|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive237
Faux got fact checked[edit]
Turns out PunditFact did a review of the truthfulness of various news networks, and (suprise suprise) Fox News got the lowest score. Here's the article:http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/09/analysis-over-half-of-all-statements-made-on-fox-news-are-false/ Necromancer 22:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think people have been fact checking them for awhile catalogged many instances of overt bias, misrepresentations, and just outright bold faced lies. I believe the last group which was keeping track of Faux's lies stopped after over a thousand instances because it became too depressing and sick. They found the perfect balance of playing to people's anger and fear. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The statement that "over half of all statements made on Fox news are false" is, in itself, a pants on fire grade lie, however. DickTurpis (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- How so? Necromancer 00:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- For a site based on logic and skepticism, I really shouldn't need to spell it out. See if you can identify the fallacy when given the blanket assertion that over half the statement made on Fox are false and examining the evidence they give. DickTurpis (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- For a site based on logic and skepticism, which so many of RW's current herd of editors are a fucking failure at, nobody should have to spell out what that site actually is. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you do anything around here besides make vague unsubstantiated assertions about other editors? Ikanreed (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- No. All I ever do is make vague unsubstantiated assertions about other editors. Jesus, how do you function in life? Has anyone ever clapped you over your ears when you pontificated about logic and fallacies while humiliating yourself? Nutty Roux (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is it bad that I think Nutty is ... sort of an asshole? 173.162.170.57 (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- With that insulting assumption he certainly makes himself look so. No sort of about it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you do anything around here besides make vague unsubstantiated assertions about other editors? Ikanreed (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- For a site based on logic and skepticism, which so many of RW's current herd of editors are a fucking failure at, nobody should have to spell out what that site actually is. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- For a site based on logic and skepticism, I really shouldn't need to spell it out. See if you can identify the fallacy when given the blanket assertion that over half the statement made on Fox are false and examining the evidence they give. DickTurpis (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- You might need to prove that as it is PolitiFact, and claims of being pants on fire false haven't stuck. Plus it's hard to take the word, with no other evidence, from someone that happily states "I pledge to FUCK YOU UP. And I mean fuck you up Big Time! Don't even think of fucking with me! Not even in your fucking dream, motherfucker! I furthermore pledge that if I indulge in secret private conversations about you, I will cut off your damn head and fuck the hole!! Is that all?" -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, would you conclude, based on what Politifact says, that Senator Jeff Flake has never said a truthful thing in his life ? DickTurpis (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Prove your claim, period. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, since no one actually made the point clear: the actual problem is sampling bias. Politifact mostly only rates big important claims. This means you can't actually say "Fox news is mostly untruthful" because they're not evalulating day-to-day coverage, which is what this discussion is backhandedly implying.
- Everyone here who's watched 10 minutes of Fox news knows it's bullshit laden, clearly purposefully biased, and not intellectually honest. But that's not the same as genuinely being 60% false. There. That's the actual answer that this debate hasn't had. Ikanreed (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's what I needed. I just wanted some explanation besides that they lie because of assertions from someone whose purpose is to fuck up the site they are commenting on and mess with the people in it. Personally, if someone just starts hollering over and over that they are right or picks out known issues with the stats of small numbers and it means the opposite. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're a real piece of work ECW, aren't you? When I say "the problem is selection bias" it's "spewing nonsense" and "babbling". When another editor says the same thing suddenly it's "that's all I needed to hear!" Well done. DickTurpis (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I actually appriciate that sentiment. I made it quite clear, repeatedly, why I didn't just take your word for it. You have done nothing to increase your integrity in my eyes and I don't see why you think acting like an ass is going to help that. I don't owe you any sort of trust anymore than you owe me, and if that bothers you maybe you should get over it. Fussing at people that don't just fall over to your blinding insight is not useful to either of us. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, what? But Dick provided a link to the PolitiFact page backing up his statement. You may not like him or his tone, but that's no reason to discard the evidence he provided. That same link was also referenced in the article itself, so you certainly wouldn't have had to take Dick's word for it in any case. - Grant (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't tell you to take my word for it. I encouraged you to think about it and see if you could figure it out for yourself, as it should be easy for any semi-intelligent person with a basic knowledge of logical fallacies. Apparently you don't fit the bill (and even when spelled out for you you still didn't get it). That's on you, kid. I see a few others picked up on it without too much difficulty, so there's still hope for this site. DickTurpis (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe it would help if things were more spelled out. On virtually all news stations, there will be mundane things that are not worth fact checking. No need to fact check the weather forecast unless you are truly that obsessed with who has the best meteorologist team. Most election results will just be weird to misreport. Box office sales are another mundane thing that is odd to fabricate and nigh pointless to fact check. The most basic facts about news reports will not be altered by anyone except the most hardcore conspiracy theorists-I don't expect Fox to say Eric Garner is still alive, mass shootings were false flags/fake, or Ebola isn't real. Arachne1988 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see what is productive to fuss about the point you were trying to make that was made in a better way by someone else. The end result is the same and has been done. Have a happy holiday season. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I actually appriciate that sentiment. I made it quite clear, repeatedly, why I didn't just take your word for it. You have done nothing to increase your integrity in my eyes and I don't see why you think acting like an ass is going to help that. I don't owe you any sort of trust anymore than you owe me, and if that bothers you maybe you should get over it. Fussing at people that don't just fall over to your blinding insight is not useful to either of us. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're a real piece of work ECW, aren't you? When I say "the problem is selection bias" it's "spewing nonsense" and "babbling". When another editor says the same thing suddenly it's "that's all I needed to hear!" Well done. DickTurpis (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's what I needed. I just wanted some explanation besides that they lie because of assertions from someone whose purpose is to fuck up the site they are commenting on and mess with the people in it. Personally, if someone just starts hollering over and over that they are right or picks out known issues with the stats of small numbers and it means the opposite. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Prove your claim, period. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, would you conclude, based on what Politifact says, that Senator Jeff Flake has never said a truthful thing in his life ? DickTurpis (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- How so? Necromancer 00:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- The statement that "over half of all statements made on Fox news are false" is, in itself, a pants on fire grade lie, however. DickTurpis (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, Dick?--Madman (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Alright. I'll spell it out. Selection bias, or spotlight fallacy. Concluding that half of Fox's statements are untrue because half of the statements Politifact checked were untrue is bogus, because Politifact only checks controversial statements, not a statistically significant random sampling. To pretend this applies to all their statements is plain wrong. DickTurpis (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your claim is not proven as you have failed to provide evidence: It only checks controversial statements, not statistically significant, and it was not random. Please address the proof, and not just spewing nonsense. You are wasting space by not showing proof and just babbling. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- If facepalming wasn't such an overused expression... I'd be doing it about now. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ this site's gone downhill over the years. Here you go; they don't even pretend it's a random sample, and spell out how they specifically choose what to check. DickTurpis (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, based on the way PolitiFact chooses statements, it's trivially obvious that the article's headline isn't correct. Oddly enough, the article makes mention of the fact that PolitiFact doesn't check everything, which directly belies the tagline. Whether or not the broad strokes are true (that Fox hosts/guests mislead viewers more than they should), the headline is just plain sensationalism. - Grant (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is anyone really arguing against that? 173.162.170.57 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, based on the way PolitiFact chooses statements, it's trivially obvious that the article's headline isn't correct. Oddly enough, the article makes mention of the fact that PolitiFact doesn't check everything, which directly belies the tagline. Whether or not the broad strokes are true (that Fox hosts/guests mislead viewers more than they should), the headline is just plain sensationalism. - Grant (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ this site's gone downhill over the years. Here you go; they don't even pretend it's a random sample, and spell out how they specifically choose what to check. DickTurpis (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- If facepalming wasn't such an overused expression... I'd be doing it about now. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your claim is not proven as you have failed to provide evidence: It only checks controversial statements, not statistically significant, and it was not random. Please address the proof, and not just spewing nonsense. You are wasting space by not showing proof and just babbling. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Rather audacious gun "PSA"[edit]
See for yourself. Note the lack of visible sponsors and depiction of several crimes committed at once.--DoomTay (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Festive Festivus.[edit]
I'm not going to be here tomarrow, so in advance: Merry fucking Christmas. Necromancer 23:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The wiki craze reaches the manosphere.[edit]
Take a look at this shit. Comedy fucking gold. Highlights include the non-symmetrical logo and a article on involuntary trouser defecation. --Madman (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman
- I hate you. I haven't been a parodist on a wiki for over a year. And just when I thought I had kicked the habit for good, you come and tempt me with this. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Debunking Handbook[edit]
Claims to be "designed to be useful to all communicators who have to deal with misinformation (eg - not just climate myths)". Free download. Pashley (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
LW is seeping out into the "real world"[edit]
Luke Muehlhauser was on my local news tonight. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas[edit]
So I'm probably going to be offline for the rest of the holidays, so I'm saying merry Christmas in advance. Go forth and get wasted on eggnog. Necromancer 16:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Better, Merry Xmas or Happy Holidays; those expressions really piss some people off. Anywayz, same to you :-) ProblemChimp (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- What's wrong with Happy Holidays? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Felicitous Festivus! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC) (for the rest of us)
- Grrr those expressions piss me off so much I'm seeing red. I can't stand it when people kindly wish me well. Grrr! Nutty Roux (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm an atheist, but I still say "Merry Christmas". Why? Because who says I have to believe Jesus died for my sins to enjoy time spent with my family. Samstr (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The connection between "Christianity" and "Christmas" is getting more tenuous. So what that it is "Christ/something". Are we going to rename the days of the week because many of them are based on other gods? "Christmas" is the name for the winter holiday. "Thursday" (from Thor) is the name for the fourth day of the week.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- HAPPY SUMMERVAL FROM ASHTRAYLIA - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- We are organising a Jul blót. The theme of the dinner is to use as many parts of a pig as we can, as pigs were often sacrificed during the blót. Vajrapani (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- A stroke of brilliance: lutebacon! - Smerdis of Tlön, your friendly local Ruritanian despot. 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- We are organising a Jul blót. The theme of the dinner is to use as many parts of a pig as we can, as pigs were often sacrificed during the blót. Vajrapani (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- HAPPY SUMMERVAL FROM ASHTRAYLIA - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- This guy actually did see red when people wished him a merry Christmas. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The connection between "Christianity" and "Christmas" is getting more tenuous. So what that it is "Christ/something". Are we going to rename the days of the week because many of them are based on other gods? "Christmas" is the name for the winter holiday. "Thursday" (from Thor) is the name for the fourth day of the week.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Faux Noise Again.[edit]
Apparently they're claiming that we "should thank cops for protecting protester's rights to say hateful things about them", you also get a truthful, not edited edited video of protesters supposedly shouting "We Want Cops Dead!", which Faux Noise had actually inserted in there to make it appear as if they were trying to incite anti-police sentiment.
What a bunch of bastards, cops aren't protecting our freedoms, they're trying to restrict them. And protesters have also said, "We're not anti-police, we're anti-police brutality." You can look it up your self, I dare not link to it.--Palaeonictis (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't this the same Fox News that freely pushes the bullshit republican line that government can only remove freedom, not grant it? Ikanreed (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes.--Palaeonictis (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fundies Say The Darndest Things:[edit]
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=59332 A quote from talk.origins by the all-time asshole Ray Martinez--Palaeonictis (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
What about it? WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here's the exact quote for lulz:
“”Immutability is not harmed by artificial breeding. Immutability refers to species that exist in the undisturbed wild. Wherever a new species is found----that is where it was introduced by a direct act of special
creation ex materia. There is no other way for species to appear.
|
--Palaeonictis (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I already saw it on the link you posted. & I'm not really feeling the lulz. It's just a creationist saying a typical creationist thing, & dates from five or six years ago. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 22:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I could bring in his quote from a very recent thread where he justifies mass genocide as long as its being perpetrated by Americans.--Palaeonictis (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I already saw it on the link you posted. & I'm not really feeling the lulz. It's just a creationist saying a typical creationist thing, & dates from five or six years ago. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- If you don't believe in speciation through evolution but don't want to deny that artificial breeding has happened throughout human history, then you have little options but to think species popping into existence is what happens naturally and that whatever humans are doing when breeding the animals is completely unlike what normally happens in nature. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
On the hypothetical side[edit]
Alright guys, the zombie apocalypse has begun. Choose your primary ranged and melee weapon and explain why you chose them. Only restriction: They either have to be a common household item or something you could easily obtain. My choice would be my Ruger 10/.22 semi-auto rifle and an 8 lb. crowbar. I chose my Ruger because of it's light weight and the fact that .22 ammo has been known to bounce around inside the skull. I chose the crowbar for the versatility of combat techniques and it's non-combat uses. Necromancer 00:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, the only zombie scenario that interests me involves philosophical zombies, which are only as dangerous as regular humans. But assuming your zombies are the typical bite-transmitted undead disease variety, most common household objects would be useless since bludgeoning the zombies with them risks their bodily fluids—the very thing containing the disease—splashing on you. Using guns poses the same problem. I'd get myself a ladder. I can use it to push the zombies away from me and it can get me on top of high vertical structures, which the zombies can't climb since they don't know how to use tools. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Zombies have no body heat, I would go to Alaska and watch the corpses freeze.-User:BlackProgUser_Talk:BlackProg 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- They're dead and somehow they still keep moving. I'm pretty sure they'd still keep moving if they were frozen. You could make them slip perpetually on an ice lake, though. Would be fun to watch. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Zombies have no body heat, I would go to Alaska and watch the corpses freeze.-User:BlackProgUser_Talk:BlackProg 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have a bow at my house, that would probably be ideal as zombies are attracted to sound. A gunshot would be suicide (although is intentionally turning yourself into a zombie suicide?) For the most part it seems like in real life a zombie outbreak would finish itself off pretty quickly after the zombies died of starvation (depending on what sort of zombies we're talking about here.) Ultimately I think it would end up looking less like Left 4 Dead and more like Fallout. Samstr (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have never understood what the fuss is about with zombies. Wouldn't they be just puddles of meat soup after a week or two? AMassiveGay (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Inconvenient facts like those are ignored.--Miekal 02:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I choose you, Pikachu! Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could you guys stop being assholes for 2 seconds and engage in an interesting hypothetical? Necromancer 04:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with AMG on this. The best weapon against Zombies must be time. They seem to be able to shuffle about for years without food - but this isn't logical. If they have no energy input I don't see how they could remain shuffling for more than a few days.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- How can zombies be terminated in this hypothetical situation? Assuming they can't be killed in the same ways as living people (what with already being dead), I don't think .22 ammo would be very effective. You would need something with a lot more stopping power that does a lot more bodily damage, like a shotgun or some kind of grenade. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 15:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- zombies are raised by a necromancer ( see the Anita Blake novels) so they get there power from the necromancer. Throwing salt into their mouths is one method of stopping them. Hamster (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well in that case I wouldd fill up my shotgun with rock salt and nails. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- A can of flyspray and a cigarette lighter is all I need. If your flyspray is pressurised by CFCs rather than by butane, the zombies deserve to get you. ProblemChimp (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- if we are throwing necromancy into the mix, ya average paladin turn the undead skill is all you need. You'll regret your atheism when them zombies are muncvhing on your soft parts AMassiveGay (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- So magic is allowed and it is more like roleplaying now? I will give up atheism (if necromancy is real I totally believe) and become a druid-melee weapon staff and I think I will pick a electrical based spell as my range weapon. I can stun the zombies easily enough and with my new found magic abilities I can also offer a power source for whatever we might need. Arachne1988 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's kind of hard to get into the spirit of zombie role playing. If they are "realistic" zombies (as in it's due to some sort of bacterial/viral infection) then that's no fun, because as AMG pointed out, your best strategy would be to just wait the epidemic out. On the other hand, if you add the element of fantasy/magic into the mix... then I'd have nothing to fear. Why? Because I'd be Force-crushing some skulls and watching my light sabre slice through zombies like room temperature brie.--Inquisitor (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- So - we avoid the energy input and rotting problems by making them magic zombies. Clearly a lot more plausible. :-) So how would we attack this mixture of magic and woo? We need an army of quantum elven homoeopaths! They'd make short work of the magic zombies.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's kind of hard to get into the spirit of zombie role playing. If they are "realistic" zombies (as in it's due to some sort of bacterial/viral infection) then that's no fun, because as AMG pointed out, your best strategy would be to just wait the epidemic out. On the other hand, if you add the element of fantasy/magic into the mix... then I'd have nothing to fear. Why? Because I'd be Force-crushing some skulls and watching my light sabre slice through zombies like room temperature brie.--Inquisitor (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- So magic is allowed and it is more like roleplaying now? I will give up atheism (if necromancy is real I totally believe) and become a druid-melee weapon staff and I think I will pick a electrical based spell as my range weapon. I can stun the zombies easily enough and with my new found magic abilities I can also offer a power source for whatever we might need. Arachne1988 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- if we are throwing necromancy into the mix, ya average paladin turn the undead skill is all you need. You'll regret your atheism when them zombies are muncvhing on your soft parts AMassiveGay (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- A can of flyspray and a cigarette lighter is all I need. If your flyspray is pressurised by CFCs rather than by butane, the zombies deserve to get you. ProblemChimp (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well in that case I wouldd fill up my shotgun with rock salt and nails. Wèàšèìòìď
- zombies are raised by a necromancer ( see the Anita Blake novels) so they get there power from the necromancer. Throwing salt into their mouths is one method of stopping them. Hamster (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- How can zombies be terminated in this hypothetical situation? Assuming they can't be killed in the same ways as living people (what with already being dead), I don't think .22 ammo would be very effective. You would need something with a lot more stopping power that does a lot more bodily damage, like a shotgun or some kind of grenade. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- I'm with AMG on this. The best weapon against Zombies must be time. They seem to be able to shuffle about for years without food - but this isn't logical. If they have no energy input I don't see how they could remain shuffling for more than a few days.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is just going to keep escalating, so I'll cut to the chase:
- The Death Star. Game over, zombies. (Agrajag (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC))
- Doesn't really fall into the "common household item or something you could easily obtain" category. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't really fall into the "common household item or something you could easily obtain" category. Wèàšèìòìď
