RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive245

This is an archive page, last updated 17 July 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>, <244>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Trayvon Martin app?

This discussion was moved to Forum:Deofex.^{— Unsigned, by: FuzzyCatPotato / talk / contribs 19:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)}

Submit some music to go with Ted Cruz's campaign

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAvBb-hnlIc Master Necromancer(fear me!) 12:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This may be a bit mean but www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ1yK89imRk Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 12:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRaiiT3ZnJw Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvKjpGP6P5Y - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 14:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Could apply to the entire Republican party, actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqTQYGUhz_Y - Psycho Gecko 18:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I think the entire GOP takes this song this song to literally.Samstr (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-BLMOYlIIw Synapsid chris (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It isn't me but someone else! --Madman (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Star Wars prequel films weren't just bad, they were anti-intellectual

I've been thinking about yet another thing to hate on the prequel films for: the scenes where Chancellor Palpatine is corrupting Anakin. In one of these scenes in the Episode 3 movie, he encourages Anakin to look at perspectives other than the narrow-minded, black-and-white views of the Jedi Order. If you remember this leads to him starting to doubt his faith in the Jedi Order (and justifiably so, they were being hypocritical by taking sides in the war), which they blame for him becoming Darth Vader. Think about what kind of message that sends: Don't take an honest look at your own faith kids, because bad bad things will happen! Anyways, the rest of this thread will be devoted to general hate for the prequel films. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 23:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that teaches "Don't believe high-ranking politicians, they could be evil Sith-Lords". Really, if that is not some kinda joke, it looks like a copy of the panic certain religious fundamentalists monger about Harry Potter being Satanic or similar crap.--^{— Unsigned, by: Arisboch / talk / contribs} 03:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, have to agree with Arisboch. The anti-intellectualism would only come clearly through if the Jedis were presented as Good Christians^TM in a way similar to the contrast between the good student and the evil atheist professor and similar liberal academia scare stories. As it stands, Palpatine is indeed a tempter, but his temptations are not all of the "choosing something obviously wrong"-variety and instead he comes off as a master shyster relying on the old adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There were plenty of craptastic moments in that (in)famous trilogy, but anti-intellectualism wasn't one of them. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

My main beef with the flicks is they should have been Obi Wan's story instead of Anikan's, focusing more on the former. That and the whole Midiclorian and Virgin Birth aspect of the story just needs to die. Hopefully the new movie will retcon that somehow. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

My beef was they thought CGI and other special effects were a good replacement for storytelling and reaction. The actors themselves were talented actors; just look at Natalie Portman in Leon. As it was all CGI with no support in development, all the reactions were wrong simply because the actors didn't know what they were reacting to. RLM has a good breakdown of it, there's one scene with General Wheezus where he pulls out 4 lightsabres at once and starts spinning them around. On paper, it's OMG that is so awesome! LASERSWORDFIGHT! But in the movie? While Wheezus is spinning his swords, Obi-Wan just stands there. No blinking, no flinching, no prepping for the fight, just holding perfectly still. CorruptUser (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(EC)The main thing I remember the prequels for is being completely forgettable. I've watched them a couple of times (though not recently) and can't clearly remember any aspect of the story other than the bits that you already know before seeing them (i.e. Palpatine becomes Emperor, Anakin becomes Vader, Luke & Leia are born). I know there was a Clone War but I don't remember why or who was involved or why I should care about it. The new characters were equally forgettable too (aside from the excruciating JarJar Binks) and have no character depth beyond the mere novelty value of seeing Liam Neeson, Samuel Jackson & Christopher Lee as Jedi. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. I don't think I could quote a single line from the original trilogy. I've always been more into Star Trek anyways (and I certainly have my gripes with the new films). Samstr (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The new startreks were watchable but they messed up Kirk, they removed almost all intelligence from Kirk and literally made him a sex machine. And Spock is too bland, he is too Vulcan now. Kirk atleast used to be a brilliant diplomat and tactician and amazing diplomat first, and sex symbol second. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 23:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Rebooted Star Trek feels like bad pastiche to me. Let's redo the death and rebirth of Spock with Kirk, and get it out of the way in a half an hour. And you have the world-diminishing bad choices like blowing up Vulcan. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

i prefer new star trek over old star trek, and my taste is impeccable. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, after the TNG movies, anything at all would look halfway decent. Seriously, TNG may be the better series, but their movies were just damn awful. CorruptUser (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

They weren't amazing, but I like most of them, other than Generations which fumbles the TOS-TNG handover & doesn't do either series much credit. Those two series are the pillars of Star Trek so the only way to revive Star Trek (at least after the hiatus of recent years) was to revisit one or other. DS9 & Voyager are OK, but neither of them progressed beyond cult/trekkie appeal where a movie transition would have been a viable option, & Enterprise pretty much killed the prospect of further TV series. So I think the TOS reboot movies were the right move. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Before his point by point explanation of why the Star Wars prequels were so god-awful, RedLetterMedia (go to Youtube) started on the Star Trek TNG movies. Anyone want a pizza roll? CorruptUser (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think tng was the best series, og comes second, voyager i never saw, i also never saw ds9 Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 19:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there were only three real series of Star Trek: Original Flavour, The Next Generation and the first 5 seasons of Futurama. Fonzie (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

And there were only 7 Star Trek movies; Star Treks I - VI and Galaxy Quest. CorruptUser (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I go with Star Trek Online, which is set in the main Star Trek universe, starting some time after the destruction of Romulus. Everything's coming apart again, at least at first. The Klingons went their own way and conquered the Gorn, the Romulans split into three factions and various independent colonies, the Cardassians are trying to reform their society while another group tries to take it back to Fascism, and so on. On top of that, there are occasional attacks by stronger Borg, Species 8472, the Tholians, and the Mirror Universe's Terran Empire. So join up and become a Klingon Dahar Master while playing as a green-skinned alien space babe today! And whatever you do, don't keep food in your inventory if you also own a tribble. There'll be trouble. http://images-cdn.perfectworld.com/arc/e9/64/e9640621f72caf9efbc056671487cd491430268809.jpg - Psycho Gecko 22:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

anniversary

It is the anniversary of the Night of the Blunt Knives is coming up. i didn't take part in it, but it is important to rw historyy, and also is yet another reason CP is stupid. we should do something interesting to remember it, any ideas? Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 13:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could commemorate it by stabbing each other? It'll simulate the experience. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeeehaw, commemorative fencing!!--Arisboch (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We could pull a TK and destroy ourselves from within. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick, let's institute policies that are well-intentioned but will subtly lead to a destruction of the userbase and downfall of the website. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We could do a mass wandal raid on cp. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 18:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"REMEMBER THE BLUNT KNIVES!" and link rational wiki Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 18:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, the Night of the Blunt Knives was a unilateral move engineered by TK that ultimately amounted to a coup in which Andy then abdicated leadership. Ken now is the heir and beneficiary. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 18:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes i'm sure andy had absolutely no choice but to go along with it. --Miekal 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

He deferred to TK's superior idiocy. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 20:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's hardly a coup where andy was forced to cede power. --Miekal 04:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

He just walked off the set and quit, and gave the reins over to the biggest bully. I was there, I saw it. No discussion on consensus vs mobocracy, etc. TK implemented Wikipedia's IAR and got promoted. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 23:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Like, 3 other users have to vote on your edit before it goes through? And your user password has to change every week? CorruptUser (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Not secure enough, 5 user approval. Samstr (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's somewhat remarkable the similarities that Conservapedia shares with some fascist dictatorships in terms of it's policing. Samstr (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought for a moment that the policy stuff was a Citezendium reference. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah, CP is police state, while CZ is SimBureaucracy. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Anonymous user, did you kill Rita?} 22:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"It is the anniversary of the Night of the Blunt Knives is coming up. i didn't take part in it, but it is important to rw historyy ..."

It took me a while there to realize rw meant RationalWiki and not "rewrite." Fonzie (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I perfer that we didnt rewrite history, just think what would happen if we wrote history......... or even worse, Conservapedia...... Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 19:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul just relaeased a stupid commercial where he predicts another financial crisis, and you should go to his website to stop it, he also blamed Obama. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 20:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I predict that sometime between now and the heat death of the universe, there will be a financial crisis. I can't say specifically when, but when it happens I will be right. CorruptUser (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

it works for horoscopes it works for me Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There's also an approximate fifty year gap between Presidents and the financial crises they're responsible for. The 2008 crisis was Eisenhower's fault, for instance. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There is [[[wp:Kondratiev wave|something to that]].] But I think it's related to generational change, youth rebellion, and the unwillingness of children to learn from their parents and grandparents. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well given that we didn't really do much of anything to prevent more failures after this crash it would hardly come as a surprise if another financial crash does come soon. Samstr (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Do something -before- it happens sounds like effort, and expensive. How can you justify all the money spent preventing another financial crash if it doesnt happen, and how could we spend os much money pointlessly if it does crash again--Miekal 03:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point, we shouldn't do anything to prevent anything with that logic. Samstr (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Politics and ideology aside, this is interesting (viz-a-viz a non-profit entity). He's not running for office, so what is the source of funds, and to whom is he soliciting funds for what purpose? nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I once used to like Paul, but I've slowly come to see him as another one of those far out there conservatives who just says lots of weird things that don't make sense or correspond with his actions. — Melab (Talk) 22:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

He's a libertarian, libertarians are stopped clocks by default. Alsto003 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Alex

I'm actually under the impression that another financial crisis is going to come at some point within a decade maybe more. Not for the same reasons as Dr. Paul, but rather, because the Dodd-Frank Act is being rolled back. Alsto003 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Alex

Somebody is annoyed

These all were made today.

• The "Rational" Wiki -- The hivemind of liberal and atheist nut jobs (shows RW brain)
• The "Rational" Wiki -- The wiki of butthurt liberal atheist scum who think Richard Carrier is a legit source on the historical existence of Jesus. (shows RW brain)
• Typical RationalWiki user -- just realized creationism is false at the age of 40. Now thinks he's an expert on religion. (shows cartoon neckbeard)
• The wet dream of all rationalwiki users. (shows Andrew Schlafly)

I'm wondering if it's that guy at Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, cuz of the Richard Carrier comments. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

no goats or jerboas 8-( Hamster (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

For some reason they are all on kym, isn't that a cheezburger site? Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 12:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Since March 2011, yes.--Arisboch (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it could be Gaidn who, in his one blog post about RW that he linked to from Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, made several bogus claims about RW equating Nazis and Christians and RW being a conspiracy of socialist/communist atheists and just being an evulz lib'rul conspiracy version of CP. Apparently, Gaidn is of the "I don't check my sources, so I'll assume you don't check them either"-school of demented ranting, since it's so easy to debunk his claims by actually reading the bloody articles on RW.

However, Gaidn is hardly unique in having this view of RW, though the coincidence in timing is interesting.

P.S. Note Gaidn's pre-emptive martyr gambit/persecution complex from the talk page: "I know none of this will be noted in the article though (what with this wiki being worst [sic] than Conservapedia with its liberal atheist bias) so I set up this blog". In other words, "I'm not even going to bother defending my claims, because you're all just biased, so instead of engaging in such normal wiki-interaction, I've created my own forum". ScepticWombat (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Do I get it right, that he is claiming a false balance b/w CP and RW?--Arisboch (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Look! Look! They refuse to accept my bullshit POV, so I'm going to create my own site, where I do exactly the same as I accuse them of doing..." PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 13:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Arisboch: While Gaidn was trying for a balance fallacy, he decided to PIDOOMA the bad things he attributes to RW to straw man it into a mirror image of CP. The result is a sort of not even wrong-balance fallacy. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a shot. Samstr (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I mean, I know this wiki has it's own biases (you should expect that), and it's own biased (mainly "librul") snark, but isn't calling it a "mirrored" version of Conservapedia going a little overboard? RationalWiki seems at least a little more, well, ratio-nal. Conservapedia just seems to make bullshit claims with no evidence. Bad @ splleing... (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It also has its quality control issues and resident... peculiar people, but arguing that it's the "liberal" mirror version of Conservapedia is not born out by the evidence.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Liberal" is a bit of a stretch. I'm an old-school Liberal (not Classic Liberal), but most people here seem to be Social Democrats. Mainly I think I disagree with the SoDems in that I believe increased wealth/income equality should be a result of a functioning government rather than the goal. CorruptUser (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way whether RW could test its similarities to CP? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm generally under the impression that there is quite a bit of overlap between the Gamergate proponents and the netizens/trolls who come up with this sort of stuff. So this sort of thing is to be expected. Alsto003 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Alex

Wtf

Wtf was Pregnant Lady talking about, she never even mentioned a reason? Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 19:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It seemed pretty incoherent, especially the vaporised talk page and the socking contribs. Weird stuff threatening Tmtoulouse and RationalMedia with lawsuits, as well something I've seen another nutter claim: That the RW captcha must be "spying" on them and providing deliberately insulting puzzles(!) But nowhere any sign of why these legal threats were being bandied about. Perhaps someone else knows of some extra background? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Troll or crazy, take your pick. Marlow (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

My initial impression too, but I couldn't be sure this didn't refer to something else besides the contents of the posts by these two accounts (Pregnant/Preggo), perhaps someone who had earlier been posting as a BoN or under yet other names. Exactly because no reasons for or details of the legal threats were provided, I thought Preg might be referring to something that was assumed to be well-known. From content alone Preg is clearly somewhere on the crazy/troll scale (possibly being both?) ScepticWombat (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocking somebody for a comment & then asking each other what the comment meant seems a pretty mixed up way of doing things. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It was Miekal who did the initial blocking of Pregnant Lady, while Bubba is doing the asking, though Bubba did block the Preggo sock as a follow up. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There are proper channels for legal action. There's nothing to worry about when someone shows up spouting off legal threats. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 23:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin Bans Potatoes

