RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive244

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 25 October 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <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>
, (new)(back)

The solution to racial strife[edit]

It's this simple.

Wouldn't it be much better for the black looters and criminals in Baltimore right now to just leave for Africa if they think Americans are soooo racist? Or immigrants to Europe?Deofex (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The "black looters" ARE American, you dumbass.--Arisboch (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be much better for the Native American population and other racial minorities that somehow ended up in America if all those white people of European descent just went back where they came from and stopped oppressing all these poor people? (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't reply to Deofex. They're allowed to post dumb shit on community talk pages(rules) but don't encourage them. They're not here to contribute interesting discussions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"They're" Is the Deofex account used my multiple peole?--Arisboch (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
They can also be singularWikipedia, or of indeterminate plurality. (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I haddaway to address this, but I think I'll stick to the sort of reasoned discourse Deofex deserves. I think the more important question to ask here, Deofex, is what is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more. I don't know why you're not there, I give you my love but you don't care. So what is right and what is wrong? Gimme a sign. What is love? User:PsychoGecko 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I just thought I'd point out that if they really believe in this "ethnic groups have a geographical location they inherently belong to and they should stay there or be returned to that location" BS, they're totally rooting for the wrong guys here. (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually came across a relevant video to recent events the other day when I found out actor Robert Z'Dar died at the end of March. The scariest part of this horror movie...is how relevant it is. The trailer for a horror movie called Maniac Cop, starring Bruce Campbell and Robert Z'Dar. User:PsychoGecko 18:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
And they're don't sincerely believe it. They're a troll, an idea characterized by a will to aggravate others for their own amusement. It's a shallow and sad thing to do, and it correlates with personality traits that basically ensure life-long failure. Let them fail here too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't access Tumblr at the moment. What is the link to? Something about "What is love (baby don't hurt me don't hurt me no more)"?CorruptUser (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a tumblr post that says "If you hate a nation that is not even your own, yet you continue to live within its borders and take advantage of its culture, then I don’t even know how to help you. You deserve to be thrown out." It's about Europeans getting all worked up about Muslims immigrating to their countries and not completely assimilating into their culture and Deofex quoting this to justify throwing black Americans out of the country illustrates just how bullshitty that sentiment is. (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
They are trying so hard, and failing so badly, it's a bigoted little mentally disabled bunny trying to start a fight. No matter what it does you cannot look at it as threatening. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sick of all the humans here. If they don't like the ecosystem the way they found it why don't they fuck off back to Africa? Fonzie (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You're totally right! Bow down to your Martian overlords, puny Earthlings!!!--Arisboch (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The situation is so bad in Baltimore that blacks ignore black on black killings and go after one alleged police murder.Deofex (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
the perpetrors of black on black killings are likely to face significant jail time if caught. Everyone realises a crime has been comitted, and people are actually trying to do something about. Police killings, by people meant to protect us, even if caught on camera, only to seem to warrant a slap on the wrist, if that. Do you see the difference? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
(yes, yes he does) PacWalker 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Anybody feel like paroling this guy?[edit]

ZombieCheney seems to be asking to be let out of the bin. I've got no patience for that kind of bumf. Anybody want to release this kraken? Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you binned him in the first place, it would be useful if you explained why rather than expecting anyone to do the legwork/guesswork. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay. They say they're not a vandal. Good enough for me for a first parole. And... they made a few weird external links to/text dumps from wikipedia. Pretty harmless, though not helpful. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"Not a Vandal, just a very powerful rational thinker..." um ok. I expect him to be back in in under a day though - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That or supplying material for the pseudomaths page within the day. PacWalker 21:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I binned him for inserting incense/gibbering into pages, just as printed on tin. See his contributions for 24 April, including half a dozen inane edits averaging about ten minutes apart. I was disinclined to parole him because his user page screed was initially titled to resemble my user name. Hanlon's razor may apply, but I don't consider myself obliged to indulge either tine of that fork. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure they deserved a binning, the edits about the Mandelbrot Set were of questionable necessity, but I would have mentioned it on their talk page instead of binning them. From a brief overview of his edits his statements about the Mandelbrot Set were mostly accurate. As for his user page I think it might mostly be a joke, I'm not sure how they intended to format it, (the latex was slightly off), but with some slight restructuring it could be used to produce an equation that is true but somewhat pointless. i.e. e^{(i\pi)+\phi}=-\phi => \phi e^{i\pi}=-\phi => e^{i\pi}=-1.Samstr (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The binning may have been over-hasty, even in a context of rapidly appearing low-value edits. That is why I brought eyes in the Saloon to bear. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, on the occasion of his binning, I did mention it on his talk page, and was met with a fluffy bunny of further inanity. It's moot now anyway, but this guy wants watching. Anybody who wants to engage him in thoughtful conversation, feel free. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

RW anthem?[edit]

Yes? Sound good? LTR? PacWalker 03:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oy vey, schmuck. The Hatikvah is ®, © and ™ the International Council of Zion. We ain't a bunch of menschen, ya better fork over the shekels for the rights to use it or else I'm calling y'all be facin' the suits at Sadelstein, Schwartz & Goodman, Inc. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg

Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 04:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Isn't our anthem You Gotta Belieeeeve? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 04:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was Land of Make Believe? PacWalker 05:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait, it isn't Send In the Clowns?--Madman (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Madman
I see what you did there. PacWalker 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I nominate Not Now John by Pink Floyd as our rightful anthem'Legionwhat do you want from me 03:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Something that slipped my mind[edit]

Back years and years ago, back to the point where I was in high-school, someone plagiarized Metapedia for a presentation. The teacher had to stop their presentation and point out the racial slurs and bias. It didn't stop them from making stupid, slur-filled presentations in the future. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 04:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

These things always seem to unslip your mind with perfect timing... which is good. PacWalker 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Perfect timing? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 05:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Presume PW means the Portuguese kerfuffle above (?). Scream!! (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
So, it was Tuesday. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 12:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Metapedia is hte worst wki you could plagiarise from, that kid must have gotten in massive trouble. MEtapedia, who thought plagiarising that was a good idea. Bubba41102 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Naw, in the American South, there's plenty of teachers who just shrug at hella racist stuff. Doing shit to intimidate students of color unthinkingly goes unspoken on more often than not. (Source: going to public school in the US South) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
^ sad but true. PacWalker 22:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I lived in maryland, which is more of a north state nowadays than a southern state, so that jsut shows how different different parts of one country can be. SOCIETY YAY!!!!! Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 12:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
MORE of a northern state? Where I live, NC is considered northern (but not Tennessee). PacWalker 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of intimidation, I actually had a college professor threaten me with a clenched fist after I pointed out the issues with a chain letter he was vaguely recalling yet still trying to shoehorn into a lecture. Some of my classmates were insanely hostile and scream-tacular ("THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION!!!") toward me during that bit. It was a mathematics class. He couldn't even do third-grade level math right. The Secular Student Alliance gave me support and I reported the teacher, but I don't know what happened after that. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


I was just wondering if there is some place to put basic info about pseudoscience sites for the other users to look at, and see if it was worth making an article about. Thanks in advance, http://imgur.com/9tEaW12 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Userspace--Miekal 06:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "basic info"? Links? RationalWiki:Webshites is a link list, though by now it seems to have outgrown its usefulness.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Calling it a "link list" confused the hell out of my programmer brain. I spent several seconds wondering how exactly you'd make a linked list on a wiki. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
its a list of links. Dont overthink things, you just get a headache. Hamster (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it's a data structure. Samstr (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Should i be worried[edit]

At my work, there is a thing going around where you look at something and find illuminati symbolism as a joke. I ahve gotten so good at it i am finding illuminati "related" (used very lightly) symbols everywhere, should i be worried about my mental health, i dont belive in the stuff, but i have gotten really good at finding it. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 17:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When "illuminati symbols" include such things as triangles and circles, they might not be hard to find. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Silly games like that can strengthen the divide between reality and fiction. I think. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 17:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's mentioned it yet? There's a name for this. It's called the Frequency illusion (better known as the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon), and like a lot of other cognitive biases, it's largely due to our brains' prejudice towards recognizing patterns. Nothing to worry about at all. There is no Illuminati. You aren't being watched by a grand conspiracy that expands past the Earth far into the cosmos. (P.S. You'll ruin your back sitting like that) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
what if that is just what the ILLUMINATI WANTS US TO THINK, everyone put on your tinfoil hats!!!!!! ;) Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 19:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Aren't we Illuminati shills, though? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 21:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking in my official capacity as High Prothonotary and Bagman for the Illuminati, let me assure you that the hidden symbols we use to manipulate you are not that easy to find or identify. Give us some credit for professionalism, at least. If you do correctly identify one of our symbols, please bury $10,000 in unmarked bills under a bench in your nearest public park and await our response by courier ocelot. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
the grand wizards of the Illuminati will chant in front of your home and wipe your memories of them. fear not, the Great Fairy Belinda is watching over you. Hamster (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ooh i like ocelots, they are cool, the illuminati is cooler than i (scarcastic) thought. bubba41102 is not responsible for anyone thinking he belives in the illuminati, or anyone beliving in the illuminati because of this discussion, please direct any legal action to Andy Schafley of conservapedia. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 12:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Last month I read the book The King in Yellow, a Cthulhu-ish series of tales from the late 19th century about the eponymous play that drives people mad who see it or perform in it. There's ubiquitous mentions of strange pale yellow things being seen with increasing frequency, as well as a trefoil type symbol called the 'Yellow Sign'. Afterwards I read a collection of stories by assorted horror authors with the same concept but different angles i.e. one of them features an MMO which gradually takes over users' minds until madness ensues. What happens next is I start to notice pale yellow everywhere, and all of a sudden I'm spending a week being deeply creeped out and wondering if this is how madness begins (Is Sinestro behind this? HOW DEEP DOES THIS THING GO? etc.). It clearly wasn't, however, as I managed to shake myself into acknowledging that I wasn't seeing yellow more, but just noticing it and creating patterns in my own imagination. Five minutes later yellow has no power over me, like my whole flop-sweat week never happened. You're finding patterns you want to find, but that doesn't actually mean anything. Semipenultimate (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For an example you can work through at home, for the next week or so you will encounter references to KANGAROOS at far greater frequency that you would consider normal. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone seen Thug Notes?[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh8akuq-MDI I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one level, I'm happy about spreading academic understanding in a form that most people can understand (and doing away with the stereotype of the uneducated black), but on another the depiction of the narrator is a tad racist. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 18:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I watch it regularly. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 18:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


apparently everyone is supposed to become a sysop within a few days of acocunt creation, i have been on here for almost a week, i have not been sysoped, im just wondering if i am not supposed to be sysopped or if nobody bothered to. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 19:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It'll happen sooner or later if you stick around, but almost a week isn't really long enough. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
just making sure because the Rationalwiki:Sysops syas it sohuld happen within a few days, was just making sure Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
From what I can tell, we no longer live in the times when everyone gets sysop super quick. I did auto-patrol you a while back, though, which I think is the new way of handling it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Well then somone needs to update that page Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 19:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer is that someone sees you do something particularly non-stupid, hits contributions and goes "ah, yeah, that'll do". The larger this community gets, the less well that will function. "A few" is purposefully vague. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That RationalWiki:Sysops page isn't very well maintained and should probably be redirected to RationalWiki:Sysop guide. I see that currently contains the same statement about being made a sysop within days or hours. Probably a good idea to amend that. It's creating too much of an expectation (as in this thread) and there is also scope for attracting troublemakers if we're too open about how easy it is to get sysop rights. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I amended the phrasing by removing the "-or even hours-" bit. I hope that's okay. (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Twas all for naught; copied over my changes from the Sysop page. SorryCorruptUser (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It used to be that complaining about not being a sysop pushed you back a few months. But yeah, it's been awhile since it only took a few hours to be demoted. Tielec01 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you a non-twit and would like ops?[edit]

