RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive243

This is an archive page, last updated 28 August 2016. 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>, <242>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Annoying republicans keep trying to sell me bush socks

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'Legion^{what do you want from me} 08:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there an 'unsubscribe' link or similar? Weaseloid^{Methinks 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) homophonic 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 Sawtooth (Floof!~) 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.'Legion^{what 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. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks 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?

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. [1] 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 Sawtooth (Floof!~) 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.

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 Sawtooth (Floof!~) 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)

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)

The list of evolutionary holdovers/errors posted to the RW twitter some time ago

Some time ago, there was a list of 100 or so evolutionary oddities (possibly as a "if creationism is true, god is a lousy designer" thing) that was posted to (or retweeted by) the RW twitter. I believe one of the thing was about how poorly adapted the human spine is for standing erect (and the resultant issues with back pain everyone has). I ran back through the account's history, but I can't seem to find it. Anyone know the thing I'm talking about? Compro01 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a list of mistakes made by God. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is this God person, anyway? 86.184.43.115 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sites to find Pseudoscience and alternative medicine bullshit

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)

cs source jailbreak

any of you guys ever played jailbreak on the old cs source, taht game was the bomb, i recently picked it back up, anyone else still playing? Bubba41102 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about CS:S, but there's a Garry's Mod version that's pretty active. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

CS:Source? wowowow, best counterstrike evar! Although who am I to talk, I mostly play tf2, though I have heard of a jailbreak mod for that. My favorite tf2 mod is probably the equalized randomizer (it's basically arena where everyone starts out with the same random loadout and a random effect such as permanent jarate). You've also gotta love x10 servers where for some reason the grenade launcher lets you launch about a million pills at a time.Samstr (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Females"

A question: I understand that "female" as a noun has ugly MRA connotations ("I was talking to this female..."). Does it have the same problems when used as an adjective ("Female guitar students sometimes struggle with larger instruments like Jumbos and Dreadnoughts and might consider looking at smaller guitars like the popular Martin OM size...") Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume it would depend on the context of what you are saying. --Miekal 16:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That "female" is somewhat pejorative when used as a synonym for "woman" probably well precedes MRAs. I don't think it's ever been trouble as an adjective, though. Perfectly fine in your example, because some female guitar students may not qualify as "women" yet. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing about "female" as a dismissive term for woman, is that it takes a person, and deprives them of personhood and agency(instead reducing them to a biological construct) in a manner that can only be called intentional. If it's not got that intent of reduction it's not the same problem. Female, as an adjective, describes biology. As a noun, it reduces to biology(which is okay for non-sentient animals). It could even be an occasional cute flippant use of language if its abuse weren't so widespread. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing that it strongly depends on context and speaker. That's language for you. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with 'female' as an adjective, but the latter example does sound kinda innuendo-ish. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree the connotation isnt there wen used as an adjective, bu in the first one i dont think it is proper grammar, well at lest it doesn't sound right. Bubba41102 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it's not used like that often (probably because, as you say, it doesn't sound right), but it is used like that from time to time nonetheless. A quick Google search reveals the exact phrase that AgingHippie posted, for example, in the "relationship" book, The Re-Education of the Female by Dante Moore ("I was talking to this female I'd met at the gym."). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) There's nothing grammatically wrong with it. Nominalization/substantivization of adjectives is common and accepted in many languages. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to second the "context" thing. Anything can be wrong in the wrong context.CorruptUser (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this. If, for example, you say about somebody "she's a female guitarist" (or "female lawyer", "female firefighter" etc.) that's generally going to be redundant (since female is implied by "she"), patronising and reinforce gender expectations: that these things are male roles by default & there's something notable about women doing them. Same goes for "male nurse", "male model", etc. and for using unnecessary gender specific adjectives. Thankfully, pointless variants like "manageress" and "poetess" are falling out of use, but others like "actress", "waitress", "hostess" and "stewardess" are too ingrained to disappear in a hurry. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait... does this mean we need to alter gender based aristocratic titles like "princess" too? Going to make the "Disney Prince" criticism a bit confusing.CorruptUser (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Poetess" is too damn useful to drop. Adrienne Rich is a poetess. Emily Dickinson is a poet. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

One part of the difference is discussed here: Unfortunately, during the currency of "poetess," femaleness was equated with various diminutive perceptions of femininity: domesticity, emotionalism, weakness, virginal purity, and so on, and these qualities were transferred onto, or demanded in the "poetess'" work. More here, Also Stevie Smith's Miss Snooks, Poetess. In these more liberated times, a "poetess" is just as likely to be inditing odes to intersectional sisterhood or conveying TMI about her minstrel cycles. But there is a difference that's still occasionally useful. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Cricket question

I have progressed from watching T20 to 50-over ODI and have been watching my first Test this week (England-West Indies). One thing I don't get -- they say the WI have 20 overs left. Why the limit on the number of overs? I thought they played until they got the entire side out. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

in One Day games there are a limited number of overs, otherwise the game wouldn't fit into one day. In proper cricket the play as many as it takes, and that's the one you were thinking of. Bicycle^wheel 20:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No, no. I'm watching Day 5 of the WI-England Test, and they definitely flashed a "West Indies have 20 overs left" message on screen. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind -- it's the "minimum overs." As in they need to play at least 90/day, right? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the basic limit is 90 overs/day. It gets a bit more complicated based on scheduled times, wickets taken and various other factors, but naturally, this being cricket, the rules are incredibly detailed and complex. Worm (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Incredibly complicated" is a bit of an overstatement :) Usually 90 overs have to be bowled in a day's play in test cricket - however each wicket taken takes time, the end of an innings, interruptions for rain, injury, etc. all take up time that cannot be used to bowl - all these have a standard allowance of time - eg 10 or 15 minutes to change sides at the end of an innings, 2 minutes perwicket, rain and injury as the actual time, etc. IIRC games will have a 30 minute period they can be extended to try to get the 90 overs. And each over is taken as (IIRC) 2 or 3 minutes. So at any point you can calculate how much time is left available for play, and how many overs SHOULD be left to be played. So to answer your question, they had 20 overs left because the number of overs they HAD bowled plus the number of overs lost to interruptions added up to 70 - leaving 20 required for that day's play. Teams that bowl slowly and fail to achieve the required over rate can face fines in the thousands of $$ of UKL. It's a bit long winded sorry - but it's not particularly complicated as a concept or mathematically. Unlike Duckworth-Lewis!! :)--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Laws 16.6 and 16.7 are the relevant ones here:

6. Last hour of match - number of overs

When one hour of playing time of the match remains, according to the agreed hours of play, the over in progress shall be completed. The next over shall be the first of a minimum of 20 overs which must be bowled, provided that a result is not reached earlier and provided that there is no interval or interruption in play.

The bowler’s end umpire shall indicate the commencement of this 20 overs to the players and to the scorers. The period of play thereafter shall be referred to as the last hour, whatever its actual duration.

Robledo (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Language policy

LTR has written maybe 25 articles in a language nobody else here often reads. Is this OK? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of expanding RW to make it accessible to people who do not read English. I do not think having a one-person operation nested within the project with collaboration rendered virtually impossible is the way to do it. Yes, we can plug stuff into a Google bot and get a good sense if the guy is writing outrageous or libellous material, but that does not count as either decent quality control or meaningful collaboration. I would rather see people interested in producing a project in a different language develop a community of interested parties to create their own websites that have zero connection to the RMF. They can use our stuff as a launching-pad and do what they want with it in a genuinely collaborative manner. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Who's LTR?--Arisboch (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

LeandroTelesRocha PacWalker 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There's got to be more Portuguese-speakers then him here. We have to find them and ask them, if they're interested in writing stuff for the Portuguese part of RW.--Arisboch (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This is 'murca, we dont need no other stinkin' languages I barely speak englich, and tha'ts good enuf fer me. Samstr (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We've already asked if other users speak Portuguese. One person said yes.

Well here's my proposal for a change to our language policy. Articles in other languages can only be created if they are translations of articles that already exist in English. They cannot just be about the same subject as articles that already exist in English, they must be primarily translations of the English text. They must include a template which links back to the original English version. Obviously, after their creation, those articles could then start to differ a bit from the English originals due to editing (although there probably wouldn't be much of that) and a bit of localization would be expected. All articles in other languages which aren't based on translations of English ones are to be deleted. (That includes everything that LTR has created, some of his articles are on the same subjects as English ones but none of them are translations). I think that's a way we can try to regain a degree of quality control. Spud (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What about РациоВики? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Russianal-Wiki has a degree of separation from the main body of RW that the Portuguese articles don't. I don't know if that guy has put together a community of contributors or anything, but hey, we're CC, so he can take our content and hive it off and do as he will with it. It's its own website, with its own url and own front page. I'd really rather see that as a model. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There are also at least a couple of articles in French; Pensée magique, possibly more. It would appear that we used to invite the creation of articles in other languages. Now that someone is busy doing that, it apparently becomes a problem. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have thought that idea through a little better. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It became a problem because we have one person who can actually read anything LTR says, and LTR is questionable on quality. As well, LTr apparently can't speak any english enough for a colab between us (As evidenced by his defense being entirely in a different language). Having other languages is nice, but not if there is only one person and nobody can understand that person. --Miekal 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As the one other person here who speaks Portuguese, I too conclude that LTR's quality is questionable. The reasons why are really boring but if you guys want, I can give a detailed explanation. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It took him 0.2 seconds to lock the door.} 23:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of any problems with the quality of the writing, it's pretty obvious that an article can't be much good if it's just made up of a couple of lines of text, a YouTube video and some links to other wikis (which may include Conservapedia, Uncyclopedia and Metapedia). Spud (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we vote on what to do about LTR? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 17:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think reasons, however boring, would be a good thing to have in case there is need to take action. Explanation, then? --Castaigne (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Raysenn, yes, please, go into the boring details. Google translate can't tell us much about style or how a piece fits within cultural context. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, here's a rundown on LTR's work:

• First, he's not doing any direct translation of English RW. This would normally not be a bad thing, but see the reasons below.
• His writing tone is really, really abrasive. Like, not SPOV like a regular RW article, but ranting, angry stuff.
• Related to the above, instead of debunking the article's subject, he instead has some ax to grind about Brazilian politics (and against Olavo de Carvalho in particular). And it's bizarrely and randomly shoehorned in articles.
• Related to the above, multiple irrelevant articles about Brazilian politicians.
• He seems hellbent on promoting some Brazilian YouTube science shows (and their Patreons). I don't know if the guy is LTR himself, and I'll say he isn't because I can't prove it's him. I also can't judge the quality of the videos, since I still have one hell of a time understanding spoken Portuguese (much like I knew how to read and write English before I got around to actually understand spoken English).
• Generally thin on article substance.
• Miscellanous grammatical errors.