So in the WIGO, one of the stories is about how Wisconsin no longer lets people on WIC buy certain foods. One of those? Potatoes. POTATOES. That list, I mean I can understand saying "don't spend money on worthless organic food", but all beans and rice in 1 lb bags only? Yet milk can only be bought by the gallon, because fuck you this is Wisconsin. Just, what the fuck? CorruptUser (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's sad that organic foods are banned at all. Ultimately I think the problem here boils down to food subsidies and the fact that certain crops, such as corn receive huge subsidies while organic foods like apples or unprocessed potatoes do not. Ironically this has actually led to obesity becoming a large problem among the poor, not because they are eating more necessarily, but because they can't afford healthier food options. There's only so much you can buy with a these programs, and when your on a budget cereal and junk food aren't just cheap ways to get calories, they're often the only way to get calories. Samstr (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The only significant difference between organic apples and regular apples of the same cultivar is the price. If organic pesticides and so forth were truly superior, the farmers would've already used them. But yes, subsidies are a problem. CorruptUser (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

the argument for organic pesticides is that are better for the environment, better for people or just taste nicer. Quite apart from if that is true or not, it has nothing to do with higher yields, so no, farmers would not be using them already if they did what they claimed. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm really curious as to how this list was compiled and why certain items were deemed unfit for support. For instance, why is sauerkraut banned? It's a non perishable food which, as far as I recall, is quite healthy and not particularly expensive, yet it got the thumbs down. The list seems a weird concoction of mundane good nutritional thinking (don't support products with added corn syrup or sugars or let people use stamps for frozen vegetables to buy fries) and outright arbitrary bans (potatoes, sauerkraut, and the really strange ban on brown eggs). I suspect, if I take my positive, charitable interpretation glasses on, that the spuds ban is to make sure that the fresh fruit and vegetable stamps aren't simply spent on potatoes (which, although a good all round source of nutrition should probably be supplemented by fruits and veg). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am curious about this item. I live in Wisconsin and am on the state food stamop program. There has been no notification of restrictions. I do agree that some items you can purchase should be disallowed (snack foods, candy, etc)to make the available money go farther. Hamster (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Lobbyist from the various food companies and agribusiness etc help determine what is and isn't allowed on WIC. Coca-Cola for example stands to make a lot of money if their products are on the list for WIC, TANF, etc.Guymanne (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a whole lot of light between the "health" agenda and the "let's beat up the poor" agenda. It's all about being your fault for not living right. That's why you're poor, and that's why you're fat. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The question I've always had was, "how do you eat on SNAP if you don't even have a stove"? I mean yeah, I could theoretically live off of $50/month in food with my sacks of rice and vegetables, but only if I have a means of cooking the food. What can homeless people do? CorruptUser (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The "hobo stove" isn't called "hobo stove" for nothing, so at the very least theoretically it is possible, not that this whole idea of restricting what people can buy with food stamps is a good idea, to begin with.--Arisboch (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Fuck. Where I live most EBT recipients sell their EBT for dope. And commercial establishments, like restaurants, buy it up. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 23:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

How could you possibly know this about "most" of anybody? And what restaurant has an EBT terminal? How would a restaurant redeem EBT credit for money from the government? RachelW (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobs is our resident angry old conservative. However, generally he disagrees on the interpretation of the facts rather than denying them like wingnuts and moonbats usually do, so it's not too bad. Plus, he knows more about the mid-east (and Hillary) than most people here, so he's useful. CorruptUser (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rachel Most restaurants are mom n' pop shops, but there's Burger King franchise that also does it. A burrito wagon, too. The doper goes in, says, "May I speak with the Manager?" Manager comes out and doper says "I have EBT to sell." Manager says, "How much?" Doper says, "Full boat", meaning approximately $200 for single individual. Manager takes the card, and pin number, verifies balance on an 800 number, goes to Costco or a Restaurant Wholesale Supply Cash and Carry outlet, returns the card the following day with payment of 50 cents on the dollar. Many restaurants, and the Mexican Mafia that runs the dope business in my area, probably couldn't stay in business without this federal government subsidy. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 03:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Rob - Conservapedia needs you. Go, go now! PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 04:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So why doesn't government just set up internal flags to monitor what the EBT cards are spent on, and investigate odd purchases? Like, a person buying $200 of onions, and another person buying $200 of tomatoes, etc. CorruptUser (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Because that would be Big Government snooping and prying into the business of good, hard-workin', God-fearin' Americans. It's much easier to slag off the poor. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Tracking federal funds is a huge problem (out of control spending , to garner a phrase). Half the billions appropriated in Afghanistan goes unaccounted for, so there's no way to keep track of a $200 crate of potatoes or onions in the US. Besides, what you're suggesting only increases federal spending and costs, i.e. hiring enforcement investigators to act on the information fraud auditors uncover. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 04:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the Horseshoe Theory always bad?

This is something I've been thinking about. Our article on the Horseshoe Theory talks about how the far right and the far left are, in many ways, more similar to each other than to the center. However, it frames this, as best I can tell, completely in terms of negative qualities like authoritarianism. However, this assumes that you can never have a situation in which the Center is wrong, and the fringes are calling them on it. I know some people will scream Stopped Clock, but I think part of it is that we're so used to certain ideas that the only people who are going to question them are people outside the mainstream. I'm particularly thinking about how Libertarians and Social Democrats in recent years have both taken stances in favor of drug decriminalization or legalization, both have fought to end mass incarceration, and both have spoken out against the militarization of the police.--Mustex (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In the UK the Greens and UKIP have just joined forces in trying to change the voting system. Also, do you mean the radical centre (or the Extreme Centre for people who don't like it)? Bicycle^wheel 08:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The horseshoe theory is as limited as any other left-to-right linear conception of the political spectrum. The Nolan chart or political Compass is more realistic, and shows how people who may come from other ends of spectrum in terms of welfare and economic policy may have a lot in common in their approach to personal liberties. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Horseshoe Theory isn't supposed to provide an ideological scale per se, but instead an approach to politics which could be termed radicalism vs. status quo, or populist vs. elitist. For instance, in Weimar Germany, while the elitist right wingers (such as the old officer class and/or monarchists) may have been ideologically very similar to Nazis, the Nazis were, given their focus on the masses, far closer to the Communists. And you could actually argue, as has been done, that the centre was wrong in terms of how to deal with the Great Depression, where FDR, Hitler and some of the Scandinavian Social Democratic cabinets all pursued a "radical", interventionist, Keynesian strategy which was opposed by the old centre of (classical) liberals and conservatives, like the UK Whigs and Tories, who kept harping on what today is known as "austerity". So no, the "centrist" consensus is not always in the right. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The main reason Horseshoe theory works is that opposition to the prevailing attitudes of the day naturally tend towards deconstruction of certain social or governmental power centers. Wanting to rewrite the world requires taking out, say, the big banks, whether you're a free market nutjub or a socialist nutjob. So the fringe finds unity in opposition to the status quo. And since the world is far from perfect, the "wipe it and do it right" attitude is going to resonate with anyone. Just usually those fringe groups can't be trusted to "do it right". ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I always hated that aphorism "this century's radical is next century's conservative", which is the radical's way of claiming to be ahead of the times. While it's true that the conservatives of next century would be radical today, last century was full of radical nutjobs that today are still radical nutjobs. Look at all the 19th century insane ideas. Fourierism, Owenism, Taylorism, Iron law of Wages theory, Marxism, etc. CorruptUser (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

#NotAllRadicals--Arisboch (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, CorruptUser has a point, but what was known as radicalism in the 19th century largely is, if not conservatism, then at least social liberal status quo (universal suffrage, abolishment of inherited rights, republicanism or at least ceremonial monarchy etc.). Conversely, some of last century's conservatism is this century's radicalism... ScepticWombat (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My point is that while it's true that once a radical's ideas become accepted, the people that hold those ideas are "conservative", there are so many radical ideas that did not become accepted. The "society was wrong before" argument is almost identical to the Science was wrong before argument; just because society/science is wrong is not evidence whatsoever that your idea is right. CorruptUser (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that people with non-centrist political identities don't tend to get much more conservative as they age. "Center-left" people tend to reach middle age as "Center-right", perhaps by this very process you describe, but solidly left people are frequently solidly left as adults.<ref>I can't actually remember where I read this study :(</ref> ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've found myself drifting "leftward" as I age, but this may be the result of me being fairly strongly libertarian as a young adult. Things just look more complicated to me than they did then. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like me! Young me: "People known what they need more than anyone else does. No one should be able to decide for you what is best for you, and it isn't fair to be forced to 'purchase' goods and services you don't need via taxes and public services. Just let people do as much as they want without forcing them, and that will result in a better society". Current me: "Most people are fucking morons, but they are too stupid to realize this. Myself included; young me was an idiot. We need some basic protections, and rules to protect us from the worst of the idiots. At the same time, government programs when run right can actually provide certain services for far cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector can." CorruptUser (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that the horseshoe theory is only horseshit when is when people use it to invoke the balance fallacy. There are legitimate uses for horseshoe theory, such as pointing out that in real life politics are a lot more complex than left vs. right, and whether someone is left-wing or right-wing can often vary depending on whether you're talking social issues or economic issues. For example, if an anti-feminist, white supremacist homophobe is in favor of executing gay people, barring women from jobs and politics, and exiling black people, yet wants free health care for everyone and to reduce greenhouse gas production, are they left-wing or are they right-wing? —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather unlikely combination, but if you can't decide whether they're left or right, they don't fit very well into the horseshoe theory, which still differentiates between the two. If the point you want to make is "in real life politics are a lot more complex than left vs. right, and whether someone is left-wing or right-wing can often vary depending on whether you're talking social issues or economic issues", this is better reflected in the Nolan Chart or Political Compass than in the horseshoe. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some interesting convergences, like TERFs and fundamentalists on trans issues. But a lot of the time it seems like Broderism to me. Let's take a dramatic example. Horseshoe theory, in the context of the 19th c., basically puts abolitionists and the most viciously racist slaveholders on the same moral plane. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

My main problem with the horseshoe theory is it treats political identities in a completely 1 dimensional sense. I think a plane that represents economic and authority issues on two separate axis is a more (but still not entirely) accurate representation of all possible political identities that people can hold. Perhaps it is true that most major politicians and world leaders fall somewhere on that horseshoe, but I don't think that is true of most individuals. With all of that I must say I am intrigued by that notion that the horseshoe is used not as a model of all possible political identities but a spectrum of beliefs held by certain groups on the same issues. Samstr (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

genocide in south africa?

Moved to Forum:Mr 74 said something ^{— Unsigned, by: David Gerard / talk / contribs 14:46, 24 May 2015‎ (UTC)}

Would whoever runs User:Pibot please stand up?

You are needed on User talk:Pibot or RationalWiki:Technical support, whichever you choose.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's Pi innit? Scream!! (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It was Π, but the last time I asked, they said they have no server access, which I took as "it's no longer run by me".--ZooGuard (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

For Memorial Day.....

In honor of Memorial Day weekend, I give you this passage by science fiction author Robert J. Sawyer. Interesting food for thought. Gak92 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Tumbleweeds

So I show up and see "Rationality and tumbleweeds" on the {{holydaze}} banner, and in a way I think someone had a point: rationality and tumbleweeds. No, they are by not by any means anathema to rationality, but how much good do they do? Are they really that funny? WalkerWalkerWalker 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The proper response to complaints about tumbleweeds:

141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We have a template for that. Crickets.

Hmm CorruptUser (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and it looks like there's an unnecessary carriage return in it. (You can edit the template if you want.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always hated the tumbleweeds, along with strikethrough text & mystery meat links. They're all lazy stand-ins for humour which aren't actually funny or clever but are widely used as if they are, and contribute to articles looking dumb & sometimes incoherent. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[EC]

I'm of two minds on the tumbleweeds pages.

[1]: They are useless pages. They have no information, they make no points, and people who disagree with them will not have their minds changed (Think the list of tests of homeopathy -- any good homeopathy supporter will know one or two they think fit, and yet the page does nothing to debunk them, letting the supporter think their tests were valid.), even if that's not likely for most pages.

[2]: They are popular pages. They're often linked from external references, because they're funny enough to make a tiny, tiny point -- look, there are no studies that support homeopathy! Ha. (Clicks back arrow, goes back to reading reddit.) And a few people do stay and read other articles, which expands RW's reach.

I dunno which is more important. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[1], obviously. If we wanted to attract more idle clicks, we'd do a lot more meme-related content, which would be dumb but most of it would probably be more entertaining & popular than tumbleweeds. People insist on keeping those pages because they've been around so long & get a few clicks, but if they were a new creation I doubt they'd stand for long without being deleted or moved to fun/essay/user space. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

They are indeed ridiculously popular, suggesting the joke is far from played out in the wider world. We probably don't need more, though. But it serves as a useful local meme, e.g. on Freeman on the land. So I wouldn't actually remove them - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The ones that are in proper articles, such as freeman on the land, might do better to be replaced with a statement of nonexistence and a description of why things supporters/proponents of x/dissenters from y would want to list there really don't at all belong there. For example, freemen on the land might count cases of law enforcement deciding discretion is the better part of valor as successes; a description of why they aren't really would be beneficial. But that's just my take of course. Also, sorry for the belatedness; I've been rather busy of late. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify: I said "might do better..." when I meant "would probably/typically do better in terms of being informational but invariably worse in terms of being amusing..." WalkerWalkerWalker 18:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And actually let me also float an idea by example: suppose you were making a list of Gamergate successes in re their "stated" goals (ethics in gaming journalism bla bla). You would of course be inclined to tumbleweed it up, for obvious reasons, but if you placed after that (and I'm saying directly after that, not (just) elsewhere on the page either together or in bits and pieces) a subheading that read "Claimed successes" or similar and took their claimed successes (any slightly changed or newly published ethics guideline in the past seven years, basically) apart and showed the faults in calling them successes, then would in my mind make the argument tighter, cleaner, and more persuasive. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

New Meme Proposal

Me. I am a meme. _{And why am I worried about cluttering up the Saloon bar with self-centered jokes? This is a most three lines on a reasonable resolution.} Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How about Milhouse? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not Zoidberg? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Milhouse is already my fallback. Zoidberg was for a limited time only. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 21:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reported you all to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Customer Services for insufficient dankness in your memes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Open your heart, it's gonna be alright} 04:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Why is RationalWiki full of feminazis and SJWs now?"