I chose a fossil to throw at zombies.--Palaeonictis (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- If they're magic zombies then I'd hire a wizard (of which there are many here in Totnes, though not as many as Glastonbury of course) to counter the spell. SophieWilder
22:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I choose pirates as my range weapon & ninjas as my melee weapon. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Have we turned into Uncyclopedia all of a sudden? SophieWilder 22:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- AAAAAAA AA AAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAA AA AAAAAA AAAAAA, AAAAAAA AA AAAAAA AAAAAA, AAAAA AAAAAAA AAA! WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- AAAAAAA AA AAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAA AA AAAAAA AAAAAA, AAAAAAA AA AAAAAA AAAAAA, AAAAA AAAAAAA AAA! Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- Have we turned into Uncyclopedia all of a sudden? SophieWilder
- I choose pirates as my range weapon & ninjas as my melee weapon. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- If they're magic zombies then I'd hire a wizard (of which there are many here in Totnes, though not as many as Glastonbury of course) to counter the spell. SophieWilder
“”LOL!!!1!!one!! - Oscar Wilde
|
You guys need to update your Uncyclopedia memes. That stuff is so previous-decade. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Updating our UC memes would mean having to go and look at the site and wade through shedloads of lame semi-jokes again. No thanks. SophieWilder 23:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Aww, it's not all bad. Some articles are really funny. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some articles are indeed really funny. In the same way that trace amounts of grains and nuts found in shit contain nutritional value. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you use the Category:Featured filter, you have significantly less shit to sift through than otherwise, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some articles are indeed really funny. In the same way that trace amounts of grains and nuts found in shit contain nutritional value. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Aww, it's not all bad. Some articles are really funny. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Post your steam account[edit]
http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198150567808 Necromancer 22:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd forgotten Steam existed. SophieWilder 22:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- ? (wot's "steam"?) Scream!! (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Search for me as "ǤØØßҰ ƤŁ$". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- stunteddwarf says stunteddwarf is probably a good search for anything.--
Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why would you want anyone to know how much time you spend doing something of no value to anyone but the people taking your money? Why in the world would you want to know anything at all about the RW editors likely to take you up on your offer. Baffling. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- What? I assume you spend every waking moment of your day saving the lives of orphans then? Also I heard they have this newfangled Internet thingamabob where you can even play games with other people! --Ymir (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I rarely buy anything (that I regularly play) on Steam but I do like Good Old Games, which repackages old games so that you can easily download and install them on modern systems at a fraction of what they used to cost. All I miss are those lovingly crafted instruction manuals and the copy protection (Fifth word of the tenth line on page twelve).Vajrapani (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- What? I assume you spend every waking moment of your day saving the lives of orphans then? Also I heard they have this newfangled Internet thingamabob where you can even play games with other people! --Ymir (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why would you want anyone to know how much time you spend doing something of no value to anyone but the people taking your money? Why in the world would you want to know anything at all about the RW editors likely to take you up on your offer. Baffling. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- stunteddwarf says stunteddwarf is probably a good search for anything.--
- Search for me as "ǤØØßҰ ƤŁ$". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- ? (wot's "steam"?) Scream!! (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The Dangers of Runaway Rationalism - Blog Post[edit]
An excellent blog post, perhaps something to ponder over. 74.14.72.118 (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is a confusing jumble of words almost entirely divorced from meaning.--TiaC (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- You really ought to look up the meaning of the word "excellent".
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 09:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I believe it's generated by one of those progs that create gobbledegook out of random phrases. Scream!! (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Our anon guest is the same person who linked to Mencius Moldbug a few days ago. Thanks for finding these weirdos for us to snigger at. SophieWilder 11:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note the neoreactionary blogroll - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Nydwracu niþgrim, nihtbealwa mæst" = "Most baneful of burdens and bales of the night", is a description of the man-eating monster Grendel in Beowulf (line 193). I'll leave the reason behind choosing that quote to the psychoanalysts.
- As for the (ahem) essay itself, natch. ProblemChimp (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am not exactly sure what I just read because it makes no sense. The other blog posts posted don't make much sense either. What gets me is how many people are part of the neoreactionary movement that are part of those masses they disparage, which is interesting to witness in earlier posts. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note the neoreactionary blogroll - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Our anon guest is the same person who linked to Mencius Moldbug a few days ago. Thanks for finding these weirdos for us to snigger at. SophieWilder
- I believe it's generated by one of those progs that create gobbledegook out of random phrases. Scream!! (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- You really ought to look up the meaning of the word "excellent".
- Nort? Never expected to see you here, if it’s you... Small internet. 75.34.54.217 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not Nort himself, but who you be? Anyway, Nydwracu responded to your "rationality" at his Twitter (@nydwracu) 74.14.72.118 (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, for Nort, I'll respond to one of the issues he brought up on tumblr here, gracilization of male human skeletons has been happening since agriculture, and is possibly connected to the decrease in testosterone and feminizization of human males, but only in some populations (or at least is pronounced more in said populations.)74.14.72.118 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- NURSE!! Ajkgordon (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, our IP editor's posts do rather suggest that some medication might be a good idea.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why do we always get the nutters? SophieWilder 14:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am beginning to think the internet is becoming one big day care for mental cases. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why do we always get the nutters? SophieWilder
- Yes, our IP editor's posts do rather suggest that some medication might be a good idea.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- NURSE!! Ajkgordon (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, for Nort, I'll respond to one of the issues he brought up on tumblr here, gracilization of male human skeletons has been happening since agriculture, and is possibly connected to the decrease in testosterone and feminizization of human males, but only in some populations (or at least is pronounced more in said populations.)74.14.72.118 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not Nort himself, but who you be? Anyway, Nydwracu responded to your "rationality" at his Twitter (@nydwracu) 74.14.72.118 (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Greetings from Boulder, CO[edit]
When people were telling me that it's all hippies here I was skeptical and thought they were overreacting. Now that I'm here and every other foodstuff place from the groceries down to the massage parlor (yes, this is really a thing) is labeled organic. Welcome to my new world it seems, there will be much debunking to do. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, the 10 miles surrounded by reality where (I think) you still can't own a pet (you are the guardian). It's an interesting place, but the creek festival is fun. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Creation Science Hall of Fame announces major successes for 2014.[edit]
Walt Brown Hydroplate theory confirmed by comets and rusian space craft window wiping, living triceratops found and other gems. read it here => http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/2014/12/29/science/models/created-scene-2014/ Hamster (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
WTF.--Palaeonictis (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now now... when a group's ideas are crazy in their unadulterated form, there's no reason to misrepresent them. Creationists aren't claiming that a "living triceratops" was found. What happened was another "soft tissue" find was made, this time in a triceratops fossil. The discoverer is a YEC by the name of Mark Armitage. Even though he wrote up his finding in a rather straightforward manner for the peer-reviewed literature... he made the rounds of the YEC circuit spiking the football. Apparently his boss got tired of his nonsense, and made matters much much worse by firing him. Now he's a celebrity martyr who's filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination. Basically a story that falls neatly into the YEC narratives of religious persecution and scientific censorship. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Far-right in US[edit]
Why isn't the US seeing a rising far-right movement like the one's in France, Sweden, Ukraine, England, Germany, Italy and even in places like Japan and India. We had the Tea Party but they haven't really had too much effect on nation from what I can tell and now Tea Partiers can win local elections but have no national power outside of Ted Cruz. We have an anti-Muslim sentiment but nothing really happens despite it existing. Why?--BlackProg (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- First Past the post. They can win on a local level but if they run on a national level it does them no good if they only get 30% of the vote, they'd get nothing if they lose. Also those people are pretty powerful and essentially control the House so we DO have a rising far-right movement but the far-right here is different from in Europe. They are more paranoid anti-socialists and anti-welfare and nationalistic than they are overtly racist. ClothCoat (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think you underplay the power of the Tea Party, which is the mainstream far-right. The Tea Party, at its height, incorporated more than half of the Republican Party. They formed the "red wave" that took control of the house in '10. They forced Mitt to flip-flop on just about everything to win the primaries and have a shot at the general.
- Consider also the extreme rise of the Patriot movement and associated movements, which are a wee bit racist, nationalist, paranoid, and often far-right. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're aware, but the phenomenon you guys call "Republicans" matches up pretty well with movements described as "far-right" in Europe. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Like FuzzyCatPotato said, you underestimate the power of the Tea Party movement. They haven't needed to create a far-right third party because they all but took over one of the two major parties in the last four years. As for far-right causes, we have some hysteria over Muslims, but they're not the big bogeyman here; instead, it's Latino immigrants and the "Ferguson thugs" (read: black people). You won't find the neo-Nazi imagery and anti-Semitism you see in the European far-right; we're the ones who kicked the Nazis' asses, after all, and the Israelis are out there defending freedom! Instead, their image is more like that of the cranky uncle that uses holiday dinners and Facebook posts to rant about everything he hates (you'll probably be meeting him today, in fact), and publicly at least, they try to veil their racism and make token appeals to non-whites. Basically, they're less Liberty Lobby and more Daily Mail in their far-right views. KevinR1990 (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah Merry Christmas! This is always good for a laugh, a bunch of no-nothing nitwits who wouldn't know a Republican if it bit them on the ass speculating why Republicans don't fit their bigotted stereotype of Republicans. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 13:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, nobs! Unsubstantiated assertions. Always good for a laugh. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Trust me, I've heard my mother's political rants enough to know what a Tea Party Republican looks like. KevinR1990 (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah Merry Christmas! This is always good for a laugh, a bunch of no-nothing nitwits who wouldn't know a Republican if it bit them on the ass speculating why Republicans don't fit their bigotted stereotype of Republicans. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 13:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- European democracies often have parliamentary systems, where legislative coalitions choose the next head of government. They may also have instant-runoff or more mathematically complicated voting systems than first past the post. Those circumstances are more favorable to multiple party systems, and allow more extreme voices to organize into parties or blocs and experience large swings in favor. In the USA the math pretty much dooms us into a two party system. For better or for worse "Republicans" and "Democrats" are inevitable, although the political stances and the constituencies that make up the coalitions within the party change. This means that extremists have to work within one of the established parties, which is why Tea Partiers are Republicans. - Smerdis of Tlön, your friendly local Ruritanian despot. 16:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Yah but you still miss the point: the Tea Party as its name implies is an attempt by economic conservatives to take the party away from social-religious conservatives. Tea Partiers are sick of losing social issues, like abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. Hell, there is a movement in the Democratic party right along the same lines (see Chuck Shumer's recent comments how ignoring the economic jobs issue in favor of social causes like government funded healthcare in 2009 cost Democrats dearly now and in the future). Wikipedia's bio on Dick Armey, the Tea Party founder, does not do justice to Armey's attempt to bitch-slap moral majority conservatives. So Tea Partiers actually are trying to make the GOP more middle class mainstream, less extreme religious-social issue dominated. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- you see rob, you can be useful. I always thought the tea party was the opposite to what you describe - socio-religous conservatives trying to strong arm the party. That's problem of using conserrvapedia as a window into the american right. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Tea Party represents the breakdown of the Reagan Coalition of social and economic conservatives. See Armey's comments about James Dobson. You guys comments on the Tea Party run the same the same problems CP has as far as reliable information and credibility. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I rarely comment on us politics, except for how it looks from across the pond. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Tea Party suffers from the Gamergate problem; it's a hashtag rather than an organization. The papers call just about any Republican challenger from the right a Tea Party operation. The papers said that the Tea Party was responsible when our distinguished senator Dick Lugar was primaried by a fellow named Mourdock, who went on to lose to the Democrat because he wuv'd the widdle fetuses too dearly. Now Indiana has a one-term Democrat senator for the first time since the 1970s. My point is that the stock press narrative of the Tea Party makes social issue zealots like Mourdock part of the movement. If this is what "reliable sources" tell me who am I to say different? - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 04:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- You make a good point. It has more to do with the inherent problem conservatives have in finding qualified candidates due to the inherent nature of Democrats and Republicans. Democratic candidates tend to be career government employees nursing the public tit, whereas Republicans tend to be either too busy earning a living, building a business, and paying taxes, or "rich" people who succeed and now have time to give to public service. That leaves the door open for single issue stalwarts and nutbags to who thrive on anti-incumbent fever or term limits. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, nobs, for reminding us that only conservatives actually do work. Thanks for a helpful and fact-based comment. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You make a good point. It has more to do with the inherent problem conservatives have in finding qualified candidates due to the inherent nature of Democrats and Republicans. Democratic candidates tend to be career government employees nursing the public tit, whereas Republicans tend to be either too busy earning a living, building a business, and paying taxes, or "rich" people who succeed and now have time to give to public service. That leaves the door open for single issue stalwarts and nutbags to who thrive on anti-incumbent fever or term limits. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Tea Party represents the breakdown of the Reagan Coalition of social and economic conservatives. See Armey's comments about James Dobson. You guys comments on the Tea Party run the same the same problems CP has as far as reliable information and credibility. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- you see rob, you can be useful. I always thought the tea party was the opposite to what you describe - socio-religous conservatives trying to strong arm the party. That's problem of using conserrvapedia as a window into the american right. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Yah but you still miss the point: the Tea Party as its name implies is an attempt by economic conservatives to take the party away from social-religious conservatives. Tea Partiers are sick of losing social issues, like abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. Hell, there is a movement in the Democratic party right along the same lines (see Chuck Shumer's recent comments how ignoring the economic jobs issue in favor of social causes like government funded healthcare in 2009 cost Democrats dearly now and in the future). Wikipedia's bio on Dick Armey, the Tea Party founder, does not do justice to Armey's attempt to bitch-slap moral majority conservatives. So Tea Partiers actually are trying to make the GOP more middle class mainstream, less extreme religious-social issue dominated. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if the original poster was referring to far right parties or far right groups? As far as parties go, in the UK at least, there hasn't been a rise in fr parties or election success. Ukip really isnt far right or extreme in neo Nazi sense. They are the right wing of the Tories unleashed with poor media presentation. As someone else mentioned they are more akin to the republicans and their support is tea partyish. Some right wing parties across europe have enjoyed some minor electoral success due to voter apathy and protest voting to t EU parliament but they are hardly mainstream. Some of the former eastern bloc countries seem to have more fr representation I think due to corruption in some of these countries. Same goes for Greece, when you couple it with austerity and economics. As for actual neo Nazi style groups, they have always been there, they just seem to rebranding to anti Islam. There hasn't been such an other group for hate groups to rally against that's been so publically acceptable as Islam. Its all a worry but I don't think western europe has too much to fear just yet, along as we don't get too complacent. As for no similar resurgance in th e us, you are right, no sesurgance. There is no need they are all ready ingrained at a level unheard in Europe, what with various klansmen and christian identity fuckwits. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to a conflation of both I admit. Far-right parties like the anti-Semitic Jobbik in Hungary which actually has a good amount of power now along with the National Front in France which where Marine La Penn is apparently the front runner now in the 2017 election. Smerdis made a great point I that I didn't think of, the two party system is actually pretty good at keeping the more insane people from getting into positions of national power. A Klan member may win a state senate seat in backwoods Alabama but they would never become a Senator. (Though this has almost happened just this year upon further research).BlackProg (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- another thing to consider is that Europe is not one homogenous mass. Its dozens of countries where the significance of the far right varies. They have always been an issue in eastern Europe since the fall of communism and the resultant economic upheaval. I think there is a parallel with the current spate of economic fucked up ness. Folk tend to blame the political establishment so a bit of scare mongering and scape goating goes along way particularly in those countries whose politic tend to be quite chaotic to begin with. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's easy to label UKIP as right wing because of their anti-Europe and anti-immigration little-Englander views, but many voters actually see UKIP as being to the left of the Tories. Генгисpillaging 21:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's largely because many voters don't see beyond UKIP's anti-Europe and anti-immigration views (which, rightly or wrongly, many Britons do identify with) & are barely aware of the party's right-wing socio-economic policies & their implications. Spin has a lot to do with it. UKIP has been pretty successful in marketing itself to disaffected working class voters who would traditionally have gravitated toward Labour, if Labour hadn't sold out its working class credentials over the last twenty-odd years in favour of courting middle class voters. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 01:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- NPR (national socialist radio) reported this morning the EU is breaking up and Putin is now the defender of Christendom against Islamic and gay-married hordes. Is that true? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- "NPR (national socialist radio)" Then you wonder why no one takes you seriously. It is true that the European far-right generally likes Putin however. ClothCoat (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Really can't find anywhere in that article where NPR/NSR reports that "the EU is breaking up", but perhaps that's elsewhere? I was also of the impression that Putin has his fan clubs among right-wingers everywhere, U.S. included, even if his Ukraine policy has shrunk his attraction somewhat. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- npr reported this 5 days ago and reiterated in the intro to the above audio link. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- the 51% refers to britons wanting out of the EU. The article makes it clear that Britain was the only country with such a majority. Even Greece still wants in. Hardly an indicater of the eu's break up. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Sunday Express? Yeah, sure. The Express Group runs that sort of headline about twice a week, alternating with things like cures for dementia (a subject of particular concern to many of their readers), expected extreme weather (most likely the EU's fault rather than AGW), and new relevations about the death of princess Diana. ProblemChimp (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- All I know is I got if off NPR - maybe they're demented, too. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Don't believe that for a second. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure of that; here they seem to be promoting environmental degradation through the use of technology to increase greenhouse gasses and bovine flatulence. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't believe that for a second. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- the 51% refers to britons wanting out of the EU. The article makes it clear that Britain was the only country with such a majority. Even Greece still wants in. Hardly an indicater of the eu's break up. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- npr reported this 5 days ago and reiterated in the intro to the above audio link. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- NPR (national socialist radio) reported this morning the EU is breaking up and Putin is now the defender of Christendom against Islamic and gay-married hordes. Is that true? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's largely because many voters don't see beyond UKIP's anti-Europe and anti-immigration views (which, rightly or wrongly, many Britons do identify with) & are barely aware of the party's right-wing socio-economic policies & their implications. Spin has a lot to do with it. UKIP has been pretty successful in marketing itself to disaffected working class voters who would traditionally have gravitated toward Labour, if Labour hadn't sold out its working class credentials over the last twenty-odd years in favour of courting middle class voters. Щєазєюіδ
- It's easy to label UKIP as right wing because of their anti-Europe and anti-immigration little-Englander views, but many voters actually see UKIP as being to the left of the Tories.