Sign below:

The userpage-wiping BON vandal[edit]

Since this concerns general policy/community standards, this section has been moved to the CS talk page. The ideas sound pretty good to me, though. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nooooes, now it will inevitably be ignored by everyone. :( (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
ONOZ!!! Please, please, pretty please with a cherry on the top don't ignore this. Click on the link above and help keep the CS-talk alive! ScepticWombat (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
At this point I would like to thank ScepticWombat for proving to me that I'm an idiot. Fonzie (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


Who else thinks that we need a fun version of Clickbait to bait people with in wiki?Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That'd be fun!--Arisboch (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if my recent edits to Clickbait are funny or just wandalism... CorruptUser (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I found them funny.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Im not saying it isnt funny, but i mean one dedicated ot funny, just to clickbait people with, there is an article on it then there is the actaul one we click bait with in wiki Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 15:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Created. Don't know what to do with it. For now I'm just clickbaiting people to Ben Stein, because I believe he's the most boring person we have an article on. CorruptUser (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It needs to select a random headline when transcluded/substituted. Maybe a few randomizations of the links, and even a waaaay random link. Also, needs more jerboa. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 16:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Needs more goat too Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 17:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You can easily randomise this stuff:

  • 47 deflowering gasolines you won't believe really exist
  • 17 sexy tits who turned out to be furry
  • 7 child stars who crazily sinked salad forks
  • 97 reasons to quantify a freezing spork with a indecent street sign

Etcetera. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding that in. Thanks! CorruptUser (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Some of that stuff was so horrible I won't even mention it here. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 23:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Recently improved with random images: more fun! Bongolian (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Laird, Rome Viharo, etc.[edit]

Users are making legal threats/accusing RW and the RMF of "libel", or at least coming right up to the line. I've blocked one, and suggest that further similar activity should have the same result. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I smacked the other (and his apparently static bunchesanumbers) with 3.6 days for doing the same in other venues. PacWalker 18:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Need help finding an Aronra video.[edit]

I remember Aron making a video demonstrating how the definition of "kinds", as used by creationists, changes radically depending on what manner of life form your talking about. I can't find it. Can anyone help me find it again? Master Necromancer(fear me!) 01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a Foundation Falsehood video to me. I'll see what I can turn up. --Maxus (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Think I found something like it. Try 11th FF video. --Maxus (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


There are so many vandals right now its not even funny Bubba41102 CUMON STEP IT UP 02:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it's the same guy doing all that BoN stuff. PacWalker 02:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hes using alot of proxies. Bubba41102 CUMON STEP IT UP 02:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The proxy blocker is on ... Suggest checking the IPs against Wikipedia: if they're vandalising through an IP already blocked there, we know where they're finding their proxies and you should feel free to block the sewer in question for a while - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm torn on the proxy blocker. I get that it keeps the wiki an easier place to manage and gets rid of a lot of stuff that is annoying nonsense at best and possibly painfully abusive at worst. I also like to think that in the interest of the freest exchange of ideas and the subversion of undemocratic attempts to limit people's access to the web, we should freely allow the use of TOR and other proxy services, if only as a sign of solidarity with the cause of internet freedom--or just to piss off school librarians who don't want their computers to come here. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Principle versus all empirical evidence, you mean. We actually have people coming to this wiki for the purpose of targeted harassment of our editors; I think not going out of our way to enable that is a rather more important and verifiably useful principle than opening the wiki up for a flood from a firehose of sewage for the sake of a principle that really obviously won't work out the way one might dream it will - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say targeted, nor would I call it concerningly effective. PacWalker 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You sure it's on? (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I am indeed blocked globally at TOW as an open proxy. (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is getting vandalized? (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Primarily user and user talk pages. PacWalker 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Have to agree with PacWalker that the latest spate of wandalism is far more of a spray 'n pray drive by than a clean headshot assassination. There seems to be little or no pattern to which talk or user pages are targeted and one of the wandal edits even targeted LogicMaster. It seems that we have one or more extremely bored (and boring) troll wandals on our hands. Well, at least the actual damage is minimal (practically non-existent) and very easily and quickly fixed (just keep hitting them rollback buttons y'all). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A person i saw awhile ago[edit]

Basically awhile ago i saw a news report on a teenager who didn't want treatment for her easily treatable lymphoma, which she could easily survive from if she got treatment, would rather die than get chemo therapy because of the "toxins", so she would rather DIE than ave a few weeks of chemo therapy for her easily treatable cancer. The state said she wasn't old enough to make that decision (she was 17) so she sued the state and i believe the court agreed with the state. the weirdest thing though is the girl's MOM agreed with the girl, apparently parents like to let their kids die nowadays. Now i do respect the kids rights here, but i think her reasons are bullshit and she should get treatment unless it would threaten her life and the parents should be pushing her to get chemo, but even then it is lymphoma, you can easily remove one lymph node i believe (please correct me here). Bubba41102 (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience kills.--Arisboch (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Pick your battles. If there's informed consent and the person is still a fool, why waste your time? CorruptUser (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Because human life has value, and educating to save a life is one of the cheapest ways to do it. i.e. practically the whole motivation for the mission of rationalwiki. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Informed consent implies you did offer them education. If you brought the horse to water and it's still dying of thirst, let it die. CorruptUser (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Also because, sometimes, they go back to modern medicine. Remember the First Nations girls who hit the press in Canada because she wanted to take traditional Six Nations/Iroquois medicine rather than chemotherapy, and won? Although one of them had passed away due to the cancer, the other decided to return to chemo when her leukemia returned. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Source?Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 19:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Source included here. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that raises a more interesting question. Imagine if your taxes went up because this person refused relatively cheap treatment but then a year later when the situation got worse ended up in far more expensive care on public funds. At what point is the public right to simply turn their backs and let the person die? CorruptUser (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If they knew about it as an adult, and did nothing, my personal ideal would be to hit them with a shovel a few times so I'd at least get my moneys worth. Otherwise I would bill the parents the difference in cost of the treatments and court time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) My perennial problem is that "your taxes went up" is inconsistent with "nobody's business but your own", and from where I stand the latter pretty much always trumps the former. There's an element of class always involved too. Nobody seems to resent the large public expenditures we make for young Kennedies and pro golfers who can't fly their private planes, get lost on their yachts, or get stuck in avalanches climbing Mt. Everest. What we get instead are motorcycle helmet laws. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Source? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It IS my damn business if I have to pay more in taxes. As for rich idiots getting lost on yachts and crashing planes, honestly, I would support some sort of tax levied on all private planes to fund S&R. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, if you decide to go mountain climbing in nothing but your slippers and bathrobe, no one will complain if the rescue team leads you further up the mountain. CorruptUser (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about your question, CU, made me realise that you are asking if it's okay to sentence someone to death(or suffering), for being ignorant/stupid in a way that hurts nobody but themselves, just for wasting state money. So my answer is definitely no. Also, I think that practically, reaching the decision via the legal system will cost much more than it's worth. Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 19:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Money that could be spent on people who want the treatment, will be compliant in their care, and are waiting to enroll or have their procedure funded. The money and time spent fighting non-compliant people to do what they need to do anyways does cause others suffering, pain, and sometimes death. It doesn't just hurt them when they waste time and money pissing about. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The "not with my taxes" argument can be levelled at medical costs for people with obesity or substance addictions or disabilities resulting from accidents that may have been their fault or any number of other things. Or, if you really want to go there, the elderly. Think about it: can you really say that treating a child with her whole life ahead of her for a curable condition (even if her family previously refused treatment & then changed their mind) is less of a priority than treating a senior in a deteriorating condition who's probably only got a year or two left in them anyway? But no, the point of public healthcare is that you don't turn patients away for all these petty judgemental reasons. If a person needs treatment, they're entitled to it. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I ain't "going there" for the elderly, because old age is "self inflicted" only if you are taking care of yourself. Obesity is, well, it's self inflicted in most cases but it's not for a suprisingly large number of them, such as people on psychiatric medication or recovering from certain surgeries. The thing about addictions and so forth? Treating addicts is cheaper than NOT treating addicts, so even though I suffer for their foolishness, I'd be an even bigger fool to refuse treatment. But when a person refuses cancer an easy treatment for cancer then turns around a year later and needs a more expensive one instead? That I have a problem with. CorruptUser (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So your position is basically "If you screw up your first chance at choosing the right treatment, sorry pal, you brought this upon yourself"? When costly cancer treatments are involved, at least. (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Almost. It's more like "any extra costs incurred as a result of non-compliance with doctor's orders should be paid for out of your own pocket". If we had a money tree where we could just grow infinite money, yeah go ahead and pay for it. But this is not the land of sunshine and blowjobs. The money we do have would be better spent on welfare and education. CorruptUser (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically you can have as much money as you like, though that has the unfortunate side effect of making that money worthless. (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
All of which is kind of why it's a speculative opinion of what some people would like to do and not a platform to champion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, just pointing out that producing unlimited amounts of extra money (be it through magical trees or other means) wouldn't actually solve anything. (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, I was thinking of the desire to slap the crap out of those who fuss, scream, and spit in the face of people for medical care that would be the envy of most of the rest of the world...provided for free at a cost to taxpayers that could provide medical care for entire towns in poor areas. It's not like it's going to be law. Going off about unlimited money trees is a silly argument from absurdity. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A public health system that offers treatment based on what patients "deserve" rather than than what they need is pretty awful idea. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the several misfeatures of living in the contemporary USA, few are more tiresome than the idea that people who suffer from the degenerative diseases of old age brought it on their own heads because they failed to live right or follow some sort of regimen. And most "heart disease", "cancer", "kidney failure", "diabetes", and so forth are just different ways to say "old age". - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that every person over 65 is already covered for healthcare in the US, right? The problem I have is with the people like this particular case; they have cancer, we have an affordable treatment available for them, but they turn around and go try "natural" medicines instead, the cancer progresses, and THEN they come back for real medicine but the treatment now is much more expensive. Please don't strawman and claim I'm advocating for everyone to be denied care. CorruptUser (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
But you are advocating for somebody to be denied treatment that they need for a potentially lethal condition. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, any intermingling of a healthcare system and a penal system sounds like a horrible idea, even if it's just limited to one particular kind of situation. (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not denying, just not paying. E.g., cheap treament costs $2000, they don't comply with doctor's orders, as result 6 months later they need treatment for $5000; send them bill for $3000. CorruptUser (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
So a fine for making a bad medical decision and if they can't pay up, tough luck? (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
When talking about treatments covered by public funds, which was your original question CorruptUser, the difference between "denying" and "not paying" is semantic. You're still advocating turning someone away from something they should be entitled to based on an assessment of their behaviour rather than an assessment of their medical needs. That's a shitty way to run public healthcare and really not in the spirit of offering public healthcare at all. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So how do you propose we deal with people that refuse to vaccinate or refuse cheap treatment? I'd be happy with forcing them to pay an "opt out fee", e.g., to refuse vaccinations for non-medical reasons you have to pay up front, but we still treat for measles. Just that you seem to be under the impression that the rest of us just need to suck it up because of others' idiocy. CorruptUser (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If the idea of paying up regardless of people's idiocy is so problematic to you, perhaps you should consider no longer paying any taxes. Trying to save the lives of people who've made bad medical decisions is hardly the most wastful use of government money out there. (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see that desire...at least for an adult that pulls this crap. I have a relative that got a hip replacement and refused to do anything. Sat in the chair in PT refusing to move, didn't take care of it, and refused to do anything till it's now infected and rotten. He now needs another $30,000 surgery to clean it out and already stated he might not do PT again even if they need to go through this again.
I don't see what's wrong in thinking that he should pay for the second himself because he did his best to screw up the opportunity given to him that could have paid for a life altering treatment for others. If that's shitty, so be it. I have been witness to patients waiting for surgery to be approved/funded die as he pisses away what's handed to him on a gilded platter. Something he quite literally ate himself into...which was horrifying to see.
Holy crapsticks are you guys drama llamas. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We already DO deny medical care based on poor decisions; you get kicked off the transplant list if you don't become teetotal. I don't think we should deny emergency care to drunk drivers or set up some government agency to go through every single case, just something like I said for vaccines; get the vaccine or pay a fine up front. I don't know how to do it for idiots that try "alternatives" to Chemo first. CorruptUser (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh noes, he's not paying respect to the hand that feeds him. Let's throw him in the gutter 'cause that's where all the lazy moochers belong. Who's being a drama llama here?
Are there people more deserving of treatment out there? Yes, inevitably. Is it sad when people die because they have to wait for/can't get treatment? Yes, obviously. Does that have any baring on whether we should deny treatment to people for exhibiting behavioral flaws? Nope. (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
O...kay. Where did I ever say lazy moocher being thrown in the gutter? If you are putting words in people's mouths to make it more dramatic I think the evidence is well provided. Very cute attempt though :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, throwing people in the gutter is a popular metaphor for society turning its back on people, which denying medical treatment would be a form of. I didn't mean it as a literal quote, obviously. (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't advocate denying care completely either. That's still putting words in someone else's mouth, but less dramatic ;-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, you were merely dismissing people objecting to eliminating state funding for a subcategory of people suffering from a potentially fatal illness as drama llamas. Not sure if that's a considerably superior approach to me slightly strawmanning your sentiment though. >.> (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I am dismissing people who like to strawman and hyperbole that even thinking people who make their condition worse against all, repeated, medical advice should bear some (maybe all depending) of the additional costs *actually means* thinking they are moochers that deserve to be denied medical care and thrown in the gutter to die based on your clearly overly dramatic imagination. I think dismissing people who make things up is entirely appropriate as I don't think they have a lot of value to add because they are perfectly fine presenting fiction as evidence.
If you make things up, and people aren't willing to trust your word anymore, you have no one to blame but yourself. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