Feel free to ask more details. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{This taste... it's of a liar!} 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, so regardless of how we feel about one-person operations being part of the RW brand, it's pretty clear this isn't a person we'd want to entrust such a one-person operation to. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Appears so, unfortunately.

I'm wondering if we can just "freeze" the Portuguese articles. Prohibit LTR from creating new articles in this vein and prohibit major changes; ask him to work exclusively on the English side until/if a Portuguese community on RW develops. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 03:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt LTR's ability to work on the wiki in english, if only because the nature of their edits in Portuguese strikes me as carrying over to english, and because he seems to only want to use Portuguese to talk. --Miekal 04:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think prohibiting major changes to the Portuguese articles we;ve already got would be a good idea. It seems they need to be extensively rewritten. Or nuked.

How about a vote on a change language to our policy? I see three possibilities

1. No change.
2. Like I said before, articles in other languages must be based on translations of articles in English. They shouldn't just be on the same subject as articles in English. Any articles that don't have an English equivalent or aren't based on translations of an English equivalent will be deleted.
3. Make this an English only wiki. All articles in other languages will be deleted. Anybody who creates an article in another language in the future and everybody who's created articles in other languages in the past will be sent a message saying that they might like to start a new wiki in that language instead.

It's also starting to look to me like LTR could be a case for the coop. Which would be interesting. Spud (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Coop plus bot translation... dear lord. PacWalker 11:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think making sweeping rules like these based on a single problem user is a terrible idea. We do have other languages camping out on this wiki and doing just fine (and Loi de Poe gets linked around, e.g. in the Francophone Twittersphere) - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If Raysenn's readings are correct, that is one problem that needs to be dealt with, and hopefully before the poor sod writing all that stuff wastes more of his time working on articles that I'll bet are gonna get nuked. I don't think that means we should automatically delete all non-English articles. I do think our failure to make sure this guy was doing decent work does reveal that we need better quality-control practices for non-English content. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The proble mseems to be that the Portuguese articles aren't direct translations of English ones, like Loi de Poe. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should say that I don't like the third option I suggested either. But we certainly do need to learn from this experience. As I said before, the next time someone comes along and creates loads of articles in another language, don't just assume that user is translating articles out of English and tell him or her to keep up the good work. Take a look at what's being created. Spud (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the point of the article about Portuguese Wikipedia is that this version of the site has (or is perceived to have) problems with quality control & administration which are different from or worse than those on English Wikipedia. This seems to me like a legitimate reason for a new article rather than a direct translation of our existing Wikipedia article (much of which relates specifically to the English version). Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I gather that he's an axe-grinder. So are several other editors. He's apparently come here as a refugee from the Portuguese Wikipedia, and sees Rationalwiki as a place to continue his crusade. This too doesn't strike me as altogether rare. Abrasiveness, humorlessness, and poor quality are ... how should I put this? ... not confined to the Portuguese articles. All of the material he's written seems obviously topical if not top drawer. I'm still not averse to working with him, even if we have to use the unreliable medium of Google Translate to do so. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If by "topical" you mean "on-mission", that's not the case. I've deleted plenty of "off-mission" Portuguese articles. Otherwise, you're absolutely right, Smerdis. On that related note, to save us further tears from more "exiled encyclopedists" in the future, I think our guide to newcomers should include a word of warning to people who've been banned from Wikipedia and other wikis. Spud (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's how we should deal with it but I agree with the idea that we should do something about the bitter Wikipedia bannees. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Burning this game would be an insult to fire.} 03:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant adding something to explain that stuff which you added to Wikipedia which got removed or deleted might not necessarily be welcome here either (if it's "off-mission", unsourced. potentially libelous or just plain crap). And a polite warning that if you got banned for rubbing other users up the wrong way on another wiki to please try not to do the same thing here. Spud (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Did somebody say bitter Wikipedia bannees?? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wot 'e sed. Scream!! (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of a certain exiled encyclopedist who claims to be a censored scribe, but works too. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Advocate for the liberation of Willzyx} 16:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also: For some reason the "Peace" in AH's sig just ties that whole post together. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It's like human misery in video game form} 16:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote

We've got a lot of different policy ideas. Put it to a vote? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Guess we just let the subject die and do nothing then. *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Give an alternative, Weaseloid. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So, will we do something about that Brazilian dude? (Result: Nuked)

In light of these two recent deletions of LTR's work, I think we should definitely evaluate his output and decide whether we should leave his articles or kill them with fire. I've already stated my criticism of his work, which will be reprinted here for convenience:

• First, he's not doing any direct translation of English RW. This would normally not be a bad thing, but see the reasons below.
• His writing tone is really, really abrasive. Like, not SPOV like a regular RW article, but ranting, angry stuff.
• Related to the above, instead of debunking the article's subject, he instead has some ax to grind about Brazilian politics (and against Olavo de Carvalho in particular). And it's bizarrely and randomly shoehorned in articles.
• Related to the above, multiple irrelevant articles about Brazilian politicians.
• He seems hellbent on promoting some Brazilian YouTube science shows (and their Patreons). I don't know if the guy is LTR himself, and I'll say he isn't because I can't prove it's him. I also can't judge the quality of the videos, since I still have one hell of a time understanding spoken Portuguese (much like I knew how to read and write English before I got around to actually understand spoken English).
• Generally thin on article substance.
• Miscellanous grammatical errors.

I vote for us to ice the fuck out of those articles. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Hahaha, what a story Anonymous user} 15:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have said this in a few places, so I'll keep it short: while I think the possibilities for a multilingual project should be explored, articles that can not be verified and collaborated upon by critical mass of regular and trusted users should not be on the wiki. We're CC, let him take our stuff and run with it on his own. Peace. EDIT: I've removed a bunch of the videos and the Patreon links. We're not here to advertise the fund-raising efforts of unknown entities. AgingHippie (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with AH. LTR has in fact created ten articles that have been deleted. Most of them were deleted on sight for being obviously off-mission. He would be much better off creating his own wiki where he can write whatever he likes about anything he likes. Spud (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And I've only just found out what Patreons is. I'd say those links make him a spammer. Spud (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would concur, myself. --Castaigne (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What AH and Ray said.--Miekal 17:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No argument from me: Wipe out the whole Portuguese thing until & unless we get a substantial editorship. Scream!! (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, just realised the Patreon thing. Mentioning such a thing once or twice is probably fine, mentioning it lots probably isn't. Yeah. Kill this. What would be sufficient bureaucracy to assure all the mob that mobocracy has been properly served? - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Put it up to vote and put up a notice at some prominent place, that RW would love anyone having command of, i.a., the Portuguese language to work together to create and verify articles in that language?--Arisboch (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

For mobocracy reasons, I've put a vote below. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Kyubey stares into your soul. /人◕‿‿◕人\} 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion? Leave a small section open for counter-arguments, and if it's dead for a week, purge their creations, warn them against recreating them. Ban if they violate that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact most of the people who care have came out and talked about it should probably be enough, tbh. --Miekal 18:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My two cents: this should be a policy discussion with a clause added to the editing practices first, then nuke 'em. Now it looks like you're picking on a guy cause he's ferner writing in a language regular users don't read. There is something to be said about preventing someone like ISIS, for example, from posting up a bunch of jihadist bullshit in Arabic. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 03:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

לְבַעֵר (delete)

1. See my criticism above. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY HAIR?} 20:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

   There's already a deletion process for articles. This isn't it. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

   Piecemeal is painful. We're trying to decide if they can all go. Do you still want to use the process for that? It's not really made for it ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

   We've used it in such a way in the past though, when we deleted some pet page of Humans and then applied it the rest of the articles like it. --Miekal 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

   It ain't a deletion, it's a nukin'. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Fuck you! And your eyebrows!} 20:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

2. Nuking them seems like a good idea ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
3. IF this is where we gonna vote, then yes. --Miekal 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
4. Sadly - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
5. From what I can get with Google translate they're not RW mission at all. Scream!! (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

   I can back this, as someone who can speak Spanish's ugly cousin. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!?} 23:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
2. David's comment. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
3. LTR< the reason your articles are all going to get nuked is because they;re crap. It has nothing to do with any Zionist conspiracy, you bloody idiot! Spud (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

   Não é teoria conspirativa. Existe motivação política na proposta. Inclusive quem está propondo a exclusão disse que meus verbetes possuem erros de gramática. Uma mentira. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

   You aren't going to win this by telling us the reason the person who started this discussion is a Jew. --Miekal 03:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

   Political motivation my arse! LTR, I've had my doubts about you ever since you described Metapedia as an "enciclopedia alternativa". You've just confirmed them, you anti-semitic twat! Spud (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

   That did make me raise a few eyebrows, but I let it slide, since it is an "alternative" encyclopedia for a broad enough definition of "alternative" (and I thought he was just being soft-hitting). Well, I guess I had to hold on to those suspicions.

   If LTR is indeed a bitter Wikipedia banee, I wouldn't be surprised if he got booted from there for reasons related to his anti-Semitism. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Burning this game would be an insult to fire.} 03:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Also: He didn't mind me insulting his language. Huh. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{My wishes over their airspace} 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Shoot, I insult mine all the time. PacWalker 04:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

2. I can't see much point in keeping them, especially since we don't seem to have much of a Portuguese-speaking readership, and I doubt articles like these will attract one. I also have qualms with letting one guy have his own RW, and it being an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist doesn't inspire confidence. PacWalker 04:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Having followed (well, half-lurked, really) several earlier objections to LTR and his responses, I have long been concerned that some serious axe grinding seemed to be flourishing under the cover of a foreign language. LTR's response to the criticism here was what convinced me to add my vote to the delete scales. I would suggest a prudential nuking, though. Anything worth saving should be salvaged,if possible. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
4. By now it's clear that RW will lose nothing of value if everything is deleted.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
5. Exorcise! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
6. Oh look, here's some fire, KILL IT! --Castaigne (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
7. Eliminate it with orbital weaponry.--Arisboch (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

לשמור (keep)