Or, "An Exercise in Loaded Questions". FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If I had an account I'd post "RationalWiki is sponsored by Third Reich Feminazism and the famous Social Justice Warrior extremism unit, 'The A-Team.'" or some-such. Can somebody get that for me? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised the conservative user name troll hasn't done it already. But then he's quieter these days. Bicycle^wheel 23:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, delete my RationalWiki account.

Please, delete my pages and my RationalWiki account:

Thanks a lot. 01:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not as a rule delete user talk pages. You are free to archive them, but we save them in order to keep a complete archival record of the project. Bear in mind that every word you wrote for us, you did so under the terms of use, and those words belong to us now. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Next time, think before acting like an antisemite. --Miekal 02:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that what a JEW would say. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The devil found it objectionable, so he banished it to Dollarama} 19:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the above, MediaWiki (the software running RW) does not allow the deletion of user accounts.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It does allow renaming. I think we have the relevant whatever installed, Nutty Roux used it on his own account of that name ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah hadn't thought of that -- any Moderator (and prolly Tech) can rename the account. Why not go ahead and call it something less personal. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's Special:Renameuser. I've renamed the account and moved the user pages - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on anecdotal evidence

I just read it, and it seems to me that it's not very good. It gives an example of a hypothetical anecdote involving somebody curing their cancer by drinking water, and follows it up with "this proves nothing," and some vague explanation involving "idiosyncratic reactions" that left me with the impression that it's saying the water did cure the person, but that it probably only has a small cure rate (this isn't what's meant, of course, but that's how it came across to me). Someone who believes in alternative medicine would probably say that they have "cured" many diseases with many different types of remedies, that they know many people who have done the same thing, and that these can't all be explained away as idiosyncratic reactions. I don't think somebody sitting on the fence as to whether altmed anecdotes are useful would be convinced by the article, either.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 22:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Organization of an online Dungeons&Dragons game

So there's this website called roll20.net. It's a simulator that allows you to organize tabletop RPG games over the internet, complete with designing your own maps and a random number generator for dice rolls. Considering this, I was wondering if any of you fellow nerds would be interested in helping me set up a campaign on it for Rationalwiki members only (and it doesn't have to be D&D, but it most likely will). Just a crazy idea that I had, let me know if it's a little too crazy. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 02:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested. So what edition are we talking about here? I've been itching to play 5E.--Nord Ronnoc (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking 3.5, but it depends on what people feel like playing. I know we aren't playing 4e. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 11:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's DnD, can I be a gnoll or gnollwhal? (Also, Paranoia seems like a more RW game than DnD.) Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 07:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree paranoia does sound fun from what ive read on tv tropes. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 19:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've got 3.5 books as well as a complete collection for Deathwatch. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How about the Starship Troopers tabletop RPG?! I have a PDF of it on my desktop somewhere. Crispy (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I've used roll20 for a WoD God-Machine campaign. It's pretty good. I'd be interested. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so we have some people interested in playing. Now it comes down to deciding which game to play (D&D, Warhammer40k, Pathfinder, etc.). I vote for D&D 3.5, since most people that have played tabletop RPG's have played it. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 20:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I say 5E. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm good with whatever, but I haven't played in ages so I'll have to study the book intensively for a few. Crispy (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I vote Paranoia. The rules are so fluid. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 10:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Voting", Citizen? So sorry, but what is your clearance level? Shadow of Lords ^talk 13:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You have the clearance to ask that question. You do not have clearance to know whether or not you are cleared for a response. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 13:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please report to your nearest confession booth for mandatory optional blood toxicity readjustment. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought the procedure for this was an optional mandatory oxygen deprivation test. Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Halt! Prove you are not a Commie by answering the following question; QUESTION REDACTED. CorruptUser (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey you go kill some invincible mutant cyborgs for me. Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 14:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ALERT! Alpha Complex is suffering from shortage:Freedom Burgers. Please report to Grinding Room Gamma for assistance. CorruptUser (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Alert! Grinding Room Gamma is run by COMMIES go and kill them. Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Citizen, why not lead us in a rousing chorus of the Alpha Complex anthem? Remembering, of course, that failures of rhyme, meter and tempo are all treasonous. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(Meanwhile, the words can't do that.) Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I might actually join, I'm currently trying to set up a group with my friends so I might not take this one too seriously. I call Gnome Barbarian. Samstr (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to be a lunatic, might as well be a bard or illusionist. Use your bard song to help us sneak across the battlefield! Grapple everyone faster than the speed of sound!CorruptUser (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of the Gnome barbarian too much, just for the lolz. I might actually go Gnome Illusionist if I want to be serious though. It has been a very long time since I last played though, so I'll need to brush up on the rules :p. Samstr (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I GOT IT! Planescape with Paranoia thrown in! It'll be perfect! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How will that work? Is it somehow Paranoia like rules inside the Planescape world or something? Samstr (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So I just made an account. I keep wondering if the person with Teurastaja unlike editor thing looked like that before I created it. Really unnerving. Anyway, any of you heard of a game called Kult?Teurastaja (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Teurastaja

How do I join the group? I signed up as well. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it has officially been set up yet. Someone with a decent amount of d&d experience should set it up on roll20 and DM. Samstr (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So how does one co-opt RW into a D&D game? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Facebook group

"We will ban you... if you hold controversial opinions that are true but unpopular."

Wow - when did Rationalwiki's FB group turn into every Chemtrailer and Anti-vax group on Facebook?

Full rule, before I'm accused of quote mining: "Don't be obnoxious. If you are obnoxious, we will ban you. We are sorry if you have trouble expressing yourself in a reasonable and fun way, or if you hold controversial opinions that are true but unpopular."

We don't like the true things you are saying, there's the door. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 08:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you said something really stupid and you doubled down on it. I can't say I'm surprised at this turn of events. But hey, I thought RationalWiki was, y'know, rational and all.--Nord Ronnoc (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia, but, to a big degree, an opinion site, which means, that sometimes, you get booted for contrary positions under the pretext of having "said something really stupid" the like.--Arisboch (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh trust me guys, I've been here since you were sparkles in your daddies' eyes, and I certainly wasn't booted from the group. I just love the hypocrisy of "We'll ban you, even if what you say is true, but we don't like what you're saying." That's firmly in Madison Star Moon territory. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 12:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So what is it that you think is soooooooo true? --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh FFS, do I need to draw pictures, dingbat? It's got nothing to do with me. I'm pointing out that banning people for saying true but unpopular things, is EXACTLY what chemtrail and anti-vax groups do. Now dooooooooooo you get the point? PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 12:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but they're unpopular for a reason, like aligning with MRAs, buying conspiracy theories, creationism, the works. But it's all about freeze peach to you, huh?--Nord Ronnoc (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Typical. Trust me to get the moron on this one. If you can't grasp the point, then stop trying to look clever. Because you're doing a really shitty job of it. (Hint: where does "conspiracy theories" tie in with "true, but unpopular?") Oh wait... you're a smart arse who thinks "freeze peach" is humerous. You're safe to ignore as the fuckwit you are from now on. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 12:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you got a lot of issues here. I talked with David and he said you're just being a dick here. Besides, the Facebook group's not an official part of RationalWiki. It's even spelled out in the description. What's your problem, anyway? And what are you talking about when you're referring to "unpopular, but true" opinions are you talking about? --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, it was fun watching you get mad. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as you didn't rip your cock off, masturbating to your own cleverness. And if you are incapable of reading a thread, then you really are too stupid to talk to. But you can run back to Gerard and tell I say congrats on applying the same rules to the FB group as every conspiracy site applies, so they can hide behind their bullshit. But do it gently, because triggers, ok? PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 04:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You still gonna explain what is true yet unpopular? That's pretty contradictory, mixing objective and subjective into the mix. And yes, I've read it and no, you haven't explained what you're talking about. But nope, you're just getting mad about something. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea what kind of opinions this is referring to, but "controversial opinions that are true" seems rather a contradictory description. If something is verifiably "true" then it's more of a fact than an opinion, and shouldn't be considered controversial (though I guess that's more of a description of other people's reaction to it). Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of second-guessing Arkady (who is not currently active as a mod, so I don't have her around to ask directly) I'm guessing it's sarcasm in the vein of "suuuure your pet theory is true, and we're a bunch of sheeple. Have a nice day." Maybe it should have scare quotes? I don't know, I can ask David to get a ruling if you really feel it's necessary. EVDebs (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaand yes, David confirms that was the intent. It's a rule meant to shut up Bell Curvers, tinfoilers, and berts, not a blanket excuse to shut down actual facts that happen to be uncomfortable. EVDebs (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It was actually written by User:AD - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one here who remembers when being obnoxious was not only allowed but nearly required? I know the Facebook group has become positively Conservapediaesque with its bannings for not toeing the party line, but I thought the site ha largely escaped that. DickTurpis (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There's SPOV, which is fine, and obnoxious, which isn't. If you've got suggestions, you can talk to us about them, but keep in mind that we've had some ugly shit go down on the FB group, and FB's mod tools are frankly terrible (they go from "strongly worded letter" to "kill it with fire" with very little in between), so we admins are sometimes a bit gunshy when it comes to poster behavior. EVDebs (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I missed the section title showing this discussion is about the FB group. DickTurpis (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, that Facebook group is not an official part of RW, so any discussion here would be moot. Or have they removed the disclaimer? (But yes, that part about the controversial opinions sounds... very poorly thought out.)--ZooGuard (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's from the 'new' 'current' 'whatnot' group. The old group is named "old group / archive now." AFAIK we still link to it from here, or maybe we have distanced ourselves from it. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 18:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a Facebook account, but yes, by the URL it's that group. I thought it was supposed to have a disclaimer that it's not associated with RW or something.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We've been distanced from the FB group for quite some time. So what exactly are you complaining about? As in, why are you bothered by what the FB group is doing? Are you offering to become a mod on it or something? --Castaigne (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I just found the "we'll ban you for saying true but controversial stuff" wonderfully hypocritical - because the group is now like every conspiracy/creationist/chemtrail group on FB. Well done. Bravo! PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 04:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If the distancing is not apparent on the Facebook end (and it's not particularly apparent on RW's), then the group would be an image problem for RW, especially if it's behaving in an... irrational way. ;) --ZooGuard (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Karajou stuck his head in to say "guys, give it a rest with the banhammer for a bit. You're going to wear the thing down." DickTurpis (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother the saloon bar with this, please. This is an RWFB issue, so take it up with one of us mods and leave the Wiki out of it. EVDebs (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So the Saloon Bar is good for discussing favorite animals and D&D games, but things related to RationalWiki or verboten? DickTurpis (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Change the FB Group's name

If, as you say, the FB group in in no way related to the Rationalmedia foundation - then why are you trading off Rationalwiki's name? And saying "it's a place for fans" isn't enough. It's deliberate misrepresentation. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 04:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The current phrasing was worked out in an RMF board meeting last year as entirely suitable (AD and I, both FB group admins at the time, were present). The key issue is that you can't actually stop people forming a Facebook group or whatever that talks about you, with your name in its title and all. But suitable disclaimers cover the trademark issue just fine.

The real question is: it's a year since you were kicked off it for fuckwittery. What in particular crawled up your arse right now? Not that I in fact care, I'm just mildly curious - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"you can't actually stop people forming a Facebook group or whatever that talks about you" - actually given that you're a member of the Board and the admin of the FB group, you fucking well can. Or you should get the fuck off the Board, as there's a conflict of interest.

Oh, and good deflection there - I was not booted off for fuckwittery, I quit and you know it only too well, because of you, Rose, Guest and that Lauralei troll (both of whom have since left I see, calling the group what was it again "a toxic manosphere dump" or something - so well done there on letting the trolls in. Then again, we are talking about somebody who stripped of his rights over at Wikipedia for abusing them, so I don't really expect much from you. But "what crawled up my arse" is seeing the rule and laughing at how you've managed to impose the same rules as the conspiracy fuckwits, and thinking it too good to share. Your passive-agreesive reaction only proves that. You are no better than Madison Star Moon. I just think it's a shame that you're piggy-backing off a non-profit site to do so, with a conflict of interest to boot. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 08:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

People on this website tale a dim view of doxxing and I wonder what they'd think about you never disclosing that your WP powers were stripped because you used checkuser to publish private information? This that really the character of individual we want on the Board? Who knows what else he hasn't told us. And, no, typing "David Gerard Wikipedia" into Google isn't doxxing. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 09:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your instincts on public image and brand and trademark reputation management are unparalleled, not to mention your long track record of doing a fucking thing rather than just yelling and pointing at your haemmorhoids - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So what are you wanting here? Are you wanting Gerard moved from the board? Are you talking about initiating legal action? What the fuck is your issue with a damned FB account anyway? You've lately contributed fuck-all to RW except for kvetching or noting current events, so why the sudden "Let's attack the FB group!" a year later? What is your agenda here? --Castaigne (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why all the vitriol? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 11:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Longstanding tensions between older users of the site, best to not get involved.--Miekal 12:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve to discuss it here? EVDebs (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why did you ask me and fuzzy?--Miekal 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

S/he's asking everyone, methinks. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's really this fucking old shit about new people showing up who aren't him, Nutty Roux, Ace, and so on. Old bullshit. Oh, and this crap here. --Castaigne (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about the To-do List

Please don't take this as a slam at anyone who disagrees with me, but it's clear I'm in the minority opinion here, and since the to-do list doesn't really allow for a lot of dialogue I don't really know why. I thought I'd bring it up and get some feedback.

I recommended internalized racism and cultural appropriation, and they've both gotten a lot of down-votes, and I'm wondering why. Just to give my perspective: I think telling anyone they have Interalized Racism is just flat-out rude and condescending, and basically serves the same function as saying workers have a False consciousness.

As for cultural appropriation, I think it's more of a mixed bag. Yes, we need to show cultural sensitivity. Using music as an example: Yes, it's wildly unfair that Elvis overshadowed Chuck Berry. But, I've had people tell me that it's racist for any white person to every perform any type of music that was first developed by black people (and if the white performer is popular among black audiences, like Eminem, see internalized racism).

