RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive242

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 5 May 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, (new)(back)

Contents

We won't get Poe'd again[edit]

We should've done this first, dammit. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Added to the link section of the article on Poe's Law. Anywhere else?--Arisboch (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I always check an unfamiliar news site by reading its other articles. You can usually tell. However this site might be a good way of finding satire sites, which are usually fun places. BicyclewheelModerator 09:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the edit this page button?[edit]

I don't think I'm blocked, but my edit button and new section button have disappeared from all pages for me. Here's a video I made so you can see what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 Anyone else having this problem? Is this a bug? DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 11:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I just lost the game. That's just embarrassing. PacWalker 13:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it a video of Rick Astley perchance? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the HA0 video. Like a fine wine, it only improves with age. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Not looked @ the vid (hah!) but D Morris's query can be answered by " MINE TOO!". It seems to be that, depending on the whims of the great spirit, ones widgets are either there (including "edit this page") or absent. Scream!! (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
So the great spirit makes users with widgets and users without widgets? This sounds like the stork talk gone wrong... PacWalker 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
All that's necessary is to wait a while (or change your BoN identity?) and all will come back. The great (or do I mean Goat?) spirit is fickle. Scream!! (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheist persecution complex?[edit]

I know that this is going to be a sensitive question, and I imagine I'm going to get a large amount of hate for it. (Even though I am an atheist/agnostic myself.) My question is this, do atheists here have a persecution complex? I realize that in some states there are *unconstitutional* laws on the books that atheists cannot be elected to public positions, and I realize that even where this isn't the case there are very few openly atheistic politicians. That being said, I've never felt at all persecuted for my lack of faith, perhaps it's just that I live in a liberal bubble where people are generally accepting of all people. Ultimately though, the thing that makes me think that atheists might have a persecution complex is the fact that I see atheists complaining about things like nativity scenes that they seem to take offense to. I suppose that there is a very good case to be made that such displays on public property are unconstitutional, but the reaction seems to be stronger and more emotional than that simple complaint. I know plenty of people of faith, and though I don't really understand how they believe what they believe I don't have any urge to "deconvert" them as some people do.Samstr (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I will say that where you live is probably more important than you think. For example, most Alabamians are not terribly friendly to atheism. PacWalker 15:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Self-clarification: this is not from an atheist perspective, but I find it fairly readily observable anyhow. PacWalker 15:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be a reach to say atheists are persecuted in America. It would not be a reach to say they are marginalized and stigmatized by a significant part of the population. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec w/ below) I think that's mostly fair, presuming you take the above definition of persecution, or, if not, substitute appropriate terms to forestall seventeen hours of dictionary wars. *whips out dictionaries* But seriously, that more or less matches my assessment; I just tend to take a slightly different set of definitions/wordings. PacWalker 16:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I will say that when the head of The American Atheists recently went on national television and claimed that atheists are the most persecuted and discriminated against group in the US, he was straight-up wrong. I won't say we face no barriers to free living for us. Say the wrong thing at the wrong time about your beliefs and you will face discrimination. For example, my state still has a constitutional provision(that won't hold up in court) that my testimony is invalid in court and that I can't hold a public trust. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I would definitely agree. Persecuted is too strong a word, especially to say we are the most persecuted group in America. Samstr (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
What would you use instead? "Disadvantaged", maybe? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I gave you two perfectly cromulent words above. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
... Was asking Samstr, but those words work too. I'm don't buy "marginalized", though. It implies near-complete loss of power, which doesn't appear correct. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think the phrase "persecution complex" is used a bit too liberally these days. If I were to tell you that a population group got ridiculed on national television the other day, there'd be a queue of people readying the slew of comdemning adjectives à la racist/-phobic/-shaming. But if I were to then tell you that the group in question was "Fundamentalist Christians", everybody'd go "Pfft, they totally have it coming." I don't even disagree with that, but then when fundies complain about being ridiculed we say they've got a persecution complex so as to invalidate any concern they may have, even ridiculing them for being bothered at all. It's the same silencing strategy islamophobes use when dismissing any and all criticism they get from Muslims. (And no, I'm not saying fundies are persecuted. I'm not even saying that there aren't fundies that get off on claiming to be persecuted. But that doesn't mean we should just dismiss out of hand any concern or complaint they may utter.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Actual persecutions also tend to be invisible while they're still happening; people take them for granted, because they think they have perfectly good reasons to demonize their neighbors, and don't even perceive what they're doing as persecution. For people caught up in them, what in hindsight is seen as persecution is considered moral or social reform by the persecutors. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Will US remain the sole superpower?[edit]

I started this as a debate topic, but the page was deleted. I am interested in knowing will the US remain the sole superpower? --LobPo (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk answers silly questions. We laugh at silly questions. PacWalker 06:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it a silly question? --LobPo (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, aside from the fact that you essentially recycled it from a previous debate, the fact that it rests on a rather... bizarre... premise, and the fact that the answer is not too hard to see, it isn't. PacWalker 10:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the answer yes? --LobPo (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Try this. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Thanks. But I have another question about a topic which I don't understand well. If someone can simply explain it, it will be a great help. Will China's ownership of US debt create problems? --LobPo (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yahoo Answers exists for a reason. --Miekal 13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Or just use {{MAGIC8}}... Quietly. 173.25.47.250 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No. --Castaigne (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The rise and fall of supremacy of a particular nation throughout history suggests no. Not that it matters. --Castaigne (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think humans will develop invisibility or levitation abilities anytime soon? Those would be some cool superpowers. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Computer says...No. --Castaigne (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

perfect[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDjz5qHIzsc Master Necromancer(fear me!) 02:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah i saw that one its pretty funny 'Legionwhat do you want from me 04:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this the norm on RationalWiki?[edit]

Was reading an article on feminism, found a few unsupported statements (or, even worse, some links were _not_ supporting what had been stated).

Posted what I found on talk page; the reaction that I got was:

> Way too tired for BoN whining today

Is this behaviour considered the norm on RW?

176.52.35.148 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In some sense, yeah. On average, BoN's post crazier comments. On average, the feminism page gets crazier comments. Your comment may (or may not) have been fine (I didn't look), but "on average" there was a higher than normal chance it wasn't. Like everyone, our knee jerk reactions are guided by the "on average" more than by a detailed look at the merits of your point. MarmotHead (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood (and agreed) on both points, about BoNs and feminism.
The problem is, the article makes statements that are either not supported by the source, or just simply not true - I did some fact-checking and put my findings there.
Not going to do anything else about this now - don't want to spend any more time only to have my work dismissed; it's up to you if you're okay with RW articles containing false statements.
176.52.35.148 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
"Is this behaviour considered the norm on RW?" Yep, it's par for the course regarding "social justice" topics, which almost invariably surround "feminism". That's how things go on "Rational" (take a drink) Wiki. I did check your comment and looked at the references, and you are absolutely right about FACE having nothing to do with feminists. It's quite the opposite, as it clearly states it was started by mothers of male students who were falsely accused. Chrimony (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And, of course, now that I've got a little more energy to address the issue, it turns out the erroneous information was added in the defense of exactly your sort of bullshit, Chrimony. But please, don't let that stop you from making this about evil feminists, oppressing poor BoNs. I'm still way too tired for this level of whining, but the correct course of action seems to be removing the whole apologism section 24 dropped in back in February. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there some bigger context that I don't understand? Because it looks to me like you "refuted" a simple correction made by 176.52.35.148 by, ironically, whining about things nobody said. But of course, you shouldn't have to justify your reasoning to MRAs, BoNs, or whatever the new acronym of the week is for "people who don't agree with literally everything feminists say".TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"BoN" (Bunch of Numbers) is not new. and certainly not invented last week. It has been part of RW's jargon for ages. And being more dismissive to anonymous editors than to regular ones seems to be an pattern occurring on all open-access wikis. It's not exclusive to RW or feminists, though RW seems to be suffering from a bit more acute form of it than average due to the nature of the wiki.
As for the rest, here's the context: the text 176.52.35.148 has been complaining about was originally inserted and later amended by another unregistered editor, 24.186.49.177. Given the rest of 24.186.49.177's edit history, provided by Ikanreed, it doesn't look like they are among those "who agree with literally everything feminists say". Indeed, the newly added text can be read as yet another attempt to sort feminists into "good" and "bad".--ZooGuard (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
In a way. People who post using just IPs tend, more often than not, to be people who do a drive-by vent and then leave, never to return to the page to respond to criticisms/counterarguments (for example, the collected rants in the Cult of Satorn thread). With the growth in popularity of the Gamergate article, there has also been a marked increase in the number of users/IPs popping onto RW over matters of online social justice, which includes its fair share of trolls and users just seeking to be deliberately argumentative. Combine these two, and you end up with people generally assuming the worst and deciding not to waste their breath on people who won't listen.
Nothing personal, really. From my understanding, it's a tango that some of these folks have danced too often. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What are BoNs? - LucidFox (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"Bunch of Numbers" aka IP editors. --Miekal 06:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
My first recommendation would be that you register an account (It's free and easy!) and then make your post. I personally tend to ignore BoN comments because the majority of BoNs are shills and concern trolls.
My second recommendation would be that after you register, that you do not follow Chrimony's example and be a concern troll that only comments and whines about a pet issue without performing a single useful contribution. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to apologize though. I was exhausted and didn't bother taking the complaint seriously in the first place. That wasn't nice. Just because an article gets a fuck ton of concern trolling doesn't mean everything posted is concern trolling. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
of the OP is serious about editing they should create an account. As to content you are free to edit the article and can supply your reasons on the talk page. Thats how wikis work. If others disagree they can edit the page too. enjoy your stay. I dont think there are any typical ratwiki users. 198.98.209.150 (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that page was temporarily locked down due to recurring vandalism, and they couldn't edit, even if they registered an account. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

meanwhile[edit]

Put an onion in your sock to purify your internal organs[edit]

Just saw this shared on Facebook. Seems like a rich seam of what RW calls "woo". ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh, tiny organs drawn on a foot. Yeah, that looks totally legit. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been doing this for years. But only for the fragrance. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That reminds me: The reflexology article needs some work. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 03:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Just put a picture of an onion there and it'll be fine. BicyclewheelModerator 09:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Silver steamy vaginas[edit]

FuzzyCatPotato's valiant work on Vaginal steaming has enlightened and disgusted many until-recently-happy readers who can now only contemplate scalded hoohas. He'd like to get it to SILVER BRAIN WOOHOO levels of loveliness and I haven't got time to review it properly (I'm skiving off w*rk as I write this) so please give it some acerbic and detailed peer review - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I learned two things today: vaginal steaming and vagina woo are two things that exist. I pray that I can use this information for only good and not evil.--71.62.250.238 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No, vagina woo does not exist. Vagina myths do. Spud (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I learned some things. I actually thought it was possible for a womans vag to get blown out from too much sex. Good to know the opposite is true, I guess. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 23:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I've still yet to write esoteric breast massage, at that - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that some sort of fetish or gigolo-provided fetish? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!? 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It'd be nice to get some comments on whether article's decent. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems quite complete or at least I can't imagine there being more out there. The required research boggles my mind. The writing needs some polishing. The words "proponent" and "purportedly" make many many appearances. Oddly, I think it sucks when I read it on a wide window, but it's much better when I read it in a narrow window. Go figure! The mid-article "Impacts" section is an interesting way to get some navigation stuff into the main body. Plant part could be converted to a table. The third level of headings goes too far and makes it look like the font size changes randomly. Not silver, yet, but getting there. MarmotHead (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, proponent and purportedly will go. What kind of plant table are you looking for? What benefit would such a table have? And what do you recommend instead of 3rd-level headings? Thanks for the suggestions! FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a very decent article. Only thing I'd change is removing the distinction between paywalled and non-paywalled scientific studies. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I distinguished them only because the paywalled articles could contain empirical evidence about vaginal steaming outside of their abstracts, while no such risk occurs for the paywalled ones. Condense them, then? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup. And if possible, have someone check behind the paywall for anything interesting. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
the ;) changes everything Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks OK for the most part, but there way too many unintegrated quotes, and many of them appear to be from the bottom half of the internet. Those have got to go. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Read thru that section again, it's shit. CULLING TIME Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Culled proponent and purportedly. Kept public and paywalled studies apart, until someone can access the paywalled ones. Anyone else have input? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'd like to silver it. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Go for it, it's undoubtedly the best available article on the topic - David Gerard (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I mean I knew that vaginas could get baked, but they can be steamed too?