1. I don't see them as remarkably different from many of the English language articles. At minimum, they should be archived somehow to make them available to a Portuguese language skeptical Wiki, assuming one is ever made. Whatever their flaws, they represent a body of work worth preserving somehow. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
2. I think most of his articles can be nuked with great prejudice, but some articles that are more than just a few lines of text and a video or some quotes and clearly document topics that are missional, e.g. Cientologia, Criacionismo, Associação Racionalista de Céticos e Ateus (português) (maybe), might deserve closer scrutiny before throwing them in the trash bin. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Muitos verbetes possuem textos equivalentes em língua inglesa, por exemplo, homeopatia, geocentrismo, aquecimento global etc. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Meus verbetes não possuem erros de gramática. Ao que parece, quem está propondo a exclusão dos verbetes é um judeu. E chamou o Olavo de Carvalho de "político". O Olavo de Carvalho é um astrólogo embusteiro, sem formação acadêmica, que trabalhou na mídia brasileira. Como eu escrevi um verbete sobre Ahmed Rami (um antissionista que mora na Suécia) e sobre Olavo de Carvalho (um sionista brasileiro), por motivo de perseguição, foi proposta a exclusão de todos os verbetes. Isso é censura! LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

". Apparently , who is proposing the deletion of the entries is a Jew. "--Miekal 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a zionist jew. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yah, no. That's really not going to do yourself any favors. --Miekal 02:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? I am done with this guy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no patience with anti-semitics/Nazis. Nuke from orbit. --Castaigne (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Esclarecendo, meus verbetes não possuem erros de gramática. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Right now, I am much more concerned about your anti-semitism than I am your grammar. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Não é antissemitismo. Eu não tenho motivo para apoiar a extrema-direita de Israel ou os banqueiros brasileiros. O Olavo de Carvalho faz isso, mas não é o ponto de vista das pessoas sensatas que moram no Brasil. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Know who talks like that? Anti-semites--Miekal 02:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you hear him? His grammar is impeccable, therefore he's not an antisemite! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Everybody betray me! I fed up with this world!} 03:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you're on the public grill right now and you bring up Zionism? It also really doesn't help that you always talk in Portuguese. Really, you shouldn't let people's interpretation of what you're saying rely on Google Translate. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you guys are less amused than me, but when he said "the guy proposing deletion is a Jew" I laughed for four minutes straight. It just came out of left field. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Everybody betray me! I fed up with this world!} 03:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

He also insinuated that all Brazilian bankers are Jewish.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not really surprised, since his article about Radio Islam founder sais he was sued because he "displeased Zionist circles"^{— Unsigned, by: 66.249.88.188 / talk / contribs} 03:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

עיזים (goat)

• I wouldn't be terribly averse to providing one final "shape up, don't keep doing x₁, x₂, and x₃, and for Christ's sake, write decent articles" type of warning, but that is the absolute maximum amount of leash I care to grant. PacWalker 20:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC) עוֹד לֹא אָבְדָה תִּקְוָתֵנוּ (because there's always a block button...) PacWalker 03:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• As a quasi-lusophone, I feel obliged to say something here, but do not feel competent to evaluate LTR's articles. Unfunny abrasiveness or axe-grinding should not be part of any RW mainspace. Spamming is right out. Best I can say is, I wouldn't object to mass deletion. In a kinder world, some sort of "shape up soon, pal, or else" message would come before that. That's all I got. Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've said it before but I find the culture of talking about people rather than to them pretty shitty. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  LTR doesn't speak enough English to talk to him. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Now I'm not tense anymore, I'm just miserable. Hooray!} 20:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  We've tried talking to them, it hasn't worked. The fact most of us have to use google translate to do it isn't helping. --Miekal 20:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  Go for it - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  Please say it again; it's a good sentiment, but the thing is, this user doesn't like to engage the community at all. Saloon bar is an open forum. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  I left a message (in Portuguese) on his page notifying him of this ongoing discussion. God bless college language electives! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

He's LANCB'd

In a message posted on his Facebook page 7 hours ago, LTR says that he's not going to edit RationalWiki anymore. Is it time to nuke yet? Don't delete the Portuguese global warming article. That one predates him and is largely a translation of the English equivalent. Spud (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's time to nuke, especially if, as the BoN above suggests, he managed to slip a little crypto-anti-semitism into his articles. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I got them all. Thanks to Pac/Spud/Raysenn for the deep cleaning. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that, as per 141's suggestions, we should evaluate some of his articles that deal with missional topics and see if they're of high enough quality to be worth a damn. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Burning this game would be an insult to fire.} 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to go back and read them and make sure they're both up to par and devoid of Jew-baiting, I won't object. Maybe protect them at at least the autoconfirmed level so we don't have to wait for the rare established Lusophone editor to verify new content? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of their titles, weren't they all just ranting about Olavo de Carvalho and the Brazilian government? Still, if you want to try to turn any of them into anything half-way decent, Raysenn, I wish you the very best of luck! Spud (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of them, sure, but not literally all of them. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

#notallportuguesearticles.. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a valid retort when we're talking about the merits of individual articles. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Raysenn - anything you think is recoverable, please do so, that'd be excellent - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Site notices

Nice to honour the famous Turk St. George and all, but it's a day early. Have the site notices suffered some sort of drift? ^{— Unsigned, by: Queex / talk / contribs}

No, it isn't too early. The holydaze notices are intended to cover all timezones. They appear twelve hours before the start of the holiday according to UTC and stay there until twelve hours after it's ended according to UTC. As I'm writing this, it's already April 23 in some parts of the world but still April 22 in others. That's why we're currently displaying messages for Earth Day (April 22) and St. George's Day (April 23). Spud (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't he Greek or something?--Arisboch (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the Other Wiki, Saint George was born in what is now the city of Lod in Israel (then part of the Roman province of Syria Palestina). His mother was a local and his father was a Greek from Cappadoccia (which is now in Turkey). I suppose his first language was Greek. Spud (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have such national holidays only pop up when it's that day in that country? Or would that break the wiki? Bicycle^wheel 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

But then we'll be discriminating against expats and travelers celebrating that holiday while not in said country! (Also, it would seem like a whole lot of effort for something very un-worthwhile.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly top priority, but making the holydaze thing timezone sensitive, so as to avoid questions like the one that started off this discussion in the first place, would be nice. That and something needs to be added to the Eastern Orthodox Christmas one. Every year on January 7, somebody comes along and says, "Twelfth Night is over. Why does it still say Merry Christmas?" I think something like "Is it Christmas again already?" and a link to our Eastern Orthodox page needs to be added. Spud (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC).

IIRC this was something that I discussed many years back. As each login-in user can specific their own time zone then theoretically it should be possible to tailor the messages to the user. Similarly there are language settings and it would be nice to make certain words language specific to avoid people Americanising (or otherwise) spellings. Unfortunately, I am unaware if MediaWiki markup has enabled this since I last investigated. I am inclined to think not. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the right "punch up?"

So a person I follow on twitter, macroeconomist Noah Smith, started a long twitter argument about internet "sadism" and which group truly has the power in society.

Other thoughtful people chimed in about how the so-called alt-right "sadists" like Vox Day, were mostly low-status bottom-rung type people fighting against what can be only described as the SJW ruling class, who can do things like destroy people's lives over false rape accusations, accusations of bigotry, and so on. So who really is the one in power here, SJWs claim it to be the other way around, but based on all this, wouldn't that not be the case? Compare guys like Vox Day, weev, etc. to people like Zoe Quinn, Sam Biddle, Anil Dash (ruined Pax Dickinson's life), and basically all major internet media organs.

What are your thoughts, guys? _{And I'm not doing this to troll, for goodness sakes.} Deofex (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there are pineapples in the Caribbean. I think I am going to eat them all.

...Oh, wait, I have a pineapple allergy. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 03:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all can I just say, a whole bunch of tweets is the most annoying way to read an argument that I can possibly imagine, but onto the meat of the issue. Attention on the internet =/= power, sure on twitter you might find more support for liberal ideas, but that doesn't mean that our politics has changed much in response to a changing culture. Just look at how hard it is to end the war on women in the political arena. Ultimately I think that the problem is people who oppose these equal rights movements tend not to be the brightest. Few people can offer any rational reasons for why a particular group should be oppressed beyond, "we've always oppressed them before." No offense to you, but if you have a bigoted movement you shouldn't be surprised when you find bigots coming out and supporting it. Samstr (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What's that you say? Vox Day, a horrible fascist dick bag with basically no reasonable stated beliefs or public behaviors is verbally abused for said shitbaggienss? Must be punching down. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 03:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

About Vox Day, and frankly the whole sad puppies thing, I disagree. A person I follow on tumblr recently made this pretty clear to me why the situation is much different than most take it to be. I quote her:

"In another universe, you live in the Confederate States of America. The technological changes familiar to you in this universe still happened, so the 2015 CSA is economically like the 2015 USA. There is no slavery, for example: capitalism was found to be less expensive, and it spawned the same methods of exploiting laborers that it did in our timeline. There is more tobacco and less soy, but that is the only noticeable economic difference. Your ancestors fought for the Union, and passed down their beliefs to their children, who left the Southern Baptist Church and became agnostics.* Belief in God and Baptist doctrine is not legally necessary, of course – the CSA formally maintains separation of church and state – but you find yourself suffering socially for your failure to attend church. You make the mistake of getting into a religious argument, and find yourself stuck with the reputation that you are a Satanist. A revival movement sweeps the country, aiming to purify it of the theological and political baggage of the Union and the ideas of the devil-worshipping Europeans. Its preachers say that marriage is a covenant with God, and therefore that only religious marriages between members of the same Abrahamic sect should be recognized by the state – a fringe position only ten years before. Ballot initiatives start springing up. A few businessmen donate in opposition to them and draw the ire of the journalists; their companies are pressured into firing them. A few ordinary employees express their opposition and lose their jobs as a result. A suspected atheist is called out by a popular magazine and blacklisted from his entire industry. You see on Facebook that your college friends are starting to support these purges. People begin to speak of non-Christians as a disease, a cancer, a gross unthinking blob of evil that must be destroyed. Politicians start meeting with fire-and-brimstone preachers. A man who spent his time in college arguing in favor of violently abolishing the Confederate Constitution and instituting a theocracy is the president; he was campaigning when you were in high school, taking a class on the government of the United States that required its students to give a presentation on a topic of their choice at the end of the year. You are one of the four people in the class – a class of about 35 students – who do not choose the topic of how great this man is. You have a friend, an author – not even an atheist, but someone who is not in the habit of attending church – who tells you about how the sausage is made. If you want to get somewhere, you have to hang out at the church groups, you have to know your Bible, and all that. The game is rigged. You see this elsewhere: colleges bring in mandatory Bible study, and every sufficiently large institution you can see is scrambling to hire preachers and theologically-informed bureaucrats and pay them six-figure salaries. There are movements within each form of art to use them as tools to edify, to instruct, to bring the consumers closer to God. They win. Their stories, their games, their paintings start winning awards. Their statues and murals are set up in every city. You once had Christian friends. Most of them will no longer speak to you. Some still will – but what’s the point? You know which side they’ll be on when the shit hits the fan, and you know it won’t be yours." I think that sums it up for me. Deofex (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, you got a link? I'd like to read more from her.--Arisboch (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing there's nothing going on now that's comparable to that, then. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 07:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also: Pax Dickinson 'ruined' Pax Dickinson's life, no-one else. He was found out, not victimised. His more recent blather merely confirms how much of a fuckwit he is. Vox Day thinks it's okay to throw acid in women's faces if that would help restore marriage to what he believes it once was and should be again. Cut this 'both sides' drivel, it makes you look simple. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's so hard to live life as a public Christian in America these days. I mean, you can only point to every single president, 84%+ of congress, 90%+ of the governors. Any day now, us non-Christians are going to have to do something about that, seeing that we obviously have control over all aspects of life. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah These rampant SJWs get everywhere. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I really cannot give a shit about fictional hypotheticals that will never come to pass. If you have to resort to an alternate universe to make the analogy, you've already lost the argument. --Castaigne (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A big part of the Seasteading is about the Mass Effect, so that's occasionally par of the course here.--Arisboch (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not the same thing, dude. An example of seasteading in popular culture does not a hypothetical argument make. --Castaigne (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Could someone break down that "analogy" for me? Because like Narky, I'm not seeing the applicability. The marriage thing in particular; is trying to make it so some couples can't marry supposed to reflect trying to make it so more couples can marry?Calieber (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "fictional hypothetical" it's what's really happening. It's happening in Sweden. It's happening in United Kingdom. And by goodness is it happening in America and on the internet. The elites aren't what you guys think them to be.Deofex (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even mention Rotherham. There's a reason that was ignored.Deofex (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a life-long UK resident, you are full of shit. Your 'UK' link there doesn't even contain the word marriage, and I'm not prepared to read a loser-length xenophobic blog post to see how it might possibly be relevant to the point you're trying and failing to make. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