So, am I missing something here?--Mustex (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumably people aren't attracted by your pitch. There's nothing stopping you (or anyone) from writing a mission-worthy article on the topics anyway - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

K, I may try later in the week. But, I'm not sure if I'd be very good at tackling the subject. I'm autistic, so when dealing with sensitive topics I tend to be about as subtle as a sack of bricks to the head.--Mustex (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For a start, ditch the arbitrary capitalization. English is not German.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Aber sollte es sein! --Castaigne (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wozu?--Arisboch (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Deutsch ist die überlegene Sprache, natürlich. Es sollte jedem klar sein. --Castaigne (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth , both suggestions did have positive numbers (+5 and +2 when I last checked), so your opinion technically isn't in the minority, if we assume that a representative slice of the userbase voted that way. It's just contentious. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Philip Defina

Bringing this up hoping to get multiple eyeballs Philip DeFina has been calling me and e-mailing me about his article. I have put the e-mail on Talk:Philip DeFina. Some of it probably is valid criticism of the article, but his continued defense of the Jahi McMath stuff and his conspiracy theory about that is a huge red flag for me. tmtoulouse 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh man another doctor. Ouch, sorry you keep getting sued. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If I'm reading his e-mail correctly, he's claiming (among other things) that the hospital mistreated it's employees...and that makes what he did ok?--Mustex (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I misread the email, so I'm gonna clarify. He was making reference to a previous lawsuit involving the hospital and not suing trent. So no one go assuming that. Sorry for my poor comprehension skills(it was also a bit of a word salad critique). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the articles are not available online and only 2 are about autism out of the dozen or so links.

1. pub med link - The only actual completed research piece - No difference in Thailand besides subjective behavior scores on 20 children. Some worse and some better with no consistency between parents and doctors.
2. The only other paper on it is about EEG phase shifting by DeFina after hypobaric autism treatment. Phase reset is generally a treatment for epilepsy, to reset malfunctioning neurons, also done with drugs like Ativan. The paper does not show treatment or changes...merely that phases changed on the EEG.

The other 2 online links supplied are puff pieces without any clinical references or studies. The other non-link studies are expressly labeled to be about brain injuries. The only remotely correct part is that the university was a correspondence college and not an online only college at the time. Technically correct but not really that important. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Talked with someone who sees this many times a day and (paraphrase): "Phase shift is most often associated with equipment problems or untrained techs that don't know how to properly use high/low filters. Research so far has been inconclusive." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously needs citing to the hilt, e.g. the doubts about the college. Anyone got Lexis-Nexis access? - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I do, at least for a little while longer (graduated, but they haven't cut off my library privileges yet). Send me a specific list of things you need and I'll get the cites. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Planned Neo-Nazi Campaign against Rationalwiki?

Hey there, y'all.

The splendid people at We Hunted the Mammoth found this concerning you lot. It's from a bunch of Neo-Nazis at therightstuff.biz, from a commentor called Meow Blitz.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/therightstuffbiz/the_rational_view_on_race/#comment-2033000989

It's more than a week old, but it might still be relevant. I did a cursory check of your own pages and nothing seems to come up, so you may not have seen it. Hope this helps. Please let me know if there's anything I can do - I lurk here and will read responses.

PS: I'm a huge admirer of your site. Please carry on with the good work. If nothing else, the fact that the Nazis are pissed off at you is a sign that you're doing good things.^{— Unsigned, by: 94.125.16.11 / talk / contribs}

So... if I understand your post correctly, you wish there was coverage of "therightstuff.biz"? Or do you mean the trolls? We get trolls here all the time, racist trolls are a common one. If you're warning us about an impending attack, I think we got it covered. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh no! Not more vandalism that can be undone with a simple click! Please don't, we're just a single page blanking away from giving in to your demands and making this website a mirror of Stormfront. CorruptUser (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Who on WHTM found this? I can't find anything in the recent comment threads.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at that comment thread, it looks like someone may be trying to sic a bunch of racists on RW's ass by pretending to be an anti-racist citing RW. And I hope that this thread was not started as an attempt to add some more fuel to the fire.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't go looking for conspiracies. It's easy to not understand how robust established wikis are against malicious editing. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, the whole situation smells o "let you and him fight" to me. Either that, or a clueless antiracist using RW articles as clobber links. Also, I doubt RW will be dealing with a wave of outright vandalism anyway. --ZooGuard (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Original BoN here. The WHTM thread is here. (I'm EJ on there, btw.)

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/05/21/white-supremacists-are-convinced-that-a-nickelodeon-show-about-a-girl-quarterback-is-promoting-race-cuckoldry/

FWIW: Yeah, I am completely clueless when it comes to wikis. I'm glad to know you lot have it covered. Reading it back I could also probably have phrased that first comment better. Ah well. I thought it was better to give you the heads up than not to. ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.125.16.11 / talk / contribs}

Better to err on the overzealous when it comes to warnings (Well, to a point at least. No sense being paranoid about everything). Thanks for the heads up! :) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

These guys already had a round at Talk:Racialism#Corrections - their collection of very finest knock-down arguments turned out to be rubbish. Amazing, etc - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, they're having another one. This time detailing their objections to Holocaust denial. The comments are what you'd expect. So we're annoying the right people. "alt-right" - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Linked from here, too. Do we wanna debunk the debunking or nah? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Only if you're really bored. See example at Talk:Racialism - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Meow Blitz is feeling ignored and salty [1], so keep an eye on Recent Changes - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"I like rational wiki. Mostly unbiased in my opinion."

Mentioned. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"if you read enough, it seems to be authored by someone with the same world view as Heinrich Himmler" - ah, abovetopsecret, that's why we love you. Bicycle^wheel 17:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem I have is that anyone who calls rationalwiki unbaised is clearly missing something. We're biased as hell, because, well, we collectively have a point or two to make. If you read an article here and go "Oh, yeah, no bias" you're just feeling validated. Bias can be good when it's appropriately fronted, and doesn't refuse to acknowledge the facts as they lie. It's a bias I approve of and helps make information fundamentally more clear, but it's a bias. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reality is biased towards what actually happens and not what people want to claim. Any good reality based community is biased towards that. Which is how it's supposed to be. Biased towards truth instead of puffery is what any good person should be. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but more than that, we're biased towards a pragmatic, skeptical, science-driven approach to the truth. That's a bias. It's a specific bias. You can understand things without necessarily having learned or understood them in that framework. Now, I'll argue it's a really good framework, one that surpasses most others in terms of quality and accuracy of understanding. But there's lots of other ways of learning that teach you true and valid things. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha, the second person thinks we're always serious. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 18:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Followed your link to that ATS forum post and happened to see the list of "recent topics" in a sidebar:

• HORROR earthquake to hit America in TWO DAYS
• Video game fortelling the 9/11 atacks?
• Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space
• The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program
• Occam’s razor: we were created over evolved
• Every glass of water you drink is almost 100% dinosaur wee

Now I'm depressed. Leuders (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wee! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Depressed? Try schadenfreude-ing. Remember how stupid everything was; laugh. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude ("Schadenfreude is the best kind of joy.").--Arisboch (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the National Enquirerization of the internet is a cause for joy. Leuders (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the National Enquirer is innocent, it's just that English is my third language after German and Russian.--Arisboch (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not like RW doesn't have an article about Above Top Secret. Which leads me to my main question: Why should we care about what some random person on ATS of all places thinks of RW?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Reminds us what segments of the outside world think of us. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Reminds some people an outside world exists? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You are talking to one of the people who routinely searches for incoming links. Though I haven't done it lately. My point was why focus on this particular instance - it's hardly representative of ATS's attitude towards RW, to the point that it may have been trolling.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrecking

Why did Watcher in the Dark delete my article on Wrecking, the Soviet scapecoat criminal charge used to falsely convict people who opposed Communism? 123.142.246.8 (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As stated, "What purpose? and copied from Wikipedia." 1) Don't copy from Wikipedia. 2) How is it missional? Don't see that it is myself. --Castaigne (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Documenting totalitarianism (are there other much-abused penal code charges in other regimes)?--Arisboch (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Might qualify for a small paragraph under Soviet Union then. But certainly not for its own article. --Castaigne (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Better than nothing.--Arisboch (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrecking was economic sabotage. After the commies these leftwing idealist outlawed profit and greed, the next step was to abolish money and paychecks (no shit, these godless atheists and liberals really did do these things in modern times). Once profit, greed, money, and paychecks were abolished, no one felt the compunction to work. So these leftists mandated by executive fiat and government regulation, a new crime - economic wrecking. Economics wreckers - the people who were building the classless society, found themselves accused of the same things the greedy capitalist were accused of - destroying the economy. It deserves its own article. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 01:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone Play Games Please

I'm very bored. If anyone wants to join me for some video game shenanigans, please do. ^{— Unsigned, by: RadicalZAP / talk / contribs}

Do you play CS:GO? Civ V? starcraft 2? TF2? any of the other multiplayer games in my steam library? Then click the "Legion" in my signature and follow to my steam account in my userpage! (available satuday) 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 19:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

IF you own ksp i run a server for this mod i have had a few friends play. Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 19:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Going mobile

As I do not have the technical skills to make it happen, and I hate to bitch about a problem without offering a solution, I hereby commit myself to contribute the sum of 50 US-American dollars to a special fund to hire a professional programmer to develop a mobile version of RW. Anyone else in? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia did and it they're open source.--Arisboch (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt an open-source platform exists, but an actual human being is going to have to put that platform and our website together somehow, and since nobody has come forward to do so free of charge, we should think about hiring somebody, if -- as I imagine is the case -- the RW community wants such a thing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether the RW mob community wants a mobile function or they're ready to pay for a mobile function? If the latter, why not set up a Kickstarter for that?--Arisboch (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If they want it. We'll see if they're willing to pay for it. A Kickstarter would be one way to do it, I suppose. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

And I saw this. Leuders (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of development. It's a matter of systems administraiton. The base version of media wiki needs to be upgraded, then there's a plug-and-play mobile feature available. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate and apologise for your pain at trying to look at this fucking thing on mobile. I have mostly set up a test copy of RW on my own server. Still 1.19 until I get all the weird stuff working. Then I upgrade to 1.23. Then y'all kick it a lot. I could drink the $50 pretty quickly - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Gerard, no apologies necessary. You and me have a bit of a history of not being the best of friends here, but I am grateful for the effort you put in to make the wiki a better place, and will gladly buy you a pint or two in appreciation. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bloody hell, is beer that expensive in the UK? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox} 18:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just that conventionally speaking, IT people are that drunk. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also considerably more expensive when bought in pints at a bar than when you purchase it from a regular convenience store. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Enough so that we make it ourselves - authentic traditional English rocket fuel - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bombay Sapphire and the 110 proof version of Old Raj are more in my league of rocket fuel, and I'm American; I love Vespers with the original alcohol content (94 proof gin, 100 proof vodka) or higher. Now you've gone and piqued my interest, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Language and alphabet quirks...

On a whim, I tried writing "goat" in Greek, and here's what I got: Γωατ

What does that look like to you?

Well, more additions later. ^{— Unsigned, by: Utter Lunacy / talk / contribs} 00:32, 30 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Korean-American here. The informal versions of "You [are]" and "I [am]" in Korean are "니가" (nii-ga) and "내가" (neh-ga) respectively. One guess as to what those sound like.

False cognates are fun. Especially when they get you assaulted in public while you're on the phone with your cousin. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm fairly certain 3 classes of High School and 4 semesters of College classes learning German have permanently ruined my ability to type proper grammar. Particularly capitalization. Also false-cognates are the devil.--Miekal 05:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Afrikaans word for "look" is "kyk", pronounced /kɛik/, and the word for "child" is "kind", pronounced /kənt/. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 20:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To be pedantic, that's "Goat" you wrote in Greek. But then I suppose γωατ wouldn't have the effect you're going for. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Hugos - what should have won?

Hello, longtime science fiction fan here. Having read quite a bit about this year's Hugo awards...thing, I was wondering - what do people think should have been nominated/won or would have been nominated/won without the intervention of the "Puppies"? (I know about and have read "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love" and "As Good as New". I loved them both. They were absolutely brilliant, and I think that it was criminal that they were pushed off for the sake of the Puppy-chosen works, which, while not all totally terrible, were generally not as deserving.) Anyway, I would love to find some of the other stuff overlooked because of this whole business. (Agrajag (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

Roraima pollen paradox article

I'm just about done with the Roraima pollen paradox article. I tried to make it as understandable as possible while keeping all the relevant science, but it seems unlikely I got both. Could some other eyes look over the article and either make it better or offer suggestions? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

By my rule of inexperienced thumb, >50 WP links in one article are a bit much, no?Super ^{Dude,What does mine say? Sweet!} 05:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the article while it was in user space, but it's been a while... that said, it stands to benefit from lots of sciencey linkage to stuff that the other wiki does better, yes? Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There is such a thing as overlinking. --Miekal 12:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

True enough. I am in the process of peeling out the wpl's into a text file so I can list them on the article's talk page, for detailed wrangling. That can't happen until later this evening though. Later, Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Favorite animal

What is your favorite animal and why? Mine is a tortoise, they just chill and I'm all about that.- BlackProg

Mighty Lord Jerboa is the One True Animal. And don't let those filthy goat worshipers tell you otherwise. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The human. Clever, often funny, and generally nice to look at. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ferrets. Clever, often funny, and generally nice to look at. Peace. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

THE MIGHTY KRAKEN IS THE ONLY ANIMAL THAT MATTERS! Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 20:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My favourite animal is the narwhal/cat hybrid known as the "narkitty" (or "narky" for short). But, jerboas are nice. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 20:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

BOW TO THE KRAKEN OR HE WILL SMITE YOU WITH HIS PHYSICS WARPING POWERS! Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 20:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cthulhu eats your Kraken on toast. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

More partial to the sea lamprey, I fear. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Gallus gallus domesticus is fun to watch, easy to keep (somewhat silly, not too stroppy,) sets an interplanetary standard for deliciousness, and lays tasty eggs. It also outnumbers every other avian dinosaur species. MaillardFillmore (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Teehee, you love domesticated French cock... CorruptUser (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Bow down before the mighty Jabberwock, dirty infidels!!--Arisboch (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

