines how he could build his Ruritanian political system while still having stuff like the tech industry and the internet. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 21:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The invisible hand of the free market will solve that, presumably. Sophie^Wilder 21:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How can you have a free market with a monarchy? I guess they just can't see the forest for the trees. Samstr (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I had honestly never heard about the neo-reactionary movement. Just when you think you've found all the bullshit... Samstr (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a good link to his writing and an introduction to neoreaction. 74.14.72.118 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

First reaction... --Inquisitor (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A lot of waffle about red pills and Orwell and our government isn't a bunch of Nazis but bear with me and I'll explain. or something. Sophie^Wilder 22:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I can only recommend this very good takedown of the neoreactionary nonsense, linked from our article. tl;dr Moldbug is a guy who got his bike stolen and decided that it proves modern society is decadent and doomed and back in the Good Old Days™ life was perfect and there were no queers or blacks or crime. --Ymir (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's the same BON that's always posting racist and/or sexist nonsense and then concern trolling about it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As regards the fine takedown posted by Ymir, I was only disappointed by the treatment of Stefan Zweig. As one commenter pointed out, Zweig was writing the cited passage in The World of Yesterday shortly before his barbiturate suicide and as a reaction, not against liberal democracy or progressivism, but against Nazism and the chaos of WWII, as well as the complete destruction of the society he had been raised in.

The takedown also missed the fact that Michael Anissimov quote mined this part of chapter 1; notice those three little dots between "stability" and "Our currency"? That's an ellipsis indicating that Anissimov's excerpt is lacking a piece of Zweig's original. The text which Zweig put there doesn't match Anissimov's monarchical ideas and his disgust with liberal democracy, because Zweig wrote:

"The rights which it granted to its citizens were duly confirmed by parliament, the freely elected representative of the people) and every duty was exactly prescribed."

Likewise, Anissimov cut a huge section between "forbidden" and "In this vast empire". The text missing from Anissimov's excerpt suggests both the lack of meritocracy and the stagnation of the Habsburg Empire (both making dubious Anissimov's claim of monarchy as a better form of government):

"Everything had its norm its definite measure and weight. He who had a fortune could accurately compute his annual interest. An official or an officer for example, could confidently look up in the calendar the year when he would be advanced in rank, or when he would be pensioned. Each family had its fixed budget, and knew how much could be spent for rent and food, for holidays and entertainment; and what is more, in­variably a small sum was carefully laid aside for sickness and the doctor's bills, for the unexpected. Whoever owned a house looked upon it as a secure domicile for his children and grandchildren; estates and businesses were handed down from generation to generation. When the babe was still in its cradle, its first mite was put in its little bank, or deposited in the savings bank, as a "reserve” for the future."

Basically, Scott Alexander (who wrote the otherwise excellent takedown), seems to, in this instance, have forgotten a cardinal rule when dealing with cranks' citations:

A) Check the original source and its context and compare it to the use the crank has put it to.

B) Any ellipsis or lacuna is an almost certain sign of quote mining (even worse is if the quote mining crank has "forgotten" to indicate an ellipsis/lacuna).

Oh, and just a little hobby horse of mine: Any reference provided by William Lane Craig should be checked this way. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Now to my way of thinking, "stagnation" and "lack of meritocracy" look like extremely desirable features. - Smerdis of Tlön, your friendly local Ruritanian despot. 23:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't think the more meritable portion of society should be the ones to rule? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that ambition and competitiveness are problems that need to be contained. I also don't think they relate with prudence, impartiality, and other traits desirable in a ruler. - Smerdis of Tlön, your friendly local Ruritanian despot. 02:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I never saw the point of another prick that thinks they are smarter than the rest of the world. Therefore either they, or someone with the exact same ideals, should be ruling over everyone else. Then assert it’s the right thing to do because they said so. This is not a noble ideal, it is a personality disorder. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, it's an important part of Western philosophical tradition going all the way back to Plato. Ikanreed (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

True, but so is getting high and thinking one can see the future. I think we should still give both as much credence now if people continue to try it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment to Smerdis of Tlön, my point was that the omitted segment includes features that are hardly considered desirable by large segments of the public today, specifically promoting people solely based on their ability to stay alive ("An official or an officer for example, could confidently look up in the calendar the year when he would be advanced in rank") and the downside of "Each family had its fixed budget" is that if you happen, unlike Zweig, to belong to the lower strata of society, this was not a good thing (somehow, advocates of such class societies seem rarely to picture themselves being born into the lower classes...). Zweig's rather idealised description is clearly painting a picture of the reasonably secure Austro-Hungarian bourgeoisie. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That there are tradeoffs is something I don't deny. But I think that from a current American perspective, the sort of ordered security that characterized Zweig's vision of Austria-Hungary looks rather appealing. Especially since the lower strata at minimum were not starving; if they were, how secure could it be? I'd happily trade some measure of economic flexibility, innovation, and "growth" for this: especially since "growth" can't go on forever. - Smerdis of Tlön, your friendly local Ruritanian despot. 17:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding starvation in late-19^th century Europe was hardly a relevant criterion of success or stability, not to mention the vast immigration to, yes, the U.S. of those many dissatisfied with "Zweig'esque" stability - let alone the fact that the downwards spiral towards WWI was started by one of the Emperor's own subjects murdering his heir. While I agree that A-H for decades after its demise had an undeservedly bad reputation ("the prison of the peoples"), probably also due to its role as a catalyst for WWI, the vogue for Austro-Hungarian nostalgia since the end of the Cold War (at least partly due to the Yugoslav Wars and a reaction against the communist past ) misses badly as well:

As with much of the rosy depictions of the "Belle Époque", Zweig's account was written in hindsight, while at the actual time of the late late-19^th/early 20^th century prior to WWI, there were quite a lot of commenters who viewed their age in terms of "Fin de siècle" fears of chaos and degeneration. I'm generally wary of Barbara Tuchmann's works (she had a tendency become story-teller more than a historian), but in The Proud Tower (1966) she at least managed to convey this dual sense of optimist belief in an "onwards and upwards" future and a pessimistic foreboding about the impact of anarchism, socialism and nationalism, and potential negative impacts of technological developments, particularly the breathtaking increase in the destructiveness of modern weaponry.

Just as a sort of "consumer information", I'll mention that I'm not a die-hard fan of either "economic flexibility, innovation, and "growth"" for their own sake, or the kind of laudatory panglossian praise of "progress" summed up in the concept of "creative destruction" (basically, I think we need to weigh the level of "creativity" against the level of "destruction"). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a problem here in that people think it's too risky and too expensive to put down roots and start households. This can't do well in the long term. It touches quite a few of our social pathologies, from income inequality to the "manosphere". There has to be a happy medium between Austria-Hungary and this. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{your friendly local Ruritanian despot.} 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think I actually disagree with you on this, since my own thoughts are that if people don't have to worry about personal financial ruin or social ostracism, they'll be more likely to take chances on potentially beneficial developments and innovations (basically, security leading to dynamism). By contrast, A-H seems to me to have been an example of security for a specific, narrow band of society, coupled with both political authoritarianism and staunchly conservative (and stifling) social norms, which is why I don't see it as much of an ideal, even if Vienna was a centre of creativity of the Belle Époque/Fin de siècle era. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Can Category:Recipe be nixed

Except for the funny stuff. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? --Inquisitor (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Because most of the stuff within it isn't funny or missional. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Recipespace wasn't supposed to be funny. It was supposed to be about a community that died years ago. Few of the people who contributed to Recipespace can stand looking at RW anymore. Why should RW keep their unfunny stuff around? I say delete every word of it. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why delete it? It's not like it's getting in the way of anything heavily on-mission. It's just there, and sometimes you need some light relief. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does RationalWiki ever delete articles? Because said articles aren't on-mission. Recipiespace isn't on mission. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? Every artifact from a bygone era doesn't need to be purged from RW. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles are not being deleted because they are from a bygone era. The articles are being deleted because they are non-missional. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Scream!! (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Recipespace is an important part of RW culture. It would not be much of an overstatement to say that removing it would tear the very heart and soul of out of the wiki, leaving behind little more than a gnarled, inanimate carcass of its current self. Landmartian (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Scream: Why?

@Landmartian: u srs m8

Pretty much none of these pages have been touched since 2012, if that. They aren't on mission. They aren't entry points. They aren't funny. Why keep? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So add more recipes. Then we can say that some of the pages have been touched as recently as 2014. Landmartian (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Because they were an important part of RW's culture, like people have said. The fact that there's a recipespace in the first place ought to say something about how wrong you are. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm uncertain how they are/were an important part of RationalWiki's culture, but OK.

BTW, Nutty, what happened to "Why should RW keep their unfunny stuff around? I say delete every word of it"? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I was ridiculing you, dipshit. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Nutty. That was really helpful and added to the discussion. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

They were obviously important enough that they were given an entire namespace for themselves. The fact they aren't in mainspace makes them not exactly missional okay imo; nobody is claiming they are, but nobody seems to have thought we needed to get rid of them in the last 7 years for it either. --Miekal 02:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What about the big hard disk? I gather it's getting full. Surely somebody needs to think of the storage space. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{your friendly local Ruritanian despot.} 05:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of us, including myself, appreciate reading through the recipes. The recipes were never supposed to be "funny" or mission-worthy. Instead, they were and are supposed to be more like a break from the grind of the rest of RationalWiki to talk about something everybody enjoys to some degree: food. While some of the recipes are indeed humorous, some of them were put there by users who wanted to share local cuisines for people (again, like me) who like trying different things. Food, as Julia Child observed, is a great way to unite people of all stripes, and thus was the point of the recipe space. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I get that food unifies and agree community-building is good for RationalWiki. If you wish to reactivate it, go ahead. I'm not touching recipespace. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 08:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)