^Second this. "There's a reason [Rotherham] was ignored" - actually there were several, anxiety about political correctness being, according to Prof Jay's inquiry report, only a small dimension. Taken along with the findings of Operation Yewtree, what we can conclude for certain from the Rotherham scandal is that authorities repeatedly fail to take the claims of young women, especially lower class ones, seriously, but I don't hear you SJW-bashers crowing about that. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, how was it that these Pakistani rapist gangs were able to rove around with impunity? How did they get there in the first place?Deofex (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"No" what? Go read the report I alluded to yourself if you're so underwhelmed by what I've already said and still hungry for answers to loaded questions. Grumblejaws (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I still have no idea what is going on in this thread. I think "It's punching up, so it's OK" as a justification for vitriol and "sadism", Internet or otherwise, is an extremely poor one as just about anyone can frame themselves as the person punching up. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, one of the things you have to remember is that punching up is generally better, seeing as punching down is usually just bullying. After all, it usually targets minorities and the disadvantaged. Then again, we make fun of birthers and truthers too, for pretty good reason. As for me, I see the accusation of punching down to be dumb in this instance. Reminds me of this one Cracked article examining the ways men and women both have more power than the other where its examples included pretty women sometimes getting free drinks at a bar, and men controlling the vast majorities of governments, courts, militaries, and corporations on earth. Punching down, huh? It's kinda like the idea that atheists are punching down when we make jokes about Christianity in the U.S. If the MRAs want a nice, welcoming atmosphere for their ideas about how women definitely shouldn't have equal rights, they could always get a booth at CPAC or some other Republican convention. Also you'll want to be careful claiming that slavery would have died out on its own, seeing as economic historians say otherwise. I'm betting that myth is another aspect of the Lost Cause narrative. When most people talk about that stuff nowadays, they have to admit that slaves had an amazing return on investment.(http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2). Their problem with slaves is more along the lines of recognizing that the economy there was ruined once the slaves were taken out of it. Which is like saying that the U.S. Midwest's economy would be ruined if people stopped needing corn, or if all their equipment was taken away from them. If I had the time or the giveadamn to find it, I remember where economic historians found that slavery, as profitable as it always was, likely would have continued unabated in agricultural areas. Plus, ya know, if slavery was so unprofitable, it seems strange that sex slavery still goes on so much. Those people certainly aren't stopping. - User:PsychoGecko, 00:22, 25 April, 2015 (UTC)

"Also you'll want to be careful claiming that slavery would have died out on its own, seeing as economic historians say otherwise." Wha? Where did I claim this? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's something mentioned in the hypothetical Deofex brought up. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just didn't want to insert stuff all over the place, so not accusing you of saying that. People screwing with history is one of my pet peeves, so I just didn't want to let that go when there's every indication that slavery would have continued on if it hadn't been made illegal in the States. It has all the markers to me of more Lost Cause apologetics, which is incredibly popular in most popular views of the Civil War that I've ever encountered, but runs counter to what actually happened as far as professionals can tell. I've even argued with non-Americans before who thought the South didn't secede over slavery, and that Lincoln started the war when the rebellion could have been ended peacefully. User:PsychoGecko, 21:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article you linked argues in most of it's text otherwise. Once automation technology grew developed enough, it was simply cheaper to pay workers than to feed, shelter and guard them.--Arisboch (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There's one not-hypothetical that might be relevant: how the Southern planter class was completely wrecked after the war and lost all it's privilege, property, and led the South into complete ruin. In fact, the friend who wrote about that is the same person on who's blog I found the above hypothetical. She's an academic historian.Deofex (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You probably didn't mean to, but you phrased that exactly right. The Southern plantation class led the South to ruin in a wholly avoidable war they started themselves. They did so because they conflated self-interest with Truth and Honor, as weak and fallible humans are wont to do. It never was about anything other than slavery, as the several secession declarations make plain. "States' rights" was never about anything other than slavery. Even the argument about tariffs was about slavery. They saw, moreover, that the nation would be expanding into large sparsely populated territories full of hostile Natives, and that plantation slavery would never work on the open prairie. The political dominance the slave powers had while the populated areas were confined to the eastern seaboard was certain to wither. Had they recognized that the rest of the nation would sooner or later grow impatient with slavery, they could have made themselves a better deal than what they got. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The fall of the planters is what led the South to ruin, but that's just what the yanks wanted.Deofex (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And please explain if the Right is in power, how come Sweden is soon turning into a second Africa?Deofex (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[citation needed] Samstr (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I have to take issue with your comparing Sweden (a nation) to Africa (a continent). There are a lot of countries in Africa, perhaps you could be a bit more specific. Samstr (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A rather huge continent at that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The fall of the planters didn't lead the South to ruin. Crippling overspecialization did that. The South was an agricultural power but focused solely on cotton, since it gave them the best price. That's why, even though the South had much more farmland, they grew less food than the North. They had much less in the way of railroads and factories, too, because the economy focused so much on growing cotton. It also caused problems as they weren't exactly rotating crops. Because of that and the vast amounts of land required to maintain a such an agricultural effort, the South wanted to keep expanding and desperately didn't want to be limited, a futile effort since they were hoping to go west through New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. Their paranoia about their slaves was like modern paranoia about taking guns, but actually worse. It was outright stated by various states' declarations and later by the Vice President of the Confederacy that they seceded due to slavery. The South chose to secede after the election of Abraham Lincoln. They didn't make peace at a peace conference held before Lincoln's inauguration and instead began seizing federal property and calling up militias. They even besieged Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens before Lincoln was inaugurated. I honestly don't see how anyone thinks this situation was caused because planters somehow lost influence, especially when you take into account that most slaves were owned by relatively few rich planters. The common man supported them for two reasons, too. 1. Slavery meant that no matter how low down a white guy was, there was always someone he was socially "better" than. 2. Just like with modern income inequality, even poor whites thought someday that could be them living in the big house owning lots of black people. This literally could not have happened if Southern planters weren't the richest and most powerful people in the South. Maybe if Southern planters hadn't been the cause and leaders of the South, they wouldn't have lost so much when they started the war. User:PsychoGecko, 22:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Relevant clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyHgGWFwDbg. Samstr (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I Made Myself Giggle

I thought this was cluttering up the page a bit, so...
I previewed this section as it would look like this.
And then I checked how it would look like this.
Now, I should go make a template for a button labelled "make fun." Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you're going a bit overboard with all of this... Samstr (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Overboard with what? My caffeine rush from the time I posted that? Templates? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 01:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably the template rush. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being problematic. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Get your popcorn ready, folks.

|ISIS declares jihad against Taliban This is about to have more explosions than a Michael Bay film. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 12:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We should watch people killing while munching popcorn? Grow up. Scream!! (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Except that reality isn't a movie, and those explosions will be killing real people. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If reality was a movie, someone would've fired or shot the director already.--Arisboch (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

i thought it would be the opposite, really isis is declaring jihad against extremists with somewhat similar views, well atleast this will make the U.S's (and the other countries i haven't really been keeping up on this mess) job easier Bubba41102 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Debatable; it doesn't stand necessarily to worsen their diplomatic situation much more, and sitzkrieg might be the result on the ground. I say wait and see. PacWalker 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not happy that people are dying but I'm happy that the ones dying will be the ones causing the death in the first place. Really, Daesh's greatest achievement for humanity is giving everyone a wakeup call for what Offensive-Jihad really is; a Crusade of the worst kind. Now the societies of the world just need to hammer that point in to their people.CorruptUser (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