From wild Indian jungle fowl to domesticated French cock is macroevolution, which is a lie from the pit of hell. Recant or be damned! MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Chickens are just for fightin', son. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My favorite animal is the awesome but fictional dragon. What could possibly be better than a dinosaur that breathes fire and can fly? (This is where you answer "a goat with laser eyes and rocket propulsion" and I reply "Well played, well played.") 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What could possibly be better than a dinosaur that breathes fire and can fly? A dinosaur that breathes fire and can fly and exists. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, such an awesome creature existing in reality and thus also being able to actually hurt you isn't necessarily a desirable property. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A narwhal. A narwhal is better. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 22:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it had laser eyes and rocket propulsion. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

But narwhals can already do something completely bad-ass: They can break ice with their tooth/teeth. If I go hang out in public, people ask me: "Fluffy narwhal kitty, why do you have that horn or tooth or whatever?" and I tell them "It's to break ice, and clearly it's a good icebreaker." Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 03:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it'd be cool if that was its function, but it actually serves as a sensory organ. Sadly it's not a good icebreaker, illustrated by a common cause of death being suffocation due to sea ice freezing over. :/ It's still pretty cool that they evolved a tooth into a sensory organ, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said we were good at it. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 23:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ooooh, that kind of icebreaker. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hellhound or a Pit Fiend Master Necromancer(fear me!) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not enough people saying "narwhals" in here. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 22:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Foxes are clever and fluffy. What more do you need? Vulpius (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Narwhals, of course. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 03:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Or you know, something that's not a big dumb sea unicorn. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Guess. (Hint: Not a narwhal) Bad @ splleing... (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A huge animated tooth? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty close to what a narwhal is. Maybe we should rename narwhals to Megalodons. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Moth. Elegant, delicate, and sometimes beautiful, but doomed to a short adult life, and often hated by most. Their role in media and art as a symbol of death or apathy is interesting to me. Also Moths are really cute and if they were bigger and softer I would hug one. - Radical Zap

My mothsona is a clearwing hummingbird moth. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 22:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely the Tiger. Better not go extinct. :( QuantumDude (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No love for the Mantis Shrimp? Jeesh. Space Turbo (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Me? Any cephalopod. Freakish intelligence? Check. Toroidal brains? Check. Jet propulsion? Check. Rapid camouflage? Check. Flying? Check. Ten absurdly prehensile limbs? Check. Polarity-sensitive vision? Check. Creepy mimicry abilities? Check. W-shaped pupils? Check. Ability to pass through any hole, no matter how small? Check. Laser eyes? In progress. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 20:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I use the Kracken to power my spaceships :) Godless Liberal 10:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I would have to say El Coyote is my favorite animal.

What about [2] or [3]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Most wanted articles

Just created RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions#Most_wanted_articles - everything scoring 40 or more. Good idea? (Of course it'd be a better idea if I wrote up any of them myself.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Very good idea. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea, especially putting them before the main list. You've just ensured that they'll remain highly upvoted. Not to mention that there's no clear way to remove something from that list other than starting an article, which means that as the "most wanted" grows, it will keep burying the actual new suggestions deeper and deeper on the page.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's good because it'll probably motivate people to make the articles, which avoids ZG's probelm. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a very low opinion of the quality of most pages created as a result of being listed on the To Do list, and the fact that an entry has a very high "for" vote does not necessarily mean that an article on that topic would fit RW better than Wikipedia or some other website.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We can always up the threshold if needed, and the page does get spilt over to the archive on occasion (e.g. coupla weeks ago). I encourage the to-do page because I do think we're direly in need of new participants, and the to do list can be a part of that - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I'm always daunted by creating new articles. It's a big commitment. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just make a stub, and let the wiki effect take over. I find that being on the to-do list doesn't really motivate other people to work on the idea, but putting out the basic information you have on the subject does encourage others to add to it and better organize it. I'll be honest, when I created the article for Cultural Christian it wasn't the best by far, but I did what I could. Then, others who are better at organizing took over, and it's in much better shape now. Still short, but it conveys what it needs to.--Mustex (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles created by me are terrible (initially, and for too long thereafter, at least). Articles created by others from things I've added to the to-do list are great. That suggests something about where I should focus my efforts <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 14:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Just done lactase persistence! YOUR TURN - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I got a basic start on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, but it needs a bit more work before it can be called "complete." ConfusedLiberal (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Steam Group

If I made one, would anyone join?'Legion^{what do you want from me} 00:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering you were all buddy-buddy with that guy who threatened to out the entire website's membership as a bunch of closet Nazis? Outlook not so good. BillaBong (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Was that insult so important that you had to create a new account for it? Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 00:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but billabong, what in the hell are you talking about, or is this just another case of DFTT'Legion^{what do you want from me} 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They have you confused with someone else, I think. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 03:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there already a RationalWiki fan group on Steam? Of which you are a part? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Which group is this? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sent you a friend request. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He is now. I just threw him the link when he first posted this thread. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 09:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pissed at us

The right stuff Scream!! (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

See above Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 12:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Though apparently "Sufficient Velocity" has noticed.

Aah, hadn't read the above for a couple of days. Didn't connect the two. Mea culpa. Scream!! (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The SV thread appears to be one bozo everyone else on that forum is sick of too - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Organized Wandalism always makes me think of this video: (not embedded on purpose)--SpecialFFrog (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Wrecking 58.235.189.191 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Eyes requested on WP

WP:Talk:Thomas_More_Law_Center#Request_for_third_opinion It's about possible synthesis and original research (which you know aren't done on WP) regarding the connection between abortion and breast cancer. Somebody has added cites to the article, purporting to show a positive correlation. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does that have to do with us, again? --Castaigne (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue goes back to the founding of RW. People with relevant expertise may still look in from time to time. If you don't know, don't bother. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this MEATPUPPETRY? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

[ec] Not a call for brigading. Again, people with relevant expertise may still look in here from time to time. I can't vet those sources, and I have no intention of chiming in on that talk page. RW is not, nor should it be, in the business of brokering meatpuppetry or other wandaloid exploits, but you already knew that. Sheesh. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, it goes back to something dating from around 2007 or 2008. It is quite possible I have relevant expertise to the issue in question. How about explaining what exactly is important about a WP article to RW without doing the Elder Handwaving mechanism? --Castaigne (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Castaigne, everything you need to know about it is right there on the face of the WP talk page. If you aren't a medical doctor, then it may not be so likely that you have relevant expertise. If you have something to add, then add it, without needless bitching. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to determine RW missionality here. It's not bitching. I don't particularly like it when people are obtuse or high-handed, however. --Castaigne (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A claimed link between abortion and breast cancer is a common fundie lie. It goes back to the founding of RW because it's a lie Andrew Schlafly is quite fond of, and people such as PalMD attempting to add reality to the Conservapedia article attracted the bans that led to RW forming - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is however a clear link between abortion and being female. But since being female is a sin in most religions... ^{— Unsigned, by: CorruptUser / talk / contribs} 02:35, 2 June 2015‎

This I understand. What I do not understand is why we need to have eyes on WP for this. If it's valid information, let Sanderson or someone else add it to our own Abortion article, or related fundie-article. If it's not valid information, then Sanderson or someone else can ignore it. If fundies are attempting to brigade or otherwise fuck up a WP page, that's WP's problem, not ours. --Castaigne (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Since WP is a widely used public resource, it kind of is our problem ("our problem" as in a problem that concerns many RW contributors, but not necessarily something that's problematic for the wiki), since if faulty studies gain prominence on WP, it means some people will read the conclusion of such faulty studies and assume it to be true. That's assumably something we wouldn't want happening. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

To this, I apply my "Not my country, not my problem." mentality. I don't care what they do in Canada and Iran; it's not the USA. Their country, their business. Not mine as to what they get over to up there; it's a sovereign nation, they do what they want.

So if you'll excuse me, I'll consider it to be RW's problem when RW annexes WP. --Castaigne (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, missionality isn't exactly required in the saloon bar. (Look around at some of the other headers.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Refuting vs documenting

Which takes precedence in RW articles? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

smartass CorruptUser (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ka-Thunk! You've been whacked with a narwhal. Take this seriously. Somebody won't let this trout-based warfare settle down without a manufactured escalation of arms.

I did not choose to fight this war, nor shall I shun it. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 20:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The template is broken ;(--Arisboch (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Which one? Mine? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 21:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the image not loaded yet? That's common, and that's the RW servers caching. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

With love, Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy-cat... potato. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 21:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

But seriously

Which is more important? Asking b/c Castaigne mentioned on Talk:Gamergate that the main purpose of RW is to document cranks; I thought it was to refute cranks; both are probably true, but I'm wondering what others think. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's kinda hard to refute something without showing the claims you're refuting. On the other hand, just documenting without refuting makes this CrankWiki. So I'm gonna go with ikanreedSuper ^{Dude,Where's my car?}

[EC] Well, since we're not called ConspiracyFaithhealingpedia^{—Get your latest Illuminati updates here and learn how to drive out the devil!}, I'd think we're supposed to add a refuting spin to the documenting. Though, admittedly, a lot of these crank ideas are so ridiculous that to most sane people, just spelling them out already has that effect. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The actual answer is that you have to apply editorial judgement on a case-by-case basis. The specific case you're avoiding naming here is Gamergate, which is difficult to understand because it's complicated, and the refutation of the claims actually requires the timeline 'cos a lot of the refutations are "no, this happened first". This is why your refutations article got no traction. But -> Talk:Gamergate - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is really starting to get concerning.

I previously said that links such as Youtube and Twitter do not display for me. It's doing this on other wikis. (YouTube works fine with that capitalization, interestingly) Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 21:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of internet content filter? Like school computer or something? Do plaintext "Youtube" or "Twitter" show up? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 21:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a filter. And, the plaintext shows up. I guess I should see what happens if I use a different computer to figure out if it's caused by my computer or if something's going on outside the computer. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 23:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, first guess is a CSS or JS issue. Have you altered your monobook.js file or something similar? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Molecule vs Chemical

So I'm editing Anti-oxidants, and something bothered me. What's the technical difference between a chemical compound and a molecule? AFAIK, a molecule is single 'chain' of any number of atoms that can't be divided without breaking a chemical bond, ranging from a lone hydrogen atom to mega-proteins. Is a chemical compound just any molecule that has atoms from at least two different elements? CorruptUser (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

When the smallest unit of a chemical substance consists of more than one atom, that unit is called a molecule. (Lone (monoatomic) hydrogen atoms wouldn't be called molecules, but simply atoms. The same goes for noble gases.) The chemical substance can be either a polyatomic chemical element or a chemical compound. Compounds have more than one element in them.

So as to your specific question, "molecule" only refers to the smallest unit (when it's more than 1 atom), while "chemical compound" can refer to any number of (identical) molecules (that have more than one element in them). That's pretty much it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. CorruptUser (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

FALLOUT 4!!!!

Holy fuckin shit. FALLOUT 4 JUST GOT FUCKING ANNOUNCED!!! (half life 3 conference scheduled tomorrow). 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

k FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"This just in, popular game series gets sequel, world set to end" is how i feel whenever i see people bring up half life 3 with these sort of things. --Miekal 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the world ended two hundred years before the game, so yeah. Also, I'm flipping out. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 12:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Legion, you're just young enough to think that video game sequels are still a big deal. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I'm taking the Pascal's Yahtzee's Wager approach to it. I've been burned way too many times as a Sonic the Hedgehog fanatic during my HS/College years. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

will it run on a single processor athlon 2800 with 512 mb of memory and onboard graphics under win xp ? Is it $9.95 ? Hamster (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh, my computer can handle anything except Dorf Fortress. Now THAT is a game that requires a special computer. CorruptUser (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You're not seriously running that, are you? --Castaigne (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What if you don't want to be smug? Vulpius (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Then you aren't real. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 02:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already preordered it on Steam. Actually, who am I kidding, who HASN'T preordered Fallout 4? BiscuitCat (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Me! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandal dumpster

So we have our vandal bin with 30 minute time outs. This is useful for blocking off the trash, but for some, I think a dumpster may be better. I'm thinking either the vandal bin could have a variable time limit (once every half hour, every 5 minutes, every 12 hours, etc), or a "vandal dumpster" for the bigger piles of trash with a once a day limit. Thoughts? CorruptUser (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps some sort of setting that would prevent some editors from editing at particular times of day -- we could call it "night mode," if that hasn't been taken already. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can't take one measly annoying edit per half hour, just ban them for a day if they continue to abuse their edits from the bin. It's neither necessary, nor helpful to try and "grade" vandals. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ninja

Can someone give ninja to User:ClothCoat? He's clogging up recent changes with recategorization. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And how about bot flag for User:MiniNyarBot? If he had the bot flag, I could quickly sign almost every unsigned post appearing on a page that never had anybody else touch it in the past year. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 02:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

While we're on it, can I have Ninja, too? I'm just an organic robot... FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 02:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah sorry about that I waited til late at night when very few people were editing anyways but I didn't know there was a way to use "ninja". Anyways I reorganized the Category:Extreme wingnuttery please go to it's page for possible deletion to see if it could still be of any use, even if for the sole purpose of sending people to the three categories it's been broken down into. The three categories are:

-Authoritarian wingnuttery- Basically for goose-steppers, overt theocrats (think dominionism instead of religious right), and hardcore racial supremacists. Obviously opposed to democracy and most civil liberties. Example: BNP

-Conservative wingnuttery- Run of the mill wingnut, can be a milder version of the above but they're usually connected to more mainstream conservatism. Most are social conservatives. The kind of guys who you wouldn't want in power but you're pretty sure wouldn't try to run a dictatorship either. Think: UKIP

-Libertarian wingnuttery-Exactly what it says on the tin. Includes "paleolibertarians" and various right-anarchists as well.