While its easy for intelligent educated people to say 'well you didn't follow the drs orders so fuck you', but guess what, not all of us are educated enough to cut through all the conflicting information particularly when people you know and trust are often pedalling the bullshit. Couple that with people not always trusting their drs, particularly if you are somewhere where every costs and drs push unnecessary treatments on you purely for profit. There's also the fact that if have a terrible disease where the fear of its treatment, chemo or invasive surgery, and the well publicised horror stories of said treatments, people can desperate for a safer easier alternative no matter how unproven (this where things likes rational wiki are truely useful). If, like the hip replacement, treatment has been given but the aftercare regime just not followed, well, these often require major life style changes that cannot just be made over night if they are able to make them at all. I am remember George best: his alcoholism led to him having a liver transplant. He was still an alcoholic, still drank himself to death. People are irrational, flawed and stupid and i fear the day that needed healthcare is only available to the rich and the 'deserving sick'. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I simply reject the healthist idea that if you fall ill with one of the degenerative diseases of old age, it's all your fault for not living right. Especially when we live with a barrage of unsolicited medical advice and "body shaming" in the media. The poor Americans have no food any more. Everything they eat is either medicine or poison, and which foods go on which list change from week to week. It may be different elsewhere, but I can't fault anyone for failing to follow a health regimen when there are so many of them, of varying plausibility. Advertising presents jogging and working out at gyms as things that normal people do, and they still aren't. This also is one reason why I hate vegans, organic foods, anti-GMO, and alternative medicine; all of them simply add to the level of noise. And the uncharity that lurks behind all of these belief systems, the one that tells you that if you get cancer or heart disease it must have been because you ate the wrong thing or failed to follow some regimen or another, is the last straw. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Did I ever ONCE blame people for getting cancer? I blamed people for refusing proven treatment for cancer in order to try bullshit, and coming back after the disease progresses to where more expensive treatment will be necessary. CorruptUser (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly see that. I agree that people are flawed, and irrational, but if people actively fight care to the point of making themselves worse I don't see why everyone else should spend the resources for correcting it without any criticism. Especially when people who would are suffering, or dying, because resources to help them is used to take care of this. Even thinking if they did it to themselves, fully informed, they should bear more costs in fixing it.
If people wish to scream and fight to do things they have been warned about, not fatal and to no one else, while being mentally intact I'll walk away and let them. If that's a character flaw I am fully aware and fine with that. I am sorry that people have personal responsibility for parts of their lives. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
sure people have been warned to not do some things. But they have also been warned to do the very same things, and not just by the usual suspects. Case in point: vaccinate your kids vs vaccines cause autism. You and I might agree one of those options is bullshit, but the bullshit option has been aggressively promoted and not everyone is equipped or educated enough to cut through the bullshit. That is just one example, but as smerdis points out there is a ton of conflicting information on what is healthy or unhealthy. People desperate to do the right thing are overwhelmed and invariably going to make the wrong decisions. You are essentially denyin the stupid (read: poor and uneducated), healthcare because it is so hard to know just what the right thing to do is and cannot afford to put right their mistakes. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thank fuck for the NHS, I say. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Pause: How am I denying people health care for just thinking that? Is this a thought crime? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You're being a little too literal. Obtuse even. If your 'thought' were put in practice as you suggest, it would amount to denying people health care. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am being literal because I keep getting accused of things I never said. I don't even think people are arguing against me for the most part. Just an imaginary strawman that holds the same opinion on a single issue, and most certainly not on many other issues I've spent way too much time pointing out I don't hold. It seems to be much more dramatic and easy for people to make accusations of "he's not paying respect to the hand that feeds him. Let's throw him in the gutter 'cause that's where all the lazy moochers belong" (emphasis mine).
The sad part is quite literally I don't think my thought could even be put into practice in the real world. Which is why for the 6th time I need to repeat that I never did suggest of putting it into practice. I've spent way too much time on other people's strawmen that I am sickened and saddened. It's my fault for expecting more I guess. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You jump into an ongoing discussion where CorruptUser is proposing eliminating state funding for a subcategory of people suffering from a potentially fatal illness and make a post (seemingly?) supportive of CorruptUser's sentiment and call an unspecified subset of the people having this debate "drama llamas". Should you really be surprised that some of the people who you were antagonizing by calling them "drama llamas" made certain assumptions about you? (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
How terrible it is of me for daring to have an different opinion. It must be very antagonizing for you when others express their opinions in exasperation (after repeated misrepresentations/corrections on the same thing) that you must entirely make up shit I said to be angry about. I can see how it could seem I was "jumping in" when I actually have things to do outside of RW, even though I was the first to express their opinion on the question, but if you want to continue to dream up my crimes against the world feel free. I can't see this going anywhere productive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
141, Strawman much? The original topic was about an idiot that refused Chemo because "nature". My response to that was "can't save everyone, don't lose sleep over it". Then the article itself was posted, and I started wondering about what happens if the girl goes back for treatment after delaying and getting sicker; how does society deal with that, at what point should society just give up on someone, etc. Apparently you think that means I'm of the belief that society should just let EVERYONE die. No. CorruptUser (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems like everybody's strawmanning, missing the point and pulling things out of their context lately. Whatever, what happened happened. Let's just move on from all the drama. Enough pointless back-and-forth shouting. (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there has been any shouting, certainly mischaractorizations, but you were the worst offender by far. A rough eyeball that maybe half of this is you accusing corrupt and myself of things we never said in the first place while we try to point out how wrong it is...over the same shit repeatedly. Then pretending like it never happened, that everyone is equally to blame, with not a shit given (or responsibility taken) about the stuff you just made up. I agree this drama is stupid but hopefully it helps that translation between what you read, and what was actually written, be closer to true. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. I guess we can't let the drama rest until everything's cleared up. Okay, here's what happened:Wikipedia Bubba made a post, several people, including EmeraldCityWanderer, commented and discussed things. Yadda yadda. Eventually, the discussion went on a tangent where CorruptUser made a few proposals regarding people that previously refused treatment back when it would've been significantly cheaper: "It's more like "any extra costs incurred as a result of non-compliance with doctor's orders should be paid for out of your own pocket"." "Not denying, just not paying. E.g., cheap treament costs $2000, they don't comply with doctor's orders, as result 6 months later they need treatment for $5000; send them bill for $3000." "So how do you propose we deal with people that refuse to vaccinate or refuse cheap treatment? I'd be happy with forcing them to pay an "opt out fee"" (literal quotes) Several people make comments saying that it's a bad idea. EmeralCityWanderer makes a comment seemingly supportive of CorruptUser's proposal(s), though in retrospect apparently only supportive of CorruptUser's right to express frustration with people that waste taxpayer money by making bad medical decisions and think about hypothetical proposals to do something to punish them. In my response I then confuse/conflate ECW's opinion with CU's. ECW then blows that up into something about thought crimes and different opinions not being allowed or something. And now CU is seemingly back-pedaling and saying I'm saying that he's saying that "society should just let EVERYONE die". What? (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Backpedalling? CorruptUser (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You said that I was strawmanning you and then you described the start of the discussion. Your comment seemed to be denying that you made any actual proposals or was at least drawing attention away from that fact. (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Umm, what? I never denied making proposals. I think my first proposal was a private plane/yacht tax to fund search and rescue for them, rather than everyone else subsidizing rich fools. My second proposal was sending people the bill for additional costs incurred from non compliance with doctor's orders. Once again, strawman. CorruptUser (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, could you pinpoint where I was strawmanning you then? (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"Your comment seemed to be denying that you made any actual proposals". This is getting both meta and boring. CorruptUser (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"or was at least drawing attention away from that fact" Which was kind of annoying in that that fact was a thing ECW seemed to be consistently denying or avoiding, suggesting all that ever happened were thoughts being expressed and that all the complaints/criticisms amounted to thought-policing. (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
All things considered, I'll admit that "eliminating state funding for a subcategory of people suffering from a potentially fatal illness" wasn't an accurate description of your proposal. I was trying to communicate the gist of your proposal and what made it so controversial with a relatively short phrase. (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Unless I missed something....when did chemo become the panacea? Hasn't it always been one among many options? Should people be penalized if they opt out going under the knife? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 12:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it matters what it is, whether it's chemo or surgery or radiotherapy, only that the person refused actual medicine in favor of bullshit, then I brought up the hypothetical of the person coming back after exhausting the bullshit, but the treatment is now more expensive. The question that hasn't really been answered is "at what point is society no longer responsible for your idiocy". CorruptUser (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
When such idiocy is rampant in the society in question and said society isn't taking sufficient action to inform people and discourage and discredit the perpetrators/perpetuators of idiotic practices? You'd first have to establish a society that isn't rampant with this sort of thing before there could even be such a point. (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So can we at least agree that educating people against all sorts of bullshit is a good thing all around? Maybe agree that non-medicine shouldn't be allowed to advertise, at least not without a very strong disclosure along the lines of "there is no scientific evidence this works"? CorruptUser (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can certainly agree with that (see the section below). I might even go beyond that and propose making woo-peddlers liable for the deaths they're obviously responsible for. (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Considering that's pretty much what RationalWiki is here for as an educational charity, hell yeah! - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea[edit]