One thing you can guarantee is that, among the one's dying, will be innocent bystanders. This "Oh, goody, the ragheads are killing each other so we won't have to" is not a completely noble sentiment. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It is something of a hopeful sign that they're starting to turn on each other, though. It does suggest that the general Muslim world is starting to get burnt out on their act, and no longer finds the message compelling. When that happens, you double down. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Innocent bystanders are already dying. What the Islamic world needs is a Reformation, and the one in Europe didn't come about through people sitting at campfires singing kumbaya. It was done through horrific wars that hadn't been seen in Europe since, well, ever. It took centuries for Europeans to finally understand the concept of freedom of religion. The very idea that a TRUE CHRISTIAN could suffer a heretic to live was an alien concept, let alone having equal rights. The Islamic world was ahead of Europe at this time; they were fine with other religions so long as they were second class citizens, but the very idea that a Shia could be Shia in a Sunni society without any penalties is still an alien concept in the Mid-East. But ask yourself this; if you had a machine that with the press of a button would undo the reformation and all the deaths it caused (ignoring the grandfather paradox; you still get born), would you press it? Yes, I'd like Salafi-crusader crap to end with nothing but a sit in or the women having a sex strike, but that's not happening. CorruptUser (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And you think really this is the start of the Islamic Reformation? Or even, Smerdis, that this is the start of them turning on each other. It's just another twist in the tail and cheering from the sidelines diminishes you. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser's comment struck a nerve with this history geek on a point which might seem trivial: The idea of "second class citizens" is a completely anachronism prior to (early) modern ideas of equality before the law, universal rights and citizenship. When discussing pre-modern societies these concepts are simply nonsensical. Practically no one before early modern European thinkers would view these ideas as either valid or desirable. The idea that every citizen is, in principle, equal is the defining characteristic of Enlightenment thinking (and then it was still circumscribed by most thinkers with regards to women and "barbarians"). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I never said this was a good thing, i know innocents will die, innocents will continue to die in every war past present and future, what i did say was that because the Taliban and ISIS are fighting both of them wont have as many resources to fight the rest of the world.Bubba41102 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Start of them turning on each other"? Muslims have been at war with Muslims ever since Mo's uncle and his brother-in-law both declared themselves King of all Muslims. I'm just hoping it's the start of the end of this shit. Only time will tell, just the way no one "knew" the Reformation would happen until after it happened. But I just don't see the Islamic Reformation happening peacefully; I don't know if such things CAN happen peacefully.CorruptUser (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Christian Reformation didn't go over peacefully, either. Just look at the Holy Roman Empire. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

By "them" I didn't mean "all Muslims", but rather "militant groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban." It always seems to work out that ideological differences between very similar militant groups are more keenly felt and salient than the differences with their proclaimed shared enemies. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Splitters! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIS vs the Taliban: it's a move against Iran on their eastern border and an attempt at a hostile takeover of an al Qaeda franchise. Islamic Reformation: back in the day the clerics had a monopoly on interpreting what God (or Allah) meant to say in the text; Luther and bin Laden posed challenges to the existing religious regime and made it possible for a lay person with a modicum of reading skills to extract their own meaning from the text, and ignore the authority and teaching of a professional clergy class. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, kettle? This is pot. I just wanted to tell you're black. Peace. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER.} 16:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nobs, so what you are saying is that when the Salafis turned on the Saudis because no way could Allah have meant for Christians (the US) to kill Muslims (Iraq, 1990) even when the Christians were killing the Muslims who were killing even more Muslims (Kuwait, Kurds, Iran), and Christians were dying in place of the Muslims who should've fought and died (Saudi Arabia), the people of Al Qaeda opened up their Qurans and said "this book says to kill everyone that isn't a either True Muslim or subservient to True Islam"? Is that really the most basic interpretation, or just the result of quote-mining by people who already want to do that anyway? CorruptUser (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The Saudi Grand Mufti, Bin Baz, said the book said its OK for Christians, Jews, and women in the US Army to kill Muslims. Bin Laden, like Luther, challenged the infallibility of the established ruling order and issued his own interpretation of scripture. Up to then, the religious clerics everywhere always supported the regime, and the people followed suit. Bin Laden questioned the authority of the religious leaders, as Luther did, and the foundation of the secular leaders grew unstable. This was revolutionary - the people always blindly followed the advice of clerics, now they view them with suspicion, and go to scriptures for their own interpretation and understanding. 00:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

So then I guess my question then becomes, assuming that Islam does has its Reformation and people interpret the Quran in their own words, is their interpretation going to be one that allows for peaceful coexistance? Maybe I'm just being a bigot here, but when I look at the three main characters of the Abrahamic religions boiled down to their core stories, I see Moses the liberator, Jesus the self sacrifice, and Mohammed the conquerer. CorruptUser (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gee, your view of Moshe is interesting. PacWalker 01:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You're aware that all Mohammed conquered was the city of Mecca, right? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

His followers conquered almost all of Arabia before he died, though he himself never left the area of Mecca and Medina, AFAIK CorruptUser (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, there were a couple battles and a lot of people pledged their allegiance to him. Dunno if I'd really call it a conquest though. By comparison, there's a lot more war and killings going on in the Old Testament and it's a lot more bloody. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Machiavelli discusses Moses' leadership abilities here.

The Saudi Wahhabi religious establishment are kinda like Jesuits, trying to hold things together, and (IMHO) have shown themselves practical in the cultural mileau they're in. The Salafis are an odd collection of cultists like the Branch Davidians and David Koresh with his own interpretation of scripture. Moses the liberator, Jesus who said, "render unto Caesar...", and Mohammad who became Caesar. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I should make clear that I don't see the "conquerer" in itself as being good or bad; the world was a much different world back then, brutal measures for brutal times. I live in a world where I don't have to wonder whether or not I'm going to eat next week, a world where I have to decide which of my children have to die so the others won't starve (the history books leave THAT out), I don't get to judge. But that goes both ways. The morals of a thousand years ago may have been what was best for the people living in the world that existed a thousand years ago, but that world is not the same one today. What may have been necessary for survival then may not be ideal now. I think that criticism applies to all static religions, in that they can't update with the times. CorruptUser (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Toynbee says,

[Jesus'] mortal offence in Roman eyes was that ‘he taught...as one having authority’ —an attitude which no Sovereign power is willing, in the last resort, to tolerate in any of its subjects...Muhammad’s attitude, in proclaiming his prophetic message, was the same; and assuredly he would have met the same fate at the same early stage if he had been conducting his prophetic mission inside, instead of outside, the Roman frontiers... and we can only conjecture, on the historic analogy of Jesus and the Christian Church, that if Muhammad had lived in these circumstances and had died, as Jesus had died, without offering resistance, then Islam might have become something different from, and spiritually higher than, what it has become in fact... The truth, then, seems to be that, in the invitation to Medina, Muhammad was confronted with a challenge to which his spirit failed to rise. In accepting the invitation, he was renouncing the sublime role of the nobly un-honoured prophet and contenting himself with the commonplace role of the magnificently successful statesman. The prospect of effective practical action which the call to Medina opened up for the Prophet’s long repressed and thwarted practical genius blinded the Prophet’s vision and warped his judgment. For even on the eve of the worldly call, in the second phase of his thirteen-years-long worldly failure in Mecca, Muhammad had been content with the faithful performance of a prophet’s duty, as is shown by his apostrophe to the idolators: ‘Is aught else laid upon God’s messengers but a plain delivery of the message?’ This simple understanding and acceptance of his prophetic mission were thrown to the winds by the Prophet when a new career was offered him in the alien political sphere...

This still doesn't answer my main question. Assuming the Reformation happens, will the end result of the Reformation be one in which Islam will coexist peacefully with near-everyone else? CorruptUser (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In our lifetimes? With us surviving? That's be too nice to be true!!--Arisboch (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the propensity toward violence coupled with divine justification emanating from the underlying scriptures, I'd say clerics on both sides of the divide need to watch their backs for a long time to come. Eventually some sort of peaceful coexistence within Islam - the divisions among Salafis and the Sunni/Shia split - might emerge, but we're a long way off from any ecumenicalism. They're a big threat to each other it seems, so living peacefully with non-Muslims is a secondary issue.

Wikipedia says, "The constitution of Tunisia (passed after the Tunisian Revolution of 2011), has criminalized takfir by placing a ban on fatwas that promote takfir," which is a step in the right direction. That government has to survive much longer than three years to see if reform can take root. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

So then, the question of what is a greater threat. The crime against humanity that is the thought police, or people thinking and advocating for crimes against humanity... CorruptUser (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The clerics, or interpreters of the law, have always ruled the roost (as they do in Iran) in Islam. And they still do command much respect. In colonial times, Western powers promoted secular strongmen (monarchs or the Ba'ath Party, for example) to neutralize advocates of Sharia rule, but the secular rulers still had to court the clerics to gain legitimacy and popular support. Salafism basically is a challenge against clerics who have supported regimes in bed with Western powers (i.e., Muslim nation states that are UN members). The ummah, or the people, are not blindly following clerics who encourage submission to "the powers that be" (to use a New Testament Christian idiom). Individuals seek guidance from non-traditional, non-scholarly sources and are beginning to rely on their own understanding of the Muslim scriptures. 01:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So then the REAL battlefield is in the rhetoric, in which Al Qaeda is trying to convince the general public that "real" Islam is all about crusading. And the US can't directly fight this war without shooting itself in the foot, being the enemy. Nor can the US openly fund anyone who would be willing to fight this war without being accused of being a US puppet. So Iran is free to spread their propaganda without the US being able to offer any retort. So how do you fight that war? I still say we need to change the language and use the term "crusader" instead of "jihadist"/"terrorist". CorruptUser (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The course the US is on now (wisely or unwisely) is to promote, or rather acquiesce to Iran's foreign policy ambitions in this post-colonial era. Unlike US policy toward the USSR, China, and even Iraq 10 years ago, the notion peace and trade will promote democracy is out the window. An Ayatollah with his finger on a nuke guarantees no regime change in Iran for the next hundred years (if he doesn't nuke Tel Aviv and Paris in the interim). The flip side is, either the Sunnis acquiesce to minority Shia domination from Iran as the hegemonic peacekeeper in the region, or Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey team up or each pursue separately nuclear power status to resist Iranian dominance. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 03:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Faux refuting its own arguments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBnrLGMFL8&feature=youtu.be&t=28s Did I accidentally fall into a parallel universe, or did Fox just support legalization? Holy lack of self-awareness, batman! Master Necromancer(fear me!) 15:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling there's more to the context, but this is so surreal to me. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Stopped clock. It happens. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at how many people work there. Surely, some drift in their opinions will occur. In fact, it occurs regularly. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 13:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

BBC Coalition Builder

This thing is so fun to play with and I'm not even British. What do you guys I think? Do any of you find it interesting or I am just easily entertained (or both)? Alsto003 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Alex

With the result I got, Labour would have to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP to get a majority. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am having some trouble trying to follow Mr. Miliband's instructions regarding coalition building without SNP. However in a couple of instances I was able to build a Labour Coalition without SNP, by allying them with the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, Alliance, and the Democratic Unionist Party (which I am told, is willing to partner with Labour despite being very Conservative), the result in all of those instance was only a very narrow lead. In one instance it all added up to exactly 326 votes. Alsto003 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Alex

Phew, that's a lot of parties. I think they'd more likely go for a minority cabinet in such a case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You know, I think the pundits have this one wrong. Take what is the likely outcome, neither Tory or Labour have enough seats to form a majority, and then assume that the Tories + DUP or Lib Dems don't have the seats to form a coalition, (there is no chance of Tory + Lib Dem + DUP coalition, the DUP and Lib Dems are too ideologically opposed for that to happen), I think the smartest play is for Labour to say that they do not believe they have the confidence of the house to form a majority. UK constitution requires the currently serving government to remain in power until a new government can be formed (no resignation as party allowed), and with the new fixed terms legislation, a 2/3 majority vote needs to pass to dissolve Parliament and trigger another election. Labour could just sit there in opposition and, in informal coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP, not let anything proposed by the Government pass and, at the same time, propose amendments that ideologically speaking, the Lib Dems and SNP together would have to support, or the Tories themselves would have to support. And all the while the Tories would be stuck in power, flailing around and unable to get anything done without the support of Labour.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

LibDem MPs after this election? Don't be daft. Sphincter (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yay British politics, something i know literally nothing about, at least there is more diversity in U.K parliament than in U.S congress/senate. I tried it and i had literally no idea what i was doing Bubba41102 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, current predictions put the LDs losing just over half their seats, which would still leave them with 26. Assume a change of power as the orangebookers are kicked out of the leadership positions and add in the projected SNP wins (55) that gives a total of 81 seats that could be used by somebody with the nous to use it.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very inpressed if the SNP won 55 seats, what with there only being 52 seats contested. Edit: talking rubbish, sorry Grumblejaws (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Term for this?