Indiana bill and anti-gay-marriage restaurants[edit]

So, discrimination against gay people is obviously bad, but there's one thing that I'm wondering about this whole business. Why would gay people want to financially support openly homophobic or anti-marriage-equality businesses by paying them to provide services for them? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Gay people also enjoy chicken sandwiches. PacWalker 19:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
And homophobic restaurants are the only places that serve those?! >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
No, but... frosted lemonade. On a more serious note, I am mostly kidding/making fun of Chik-fil-a, though I think I have some shred of a point in that some people care very little about the source of their product and much more about the product itself, though some of course don't, and I have no numbers about this, sadly. PacWalker 19:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's true enough, but I'd consider it pretty desirable for people to take who they're supporting by buying products from them more seriously. This law would basically trick homophobic businesses into announcing their homophobic nature publically and harming themselves financially by reducing their target clientele. And non-homophobic businesses could then make their LGBT-tolerance a selling point. Wouldn't it be a good thing if people in general were making the conscious choice to buy products/services from openly LGBT-supportive businesses? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a civil rights issue, and "they can go find some pro-gay restaurant" is the laziest, most unhelpful attitude. If we approached all discrimination like this we'd still have de-facto segregation in places where white folks don't like black folks much (& I guess perhaps it would be the black folks' fault for being in such a racist area?). ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
And why are you assuming being pro-LGBT would be a bigger selling point than being anti-LGBT? Homophobes are a pretty big demographic. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The Chick-Fil-A chain seems to have profited by being in the public eye for opposing LGBT&c rights; eating there became a badge of honor for right-wing Christians. Is there a name similar to Streisand effect for boycotts that backfire? Nevertheless, Zaxby's is still going to be both better junk food and a better buy. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Read up on the history of the last time discrimination of this sort was legal. Sufficiently backwards places can coordinate enough to outright deny groups essential goods and services. The people who fight the individuals doing it are doing so to prevent that sort of situation from being viable, and honestly, they're right. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Article for the Mindfulness program[edit]

Basically it's a modern Buddhist meditation program. But it's really popular. Here's the cut it got on 60 minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mindfulness-anderson-cooper-60-minutes/ Master Necromancer(fear me!) 11:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it. There's woo in them thar hills! BicyclewheelModerator 12:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There's actually a fair amount of experiential data supporting the use of mindfulness in psychology. Just FYI. Not to say there isn't woo as well, but you're gonna need to do some database searching for this article. AyzmoCheers 13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
yes, but we can sort the wheat from the chaff. BicyclewheelModerator 13:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
And not only that, everything I've read(which isn't a lot) says that mindfulness is a practicable personality trait. And not only that, the scientific literature calls that practice "mindfullness training." So... if we're going to have an article about the link above, we should probably not call it "mindfullness training". And here's a meta-analysis that suggests that it effectively treats some conditions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The fellow that Cooper interviewed, John Kabat-Zinn,Wikipedia's W.svg is a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, a world-class institution, and hardly a bastion of woo. He studied with Thich Nhat Hanh, Seung Sahn, and Philip Kapleau, who are the real deal, not woo-meisters. I suspect that trying to trash the program RW-style will be difficult to do with much credibility.
Side bit of trivia: I'm pretty sure it was Seung Sahn who provoked the Dalai Lama's legendary riposte in the kind of debate known as "dharma combat." Sahn produced an orange from his sleeve, demanding "What is this!!?!" HHDL, who speaks fluent English, consulted with his interpreters for many minutes before replying, "What's the matter with him? Don't they have oranges where he comes from?" (IOW, "dude, get real, and cut the pretentious spiritual crap.") That's the kind of debate that looks good on both their CV's. (See here if you don't get that last bit.) Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems like mindfulness might be a psychologically useful practice, though it's often sold to the public in a mystical/woo-y/profound-sounding-gibberish package. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it should be a bit like our article on quantum physics: a real thing, misused. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
That's how I see it. I use it frequently with treating clients. If used correctly it can be very helpful and very effective. ACT is a good example of a mindfulness-based treatment. DBT is another that incorporates mindfulness. AyzmoCheers 22:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone beat MRSA?[edit]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27263-anglo-saxon-remedy-kills-hospital-superbug-mrsa.html#.VSLoF3XjN7j
Too late/early to include that in the WIGO I guess.? ThiehI am STILL single 20:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Too early. Human trial can vary wildly from non-human trial. It's also not a case of "MRSA has been beat." The remedy has not been shown to be more effective than what's currently available. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 21:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a goldwhite/blackblue dress thing?[edit]

So Kylie Jenner posted a pic from a photoshoot on Instagram (nothing that's in itself at all notable) and make-up+lighting made her skin look sparkly purple-gray. And now some people are calling it blackface... I'm sorry, but I really don't see it. If having sparkly skin in a dimly lit room is blackface then... sorry, I have no idea how to finish that sentence. I hate agreeing with the anti-SJW crowd on any issue, but this is just ridiculous. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, seems about right. To me, she looks more "android" than "black". FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 12:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
"Some people" is pretty ambiguous. Who did that? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
"Some people" did it in tweets shown in 141's linked article. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Random people on the internet? *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If I saw the pic cold, without reading this thread first, I probably wouldn't have thought "blackface." But, if the people who have a lived stake in the use of blackface and all of the exclusion/social violence/injustice/etc that blackface entails see it that way, my opinion on the topic is completely irrelevant. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I find the notion of completely and unilaterally discarding people's opinions based on a person's lack of specific lived experiences a dangerous one. But since we're talking lived experiences, I can assure you that being the member of a group that is, to this day, commonly misportrayed (both for the sake of ridicule and due to sheer ignorance) in the media (and in less public venues) as inherently retarded, delusional and/or notably unhinged and often also as inherently unattractive—so generally as inherently inferior—means that I have sufficient lived experiences to genuinely empathize with black people's rightful enmity towards the phenomenon of blackface. But with this instance, I'm more prone to see it as modern overenthusiastic social justice supporters (and a substantial amount of outright trolls too, inevitably) appropriating the struggle of the black people of the past for the sake of getting a ha-I-called-someone-racist boner rather than people pointing out a real occurrence of blackface. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
You and are not that far apart on this. Notice I said "the people who have a lived stake." So, I'm not gonna take some well-meaning white college undergrad who's just read Zinn and Chomsky for the first time calling this person out (I have no idea who Kylie Jenner is. Never heard of her.) too seriously. But if, say, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a column making a serious charge (which I kinda doubt he will), on the matter I'll defer to his reading, or at least not argue the point, because he knows and lives what he's talking about. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, may I kindly ask, what group of people that is? Not trying to grill you or anything, just understanding where you're coming from (sounds like how I often feel about being transgender). DarkFire (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like licorice to me. In any case, I'd say "blackface" requires an intent to impersonate a black person. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone ever heard of this mystic woo crap[edit]

Before this man? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Blaming virtually everything on eclipses isn't too new, as a general bullshit trend. Sheep in particular? I've never heard anything. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

When should users be autopatrolled?[edit]

Sysop is "been here a while, failed to shithead too hard". Autoconfirmed is automatic. When should autopatrolled be assigned? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Usually I wait till they've been autoconfirmed and failed to show obvious insanity. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 15:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been here a while, and am Autopatrolled, but haven't been made a Sysop. I guess that means that either there is a giant conspiracy against me, I must've headbutt a toilet, or no one really noticed. I'm going to blame it on the molemen.CorruptUser (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well... I've never changed anyone's permissions. So... consider me part of the conspiracy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever made somebody autopatrolled. It seems like a pointless halfway measure. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've done it for purely aesthetic reasons when I'm tired to seeing "!" next to new-but-credible editors in RC. MarmotHead (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I use about a week and a number of edits that are not contraversial, i.e reverted. I hought there had been some discussion about not making everyone a sysop anymore ? Hamster (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I missed that whenever it happened. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who has edited a bit without being a shithead, post here and THE CABAL shall review you (i.e. someone will probably op you) - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IntegerWikis[edit]

Can I have URLs for any IntegerWikis involved in calculating the value of a RationalWiki as desscribed on this page? Please provide these links as soon as possible, I need for a project on Internet 2.5. Thank you. — Unsigned, by: 131.204.254.100 / talk / contribs 03:29, 10 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Not sure if troll or joke FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 03:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Or... eh yeah. What he said. PacWalker 03:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
No I need so I can show how IPv6 works, and I cannot find links on Google. — Unsigned, by: 131.204.254.100 / talk / contribs 03:54, 10 April 2015‎ (UTC)
It's one of our RationalWiki slogans. It's not actually true. It's a joke. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody has ever seen an IPv6 in the wild. Some have described it in tedious detail, and some even claim to be keeping a small one at home. It is even said that an IPv6 backbone can be found in a dark tunnel somewhere. But no-one has ever seen a skull. It's about as real as the Moon landing or evolution. Fonzie (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a (NEW?) thing?[edit]

Prolly not. But I noticed a new-for-me optical delusion. As I was scrolling through a huge photograph file, on my iPad, it seemed as if the second-from-the-left would narrow as it passed the next lowest row but rebounded by the time it got to the middle position. When I noticed this I lost the effect, since my eyes had been relaxed, I reasoned the "narrowing" was that I was scrolling above a rate of 18Hz, (my eyes' rate of "refresh") and the brain's "cute" way of masking that little hole in our vison was being overwhelmed by all the speed of the information coming in; the fact that I had just had some GREAT stuff a few minute before may have been a factor? C®ackeЯ 03:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I'm having a really hard time visualizing this for some reason... PacWalker 05:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Greatest line on conservapedia[edit]