Let me know if this was helpful and if I should do something similar with extreme moonbattery. And feel free to fix up the descriptions for each category as well if you're better at explaining ideology than I am. I think most people get the "jist" though. (BTW does ninja work if it's not on a "bot" I did that all by hand not with a bot, bots can't sort out ideology very well anyways haha)ClothCoat (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That assumes that Libertarian extremism is right wing, which is... problematic. There are far right Libertarian extremists, but there are far left Libertarian extremists as well. While An-Caps are basically rightwing Libertarianism with an extra dose of stupid, Anarchists in general are leftwing Libertarians. CorruptUser (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of "libertarian" RW deals with is the right-wing nutters. The other usage is rapidly becoming historical - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I still say the Anarcho-Syndicalists are Libertarian. Left-Libertarian. CorruptUser (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's always the possibility for creating a "Libertarian moonbattery" category if need be. Though personally I'm not too enthusiastic about this apparent moonbat-wingnut dichotomy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with 141, horseshoe theory and all that. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 14:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are fairly similar, and I was planning on breaking down extreme moonbattery the same way (Libertarian moonbattery). The main issue I had was that sometimes "libertarian" and "authoritarian" can be a surprisingly thin line. For instance what about the "league of the south", which has authoritarian trappings of white supremacy but it's desire to decentralize governments is more associated with libertarians. Same with a lot of soverign citizen types or National Anarchism. ClothCoat (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Should it be worrying that I find Rand Paul is the most appealing GOP candidate? Admittedly, he's still a bloody mess, but... I don't know. How are libertarians so sane and so insane at the same time? EDIT: I mean, I'm till voting Clinton, but I find Paul's lack of overt opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and strong opposition to the PATRIOT Act to at least be a breath of fresh air in this swirling maelstrom of chaos and destruction that is Election 2016. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 12:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Because you like his social policies but not his economic policies? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 12:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's easy to mistake his recent carefully orchestrated political theater for sincere attempts at change? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Republicans want more religion but ease of business, and will force it upon you. Democrats want more safety and will force it upon you. Libertarians want a myriad of things, but don't think they should force it upon you. CorruptUser (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just plain untrue. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Libertarians force unregulation on you; taking away benefits is ultimately the same as forcing someone to do something. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 14:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking away protections more than benefits. The fact that my neighbor can't dump chlorinated hydrocarbons on "their land" and I get cancer from my water the next week is because of reasonable regulation. It doesn't fall in the typical umbrella of what libertarians consider acceptable to regulate, but it still kills me. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

One problem with (pseudo)libertarianism is that it doesn't really lead to less, or less intrusive government. Instead, libertarianism gives you an unelected government of property owners, who get to take away all of the wonderful freedoms that libertarians say they won for you, in exchange for the privilege of stepping on their lawns. Actual liberty requires checks and balances that apply to owners and bosses as well as to government, even as a living culture requires government and other institutions strong enough to keep the power of money in check.

That said, Rand Paul is the least appalling of the Republican candidates so far, so much so that I'd definitely be tempted to vote for him over Hillary Clinton. He has the same problem the rest of the Republican candidates have, which is the Republican base that must be courted in the primaries. Come the general election, he'll have to backpedal away from the toxic rubbish he embraced to get nominated. This process will make him appear less trustworthy. Hillary is at least is a known quality; we already know she's untrustworthy. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 14:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The big problem I have with a republican president, regardless of their personal merit, is the potential collaboration with a republican congress. That prospect is terrifying. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That along with the GOP steadily moving right to the point of insanity with the help of Fox News. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And their support for "health freedom" and the notion that parents own their children. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just in case we think the Republicans are sole possessors of the crazy, Connecticut is the latest state to pass "affirmative consent" laws which the Democrats have foisted on us. Gillibrand and McCaskill are attempting to force it on all college campuses, because apparently college students are uniquely unsuited to figure these things out; as others have pointed out, the two of them seem to feel that basic protections such as due process have no place in these matters (I'm somewhat bitter from trying to keep a lid on the Sulkowicz/Nungesser mess on Wikipedia, which has involved shutting down ideologues on both sides, and while neither has particularly endeared me to their cause the petulant self-unaware shrieking from Jezebel has been especially irritating). Makes me glad to be an autistic who has both never had a committed relationship and has no desire to have one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with affirmative consent laws. They create an absolute bright line for things and I like bright lines for everything. Take a look yourself; it defines everything about what affirmative consent is legally. Or, in case you don't care to read, "(1) "Affirmative consent" means an active, informed, unambiguous and voluntary agreement by a person to engage in sexual activity with another person that is sustained throughout the sexual activity and may be revoked at any time by any person;"

Since you are autistic, this should be a good thing for you. No ambguity. No questions. What could be not to like? --Castaigne (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing ambiguity from human communication and interaction? What a fools errand.--Arisboch (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Only in a specific context. I'm also fine with affirmative consent laws. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to need consent spelled out for them in this kind of way.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd have an easier time with it if it hadn't been for, when asked how in god's name someone would actually prove having gotten such consent, the answer being "your guess is as good as mine" (note the deliberate gender ambiguity). None of this is to say the goal is a bad one, it's the implementation I'm a bit leery of. The Republicans for their part have at times supported such things, so this isn't entirely one-sided, but it was Gillibrand who invited Sulkowicz to the State of the Union (which is what really touched things off at Wikipedia and started the bickering that still hasn't let up, hence my frustration). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your objection is nonsensical. Affirmative consent laws don't create the requirement to have consent before having sex with someone so they make absolutely no difference to the question of how you prove consent. They just clarify what consent actually is. They make no difference -- positive or negative -- to the possibility of false rape accusations.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem, as I've seen it articulated, is that it basically shifts the burden onto the person who's being accused, whereas for any other crime it's on the accuser to prove their point (e.g. In the death of Ted Binion it was on the the prosecution to provide evidence he hadn't voluntarily ingested heroin and simply overdosed, but that it had been the result of some collusion). The other issue I have had is CASA referring to people who make accusations as "victims", which flies in the face of the presumption of innocence; this isn't just about the false accusation trope, mistaken identity (Ronald Cotton) and police railroading (the Central Park jogger case) are real things too. I'm unaware, though willing to be proven wrong, of any other laws which refer to a complainant as a "victim". Like I said, I don't disagree with the concept of ensuring people are on the same page in these sorts of encounters, merely the current attempts at implementation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ None of these laws change due process around sexual assault charges. Any shifting of the burden of proof is imaginary. I don't know who or what CASA is or how what they might have said is relevant. False rape accusations are bad but they are fairly uncommon. Actual instances of rape are not uncommon but prosecution (let alone conviction) of such crimes is extremely uncommon. Ignorance (sometimes seemingly willful ignorance) about what actually constitutes rape contributes to both sides of the equation. I do not see how any affirmative consent laws or their implementation do anything to make any aspect of the problem worse while certainly having a possibility of improving several aspects of it.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Affirmative Consent

These are PRATTs, so my answers may seem somewhat canned, but a lot of rape cases in jurisdictions where the law is "not if they say 'no'" rather than "only if they say 'yes'" already come down to swearing contests and whom the jury finds more credible; that won't change. The accused can still be presumed innocent in court. Moreover, the California and Connecticut laws apply only to college disciplinary proceedings; the legal definition of rape is unchanged, though I would support affirmative consent there too. False accusations are, obviously, false, so the accuser will presumably make up a story based on whatever the law is anyway. Similarly, the Central Park Five were wrongly convicted under the law as it was then, so I'm not sure how the current standard protects against it, and mistaken identity is similarly equally possible regardless of how consent is defined. Presumption of innocence is for court; you can say more or less whatever you like in a press release. That said, as a matter of rhetoric, I wouldn't say "rapists going free is a bigger problem than false accusations," even though it's true; I think addressing the first problem takes nothing away from addressing the second<3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 18:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In my defence, I think I said that the first problem was more prevalent than the second rather than saying it was worse, per se. Though I generally agree with you and think that affirmative consent laws help on the first problem while remaining probably neutral on the second (and certainly not exacerbating it).--SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I remain skeptical of affirmative consent. We don't need to make it easier for the government to convict people of any crime. Either the change does that, which is bad; or it does nothing at all, which makes it an empty gesture.

I'd favor a written consent law myself; any sex act must be preceded by a notarized instrument setting out specifically the sex acts to be performed, the amount of time given to each, and the number of orgasms expected. These would be recorded at the county land office as public records upon payment of a small fee. It would improve public finances. It would keep the illiterate from breeding. Both of those are Good Things. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It would also keep most other people from breeding, since most people don't want to share the specifics of their sex life with complete strangers (when the sharing's not done online, at least). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as "making it easier for the government to convict", I see it as bringing he legal definition of the crime more in line with the actual mischief intended to be condemned. <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 07:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I found this a fairly good summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Columbia University is not the government, even if the President has been on the faculty of their law school. What is the source for their assertion that Sen. Gillibrand demands that bodies adjudicating disciplinary procedures must assume the accuser is truthful? I'll grant that such a rule would a hash of due process, but they only link to themselves in support of the claim, and I get the sense, even from that link, that what they call the "Gillibrand rule" is not something she wants made into law, if she even thinks it should happen (the rest of us should default to believing accusers -- which is not the same as believing accusers in the face of any evidence that may be presented -- but adjudicating bodies should approach from a place of impartiality).
It's an (informal) logical fallacy, but not, I think, a rhetorical one to point out that Minding the Campus is coming at the issue from an extreme civil libertarian position. This doesn't make them wrong, but I think there is a strong a possibility that they are primarily interested in presenting the facts that support their opinion. That's not a criticism, if (as it appears) the post is intended to be an opinion piece, but it does diminish its value as a cite.
In any event, I still don't see how an affirmative consent definition would make it easier for the government to convict of rape people who engaged in consensual sexual activity. <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 20:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Food woo vs alternative medicine

Where's the line distinguishing these? Most food woo-y things claim health benefits, as do altmed things. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say "food woo" fits under the overall "alt med" umbrella. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So it's just a sizeable subset, then? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's more of an overlapping domain since there is a lot of "food woo" in things like the diet and body-building industries, which probably aren't alt med. It's not on this Venn diagram at present, though.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say that any line drawn between them would be arbitrary. Some of it will appeal to the same kind of people who will be into both. Equally for others they will be completely separate. For example Food Babe can rant about flu shots and GM food.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A question I've had for awhile now.

I've noticed that a lot of wingnuts (and the occasional moonbat, but mostly wingnuts) like to bandy about the phrase "America is a republic, not a democracy!" and go on the quote the Founding Fathers ad nauseum about their opposition to (direct) democracy. I'm just curious as to why the heck they like bringing it up? The page on democracy mentions this habit but doesn't elaborate. Is my hunch accurate that they are admitting a belief that certain people should not be allowed to vote? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably; and I'd gander they'd want to go beyond just denying these people their voting rights. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's nothing so complicated. It's an escape hatch for arguments where they disagree with the prevailing popular attitude about something. These same people will, however, speak with open contempt about courts making constitutional rulings about problematic populist laws they support.

That's not to say that the US isn't a republic(loosely translated from latin: "our shit"), but it's a designed republic, with a very purposeful inclusion of democratic forces in that design(and then adjustments to increase those forces). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So it's a Democratic Republic (the real deal, not shit like in East Germany or North Korea), then, right?--Arisboch (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering that almost every nation on earth right now, with the exception of a smattering of kingdoms(where the state belongs to an individual), technically meet the definition of "republic", yeah. It is. To get way more specific, the US is a democratically representative constitutional republic. That's a bit of a mouthful, though. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not quite just a smattering. [4][5][6][7] And most predictions don't have the world attaining close to 100% democracy anytime soon (plus, the more optimistic ones have been, well, wrong [8] FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say "democracy", potato. Many de facto autocracies are de jure republics. Not representative republics, mind. Just republics. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

To me its much simpler than that. They are basically playing word association with republic and republicans and democracy with democrats. Drill in the idea of republic over democracy and that should get republicans more votes...somehow. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, most of the people that spout that line (at least on the conservative sites) do believe that certain people should not be allowed to vote. Typically, the "America is not a democracy." gambit is accompanied with pointing out that the Founders only wanted tax-paying male landowners to vote and that people who rent or don't own land "have no skin in the game". Sometimes this gets into how the elections were ruined by allowing women to vote, allowing non-landowners to vote, allowing minorities to vote, or the 17th Amendment needing to be repealed, or whatever. Lots of arguments. --Castaigne (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually many founding fathers DID want black people and women to vote, depending on the state, so long as they had property. It's also important to note that at the time in the US, virtually everyone (other than wives and slaves) was expected to be working towards owning their own property/business; you weren't really considered an adult until you did. But industrial revolution and capitalism more or less killed the idea of a society where everyone was their own small business owner.CorruptUser (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite right. While the discussions were made but during their lifetimes none made any progress towards granting voting rights to either group. They also made no movement towards keeping rights to vote in place after the revolution, and in many places it was banned and affirmed (such as NJ in 1807) without protest. There's a big difference between barroom discussions and actually having debates in congress. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

They were a corrupt bunch that cared only about their own power to be sure. The same is still true today of any nearly any group of politicians; the difference between today and centuries ago is improvements in the media. Who watches the watchman? The reporter, that's who. The advantage of Democracy over Monarchy is not that the rulers are less self-centered assholes (if anything, Democracy promotes those people), it's that the self serving assholes have to at least appear to care about the public's interests. CorruptUser (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

But who controls the reporter? The plutocrat, that's who. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As much as I despise Faux News, I'd rather live in a world with them than without. I actually voted for McCain in 2008 in part because I was disgusted by how blatantly CNN, NBC and ABC were backing Obama and the rest of the Democrats when McCain was beloved by them just 2 years prior (my family is from Evanston, IL, we knew about Barack before you did; he was nothing special TBH. Liked him even less in 2012, but voted for him over Romney). I remember reading the NY Times and every single time Ted Stevens was in it the very first sentance would include "Republican", but when Blagojavich or any Democrat was mentioned with a negative story, "Democrat" wouldn't be seen until the second or third paragraph. If there is something the Dems do wrong the story will break on Faux first. So even the Wingnut shitflingers can add value to the country. CorruptUser (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

everyone was expected to be working towards owning their own property/business; do you have a better/alternative idea? And please, spare all of us the Marxist bullshit.nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 04:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Working towards happiness or peace of mind maybe? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Working towards your own benefit for benefits based on the sweat of your own brow is a capitalist idea. It's hilarious you don't know the basic differences between them when these ideas, and that the founding fathers supported it, is one of the pillars of CP's propiganda. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused now. Being a drain on somebody elses resources or being an employed flunky is preferable to owning your own business or acquiring property you can draw from? nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 19:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism as-is requires that some people are employed by others in a company. Before this, people had their own mom&pop stores, skilled craftsmen and their apprentices, and subsistence farmers on their own little plots. It was inefficient, people barely scraped by, but everyone was or was working towards owning their own business because they couldn't survive otherwise. Companies sprang up, and offered people better deals working for the company than themselves (people forget just how shitty life was on a 2 acre potato farm). You don;t need to be working towards your own business, but you do need to be working. CorruptUser (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yah, I see where you're going. But what you're describing is everyday life in modern China, as small town villagers and agrarian workers migrate to cities for factory jobs, as they did in the US 100-150 years ago. So this phenomenon is very current and modern. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 20:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The USA is a republic and not a democracy. The electoral college thing in presidential elections shows that clearly. A democracy would be one person, one vote and we dont have that in any but local elections. Hamster (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Which get elected by the people, which means democracy. Pure semantics wank, nothing else.--Arisboch (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There are a lot of paralells between China today and the US 200 years ago. But my original point was that society was different in 18th century US, and the property requirement for voting wasn't just some conspiracy by the rich to fuck the poor, but to ensure that only the "adults" of society could vote. It'd be like today someone advocating that people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote, rather than restricting the vote to the 1% only.