- another thing to consider is that Europe is not one homogenous mass. Its dozens of countries where the significance of the far right varies. They have always been an issue in eastern Europe since the fall of communism and the resultant economic upheaval. I think there is a parallel with the current spate of economic fucked up ness. Folk tend to blame the political establishment so a bit of scare mongering and scape goating goes along way particularly in those countries whose politic tend to be quite chaotic to begin with. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre.[edit]
Gamergate Truly spectacular misogyny, asshole-syndrome and batshit crazy rolled into two one.--Palaeonictis (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Gamergate is liking watching the evolution of Conservapedia, only in Super Fast Forward. Anger, bile and hate, followed by creating their own wiki. Add in writing letters Lenksi style and then getting, at best, a standard polite 'we got your letter' letter, and more commonly, your standard 'you are a bunch of assholes' letter. Finished with a descent into schism, backstabbing, the throwing under of buses, night of blunt knives, and now just endless echo chamber where
ideasconspiracy theorists are trying to make the next big thing so that Grubergate can be a thing in the news again. All they need is a Ken and they'd be complete.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
A really good comment on this article drew a parallel between Gamergate and the Dreyfus affair (our article on which I started, thankyouverymuch). Unfortunately one point it made was Gamergate may be around for a while, just like the Dreyfus affair, which went on for years spinning into all kinds of conspiracy theories and driving a wedge into French society. The Birchers are still around and still seeing communists everywhere after all, only now the American right has shifted close enough to the Society that they've co-sponsored CPAC. I wonder if we'll see an "Ethics in Journalism Party".
Other good comments from that article:
--Ymir (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do the words "No such thing as bad publicity" mean nothing to any of you or have you let the echo chamber of both sides consume us? The more negative attention they get, the more followers. Let it languish and die.--Madman (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman
- The underlying things that have caused it and the reaction against it aren't gonna just go away because we stop talking about "Gamergate".--Miekal 20:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, Madman does kinda have a point. I mean, the same could be said for the issues with fundamentalist Christianity, and yet we still avoid giving attention to Westboro. Noir LeSable (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The things that cause Gamergate, what they want and represent, will thrive so much easier if they -stop- getting attention payed to them though. If we stop talking about gamergate, it'll just get itself a new name and keep doing what it's been doing, and nothing will improve.--Miekal 20:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, let's not challenge the narrative that this misogynistic harassment campaign is actually about ethics. That'll do the trick. Vulpius (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- If the twitter hashtag is any indication it seems like the movements entire purpose is now attacking people who accuse them of being an attack movement. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 21:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, let's not challenge the narrative that this misogynistic harassment campaign is actually about ethics. That'll do the trick. Vulpius (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The things that cause Gamergate, what they want and represent, will thrive so much easier if they -stop- getting attention payed to them though. If we stop talking about gamergate, it'll just get itself a new name and keep doing what it's been doing, and nothing will improve.--Miekal 20:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, Madman does kinda have a point. I mean, the same could be said for the issues with fundamentalist Christianity, and yet we still avoid giving attention to Westboro. Noir LeSable (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The underlying things that have caused it and the reaction against it aren't gonna just go away because we stop talking about "Gamergate".--Miekal 20:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Holyshit, comparing Gamergate to the dreyfuss affair. The internet has no sense of perspective. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Who else compared Gamergate to the Dreyfus affair? Hitler, that's who! - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Who else compared Gamergate to the Dreyfus affair? Pinko scum, that's who!--Palaeonictis (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
History channel suicide[edit]
It's sad, but very interesting to watch the "History"channel cocksuck itself to death. Here's their latest piece of garbage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnmRQFbTTBo Necromancer 15:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hasn't it always been pretty trashy? Or at least for a long time. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 16:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- It has been pretty bad for awhile. I wish they would go back to showing history, or nature, or something that isn't pseudoscience reality show bullshit. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the Hitler obsession was just a phase. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- At least talking about recent interpretations of bible prophecies has some tangential relationship with history. A documentary about the evolution of those beliefs would actually be worthwhile. What bugs me more about the History Channel recently is the endless "reality" programs. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 16:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that a documentary about the evolution of those beliefs [i.e. Revelations bullshit] will ever show, the only thing that is even tangibly related to history on there is Pawn Stars, and I think that those items should be in a museum, not a pawn shop. Why call itself "History" if almost absolutely nothing on there is related to history?--Palaeonictis (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hate to say it but perhaps History doesn't sell? I love the subject but I know many people who either are bored by it or hate it.--BlackProgBlackProg 17:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Hitler stuff was moved into H2. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
But does planting trees help bring people to Christ? 21:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- At least talking about recent interpretations of bible prophecies has some tangential relationship with history. A documentary about the evolution of those beliefs would actually be worthwhile. What bugs me more about the History Channel recently is the endless "reality" programs. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 16:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the Hitler stuff just became the Military Channel. ANyway I wish they would go back to making Life After People and Jurassic Fight Club instead of stuff that doesn't exist.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Programing is all about viewer demographics; really no different than Hollywood producers putting money in Russell Crowe's Noah movie or the NFL going after female viewers. Evidently Christian believers with income above $XX tired of the 700 Club and switched on the History Channel. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've found a trend (noticed by others) where if you get a channel with the name "Science" or "History", don't trust that channel. You are more likely to find something actually useful on a channel like
The Learning Channel"PBS" or "BBC".--Palaeonictis (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)- The History channel is CBS, born of William S. Paley
's Musdeum of Broadcasting. What they've done objectionable over the years is having a nararator read some text while they run some totally unrelated 1915 black-and-white hand crank reel that vagauely resembles the subject to create an aura of authenticity. It's a perversion history, not a preservation of historical artifacts. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The History channel is CBS, born of William S. Paley
- I've found a trend (noticed by others) where if you get a channel with the name "Science" or "History", don't trust that channel. You are more likely to find something actually useful on a channel like
- Programing is all about viewer demographics; really no different than Hollywood producers putting money in Russell Crowe's Noah movie or the NFL going after female viewers. Evidently Christian believers with income above $XX tired of the 700 Club and switched on the History Channel. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the Hitler obsession was just a phase.
- It has been pretty bad for awhile. I wish they would go back to showing history, or nature, or something that isn't pseudoscience reality show bullshit. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Endless Bible bullshit.
- American Pickers.
- Swamp People
- Vikings (which has nothing to do with real Vikings, other than enforce common stereotypes and myths).
- Ax Men
- Cryptid: The Swamp Beast
- Appalachian Outlaws
- God, Guns, and Automobiles
- MonsterQuest
- UFO Hunters
- Gangland
- UFO Files
- Cities of the Underworld.
- and almost every other show that has ever been produced on PseudoHistory Channel in recent years.--Palaeonictis (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I never grasped the appeal of endless shows about swamp-billies, marine salvagers, and other ugly people with ugly accents doing ugly jobs. I must admit to enjoying Vikings; more enjoyable than Game of Thrones to me, since we already know how Ragnar Lothbrok dies. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's only so many times you can loop a 1936 video of Hitler addressing the Nuremberg Party rally and claim the footage is from 1944 when Hitler hadn't been seen in public for years and all the troops marching had been killed already at Stalingrad. After that, you gotta pander to market demand for programming, like UFO Hunters. The CIA has admitted (to the UFO Hunters chagrin) UFO's were really U-2s. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Year of the GOAT!![edit]
Did we not know that 2015from Feb 19th anyhow is the year of the GOAT!? Scream!! (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Up with the goat! Down with the Jerboan running dogs! March towards a golden future under the Great Helmsman! Bicyclewheel 15:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- We have a five-year plan! From now on, every five-year cycle will include five Years of the Goat!. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here in Taiwan, although it's now both the year 2015 and the year 104, it's still technically the Year of the Horse. The Year of the Goat will start at Chinese New Year on February 19. (The Year of Goat is considered to have started in Japan on January 1, though). Of course, it's also sometimes translated as the Year of the Sheep (the ancient Chinese, apparently, not seeing any difference). I chose to give my younger students Year of the Goat colouring pages instead of Year of the Sheep ones, mainly because they'd just leave the big wooly sheep mostly white and there wouldn't be much colour on the pictures. I have just kicked myself for not having thought about RationalWiki while giving those pictures out. Spud (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mighty Lord Jerboa is displeased by the blatant War on Jerboaism. PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here in Taiwan, although it's now both the year 2015 and the year 104, it's still technically the Year of the Horse. The Year of the Goat will start at Chinese New Year on February 19. (The Year of Goat is considered to have started in Japan on January 1, though). Of course, it's also sometimes translated as the Year of the Sheep (the ancient Chinese, apparently, not seeing any difference). I chose to give my younger students Year of the Goat colouring pages instead of Year of the Sheep ones, mainly because they'd just leave the big wooly sheep mostly white and there wouldn't be much colour on the pictures. I have just kicked myself for not having thought about RationalWiki while giving those pictures out. Spud (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- We have a five-year plan! From now on, every five-year cycle will include five Years of the Goat!. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Article for this shit[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV04zyfLyN4 Anybody want to help me make an article for this crap? Necromancer 17:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- We don't learn much from that trailer. Have you watched the film? WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 17:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah there's not much in the trailer to go on. In fact, if the thing wasn't called "COWSPIRACY" I'd have no clue what it was on about. My guess, is that it's anti-dairy farming? --Inquisitor (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seems to be about the cattle industry in general (based on a Google search & a quick look at the IMDB entry). Without watching the film & fact-checking its claims I have no idea how accurate it is, but I know cattle farming in South America (largely by or for US companies such as McDonalds) is responsible for large-scale deforestation & other environmental harm. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the stuff about entrenched interests keeping this from wider scrutiny has something in it too. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Weaseloid beat me to it, but I think it's aimed at the cattle industry, since it mentions deforestation, species extinction, global warming, water depletion, and ocean deadzones could all be traced to the maintenance of large herds of cattle. It might also be aimed at overpopulation and the "real" costs of trying to sustain a massive human population.--71.62.250.238 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's kind of what it looks like. I don't really trust that it will take the real issue and slather it in green ink. - EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cow farts are going to destroy the planet. Why do you think Scott Walker is running for president with the Koch brothers money? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's kind of what it looks like. I don't really trust that it will take the real issue and slather it in green ink. - EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Weaseloid beat me to it, but I think it's aimed at the cattle industry, since it mentions deforestation, species extinction, global warming, water depletion, and ocean deadzones could all be traced to the maintenance of large herds of cattle. It might also be aimed at overpopulation and the "real" costs of trying to sustain a massive human population.--71.62.250.238 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seems to be about the cattle industry in general (based on a Google search & a quick look at the IMDB entry). Without watching the film & fact-checking its claims I have no idea how accurate it is, but I know cattle farming in South America (largely by or for US companies such as McDonalds) is responsible for large-scale deforestation & other environmental harm. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the stuff about entrenched interests keeping this from wider scrutiny has something in it too. Wëäŝëïöïď
- Yeah there's not much in the trailer to go on. In fact, if the thing wasn't called "COWSPIRACY" I'd have no clue what it was on about. My guess, is that it's anti-dairy farming? --Inquisitor (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
A template for legal issues[edit]
Given the recent implied legal threats at Talk:John Duffield, I was wondering if we should create a template to use whenever somebody makes legal threats on RationalWiki. The template would state that none of the statements of the editors on RationalWiki necessarily represent or are endorsed by RationalWiki or the RationalMedia Foundation, would state that the article and/or its talk page are not the proper location(s) for seeking legal action(s), would state that continued attempts to give the impression that legal action was possibly being considered are bannable offenses, and would provide the proper location(s) for seeking legal action(s).
The template would provide links to all of the Legal Notices pages: (for those genuinely seeking legal action)
- RationalWiki:Legal FAQ
- RationalWiki:General disclaimer
- RationalWiki:Medical disclaimer
- RationalWiki:Privacy policy
- RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover
- RationalWiki:Copyrights
- RationalWiki:Copyright violations
The template would also provide links to a few introductory pages: (for those who just don't understand what RationalWiki is)
- RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?
- RationalWiki:Newcomers
- RationalWiki:Community Standards
- RationalWiki
The template would finally ask all editors to not discuss legal issues on the talk page, just in case.
Wikipedia (which is basically the standard for stuff like this) doesn't have a template for exactly this, but has many pages with similar goals. Wikipedia has Template:Uw-legal, which points out that claiming that legal action was possibly being considered is bannable on Wikipedia, Template:Uw-lblock, which is the standard block message for claiming that legal action was possibly being considered, as well as the pages Wikipedia:No legal threats, which point out that claiming that legal action was possibly being considered is unacceptable, and a contact us page.