"TJ holds pretty generic atheist ideas; lack of god, etc." 'Legionwhat do you want from me 06:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That was written by a liberal plant. (Probably a cactus, well known for their immigration stance. An anemone is also a well-known example of a liberal plant.) Interesting how Conservative didn't realize it, despite an edit war occurring with the same person (or it was the start of one, I don't have the page up anymore). Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 08:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Question for my fellow Skyrim players[edit]

Does going out of my way to kill all npcs in the game hint I have severe issues? Because I just did that and laughed uncontrollably. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 18:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Only as much as in any other game. I go out of my way to commit felonies in GTA but that doesn't mean i have a problem. --Miekal 18:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Were that automatically the case, every successful NetHack player would be Hitler. That said, I would probably look at you funny. Vulpius (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hitler should've scribed "elbereth" on the shores of Normandy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Slaughtering NPCs for amusement (including neutral NPCs) is a normal aspect of gameplay built into a lot of games, even if it sits outside the game's narrative or objectives (i.e. what you you should be doing to score or progress). When the game lets you kill neutrals, and it's fun in any way, players are inevitably going to do so. There's a very naive argument that comes up sometimes (example here) that the player alone is to blame for any such unwholesome killings (shame on you!) while the game developers are absolved of all responsibility for enabling it. This is nonsense. Some games actively prevent you from killing neutral and allied NPCs (e.g. Call of Juarez series) and others deliberately make it entertaining to do so (e.g. in the Thief series NPCs have all sorts of cartoonish responses to being attacked). I haven't played Skyrim but I understand it takes a middle path by letting you kill adult NPCs but not children (although amateur coders have created mods that allow this). ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd do it for the weirdness of a game world populated entirely by children. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I partially disagree. Yes, the developer can put in avenues to prevent neutral/allied NPC deaths (side note: Skyrim has that in part, in that it will prevent the player character from killing plot-important NPCs by having the killing blow "knocking them out" for a few moments, until they are either no longer important or part of a scene where their death is one possible outcome). However, in the cases where it is "deliberately [made] entertaining to do so", it is usually where the morality of the player character is either player-directed (e.g. Saint's Row, Prototype, Star Wars), morally grey (Thief, God of War), or very, very evil (Hatred). Among games by major studios, there are few exceptions where it's not the case (e.g. "Remember, no Russian."). Also, I don't really see how the argument in the Sarkeesian link is applicable here... ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It's an argument that player-on-NPC violence is all about the player's behaviour or morality & not about the world the game's creators have created. This is what I'm disputing. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on your motivation. If it was just for mischievous fun I'd say you're fine. If you were doing it because you wanted to consummate psychopathic fantasies, I'd be a bit worried. Also, I wouldn't worry about the time or effort you put into killing all the NPCs. Just think about how much time and effort you put into grinding for XP or similar for most games. Now that's crazy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Bit of a tangent: it is astounding how much time, effort, and money people put into not just vidya games, but video games that are hosted on someone else's server and could be shut down. I remember Zynga closing down one of their Facebook games, Treasure Isle, a couple years back. One of their most expensive items, a gold sarcophagus that gave +10 max energy, required about $200 in RL currency to purchase, and there was no limit to how many you could buy. Imagine spending that much and then hearing about the game's closure soon after. Bye-bye investment! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If there were people crazy enough to buy that, I'm kinda surprised that they'd close the game down. Were they hit by a stroke of conscience? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Never forget people have mortgaged their homes n order to buy virtual property in a video game. --Miekal 21:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, while I think $200 is already way too expensive, I'm sadly not blissfully unaware of far more excessive examples of games enabling and encouraging money-throwing practices. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlike with "murder" of NPCs I don't necessarily think this behaviour is really substantially different for involving a video game. Given that we're mortal (and more generally total entropy increases) buying beautiful imaginary furniture and beautiful real furniture are different only in degree. Everything you buy and make will be destroyed. Everything you say and do will be forgotten. It will be destroyed and forgotten in a video game, but it will also be destroyed and forgotten in the real world because the universe is cruel and uncaring and our existence is fleeting. Is it irrational to buy extra lives in Candy Crush? Perhaps, but if so it's also irrational to buy actual candy in real life.
I would draw a distinction between spending that causes you harm and spending that is merely whimsical. For example if you have $50 left until the end of the month and you spend it on a tattoo, or a concert ticket, or a video game hat, that's going to hurt you when you can't buy food or pay your rent. But if you have $1000 left and you spend $50 on the hat, or the ticket or the tattoo, I see them as all similarly reasonable ways to take your mind off the fact that this is all there is, and it'll be gone almost before we know it. 81.2.89.118 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well OK, if we put all emphasis on the consumer. But there's also the issue of what we're actually paying for & where that money goes. When we buy food or clothing or whatever, we're paying for the costs & profits involved in production, labour & retail. When we buy a piece of art or a tattoo, we're paying for the artists's skill as well as their time. When we buy music or a movie or a book or a concert ticket or a video game, we're paying royalties to the creators for their copyrighted works as well as any of the above costs. But when we're merely buying something abstract within a video game, it seems like all of these factors are heavily diluted. Any production, labour, design & royalty costs are (or should be) already covered in the purchase/subscription price of the game, so it's really just paying a load more money to the game's publisher for basically nothing. And buying in-game products & service as a direct alternative to buying real world products & services doesn't seem like it would be very healthy for the (real world) economy. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The costs typically are NOT covered in the price of the game, which is often free. And you've already shown how "real" things are subject to the same irrational financial structures, where you're paying "for basically nothing". I assure you that when the Beatles recorded their first album it never crossed their minds to say "Nah, I'm not sure people in the year 2015 will pay our successors in interest enough money to justify performing this, let's go get jobs working in a bakery instead". I bought a desk recently. No doubt a lot of actual physical work went into building that desk, planing the wood, polishing it to a bright gleam, cutting and finishing strips of brass, whatever one does to go from a cow to huge flat pieces of green leather, mining the tiny quantity of real gold used for the finish... But let's not kid ourselves, it would be a weird coincidence if the cost to make that desk today weirdly happened to be the same as the residual value of a similar-looking actual antique desk. They charge the same price because it might as well be the same product, not because it actually costs them that much to make it. I don't begrudge them their money, but I won't pretend I'm just paying for "labour" or that the desk is magically "worth" that money while a video game is not. 81.2.89.118 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I think doing that actually shows one's ability to separate reality from fiction (an example of bad fiction/reality separation: That person mad at Bioshock Infinite's baptism). If you have an aversion to killing people in a game, it had better be because it doesn't interest you. On that note: oh, the terrible things I have done in Postal 2... Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The only issues you will face is being hunted down by an army of mooks. Also people like me may call you a psychopath'Legionwhat do you want from me 04:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oftentimes I actually have difficulty killing NPCs in games like Skyrim. For whatever reason it's different in games like TF2 but in open world games I often find myself hesitating to kill NPCs you aren't "supposed" to kill, that's why I often end up doing stealth options to missions instead of going in guns blazing. That is people who aren't raiders/bandits. Though on second thought that makes me worry that I might actually go stand your ground crazy if I were ever in a life or death situation and I had a gun in my hand. Samstr (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I found a nice little gem[edit]

A nice improvised review of "Do You Believe?". And the review came out on my birthday, too! How did I not see it before? Anyhoohow, I had some more stuff to say, but I forgot what it was I was going to say. I think I was going to go into some highlights or something. The general summary is that it's better than God's Not Dead - but still bad - and possibly more infuriating due to being more subtle. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Is nobody interested in this? They even have three reviews of Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, because it was so hilariously bad they had to have their entire team do it without seeing the other reviews first (and the first two ended with opposite opinions on seeing the movie, which was pretty funny) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 08:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I rather like what Jake and Hugo have done in their reviews. Atheists Watch God's Not Dead. Samstr (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Template[edit]

I have created a template Template:Hindu nationalism. There is an unwanted section in the middle of the template which reads "[[File:{{{icon}}}|100px|link=:category:{{{category}}}]]". Since I am not well-versed with templates, could anyone please fix it? --ThisIsYeah (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's where the icon should go. Did it appear only on the template page, or also on pages where the template was transcluded? Anyway, I've added an icon to fill in the gap for now. It's normal that it doesn't appear on the template page.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Anyway, I have changed the icon. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The new image needs information about the author and a source confirming that it's been released under that specific license.
Is File:Om.svg suitable?--ZooGuard (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No, becuase it is a sign used in Hinduism while Hindutva is a broader political ideology. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the image of Nathuram Godse, who killed Gandhi, suitable? Here is the Wikipedia link. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have changed the template format where no image is necessary. You can delete that image. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