Instead of further punishing the victims of bullshit faux-medicine, who bought into it and are already facing the punishment of their ailment enduring and possibly worsening, how about we single out the people perpetrating and advertising these practices, eh? (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

indeed. Considering many folk on this site are us based, they live in a country where many face bankruptcy for even trivial conditions, is it any wonder they get suckered when they are at their most vulnerable? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If it were up to me they wouldn't be in business in the first place. People do have brains of their own though. If someone has the capacity to know what they are pushing is total fraudulent BS that is not beneficial...then people who choose these quack treatments can have the capacity to determine certain treatments are not beneficial. It certainly can be overridden by stress, grief, or other medical conditions which is why they shouldn't be pushing this shit on people in these situations. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Still trying to wrap my head around the idea[edit]

That judicial review is a type of legislation or how the Fourteenth doesn't apply the BoR to the states. Conservatism is confusing. — Melab (Talk) 05:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Now, there is a slightly more plausible argument for not incorporating those parts which aren't grants of individual rights. PacWalker 06:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
BoR? Book of Revelation? (me Brit) Scream!! (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. Compro01 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia and a variety of things I've read before, the idea that the bill of rights actually apply to the states and below is relatively new thinking. The Constitution is the defining body of the -Federal- government, and deals almost solely with things involving said government ,so they aren't technically wrong, just ignoring the development of law over the intervening centuries. --Miekal 23:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Governor of Texas bullshit[edit]

Apparently the governer of Texas has sent the national guard to watch over an navy seal and green beret training operation because of people bugging him about the FEMA concentration camps conspiracy theory, no I'm not kidding actually did, how did this ever happen? Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 17:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is where I'd start... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Is The Onion writing the screenplay for real life? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png

Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 18:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I dont even understand the stupidity right now, i expect him getting kicked ouut of office, or getting heavily attacked, by anyone who isnt a conspiracy nut. Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't get Abbott's logic. If the Federal military is infested with secret Obama-takeover operatives, why wouldn't the Texas State Guard also be? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Because it has the word "Texas" in it, of course. You can trust Texans to sell out to various major corporations, but never to the federal government. ;) (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But everything's bigger in Texas. Doesn't that mean that the federal intrusion is bigger, too? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 19:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You'd think so, but it turns out that's compensated by the resistance to federal intrusion being bigger too. (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The reason they aren't afraid is because it's -state- All things states is always 100% good and never evil. Ever. Only those shiftless swine loyal to the evil socialist OWO government are evil.--Miekal 03:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK it is the State Guard, not the National Guard. Apparently Texans are a bunch of Scardy Pants - there are a lot of Federal Military bases in Texas, with 100,000 or more troops that they never seem to worry much about......but they're "afraid" the 1200 in this exercise will take over the state?? It's even more stupid bullshit than the usual stupid bullshit!--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Scientology question[edit]

So i'm about a third of the way into Going Clear and I got a question: Have the aesthetics of Scientology/Dianetics technologies evolved to keep up with what cutting-edge technology, or do they still look like Kennedy-era tube-powered gadgets? There is a great dissertation project for a grad student doing STS stuff. You could also do something like that about James Bond movies. I would totally write that dissertation. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, a few minutes later and we see the newer-looking machines... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking being the key word there. PacWalker 03:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm just talking about technological aeethetics here. Not technology. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you have against Tube era technology looks?--Miekal 04:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing. Just can't see knobs and dials selling a cult to anyone once they had seen mice and colour monitors and windows and multitasking, never mind hat we got now.--Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Another Scientology Question[edit]

I've always wondered: Why? How? How is it so... popular?--Miekal 04:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Many suckers.--Arisboch (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
They have a well developed and effective sales strategy that works really well at convincing young and impressionable people that they have the all the answers. When you combine this with love bombing, some hypnotic suggestion and subtle poisoning of anyone who suggests that there might be something wrong with the Church, it is a winning recipe. In the past it was helped by past members being too afraid to speak out, and the media being too afraid to report on it but these days people aren't as scared of the Scientologists as they used to be. A movie like Going Clear would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. --DamoHi 05:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's really not very popular and never was since the Dianetics craze of the fifties. It's just good at publicity, and explicitly targeted celebrities and Hollywood - David Gerard (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Appeal in that last circle being enough to maintain some appeal in that last circle. PacWalker 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But really, beyond the well-known cases of TOM CRUISE!!! and John Travolta (not pushed to the fore so much these days it seems) and some lesser known/b-list cases (Beck and Isaac Hayes), there doesn't really seem to be a huge following among prominent Hollywood-following either (though WP also lists the Ribisis and Juliette Lewis, Scientology seems to need to beef up its tinseltown recruitment efforts if it's not to end up with an embarrassing list of greying has-beens and b-listers). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The uniforms~ Leuders (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's the internet's fault. Before, they could use their money and power to bully any corporation or news organization into submission/silence, even the friggen IRS. The IRS! But legal intimidation doesn't work if you can't find the person. So, their secrets get exposed online. And when South Park does an episode specifically calling them out, their legal threats become worthless when anyone can turn around and say, no, that's EXACTLY what they are. Worse actually; if anything South Park was too lenient on them. CorruptUser (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Going Clear[edit]

Not a bad documentary, though I'd like to read the book and scope out the references and methodology. Would have maybe tightened up the editing to free up a few minutes to talk about resistance to Scientology, especially Anonymous. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A Piece of Blue Sky used to be available to read free online, I found that remarkably thorough. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Most of the old books (pre-Internet) are online, and they're generally great! Good list. APOBS has a revised edition available, and Jon Atack could probably do with the money (though the old edition is not so hard to find if you're poor or just a cheapskate) - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, David. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Specific fallacy used by Answers in Genesis[edit]

I'm planning on beginning a YouTube channel focused on various controversial topics not the least of which deals with religion. One of the first I'm going to go for is probably an easy target but one I'd like to be thorough with. It revolves around the their assertion that the population would be a googol in total found on this page (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/).

The specific fallacy I'm trying to identify is their idea that they can use the 150 year population doubling within the real world context (excerpt-"If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings..."). There is no reasoning given as to why they think they can use the calculations in both cases and I'm trying to figure out how to identify this specific issue.

I've narrowed it down to a couple of possibilities from the 'Logical Fallacies' page as to what it could be. One would be simply another bout of circular reasoning or related fallacy (presupposition, begging the question). Another possibility would be the Association Fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Galileo_gambit) in that they assume that because the two relate to population totals that the same calculations would be used in both cases without reason.

Any ideas?

SIGN YO POSTS User:MyNameIsMike seriously do it Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a logical fallacy so much as a poor model of real world population growth. Populations -- including human populations -- are subject to environmental constraints. Besides, if you apply the same naive growth formula to rats starting at the alleged time of the Biblical flood we'd be drowning in rats.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
they ignore infant mortality rates, mortality rates in general, food supply , water supply etc for a population. AS entertaining is their populating egypt, china etc from 8 people in the biblical timeline of flood to Babel. Hamster (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
They also ignore the bible. It says that 600k men left from Egypt with Moses but nothing about women, children or the populations of other tribes or nations. Just the 600k described though shouldn't be seen until just under 100 years before the birth of Jesus. Including all of the other people with extremely simple estimates, Moses and the Israelites would have had to fight the Mongols along with the other tribes of the desert. --MyNameIsMike (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There's also the fact that right off of the bat they assumed 2 people while completely ignoring the fact that a population must be MUCH larger if you want to avoid genetic birth defects within a few generations. — Unsigned, by: Samstr / talk / contribs
RationalWiki has a Population bottleneck article. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, I understand pretty much everything wrong with their reasoning, I just wanted to know if this specific part was a form of logical fallacy or if it was just plain wrong. --MyNameIsMike (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe related to mistaking the map for the territory? That's another instance of drawing faulty conclusions from simplified, generalizedWikipedia schematics. Consider the "map" to be the simplified growth curve implied by doubling every 150 years, and the "territory" to be what really happens, given environmental constraints and the effects of population density as it shifts from sparse to overcrowded. Also, don't neglect the Dunning-Kruger effect. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is even when you have a population bottleneck they tend to still leave a much larger population than just 2 organisms. Of course this also is dependent on the type of organism we are talking about, theoretically a species that reproduces purely asexually could recover even if the population is reduced to 1. However the same is not true for species like homo sapiens who rely heavily on variation from sexual reproduction. Even if the DNA was "perfect" and only started to mutate after the fall there would still be other problems like a lack of variation for natural selection to act on.Samstr (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
A Mormon once told me that God made the first humans genetically perfect to avoid such things. Everyone knows that these so-called "problems" with creationist thinking aren't actually problems, they're just a lack of God-based thinking. Simply apply "Goddidit" until the problem goes away or your brain atrophies from lack of use. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 22:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Rape Apologists[edit]