I think that a template like this would help with legal stupidity like what was seen on Talk:John Duffield. Thoughts? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Contact the Foundation about it. It would need their approval. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 01:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The truth about the "Conservative User Name Troll"[edit]
The truth is that the "conservative user name troll" was the same as the Springlyn troll, Crooked Jim and Jeb Berkeley. Yep, they're all the same person. If you want to find any history going back before then, search for yourself. — Unsigned, by: Liberals are pro-communist scum / talk / contribs 10:45, 2 January 2015
- We should be bothered why exactly? Scream!! (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also this looks sorta close to trying to reveal personal information. But as I've never heard of any of these users it's difficult to care.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good acronym, that. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- The nym that guy "Liberals are pro-Communist scum" is using looks like he is a troll.--Palaeonictis (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good acronym, that. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also this looks sorta close to trying to reveal personal information. But as I've never heard of any of these users it's difficult to care.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Very Refreshing.[edit]
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152611339748143 Found this video. It's refreshing to see an Islamic preacher accept that the Middle East's mentality is to blame for a lot of it's problems, instead of blaming all of them on "western corruption". Unfortunately, people that share his opinions seem to be an all too small minority. Necromancer 02:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Aside from the questionable economics about manufacturing being key to growth (Qatar has successfully grown its services sectors instead), it's a simplistic argument about how the answer to all of our problems is that we have to work harder and be more professional. I've heard this countless times in my own less than democratic state, Singapore. It's an argument that is often used here to distract the audience from structural problems in political systems. Anyway, Youtube comments identify him as "Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawy, the famous scholars in the middle east, he is Egyptian Imam not Kuwaiti, and he is Anti_ Military Coup in Egypt and opposes the injustice among people and governess, he is a great supporter to the Palestinian Resistance against Israel." Another says that he has supported suicide bombings of civilians. Vajrapani (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
youtube-nocookie[edit]
Happy new year, RWians! I want to embed youtube-nocookie videos instead of youtube videos, partly to allow RW to conform with EU regs in case we ever have to migrate to an EU country, but mostly because I want to better protect the privacy of our editors. Does anybody know how to embed a youtube-nocookie video? I've already perused MediaWiki documentation, and I've come up short. Rand0 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- As much I hate to say it, I think one of the BOT's members is one of the most Mediawiki-savvy here. Don't remember which one, though.--Madman (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman
- An alternative: don't embed videos, just link to them.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Doubtful News[edit]
Are asking for contributors: . For those who don't know DN, just have a browse round here, it's got everything RW needs. Scream!! (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh hi there![edit]
I came from the RW Facebook group. I was a frequent lurker here and I said, "Eh, what the hell?" So I registered. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Kewl. What mischief do you plan here? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- So wait, you weren't an editor all this time? Gee. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- You should try learning about THE HORRORS OF SANTO DOMINGO!!!!!!--Palaeonictis (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hey me too! Seeing your post made me feel like I should probably at least like...not lurk in the shadows or....I dunno, so I'll just....sneak my own intro into yours or something, I guess.Trick (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- THE HORRORS OF SANTO DOMINGO = The Haitian Revolution. I already know about it. The quote I got it from is from a pro-slavery Pre-Civil War era newspaper from the South.--Palaeonictis (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well. That happened. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- THE HORRORS OF SANTO DOMINGO = The Haitian Revolution. I already know about it. The quote I got it from is from a pro-slavery Pre-Civil War era newspaper from the South.--Palaeonictis (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hey me too! Seeing your post made me feel like I should probably at least like...not lurk in the shadows or....I dunno, so I'll just....sneak my own intro into yours or something, I guess.Trick (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- You should try learning about THE HORRORS OF SANTO DOMINGO!!!!!!--Palaeonictis (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- So wait, you weren't an editor all this time? Gee. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thought I'd tag my "Hello!" here as well. actually the main reason I signed up, rather than just using it as a handy resource, was to find out if I should continue to use it as a handy resource ... you know like rather than retorting to someone with "Well I disagree and here's why: <pages of reasoning>", I just point them to a web site that supports my point. Anyway on Twitter in responding to a climate change denier, I posted a URL of the main page here to which the response was "rational wiki? Joe Romm who said it's OK 'deniers' are killed' " So can anyone explain to me who Joe Romm is and if there's a reason such a comment should negate this site's credence? Ikemeister (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Motorola and the "Mark of the Beast"[edit]
Ok, so this User on posted a video about Motorola producing a tattoo with the characteristics of the Mark of the Beast. While i don't use Youtube for a lot of information (Indeed, look at the same guys's profile i linked to), Motorola DOES appear to be making some type of tatoo/chip to be implanted/on our skin. Google search "Motorola Mark of the Beast", and You will see what I mean. Very popular. While Barcodes and RFID chips were accused of being this, Motorola is the first that is publicly saying they're making something to be implanted in us.
On a side note, I was wondering if there was any site that documents Conspiracy Theories besides this one? There's Quack Watch for Alt. Medicine, for example. Is there any rational sites that document crank websites? Besides this one, I mean. I seem to not be able to find any, and due to the fact that these nutjobs have a lot of shit they need to pull out of their asses, why don't I see any sites online besides this one that do this?--Loton777 (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that implants in healthy people will become commonplace. Although embedding them in easily removed parts of the human anatomy should not be entrusted to high value security situations like nuclear-missile launch buttons or Fort Knox. Whether you youngsters feel comfortable with this or not is not my problem. I'll probably be long gone or past caring before it becomes mandatory. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 10:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Within the past 24 hours, the wind chill in my corner of the world was below -20° C, or a bit below zero Fahrenheit. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to use an implanted RFID gizmo to open their house door, as the guy did in the link Genghis showed, had better have reliable backup for when the batteries go flat. Solution in search of problem, fixing what ain't broken, and so forth.
- How will ultra-orthodox Jews feel about the use of these things on the Sabbath? I've seen someone require gentile assistance to swipe a card in a hotel door, because throwing an electrical switch is forbidden on certain days. (I don't know if twisting a metal key in a conventional pin-tumbler lock is allowed in that tradition, but that's another topic.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Many years ago I remember seeing a "kosher lightswitch" on Tomorrow's World which allowed ultra-orthodox Jews to bypass that stricture. IIRC flicking a lightswitch is seen as doing work on the Sabbath. Генгисpillaging 09:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- In my limited understanding, starting a flow of electric current is held to be equivalent to starting a fire, which is explicitly and specifically proscribed on that day. I don't know how opening (shutting off) a switch is viewed, but if there is significant inductance in the load, it has the potential for more arcing and sparking than switching on e.g. a lift motor. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- p.s. the first result searching for "kosher lightswitch" links to a programmable timer. I guess it's OK to make a robot work for you on the sabbath. See what WP has to say about Shabbos goy. sjc 18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Within the first two minutes of that you tubevideo we have aliens, flying saucers, the history channel and area 51. And you wonder why youtube videos have no credibility?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Many years ago I remember seeing a "kosher lightswitch" on Tomorrow's World which allowed ultra-orthodox Jews to bypass that stricture. IIRC flicking a lightswitch is seen as doing work on the Sabbath.
- How will ultra-orthodox Jews feel about the use of these things on the Sabbath? I've seen someone require gentile assistance to swipe a card in a hotel door, because throwing an electrical switch is forbidden on certain days. (I don't know if twisting a metal key in a conventional pin-tumbler lock is allowed in that tradition, but that's another topic.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Headline of the week[edit]
Nazi cows tried to kill my staff. Bicyclewheel 17:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that's a British tabloid. Necromancer 21:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- British small-town paper, the ones who compete for silliest headline in the world's social media - David Gerard (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- They alternate between the absurd & the absurdly mundane. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- They can compete all they like, but Brighton wins every time. Bicyclewheel 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- They can compete all they like, but Brighton wins every time. Bicyclewheel
- They alternate between the absurd & the absurdly mundane. Weaseloid
- British small-town paper, the ones who compete for silliest headline in the world's social media - David Gerard (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone has Youtube channels who are surprisingly not trolls?[edit]
What I mean by this is finding a Youtube channel which spreads ideas with no proof, cherry picks proofs to confirm their theories, play with proof to make it look like it's confirming their theories or just invents its own proof because it can't find any. Illuminatis, creationists, "Other religion's gods are Satan"ists, anything. What I've found may be one of the most surprising ones, it's called "TheEndTimesAreHere". Here is video showing that Muslims' Allah is actually Satan and that the Quran proves it. Watch it, the only thing funnier than that are the poster's comments. So, what are your dumbest channels? If you really have nothing to read...If you have really nothing to do... 00:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 22:26, 8 January 2015
What happened to the page for H.G. Wells?[edit]
I can't even find a deletion log, when I know he had a page, as I've edited before. Is someone altering this sites history without discussing it, because I've seen that problem on Wikipedia on a certain users talk page as well; how many people here can honestly know how to do that? Deleting the page for Wells and expecting no one to notice is strange, considering all the sci-fi authors inspired by him who have pages here. I was going to add his epitaph as the opening quote, "I told you so. You damned fools." It's very a serious problem to a wiki's integrity, if things just go mysteriously missing from the history. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Are you sure you're not just imagining things? The only thing in the logs is this: [3]. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Could be the Illuminati. Marlow (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I know there's never been an article about him here. There's an article on time travel which mentions Wells and which you (Exiled Encyclopedist) have edited several times. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? In one of your edit summaries on this page, dating from 10 October 2014, you stated "I'm surprised H.G. Wells has no page." Since you were aware of it then, and there's no trace of an article on Wells having been written & deleted in the three months since, it's most likely that you're misremembering. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you have time-travelled back from the future when there was an article that has not yet been written? ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I blame the Morlocks.
- If you don't know the story, read The Cone. And – sleep well! ProblemChimp (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- What? Hold the presses! An article on an SF author has been secretly deleted! What super-secret information could have been in the article that it needed this special level of subterfuge? What information about HG Wells could have so undermined the wiki that this article in particular needed to be hidden? Was HG somehow involved with the basilisk? Did it reveal information about the New World Order? Was it the true story of Obams's birth? We need to be told! EE - do you member what you put in the article? Did you give it a category which revealed everything?--Coffee (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you have time-travelled back from the future when there was an article that has not yet been written?
- As far as I know there's never been an article about him here. There's an article on time travel which mentions Wells and which you (Exiled Encyclopedist) have edited several times. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? In one of your edit summaries on this page, dating from 10 October 2014, you stated "I'm surprised H.G. Wells has no page." Since you were aware of it then, and there's no trace of an article on Wells having been written & deleted in the three months since, it's most likely that you're misremembering. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Could be the Illuminati. Marlow (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, being all Hunger games paranoid and confusing time travel with H.G. Wells. Talking about future cannibalism, have there been a scientific study to show the psychological effects of being hungry on paranoia by any chance, at what point does hunger become a legal defense for cannibalism, or is assumed to be a factor to the extent attributed to getting high off bath salts? Also, who here is the worst physically injured and why isn't that a category here or on Wikipedia; people are proud of everything else, I'll proudly wear that identification badge. I think Wells and Verne and Huxley should all have pages if Asimov Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke have them. I don't suppose there's an early history of Rational wiki like the one I found for Wikipedia and added to the Ayn Rand page; which articles are made first say a lot about the Wiki and the people using it back than.
Also that Wikipedia user who white washes their use of the phrase 'fucktard' when reverting a category that stayed up for months is much more clever than that. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and we never get tired of hearing about it. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 01:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- This link will take you to the oldest pages.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. It shows one entry from July 2008, then picks up again in February 2010, whereas there are certainly pages dating from before & between those dates (e.g. Pantera, currently pending probable deletion, dates from December 2007). I think server changes(?) have corrupted these sorts of logs from the early days. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I should have looked at it a bit closer.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. It shows one entry from July 2008, then picks up again in February 2010, whereas there are certainly pages dating from before & between those dates (e.g. Pantera, currently pending probable deletion, dates from December 2007). I think server changes(?) have corrupted these sorts of logs from the early days. Wēāŝēīōīď
- This link will take you to the oldest pages.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I confused H.G. Wells with Mark Twain; in fairness same era and they both wrote time travel tales. Anyone interested in giving Wells a page to do with the great 3 of science fiction? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Animal Uplift.[edit]
Is anyone aware of any pseudoscience that comes with the controversial concept of animal uplift?--Palaeonictis (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- do you mean uplift as in The Uplift War by David Brin ? That is no species can acheive sentience naturally but only by the intervention of an already sentient species. Hamster (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should tell us what you mean by animal uplift first. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I mean that "no species can achieve sentience naturally but only by the intervention of an already sentient species."--Palaeonictis (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like the cosmological argument. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 08:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm only aware of "animal uplift" within the context of sci-fi, that Hamster has already pointed out. Though I must admit, I was once engaged in a Shakespearean-struggle with a clan of trash-scouring racoons that could persuade me that there's something more to it... --Inquisitor (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- There were some futurists who were predicting we're already at the dawn of the era of animal uplift, although there is evidence that many non-human animals are self-aware[4], I was asking to see if anyone could clear things up if they had knowledge regarding it. Additionally, the concept of animal uplift already undermines the ability of many animals, such as the corvids, psittacoformes, carnivora, proboscids (extant at least), primates, cetaceans, etc.--Palaeonictis (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Only seen it an SF context too.--Coffee (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe the lack of evidence for such an assertion? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm only aware of "animal uplift" within the context of sci-fi, that Hamster has already pointed out. Though I must admit, I was once engaged in a Shakespearean-struggle with a clan of trash-scouring racoons that could persuade me that there's something more to it... --Inquisitor (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like the cosmological argument.
- I mean that "no species can achieve sentience naturally but only by the intervention of an already sentient species."--Palaeonictis (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should tell us what you mean by animal uplift first. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, am I the only one with no clue what animal uplift is supposed to mean? Samstr (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, if you were a wealthy trans human loving furry, and most importantly a sociopath, wouldn't any method be acceptable for meeting a once scientifically impossible kink? I'm assuming human animal chimeras like the ones I mentioned on the genetic engineering page would count as uplifting if they were more intelligent. I mean, do you really doubt that someone wouldn't want to have a cat girl slave that way; it's rule 34.
Personally if it's accident like Spiderman it's one thing, but genetically engineering your own kid as an embryo to be half animal cause you think it's cool and technology allows it, sounds a bit too far. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- "personally", "sounds", I think if you're going as far as prohibiting an act, you've got to find a stronger ground than that. That's not to say those grounds don't exist. Also, no one is going to make their kids "half" animal for shits and giggles. Splicing a specific known gene that has had no negative effects on other mammalian species with a specific end in mind(such as reduced cancer vulnerability) is a very much more likely case. Ikanreed (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
A rant (Originally posted to Clickbait)[edit]
(Note: this is probably a long rant. If it doesn't belong here, please don't just flat out delete it, please move it to a place of should be. Also I was up all night, so it probably is in the wrong place)
First of all: I'm not trying to be rude. Please dont make fun of me. I really need someone to help, but I need a place that won't be noticed by people who can take advantage of my delusions)
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is this an example of clickbaiting on YouTube?
I'm asking because I seem to have problems ignoring videos with such titles. It consumes my life.
I sincerely don't want to believe this crap, but Im worried: what if I'm wrong? There are lots and LOTS of YouTube videos. What if one has the evidence?
I am personally seeing a psychologist, but it seems like people don't realize that when you have a delusion, and you know it is a delusion like me, you know what you believe is stupid. But at the same time, you're paranoid that "what if it isn't stupid"?
If currently aware that the Illuminati is an unfalsifiable theory. However, I've seen conspiracy theorists counter by saying the Illuminati created the Scientific Method.
If what I'm saying sounds stupid I'm sorry. Its just that I don't want to get to the point where I stop trying to get mental help. I'm worried I'll get to that point. Its happened to people before. "Psychology is created by the Illuminati" is their excuse.
Its just that, Conspiracy Theorists seem to have a SHITLOAD of "evidence" thousands of conspiracy videos are uploaded on Liveleak, YouTube, etc. Every day. The comments section in all those videos is a giant circle jerk.
The problem my mind has is this: I've seen a LOT of this "evidence". My rational mind says "bullshit" but my delusion won't let me enjoy myself until its all debunked. Obviously that would take forever because places mlike Metabunk, /r/Conspiratord, here, etc. Don't like rapid posts or "stupid posts"(The way Conspiratard posted it)
I haven't been able to enjoy myself for months. Before all this, I was enjoying life. Im actually a huge history fan, and before this crap happened, I actually was learning Japanese. I had a small group of friends, I REALLY enjoyed Anime and Video games (especially Pokemon), and I actually had a conventional life.