I've been reading up on anarcho-capitalism and it seems to be a far-fetched system to me but a few of my friends have given some pretty good arguments in defence of it which I haven't been able to refute entirely. For example, in a world with no states how would business monopolies and defence monopolies develop without the assistance of the state? It seems very unlikely that a monopoly would develop with competition on a global scale. Additionally, while I personally feel that taxation, democracy and government are beneficial, taxation still isn't consensual and the social contract argument isn't very convincing. Also isn't it possible for public goods like national defence, healthcare, law enforcement, roads etc. could be financed voluntarily? These are all things that people want and couldn't peer pressure and the threat of other agencies taking their business ensure that people adequately finance these things. Any thoughts? Random guy (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you find the social contract argument unconvincing? In response to the monopoly point, it is not at all unlikely that a global monopoly would develop, especially with no limits on competition. We live in a globalized era, after all, and things can happen quickly. And no, peer pressure is insufficient, very often, to make adults give people the quantities necessary to finance the common defense, healthcare, and the other things on your list, especially if they are rich enough to isolate themselves from the larger community. Rich people would hire their own security. Also, such a revenue stream in voluntary, and thus unreliable. People could boycott it or simply not participate. Self-interest is fickle and often misguided - people are often irrational and often fail to act in what is truly their own long-term best interest. Self-interest is also just that - self-interest - and it doesn't suffice to run a state in the long term. Old people have little interest in financing education.(Agrajag (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC))
A contract needs the consent of both parties. Just because someone was born into a particular society, it doesn’t mean that they consented to the social contract. The social contract is forced upon them. Also, in a world with no trade barriers, government assistance or costly regulations which hinder small businesses from starting up, it’s highly unlikely that a company will be able to buy out or outcompete all of its competitors. Rich people could hire their own security but then why couldn’t others who aren’t as rich hire their own security firms at prices they can afford. Also, old people wouldn’t finance education, but then the people who have kids would do and so would have an incentive to shop around and find the best school for their children. I understand that people can often act irrationally but 99% of people want security and want to be able to live a relatively healthy lifestyle. Also, people are self-interested first and foremost, but they do care about their community and their quality of life and would want to finance things that do improve their community’s way of life. Random guy (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The "social contract" metaphor really doesn't work. Rather, everybody is born into a human society, because that's the kind of critter we are. We need things like language and culture to make us human, we can't survive without them, and the only way we can acquire them is through human societies. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
"Also isn't it possible for public goods like national defence, healthcare, law enforcement, roads etc. could be financed voluntarily?" That's not anarcho-capitialism that's more like anarcho-collectivism. Under anarcho capitalism you would just be paying a corporation and/or monopoly for those things and they'd be more able to squeeze more money out of you it than the government, espescially since you really don't have the option not to pay for healthcare if you get sick. That's why people don't take anarcho capitalism seriously it still has hierchies and extortion but at least the government has to at least throw a bone to the social contract theory, monopolies don't "owe" you anything. Basically your quality of life would go down drastically unless you were wealthy there's no way it would improve the lives or even freedom of most people. ClothCoat (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
But then you could argue that free market competition could prevent such monopolies from forming and being sustained. If a company wanted to squeeze more money out of you then another business would be able to undercut them. Disparities in wealth and power, both within companies and in society, will always be around but in this society there would be more consumer choice over things such as education. In a competitive marketplace with thousands of schools to choose from, the high-fee paying schools such as Harrow, Eton would have to lower their prices to compete for the best students. In 2005, 50 of the top independent schools in the country were found guilty of colluding to raise prices on their school fees. They could do this because the market wasn’t very big. If they had to compete with hundreds of more grammar schools, academies and others who could also charge higher prices and could undercut them then the exorbitant fees of private schooling would decrease and collusion would be very improbable. Also, there would be no taxation in this society and it would free up revenue for people to afford higher paying schools. Random guy (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem here is that you presume things about human nature that are, at best, idyllic. First and foremost, you make the assumption that consumers act rationally, with all the market information on hand and with a certain, rational set of rules in which to process that information to derive conclusions. This tends not to happen - for starters, acquiring that information can be difficult and time-consuming, especially when you think about just how much information is out there and how many different industries a person will have to research (life ain't simple), and so people can be expected to act on, at best, only a fraction of the available information, especially if they're younger (and, paradoxically, being older doesn't help - think about why older people seem more detached from modern science on average and vote for things like prohibitions on same-sex marriage - because the mind gets less flexible and more set in its ways as you get older and neuroplasticity reduces). Conversely, having even more information doesn't even solve the problem - the human brain of even the most psychologically-healthy, intelligent people is fundamentally flawed by cognitive phenomena that screw up a person's ability to make impartial, rational economic decisions such as priming, the availability heuristic, the sunk-cost fallacy, and the anchoring-adjustment heuristic, to say nothing of memory problems such as confabulation and competence barriers such as the Dunning-Kruger effect, and group behaviour such as the tendency for groups to unintentionally censure information that isn't concomitant to their beliefs, models, and ideologies (think the reasons behind crank magnetism. Economics has long since rejected the idea of a "Homo Economicus", just as psychology rejected the idea of Behaviourism in the Cognitive Revolution thanks to the discovery of cognitive dissonance and psychological heuristics (and all of this changed my own field of AI to move from Good Old Fashioned AI, characterised by direct algorithmic approaches, to "Nouvelle AI", characterised by more emergent, biological/neuroscientific approaches). Humans aren't the best thinkers in the world - there's a reason we here exist to document some of the failings of human rationality. If you really want to see how far down this rabbit hole goes, and how fallacious you, your friends, everybody else, and even us here, are, I'd recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Yes, even the most intelligent people aren't immune: stopped clock. It's almost like our brain evolved imperfectly in a step-wise fashion with no preordained direction other than direct survival in a set environment with finite resources, rather than being designed by an intelligent creator as universal cognitive machines ;)
But it doesn't stop there! This doesn't even touch on the problems inherent in power systems, something unavoidable when there's income or land disparity of any kind. Those with more information will tend to be able to game those with less information (think of a game of Age of Empires II where you have Fog of War and they do not - a bit unfair!). It's how Stalin came to power - he was put in control of the information and was able to manipulate it to his advantage; control the media, control the minds, as Jim Morrison said. And moreover, those with power will (cognitive biases aside!) generally tend to collude with others with power to ensure they retain power, and it's not just governments this applies to - any system of power. Whether you call it class struggle or human psychology, it's what happens, and I'd ask, what makes you think defense forces and such won't get in bed with media organizations to do their dirty work, whether painting them in a better light, tarnishing opponent groups, or using armed warfare to control by fear? Spoiler: it's already happening (Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Noam Chomsky). Hope that shines some light on the problems behind Anarcho-Capitalism as a prescribed system of governance, and aids you in your skepticism! DarkFire (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the fallacies in this statement?[edit]

Western schools of thought look at material evidence of history. We can’t produce material evidence for everything. India is a continuing civilisation. To look for evidence would mean digging right though the hearts of villages and displacing people. We only have to look at the people to figure out the similarities in their lives and the depiction in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. For instance, the Ramayana mentions that RamaWikipedia's W.svg had travelled to Bhad­ra­chalamWikipedia's W.svg (in Andhra PradeshWikipedia's W.svg). A look at the people and the fact that his having lived there for a while is in the collective memory of the people cannot be discounted in the search for material evidence. In continuing civilisations such as ours, the writing of history cannot depend only on archaeological evidence. We have to depend on folklore too.
—Rao

Source: [1]. I want to write a rebuttal in the Hindutva article. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just my two cents as a former historian. Historians actually have a method called oral history to try and record non material evidence. Out of the comparison of individualistic sources, something like a collective memory can be formed. So he is making false accusations against western history. The difference to his method though, is that historians record the oral history, so it can be analyzed by many different people, seemingly he does not see need for that. The main problem with his argument is though that what he focusses on are oral legends, passed down through many generations, and thus being diluted, changed etc. Sorry I don't know those fallacy names. Just wanted to give a bit of input, for old times sake --Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 09:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have added your explanation in the article. There is a discussion with ScepticWombat in his talk page. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Why these articles are not showing in g-search?[edit]

I searcched for "Hindu University of America+RationalWiki" in Google, but our page is not showing in Google. The same is for Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America and Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. What could be the reason behind this? --ThisIsYeah (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not crawled yet. Give it a day or two. PacWalker 10:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, new pages always take a day or two to show up on google. My blog's the same. Although it would probably help if I actually wrote stuff on it once in a while... BicyclewheelModerator 20:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are in Google Ultron, go to settings-->Search Engine-->Other Search Engines-->Add Engine. For the URL type http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=%s. Now, whenever you type "Rational" + topic, you'll automatically be redirected to RationalWiki's search engine with that keyword. I hope that helps :)

"Modern Feminism"[edit]

I've seen a lotta MRAs, conservatives, usw. will talk about how "modern feminism" is different from "true" feminism. Modern feminism apparently supports female supremacy while true feminism is "equalism". Do we have a page that debunks this? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23;02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty standard reactionary response on a lot of topics. To most reactionaries progress was totally a good thing for most of history up until some point in the recent past when it went to far. Most contemporary Republicans will claim support for the civil rights movement of the 60s while supporting today's voter suppression laws and so forth. Most MRAs have positions that would have been viewed as radically feminist one hundred years ago. Essentially today's reactionary is yesterday's progressive, in position, if not in attitude. There are of course some who want to wind back some progress to the middle ages, but even the most ardent neoreactionary would probably have views that would be seen as insanely progressive in the 18th century, "women owning property? shear madness." Marlow (talk) 23;24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Given that, would a page on it be useful? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23;25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Three sentences in teh feminism article seems like a better choice than a whole article on a simple concept. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23;35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
How could you prove a movement is about one goal rather than another in three sentences? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23;41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean, I don't think there are polls or anything that could be easily referenced to prove feminism is about equality, so you'd need some level of analysis. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23;42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's easy; just use semicolons. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23;43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have detected an improper use of semicolon. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 01;23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Semicolons; are the greatest ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 01;38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
They surely are; ain't they? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I guarantee you that 20 years from now Fox News or whatever equivalent there is will pretend they were on the side of today's feminists and gay rights activists all along. Samstr (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, theoretically, it'll be a different crowd of right-wing lunatics. Much like O'Reiley was a teen when the first civil rights happened, and he probably gave zero fucks, and he can now mentally construe that as being down with civil rights. We'll see the same crowd of don't-give-a-fucks today becoming tomorrow's conservative ideological leaders. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The existing article provides a useful definition of what feminism is. All you need is a section describing the argument and then demonstrating how it comes pre-debunked once you learn what the article already says. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00;15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This attitude towards modern feminism is by no means confined to MRAs, reactionaries, etc. Post-feminismWikipedia's W.svg is a thing, as is Women Against FeminismWikipedia's W.svg ("I don't need feminism because...") and various people of both genders saying things like "I am not a feminist. I believe in equality." WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
And it's hard not to blame pop culture for that(for me at least). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? As opposed to high culture? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, pop culture hasn't been exactly supportive of feminism, regardless of whether it's a good medium or not. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's destroy it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's destroy pop culture. I expect a 5-part plan submitted by Friday afternoon. Chop chop. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Goats on wheels[edit]

BicyclewheelModerator 18:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So someone named for a wheel comes and tells goat wiki about goats on wheels... Whoa. PacWalker 22:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The Wheel of Goat. What goats around, comes around. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not gonna lie, one of the most adorable things I've ever seen. Samstr (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

hello[edit]

Hello I just signed up I've used the site for several days and now I've joined. I like the humor of the site and my favorite hobby is losing video games. I like the sites mission and I am ready to participate Bubba41102 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Cult of Rationalwiki. If you want something to help with, check out the to do list, and see if there's something you can help with. Also, don't let the Old Guard intimidate you. They're just cranky. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 23:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblocks[edit]

There's debate (and premature voting) at RationalWiki:Chicken coop over whether RationalWiki should use rangeblocks in certain situations. Weigh in. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 23:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I originally put it here, dude. The coop is not the place for discussion of policy. Now, instead of leaving the damn thing here, you moved it over there and now have to put a notification here!
I really wish you would let some things be. --Castaigne (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it really pisses me off when I start to consider it. You moved all this shit off of talk pages into the coop, without fucking asking anybody, and then expect people to automatically come to the goddamn coop to do it. And then votes are just invalidated because, well, no reason at all. Don't fucking do that again, asshat. --Castaigne (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Dude, it's a policy on an obscure wiki that nobody follows. Kiss your wife, drink a scotch, smoke a cigar (or have a snus) and go for a ride on your bike. It will be fine. Tielec01 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
NO. THERE WILL BE HATCHETS, HATCHETS, AND I WILL USE THEM ON ALL THE MEAT PUPPETS!!
THEN I WILL PET FUZZY CATS. HA HA HA!
Nah, fuck it, it's the South, I'm off to Waffle House. --Castaigne (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
HE'LL YES. PacWalker 02:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I know you didn't just say HE'LL YES - oh son, you had promise. This is the real coop case we should be discussing.Tielec01 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Bawkbawkbawk drag me to the henhouse, then. PacWalker 05:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, actually the debate has (been) moved on and is now at RationalWiki talk:Community Standards - still ongoing, though, and now including questions of doxxing and revdelling. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if the debate would get the same huge amount of attention if it were still over at the coop. Hmm. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Heh. Maybe the CC is the best place for policy discussion after all. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This gem appeared in my local paper today[edit]