My userpage says that I am in atheist. However its slightly more complicated than that. I am an atheist in a sense of Yaweh. Allah, or Zeus. However I am unsure of the existence of a deist, or pantheistic god. Any one word term for this? Because i am sick of having to say this people everytime they ask my religious beliefs 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 11:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agnostic-pantheist maybe (the belief that it impossible to know if there are higher forces, but if there are then they are pantheistic). Or Pantheistic-agnostic (the belief that there are higher forces in nature that are pantheistic in nature, but it is impossible to prove their existence). Those two seem to be closest I can find.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agnostic covers it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's agnosticism. Be warned, though: It has a (sometimes truthful) reputation for being used by atheists that just want to avoid the word "atheist." Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 13:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to identify as anything, you know. If your stance is "I think pretty much all the gods from human religions/mythologies are bullshit, but I dunno if there might be any deities somewhere out there in the vastness of the universe" then you can just say that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not much different from what the OP said, which he/she said he's sick of having to explain. If s/he's looking for a concise answer, agnostic would cover it. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but agnostic also covers a whole lot of other positions too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So does any single-word summary. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I call myself both atheist and agnostic. By that I just mean I don't know whether or not a god(s) exists but I don't believe in one either. After all it seems silly to say you firmly believe something unless you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for it's existence. All that being said, even if you could conclusively prove to me that a god exists does that in and of itself imply we should worship them? If god were evil why should we respect him? Wouldn't it be better then to rot in hell knowing you have done the right thing than it is to live beside god knowing you are an accomplice to their crimes?

Im a he, by the way 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Anybody asks about my religious leanings, I tell em I'm a Nunya. 75.133.2.98 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Guess what, everybody?

So close. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

ABSOLUTE VICTORY

It has the potential to make things a little bit less ugly. Feel free to use this from now on, y'all. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

...I'm probably having too much fun. Must be all that soda just a while ago. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks nice. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What all this tells me is that... the image in your sig has a white background, not a transparent one. ;P PacWalker 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not white. It's the same image as the one on my page. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops. It being against the green tricked me. PacWalker 15:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

However I like the color thing, because the pink/puke was no. PacWalker 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

wut? Samstr (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This may be getting too cluttered, now. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 07:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Hoff

He's back, and it is beautiful. [2] Samstr (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The movie it's from, wp:Kung Fury - it is a moral imperative to WATCH THE SHIT out of this when it's released next month. Here's the trailer - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Morally imperative ritual observances? But I thought this was RATIONALWiki... PacWalker 19:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Drink! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I might well watch it. :P Also have you seen this one? [3] Samstr (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This trailer is on the world-wide spider-web so that the Hoff can GUI our IPs and log on to us! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think hoffs greates appearance ever, is in the SpongeBob Movie (og) dat chest cannon do.

CAPTCHA ads

Does RW get money from them? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not as far as I know - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

The contributions of the editors of RW have made me a better human being, and specifically helped overcome many personal resentments and character defects. So Thank you ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's nice. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is Katie Hopkins?

I heard in the news that she's another right-wing demagogue, but... What makes her especially bad? Who is she? I feel like I took my finger off the pulse of British politics for a few days and now everything's gone weird. Fill me in please! DarkFire (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of her before, but then I don't follow UK politics closely. After a rather cursory online search she seems to be your garden variety The Scum demagogue with that demographic's usual views on anything less than blue-blooded Englishness, incl. other inhabitants of the British Isles. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

She's said a lot of stupid & offensive things, but the current furore is mostly about this piece. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm Jack's complete lack of surprise... ScepticWombat (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

She came to public attention as an especially brusque contestant on the British version of The Apprentice a few years back and has been coasting along on the reality tv/big-mouth-for-hire circuit since then. For the most part her statements have been considered too stupid and try-hard to take seriously but in the past few months she's been doubling down on the nastiness (e.g. calling Palestinians "rodents", describing a Scottish ebola infectee transferred to a specialist London hospital as an "ebola bomb in the form of [a] sweaty Glaswegian") and the article Weaseloid referenced has led to a meta-discussion on whether or not there's now an incentive to rebut the things she says at the cost of giving her the attention she so badly wants. Grumblejaws (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins says she will leave the country if Ed Miliband becomes PM. Has been called the best reason to support Miliband (Labour) to date. Scream!! (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

She almost sounds more racist than the shitbags we have stateside. I can't actually recall anyone in the states calling anyone "cockroaches".Samstr (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe our shitbags are smart enough not to use "cockroaches" in front of a reporter's microphone. I heard it in the US in the middle nineties, in a workplace context of cheap labor from South and Central America. In print or other mainstream media, not so much. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Maybe our shitbags are smart enough not to use "cockroaches" in front of a reporter's microphone" - just to be clear, this was something she said quite openly in her column in The Sun, not some off-the-record indiscretion. Grumblejaws (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That might qualify as indictable hate speech in some countries. I know of a Danish case from 1980 in which an MP from the populist and increasingly racist Progress Party (the forerunner of the Danish People's Party) was first sentenced to pay a fine and then to 14 days in the slammer (but was pardoned) under a law prohibiting hate speech towards religious, ethnic, sexual, or national groups for his assertion that immigrants "breed like rats". ScepticWombat (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people would like to see her prosecuted under the UK's native hate speech laws. I'm somewhat split over the issue; I think the rule of law requires that if people if the likes of Harry Hammond can be indicted for their activities, Hopkins and her publishers should at least be officially cautioned. On the other hand, my own personal reservations about the efficacy of and thus justification for hate speech laws leads me to a place where I'd rather see the law intervening in none of these cases. Grumblejaws (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that hate speech laws are somewhat iffy, but I think the 1980 Danish case may also have been influenced by the fact that the rat imagery was used by the Nazis in The Eternal Jew and that in 1980 there were still a lot of Danes who had personally experienced WWII and the occupation, making the use of such imagery even more beyond the pale. The record since then has been relatively patchy (few have been prosecuted and very few convicted and most of them were only fined less than $1000), so the screaming persecution complex among Danish wingnuts over what they claim is a chilling effect (BS, considering the stridency of (some) Danish anti-immigration debates) is really a manufactroversy. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

By that logic there are probably a fair number of Rwandan refugees in the UK that remember being referred to as cockroaches, and that's far more recent. I'm rather against hate speech laws for the most part as I think they tend to stifle discourse. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A) Wingnut Katie didn't mouth off in Rwanda, B) the point of hate speech laws is to "stifle discourse", based on the experience of the kinds of discourse produced by guys like this (yes, yes, I know this is turning into a total Godwin fest, but what the hell). ScepticWombat (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people have rightly been making comparisons to Goebbels/Steicher. Less people have been pointing out that those were prosecuted during the Weimar Republic rule under what today we would call hate speech laws, to no effect on the rise of the Nazis. Grumblejaws (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ First of all, Weimar Germany was a shaky state, and an inability to effectively prosecute Goebbels in that climate is hardly a good argument against hate speech laws.
Secondly, Goebbels' parliamentary immunity after 1928 protected him from such prosecution.
Thirdly, Goebbels and Streicher were not prosecuted for hate speech (because no such clauses existed), but for slander and libel which don't offer much, if any, protection when the target is a wide group (e.g. Jews) rather than individuals.
Fourthly, though I know that such self-proclaimed freedom of speech advocates as Danish editor Flemming Rose (of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon fame) claims that Nazi precedents show that hate speech laws are ineffective, this not only ignores that we (fortunately) don't live in Weimar Germany, but also that exactly because of the connection between these laws and the likes of Goebbels, being convicted of hate speech is far more likely to carry the kind of stigma that would have been unimaginable in Weimar Germany.
[Cutting rant about Rose - we can take that later] ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
An additional fifth point turns Rose's argument on its head: There appears to be two main groups lobbying against hate speech laws. One is the "civil libertarians" who simply oppose such limitations on civil liberties in general. The other is composed of xenophobes and racists who don't like to be prosecuted. Now if Rose's claims about hate speech laws being wholly ineffectual are correct, why does the latter group oppose them? Also, Goebbels liked his parliamentary immunity because it protected him from libel and slander suits (again, suggesting that they were at least of concern to him).
Rose sets up a false dilemma/straw man in which supporters of hate speech laws are made out as believing that such legislation by itself can prevent a Nazi-like takeover (something I doubt even the most enthusiastic supporter of such laws would be naive enough to think), and that the only alternative is no hate speech legislation at all. This is both a tendentious framing of the argument and an equally dubious use of historical analogy. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

“First of all, Weimar Germany was a shaky state, and an inability to effectively prosecute Goebbels in that climate is hardly a good argument against hate speech laws” – this is true, but then the same “different climate” reasoning can be used to detract from any intended cautionary note in comparing Steicher’s “cockroaches” statement to Hopkins’s article, the latter being published to great media scrutiny in modern Britain.

“Goebbels and Streicher were not prosecuted for hate speech (because no such clauses existed), but for slander and libel which don't offer much, if any, protection when the target is a wide group (e.g. Jews) rather than individuals” – this is an equivocation; they were nominally prosecuted for libel, but this was ipso facto done as a function of the then penal code, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached (and I don’t think it’s so easy to handwave the fact that Streicher was eventually jailed for two months) rather than treated as a civil tort, which AFAIA is how most jurisdictions would treat a libel action today. The relevant portions of the code were drafted so as to give protection to religiously-defined groups. This is why I very deliberately used the above phrase “what today would called hate speech laws”.