Now, my room is a fucking mess, I went from a little overweight to completely underweight, My sleep schedule is erratic, my overall health is going down, I'm constantly tired, and only a few on my friends are willing to put up with me. My grades are falling, I missed days of school because of stress, exhaustion, sickness, etc. I'm WAAAAY behind on my favorite anime, and I have no idea what's going on in the Video game industry.
For example, my favorite anime is Pokemon (before you judge, I watch it subbed). I was COMPLETELYNcaught up all the time. Now I'm over 30 EPs behind. Sure I bought the new games, ORAS, but I had no time to play them.
I just don't know what to do anymore. I'm afraid mill be made fun of, that my posts asking for help will be deleted, etc.
I'm having all sorts of conspiracy delusions: mark of the beast, Illuminati, falase flags, UFOS, demon possession, demons goofing descriptions of hell that are... Vivid, Illuminati whistleblowers...
My mind is having trouble with those and more. I'm physocallynweak thee days, never hungry (I used to be a glutton), and my PC has place filled with downloaded ayoutube videos (OCD problems).
Sorrynfor the rambling. I just really need advice on how to deal with this. I have almost no critical thinking skills as I never had to think for myself (also I have autism and Aspergers syndrome), so authorities, appeals to emotion, etc. are effective on me.
I'm just trying to ask: What do I do about this!? I'm miserable. Trapped in my mind.75.175.72.63 (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Moved from Clickbait. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to address just one of your points. This one:
There are lots and LOTS of YouTube videos. What if one has the evidence?
- Imagine you were playing, with me, a game of cup and balls. You know, the one where I cover a ball with a cup swap them around a bit, then you choose the one its under. If I tell you the ball is definitely under one of the cups, is my claim more credible if I have 6 cups on the table versus 3? The answer is no. The volume of possible places for the ball to hide has no effect on the most important factor: my honesty. If I dropped the ball into my lap, it could just as easily be done with 6 cups versus 3.
- More possible evidence simply isn't the same as more evidence. In the end, lacking real, substantive evidence, anything can be declared true. Claims of Easter Bunnies and Santas should haunt you every bit as much as illuminati or UFOs. Ikanreed (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- apart from the Flying Spaghetti Monster (of whom there are photos ) ALL else on the interwebs is FALSE (mostly. Just ask yourself "would I rather watch a vid claiming Obama is a alien Saurian in disguise" or watch Pokemon ? If you answered watch Pokemon you are probably more sane, but a bit strange if you are in college. Do what you enjoy and ignore the rest. Yes the Illuminati may rule the world, Obama may be a hidden saurian agent along with Queen Elizabeth and the Yellowstone super-volcano may soon erupt and blow parts of arizona into minnisota but why worry until it happens. Hamster (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- So basically, it's our brain not being able to calculate probability very well, correct? The shitload of YouTube videos doesn't make it more likely, its just our brain being horrible at Probability and thus we get the illusion that its more likely? (Cognitive bias)
- apart from the Flying Spaghetti Monster (of whom there are photos ) ALL else on the interwebs is FALSE (mostly. Just ask yourself "would I rather watch a vid claiming Obama is a alien Saurian in disguise" or watch Pokemon ? If you answered watch Pokemon you are probably more sane, but a bit strange if you are in college. Do what you enjoy and ignore the rest. Yes the Illuminati may rule the world, Obama may be a hidden saurian agent along with Queen Elizabeth and the Yellowstone super-volcano may soon erupt and blow parts of arizona into minnisota but why worry until it happens. Hamster (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
actually, concerning YouTube there's something that just hit me: Why the fuck are they posting their crap in an obscure part of the internet? Of course, evidence for Reptilians! Of course, almost no one is even aware of my channel, and possibly can't access YouTube in my country.
Sure some like The Vigilant Christian have a large following, but what about people who never heard of him, can't afford Internet, etc. Wouldn't God want this info to be In As less obscure place? Because this is basically saying "whoever hasn't heard of my YouTube channel is going to hell". If he exists, I'm sure he's going to give the info another way. (Agnostic by the way)
For example, in the Bible, the Antichrist will declare himself to be God on the Temple Mount. OK... Let's worry when that happens. Oh, were required to have a chip/tattoo whatever on our hand or forehead during a NWO. OK, fair enough.
Also, how will this "NWO" emerge without anyone realizing it? I never got that. I'm pretty sure merging the world into one country isn't a very quiet job.
Also, why is Ted Gunderson dead, and Chip Tatum in hiding, yet Kristen Meghan, Brice Taylor, and the millions of moment whistleblowers market either dead or alive. Alive? Killing them is too obvious. Dead? To keep them from exposing their secrets.
Also it seems like you guys don't have an article on Google Earth. That's an favorite for End Times Mongerers.
Of right and the Deliverance Ministries (Lol Emmanuel TV) are pretty amusing.
Also the reason people worry about the Illuminati rule the world is because bible prophecy is shoehorned into every conspiracy. We HAVE to worry about it before they create the NWO or we accept the mark and Go to Hell (not all of these people ask for donations or money, so its not for money that they say this)
So yeah, I was just dumping some of my thoughts here. Sorry if I'm a bother. I go through periodsmof saint and paranoia. And yetmIm a pretty weird person, but there's a surprising number of people who play Pokemon here at my age. It regained popularity recently.
Anyways, yes maybe after some sleep I'll create an account. — Unsigned, by: 75.175.72.63 / talk / contribs 19:51, 8 January 2015
- Just for information: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RFID&oldid=1404513 Scream!! (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Have I been poed? Zero (talk - contributions) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't count it out. :-) Scream!! (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- if some reptilian illuminati Antichrist nwo were to appear, all these nutjobs have muddied the water so much no would see or believe it if it did happen. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- With regard to the claim that "many people believe x (or claim to have evidence about x) therefore there must be something in it".
- Why should you believe this? This is a simple appeal to popularity and as such says nothing abut the truth of the proposition. But the majority of youtube madness fails even as an appeal to popularity as the number of cranks who post and support this weirdness is vastly outnumbered by people who don't.
- So the fact that one part of one part the internet is inhabited by people with weird beliefs really tells you nothing about reality.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- if some reptilian illuminati Antichrist nwo were to appear, all these nutjobs have muddied the water so much no would see or believe it if it did happen. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't count it out. :-) Scream!! (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Have I been poed? Zero (talk - contributions) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Gary Kleck[edit]
So, I was browsing the Journal of Criminal Justice, and I happened upon a familiar name. Gary Kleck. He wrote another pro-gun academic article. If you don't know him, he wrote a long-debunked article supporting "gun utility" through phone surveys back in the 80s. His core numbers there ran well beneath the lizardman quotient, and in particular, seemed to suggest more crimes being deterred by guns than happening in sum total by a huge margin.
Anyways, his latest paper is a meta-analysis that uses some rather... subjective... criteria to throw out every paper supporting the gun-crime hypothesis and using the narrow couple remaining to arrive at what appears to be a predetermined conclusion that guns don't correlate with crime. Now, I'm coming at this as someone who's politically pretty pro gun-control, but I feel like he's done enough bullshittery in his career to warrant an article, but I can't find anything on the internet broadly lambasting him for his history of biased papers. Is it just me? Anyone want to weigh in? Ikanreed (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like one key to his logic is his 2004 article where he discusses the validity of measures of gun ownership. Based on my quick skim of that 2004 article, he seems to selectively emphasize the results that most support his point (although he is credibly thorough in the tables). Also, in that article, he uses a poor method for assessing the time trend prediction ability (using something similar to economist's concept of elasticity) that fails to account for a legitimate weakness he emphasizes elsewhere: the possibility of cause going both ways. So, if his idea of validity is suspect, his use of validity as an argument is suspect, too.
- In the current article, he then uses that time trend weakness to bash a pretty good 2014 AJPH article in the current article. Further, he really over-interprets the importance of the number of significant control variables. A lack of significant control variables does not, on it's own, invalidate any results. A lack of consideration of control variables might be a problem, but not an absence of their significance. In the end, though, it's not really a meta-analysis, but more of a score card similar to rating politicians by their votes and political party. It's numerically heavy and full of methodological assertions, but seems to use subtle scientific tools as sledgehammers. MarmotHead (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think he's worth an article because, in my opinion, he's sufficiently not a hack to be dangerous. He's semi-credible but sometimes sounds fully credible. That's dangerous. MarmotHead (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, let's see, something like
- I think he's worth an article because, in my opinion, he's sufficiently not a hack to be dangerous. He's semi-credible but sometimes sounds fully credible. That's dangerous. MarmotHead (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Gary Kleck is a PhD criminologist at Florida State University, famously responsible for one of the most repeatedly debunked firearm studies(link to paper, ref to debunkings). He's continued to publish in the field of firearm safety, often using, if not strictly incorrect, misleading methodology towards a predetermined conclusion.
Subsection on the (in)famous "kleck study"
Subsection on other works
Gary Kleck is a non-goat.
Subsection on lack of being a goat"
Subsection on other failures to be a goat
- that? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
What happened to gadgets?[edit]
Where's mah HotRate? Why is the gadgets tab on my preferences page gone? Is Obama the (reptilian) leader of the Illuminati? So far, no statists have been able to give us any answers for these questions. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I expect something fell over again. Kicking it - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Any non-fuckwitted regulars who aren't sysopped yet?[edit]
At RW, sysop is more like a right you can lose than a privilege you have to dredge a mountain of poop for. And I just locked Talk:Gamergate after an IP from Gamergate posted a link to what may or may not technically be child porn in any given jurisdiction but oddly enough I'm not inclined to iteratively test that particular boundary. (If you think I overreacted, we should definitely discuss the matter.)
So - are there any regulars who are probably not insane and/or fuckwits in need of a mop? Basically I'm thinking anyone who's got autopatrol probably qualifies. Pretty much anything a sysop does in MediaWiki is reversible in case of emergent fuckwittedness with the mop - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just as a note, I prefer never to be a sysop. Castaigne (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- You may get cursed with it at some time, MUWAHAHA - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't feel an urgent need to edit Talk:Gamergate, though I'm curious if an IP can get sysop rights. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think logging problems arise when IP editors try to do logged actions (page moves, etc.). Unless that's been fixed. Landmartian (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- IP addresses can't be given any user rights. If you log out of your account you'll only be editing as your IP address so you won't be able to use any sysop abilities until you log back in. 141, I suggest creating an account. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's no way to give particular IP addresses certain rights, that's true. A wiki could be set up to give all IP addresses certain rights. That would be a bad idea, though. Landmartian (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- IP addresses can't be given any user rights. If you log out of your account you'll only be editing as your IP address so you won't be able to use any sysop abilities until you log back in. 141, I suggest creating an account. Wèàšèìòìď
- I think logging problems arise when IP editors try to do logged actions (page moves, etc.). Unless that's been fixed. Landmartian (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, I'd like to comment on that page. Landmartian (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Go ahead, you're now a sysop. See RationalWiki:Sysop guide if you plan on using any of the tools. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Go ahead, you're now a sysop. See RationalWiki:Sysop guide if you plan on using any of the tools. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- I'm not a sysop, but I'm not sure I care to be one. Are there any responsibilities attached, or can I just dick around as usual? Necromancer 01:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can probably be trusted with all the power that is possible here on the grounds I would never use them for good or for evil or at all. AMassiveGay (talk)€
- I`m not a sysop.--Palaeonictis 02:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are now. If you like, try pasting "RationalWiki:Sysop guide" into the search box above, and see what you see. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, what's the worst that could happen. Could you make me a sysop? Necromancer 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't mind being demoted. I'll probably have lots more to add to the GG page, for starters. I know way too much about it... Abed Nadir (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- You've got a lump of coal in your stocking. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! And a Merry Christmas to you too :) Abed Nadir (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- You've got a lump of coal in your stocking. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't mind being demoted. I'll probably have lots more to add to the GG page, for starters. I know way too much about it... Abed Nadir (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, what's the worst that could happen. Could you make me a sysop? Necromancer 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are now. If you like, try pasting "RationalWiki:Sysop guide" into the search box above, and see what you see. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not. Not sure I would want to be though. AyzmoCheers 07:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just tried to applaud the concise, comprehensive documentation (in the style of the Aristocrats!) by a redditor. Talk page locked, so I said it here in the Saloon. Joyeux Noël, you all! Flux gate gamma (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- BEEEEEEES OH GOD THE BEEEEEESSSSS - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just tried to applaud the concise, comprehensive documentation (in the style of the Aristocrats!) by a redditor. Talk page locked, so I said it here in the Saloon. Joyeux Noël, you all! Flux gate gamma (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty regular, thanks to all the prunes I eat. Fonzie (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- TMI. Less information may be found here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll leave others to decide how wuckfitted I might be. I haven't had the sysoperation yet, and the fact that I can't recall exactly which film introduced Sprocket J Cogswell has to count against me. (Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho.) ProblemChimp (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. That'a a big animal with a big a floppy ears and a long a schnozz. I have no idea what film and I have to do with this, but you're a sysop now. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure if I qualify for the "non-fuckwitted" part.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure I qualify as a regular, but I'm not a complete fuckwit, if it helps. Optimusjamie (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am an irregular fuckwit who has spend time working on WIGO Conservapedia. Hclodge (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- So is this the part where I get sysoped? HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm here, I click "random page" about 50 times a day, I dick with WIGOs sometimes. Most of my things don't get reverted. I'm truly accomplished. Mayo2017 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not fuckwitted and not sysopped yet.--Umichcynic (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Don't know if I'd count as regular since I frequently read but rarely edit, but I'm not fuckwitted. ThroningErmine8 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Edit moar :-) You're autopatrolled now, though - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, why not? I *am* generally considered to be fairly fairly insane, but in a way that's only destructive to myself, so I think I qualify anyway... I'm not sure about the fuckwit, though. Does that mean you get laid a lot? Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Charlie Hebdo shooting[edit]
What do people think will be the result of this attack? Will the media back away even more from criticizing Islam and Muhammad or do you think people will fight back; some kind of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day for example. I notice that BBC news was showing some covers of the paper but refused to show the controversial one of Muhammad (which I take is referring to this one). 37.228.227.19 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not a claivoyant and I can't predict the future, but I am sure in one: while I'm writing this, someone somewhere is calling it a false flag operation.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sadly, you're right. Bicyclewheel 18:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, they seem to already be out Leander (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sadly, you're right. Bicyclewheel
Source on this?[edit]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:10888863_10153516770416490_3238561804513718941_n.jpg Ok, these little nuggets of retarded have been getting spread around social media. You guys have any idea who is making them? Necromancer 21:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is the answer to your dilemma.--Palaeonictis (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, a Deviantart user that I just identified and I was going to chew you for the crappy file name and the lack of source. If you want to chuckle at a manga-loving Muslim analog to a straight-edger, go to http://nayzak.deviantart.com , but unless you are going to put that file in an article and fix its issues, please delete it. Oh, and Google's reverse image search is very useful in cases like this one.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the source. BTW, I found this on Facebook, so there was no source. I was asking because I was wondering if it was these guys I could put it in the article we have on them. Necromancer 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's astounding in its stupidity. Just amazing. If anything, Islam is probably the world's youngest monotheistic religion.--71.62.250.238 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think Scientology takes that price BoN. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think Scientology is considered theistic. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think Scientology is considered theistic. Weaseloid
- Ever heard of Baha'i?--ZooGuard (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Totally forgot about that one.--71.62.250.238 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Even Sikhism dates from about 800 years later than Islam, & that's still a pretty old religion compared to movements like Baha'i or Mormonism. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- One monotheistic religion closely related to Judaism is Samaritanism.--Palaeonictis (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Even Sikhism dates from about 800 years later than Islam, & that's still a pretty old religion compared to movements like Baha'i or Mormonism. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- Totally forgot about that one.--71.62.250.238 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, my understanding is that Islam does in fact teach that it was the original religion of antiquity, and that many of the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, and Jesus as well, were actually Muslims. It wasn't until Muhammad that anyone knew about it is all. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, Adam, Noah & Jesus were all Muslims. So Islam's been around since Adam evidently. I guess Jesus saying he was God Is stuff his followers put in there cause evidently he made a false prophecy or he never said it. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think Scientology takes that price BoN. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Fair use jargon, blah blah blah" well, no, not really. To be fair use it needs to be used in an article (that's the "use") and have an actual justification. If you just want to show everyone a picture, dump it on imgur or something - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- (That said, holy crap that's a ridiculous image - David Gerard (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC))
- Did you guys forget that according to Islamic doctrine, Islam is the continuation and completion of a primordial faith that started all the way back at Adam? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- But Judaism isn't oldest. Hinduism might be. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Who said anything about Judaism? If you claim that your religion was started by the first human being, how can any other be older? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Confucians, Taoists and Buddhists beg to differ.--Palaeonictis (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Buddhism isn't that old, it branched off from Hinduism a bit before 500 BCE if memory serves. Zorastrianism, now that is an old one. Bicyclewheel 10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I was actually a bit uncertain about putting "Buddhists" there, and yes, I know that Zoroastrianism is the "world's oldest monotheistic religion".--Palaeonictis (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, from what I've seen, Zoroastrianism is often called the first monotheistic religion, although I've also seen that prize go to Tutankhamun's dad and his Atenism. The problem when trying to find out which is the oldest is two- or possibly three-fold:
- The scarcity of sources
- Distinguishing between monotheism and henotheism
- Religions changing from polytheism over henotheism to (strict) monotheism and exactly when the latter happened.