"Science has not always been for the better. There are numerous examples of science independent of morality leading to tens of millions of deaths just in the last hundred years." Letter to the editor from a local pastor. Goes on to rant a bit about global warming and evolution. Anyway...tens of millions? Holy carp.207.191.199.193 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, you can't shoot people without guns, and you can't have efficient firearms without science. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well... maybe you can't shoot people without guns... PacWalker 13:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Fairly sure people were shooting other people for a good few thousand years before the gun was invented. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Make that several tens of thousands of years. MaillardFillmore (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
tens of millions is probably right. http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html The longbow started a decline in armoured men. Hamster (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The longbow's role in the disappearance of armour is over-stated - heavy armour continued to be used for 300 years after the massed longbow made its appearance, but had all but disappeared 20 years after the widespread introduction of effective "pike and shot" infantry in the late 1500's.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of being a pedant - Science and technology are different things. One is about knowledge and the other is about things. To be fair though technology in general wouldn't do very much without science to inform it. On the other hand knowing about ballistics, metallurgy and chemistry does not mean that you are obliged to make guns.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"There are numerous examples of science independent of morality leading to tens of millions of deaths just in the last hundred years." Cause it's not like people have ever been killed in the name of religion... Samstr (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anybody else following the Sad Puppies thing?[edit]

I don't think it's quite important enough to warrant an article on here, but I'm interested in hearing RW's thoughts on the Sad Puppies affair. For those out of the loop:

  1. The Hugo Awards, one of the most prestigious awards in science fiction, can be voted on by anyone with a $40 membership.
  2. A number of SF/F authors, dreading the "political" (read: liberal) state of modern SF, decided to game the system, voting only for their own (mostly conservative) works en masse.
  3. This is their third year, and this year they've been so effectively organized that few non-Sad-Puppy-approved works have even been nominated.
  4. Oh, and one of the main minds behind this little shitshow is good ol' Vox Day, whose one-man publishing house is entirely coincidentally responsible for many of the nominated works. His (now apparently separate) group is called the Rabid Puppies, presumably because "Sad Puppies" didn't sound obviously terrible enough.

It's been called the Gamergate of SF, though at least the Puppies have the decency not to threaten to rape or murder authors they don't like. A grudging point in their favor. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So... why are they called (Sad/Rabid) Puppies? Is that a name they themselves are using? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's something about "puppies are sad because of the state of the Hugo awards" or something. Maybe there was a thing about the puppies being aliens; I can't fully recall. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 14:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The term "sad puppies" has been slang in certain nerdy and fannish circles for a while now; it can be heard a decent amount around MIT... or it least it could be two or three years ago; recently I’ve not heard it, quite possibly in part because of this group. It was used in a joking way to good-naturedly suggest that someone do something or not do something, e.g. “C’mon, don’t do that; it makes puppies sad” or “You should come grab dinner with us. Staying in your room all the time causes sad puppies”, or sometimes as “Don’t be a sad puppy”, etc. Presumably this phrase was taken up by this new group in an implied context of “Not voting with us at the Hugos causes sad puppies” or something. 18.189.113.126 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Goobergate is still making me feel depressed enough, so I've been trying to avoid paying too much attention to it, but even as a complete layman I can tell that the idea that sci-fi hasn't been political until recently is unbelievably stupid. Vulpius (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm sick of authoritarian idiots going "We should organize and use democratic powers to demand everyone tell us we're right." Like, that seems to be the political poison of the modern era: politics as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance. And I'm so damn sick of it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 05:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering the whole thing is being orchestrated by Vox Day via his Castalia House "publishing imprint" (no matter how much Correia and others wish to claim they are separate), there's really not that much to say. --Castaigne (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that Correia and Torgerson were at it for two years prior without a great deal of success. But when Vox Day and his audience got in on the act, we got the current situation where most every other nominee gets locked out. I'm fairly sure that the Gamergate nonsense did a fair bit to stir up enthusiasm for such a campaign, so the credit may not entirely be his, either. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Vox has been a supporter of Sad Puppies since the first attempt in 2013, Correia and Torgerson being members of the Dread Ilk. The lack of success was primarily because they couldn't dissociate from Vox; now that he split off this year with his Rabid Puppies bit, C. & T. can maintain a public distance while working with Vox behind the scenes. The sad fact is that VD is aware of how toxic his association can be at this point, so this time around he set up the buffer/firewall. *shrugs* Well, no one ever accused him of being stupid. GamerGate did not help, but hey, that's also one thing Vox is heavily involved in anyway. --Castaigne (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I do think Gamergate put them over the top. A plan like that needs minions. Gamergate delivered a ready audience of minions wanting to do something. I suspect a fair amount of overlap between the Gamergaters and the science fiction fans who share Vox's tastes. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 00:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what I've observed. The Venn diagram of the MRAs, NRxs, and Gamergaters seems to have a high overlap, from what I keep reading in places like KiA. --Castaigne (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIS destroys their culture's history. Again.[edit]

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10152855251796939/ This time they upgraded to an entire ancient city. Words cannot even express the sheer amount of rage I feel right now. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your news sourcing leaves much to be desired. And why have ancient cities of pagans and heathens and heretics when instead WE CAN HAVE THE WORD OF ALLAH AS WRITTEN BY HIS MESSENGER THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PbuH)?--Miekal 18:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The rumor is, much of the "artifacts" their videos show being destroyed are reproductions, the originals are being sold on the blackmarket as a source of income, much like their dependence on blackmarket oil sales and kidnappings for income. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
as was said the last time they did something like this, its hardly the worst thing they have done AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
in my humble opinion, this is way worse than killing someone. Whereas you may have a justification (and ISIS doesn't, but that's besides the point) for killing someone, there is no excuse for erasing history for purely political gains. Even if they did only destroy replica's, there is no chance in hell we're ever going to get those artifacts back, so they may as well have been lost to the jackhammers. Where killing someone ends their life, things like this obliterate the evidence that some people even existed. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 22:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/world/iraq-isis-heritage/ Here's a better source. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 22:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not share your view. I doubt those murdered by Isis share your view. I doubt their families share your view. I do not care that evidence that people existed is being lost when people are being removed from existence. The lives of actual living human beings trump any kind of abstract crime. I will wring my hands for destroyed antiquities when the killing has stopped. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope you realize that all the artisans that spent their entire lives working on those artifacts now may as well have never existed. The people ISIS beheads are killed, they aren't forgotten. This is worse because it's not just killing, it's wiping entire civilizations from existence. They may as well have never lived at all. It may sound cruel, but people die all the time, and in much worse ways than getting their heads cut off. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 22:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Though I will grant that the attempted genocides they've done are worse than this. Genocide and cultural cleansing are the two big things that REALLY piss me off. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 23:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It's like the destruction of the library at Alexandria. If artifacts do survive on the black market, it'll be the stuff of future Raiders of the Lost Ark tales. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 00:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
"The people ISIS beheads are killed, they aren't forgotten." No, they'll just be forgotten in a few generations like 99% of humanity has been. While it's a great loss to archeology and the study of history (Which, as a Student of it, I do care about so don't go on that line), Saying destroying ruins is worse than actual physical killings is somewhat missed priorities. Both are terrible, but i'd rather stop the killing of people before we get to the record destroying. --Miekal 16:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess you and I are gonna have to just disagree on that point, because, in my opinion, if you value the temporary lives of individuals over priceless cultural knowledge, you have messed up priorities. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 23:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So you'd be ok if I wiped out the human race but somehow left our stuff intact For future species to research? After all everybodies life is just Temporary. --Miekal 23:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Priceless cultural knowledge? It's just a bunch of nicely sculptured rocks. Now if ISIS was blowing up never-explored treasures of lost cultures, you'd have a point, but the priceless cultural knowledge that the archaeologists have deciphered from these ancient sites is already safely kept in history books. After WW2 lots of beautiful buildings of cultural significance lay in waste. What did people do? Cry over the priceless cultural knowledge forever lost to the rubble? No, they just rebuilt those buildings. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
"It's just a bunch of nicely sculptured rocks.". I'm sure people would disagree with you on that if somebody went and took out Lascaux, Cueva de las Manos and Maros, despite them just being "paintings on rock". & "priceless cultural knowledge the archaeologists have deciphered from these ancient sites is already safely kept in history books." You have a simplistic and very flawed idea of how history and the other studies of human history work if you think it's fine now that they are in books. The past is ever changing as we discover new facts and new ideas and interpretations come up. This is easier done when we can actually use the real artifact, not pictures.--Miekal 03:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is saying "it's fine". The issue is whether destroying stuff is worse than killing people. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. Typical of what Islamic State has done, it's minor compared to what the West has done, be it in the past 400 or so years and recently. I'm sure 100 000 sorties in 1991 did their fair amount of damage.
  2. Seems that such Muslims want to destroy such relics because it's evidence that great things existed before Islam. They scairt.
      I say that where their is a lack of evidence, we can assume that an Islamic country without relics should be assume to have destroyed the relics of a great people by Islamic savages. huh?
  3. They want to destroy artifacts, but they have hissyfits over qur'an burnings and also like to walk around wp:some Islamic Borg cube.
  4. It gives reason for Western museums and the like to not give back their artifacts.

Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 17:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok this brings up an interesting hypothetical. Let's say IS has a priceless artifact that they are ransoming selling. It's not just a museum piece that's been documented, it's something undocumented, like Cleopatra Philopator's tomb or something. If no one buys, it's destroyed. IS are demanding a certain amount of money for it, so purchasing will have give IS some measurable support. Do you pruchase it or not? How much is culture and knowledge worth in comparison to the damage IS will do with your money? CorruptUser (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Congressional Research Service report just out today says sale of antiquities is Daesh's second largest source of income, behind oil. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Simple; you pay them with fake money and once the artifact is secure, you bomb the shit out of them. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The um... "dissidence" (Alain Soral & co)[edit]

[Yep, I did just make this account just for this purpose, if you were gonna ask]

So to my utter horror, I realized that this wiki doesn't have any material about the latest in crank fashion. Yup, I'm talking about the "Dissidents", the "Dissidence 2.0" movement, etc... Surely you know what I'm talking about. Them people that pretend to fit neither on the left nor the right ("the Labour's left and Values' right" they say) but could be considered an offshoot of some nationalist movements, anti-capitalist (but also anti-communist), strongly anti-Semitic (huge proponents of the NWO and ZOG ideas) who pretend to be anti-racists (but hate every other anti-racists because they are the only true anti-racists, although you've never seen 'em do anything on that front), admit to be anti-feminists and anti-LGBT rights (they call it traditionalism), and love Putin.