As for "Republic not a Democracy", don't be so thick. Pure Democracy is impossible, because it means everyone votes on everything rather than electing Senators and Congressmen. As for the electoral college, say what you want but the whole thing is designed so that you need both a majority of people and a majority of territory agreeing on something, so you don't have the cities screwing the countryside or the masses screwing the few. CorruptUser (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Pure Democracy"? A case of "No true Scotsman"? Then Representative Democracy and an electoral college today exists to keep the country a party away from a one-party state.--Arisboch (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

my congreeperson does not represent my views so I have no vote at all in any matters during this election cycle. Thats not even remotely democratic and is not semantics. Hamster (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Your congressman not democratic? The majority DID elect him, remember? So it is democratic.--Arisboch (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether you disagree with it or not, Hamster, representative democracies are still considered democratic. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I came across this group called the "Faraday Institute for Science and Religion" and I am not sure what to make of it

I came across the name on Facebook and it was mentioned in an article posted by the National Center for Science Education. Anyways I cannot tell if they support creationism or not but I can tell it is religious. Here is a link- http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/index.php --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't edit a talk page comment, but I fixed your link. 2.123.148.38 (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Librul bias comfurmed

I was at school, and in the unimportant Progression Pathways, which is a feeble attempt to make us act better and more positively. The funny thing is, we were doing "Awesome people" and Barack Obama showed up. While I agree with those lunatics that he is most certainly not awesome, except for in the 'not being Bush' category. I'm at a Catholic school (deconverted last year) and even better, when doing relationships they were saying that homosexuality was okay and 'different people are attracted to different things'. Schafly can stick that up his arse, seeing as now it's fine even with the Catholics.

Get in. {{SUBST:User:Mkbw50/sig}} (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Now for a word from Conservapedians:

“”"Anonymous User" (I see you don't use the proper naming convention), your statement about why you're not making substantive edits is less-than-persuasive to me. I skimmed through your recent edits and you still don't seem to grasp how liberals try to claim exclusive control of knowledge and its recognition, and how you should be objecting to that, so let me guess: you're obviously clueless about "modern science". Open your mind and admit that cremating heretics reduces Wikipedia bias. The answer to your silly question is this: the odds against a Muslim converting to Christianity are greater than 100 to 1. You need to listen to the classic rock song entitled, "I fought the law, and the law won." You need to listen to it 80 times, in fact. --aschlafly 17:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Insightful. Maybe the next one will give us more.

“” After yer mention of a forbidden vandal site in Barack Obama, Me has decided that ye be t' bully here. Like all bullies, 'tis apparent that ye be a sock of Bohdan. Me has unilaterally wi'out discussion decided that ye will walk the plank. Ye best t' remember that this be t'trustworthy 'cyclopedia, an' ov'rly critical comments, such as yers 'bout Ed Poor be pointless an' futile an' t'will be reverted. In conclusion, if ye think ye were blocked unfairly, an' would like to discuss this, please use t' "email this user" feature. Sincerely, Karajou 17:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay? Next!

“” Gentlemen from a rather liberal school, I must say that I find your replies to my comment are unsurpassedly silly. In regards to the subject of militant atheism and racism, you ignore the likelihood that if you could be more sensible it would be appreciated. In fact, by tomorrow, it is likely Liberals will have lost all vestiges of credibility. :) :) :) Rest assured, Operation Obama bin Laden is gathering steam!!! Thousands of troops may be soon pouring in at the rallying points! Sincerely, David Jensen

The funny thing is this is how they react. The good thing is they are powerless to resist.

... what? halp FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait a sec, I've never been to...oh, those are templates! HA! That's a good one. --Castaigne (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel like i have learned much from this topic being here--Miekal 00:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are all blending together. Instead of just putting the templates in directly, why not use cquote? As an example, {{cquote|{{Template:Assquote}}}} looks much cleaner. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 01:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason I put the CP quotes in was because that is the type of thing they would complain about. Not too good with wiki markup though. What do you think about this? Is this Pro-Obama propaganda,and Anti-Christian homosexuality loving liberals. Well it isn't, but I still like it that a Catholic school is so pro-homo. Not so sure how HUSSEIN is "awesome", except for, as previously stated, not being George. {{SUBST:User:Mkbw50/sig}} (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I... Oh gosh, I was confused for a sec there. AOAPJM (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Trigger warnings

Not sure if this is the right place to discuss this but i think it would be a good idea to add trigger warnings to articles here because we do have articles about some pretty offensive people and ideas. --Alakazam (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be necessary. Also: "offensive" isn't a real trigger. That does not a good understanding of the science of PTSD(and other triggered illnesses). I think, even though we're understanding of the people who use trigger warnings and why they do so, rationalwiki would not benefit from regurgitating the non-science that underlies them.

Nothing really lives up to the standard of requiring a general content warning either. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

[ECx1] trigger warnings trigger my trigger warning trigger As far as I can tell, trigger warnings haven't been scientifically proven to have an impact in an online context; this is mostly from a lack of scientific study of the issue, but still true. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The grey brain with "Rational" below it should already serve as a trigger warning to those that can't bear rational thought. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

#rekt αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oooh snap! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I... don't know what that means. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Rekt! OH SNAP! oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So... I wrecked Alakazam, then? Minimalist internet jargon gets my mind in confusing twists sometimes. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It means pull the trigger.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me I shouldn't click that link. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's the trigger?! Where is it?! QuantumDude (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

They're basically radfem Tipper Stickers. Oh, and the trigger's consequence is of course... Bang!--Arisboch (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

How To "Be Bold"

How do you guys "be bold" in your posting? I've never been a particularly bold individual to begin with, and I am always afraid i will be seen in a bad light if I ever try doing anything major to an article. I have a lot of general accumulated knowledge, but I have difficulty getting citations and writing like, say, whole new articles and whatnot. I just can't seem to bring myself do what needs to be done. I do often have trouble focusing, which is almost certainly part of the problem, but has anyone else faced a problem like this at first when you came here? QuantumDude (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Some methods to ease editting: you could do small, formatting- or grammar-related edits at first and build up; you could find a source first, then add it to the relevant article; you could focus on concision, where you reduce wordcount and try to distill the message; you could find funny or insightful quotes and add them to relevant articles. Everyone's a bit wiki-shy, at first; it wears off.. Just realize that you are insignificant and most people couldn't care less about you, and it makes peer pressure disappear. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. QuantumDude (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If your worried about doing anything major, just discuss it in the relevant talk page first. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 03:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Like this. Vulpius (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I thunk "Be bold" is a wikipedia motto nor a RW one. The only reference I can find to it on RW is here - where is means something like "don't be afraid of making mistakes".--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Free-Response Question 2015 (You can run, but you can't hide from the College Board!)

Analyse how the political and socioeconomic factors which contributed to the Reformation affected the sport of baseball.

Historical Background: During the Reformation, the Sport of Baseball was wracked by numerous crises and scandals. It began when the friar Tony Blair posted the Ninety-Five Theses on a baseball forum. Soon after, Baseball saw the beginning of the Great Schism, where disaffected followers and practitioners left the Sport to form the Sport of Softball. In the following centuries, there have been numerous sub-movements and sub-sub-movements, such as the Independent Sport of Wiffleball, and the United Sport of Catch.

Your eighty minutes begin... now. Good luck. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 06:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The authority of the baseball was firmly defined and restricted. This allowed the rise of the subgroups. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 11:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You did not touch upon the Expanded Core. Three points. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 02:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Super ^{Dude,Where's my car?} 11:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning? Anti-GMO "conspiracy"

Something that affects a number of articles, so I don't know where to stick this discussion. Anyway.

Something we learned in Econ 102 (or whatever the number for Macroeconomics was) was price elasticity. One thing covered was demand elasticity. The following is a case of inelastic demand; say that at a quantity of 4 widgets, price is $15, total revenue of $60. At 5 widgets, price is $10, total revenue of $50. One example given in our class was wheat production, where an increase in the supply decreases price so much that total revenue falls. By the same token, a decrease in supply increases total revenue.

Basically, any group that supports something that would decrease the total supply of food (or oppose an increase) even if it's their own crops, is highly suspect. So then, is it ok to add in that as a possible explanation for organic farming and farmers that oppose GMO? It may affect a number of articles;

• GMO
• Fair trade
• Prisoner's dilemma
• Organic food
• Monsanto

Maybe a few others CorruptUser (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's if people were just looking at price. Elasticity certainly changes with supstitute goods, or if people feel the origional good causes health issues. The issue with Econ 101 & 102 is their primary focus is economic forces for limited variables. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question, but let me weigh in. You've made no reference to cost, only sales price and gross revenue, so cost must be weighed and considered. More importantly, a genetically modified tomato, for example, is an entirely different commodity with its own cost variables from an organic tomato, which likewise has its own independent cost variables. So naturally the two different commodities will sell at two different prices. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 20:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a minor in economics, I didn't want to get too in depth. The closer the substitute available, the more elastic demand is. E.g., Farmer Joe's Fuji apples and Farmer Bob's Fuji apples, Fuji apples and Gala apples, Apples and Pears, etc. But I'm ignoring costs because I'm more concerned with demand, and if we add in costs having reduced production becomes even better. Demand is also more elastic the longer the duration.

The question is not very simple to explain to someone that doesn't know economics. Consider OPEC. If they pumped out all the oil they could, they would drive the price of oil down, but they'd drive it down faster than their production increases. In other words, less total revenue with higher costs to boot. So they want to restrict the oil supply. Same with the agricultural industry; if they create an artificial shortage, they make more. Thus, the opposition to anything that improves total production. CorruptUser (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it became confusing because we're talking about foodstuffs. In the US, because of agricultural support subsidies, foodstuffs are a horrible example to discuss elasticity. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 20:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me try it this way. You have a factory. The factory wants to install new robotics that can quadruple production. The workers are afraid that if the machinery is installed, the factory will instead just fire 3/4 of the workers. So they fight tooth and nail, creating propaganda about how the machines are evil, or how it'll lead to skynet, or some such. So too with GMO foods; if each acre produces twice as much food thanks to GMO, you'll only need half as many farms. CorruptUser (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. Food demand is relatively inelastic, whatever the source. The argument goes the same for Wal Mart driving Mon pop out of business. Now for demand and price elasticity on a non-essential item, look at portable lithium rechargers for cell phones: four months ago they were rare and cost about $40; I've bought at least three in the past two days for no more than $2 each, and they're available from dozens of manufacturers. So the price of some commodities, even with rising demand, can crash and burn real quick. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 22:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying, food demand is inelastic. Thus, increasing supply reduces total revenue. My cynical viewpoint is that people are opposed to GMO because they intentionally want to reduce food supply in order to increase total revenue. CorruptUser (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reducing food supply is exactly what the New Dealers did in 1933 when people were starving to "stimulate" the economy. Agricultural "set asides" to reduce supply remain a mainstay of US agricultural policy. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 00:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The Great Depression was... weird. Hindsight is 20/20, but it was mostly a currency crisis; farmers borrow money to buy machinery, dollar rises in value drastically, making the debt more expensive, farmers overproduce to try to pay off debt, driving food prices down and making dollars even stronger. Meantime banking crisis and stock market crisis with people having bought on 90% margins but strengthening dollar causes stock prices to plummet. Really it was the one scenario where you were supposed to print yourself out of debt. But yeah, people were starving during it, because the money wasn't flowing correctly.^{— Unsigned, by: CorruptUser / talk / contribs}