- Still, keeps things interesting, though. And the cartoon which started this thread remains laughably wrong, unless you apply creationist logic, such as the Adam claim already mentioned (both are essentially forms of presuppositionalism where you start by assuming your religious creed must be right). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for enlightening me about "henotheism" although I had considered the concept I didn't know that there was a word for it. The early Bible mentions other Gods and it is enshrined in the Ten Commandments that Yahweh was the one you had to follow. ГенгисGum disease 12:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just switching this around - is there any monotheistic religion which does not claim that it is the oldest true religion? --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Couldn't that be said of any religion, depending of the definition of "true"? I mean just because a poly- or henotheist doesn't dismiss the existence of other gods doesn't mean they regard other religions as "true" in the same way as their own. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just switching this around - is there any monotheistic religion which does not claim that it is the oldest true religion? --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for enlightening me about "henotheism" although I had considered the concept I didn't know that there was a word for it. The early Bible mentions other Gods and it is enshrined in the Ten Commandments that Yahweh was the one you had to follow.
- Buddhism isn't that old, it branched off from Hinduism a bit before 500 BCE if memory serves. Zorastrianism, now that is an old one. Bicyclewheel
- But Judaism isn't oldest. Hinduism might be. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Did you guys forget that according to Islamic doctrine, Islam is the continuation and completion of a primordial faith that started all the way back at Adam? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- How can any religion with the ten commandments be considered monotheistic? It pretty clearly says in every possible translation "take no gods before me" directly implying the existence of valid secondary gods. Ikanreed (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's a function of my third (bullet) point above + reinterpretation of scripture. Also, because of the terseness of the command, it actually doesn't say anything directly about the validity of other gods. It could simply mean something like "entities (mistakenly) worshipped as gods by other people". Now, I don't think that this is a plausible interpretation, given the historical context at the time of writing, but it is still within the range of possible interpretations. And such an interpretation wouldn't even need to employ the kind of bending over backwards we see when apologists try to, for instance, harmonise the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, or the death(s) of Judas in Matthew and Acts. Not to mention the attempt to "fix" the quite clear indications of the OT operating with a flat earth, geocentric cosmology ScepticWombat (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's an actual Geocentric YEC Christian movement around today, there's an actual FAQ on it at the TO Archive. The Evils of Copernicanism Also, Saul of Tarsus actually went as far as to become a slavery apologist.--Palaeonictis (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I know that such groups exist, but most apologists, even YECs, prefer not to include heliocentric denialism for some reason. Then again, there are people who believe in both the expanding and hollow Earth nonsense, and those who think that Jordan The Spirit Science Duchnycz/Pearce is not a complete numbnut crystal woo peddler - so yup, there's one born every minute, apparently. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Like some people believe that the Earth is flat, or that bats are birds or Pi is a round number.--Palaeonictis (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Have you seen the antics of Carl Baugh and John Pendleton? They claim that there are live pterodactyls flying around today, and the latter claims to have put together an expedition to capture one. I put in a bit on them on Talk:Ian Juby. Juby is another of these numbnuts that even Ken Ham thinks are embarrassing(!) Juby claimed that dinosaur eggs lain in two straight lines was a sign that they must have been lain by a dinosaur on the run... from the global flood... And no, I'm not making this up and yes, he was serious. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have heard of Carl Baugh and John Pendleton. I've seen some of the worst sides of cretinism, though, I post at talk.origins and comment at the Panda's Thumb.--Palaeonictis (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Have you seen the antics of Carl Baugh and John Pendleton? They claim that there are live pterodactyls flying around today, and the latter claims to have put together an expedition to capture one. I put in a bit on them on Talk:Ian Juby. Juby is another of these numbnuts that even Ken Ham thinks are embarrassing(!) Juby claimed that dinosaur eggs lain in two straight lines was a sign that they must have been lain by a dinosaur on the run... from the global flood... And no, I'm not making this up and yes, he was serious. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Like some people believe that the Earth is flat, or that bats are birds or Pi is a round number.--Palaeonictis (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I know that such groups exist, but most apologists, even YECs, prefer not to include heliocentric denialism for some reason. Then again, there are people who believe in both the expanding and hollow Earth nonsense, and those who think that Jordan The Spirit Science Duchnycz/Pearce is not a complete numbnut crystal woo peddler - so yup, there's one born every minute, apparently. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Could Baalism be considered of equal antiquity to Judaism? If so, then we should all sign up as co-Baalists. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Someone have already thought of something similar. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's an actual Geocentric YEC Christian movement around today, there's an actual FAQ on it at the TO Archive. The Evils of Copernicanism Also, Saul of Tarsus actually went as far as to become a slavery apologist.--Palaeonictis (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's a function of my third (bullet) point above + reinterpretation of scripture. Also, because of the terseness of the command, it actually doesn't say anything directly about the validity of other gods. It could simply mean something like "entities (mistakenly) worshipped as gods by other people". Now, I don't think that this is a plausible interpretation, given the historical context at the time of writing, but it is still within the range of possible interpretations. And such an interpretation wouldn't even need to employ the kind of bending over backwards we see when apologists try to, for instance, harmonise the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, or the death(s) of Judas in Matthew and Acts. Not to mention the attempt to "fix" the quite clear indications of the OT operating with a flat earth, geocentric cosmology ScepticWombat (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Is the number of slaves owned and genetic patents authoritarian enough to be noted?[edit]
- Why was category slaveholder allowed to stick to Muhamad but not the U.S. presidents; I think David Gerard like Richard Dawkins is an Islamophobe. I have no evidence that Dawkins is a racist, however David Gerard showed a double standard on the subject of slavery that they want marginalized. Please refute this using more than one relevant paragraph. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion for category slaveholder lasted a day. Is this source bad? [5], or my additions to Genetic engineering? David Gerard should really use talk pages more often before edit warring, and please stop calling people fuck wits, it's rude. It's not like there's an explanation longer than a paragraph to accompany the put downs. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Every edit you make should be reverted on principle - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop appropriating other people's struggles for the sake of slandering users and adding categories everywhere. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Fuckwit" is one word, not two. And, it is sometimes an accurate description. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- David Gerard, you should revert holocaust than atomic bomb yourself, instead of having your homies do it for you. You keep making your self look more and more racist and all powerful with every post. You had someone else cover for Ryulong on rape; I've asked my flash mob crew to do the same. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Might I repeat what I said a little earlier, or would that be considered bad form? ProblemChimp (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Was it about Hitler? If so, then yes please & yes. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 03:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Was it about Hitler? If so, then yes please & yes. Wéáśéĺóíď
- "Fuckwit" is one word, not two. And, it is sometimes an accurate description. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Slaveholder was not an informative category. It added nothing that didn't already exist with the added entries. Time of discussion is irrelevant, as is your meaningless feud with David Gerard and Ryulong. Will you EVER shut the fuck up about it? --Castaigne (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
More eyes needed: Landmartian[edit]
I think that the contributions of User:Landmartian would benefit from a bit more scrutiny, especially the newly created articles . While some of the stuff Landmartian add seems "good", they also seem to have some peculiar ideas and approaches, mainly related to gender issues. Among their edits so far:
- Added large chunks to Personality disorder
- Created Quora (proposed for deletion as off-mission)
- Created Comparative advantage (proposed for deletion as it butchered the concept)
- A couple of article creations around Christmas that may have been overlooked due to lack of people on RW around the holidays:
- Mail-order bride (23 Dec)
- Child pornography (24 Dec)
- Turned Pedophilia from a redirect into an article (24 Dec)
- Super-uncles theory (24 Dec)
- Obscenity (24 Dec)
- Essay:That midterm raped me
- Tried to insert a new section in Rape that ultimately got rewritten
- Created Sex offender that got renamed to Sex offender registry but without much change in its contents
- Added chunks to Blaming the victim, again related to rape, that got somewhat rewritten
- Had a very interesting discussion on Talk:Rape
- Again related to rape: User:Landmartian/Rape fantasies, victim blaming redux, etc.
- Copied some stuff from the DSM to their user page: User:Landmartian/ASPD, NPD, and BPD
- Created Moral hazard, after using a red link to it on Talk:Misandry
- Created Foreign woman today and a number of redirects/links to it, based on a rather bad writeup in Manosphere glossary
I haven't included some of the more WTF comments on talk pages.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. A sealion Nice Guy about rape. How entertaining. --Castaigne (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seems a little premature for a witch hunt. We've only just got through with the last one. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 22:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Most of the pages he created seem okay too me? Only Comparative advantage stands out as truly "wrong", and even the best of us get it wrong sometimes. The comments on the Rape talk page also seem okay to me, it's a valid opinion, and nothing truly "crazy", even though most RWers probably disagree with it, but I see nothing wrong with that, as such. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seems a little premature for a witch hunt. We've only just got through with the last one. Щєазєюіδ
Nominations for board elections[edit]
- Nominations are open for the 2015 board of trustees for the RationalMedia Foundation. To nominate someone or yourself (and to check the guidelines for the election), go here. Nominations will close in two weeks (Jan. 26).
- To register to vote, go here.
Thanks. Sterile (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Use of Profanity[edit]
Are there any rules regarding the use of profanity? I see it all over the place. However, I suspect there must be at least some limitations; or is the policy: go ahead and cuss like a drunken sailor? Slings and Arrows (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Are you talking about articles or talk pages? Also, "profanity" is a really broad category.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I am trying to find out. When can profanity be used? And which words are off-limits? Is there an article I can read that discusses the proper use of profanity at RW? Slings and Arrows (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are no official guidelines for the use of profanity on RW. In general, we don't shy away from its usage. If you're asking this question because you're planning on making use of the cruder regions of the English language... then have at it. But if you're planning to go around bowdlerizing articles... that shit probably won't fly. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not planning anything; just want to abide by the rules. And apparently there aren't any; it's George Carlin's seven words you CAN say at RationalWiki. Slings and Arrows (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Always bear in mind who our audience is supposed to be. We aim to be the go-to place for the refutation of woo and pseudo science. I like to think we're approachable and friendly.
- Now imagine a random person googling, for example, homoeopathy and coming across our article. Would they be put off or drawn in by profanity?
- So, yeah, no actual rules but please keep our articles user friendly. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I never swear. I just say "Damn" and that's fuck-all. PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- RationalWiki:Community Standards might be what your are looking for.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- THAT FUCKER JEHOVA SEDUCED MARY!--Palaeonictis (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- RationalWiki:Community Standards might be what your are looking for.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I never swear. I just say "Damn" and that's fuck-all. PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not planning anything; just want to abide by the rules. And apparently there aren't any; it's George Carlin's seven words you CAN say at RationalWiki. Slings and Arrows (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are no official guidelines for the use of profanity on RW. In general, we don't shy away from its usage. If you're asking this question because you're planning on making use of the cruder regions of the English language... then have at it. But if you're planning to go around bowdlerizing articles... that shit probably won't fly. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I am trying to find out. When can profanity be used? And which words are off-limits? Is there an article I can read that discusses the proper use of profanity at RW? Slings and Arrows (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Trailer Park Boys: If I can't swear or smoke, I'm fucked (3:49).
Talk to Civic Cat 20:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
EE again[edit]
Is David Gerard and Ryulongs use of the terms fucktard or fuckwit making this place look more professional, or just like an angry clique in grade school? What about using the N word outside of Malcolm X quotes, or other forms of hate speech directed at minorities? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- What EE is pissing about here is me telling him "go away you delusional fuckwit" when he was being his delusional fuckwit self. Go away you delusional fuckwit - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds alot like Ryulongs calling me a fucktard, great sociopaths hate alike. Strange you have to shut me up and delete me from talk pages; yet the record says I never contacted Ryulong on his talk page to either make peace for an edit war or tell him to fuck himself, one of which someone this talkative would have done. I am much more polite than either David Gerard or Ryulong; they were foolish to make it look like I'm not at least polite; how many times have I deleted comments from my talk page or used profanity compared to either of them?
Quid pro quo saloon; if you want to see Ryulong in action add size change in fiction to Super Sentei using this as a reference [6]. Engage David Gerard as to what's wrong with the editions to genetic engineering that makes none of it salvageable, I've asked User:Yorkie for some assistance, as they look to be quite professional. David Gerard, why do you oppose changes in screen names, when as a cross dresser you change your names suffix from Mr. to Ms.? Why does neither Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia like you; you're an uncyclopedian are you not, yet ashamed of it here?
David Gerard is a sociopathic liar who is paying one of the 50 some people with direct access to Wikipedias servers to edit the log. He himself is not doing it, he just has connections. He is a mysogynist an Islamaphobe like Dawkins, and a racist, trying to clean up with Gamer Gate; while ignoring cyberbullying; because he is one. Run the experiments, just ask him to add some empowering Wikipedia categories to fictional females and films featuring them if you believe J Edgar Hoover here over me. One of us is a historical revisionist, and the other added a paragraph to Rational Wiki's page on historical revisionism. One of us was allowed to criticize Rationalwiki on Uncyclopedias page for us, the other is much less popular there; but much more powerful on Wikipedia. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- We're supposed to debunk conspiracy theories here, not create them. What do you think "access to the server" means exactly with a mediawiki wiki built into a CDN, like wikipedia? Do you think it's just a simple delete * from table edits thing? It's not that easy. Ikanreed (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have root on the servers. I literally have the power to delete EE and all his contributions from RationalWiki. I don't because that would be actually stupidly wrong and that would be a stupendously un-RW thing to do. It turns out "could" and "did" are different things - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure you could do a "where rev_user=" deletion query but it seems like it might require some cleaning up of resulting database inconsistencies. Is there a script or extension that does all that in one step? Landmartian (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have root on the servers. I literally have the power to delete EE and all his contributions from RationalWiki. I don't because that would be actually stupidly wrong and that would be a stupendously un-RW thing to do. It turns out "could" and "did" are different things - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
...[edit]
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7533159/fox-news-pirro-rant I all for free speech for morons, but when you call for the extrajudicial killing of people you don't like, you have officially gone too far. Necromancer 13:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jesus, she's calling for a fucking jihad. Can she not see the irony? WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- She makes me want to vomit. The fact that Fox News gives maniacs like her free rein proves to me that the channel is unredeemable. I'm lucky they're currently in a contract dispute with my TV provider, otherwise I might accidentally tune into crap like that. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 08:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fox News has become frighteningly unhinged since the attacks. #FoxNewsFacts pokes fun at it, but this kind of vitriol seems to be them trying to out do each other in being monsters. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day[edit]
4 years ago in response to South Park getting Death Threats for depicting Muhammad a Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was organized for May 20. In light of the recent events, especially the media outlets that have refused to show the images of Mohammed, would it be a good idea to revive the day again this year? Xr2 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- You mean yay-let's-mock-all-Muslims-for-the-actions-of-a-few-extremists-because-clearly-more-islamophobia-and-encouragement-of-radicalization-are-the-answer day? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, I've never been one for attacking people for their religious beliefs in any way shape or form, but a protest to say "I'm not bound by your religion's proscriptions" is pretty reasonable. It doesn't stand out against, say, satanic additions to a christian religious display on public lands. Ikanreed (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- as with the previous draw Mohammed day, I am sure it will be little more than an excuse to to be insulting as you can. In the name of satire and mythic free speech of course. Surely the best course of action is to carry on as before. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, but that doesn't fit with peoples' psychological need to do something about injustices they perceive(but you know, not too much). Ikanreed (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yay, let's incite more acts of terrorism! I mean, every Muslim must be extremist, right?--Palaeonictis (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with it. People want to show that they won't be cowed by extremists. And amassuivegay, did you just call free speech mythical?(Agrajag (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
- there have been and always will be limits, legally and socially, on what you can or cannot say, when can or cannot say it, and where you can or cannot say it. Any debate on free speech is not concerned with an all or nothing approach but on where those limits are set, but there will always be limits. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I know that, I'd rather have liberty than safety. Also, it was humorous.--Palaeonictis (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with it. People want to show that they won't be cowed by extremists. And amassuivegay, did you just call free speech mythical?(Agrajag (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
- Yay, let's incite more acts of terrorism! I mean, every Muslim must be extremist, right?--Palaeonictis (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, but that doesn't fit with peoples' psychological need to do something about injustices they perceive(but you know, not too much). Ikanreed (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- as with the previous draw Mohammed day, I am sure it will be little more than an excuse to to be insulting as you can. In the name of satire and mythic free speech of course. Surely the best course of action is to carry on as before. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, I've never been one for attacking people for their religious beliefs in any way shape or form, but a protest to say "I'm not bound by your religion's proscriptions" is pretty reasonable. It doesn't stand out against, say, satanic additions to a christian religious display on public lands. Ikanreed (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What "people" tend to forget, though, is that Mohammed isn't the prophet of just the extremists, but of 23.2% of humanity. Should we hold Let's Draw Moses with a Pancake on his Head Day to protest Israeli killing sprees of Palestinians? (That'd actually be pretty funny, but it still illustrates my point of undue generalization.) Drawing Mohammed as a form of protest only perpetuates the view of Muslims as a group who are "different" and whose sentiments are to be readily dismissed. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, free speech is mythical when you get down to the brass tacks. It's something we humans made up as a concept, not an actual thing. Or "natural law" as some like to tell me. Although, if free speech was a natural law, it would be entertaining as hell, because I would love to measure speechitron reactions in a laboratory. --Castaigne (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Was that directed at me? Because I'm pretty this crime was at least partially because of depictions of Mohammad. That makes it, yunno, topical. Has nothing to do with antagonizing Muslims who don't think their relgion's rules apply to others. Ikanreed (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to Burn a Bible Day and Shit on a Flag Day. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm looking forward to Burn a Book of Mormon Day, too.--Palaeonictis (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm calling your bluff. Schedule them suckers. Plenty of people would be down for both of those, though the latter would run into pragmatic concerns about sanitation. Ikanreed (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
If it isn't made to mock Muslims, yes it could be good. If it's for mocking Muslims by hiding under the "We're-making-satire-and-criticizing-so-that's-ok" cover, no. You can't just go piss off all Muslims and then claim that "They wanted it" when they retaliate.If you really have nothing to read...If you have really nothing to do... 22:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 17:25, 9 January 2015 (EST)
- If you want to turn RationalWiki into a hate site - feel free, go ahead. It's not like the world has enough of those.