Should we create something like this? Watching a terrible video from somebody we all know is making me think the category should exist. Zero (talk - contributions) 05:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Who'se video?--Arisboch (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I would imagine LandMartian would have words about it.--Miekal 05:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say probably not, but let's hear what articles you would want to put in such a category. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. We could easily start with most things related to the manosphere. --Castaigne (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Aren't those things already in the same categories as each other? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice burn and good point. --Castaigne (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why in God's name, with all the good videos, are you watching one of his/her videos? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So... basically 80% of actors, given their support of Roman Polanski. And 80% of religious fundamentalists, blaming women for not dressing like nuns. It's too broad a category. CorruptUser (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you become a "rape apologist" if you aren't in favor of turning Polanski over to the US penal system? I suppose there are worse names to be called. It's a dodgy concept from the get-go. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Half of Hollywood insists that a drugged 13 year old girl who was crying and begging him to stop during the whole ordeal while he fucked her vaginally orally and anally wasn't raped. In spite of all that, it was her that was blamed, for clearly being such a "slut". Whoopi Goldberg is infamous for a few years ago for saying "it wasn't 'rape' rape", e.g., legitimate rape. In the 2000's. Srsly. The rest of Hollywood has been, well, rape culture and all. But worst of all, after pleading guilty, he managed to flee the US. To me, that's the worst all. It doesn't bother me when I hear about robberies or rapes or police brutality, but when the law won't do jack shit in response? That was kind of the point of Chinatown. CorruptUser (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not apology of rape, but denial of rape in that particular case.--Arisboch (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think attempting to draw a distinction there, when nobody involved questions the actual facts of the case, does your or Smerdis' position no favours at all, and quite possibly the opposite. Perhaps it was a particularly artistic drug rape - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
What Polanski did to the girl was definitely awful, but I don't disagree with Smerdis's sentiment of the US penal system being pretty horrendous. (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact, condemnation of the former should reinforce the latter sentiment, as both involve rape. (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Perhaps I should have been more clear. By this I mean the sort of people who say rape is in any way the victims fault, say its a gift from god, no nothing about rape or related pregnancy mechanics, think sex while intoxicated is perfectly fine, or people who just wish rape on others like its no big deal. Also, I use these videos as immunization from stupid, so I know how to defend myself. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think these things are best explained within the relevant articles and cited appropriately, if they aren't already. I can't see this category being particularly useful for navigation, and it's just gonna be another inflammatory/libellous thing for people to edit war over. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia number[edit]

You know, like an Erdős numberWikipedia for wikis. Why is this not a thing? WalkerWalkerWalker 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A what? Why should it be a thing.--Miekal 23:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
So like how many schisms/"I can do it better!"s removed from Wikipedia a site is. And well I may not have been ah thinking at 100% when I said that. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia --> CP --> RW --> RWW --> RWWW? BicyclewheelModerator 08:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
So RW is Wikipedia number 2, then. (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Our SPOV is trusworthy. (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
But... wikipedia wasn't the first wiki. It was just an idea Wales had for using wiki software once he heard about it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I know. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Local council candidate[edit]


Will he be checking for Reds under the bed? BicyclewheelModerator 08:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! WalkerWalkerWalker 12:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Living people[edit]

It's got a list of a bunch of articles with unsourced statements. We should probably fix them. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Some blogger on RationalWiki[edit]

Didn't know where to post this, so put it here. "What happened to rationalwiki?", from "I am an Atheist and this is why". — Unsigned, by: FuzzyCatPotato / talk / contribs 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless you've got anything particular to say about it, put it in RationalWiki:Monthly RW/Mentions. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think they guy's got a point -- a lot of our articles are way too much into ad-hom and not into debunking. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
FCP, do not start up the bullshit as to how we need to eliminate SPOV again. SPOV exists; I'm sorry if you don't like it. --Castaigne (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't me before and that isn't me now. Snark is fine. My problem is ad hominem. We can be snarky -- about ideas. We don't need to snark about people, when their ideas are so shit it just makes you pity their mind. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 23:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It only ad hom if you insult people as a means of debunking their ideas. If you debunk their ideas and are snarky about them personally that is okay. But I agree we should make sure to do the first. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
To be literalist: it's ad hominem either way. You just have an argument if that's not all you do. PacWalker 14:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure where you got that 'point' from. All he was complaining about was a humorous use of the tumbleweeds, our article on Thunderf00t being too harsh on the guy and the reverse for our article on Rebecca Watson (all 3 of which are non-issues). (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Most of the post was pretty dumb. But this quote:
"However, recently when reading an article there I was amused but also wondering why RationalWiki needed to go and make some snarky comments about people. I mean criticism of a persons ideas is okay, but attacking them personally is different."
Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That's reasonable enough, though linguistically the difference between calling an act racist and calling the perpetrator of that act a racist is just one small nominalization.Wikipedia (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The poster looked at the Ken Ham article. I agree that it's a bit overboard. Quote: "He is a brainwashed, Bible-humping Christian" FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Changed the phrasing a bit (didn't even remove any jokes). Does it look less personal-attack-ish now? (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really. We spend so much of the article talking shit about him, and very little about his ideas. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I read that and I see go talk more about his ideas, so I guess I might go see what can be done. PacWalker 02:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean, we do have in-depth articles about many of his arguments and beliefs, and it's pretty much sufficient to link to them. But the parts where we just call him words are kind of meaningless. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Better question: how the hell would an article on someone not call them words? PacWalker 03:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"Well, you see, this... um, well, anyway..." (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Stop saying words about my words. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Word, yo. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 01:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Off the rails[edit]

The tumbleweeds though. I mean seriously, a list of reasons to use those:
Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.
;) PacWalker 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Pfft. (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I felt obliged to comment. --Castaigne (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I honestly like the stupid snark. I like the idea of an encyclopedia dramatica that actually has an agenda and isn't afraid to be completely biased. Samstr (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
When you put it like that... it still sounds bad FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
When you put it like that, it sounds worse. PacWalker 01:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
When you put it like that, it sounds great! --Madman (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Yay! Stupid for the win. Samstr (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
When you put it like that, it sounds awesome. --Castaigne (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
ED is much, much worse than just "stupid snark". And it also has an agenda; one that's anti-authority, pro-bullying, pro-offending-people and pro-pointless-vitriol. (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Correct, although I will now butt in to say that pointing out that a person/group/organization has some agenda is like a real non-statement when you get down to it. PacWalker 02:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but I didn't just say they had an agenda; I also specified that the one they had was particularly unfavorable. (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
And you were correct, of course, save in your lack of account. PacWalker 02:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe 141 is hiding behind their IP address facade because they work for their own malevolent agenda... o-O FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 02:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"Maybe?" Let me assure you that there is no doubt about it. ;) (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
ED is affiliated only with hate and edge. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png

Judges not by color but by dankness of memes 03:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And with not being Oh Internet. PacWalker 14:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, ED is a bad example. That being said I still like the idea of a good example that strives to be humorous but still informative. (So I guess that kind of completely undermines everything I said *mostly* jokingly before, oh well.) Samstr (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. PacWalker just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Can we get a troutslap template? I want that tradition to continue here. CorruptUser (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Is {{Trout}}, a copypasta of PacWalker's thing, good? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
That'll do. :) CorruptUser (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Army of libel accusations[edit]

We are being assaulted with libel accusations!, i literally jsut saw 2 created over the course of 5 minutes, well it could be Rome Viharo i dont know. Bubba41102 Taste the shortness 13:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Where, besides the "Julia Glasper" article? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
One on freud migt be an issue, but there are more than usual, i think. (abandons ship) Bubba41102 Taste the shortness 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
NOT THE EVIL LIBELSLANDER!!!!!eleventy-1!!!! --Castaigne (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean libalz? PacWalker 14:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I like libelslander better. It's how Popehat puts it. --Castaigne (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
So... Something about how this played out. Bans for lawsuit threats should probably not be handed out punitively, but as a straightforward means of decreasing risk. All bans messages should make that reason clear. If someone is genuinely going to sue, it would help for it to be clear that their editing privileges are disabled pending the resolution of the threat. Wikipedia's rules are well thought out in that regard. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Both blocks about Rome Viharo have expired, so it's moot at this point. I would like a good libel policy, tho. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 22:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There's also a "trusty sidekick"-effect in play. Whereas I think that a person who's a subject of an article should have taken their objections seriously (and I from what I've seen so far, that's definitely the case, it's just that the objections tend to be as cranky as the cranky ideas that landed them on RW in the first place), their friends riding to the rescue on a sort of "nutknighting" quest should be given short shrift as they have zero legal standing to back up their libelslander (good word, that). Examples of the latter include Viharo's buddy (you probably know who I'm talking about), who, while not using the "L word" the word libel outright, has been nutknighting hard for Viharo, as well as the persistent BoN who's trying to get the Jarrah White article whitewashed (and does claim that it's libellous). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Claims should be specific and actionable. Ask for those and see what the person comes up with - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Will it surprise you terribly if I said that the claims are of the "you're all being unfair, the article is inaccurate and my links have already proven all of it"-variety (in the Jarrah White case)? As for the Viharo-stuff, Leuders described it best a year ago: "Everyone's getting a bit tired of Rome's constant "no I never said blue, I said azure" semantic rebuttals" (and Viharo's sidekick uses pretty much the same shtick, btw). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

British Politics article improvement[edit]

So with the elections known, i think we should find people who know things about the British parties and improve the articles on them?