If you're not familiar with what I'm talking about... well I hope you understand French. Because here's the problem : I would write something about these people, but I lost track (read : forgot) of the only english website advocating for them that I knew of, and the only material I have left is all French, about the French proponents of that particular brand of whackjobbery. So yeah, if anyone is down for working with me on fixing the hole in the wiki by adding information about them people, I can help with my awesome superpower of perfect understanding of the french language ('cause yeah, I'm French) - which helps a lot if you've heard of Alain Soral, Jean-Marie Le Pen... etc.

Since my engrish isn't that good, that's why I need someone else to work with on that, because obviously I can't write an article on my own, not even a stub. — Unsigned, by: Sinkable John / talk / contribs 00:22, 17 April 2015‎

Well, these English Wikipedia pages seem relevant: Alain SoralWikipedia's W.svg, Equality and ReconciliationWikipedia's W.svg.
It's not the first time people claim that their ideology transcends the left-right dichotomy though. These 'dissidents' kind of remind me of neoreactionaries. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A website that appears to be related is La Dissidence Française, apparently. I see they're quoting usual suspects like Charles Maurras and Julius Evola. I still read French fairly well, enough to follow the material on the site. They're also covered in French on the neo-fascist wiki Metapedia. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
They are somewhat different from neoreactionaries - I guess it stems from the openly "anti-american" views of the "dissidents" (they'll call America and Israel "the Empire" and anyone who opposes those two is fighting the good fight). I'm having a hard time quantifying their actual spread (read : Soral's fan-base) here, and as for outside France I have strictly no idea. I do know that they call themselves "dissidents" regardless of country, and all have identical ideas, which indicates that there's some communication between "dissidents" in different countries. Now I'm combing through my histories to find a trace of that other, english-speaking website, but it might take a while. About the wikipedia pages : the second link is broken, and the first one is... well it's wikipedia. The whole neutrality thing makes it hard to actually expose the bullshitting that goes on there, especially when all related pages are under constant edit wars. As for http://la-dissidence.org/ I'm pretty sure it's related in some way to http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/ but I haven't got around to checking it yet - although with the personality cult surrounding Le Pen and Soral, it could as well be a split. Them people been having a lot of infighting recently (cue major photoshopping ?) Sinkable John (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, fixed the link. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely remember hearing about these guys, mainly when the controversy over the French stand-up comic Dieudonne M'bala M'bala was going on. I often read that he was connected in some way to Alain Soral and Equality & Reconciliation. From what I gathered at the time, when these people talked about "anti-racism", they were talking about uniting French Muslims and native French people in a new brand of nationalism that would overturn the liberal capitalist elites (and by "liberal", I mean both senses of the word, like Sinkable John mentioned — they see capitalism and "moral decay" as going hand in hand). That's what the name of that group "Equality and Reconciliation" means. KevinR1990 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That is pretty much it. Dieudonné is part of E&R, and is regarded as a leader along with Soral. They're best buddies and all. Now regarding French Muslims, their stance is rather strange, as they (for example) oppose the right for Muslim kids in school to choose a different menu that doesn't contain pork, which is the Front National's stance on the matter - the two are very close. Their "alliance" with Muslims is pretty much based on the assumptions that Muslims too hate the Jews, "the enemy of my enemy"... but as for doing anything about the problem with racism, everyone's still waiting. They have defined themselves as "the only true anti-racists" though, so their fans take that for granted. On a side note, I found that other site in English : http://thesaker.is/blogs-philosophy/ (make sure to grab a beer before reading) Sinkable John (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Day of silence[edit]

Is anybody out there silencing themselves for a day?'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

My daughter is (which should make her school day fun). My son is quite pleased that my daughter is not speaking. (And if I'm going to keep posting, I should get an account....)207.191.199.193 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at present. Is this some sort of special day? A day of silence?Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
2 days before the Waco siege anniversary? 3 days before Godwin's birthday and Columbine anniversary? 2 days after tax day?CorruptUser (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the eve of the feast of St. CorebusWikipedia's W.svg. Show some respect. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

C4MB deleted[edit]

Does anyone know what happened? Master Necromancer(fear me!) 00:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

C4MB? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I assume "Christians for bachmann. Atleast that's what the first result (which vis us btw!) Says on google. I assume because it isn't very relevant if a joke anymore. --Miekal 01:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

With Clinton now officially running[edit]

What are the odds she -won't- be the nominee this go around, and what are the odds she won't or will win. Assuming things more or less stay the same for democrats like-dislike, with a predictable candidate from the Republicans? --Miekal 22:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to call a predictable Republican candidate at this point... and I'm not convinced they are either. PacWalker 22:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I cant see any path to 270 for the Republicans. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This article sets out a nice case for a Democratic 2016. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately whoever wins the democratic primary is likely to be the next president. I sincerely hope that Clinton does not run unopposed in the primaries. Sadly it looks like Elizabeth Warren, arguably the only politician in the US who genuinely is progressive, won't run. Samstr (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Terrifyingly to me, Cruz is popular with freepers, and he doesn't seem like he'll shoot himself in the foot quite as hard as the popular NotRomney's did in 2012. And while house and senate dominance of the republicans comes from tiny states and gerrymandering, I'd still not underestimate the ability of the American populace to buy into right wing "Send washington a message" rhetoric. Mark me as legitimately afraid of Cruz 2016. The damage will be substantial, like Bush 2000. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A Ted Cruz presidency might well be worse than Bush. How did American politics ever get so bad? Samstr (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, a two-party system's only one party away from a one-party system. And with gerrymandering being legal, where's the incentive for a party to not go crazy corrupt? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It is truly frustrating that we can vote for the two coorporatist parties that are essentially the same or vote for a third party and essentially have our vote discounted. I would very much prefer to vote for the communist party than for Ted Cruz. Samstr (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll stick with my Walker/Rubio prediction. The American people want to move forward, not back. A Jeb-Hillary scenario would be a toss up right now. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 18:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, Samstr, if we got Bush and Clinton, I could foresee, in one out of one million possible universes, an actual third party victory on a "Do we really want dynasties?" platform. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It'd take more to break the mold of the two-party system.--Arisboch (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think all you'd need to break the mold is a party of celebrities. What do Americans like even more than proclaiming superiority over their political opponents? Super-sexualized people singing and acting of course! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
"Corporatist"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.CorruptUser (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok whatever, perhaps I should say very friendly to the crooks who occupy our private sector. Samstr (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Eh, it's not like it wasn't pretty obvious what you meant with "corporatist", both to people familiar with the term and people who aren't familiar with it. And according to descriptive linguistics, other speakers understanding what you're saying is basically all that matters. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer the Democrats run just about anyone else. We've already had Bill Clinton as President, and I have no doubt that even then Hillary was the brains behind the operation. Clinton remains a rather weak and ineffective president by my memory, and not only because he was bogged down with the impeachment nonsense. According to an unreliable source, Early in his presidency, Bill was apparently called onto the carpet by Alan Greenspan and flat out told that he couldn't have a traditional Democratic style program for social spending. Greenspan told him instead that the path to a boom was to deregulate banks and Wall Street, and Clinton bears as much responsibility for the resulting mess as any Republican.
Bill Clinton was responsible for NAFTA, the model for all subsequent "free trade" disasters. He signed the "Defense of Marriage Act". He reduced legal immigration. Obama hasn't been an ideal President, but at least he got some form of health care reform enacted and has been a consistently more effective than Bill Clinton was. If I vote for Hillary it will be without enthusiasm, and if by some miracle a sane Republican who hasn't drunk the cultist Kool-Aid is nominated I might just vote for them instead. The fact that the Republican race is a total clown car, with even the once promising Rand Paul making all the usual noises, is about the only thing Hillary has going for her. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget 100,000 New Cops on the street who have now gone on a berserk rampage murdering innocent, unarmed, black males. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 21:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd personally be partial to someone close to Christopher Shays in outlook, but I don't see that happening. While I don't quite get the abject and blind hatred so many possess for Clinton, I'm just as confused about what exactly endears her to so many people. It seems that no one on either side can give a decent reason why she'd be the worst or best thing to happen to this country. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton has "flip flopped" on all sorts of issues; as I noted above, it was Bill Clinton who signed off on DOMA, and Hillary agreed at the time back in 1996. She stuck a finger into the wind and changed her mind. She now admits her votes for the Iraq war were a mistake; she was one of many people who was misled. (FWIW, if the Republicans pulled their collective heads out of their asses and ran Colin Powell, I'd vote for him in a second over Hillary.) I do think that we should let politicians be politicians at least part of the time. I've no doubt that Hillary Clinton is "disingenuous, ambitious, secretive, insincere, calculating", and the rest of the things we're not supposed to say about her. But at least some of those qualities are quite desirable in a president who'll have to deal with Putin and the ayatollahs.

The Republican problem is that they don't want the best candidate; they want someone whose commitment to their values is absolute, somebody they can gather round and say "Gooble, gobble, one of us!" And at least part of the misgivings towards Hillary seem to be coming from the same place. I can't say this is awful -- she rouses no enthusiasm in me -- but I don't think that anyone can claw their way to the top of the hill like Hillary has and still be 'just folks' either. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree about Colin Powell, he always seemed like a reasonable person. It's a shame how far the quality of candidates has fallen since 2008, both for president and for Congress (in Connecticut we've been subjected to Linda McMahon twice, and both Blumenthal "when I was in Vietnam" and Murphy weren't any better themselves). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote your consciences, sheeple. Late nite on CBC Radio 1, I heard some British guys joking about the House of Bush versus the House of Clinton. Also, all the GOP needs now is for a moderate to run or someone to split their votes out of the party. 23 years ago, it was Perot. 24 years before that, it was Wallace. 20 years before that, it was Thurmond.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 16:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I really wish I could safely vote for a third party candidate without helping the GOP in the process. A two party system really sucks, especially when it's so hard to spot significant differences between mainstream candidates in both parties.Samstr (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As you can see, 2016 will be decided by which side has the motivated base. And the edge probably lays with GOP for the moment. The Democrats are wracked with apathy and lack a positive aim ("change" for example, or "reform"). Hilary ultimately is the candidate of status quo, which no one, even Obama's most ardent supporters and loyal Democrats, is happy with. Her only hope, like Bill, is to steal Republican issues and appeal to moderate voters. The apathy factor will most likely look like GOP totals in 1992 and 1996 were flat at 39 million. Again in 2008 and 2012 at 60 million. Key groups who made up the '80, '84, '88, '00 and '04 coalitions either jumped ship, or stayed home. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 00:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hemisphere transplants and philosophy of mind[edit]

I've always wondered what would happen if you took out half of a person's brain (I'll assume here that the person is young enough to recover properly) is transplanted into a different body (assuming that the transplant is successful, and also that there is no other brain inside of the body.) I'll call the person in the original state Bob 0, Bob 1 is the person after half of their brain was removed, and Bob 2 is the recipient of Bob 0's missing hemisphere.