- "Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
- Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
- Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
- Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
- Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media."
- I don't see how "gratuitous insults" falls under any of those headings. Count me out of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think exactly zero long-term users here are planning to participate. I just don't think it's an invalid protest for people with some emotional struggle. It's just a person, important to a religion or not. I don't know if that's fence sitting justification for something horrible I can't see through lack of familiarity, but I don't see the harm. Ikanreed (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Does the idea become any more acceptable if it would be only images of Mohammed that are not offensive in themselves? He is an important historical figure and could be respectfully shown as such.--TiaC (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- there was already a them and us attitude between Muslim and more secular communities in Europe. These attacks have increased this. A likely upswing in anti Islam naziesque groups already on the rise will follow along with islamphobic incidents. Each side views the other with mistrust. Let's all do draw Mohammed day. More division and walls between communities is just whats needed. Free speech and all. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- its not even as satire and free speech is under threat. No who voice carries any wait is suggesting appeasing these murderers, who would have some other spurious rationalisation to kill. Charlie hebdo certainly isn't - they just going as before. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The point of drawing cartoons of Muhammad is simple: to assert the right to draw cartoons of Muhammad, in the face of those who would punish us for drawing Muhammad. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 02:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- In principle maybe, but in practice the people participating in such a Day aren't people whose ability to draw Muhammad is under any kind of threat or who would face any punishment for doing so. It's just a smug exercise in blinkered New Atheist attitudes that hinder multiculturalism. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 03:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- In principle maybe, but in practice the people participating in such a Day aren't people whose ability to draw Muhammad is under any kind of threat or who would face any punishment for doing so. It's just a smug exercise in blinkered New Atheist attitudes that hinder multiculturalism. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- The point of drawing cartoons of Muhammad is simple: to assert the right to draw cartoons of Muhammad, in the face of those who would punish us for drawing Muhammad. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 02:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- its not even as satire and free speech is under threat. No who voice carries any wait is suggesting appeasing these murderers, who would have some other spurious rationalisation to kill. Charlie hebdo certainly isn't - they just going as before. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- there was already a them and us attitude between Muslim and more secular communities in Europe. These attacks have increased this. A likely upswing in anti Islam naziesque groups already on the rise will follow along with islamphobic incidents. Each side views the other with mistrust. Let's all do draw Mohammed day. More division and walls between communities is just whats needed. Free speech and all. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I very much hope that no long-term RW user plans to participate. Decent Muslims view any depiction of the Prophet (pbuh) as abhorrent.
Free speech says that you can say almost anything (short of the classic "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre). Good manners dictate that there are some things which you should not say. Jeering at religious bigots is one thing, they deserve it. Jeering at sincere beliefs which do not impact on other people is another thing, that's not acceptable. ProblemChimp (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- What next, Piss on a Cross for Easter, or, Bow Down to an Idol for Hanukkah? I won't be joining in those days either. ProblemChimp (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've always had issues with Hanukkah as well. The Maccabees were proto-terrorists, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes represented our civilization in the scenario. Our world really would have turned out better if the opinion had prevailed that Zeus and Yahweh were two names of the same guy. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Reply from OP[edit]
I have to say that I am very disappointed by the responses to this suggestion. I don’t have the resources (time, money etc.) to continue with this idea; and I was never going to anyway. I only wanted to see what people thought of the idea and to ignite discussion. Obviously I was hoping for more positive supporting discussion, but before I leave this matter alone, I want to respond to some of the criticisms and Straw Man attacks against the idea.
“You mean yay-let's-mock-all-Muslims-for-the-actions-of-a-few-extremists…”
No, I do not. I did not suggest the mocking of any Muslims, let alone all of them. I suggested organizing a day where people were encouraged to draw depictions of Muhammad. The same types of depictions that got the staff at Charlie Hebdo killed. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, not Everybody Mock Muslims Day.
Not that I see anything wrong with mocking Muslims. Other groups get mocked and ridiculed all the time. Mormons are told their beliefs are based on a fraudster. Atheists get told they are fools. These groups are forced to grin and bear it, why does Islam get a free pass?
Yay, let's incite more acts of terrorism!
Posting the address of Matt Stone and Trey Parker and urging followers to “pay them a visit” is inciting acts of terrorism. Drawing pictures of a dead prophet is not, even if extremists use that as an excuse to commit acts of terror.
I mean, every Muslim must be extremist, right?
WRONG. No-one here made the claim that every Muslim must be extremist either overtly or implied. That claim is easily shown to be false.
Surely the best course of action is to carry on as before.
The way we have been carrying on before is to not show Muhammad in the News Media, censor cartoons that try to show Muhammad, and to allow the small groups of people who do choose to exercise their rights to criticize Islam (Jyllands-Posten, Carlie Hebdo etc.) to do so alone, making them easy targets of extremists.
This is the part of the point behind the original Draw Muhammad Day. “If people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamic terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic”.
There have been and always will be limits, legally and socially, on what you can or cannot say.
Sure, let’s take a look at what those limits are:
- It’s OK to draw pictures of Jesus, but it’s not OK to draw Muhammad.
- It’s OK to draw Jesus with an erection, but it’s not OK to draw Muhammad.
- It’s OK to draw The Holy Virgin Mary using elephant dung, but it’s not OK to draw Muhammad.
- It’s OK to have Jesus defecate on the US president, but it’s not OK to draw Muhammad.
- It OK to photograph Jesus in a glass of urine, but it’s not OK to draw Muhammad.
There are real limits on free speech (libel, perjury, etc.), but the above just looks like a horrible double standard to me.
I'm looking forward to Burn a Bible Day and Shit on a Flag Day.
Slippery slope? Terrorists are not going around murdering people for burning Bibles or shitting on flags. They are murdering people for drawing Muhammad. If I was to take a shit on a flag, I’m not convinced anyone would care.
“If you want to turn RationalWiki into a hate site…”
I wasn’t suggesting that RationalWiki be used for this. I don’t frequent any other Skeptic or Atheist forums, so I posted the suggestion here to gauge what the reaction would be.
And I don’t agree with your statement that this would turn RationalWiki into a hate site. Charlie Hebdo had images of Muhammad on their cover and it wasn’t considered a “hate newspaper”. I don’t see how a site hosting images of Muhammad or encouraging people to draw such images is a “hate site”.
Free speech says that you can say almost anything (short of the classic "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre)
Christopher Hitchens shouted “FIRE!” in a crowded room once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU#t=79
Nothing happened.
The people participating in such a Day aren't people whose ability to draw Muhammad is under any kind of threat or who would face any punishment for doing so.
Yes they are. RationalWiki’s own article says of the original Draw Muhammad Day, “People connected with the movement say they received death threats”. The original organizer for Draw Muhammad Day had to go into hiding over it. She didn’t even draw Muhammad, just the threat of drawing him was enough. And as we have seen, these aren’t just idle threats. Extremists are willing and able to follow through. Why do you think I created an account for this one topic? I’m not naïve to attach my real name nor IP address to something like this. It is because I am afraid that if I were to do so, extremists would come after me.
“Jeering at sincere beliefs which do not impact on other people is another thing, that's not acceptable.”
It’s not!? Since when? Is jeering at sincere beliefs not part of the purpose of RationalWiki? Pseudoscientific ideas are sincerely held by many people, and yet people mock, jeer and laugh at these beliefs, and even the people who hold these beliefs. Ken Ham believes the world is 6,000 years old. We mock that idea, and we mock Ken Ham for believing it. Or is that just me?
Conclusion
Anyway, a MUCH longer reply then I ever intended. Disappointing the number of people who seem to think the best course of action is to do nothing (carry on as before), and not show Muhammad. Also VERY surprised people on this site would equate images of Muhammad to “hate speech”. I’m not aware of when potentially offending a group has ever stopped people from criticizing that group before. But Might Makes Right I guess.
- “That's right, friends. All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence.” --Santa
Xr2 (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that's an impressive feat of missing and denying the point. By drawing Mohammed as some form of protest, you are not targetting terrorists, you are targetting 23% of the world population. And no, not all Muslims care that deeply if people draw their prophet, but that doesn't mean they enjoy the casual ridiculement of their religion that's supposedly only meant to target the extremists. Muslim immigrants in the West are constantly discriminated against, many Muslims living in Africa and the Middle East are threatened either by Western drone strikes or mass killings by terrorists, and you propose othering them further and making it even clearer that Western civilization is not their friend and doesn't care one dime about them? Don't they have enough reasons to radicalize already? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent response Xr2.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I sympathise with the position that Muhammed drawings when done in the spirit of Everybody Draw Muhammed Day may, intentionally or otherise, mobilise prejudice against Muslims, as is the case with satire that targets an oppressed minority or an aspect of their culture generally. I think the notion of being an "equal-oppurtunities offender" is overrated and is too often used as an excuse to dispense with discretion in comedy. But given that the original movement was sparked by a very specific resistance to censorship, that is, threats of violence directed at anyonne who depicts the prophet Muhammed, I can't help but feel that there's a greater good at stake. " Muslim immigrants in the West are constantly discriminated against, many Muslims living in Africa and the Middle East are threatened either by Western drone strikes or mass killings by terrorists, and you propose othering them further and making it even clearer that Western civilization is not their friend and doesn't care one dime about them? Don't they have enough reasons to radicalize already?" - I'm not sure it's possible to meaningfully measure how upset the global Muslim population as a whole feel about depictions of Muhammed, but I can say that my own Muslim friends would feel "othered" if they were told that their culture had a blanket exemption from satirical conventions that reach out to other groups. Grumblejaws (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that if the depictions of Mohammed were as respectful as depictions of Christian figures it would be far less of a problem. The prohibition against depictions of Mohammed is no longer practiced by Shia Islam. Also, isn't the main motive of the prohibition is to prevent idolatry? If so, this is not a concern for non-Muslims.--TiaC (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The idea behind the general ban on depictions of Mohammed actually assumes that the depictions are respectful. If people made respectful depictions of Mohammed, these could seduce Muslims into paying respect to the images instead of the person Mohammed himself, i.e. idolatry. Disrespectful depictions, on the other hand, fall under "insulting the Prophet", which is also pretty obviously disapproved of. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm not clear on here is why we should respect religions. I understand that many people sincerely believe in different religions - but also many people sincerely believe in homoeopathy or moon landing hoax theories. We see no reason to give special respect to one group with weird beliefs - why should the other deserve it?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I guess my primary thought is why should I care that 23% of the planet will be offended by it? So? Since when has that been an issue, or a reason to do or not to do something? People who get THAT out of shape over some cartoons... their opinions don't really matter, their offence doesn't really matter. The fact that it's "religious" doesn't automatically make it more worthy of thought or consideration than anything else; I'm sure David Icke gets just as offended by people mocking his "the queen is a lizard" theories but nobody gives a shit about that. Maybe if he put on a fancy hat when he said it, it'd suddenly be worthy of respect? X Stickman (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- But responding to a massacre by attacking a religion is a completely misdirected response. Charlie Hebdo staff weren't murdered because of Muhammed & the religion he founded, but because of terrorist groups & the regimes that support them. Guardian cartoonists Martin Rowson & Steve Bell have some wise words on this. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- But responding to a massacre by attacking a religion is a completely misdirected response. Charlie Hebdo staff weren't murdered because of Muhammed & the religion he founded, but because of terrorist groups & the regimes that support them. Guardian cartoonists Martin Rowson & Steve Bell have some wise words on this. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- I guess my primary thought is why should I care that 23% of the planet will be offended by it? So? Since when has that been an issue, or a reason to do or not to do something? People who get THAT out of shape over some cartoons... their opinions don't really matter, their offence doesn't really matter. The fact that it's "religious" doesn't automatically make it more worthy of thought or consideration than anything else; I'm sure David Icke gets just as offended by people mocking his "the queen is a lizard" theories but nobody gives a shit about that. Maybe if he put on a fancy hat when he said it, it'd suddenly be worthy of respect? X Stickman (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm not clear on here is why we should respect religions. I understand that many people sincerely believe in different religions - but also many people sincerely believe in homoeopathy or moon landing hoax theories. We see no reason to give special respect to one group with weird beliefs - why should the other deserve it?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- The idea behind the general ban on depictions of Mohammed actually assumes that the depictions are respectful. If people made respectful depictions of Mohammed, these could seduce Muslims into paying respect to the images instead of the person Mohammed himself, i.e. idolatry. Disrespectful depictions, on the other hand, fall under "insulting the Prophet", which is also pretty obviously disapproved of. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that if the depictions of Mohammed were as respectful as depictions of Christian figures it would be far less of a problem. The prohibition against depictions of Mohammed is no longer practiced by Shia Islam. Also, isn't the main motive of the prohibition is to prevent idolatry? If so, this is not a concern for non-Muslims.--TiaC (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I sympathise with the position that Muhammed drawings when done in the spirit of Everybody Draw Muhammed Day may, intentionally or otherise, mobilise prejudice against Muslims, as is the case with satire that targets an oppressed minority or an aspect of their culture generally. I think the notion of being an "equal-oppurtunities offender" is overrated and is too often used as an excuse to dispense with discretion in comedy. But given that the original movement was sparked by a very specific resistance to censorship, that is, threats of violence directed at anyonne who depicts the prophet Muhammed, I can't help but feel that there's a greater good at stake. " Muslim immigrants in the West are constantly discriminated against, many Muslims living in Africa and the Middle East are threatened either by Western drone strikes or mass killings by terrorists, and you propose othering them further and making it even clearer that Western civilization is not their friend and doesn't care one dime about them? Don't they have enough reasons to radicalize already?" - I'm not sure it's possible to meaningfully measure how upset the global Muslim population as a whole feel about depictions of Muhammed, but I can say that my own Muslim friends would feel "othered" if they were told that their culture had a blanket exemption from satirical conventions that reach out to other groups. Grumblejaws (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent response Xr2.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- So I guess when you talked about bible burning and...flag-shitting, you were just being ironic, then? You said this was just about new atheists going overboard, but there seems to have been broad spectrum agreement from left-leaning leaders and left leaning publications that to stand up for free speech (including offensive speech) is the appropriate reaction. People defending the right to draw a profit may be a little tedious, but it's hardly a BNP rally, is it? Even if you find it to be in poor taste (or if it...gasp...jeopardizes multiculturalism), people should still have the right to do it, yes? Burkean (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Question: If people shouldn't draw Mohammad because it will offend not just the terrorists but 23% of the world population, does that mean that Charlie Hebdo also should not have been drawing Mohammad and slapping him on the cover of their magazine? --37.228.227.88 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not saying attacking religion (although I don't think this really counts as "attacking religion" anyway, and I think framing it as that is pretty disingenuous) is the right way to respond to it, I'm saying that "people will be offended" is not a reason NOT to do something. I'd also strongly disagree with the "this is not a religious thing it's a terrorism thing" claim, because I've seen it a lot over the past few days and while I understand why people are saying it, it's also wrong. This is one of THE MOST RELIGIOUS THINGS that is currently happening in the world. The fact that other people in the same religion aren't dangerously violent doesn't mean that the dangerously violent ones aren't acting on behalf of their religion. X Stickman (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just like Jesus, nobody knows what Mohammed actually looks like. Maybe people could suddenly start seeing his image on pieces of toast or subway walls? A depiction of Mohammed doesn't have to be inherently offensive or racist, the reason Muslims are against depictions of Mohammed is because he is now seen as "perfect" (in the way that some Christians regard Jesus) and any depiction cannot do his perfection justice so it is a customary proscription rather than being a central tenet of the faith. This is something that was not originally part of Islam but arose in 14C Persia (IIRC and can't be arsed to check) when previous images of him were defaced/removed. I could well go along with the Gary Trudeau's tactic in Doonesbury of depicting George Bush as being invisible. ГенгисGum disease 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- IIRC, Trudeau portrayed Dubya as an empty centurion's helmet, and Clinton as a waffle floating in mid-air. Didn't he always show one earlier Prez as a pointing finger? ProblemChimp (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just like Jesus, nobody knows what Mohammed actually looks like. Maybe people could suddenly start seeing his image on pieces of toast or subway walls? A depiction of Mohammed doesn't have to be inherently offensive or racist, the reason Muslims are against depictions of Mohammed is because he is now seen as "perfect" (in the way that some Christians regard Jesus) and any depiction cannot do his perfection justice so it is a customary proscription rather than being a central tenet of the faith. This is something that was not originally part of Islam but arose in 14C Persia (IIRC and can't be arsed to check) when previous images of him were defaced/removed. I could well go along with the Gary Trudeau's tactic in Doonesbury of depicting George Bush as being invisible.