  • Plaid Cymru isn't very good at all,
  • Labour Party, despite being the second party of the UK, has almost no information whatsoever and spends almost half (and the largest paragraph of it's 4) of the article talking about how the Conservatives and LibDems were in a coalition, with not a single mention of anything about them besides the 2010-2015 situation.
  • Conservative Party (UK) is dominated by a giant list of crazy people in office, with not nearly enough actually dedicated to talking about anything the party is.
  • Liberal Democrats could certainly improve with a polishing.
  • UKIP likely needs some work.
  • The SNP article, despite now being the third party and getting 5% short of scotland leaving the union, has almost nothing in it.
  • There are others, but some are questionable as to why we have their articles at all and these are the main three

Overall, i think we just need less "at the moment must change every few year content" in these articles and more about what the parties actually are. I'd write but... i don't know a single thing about the parties. --Miekal 13:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

they are all a bunch of cunts. That is all you need to know. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dead Falwell Day[edit]

Its coming up. Should we have a countdown? 'Legionwhat do you want from me 05:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What does it involve? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Based on the name and that there's a countdown to it (and that he died 5 days from now), Absolutely not. We don't dance and celebrate on the grave of people, even if we didn't like them for well deserved reasons. --Miekal 14:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You gonna make an exception for Freddie?--Arisboch (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I just don't care enough about him to honor him in any way. Stop bringing him up and let the memory of him fade. CorruptUser (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Grave dancing is best left to conservative fuckwits. PsyGremlin講話 14:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
there was much grave dancing, some here, and many street parties when thatcher died. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Iirc, we never supported it and were divided on it. We certainly haven't been counting down and celebrating the day she died.--Miekal 23:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. My point was it is not just a conservative failing.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, I've always found it fun to celebrate the death of your enemies, but then it's a bit of a family tradition. We're all fairly grudgy. --Castaigne (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It's one thing to celebrate the death of an enemy when it happens ("hooray! the bad person is dead!"), but quite another to do so every year after that ("Hooray! The bad person died a few years ago!"). That said, though... BicyclewheelModerator 08:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine if we'd stopped 9/11 and figured just how bad things could have got from it, it'd become a holiday down the line. Atleast amongst certain circles. --Miekal 13:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Some reddit comments use "deadbart" instead of Breitbart. Classy? Considering the "diversity" of reddit, it could be worse. SmartFeller (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sherri Tenpenny[edit]

I'm a bit of a Wikivirgin and just passing through; but I'm astonished that you guys (and gals) haven't covered Dr. Tenpenny, the anti-vac shill. What a fucking dangerous idiot this woman is... — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Hmmmm, if what your saying is true somone should look at it, create an account and put it at the to do list Bubba41102Taste the shortness 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it needs to make an account. Samstr (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What happens if they don't? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The world ends, or so I've heard. ;) (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep the christian apocalypse is really just not making an account, BUT IT CAN BE STOPPED! Bubba41102Taste the shortness 18:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference[edit]

between psychic stuff and parapsychology? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between brain stuff and psychology? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Aight, thanks. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's worth noting at this point that Parapsychology is the study of supernatural forces on the mind, and is thus usually regarded as nothing more than bunkum. There is, however, a field for the scientific study of supernatural phenomena (IE, testing if it's legitimate, and otherwise using neuropsychology to explain why it happens), which is called "Anomalistic Psychology". Worth noting! DarkFire (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Can Sanders win?[edit]

Every single person everywhere is already writing him off, and perhaps they are right. That being said, I think that the other notion that Bernie Sanders will push Hillary Clinton to the left is complete bullshit, she will talk like a true progressive (as she has already done to some extent), but I would bet anything that if she gets the office she will still keep the old power structure and continue to do the bidding of corporate interests. Perhaps I'm just a dreamer (and so far it looks like I'm the only one), but I want to believe that Sanders can win the primaries. Nothing less than the future of America is at stake and this is far to important for us to give up the fight so soon. I think if Sanders is relentless with pointing out how corrupt Clinton is he might have a fighting chance, even if it is a slim one. If someone shows how absolutely disgusted they are with the current system perhaps we can get somewhere. Samstr (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a Republican (Roosevelt/Rockefeller Republican, we still exist I swear!) and I would probably vote for Sanders over any of the current batch of Republicans we have. CorruptUser (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If they ran today someone like Roosevelt or even Eisenhower would be the bluest of the blue democrats. Samstr (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I am also a lifelong Republican, and because the most important politics are local politics, will likely remain so. I would vote for Sanders over anyone who's announced they're running. The national party has been entirely overrun by cultists and white trash, and the need to cater to those people means there's hardly an inch of difference between the candidates and no real debate on the platform. Instead, the race is all about persuading those people that the candidate "shares their values" against the glimmering insight that most of them probably sneer in private at the bullshit they have to embrace to win primaries. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating. I consider local politics to be useless, simply because they are impossible to change in my area. Going up against the local bosses is likely to end deleteriously for you. I have always assumed - erroneously, I'm told - that the same conditions prevail nationwide, a series of Boss Hogg sheriffs and dictatorial councilpeople. --Castaigne (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
By registering Republican, I at least was able to cast a vote for Richard Lugar, who got primaried by the moron Mourdock who went on to lose the general election to the Democrat Donnelly. That was a losing vote, but it was a vote that was worth casting. There are occasionally worthwhile debates about local issues. These things tend to get sorted out by Republicans. The state government is solid Republican; which Republicans get elected is something I'd like to have a say in. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How much of a leftie was Roosevelt + socio-economic consequences of automatization[edit]

How is Roosevelt to the left of the Democrats? I mean, he was on the left in his day, but this century's conservative is last century's radical and all. Keep in mind that many religious books like the bible, while ass-backwards today, were very progressive compared to what was before. CorruptUser (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The common perception of the Democrats today by most of its members, as I am given to understand, is that current Democrats are about as liberal as Reagan conservatives and fully under the thumb of Big Corporate. Therefore, Roosevelt's socialistic aspects are seen as being to the left of the corporatist adherence of Obama and the Clintons. --Castaigne (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
They don't think gay people deserve to die of AIDS, so that makes them more to the left than Reagan.
Personally, I see two parties. The party that tries to rig the electorate by brainwashing religiously educating people and encouraging said religious people to have more children, and the party that tries to rig the electorate by getting more people dependent upon government but set up the welfare in such a way as to never let the people get off itWikipedia. The Republicans used to be the party that tried to rig the electorate by encouraging as many people as possible to found small businesses, the reason I'm still a Republican, but for now the Republicans have leased their sold their soul to the religious right. CorruptUser (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That last bit is where we would clash. I am completely for the total elimination of small business as and its replacement with efficient multinational corporations. I tend to view all small business as being able to be roboticized and automated; you really only need humans in the managerial and creative spheres. --Castaigne (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Then you'll have everyone whining about unemployment and the welfare queenery resulting from it, though. (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The idea that replacing all menial tasks with robots will lead to unemployment is... rather misguided. There is always work to be done. ALWAYS. We had millions of coal miners, now just a few thousand. Where did they go? They became firefighters and policemen and teachers. What about the millions of farmers? Nurses and mechanics and social workers. Every job that's replaced by machines is a person freed up to do something else. It sucks when it's your job that's replaced, but it's a net benefit for society. Replace it all with machines, levy taxes on the factories (and actually COLLECT the taxes), and replace most of welfare with productive government jobs. Really think we couldn't have personal nurses, individual tutors, nannies, etc etc? I'm not opposed to functioning government replacing the public sector, because capitalism and communism? The big secret is that it doesn't matter which you choose, only that the work gets done. CorruptUser (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The idea that jobs replaced by automation of some sort will be replaced by other jobs is not true anymore. Yes, that was the case for most of the time of the Industrial Revolution, but starting in the 1980s this slowly started to become untrue. We are now applying Moore's Law to the employment/automation issue. The simple fact is that most of these people cannot be retrained to anything worth retraining to. Yes, that former coal miner or factory worker can become....well, a retail salesclerk. Or a burger flipper. Or some other menial. And they're welcome to it, but they ain't going to make no money.
Further, they will only be able to keep their menial jobs so long as it cannnot be automated. There will be no need for the retail salesclerk once we eliminate brick-and-motor and replace it with more efficient Amazon-type shopping. There will be no need for the warehouse worker when we replace them with the automatic pickers, shippers, and forklifts. There will be no need for burger flippers once we get the burger machines in place. And it is inevitable that we will do this in a capitalist society. Fixed capital costs are better than ever-increasing human costs. Fixed capital costs increase shareholder value and profit. Thus, eliminate as many human costs as possible and replace.
And then what will they do? They can't all become doctors, lawyers, programmers, and whatnot. We don't need that many. As my father has said, "We're creating a world for the smart people...but we're forgetting that there's a shitload of dumb people that can't do anything in it.
Will personal service become a big thing? Sure, for the richards who can afford servants. My father can afford a Juan and Consuela. I can't, unless they want to be paid less than a Chinese factory worker. Nor can most people I know who I didn't go to private school with.
As for replacing corporate jobs with "productive government jobs", to hell with that noise. I want the government to be automated too. Can you imagine the gains we'd have if we replaced the court systems with AI judges? Or the bureaucracy in general, all the paper-pushers and secretaries replaced with smart agents and databanks and robots? The military with robotic systems?
Essentially, what I work for is replacing as much manual labor and office labor and service labor with automation and machinery as is possible. I want a corporation where you have executives and maybe 2-3 tech/programmer guys and 2-3 maintenance staff. I want doctor's offices where you have the doctor...and that's it. The rest is nursebots and autodocs and smart agent schedulers. When I "shop", I want to encounter no humans at all and have it all delivered to my door. when I have to go somewhere, I want the smartnet to automate my vehicle to my destination. I want humans to become unnecessary to maintain industrialized technological civilization.
I'm not going to see it in my lifetime, but I'll work as hard as possible to see it furthered. --Castaigne (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm an actuary. They've been saying for DECADES "oh no, you just do numbers, computers will replace you". Yet we have all these powerful computers, and the programs do all the work we once did. Yet there are more jobs for us now that ever before. Why? Because now that the programs are all automated, people want ever more in depth programs, and you still need actuaries to figure out why the numbers aren't what you expected. So our jobs have shifted from being number crunchers to being programmers and auditors. As for the world full of idiots, like I said before, teachers and police and firefighters and EMT and nurses. For the people with absolutely no social or other skills whatsoever, guinea pigs. Right now, you can make an ok living being a living test subject for all sorts of drugs, and it's currently a bit of an issue since the states don't share information on who tested what, so all those drug testing studies are done on people that have drug testing studies done on them. We could use a bit more of those. If the private sector won't do it, like I said before, automate the factories and tax em to pay for all the other jobs. Oh, and you think people are idiots now? You should've been around a century ago before things like "sodium iodide" and vaccines; turns out malnutrition and measles have the nasty side effect of mental retardation. How retarded? In some of the counties that adopted iodide supplementation, the average IQ went up 15 points. Combine that with the vaccines and the deworming and the lead bans... CorruptUser (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You've just made my point. The title of your job may have remained the same, but you are no longer a number cruncher. You're a programmer and auditor, no matter what you're called. What will you do when you are not needed to program and audit, when that has been automated? What will you do when the software can tell the petitioner why the numbers aren't what were expected?
Now, will this happen in the next 10 years? 20 years? No, I'm looking at the long scale - we should have that licked within 150 years. The problem with technology predictions in the past was too-hasty extrapolation. Since we know this was the issue, we can go the other way. 150 years is a good safe bet.
So what would the you of 150 years from now do, when you need to retrain for a different profession?
The world full of idiots; perhaps I'm not being clear. Think of intelligence in terms of the bell curve. When I or my father say "dumb", we're referring to everyone at the 75th percentile or below. They are more and more becoming, well, not necessary to have in those quantities. In the beginning, you needed 100 people to do a part in a factory. Then 10. Yesterday, 1. Now 1/2. Tomorrow, 1/4. And so on, and so forth. With increasing automation, there is no limit to the amount of reduction that can be done, since it's actually exponential at each stage rather than progressive.
And all of the jobs you talk about doing, well, I want to replace them. Teachers? Software is more efficient and requires less health benefits. Police? We wouldn't be having the problems we have with police and militarization today if we were using ED-209 types. Firefighters? More robots. EMTs and nurses? Also more robots; software does not hesitate, machinery does not fatigue. Drug testing? Flesh cultures grown specifically for that purpose.
I could see, say, keeping humans in jobs if we could automate their skills. Imagine, say, a nurse logging into her work, and as soon as they punch card their body and consciousness are overtaken by implants controlled by the medical AI for the hospital. The nurse has no conscious control, being nothing more than a puppet for skill and efficiency. However, probably too science-fictiony. We'd have to make huge leaps in biotechnological application to get that done. It'd probably be cost-effective, though; talk about a self-renewable supply of robot bodies!
Also, I cannot agree with anything raising taxes. Not in the capitalist interest. --Castaigne (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
And here we go with the singularity... Your argument relies on technology that doesn't exist yet, so it's probably not worth arguing. Worthy of speculation and maybe a sci fi series, sure. CorruptUser (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
No, not the singularity. The singularity is not necessary for the technology I'm describing; it is mostly extrapolated from current research, prototypes, and actual production methods currently in place. In fact, I can safely say that a singularity will never occur. There's just no basis for it. Note that I'm not including the meat puppet idea in the extrapolation category; that is definitely science fiction, which is why I say "huge leaps in biotechnological application". --Castaigne (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Phew, big blocks of text. Okay, a few things. 1) Jobs replaced by automation cause short-term unemployment. Whether or not they cause long-term unemployment depends on whether a sufficient amount of other jobs are available. 2) Theoretically speaking, it is very easy to create employment for everyone. But when only a few job types aren't being hogged up by the robots, why bother? The world has no need for billions upon billions of teachers, creative designers and managers, so why waste time and effort and strain the economy with huge inefficiency by trying to invent a job for everyone? You could start up a huge call center where employees call other employees and put each other on hold and you could give all of humanity a job, but what'd be the point? They might just as well stay at home and watch television.
People don't need a job for the economy to work, they only need purchasing power. So why not just give it to them? A basic incomeWikipedia for everyone. In a capitalist society, I'd argue people should be entitled to it eitherway, since they're entitled to basic sustenance, and in a capitalist society, that basic sustenance costs money. (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The time when there simply isn't anything for people to do is quite far away. Even then, yes, basic income provided by taxing the robots, and anything extra you get from doing something productive. Ever read the book "Accidental Time Machine" by Joseph Haldeman? At one point, the author avatar ends up in San Fran-future-isco. All science and work is done by an incredibly bored AI, everyone at birth is given a billion dollars to do whatever they like. Mostly people get PhDs in cooking and art history and so forth, and the jobs (if you want them) are more or less people haggling over artifacts. So yeah, something like that I suppose. CorruptUser (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting read. And yeah, we're far from there yet, but we are already at a point where some people can't find employment for a variety of reasons that are largely beyond their control. If I got a penny for every time I heard someone going on about how the unemployed are mooching off of society I could hire myself to count all those pennies and I'd have job security for the rest of my life (I'd also be very rich). (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Roosevelt also broke up monopolies and supported unions, also with regards to the last link. "This article needs additional citations for verification." Not to be said that there is no theoretical basis for this model, just that a majority of people collecting welfare today are actually working. Also it is important to note that with careful consideration one can make it so that all people have welfare available and can thus survive but that more money can be made by working. [1]
Yeah, we should provide enough that no one is ever truly trapped in a horrible situation (e.g., abusive spouse that prevents you from getting a job so that you can't ever leave). I'm talking bare minimum though; vegetables by the sack, cramped but durable apartment, a few sets of clothes, and especially an actual way to apply for jobs (yes that means a free phone and a bus pass). But the problem is that people are demanding "live with diginity". Sorry, you want more from society, you have to be willing to give to society, even if that means government creates a job for you to do. It's not like we have a surplus of teachers in this country... CorruptUser (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow. A borderline, relevant, and intelligent conversation. There will always be jobs in the service sector for low skilled idiots where people want one-on-one service, like inbound call centers or waiting tables. With a bit of people skills, ambition, and patience, a kid with a GED can still find that kinda work rewarding and lucrative. The dirty little secret in the world of business and economics is, economic troubles and poverty does not occur because people are lazy and unproductive. Economic troubles occur because people are way more productive than they ever need to be. The result is oversupply, which drives wages down. So we're back to the fundamentals of supply and demand. Finding products or services in demand, and imposing some sort of regulation that maximizes output, profit, and compensation to workers, without driving down prices and wages, disrupting or destroying the market, or giving it up to foreign producers and workers.
As an aside, the 30 hour workweek mandated by Obamacare are is intended to do this very thing - reduce output per worker to sustain both employment levels and wage scales, and mandate payment to workers in a skilled service industry (medical trades) that already takes up 12% of the workforce and could grow one - third larger. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 05:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to Sanders[edit]