“The other is composed of xenophobes and racists who don't like to be prosecuted. Now if Rose's claims about hate speech laws being wholly ineffectual are correct, why does the latter group oppose them” – from what I have read of him (namely the extract from his book where he discusses Streicher and where, as I suspect you have clocked, the issue was brought to my attention via Index on Censorship) that isn’t what he claims. His position is that hate speech laws haven’t been shown to strike a balance between lessening the plight of oppressed minorities and the encroachment of free expression they impose. Indeed, if hate speech laws were toothless instruments, he wouldn’t have half the impetus for taking the stance he does.

“Rose sets up a false dilemma/straw man in which supporters of hate speech laws are made out as believing that such legislation by itself can prevent a Nazi-like takeover (something I doubt even the most enthusiastic supporter of such laws would be naive enough to think), and that the only alternative is no hate speech legislation at all.” Again, I don’t think this is accurate. He has said that “to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned was to stretch a point” but this was in response to Per Stig Møller’s statement warning about the downsides of free speech that “anti-semitic rhetoric eventually led to...the Final Solution”. I interpreted his overall point as being that Western democracies have tended to esteem hate speech laws on the basis of their spirit and intent rather than appraise them on their downsides and overall efficacy .Grumblejaws (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Glaswegian

just curious but how do you get Glaswegian from a resident of Glasgow ? Glasgowian I could understand. Hamster (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's because the local accent sounds more like Norwegian than English. Bicycle^wheel 14:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Who cares what it is called, it sounds like beautiful music anyway.... 194.246.46.15 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It was an aesthetic mistake when James VI and I decided to move his capitol to London rather than staying in Edinburgh, even though then as now the English were apparently more politically tractable than the Scots. The Brits would have been spared the obloquy of having a slovenly non-rhotic dialect as their prestige variant. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you were part of the reason he moved his capitol? ^{Pun disclaimer: Yes, I know he is both James VI and James I, and I know why it's in that order} Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The same way you get Cantabrigian out of Cambridge, I presume. 18.189.113.126 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

See also: Liverpudlian; Mancunian; Novocastrian; etc. Scream!! (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

People from Halifax, Nova Scotia are Haligonians. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What sort of candidate would give the Republicans the best odds against Hillary Rodham Clinton?

If they had any black women as candidates it could divide the voters that want to elect a first-X-in-the-White-House-type candidate. Or maybe a Native American woman? Though for some mysterious reason the indigenous population of the Americas don't get much publicity in American politics. I'm sure they'll just go with an old white guy like Jeb Bush, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably an awful person for saying this, but my impression is that many public-figure Black Republicans are narcissists and publicity hounds; like Clarence Thomas, the ultimate affirmative action baby, or Alan Keyes. On the other hand, Condoleeza Rice might be a viable candidate, if she could make it through the primaries. And I'd vote for Colin Powell over Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat. I suspect neither of those two are willing to make the right noises to be nominated by the Republican base; there is so little debate on big issues in the Republican Party that it's rather creepy; they seem to have been entirely captured by the white trash. A relatively sane Native Republican might be easier to find, given that most Natives live in heavily Republican Western states and at least some of the tribes have significant ties to the oil and gambling businesses. I just don't know of any that are public figures; then again I live in the wrong part of the country to have opportunities to have heard of such. Nobody talks much about Elizabeth Warren's status as a fake Native. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Condoleeza has too much baggage at this point. Her association with Dubya is damaging for many, she's far too centrist for the far right, and the rumors (almost wrote "tumors") of her lesbianism alienate the Conservative base. I can't think of any Native American politicians on a national level. Wikipedia lists two active Congressmen: Tom Cole and Markwayne Mullin, both GOP. Tom Cole seems to have some of the credentials, but none of the name recognition. I'm still expecting Jindal to run. He's got the name recognition, but most people don't know about the bad shit. Scott Walker has too much baggage, as does Christie. I honestly think most people are legitimately fed up with the Bush family, so I don't see Jeb as a viable option, even for the GOP. The only one I can see as someone who could confidently go against Hillary would be Jindal. Ayzmo^Cheers 23:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe both Rice and Powell have made it pretty clear that they're not interested in the presidency anyway. I used to think that Jeb might be GOP's best shot, but then I saw his poll numbers. I fully expect them to nominate Santorum because that's how they roll. Vulpius (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would they nominate the frothy residue from anal sex? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope not just so we don't hear that any more. --Miekal 00:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not usually my style of humour,^{Please, no pun} but if he were somehow able to get elected... I would probably end up calling him "President Lubeshit." Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bobby "Evil Gaze" Jindal? I doubt it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If the hardcore-single issue feminist vote, who would vote for a woman because she's a woman constitute 6% in a general election, I'd be amazed. It's probably 3-4% at most, which still could be wishful thinking. Even that number would have to be offset by conservative feminists, who in all likelihood are undercounted, and wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 02:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's biggest advantage and problem is being Hillary Clinton: She does have huge pull, but she also has a big "dislike factor" (people who won't vote for her no matter what). While definitely not a shoe in for POTUS, her chances look pretty decent. The GOP problem seems to be finding someone who can actually do something beyond preaching to the Republican choir on election day. Jeb Bush with his possibility (far from certain) of pulling in more of the Latino vote is probably the best bet after Chris Christie blew up his avuncular boisterous bruiser image with Bridgegate and other assorted sleasery.

I wouldn't be too fixated on poll numbers for anyone but Hillary Clinton because she's not only such a fixture of U.S. politics that most voters probably have an opinion on her, but she's also effectively the only candidate that they are likely to have actually pictured in the White House beyond a hazy "What if?"-scenario. Jeb Bush has hardly revved up the heavy artillery, nor have the Very Serious People-brigade begun to chip in (and I'm pretty sure they won't be cheering on "President Lubeshit"). Sure, Jeb Bush has a harder time facing the populists and religious wingnut segments, but I still very much doubt that the Lubeshitter will be the last man standing. He may simply be the guy who has his "flavour of the week"-moment first (I direct your attention to that phenomenon during the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination).

Probably the best anti-Hillary campaign option(already vigorously pursued) of the GOP is to run with the "Washington apparat-chick" story (as if their own bunch were any more of a breath of fresh air) which is why Hillary is already doing her "connecting with the common people"-shtick. In the end, bar Jeb Bush managing to convince hosts of Latino voters or another candidate similarly breaking out of the base demographics, the GOP's best bet seems to be to hope for a combination of apathy (a low turnout) and that their base's well-known Clintonophobia mobilise more of them on election day than the Clinton machine can convince to even go to vote.

An alternative would be to run with Rand Paul. The guy is a wacko, but he has perfected the "plucky populist standing up the Washington establishment"-routine. This would likely be very effective because it again plays to the weakness (but also strength) of Hillary: Her experience and insider status. Never mind that Paul Jr. has inherited his spiel from his daddy and that he's hardly an Andrew Jackson brought to Washington on a tide of backwoodsmen, but pretty much every bit the Washingtonian Hillary is taking flak for being. He can play the role convincingly enough to stand a long odds chance of maybe riding his pseudo-populism all the way (back) to Washington. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Aww, I liked Chris Christie. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 12:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the Republicans' best chance is if another Democrat comes forth who actually has some heat and enthusiasm behind them. Hillary is just kind of "inevitable" at this point, so someone with real enthusiasm could potentially split the vote. Jeb Bush's family connections work against him this time, Romney is old news, the state of Jindal's state would kill him with anyone too smart to live there (says a guy living in Florida...), Christie's too corrupt and he buddied up to Dems for awhile there, Rand Paul's going to drop out when he's tricked people out of enough fundraising money, and Ted Cruz is Canadian. Maybe Rubio is their best shot right now but Republicans have a deep bench full of very shallow people. User:PsychoGecko 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's another scenario: Hillary, the inevitable, gets womped by a dark horse, let's call em Candidate X, in the primaries. The Democrats are thrown into a tailspin. After the Convention, the public finally gets to know Candidate X and what he/she stands for, but there is little time to debate and discuss anything beyond the likeability factor (isn't this the way American elections generally have proceeded anyway, with few exceptions, since at least Carter?, with the old-time household names like Ford, Mondale, Papa Bush, Dole, Gore, Kerry, and McCain getting their ass handed to them, often by a new up comer? nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 03:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

270

Barring some epic unforeseeable disaster (..." gettin' caught with a live boy or a dead girl," as one wag put it) on the part of the Democratic candidate, is there any combination of winnable states that gets the GOP to the magic number, regardless of who they run? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Florida (29), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), and Wisconsin (10) are all in play (added to the 206 base in the 2012 election). Colorado (9) and a few others, too. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 04:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And bear in mind that "hypothetical republican candidate" doesn't tend to poll as well among the base as whomever actually wins their primary. Traditionally speaking republicans "fall in line" as the election approaches. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's always possible for any candidate to win. However, in the last 2 the GOP basically shot themselves in the foot and didn't realize things like recording devices exist. Seeing Romney vs. Romney was pretty Epic though on all his flip flops. It might be nice to have someone help run a professional campaign. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, 2012, every single republican candidate made at least one terrible mistake that completely sank their chances. Every single one. That's not a guarantee that it will happen again. To be honest, there's no reason to believe it will happen again at all. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are both excellent bullshitters who are unlikely to "forget the third one" or accidentally state their opinion on half of Americans in public. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunno about Cruz, but at least our article on Paul doesn't make the possibility of a campaign-halting gaffe sound unlikely. Vulpius (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not sure if we watch the same things, but both Rand and Ted have already made some pretty delusional statements. Ted made enough even Fox is calling him an idiot for some of them. It looks like it will be a 2012 all over again, with the parade of idiots, so far. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

All the crazy things he says are one thing, along with the fact that even Republicans consider him an idiotic attention whore. But I think one of the things that will ultimately have to be addressed is the fact that he was born in Canada. All rationalizing from people who didn't bother to speak up any time before this aside, not being born on U.S. soil is likely to hurt him with a lot of regular folks. They've spent years making a "born in Kenya, can't be president" bed. Time to lie in it. User:PsychoGecko 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cruz' skin is not dark enough to warrant Birtherism. You don't really think, that this whole Birtherism was really about Obama's birth certificate now, do you?--Arisboch (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing about having an ignorant base is that it can work against them, too. The Southern Strategy was about fighting civil rights and integration with talk of government not telling businesses what to do and staying out of people's lives. You may recognize this as the modern Republican platform even for the ones who don't know it was all about racism. It won't stop all of them. Heck, I know a black woman in her twenties who is a birther and a Cruz supporter. But I think it'll work against more of their own base than they realize.User:PsychoGecko 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It didn't really seem to hurt the popularity with the base to have Palin proclaiming Obama not experienced enough to be president...why would stupid hypocrisy affect birthers? I can't wait for the new quotes that will be generated by the GOP picks. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yah but the question above is about what combination of states total 270. I listed off at least 108 in play to add to 206. I'd like to add Virginia (13), Iowa (6), and Nevada (6). That's about 142 in play. Ohio, again as usual, is key. So is PA, MI, and WI, which means labor, jobs, and the Democrats handling of the economy is the issue. WI, MI, and OH all currently have Republican governors. So do the supposed Blue states of Illinois (20 electors), Iowa, Nevada, and a few others. It is appealing to what matters to the voters in these states that elected a GOP majority US Senate, Republican Governors and State Chambers that matters, not generic national issues (like identity politics, for example). And one big issue is a desire for more local control, less one-size-fits-all Washington intrusion. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 02:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvageable stuff in Portuguese

• Geocentrismo: Ranting axe grinding stuff against Olavo de Carvalho. Not salvageable.
• Criacionismo: Ranting axe grinding stuff against Olavo de Carvalho. Not salvageable.
• Ensino doméstico: Largely a boring outline of Brazilian laws without digging deep into the subject. Not salvageable.
• Homeopatia: Has some serious axe-grinding about Brazilian politics, but it's otherwise somewhat decent. Salvageable.
• Associação Racionalista de Céticos e Ateus (português): A stub about an EDIT:irrelevant atheist group. Salvageable if atheist groups are on-mission. Not salvageable.
• Parapsicologia: Useless stub without any actual substance. Not salvageable.