Solutions off the top of my head:

  • The person perceives being in two bodies and in two places at once. Because of the existence of conditions such as split brain, this is doesn't seem to be the case. It might be possible to approximate the effect by establishing a connection between Bob 1's and Bob 2's brain hemispheres, but that's off-topic trivia.
  • Bob 0 becomes Bob 1, while Bob 2 is a completely new person created by the procedure.
  • Bob 0 becomes Bob 2, while Bob 1 is a completely new person created by the procedure. If so, why would Bob 0 become Bob 2 instead of Bob 1?
  • Bob 0 "splits in half," becoming both Bob 1 and Bob 2, who become distinct persons, but they are in no way new. This raises the question of whether or not "consciousness" can split in the first place, or how it would split, or if the concept of a consciousness "splitting" is even meaningful.
  • Bob 0 is neither Bob 1 nor Bob 2; Bob 0 dies, and in his place, two completely new people are created. If this were the case, then hemispherectomiesWikipedia's W.svg would necessarily be lethal.

Can the question ever be answered? —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 04:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What is a person? Is the practice of referring to someone as remaining the same person across time based on a continuity of identity or on a perceived connection between conscious states? Does the notion of a static identity not run counter to reality? In what way are conscious states connected and does it constitute a meaningful connection? Questions, questions. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I know the sad case of a couple whose baby suffered a stroke as a consequence of blood clotting medicine she had to take because of another condition. She lost about 50% of her brain capacity. Although the child is now 5 years old, she still has severe physical disabilities on one side of her body. She can speak relatively normally but has to work extra-hard at stuff. As this was a 50% brain loss in the first year of life I rather think that your assumptions about someone being "young enough to recover properly" may be little over-ambitious.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Putting to one side the practical considerations - connecting up the spinal column is going to be a little tricky and different parts of the brain do different things - then the "splits in half and becomes two distinctive persons" gets my vote - look at identical twins. Isn't this what they are? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Doing arbitrarily much damage to a brain is murder, doing arbitrarily advanced construction/reconstruction of brain cells creates human life. Broad-language hypotheticals that are designed to make people question what it means to be human never do much for me. They always read like "Oh no, grey areas, I've never had to deal with those before in day to day life." ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Identical twins make the split long before they develop brains, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question; Since studies have found no significant long-term effects of hemispherectomyWikipedia's W.svg on memory, personality, or humor,[1] and minimal changes in cognitive function overall,[2] I'd say there's a strong case for arguing that you'd end up with 2 Bob 0s. But going by the experiments of that scientist that transplanted monkey heads onto other monkeys' bodies, there's very little chance for Bob 2 to actually control their new body. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You may be glossing over the fact that, even in the best of cases, each person would have no control of one leg and one arm.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
in 'a scanner, darkly' the result of drug use causes a separate personality in each hemisphere to appear, with each personality unaware of the other. Fiction, I know, but alls fair in a hypothetical. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Initially, yes, but many patients regain control over the limbs their lost hemisphere used to control. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. Could you back that up?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, no prob. Here's a study about it and here's what the Children's Hemiplegia and Stroke Association has to say about it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. My colleague's baby lost half her brain as as a baby and,now, as a five year old one hand is a claw and she drags a leg. I don't see anything in your links which suggests this is unusual.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A hemispherectomy is not a stroke. Losing 50% of your brain to a stroke doesn't mean the damage is limited to one hemisphere; I'm no doctor, but I would expect quite a bit of intrusion on the other side of the brain, even in cases where most of the damage was done on one side. Whereas a hemispherectomy is a precise medical procedure, a stroke causes widespread damage targeting nothing in particular, which means it can destroy very important structures in the brain. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Bob, you have personal knowledge of one case; one data point. That doesn't make you an expert. And as ShapeshiftingLizard points out, a stroke is quite distinct from a hemispherectomy, so that one data point probably doesn't even apply for the situation we're talking about here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I once had a dream that there was another me. The other me had something to say about stuff like this. "If more than one instance of an object exist in a single point in time, the existence is divided between them." Knowing me, it might be a jab at people trying to sound deep, and seems to be inspired my extraordinary programming abilities. It also might be a play on words and/or heavy abuse of ambiguous language, which leads back to the "jab at people trying to sound deep." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 16:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

  1. Vining, Eileen P.  G.; Freeman, John M.; Pillas, Diana J.; Uematsu, Sumio; Carson, Benjamin S.; Brandt, Jason; Boatman, Dana; Pulsifer, Margaret B. et al. (1997). "Why Would You Remove Half a Brain? The Outcome of 58 Children After Hemispherectomy—The Johns Hopkins Experience: 1968 to 1996". Pediatrics 100 (2): 163–71. Error: Bad DOI specified. PMID 9240794. 
  2. Pulsifer, Margaret B.; Brandt, Jason; Salorio, Cynthia F.; Vining, Eileen P. G.; Carson, Benjamin S.; Freeman, John M. (2004). "The Cognitive Outcome of Hemispherectomy in 71 Children". Epilepsia 45 (3): 243–54. Error: Bad DOI specified. PMID 15009226. 

Obey Your New Master![edit]

Satan is now among us. And he has perfectly applied Goth makeup. --Castaigne (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

My god that is a truly awful makeup job. PacWalker 16:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Only the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services can save us now! BicyclewheelModerator 18:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You know that a makeup job is bad when I could probably do a better job. You'd think that the guy who controlled the entire entertainment industry would have a better sense of fashion. Samstr (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So... is he trolling or serious? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No clue! Which is why it's in the bar, because amused regardless. --Castaigne (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Eternal life in Florida. Yep, not worth it. I'll take the alternative, whatever it may be. --Iggles (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
^ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we're sympathetic enough for him. Samstr (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok I read another article from this site. There is no way this can possibly be true... I hope. http://stuppid.com/arrested-selling-golden-tickets-heaven/ (Also, I wonder what Martin Luther would have to say about Golden Tickets to Heaven. They are sort of like indulgences, but then again he also believed everyone, including these two people should have the ability to interpret the bible on their own.)Samstr (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This guy seems cooler with less make-up.








Civic Cat<span=style="background:#004400;color:#009900">Talk to Civic Cat</span> 17:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

 
Nah, hate to tell you bro, but that article was very real. No, I'm just shitting you. It's fake..
I kinda suspected that site was largely BS, I didn't bother fact checking though. Thanks Samstr (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
We are all doomed better star worshipping satan, because this guy is legit, I mean I'm going to go join a satanist cult right now.... He said sarcastically Bubba41102 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A question[edit]

What's the difference between a syllogistic fallacyWikipedia's W.svg and a formal fallacyWikipedia's W.svg? Aren't all formal fallacies necessarily syllogistic fallacies? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Syllogisms are exclusively deductions. Some formal fallacies can describe the larger context of the proof, rather than a flaw with a specific deduction, an example being this one. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Abolishing the IRS?[edit]

I saw this on the clogosphere section today and remembered something Ted Cruz said about getting rid of the IRS. My question is this, how on earth is our modern government supposed to work without someone managing taxes? I mean, it seems like if you get rid of the IRS you have to get rid of all taxes along with it, and without any taxes how can you run even the most basic government? Do these people realize how stupid the idea of abolishing the IRS sounds?

I believe their "plan" is to eliminate federal income tax (and estate tax, FICA taxes, etc.) and run the ultra-miniaturized federal government off import tariffs (the collection of which would be CBP's responsibility) and excise taxes handled by ATF or such. Basically, they want to return to the tax policy as it was prior to the civil war. Compro01 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a popular line of reasoning in tax protester circles that the government doesn't need to take money from people and corporations because it has the power to create money. So the government should should produce the money to pay for government functions directly. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
...you mean...printing money? ... That is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. Samstr (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The irony being these people are usually also goldbugs... --TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 07:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
...as well as deficit hawks. As long as someone else has the checkbook. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked in over a year[edit]

Someone please rectify this. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yours truly shall be more than glass to issue another block. PacWalker 10:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop moving my stuff[edit]

I just added a nice tumblr blogpost I saw on my dashboard to the blog section and some moron thought it'd be funny to move it to clogs without even explaining what was wrong with it. Can admins look into this or at least inform me what's wrong with my link? Deofex (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm an admin. I moved it. It sucked. Anything else? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC).
The reasons for the move are discussed here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:What_is_going_on_in_the_blogosphere%3F#.22A_history_of_left_and_right_in_American_politics.22. Honestly I couldn't really tell what the writer was trying to argue in the piece, but from what I could tell it seemed vaguely neoreactionary. Samstr (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually Deofex's posting was the one about feminist/misandrist bollocks. It still belonged in Clogs which is why AH moved it there. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Deofex may or may not be Mr 74, but the posting style is functionally identical, i.e. enlightening us to revelations from the neoreactionary clogosphere. In this case the cluster on Tumblr, who went there looking for authentic SJWs to argue with - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Ooops, but to be fair that article was also originally in the blogosphere and got moved to clogs. Samstr (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Why Mars colonization is racist and sexist[edit]

Check out this bad article, how can anyone agree with this crap? Why is SA publishing this crank?

Thank goodness the people in the comments set things right, though.Deofex (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The linked article is taking its time to download.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 17:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll spoil it for you: rich people are likely going to have a head-start on mars, and that's not a great thing. New user deofex finds this opinion objectionable, thus concludes it's crankery. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Rich people can't frikin' get 1000 km from Earth. No one has since the early 1970s.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 18:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it isn't unreasonable to assume that if we ever do set up a colony on Mars it will largely be government funded and therefore won't require one to be insanely wealthy in order to go. The other part that was a bit obnoxious was the fact that the author seemed to take offense at the fact that they didn't talk about social justice in their discussion of science. TBH we libs can be quite obnoxious when it comes to being PC. Samstr (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This Apollo 17 photograph, apparently taken on 7 December 1972 might be the last photograph of a whole Earth taken. I'd love for someone to show me something more recent.












Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, in that case, rich folks have an head-start in world of techno-fetishistic fantasy. Sure, it's not much of an article, and the twitter tirade is particularly lame, but it does bring up an interesting point - the language emanating from the entrepreneurial Silicon Valley space exploration scene is the same kind of manifest destiny malarky that has been spewing out of rich anglo dudes for the past three hundred years and these guys don't seem to be paying attention to this history as they are assured of their own infallibility. Marlow (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
At least there isn't a native sentient population of mars for this generation to murder/enslave/relocate. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems the richies gonna have to do it all by themselves, and they can't. Maybe if the US (and my Canada to an extent) stop wasting money on stupid wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. If I understand correctly, Napoleon sold frikin' Louisiana—what was that, 1/4th of the 48 states?—to raise money to fight some stupid war in Europe: and is France any bigger? America's selling the future. People get annoyed at Miley Cyrus? The fuck I care! What annoys me are these stupid dumbass "plans" for private exploration of space. They've been talking about it for decades, and they've gotten fuck all. If anything, it's gotten worse. 15 years ago, one could fly from NY to London on an SST. Now we got, what? The new frikin' normal. America has the NSA Utah data center, meanwhile some jihadi punks—the result of Bush & Co. misadventures—and they don't seem to give a flying fuck about the results—behead people and smash relics. Then the lamestream media—thanks Sarah for the neologism—swallows this crap presumably to boost ratings. Frikin' pisses me off! If Elon Musk isn't careful, he's going to die of cancer in 30 years and there's fuck all his billions are going to do—assuming that's all real wealth in the first place. Why don't these bullshitting Silicon Valley blowhards liquidate a few of their let's-pretend-it's-wealth wealth—a few bil—and build an infrastructure? But they either won't, because they're stingy-little small-minded misers or they can't, they frickin' can't. Now we have Scientific American—a magazine I used to buy years ago—with this crap about colonization of Mars, and the page still hasn't fucking downloaded on my computer—whatsamatter SA? Don't know how to design websites—it's been fucking 20 years since the WWW!