He is relatively honest for a politician, which is a nice change. --Castaigne (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt he can beat Hillary in the primaries. Even if he did, I doubt he can win against the Republican candidate, unless that one also turns out to be an underdog newbie. Being openly socialist might turn a lot of people away. Which is sad, really, because Bernie Sanders is the kind of politician all politicians should aspire to be. Honest, principled, with the best interest of the people in mind. That said, he doesn't necessarily need to be elected as President in order to make the right waves in American politics. (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It is possible for him or someone like him to win an election but short of the Republicans creating another depression such an occurrence would require a couple of things. Firstly they would have to go out of their way to ignore divisive social issues. And secondly they would have to nail every single debate and make their opponents look like complete morons. Only than would victory be a possibility. It would take a very, very remarkable candidate to do something like that. The reason why Clinton appears to hold so much sway over the Democratic Party establishment is precisely because she is the establishment candidate. Simply put, it's a lot easier for the Democratic Party's leadership to accept the "inevitability" of Clinton presidency than to have to deal with party infighting which we are going to witness during the Republican Party's primary for the 2016 election. Alsto003 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Alex
Am I the only on who is going to come right out and say it? The way to win elections in the United States is to outspend everyone else. It's true that Romney slightly outspent Obama and Obama still won, but the difference was only slight, so other factors, like excellent data use/management by the Obama campaign and maybe even Romney's 47% thing allegedly rallying the Democrat base were able to influence the outcome. If you look at Congress, probably 80% of the people currently in office outspent their opponents. Well, in order to outspend your opponents, you have to raise a lot of money. Where does almost all political money come from? The 1% (i.e: big business). Hillary has massive support from big business, especially Wall Street, the largest source of funds from Obama's 2008 run. Sanders might have meager support from certain sectors of big business who may not like socialism but may indirectly benefit hugely from the not explicitly socialist policies he wants to implement in a presidency limited to 4-8 years. Maybe our tiny little manufacturing sector supports universal healthcare because it would save them money on their workers' healthcare, so they'll support Sanders instead of Hillary or whichever nutcase leads in the Republican race; maybe some sectors support strengthening social security because it would mean they don't have to spend too much money on pensions, so they'll support Sanders. Sanders has no chance of winning the nomination, but boy do I hope he forces the conversation to the left, takes a few states, and turns socialism from being a curse word to being something a whole lot more Americans support. Rand0 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

New Category:Webshites[edit]

Probably should've put in to-do list before adding, but is it valuable to have this as a category? Not sure if I should delete or add to it. CorruptUser (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a joke that wasn't very funny at the time and hasn't improved. I went through and removed almost all instances of the word a while ago, the category could go to redspace without making the world worse in any way - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DG. Vape it. Category space needs a cleanup.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Save the snark! Save the websites category!!--Arisboch (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Save the good snark, cut loose the bad snark?--Miekal 13:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The Snark shall be hunted into extinction.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Save the snark, literally the only reason I actually stayed on this website in the first place. Samstr (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Joking aside, I agree with Miekal's suggestion above (if I read it correctly). Humor and sarcasm are OK. Unfortunately, it's really easy to do them badly.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to start a wikiproject on police and vigilantes[edit]

I've just released- let's call it a working paper- that argues for creating a wikiproject about police and vigilantes. Please read it and share your opinions here and/or on the essay's talk page. Thank you, thank you. Rand0 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We have wikiprojects?--Miekal 15:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Had, more like. [2] FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
vigilantes like Batman and Arrow , or the nutters that break the law by hurting people who may have been accused ? This idea seems to be a pit for libel lawsuits. Hamster (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hamster has a bit of a point. I'd say, only write about vigilantes who've been charged by the police because of the violence, racism, etc. of their vigilantism. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your essay doesn't make clear what the wikiproject would involve. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I know what I have in mind, but I'm having trouble getting the right language. I was hoping it would be easy to glean my intentions from my essay, but I can see now why folks might not have. I will formulate something clear and concrete over the next few days. Rand0 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What the what!? Am I just doing this wrong?[edit]

I've been a longtime lurker on here and decided to finally make an account and try to figure out how things work/how to get my head wrapped around the voting system and how to have an actual discussion on here about articles and/or semi-related subjects. It just seems so bloody impossible to communicate anything on here. NOTHING MAKES SENSE. I think I'm a fairly intelligent person (totally unbiased) and I've been posting on discussion boards/forums since the 2400bps BBS days. I'm completely lost where people actual discuss things on here as it seems that no one uses the forum and no one seems to be talking about anything at all. The forum is the most ridiculous and useless way to communicate I've ever seen. Am I doing something wrong? I just thought there was this amazing rational community out there but it seems like a handful of people posting random articles that no one is talking about. WTF RW?!? Condescendingwhat (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Kinda depends what you mean by 'discussion'. There are a few specific 'discussion' pages (like this one), and the forum of course (though I partly agree with you, and am not a huge fan of it), but many discussions take place on individual article talk pages. This isn't really intended to be a medium for protracted discussion (IMO), there are plenty of places to do that already. Worm (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reply Worm. What I mean by discussion ie: every single article can and should be talked about. If it can't be, we're either preaching to the choir or the article is pointless and this is just an upvote/downvote shittier version of reddit/facebook/social media noise site. Maybe I'm looking at this whole place with unrealistic expectations. I came here to have rational and civilised discussion with people that can hold their own in a conversation without resorting to name calling/attacks etc. I came here to learn. All I see is.. tumbleweeds and inside jokes. The articles are fine, It's possible there is a great community buried here, I'm just trying to find it then see if it's something I can enjoy(learn,share,argue,change my mind) being a part of. Condescendingwhat (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you're vastly overestimating the average age here. That's the underlying element to what you're seeing. But it's also a wiki so most discussion is oriented around page content, not general purpose discussion. Oh, and the crazies love to come and object to every little thing. It's not an environment that maximizes rational debate, sadly. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
That's certainly an element of that. However each article has a talk page, which is specifically aimed at discussion of that topic - though discussion tends to focus around queries/complaints/suggestions for change - it is a wiki after all. In general I don't think that the average user here is any better/worse more/less argumentative that most other online communities, but in general we are more tolerant of divergent opinions and behavior, and people 'get way' with stuff that would get them banned (at least temporarily) in many other places. Overall I think that is a good thing. The userbase here is certainly up for dissenting opinions, but there is a strong preference for facts rather than opinion (though opinion is tolerated more than at the other place) Worm (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You can try the International Skeptics Forum for more active discussions than happen here. There is some overlap – I've seen items from the WIGOs being discussed over there. (Mind you, I'm not saying, "Forget this place and go somewhere else." You're certainly welcome in both venues.) Nowhere Man (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss a given page, each one has an associated discussion page - look for the little "Talk" tab in the upper left.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
discussion happens on talk pages. Oh, several people have said that already. If you want a semi-social discussion formnat try leagueofreason.com which is a site for discussion. If you want to edit somewhat snarky pages ridiculing silly ideas then welcome. Hamster (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Article talk pages are (at least in principle) for discussion of the article content & changes to article, although in practice they do also often get used for general discussion about the subject of the article. We have debate pages as well as the forum, but Saloon Bar is probably the best place to start general/topical discussions. As for voting, upvote/downvote is really only used on our WIGO pages and To do list, and most other voting is related to things like article deletion. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