Others I didn't mention where absolutely worthless and some did have Jew-baiting. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 18:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheist groups are on mission to a degree, but how relevant of a group are they that they should have their own article?--Miekal 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty small and irrelevant. I've nuked it. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{That rug really tied the room together.} 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Samuel Hahnemann (português)
• Desescolarização
• Cientologia
• Seita
• Meninos de Deus

Eram mais de 35 verbetes em português! Eu era Sysop do RationalWiki. Por favor, analisem os cinco exemplos citados. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is a sysop on Rationalwiki. Even some Jews. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Eu fui Sysop. Não sou mais. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant observation. I guess the Mossad happened. PacWalker 04:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Perguntem para a ADL (http://www.adl.org) o que aconteceu. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not a sysop anymore because 1. your articles were problematic for a number of reasons (notably: Jew-baiting and axe-grinding) 2. You launched an anti-semitic attack on one of our editors. You're done here. goodbye. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

1) A sede do RationalWiki é nos Estados Unidos. Existem duas versões, uma em inglês e outra em russo. E o terceiro idioma mais usado no RationalWiki é o francês. É natural o RationalWiki apresentar um ponto de vista (um viés ideológico) estadunidense e Israel é aliado dos Estados Unidos, assim como a Grã-Bretanha, a Arábia Saudita e outros países, inclusive o Brasil. 2) Eu não ofendi nenhum usuário do RationalWiki com termos antissemitas. O usuário supostamente ofendido é identificado na página de usuário como judeu, bissexual e portador de transtorno bipolar. E existe uma bandeira de Israel na página. Se eu tivesse a intenção de ofender eu poderia ter usado termos discriminatórios contra homossexuais e portadores de doenças psiquiátricas. Eu não fiz isso porque não foi intencional. 3) Se o usuário é judeu e sionista, isso é um fato e não uma ofensa. 4) Eu disse que os verbetes foram apagados por motivos políticos. Acusar injustamente um usuário brasileiro do RationalWiki de antissemitismo é persecutório, mas penso que os leitores do debate entenderão o que realmente aconteceu. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"but I think readers understand the debate what really happened" That I have to get a broken translation from Google to understand a word you said really makes me doubt they'll ever see this in your favor. You accused a jewish user of being a zionist and deleting articles for political reasons - Why would we trust the word of you over an established user? --Miekal 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Não sou antissemita. Eu vou fundar meu próprio Wiki. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You go do that. Make sure to rant about how we're zionist anarchist dictatorship supporters or whatever it is you accused us of. --Miekal 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you understand? He didn't use homophobic terms, therefore he's not an antisemite!!1 |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Never got enough hugs as a kid} 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Observação: Olavo de Carvalho (em inglês) e Olavo de Carvalho (português). LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Meu verbete sobre Ahmed Rami (português) não é antissemita. Eu contei a história do refugiado político na Suécia com imparcialidade e sem calúnias. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation:

1. RationalWiki's HQ is in the USA. There are two versions, one in English and one in Russian. The third most used in RW language is French. It's natural of RW to present an American point of view, and Israel is an ally of the USA, as well as the UK, Saudi Arabia and other countries, even Brazil. 2. I did not offend any user of RW with antisemitic terms. The supposedly offended user identifies himself in his userpage as a Jew, a bisexual and a Zionist, as well as having bipolar disorder. (TL Note: wut) And there is a flag of Israel in the page. If I had the intention to offend I could've used discriminatory terms against homosexuals and mental illness patients. I can't see how I could've intentionally done it. 3. That user is a Jew and a Zionist, (TL note: WUT) that's a fact and not an offense. 4. He says the entries were shut down for political reasons. Injustly accusing a Brazilian user of RW of antisemitism is persecution, and I think that readers of this debate will understand what really happened.

Stay classy, LTR. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back?} 17:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What really happened< LTR, was all your articles were crap. They were nominated for deletion because they were all crap. You started talking like an anti-semite. You invited others to heap abuse on you by doing that. Now sod off! Spud (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And now he topped himself by implicitly accusing us of being shills for the Israeli government and implicitly saying that he's an even bigger piece of shit beyond his antisemitism. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{H҉̴̶͘͝a̛͜͠͏͏t̷̛͢e̷̴͘҉.͟͠ ̶͜L̨͢͝ę͘͢t͘҉̢ ̵҉͢͝͝m̵̧̛͜é̢̛͝ ͏͝͏̢͟t͏̕͞e̶̛͘͘͞l̶̛͜͠͝l̵̕͠͞͝ ͏͏y̕ǫ̸̶́͠u͜͞҉́ ̴h̴̀̕͠͠o͠҉́ẃ̶̶͘͢ ̨̢m̴̢͢u̷͠ć̕͏h̵̶̴̕͘ ҉͘I̴̢̧'̶̴v̨́͏e̶̸͟ ́͟͏̧c̵̸̨͘o̸̕m̴͜͡e̢̧̡͟ ̵̧́t̢͟ò̷ ͜h͏̷á̵͘͏͝t̷͢e̢̛̕ ̸̢̛ý̢̧͜͝ó̢́̕u̵̸͞ ̡̨͜͜͝ş̶́͝͡i̵̡n̴̵̛̛͠c̴̸͘é҉̸̛͡ ̴̀I̸҉̢̢͠ ͏͞b̵̶̧̀͠e̸̢͟͠g̢̧̀á̸͞n̴̵̡͟͏ ͘͏̕͝t҉̡̛͞ò̴ ̵̀ĺ́̕į̸̕̕v̸̨̨ȩ́͢҉̶.̛͢͝ ̵̧̢} 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

O Sionismo é um movimento político (partidário) de extrema-direita e de ocupação israelense. Um fato pouco divulgado na mídia. A Palestina é muito mais antiga que Israel. Existem muitos sionistas nos Estados Unidos, em Israel, brasileiros (Adolpho Bloch, dono da TV Manchete, por exemplo, um imigrante judeu e sionista). Foi isso que eu quis dizer. Quanto aos banqueiros, outro fato público e notório, facilmente constatável. O Banco Safra é o melhor exemplo, de uma rica família de judeus que imigraram da Síria para o Brasil. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, stop doubling down on Zionism crap. Nobody here is going to take that bullshit seriously. You're just digging yourself even deeper in the eyes of RW users and ultimately just exposing yourself as a piece of crap. Your rant there did not help at all. Dude, just... stop. DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER.} 18:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Meu verbete sobre Judith Reisman (português) não é antissemita. Ela é uma caluniadora que faz acusações sem provas contra Alfred Kinsey (português) por puro macartismo (perseguição contra homossexuais). LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation: Zionism is a far-right political movement of the Israeli occupation. It's a fact not widely reported on media. Palestine is much older than Israel. There are a lot of Zionists in the United States, in Israel, Brazilians (Adolpho Bloch, the owner of TV Manchete, for instance, is a Jewish and Zionist immigrant). That's all I wanted to say. About bankers, another notorious fact, easily observable. The Safra Bank (Brazilian bank) is the best example, owned by a wealthy family of Jews who immigrated from Syria to Brazil. --179.208.208.165 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"Far-right?" Complete horseshit! There are Zionists on the left fringe all the way to the right one. Zionism is a rather diverse political movement.--Arisboch (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh, "far-right" is often used as a label for supremacist or prominently nationalistic movements/parties. It doesn't necessarily mean they can't also have left leanings. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian, so I can understand why he said it's far-right. Some Brazilian left-wingers and left-wing parties (like PC do B) often say that Zionism is far-right. Obviously it's nonsense, but they think that the end of Zionism would bring peace and that every Zionist supports the occupation of Palestinian territories. --179.208.208.165 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So, this brings up an interesting and missional question

Exactly how common is this hyperbolic anti-Zionism thing in Brazil? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Brazil is not generally an anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist country. We have a big Jewish community and also a big Arab community. As I said before, there's a misconception that relates Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the political spectrum. Usually, if you say you are a supporter of the Palestinians you are associated to left-wing, and if you say you support Israel, you are associated to the right-wing. Although Israel was governed by the left-wing for almost 30 years, the Kibbutz, etc, that's how many people think. I also notice a polarization: people think they have to pick a side on the conflict. They think that if you support Palestinian independence you have to be against Israel and Zionism and if you support Israel you have to be against Palestinians, while a real solution to the conflict would only be possible with two states. As I also said, I think left-wing parties in Brazil, like the Communist Party of Brazil (PC do B) and "Socialism and Freedom Party" (PSOL) oppose Zionism so much because Israel is an ally of the USA. There's a kind of "anti-imperialist" rhetoric in their ideologies, much similar to Hugo Chávez. For instance, PSOL burned a flag of Israel before the elections for the municipal assembly of Rio de Janeiro. --179.208.208.165 (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it has area arcosh(x), I believe... PacWalker 00:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

*a sector with area arcosh(x)... whatever. I can see what I mean; that's what counts, right? PacWalker 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A Brazilian who speaks good English and appears to have a mayure and reasonable understanding of politics. Would you like to create an account and translate some articles into Portuguese? Spud (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)