- If they meant to target extremists, then they aimed very inaccurately. If they meant to offend all Muslims because they think Muslims are inferior/primitive/violent, then it was islamophobic. If they meant to offend Muslims just for the heck of it, then it was asshole-ish. If they meant to critique the Islamic ban on depictions of Muhammad, then just drawing a depiction of him is ineffective as the simple act of disregarding a ban doesn't explain your reason for disregarding it. Since the cartoon had Muhammad saying "100 lashes if you don't die from laughing", I'd say it's a mixture of the 1st and 2nd option.
- Seriously though, some people are acting like the only reason Charlie Hebdo were targetted was because they put a depiction of Muhammad on the cover once. They've repeatedly mocked Muslims and Muslim extremists. It's extremely doubtful that it was only their drawing of Muhammad that motivated the attack. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming that you are replying to me, then you are completely dodging my question. I didn’t ask what you think Charlie Hebdo’s motivations for drawing Mohammed were, or if it was "only their drawing of Muhammad that motivated the attack." The question is should they have drawn the images they did, and slapped them on their cover? There should be a "yes" or a "no" somewhere in the answer. 37.228.227.88 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Dodging? I thought it was pretty straightforward. I went over their possible motivations and found that they were either inappropriate or that the cartoon in question was ineffective for realizing the presupposed goal in mind. Is there a way you could derive a "yes" from that? Where's the ambiguity? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so you think Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have printed the images. What about reprinting the images? You mentioned the "100 lashes if you don't die from laughing" cartoon for example. I notice that that particular cartoon has been uploaded to both RationalWiki and Wikipedia and is in use on articles on both sites. Is that wrong also? 37.228.227.88 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Eh, those are just for illustrating the controversy. The Streisand effect basically demands that those images will be all over the place now. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- "If they meant to critique the Islamic ban on depictions of Muhammad, then just drawing a depiction of him is ineffective as the simple act of disregarding a ban doesn't explain your reason for disregarding it" Say what? The drawings came about as a response to threats of violent reprisals toward anyone who depicts the prophet Muhammed. The explanation for disregarding the ban is pretty self-evident: they are resisting a tyrannical demand for censorship. "It's extremely doubtful that it was only their drawing of Muhammad that motivated the attack" - It's extremely doubtful because the killers communicated through various outlets that their motivations also included retaliation for complicity by Western states in the killing of Muslims abroad, it is, however, why Charlie Hebdo was specifically targetted.
For the purposes of this discussion, why does it matter? Killing magazine staff was a monstrously unfitting method of settling their stated grievances, however exhaustively you care to list themEDIT - on re-reading I realised that those last couple of sentences were ignoratio elenchi. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)- As we have seen with all religions throughout history, there are intersections between Islam and practising communities who experience discrimination and economic marginalisation, and in the case of many of those communities living in the developing world, they have been experiencing the consequences of foreign military and political intervention. We all wish we could discuss religion per se but it is always inevitably tangled with issues of identity and politics. Trying to make controversial statements at a time like this is is insensitive, or if you prefer, politically disastrous. Without the tempering of humanism, rationalism is a smothering smog that obscures more than it reveals.Vajrapani (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- As I said above, I have a lot of sympathy with the position that satire which nominally attacks Islamic extremism potentially perpetuates discrimination against Muslims generally. But nor do appeals to sensitivity persuade me that cartoonists or anyone have a duty, moral or otherwise, to defy threats of violence. To me, this is simply swapping one cultural vacuum for another. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- this debate seems to be conflating two distinct issues: one, appears to be whether we should respect a prohibition on images of, or mocking of, Mohammed generally; and two, whether another draw Mohammed day is an appropriate response to the recent outrages in Paris. The original op addressed the the second issue, and it this issue that i have previously wieghed in on (against), and will now continue to do so. It seem to me that timing is key here. I fail to see what is gained by further inflaming an already tense situation. Is it really such an imposition, really such an assault on free speech to show restraint at this time, to instead try to find common ground? Some sort of, I dunno, march for unity instead? I find it a little hypocritical with Charlie hebdos latest image of Mohammed is applauded as a victory for free speech when Mohammed is depicted as a racist caricature of an arab that would be unacceptable if it were of a jewish figure. Indeed the defence of free speech is less strong with images of obama as a monkey, or black and white minstrels or a plethoras of other racist slurs. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- its depressing that debate over free speech these days is limited to racist cartoons and trash movies. Or maybe that's a positive, if no one is questioning genuinely worth while exercises of free speech (in the western world, as I am sure we all take it as read that there parts of the world where free speech will garuntee a loss of life or liberty) AMassiveGay (talk)
- Getting back on topic then, I don't really see a specific need for Everybody Draw Muhammed Day less because of fears of enflaming the situation than the fact that MSM have actually made a point of reprinting Charlie Hebdo material. If younfind it depressing that we apparently lack breadth in free speech issues, you'll be heartened to know that the UK gov is dusting off the Snooper's Charter proposals again. Grumblejaws (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- indeed. It is this continued threat to privacy I find more worrying than a non existent threat to free speech (its was brutally attacked but was never under any real threat). I honestly think that intelligence agencies love these kind of attacks because the get to push for more powers. Tech companies are of course opposing these measures because they want to be the only ones reading your emails. More depressingly still, I fear most people don't give a shit about their privacy. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the threat to free speech is non existent then why do you think South Park started censoring Muhammad? And why is the episode 201 not part of my DVD collection? 37.228.227.88 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- cowardice maybe? I'd be more sympathetic if they didn't already get a free pass for their racism and homophobia. Swings and roundabouts I guess. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the threat to free speech is non existent then why do you think South Park started censoring Muhammad? And why is the episode 201 not part of my DVD collection? 37.228.227.88 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- indeed. It is this continued threat to privacy I find more worrying than a non existent threat to free speech (its was brutally attacked but was never under any real threat). I honestly think that intelligence agencies love these kind of attacks because the get to push for more powers. Tech companies are of course opposing these measures because they want to be the only ones reading your emails. More depressingly still, I fear most people don't give a shit about their privacy. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Getting back on topic then, I don't really see a specific need for Everybody Draw Muhammed Day less because of fears of enflaming the situation than the fact that MSM have actually made a point of reprinting Charlie Hebdo material. If younfind it depressing that we apparently lack breadth in free speech issues, you'll be heartened to know that the UK gov is dusting off the Snooper's Charter proposals again. Grumblejaws (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- its depressing that debate over free speech these days is limited to racist cartoons and trash movies. Or maybe that's a positive, if no one is questioning genuinely worth while exercises of free speech (in the western world, as I am sure we all take it as read that there parts of the world where free speech will garuntee a loss of life or liberty) AMassiveGay (talk)
- this debate seems to be conflating two distinct issues: one, appears to be whether we should respect a prohibition on images of, or mocking of, Mohammed generally; and two, whether another draw Mohammed day is an appropriate response to the recent outrages in Paris. The original op addressed the the second issue, and it this issue that i have previously wieghed in on (against), and will now continue to do so. It seem to me that timing is key here. I fail to see what is gained by further inflaming an already tense situation. Is it really such an imposition, really such an assault on free speech to show restraint at this time, to instead try to find common ground? Some sort of, I dunno, march for unity instead? I find it a little hypocritical with Charlie hebdos latest image of Mohammed is applauded as a victory for free speech when Mohammed is depicted as a racist caricature of an arab that would be unacceptable if it were of a jewish figure. Indeed the defence of free speech is less strong with images of obama as a monkey, or black and white minstrels or a plethoras of other racist slurs. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- As I said above, I have a lot of sympathy with the position that satire which nominally attacks Islamic extremism potentially perpetuates discrimination against Muslims generally. But nor do appeals to sensitivity persuade me that cartoonists or anyone have a duty, moral or otherwise, to defy threats of violence. To me, this is simply swapping one cultural vacuum for another. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- As we have seen with all religions throughout history, there are intersections between Islam and practising communities who experience discrimination and economic marginalisation, and in the case of many of those communities living in the developing world, they have been experiencing the consequences of foreign military and political intervention. We all wish we could discuss religion per se but it is always inevitably tangled with issues of identity and politics. Trying to make controversial statements at a time like this is is insensitive, or if you prefer, politically disastrous. Without the tempering of humanism, rationalism is a smothering smog that obscures more than it reveals.Vajrapani (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- "If they meant to critique the Islamic ban on depictions of Muhammad, then just drawing a depiction of him is ineffective as the simple act of disregarding a ban doesn't explain your reason for disregarding it" Say what? The drawings came about as a response to threats of violent reprisals toward anyone who depicts the prophet Muhammed. The explanation for disregarding the ban is pretty self-evident: they are resisting a tyrannical demand for censorship. "It's extremely doubtful that it was only their drawing of Muhammad that motivated the attack" - It's extremely doubtful because the killers communicated through various outlets that their motivations also included retaliation for complicity by Western states in the killing of Muslims abroad, it is, however, why Charlie Hebdo was specifically targetted.
- Eh, those are just for illustrating the controversy. The Streisand effect basically demands that those images will be all over the place now. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so you think Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have printed the images. What about reprinting the images? You mentioned the "100 lashes if you don't die from laughing" cartoon for example. I notice that that particular cartoon has been uploaded to both RationalWiki and Wikipedia and is in use on articles on both sites. Is that wrong also? 37.228.227.88 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Dodging? I thought it was pretty straightforward. I went over their possible motivations and found that they were either inappropriate or that the cartoon in question was ineffective for realizing the presupposed goal in mind. Is there a way you could derive a "yes" from that? Where's the ambiguity? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming that you are replying to me, then you are completely dodging my question. I didn’t ask what you think Charlie Hebdo’s motivations for drawing Mohammed were, or if it was "only their drawing of Muhammad that motivated the attack." The question is should they have drawn the images they did, and slapped them on their cover? There should be a "yes" or a "no" somewhere in the answer. 37.228.227.88 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- You apparently didn't get my link to Islamophobia. You also didn't get my link to Poe's Law. I`m going to be civil and not be the "semi-troll" I usually am, and just say you need to go over my post again.--Palaeonictis (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- To:AMassiveGay. Which is perhaps why we should beat the government to the punch by continuously mocking Islam. Free speech wins, Islamic wackos lose, and governments lose an excuse to terrorize. Here's Penn and Teller burning the American flag.Talk to Civic Cat 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- except the 'Islamic wackos' win. Muslims who were disgusted with killings are disgusted with latest Charlie hebdo cover. Communities already marginalised made further so. We have made it easier for these people to radicalise others, being already a problem in Europe. Division and mistrust is what these people thrive on, and division and mistrust is what we have given them. And why? Because we are too gung ho to bite our tongues. Because we can do something doesn't mean we should. But as you say, free speech wins. Bravo. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are overstretching your points. Radicalisation in the European context is enabled by socioeconomic marginalisation. Charlie Hebdo and their artistic and political stablemates are a drop in the ocean in the perpetuation of these systems, which have far more to do with xenophobic segregation and institutional brutalisation, both of which Charlie Hebdo has railed against vociferously over the years, by the way. Someone who responds with violence to works that blaspheme their scripture has most likely already committed to fundamentalism. Grumblejaws (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I am over egging my point, blame that on my poor debating skills. I merely wished to say it is further contributing to an already shitty situation. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are overstretching your points. Radicalisation in the European context is enabled by socioeconomic marginalisation. Charlie Hebdo and their artistic and political stablemates are a drop in the ocean in the perpetuation of these systems, which have far more to do with xenophobic segregation and institutional brutalisation, both of which Charlie Hebdo has railed against vociferously over the years, by the way. Someone who responds with violence to works that blaspheme their scripture has most likely already committed to fundamentalism. Grumblejaws (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- except the 'Islamic wackos' win. Muslims who were disgusted with killings are disgusted with latest Charlie hebdo cover. Communities already marginalised made further so. We have made it easier for these people to radicalise others, being already a problem in Europe. Division and mistrust is what these people thrive on, and division and mistrust is what we have given them. And why? Because we are too gung ho to bite our tongues. Because we can do something doesn't mean we should. But as you say, free speech wins. Bravo. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- To:AMassiveGay. Which is perhaps why we should beat the government to the punch by continuously mocking Islam. Free speech wins, Islamic wackos lose, and governments lose an excuse to terrorize. Here's Penn and Teller burning the American flag.
I'm all for Draw Mohammad Day. I like the suggestions of Burn a Bible Day and Shit on a Flag Day too. DickTurpis (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll sign up for a celebration where we sit around warming our hands around a great bonfire of burning bibles and while drawing picture of Mohamed and shitting on flags of our choice. Excellent idea. One could even randomly exchange the materials and actions.--Coffee (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I feel that reading Steven Dutch's article entitled "The Most Toxic Value System..." and "Gods Grandchildren" on the Middle Eastern or Mediterranian value of honor that may play a role in violent and aggressive reaction to criticism of Modern Middle Eastern Societies and Islam as it is practiced in those cultures. — Unsigned, by: 70.199.103.12 / talk / contribs 22:48, 17 January 2015
If you really want to confuse and annoy Muslims, why not just ask them how they know the Quran is correct? Mohammed was unable to read or write. http://www.al-islam.org/authenticity-quran-shaykh-muslim-bhanji/prophet-muhammad-s-was-unlettered He was also in the habit of rescinding his sayings. He forbid his followers from writing it all down [couldn't read it and might change it anyway]. So it was over 150 years after Mohammed's death that his sayings were finally compiled into the Quran. http://www.thequran.com/ArticleComments/Details/163 So, how is it possible for anyone to know what the Prophet actually said and what remained unrecinded? Ask them about the 6 versions of the Quran that Uthman collected and then burned. 98.249.144.192 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)David Nix