the forum and debate pages are fine when they are actually current, but after the a relatively short period they just lie dormant. Perhaps there is some way to 'close' them? If that's even necessary. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I deal most effectively with the Forum: section by ignoring its existence - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You can start a chat here or on any relevant talk page. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? Have you tried, and failed, to create a conversation somewhere? The one you have started here seems to have generated various considered responses.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thx for all the feedback, I guess one just has to ask. I suppose what drew me here to RW in the first place were a few articles then the WIGO sections. I know that the site is a wiki yet there's so much here that IS interesting to discuss. It just seems like any discussion is a wall of badly formatted text which I don't see how anyone has the patience to navigate. I get it, I realise I was expecting an actual forum on the back end about what was going on here as opposed to "he said/she said my opinion is > than you etc" inside the actual talk pages. Thank you for the content, I will go back to lurking. Condescendingwhat (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

hey guys...[edit]

i found the perfect site for us [3] Bubba41102Taste the shortness 23:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The internet has trained me not to click any domain containing the word "goat", see? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
That website is completely kosher, though, no stretched anuses of any kind, just a goat.--Arisboch (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
See, why would i place a link to that goat site, it was taken down years ago anyway. Bubba41102Taste the shortness 13:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The original was, but copies still exist. You don't think such a troll mainstay would have remained down for long, do you? Compro01 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


I just found out that Dawkins has decided to grace my neck of the woods with his holy presence. (And no, I wouldn't attend that unless someone paid me.)--ZooGuard (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Tickets bought out in a single day? I must admit I am somehow disappointed, but not surprised by this.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You could buttonhole him about his tacit support of a serial sexual harasser. Nothing at all awkward about that conversation. He might even deliver a snide, obtuse criticism on twitter in response. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Given that his lecture was about science, not the atheism or skepticism movement, it wouldn't be appropriate. It was a public event organized by the British Council, not a Skeptics-in-the-Pub or some kind of a convention. I'm not that much of an asshole. My chief source of amusement is that my country was significant enough to warrant a visit. Receiving an unexpected call along the lines of "hey, we are going to attend a lecture by some biologist guy, Richard Do... Dawkins, you probably have heard of him" was quite funny.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone ever heard of these guys?[edit]

They call them selves Prager University and I am in extreme doubt they are a real university. Basically they have videos of conservative and religious bullshit, as well as some anti-feminist videos.'Legionwhat do you want from me 23:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's just Dennis Prager's operation. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Normally, I despise Ted Rall[edit]

But for once he's capable of making a point well. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of him, but that comic seemed mildly amusing. Samstr (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
He's a pretentious-as-hell, self-centered American left political cartoonist who can barely draw, and is rarely capable of not depicting people as a badly drawn Hitler. Usually published in local alt-weekly papers. Most of the time his cartoons seem to center on how morally or intellectually superior he is to everyone else. This doesn't seem to be an exception, but it's a great lambasting of people who are willing to put lukewarm centrism ahead of making a point. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I despise him, for the reasons that you give. Stopped clock in this bit, definitely. — Unsigned, by: Castaigne / talk / contribs 16:46, 8 May 2015‎ (UTC)
We have an article, Ted Rall, and it's tedious. It started as a ludicrous hatchet-job with references that didn't support the claims; those were cut, and what was left survived VFD for no sane reason - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone who didn't condemn the attacks on Charlie Hebdo? Anyone worth listening to? The outpouring of support for the staff of the magazine after the attack came from every people of every political bent. But when some of those people started trumpeting Charlie Hebdo itself as some bastion of free speech and independent thought, others pointed out that Charlie Hebdo is basically a racist tabloid and that you didn't need to republish their content or praise the magazine to support their right to publish without violence. This person equates a decision to not republish racist cartoons with allowing the attack on Charlie Hebdo to go unchallenged, and that is simply not reasonable. RachelW (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that Charlie Hebdo is not a racist tabloid.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Not racist? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 18:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't speak French. What is that cartoon saying? CorruptUser (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
"The sex slaves of Boko Haram are angry. ‘Don’t touch our child benefits!'" FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest reading the comments under the Feministe post. This particular conversation has been rehashed countless times, and I'm unwilling to reproduce it here. So I'll just leave a couple of links, such as this one. You can also read some of the posts about the controversies on Freethought Blogs (starting from the very beginning). Charlie Hebdo is not Pamela Geller stuff.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm failing to see the racism in the cartoon, considering that Boko Haram is on another continent and I'm quite sure that the sex slaves are the exact opposite of people intentionally having kids for welfare. Unless having any depiction of a non-white person automatically makes it racist or something. CorruptUser (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It's drawing on a popular stereotype of foreigners/immigrants as benefit scroungers. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
An absolute must-read for non-Francophones/people with no grounding in French politics and culture trying to take part in discussions about the content of Charlie Hebdo. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It isn't really very much different from South Park, or Mad Magazine or the National Lampoon in their prime. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that it's distinctly French, often speaking to distinctly French political/social/cultural concerns. It's kind of tricky to speak knowledgeably about satire without an intimate understanding of that which is being satired, and of all the associated political/social/cultural assumptions and dynamics at play. Throwing a caption into Google translate or, in my case, relying on my relatively advanced French language skills that come from growing up in Francophone Canada are not enough to really "get" what CH is doing -- much as a guy from Paris who speaks perfect English but isn't immersed in US-American culture is probably going to miss a lot of what's going on in MAD. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't doubt that. I'm sure that people who aren't steeped in American culture would find most of South Park unintelligible even if they understood the meanings of the words and the thrust of the plot, and might take offense at things that people here take in stride. Different cultures are allowed to be strange to us. And reading Charlie Hebdo without background, and bringing in Anglocentric notions about "welfare scroungers" and the like, will not work well either. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

i would argue, as I have many times before, that south park IS racist. Have you seen how they treat chinese? They get too much of a free pass in my opinion. I also very much doubt that the concept of a welfare scrounger is uniquely anglocentric AMassiveGay (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
That's horseshit. South Park makes fun of EVERYONE. They're equal-opportunity lunatics.--Arisboch (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
ahh yes, the 'equal opportunity offender' canard. The get out out of jail free card for racist comedians since forever. Its also bullshit - some groups get a more nuanced take in south park, while others get the same lazy stereotypes. Mr garrison anyone? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Mr Garrison is a special case, because in a number of episodes he's actually the voice of reason, and his assholish behavior is never condoned. Keep in mind that Big Gay Al was on South Park saying "it's OK to be gay" years before Will & Grace. CorruptUser (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This. Also, they've been a lot better on the LGBT community lately from what I've seen, like the episode last season that dealt with trans* bathroom issues.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
People have actually been saying "it's OK to be gay" for quite a long time, and Big Gay Al is hardly the most uplifting example. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, I find it amusing how much people got into a huff over the LGBT stuff, but can laugh so hard when the same people parody the genuine religious beliefs of others. I'm an agnostic myself and have no love for any of the world's religions, and I also recognize that it's completely hypocritical to shriek about how offensive it is when someone produces a biting satire of something I agree with. I mean come on, who can disagree that Dr Pepper is the perfect agnostic beverage; after all, no one knows just what it tastes like. I think it quite nicely illustrates how quickly people who have no trouble offending others in the name of free speech get into a furor if their views are subjected to the same treatment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I could have handled this better[edit]

Yesterday, I tried to get in a debate with a street preacher (why in Canada is not punishment from God over having no abortion laws, allowing same-sex-marriage). He seemed to avoid talking to me and wanted to stand above me and shout down to me and everybody else. I put my hand on his shoulder trying to get him come down from his soapbox and I could tell he was uncomfortable with that. I did apologize for squeezing his shoulder but I wanted to show if he really believed in what he says he would stand higher than everybody else (my reasoning on why I called him being a hypocrit).

I have been thinking about writing e-mail to explain my actions and my opinions.Cms13ca 13:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to shout at somebody who is shouting in the street then I guess you have every right to do so. Although the possibility of people assuming that you are both equally insane is quite high.
Physical contact is another matter and I would suggest should be avoided.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed on the physical contact, but I think street preachers should get heckled more than they do. They're a public nuisance AFAIAC. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Last time I was in NYC I saw a bunch of witnesses yammering on about how homosexuality is a sin. So I asked one why I couldn't own a Canadian. He didn't even know that slavery was allowed in the Bible. So I told him to actually read the book he was forcing on everyone else, where he started yelling at me and I guess I started yelling back about how he was doing the devil's work because he was preaching hate. CorruptUser (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
BFD. God hates the unbeliever is doctrinal to one-quarter of the planet's population. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I would actually dispute that in both directions. Christianity is also just as hostile to pagans, polytheists, non-Christians, and atheists as Islam is, so you are talking more like half the planet. At the same time, I'm not sure all of Islam is hostile to non-Muslims. Iran of all places, as insane as they are (the first Ayatollah was almost completely detached from the needs of his people, not understanding that the poverty rate skyrocketing was "bad"), allows minorities to exist so long as they were somewhere between second-class citizens and slaves. CorruptUser (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"Somewhere between second-class citizens and slaves" doesn't sound like a great example of "not hostile". WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Most of Christianity didn't let minorities exist at all. Jews were occasionally allowed only as long as they were constantly shuffled around, mostly for the "see what happens to those that reject Christ?!" value. Romani were occasionally allowed but kicked out as well. IS's treatment of Christians and Shia? Pretty much the same as old-school Christians prior to the Enlightenment. CorruptUser (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
hey Rob! "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30) - pot, meet kettle. BicyclewheelModerator 08:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Jesus didn't say cut the head off of the non-believer, he said pray for those who despitefully use you and love your enemies. It's not bombs that will defeat murderous jihads and their errant ideology. It is a spiritual problem that requires a spiritual solution. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 03:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The correct way to handle street preachers is to not engage them. No one listens to their rantings. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No, no, NO!. The correct thing to do is to record their ravings and mix them into industrial and electronic music. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)