Sorry folks. I need to chill.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stay angry buddy. I like it. BTW Elon Musk is working on infrastructure; his hyperloop fantasy. We live in a nation of crumbling bridges and roads, but Musk is coming to the rescue with a super expensive way for a handful of hyper rich to zip between enclaves without even having to look at the slums that shake at their passing. Marlow (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Really rich people fly in private jets. The tubes idea is about the speed of a private jet, but can only go to preset destinations and worst of all you have to use a tube other people use. So really, it's for the mid-range of middle class to the low range of upper class. Nothing new when it comes to tech. Just remember, Henry Ford and Henry Royce both made cars, but the Henry that made cheap cars was wealthier than the Henry that made luxury cars. CorruptUser (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If anyone should get worked up over anything it's that. That and the fact that our government is doing approximately nothing to try to fight climate change. Samstr (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Newer "whole-Earth" picture[edit]

Posting from a mobile device, so formatting is painful: http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112534522/russian-satellite-takes-121-megapixel-image-and-video-of-earth/ --ZooGuard (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dish Network used to have a channel that broadcast a live feed of the whole Earth from the view of their television satellite. They stopped it when the camera broke, but it was nice while it lasted. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Annoying republicans keep trying to sell me bush socks[edit]

I keep getting emails from the GOP attempting to get me to join the Tea Party, as well as buy George H.W. Bush socks, mugs and other assortments. Anyone know how to get them to stop selling me their bullshit'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there an 'unsubscribe' link or similar? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of the time we put dozens of Obama signs on my (very conservative) former science teacher's lawn. I think someone has signed you up as a prank. PacWalker 08:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Of all the presidents to merchandise... --Miekal 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention the (probably unintentional) homophonicWikipedia's W.svg hilarity of Bush socks/sucks. I wonder if this has been thought through. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
He socks and he mugs! Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 23:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that socks and sucks may not be homophones to the target consumer demographic. PacWalker 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Socks and sucks homophones? So you pronounce cocks as 'kucks' then? o_O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
In response to what weasaloid said, no it does not appear that there is.'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's strange because laws on email marketing usually mandate some sort of consumer opt-out. You could look into reporting it if it does violate anti-spam laws, but it would probably be better to just write to the Republicans asking to be removed from their mailing list. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, at least that's the official GOP mailinglist. If you got on the list that's passed between unofficial right-leaning sites, you'd be faced with more scams than you could possibly bear. Regardless, no. You can't get unsubscribed: political emails are exempt from CAN-SPAM. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do comedic parodies like the Onion reinforce rape culture?[edit]

I'm reading the Onion and one of their satire pieces was "little pussy takes call in other room." Seriously? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's easier to answer that if i can actually read the article you mention--Miekal 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. [2] ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
If I were the editor, that piece wouldn't have run. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
What in the devil has that to do with rape culture?!--Arisboch (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
What does it have to do with -anything-. It looks like something i'd see on 4chan. --Miekal 20:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Huh, wut? That stuff wasn't funny at all, but reinforcing rape culture? How was that supposed to work? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Given that pussies can take a rough beating for far longer than penes can give it, plus the whole "childbirth" thing, you'd think that "pussy" would mean "tough".CorruptUser (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I've heard, but do not believe, that it's derived from pusillanimous. This sounds like a "nuh uh, I'm not misogynist" excuse more than a real derivation. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Insulting articles seemingly written by awful people is a classic Onion joke. For example: Spoiled, Doughy Brat Makes Local Parent Feel Spiritually Whole. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The answer is... Well, how close is the header to a headline? I'm not making accusations of intent like the law implies, though. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 02:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course they can and do sometimes. One of those misconceptions people have about the concept of rape culture is that it should have some zero tolerance threshold for exacerbating. Instead, it should be understood as a cultural mistake that requires gradual reform. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

While there are many different profiles of rapists, one common thread is rape is about power, not love and sex. When men are ridiculed for showing compassionate qualities, that's how more men get pushed into proving their masculinity through misogyny and rape culture. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

But in this case, the insults were supposed to be viewed as extreme and unreasonable. The humor is in the absurdity of viciously belittling someone for doing mundane things, such as excusing themselves from a meeting to take a call. The person being made fun of is the narrator, not the main character. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Link your favorite heading for a Daily Mail article.[edit]

Devout Christian mother-of-three, 31, becomes first woman in Britain to DIE from cannabis poisoning after smoking a joint in bed to help her sleep Master Necromancer(fear me!) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would have more impact if it was done with the headline as a link instead of the URL. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 03:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be better if the Daily Mail was never linked to - horrible rag that it is. Scream!! (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed headline thing, and the content is of course absolutely uncorroborated speculation by a Daily Heil numpty (essentially: She smoked cannabis and got a heart attack, OMG the weed killed her!!!1!). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Link to the daily mail that's a paddlin'.jpg










Samstr (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Eggselent Samstr. Scream!! (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think cannabis is all too toxic, and the kidneys/liver should have filtered out the cannabis poisoning over a 24 hour period, especially at half a joint a night, if she did die of cannabis poisoning she would have to smoke a lot more as it says here http://drsircus.com/medicine/marijuana-toxicity “Marijuana has remarkably low toxicity and lethal doses in humans have not been described." therefore it is unlikely she actually died from the cannabis itself, and is most likely unrelated, also "high" is a relative term as the normal amount of cannabis is 0 so any amount of cannabis can be considered "high" Bubba41102 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
High is an absolute term, actually. If you are either at Taco Bell or heading to Taco Bell, you are high. If not, you are not. PacWalker 02:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the daily mail we're talking about, how much quality do you actually expect from them? Samstr (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sites to find Pseudoscience and alternative medicine bullshit[edit]

Can anyone give me links to sites that will give me lots of pseudoscience to write about, im interested in writing about isome of this pseudoscience Preemptive thanks for your help Bubba41102 (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at the foot of the Clogs page, there's a list there. Dunno how up-to-date it is or if it's even been maintained at all. Scream!! (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading Thomas Wolfe?[edit]

Why Mars colonization is racist and sexist[edit]

Check out this bad article, how can anyone agree with this crap? Why is SA publishing this crank?

Thank goodness the people in the comments set things right, though.Deofex (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The linked article is taking its time to download.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 17:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll spoil it for you: rich people are likely going to have a head-start on mars, and that's not a great thing. New user deofex finds this opinion objectionable, thus concludes it's crankery. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Rich people can't frikin' get 1000 km from Earth. No one has since the early 1970s.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 18:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it isn't unreasonable to assume that if we ever do set up a colony on Mars it will largely be government funded and therefore won't require one to be insanely wealthy in order to go. The other part that was a bit obnoxious was the fact that the author seemed to take offense at the fact that they didn't talk about social justice in their discussion of science. TBH we libs can be quite obnoxious when it comes to being PC. Samstr (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This Apollo 17 photograph, apparently taken on 7 December 1972 might be the last photograph of a whole Earth taken. I'd love for someone to show me something more recent.












Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, in that case, rich folks have an head-start in world of techno-fetishistic fantasy. Sure, it's not much of an article, and the twitter tirade is particularly lame, but it does bring up an interesting point - the language emanating from the entrepreneurial Silicon Valley space exploration scene is the same kind of manifest destiny malarky that has been spewing out of rich anglo dudes for the past three hundred years and these guys don't seem to be paying attention to this history as they are assured of their own infallibility. Marlow (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
At least there isn't a native sentient population of mars for this generation to murder/enslave/relocate. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems the richies gonna have to do it all by themselves, and they can't. Maybe if the US (and my Canada to an extent) stop wasting money on stupid wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. If I understand correctly, Napoleon sold frikin' Louisiana—what was that, 1/4th of the 48 states?—to raise money to fight some stupid war in Europe: and is France any bigger? America's selling the future. People get annoyed at Miley Cyrus? The fuck I care! What annoys me are these stupid dumbass "plans" for private exploration of space. They've been talking about it for decades, and they've gotten fuck all. If anything, it's gotten worse. 15 years ago, one could fly from NY to London on an SST. Now we got, what? The new frikin' normal. America has the NSA Utah data center, meanwhile some jihadi punks—the result of Bush & Co. misadventures—and they don't seem to give a flying fuck about the results—behead people and smash relics. Then the lamestream media—thanks Sarah for the neologism—swallows this crap presumably to boost ratings. Frikin' pisses me off! If Elon Musk isn't careful, he's going to die of cancer in 30 years and there's fuck all his billions are going to do—assuming that's all real wealth in the first place. Why don't these bullshitting Silicon Valley blowhards liquidate a few of their let's-pretend-it's-wealth wealth—a few bil—and build an infrastructure? But they either won't, because they're stingy-little small-minded misers or they can't, they frickin' can't. Now we have Scientific American—a magazine I used to buy years ago—with this crap about colonization of Mars, and the page still hasn't fucking downloaded on my computer—whatsamatter SA? Don't know how to design websites—it's been fucking 20 years since the WWW!

Sorry folks. I need to chill.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stay angry buddy. I like it. BTW Elon Musk is working on infrastructure; his hyperloop fantasy. We live in a nation of crumbling bridges and roads, but Musk is coming to the rescue with a super expensive way for a handful of hyper rich to zip between enclaves without even having to look at the slums that shake at their passing. Marlow (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Really rich people fly in private jets. The tubes idea is about the speed of a private jet, but can only go to preset destinations and worst of all you have to use a tube other people use. So really, it's for the mid-range of middle class to the low range of upper class. Nothing new when it comes to tech. Just remember, Henry Ford and Henry Royce both made cars, but the Henry that made cheap cars was wealthier than the Henry that made luxury cars. CorruptUser (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If anyone should get worked up over anything it's that. That and the fact that our government is doing approximately nothing to try to fight climate change. Samstr (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Newer "whole-Earth" picture[edit]

Posting from a mobile device, so formatting is painful: http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112534522/russian-satellite-takes-121-megapixel-image-and-video-of-earth/ --ZooGuard (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dish Network used to have a channel that broadcast a live feed of the whole Earth from the view of their television satellite. They stopped it when the camera broke, but it was nice while it lasted. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)