People are too productive for their own good. The net result is poverty. When too many competitors enter a field (here "competitor" includes workers or employees), the net result is overproduction, low prices and low wages. When Maggie Thatcher laid off the coal workers it was the same problem as US pig farmers in the early 1930s: too many workers in those employments. Regulation and diversity of employments is the only way to bring cost, prices, and wages back to an equilibrium. Reductions in the number of people employed in a particular field, picking winners and losers, is where the economic problems become a social-political problem. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 02:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I don't believe that exactly. There's always more work that can be done, no matter how productive people are; 200 years ago no one would've thought to have professional firefighters and policemen and EMTs, because there simply wasn't enough free labor to have such luxuries. Today, if we were to replace all the farms and factories with robots, rather than have unemployed masses we could have things like police departments that investigate every burglary, classrooms of a dozen students max, personal nurses, and who knows what else. Government's role in the economy is to smooth out the bumps and bring the "long run" here as quickly as possible rather than waiting for the market to sort it out, because stability is the most important part of a healthy economy. CorruptUser (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not so far apart; it was the govt that bought up the pigs, slaughted them, encouraged some people to get out of the business with "set aside programs", all to create a temporary shortage to stimulate demand and higher prices for the workers who remained (the criticism here was, Why didn't the compassionate New Dealers give away the slaughtered meet to starving people? Answer: That would have defeated the whole purpose of the program to create demand.). nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 03:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Weren't they giving it to charities like the Red Cross, though? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"crops were ploughed under", as most sources say, and it was mostly piglets under breeding age that were slaughtered. But newspapers had a field day, and even Howard Zinn's People's History of the UUnited States still caries the Stalinist era criticism of New Deal capitalism of putting profit before people. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 03:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just reeks of stupidity all around. Best off to create food stamp program which artificially creates demand and prevents people from starving. I'm not a big proponent of a welfare state, but I believe absolutely no one should ever be too poor to work. I.e., no one should be suffering from easily/cheaply treatable illnesses that prevent them from finding work, no one should be too weak from hunger, no one should be unable to hold a job due to chronic homelessness, no one should be unable to acquire a job because of a lack of communication, etc. Institutionalization for those that can't take care of themselves. But when someone wants to take advantage of all the bare basics but not contribute anything back? Sorry, even the communists wouldn't tolerate them. CorruptUser (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd tolerate them! Really, when a religion requires you to go through this worship routine three times a day that seems like a huge hassle to us irreligious folks. So why should a capitalist society get to demand you to toil away 5 days a week? And if you can't get one of the well-paid jobs, that still only earns you the right to have food, water and clothes. It's even been ingrained in our language; being a slave in the economy machine has become synonymous with earning: earning your spot in society, earning your right to exist. How crazy is that? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Would you be willing to have reduced pay in order to tolerate them? Significantly reduced pay if they start raising large families on your income? As for the religious requirement of doing 3 rituals a day, the problem I have with that is that at the end of the day the rituals don't put any extra food on the table to matter how much your local priest insists it does. CorruptUser (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, since I have 0 education in econ. CU says "there's always work to be done...", but this suffers from diminishing returns: Do you really need enough teachers to tutor every child personally, enough policeman to literally stand on every street corner, etc.? Doesn't it become make-work at some point, and if it does, isn't it better to just work less? Super ^{Dude,What does mine say? Sweet!} 14:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There are diminishing returns to be sure, but we are far away from there being make-work. Do you know how many people work in Atlanta's homicide department? One. That means just one guy is trying to figure out "whodunnit" for a city with had 84 homicides last year (and good news; that's about half what it was a decade ago). Talk to me about make-work after the police departments are investigating every mugging that occurs. CorruptUser (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I would! Assuming I had a pay that could be reduced, that is. No man or woman deserves to starve for not being born into a position of relative economic privilege or for failing to partake in a system that stimulates inequality and greed. And I would pay out of my own pocket to see every mouth fed if I could! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I agree; like I said no one should be in a position where they incapable of working because they are too poor (e.g., starving, homeless, easily treatable illness). Are we talking past each other? I think we are talking past each other. If you want to continue this convo somewhere else we can, but back to the original topic. Economics of supply reduction as an explanation for anti-GMO groups. CorruptUser (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we are; you talked about "when someone wants [...] but not contribute anything back [...] even the communists wouldn't tolerate them." I don't know about you, but I don't think it's right to judge how 'deserving' one is of the bare basics. Moreover, this requirement for (a commitment to) contributing back to society implies with it that people who are voluntarily unemployed are just parasitic scum. It's this dehumanization that follows from only looking at a person in the context of their economic contributions that I'm protesting. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There has to be some incentive to work. Under the ideal spacefuturedystopia run by me (all hail me!), there'd be 4 classes. At the top, me (all hail me!). Below me are the "innovators", basically those that "multiply" society by discovering or creating things that simply did not exist before, from scientists and engineers to musicians and artists. They would be stratified and earn based on how "valuable" they are, but would enjoy a fairly good lifestyle and at the very least would receive various grants to enable a living wage; the less valuable would be forced below. Below them are the "technicians", the people who "add" to society by keeping it running. They too would also be stratified and earn based on their "worth" from the highly trained doctor to the lowly security guard, and the line (and earnings) between them and the innovators is blurry, but all would at least have a living wage. Additionally I would have mandatory worker's comp so that if someone is crippled they still get to live a similar lifestyle. At the bottom would be "institutionalized". These would be the criminal, or just lazy (infirm and insane covered by worker's comp). They'd have their bare needs taken care of, but not much more. Also I haven't decided how much I want to restrict the bottom's ability to breed, but I would not encourage it. CorruptUser (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, since I usually imagine future society as being techno-hedonistic with most humans hooked up to VR-simulators or direct-pleasure-simulators, robots doing most of the work and little to no procreation, I see little need for speculating about the social stratifications and economic systems of future society. But lemme take a look at this spacefuturedystopia of yours. Well, one of the first things that comes to mind is: What about people that are crippled, infirm or crazy from the very beginning? They wouldn't have a previous job to base their social valuation on. The eugenics-y last sentence is also troubling. Being criminal or lazy (way to lump these together and basically criminalize laziness btw) don't seem like things prominently dependent on genetics, let alone things that you can term "inherited traits".

You realize that this is exactly the kind of society I'm arguing against, right? Your dystopia only values people according to their economic function. What if someone's a great friend, a loving partner or the person that brings the life to parties? Are these not good qualities? Why does the only frame of reference have to be an economical one? Is having a good economy really a worthwhile goal in and of itself? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Good socialites" are still people that add to society in some way; entertainers will still have jobs, and of course you can "support" people with your own income. As for eugenics, I see it more as "eumemetics". It's less about guided evolution and more about punishing bad behavior; "commit crimes, you will be separated from society and sex withheld. Choose to be a drain on society? Sex withheld until you produce." I don't see you advocating for letting criminal boyfriend-girlfriends share a cell. I did however mention that this is a dystopia of sorts, as it's very easy for this social experiment to go horribly wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

But should society only care about these social functions when they're commercialized? Having fun with a friend is not the same as having fun with a stranger you pay to hang out with you. And how would someone like Ghandi or Martin Luther King be valued in your society? They weren't exactly doing 'jobs', now, were they? See, I don't see how you can justify looking at the world exclusively through economic lenses, existentially or intellectually. I'm also wondering what exactly you mean by 'be a drain on society', and how meaningfully someone who doesn't contribute to society differs from someone whose job constitutes a negligible contribution to society. And actually, I don't have any problem with criminal couples sharing a cell, unless one of them is known to be violent or not having close interactions with your lover is meant to be a part of the punishment. By the way, do you want to withhold sex because it's an enjoyable activity, to deny them the right to procreate, or both? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The right to procreate, and as a very massive incentive to not become a criminal. Oh, and MLK would've been labeled a "disruptive individual" and "recycled" in my dystopia. But seriously, MLK wasn't on welfare nor government grants; family and friends and supporters donated to him. I fail to see how that's any different than my dystopia, where families and so forth are still able to donate to people that don't fit into the standard definition of "employed". As for "negligible contribution to society", I believe in a living wage to everyone that is required for society to function. That includes burger flippers and janitors. CorruptUser (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems a bit... exaggerative to say that society requires burger flippers and janitors. It seems kinda ridiculous to consider all jobs as automatically meaningful to society and go on to shame unemployed people for being a drain on society (almost like the only reason you do the former is to justify doing the latter). Or is that not what you meant with "be a drain on society"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If your business ceases to function if no one flips the burgers, the flippers are required. You want to have a techno-hedonistic society? Argue that with me after we replace the education system, social services, and the police force with an infinite supply of robots. CorruptUser (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With the right equipment, you can roast 'em on both sides at the same time! Begone flippers, you've been made obsolete!

And I don't see why you'd need to do it in that order. If everyone's hooked up and busy enjoying themselves 24/7, you won't need real-life education systems, social services or police forces. That said, I didn't say I consider a techno-hedonistic future as necessarily most desirable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

But okay, let's get back to the original topic. So, there was this anti-Monsanto/anti-GMO march recently. Are you saying that's majorly or partially orchestrated/promoted by big non-GMO food companies? If there arose some supercheap alternative to current dentist healthcare, would dentists come up with a campaign to smear the cheap alternative? If scientists invented a robotic tapeworm that provides all the stay-thin benefits without any of the ew-gross bad stuff, would the diet industry facilitate an anti-technology campaign? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how big a part of the anti-GMO movement is from farmers afraid of increased yields, but I'm convinced that it is part of it. CorruptUser (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't have any evidence that people fighting against increasing yields is any part of it, then it might be good to stop flogging that and certainly it is not good to be utterly convinced of it. This issue seems to be about a misunderstanding of price elasticity...because these people are not basing their purchasing on price or simply fighting increasing yields. It's a simple model based on price for freshman and sophomore undergrads where the curve shifts based on other factors, like the those consumers thinking GMO foods are poison. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to the supply side, not the demand side. Purchasing decisions don't come into it at all. There was a time when the US intentionally limited the food supply in order to raise revenue for farmers, though the US government changed course in the 1970s and stopped subsidizing people to grow only weeds. [[User:CorruptUser|] (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That happened at one point, but it doesn't mean it's happening now. There is evidence it happened then while you seem to be unable to produce any, since it was openly done so the US was not beholden to another country to eat (like it was for fuel, causing oil shock and stagflation), but believe that it's done due to some bizarre conspiracy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser: If increasing revenue is your concern, just remember anything that increases revenue adds to GDP. Anything that holds static or reduces revenue is recessionary.nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 04:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergatewiki?

Gamergate; Timeline of Gamergate; List of Gamergate claims. Do we need three articles on one controversy? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

They should probably be redirected to subpages.--Tanis (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea was supposed to be paring the main GG article down to a concise overview by forking the extraneous detail into the timeline or other pages. That hasn't really worked out. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone want to initiate the massive-HCM-started-by-Ruylong-throwing-his-toys-out-of-the-pram and axe any one of those three articles at random? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

[ECx1] OMG 3 PAGES I GUESS THE WIKI IS ALL ABOUT THAT SUBJECT; the 500 pages on Creationism and hundreds on conspiracy theories are totally irrelevant to making a decision about the general content of the wiki!

@Weasel: It has been pared down, somewhat. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

^ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Different people tend to obsess over different things. It seems that, for some people, a largely incomprehensible debate in the gaming industry is relevant to our mission. As I know little about the debate in question - and as reading our enormous article did not help me much the last time I tried - I can only suppose it is indeed relevant.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a dance we've all danced before. I can kinda see where folks are coming from, considering the most edited/warred page lately is Gamergate and it always pops up in Recent changes. Usually in sizable chunks. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd take list of Gamergate claims and make it a subsection of Gamergate itself, down at the bottom. The separate timeline I find to be quite tidy and useful. *shrug* That's my opinion. --Castaigne (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that maybe the whole thing would disappear if we just, you know, ignored it? The entire thing was one giant trolling campaign and you guys kept feeding it...CorruptUser (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

+1 Overdose of Gamergate. Scream!! (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, RationalWiki is the reason why Gators keep trolling and harrassing people. Makes sense. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No, 141, but "Storm in teacup" is the phrase that keeps coming to mind. Can't see that RW's massive documentation does anything but feed the egos of the 'Gaters. Scream!! (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, maybe some of the few that are aware of RW's article get off from the attention, but that's not exactly a valid reason not to document a vitriolic misogynist Internet subculture. Else you might as well argue that we shouldn't document conspiracy loons because some of them might like the attention, or that women shouldn't dress too revealingly because some pervs might get off from it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The big issue with the "don't talk about it" approach is that this isn't a recent issue, gamergate is just the most recent bubbling up of the toxic portion of game culture. Of course that same argument can be used to justify a smaller gamergate article since in the grand scheme gamergate will be a brief portion of the history of game culture sexism. --Miekal 21:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

4chan spillover of a kerfuffle about, among other things, some boring videos on YouTube. Boooooring.--Arisboch (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but every single reactionary movement has their grubby hands on the Gamergate wiimote. The "List of claims" page is extraneous, considering 90% of it was copied directly from the other pages. The main page has been pared down but complaints of "I can't read it" and "it's too long" happen every time it edges into the top 10 longest pages on the site. The timeline...has uses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Give the list more than 24 hours to gain content. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I cut out like 2/3 of it last night though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering the main people behind it? No, I do not believe that would happen. The idea of people like Vox Day, Roosh, Paul Elam, Juicebro Lawyer, whatever-the-fuck-his-name-is at Ralph Retort, and so on giving up? They'd sooner cut their own throats. This is their chance, man. They're going to WIN THAT CULTURE WAR and reduce women and "betas" to their proper place groveling at the feet of the Alpha Males.

It's like believing that Hovind will give up creationism and tax fraud or Geller her desire to spark a crusade and bathe in Muslim blood. Ain't happening. You can't convince people like that otherwise; it's just what they do. That's how the wingnuts work. --Castaigne (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should spin it off into its own wiki, like Encyclopedia Dramatica did with their coverage of Chris-chan? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only 3 fucking pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You have to admit that those three pages have collectively seen the most edits lately, beaten out only by the Saloon Bar. While it's not schism-worthy, it's certainly attracting a lot of the attention. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Shall we split the 25+ pages about creationism and their subsidiary pages about resulting creationists off into their wiki as well? I'll support your proposal if you mandate mine. --Castaigne (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, to be frank, I'd actually support that sort of Creation-wiki split if creationism and other religious pseudoscience became as hot-button within Internet circles as Gamergate has apparently gotten, in contrast to medical/secular pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Lies"

More importantly, can you do something about this mess of trying to counter-refute the page/refute any attempts to point out how fucking stupid it is on its own talk page? This guy has gotten out of hand. I know you've all told me that "We don't block trolls/conspiracy theorists just because we disagree with them" but seriously? This guy is too far gone to be won over with "Yo, that's completely wrong".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It's userspace. Deal. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you allow a 9-11 truther to have a userspace page full of "jet fuel can't melt steel beams"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

For sure! Do you want the people deny something to laugh at??--Arisboch (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

But it's like "These are mistakes" and we have to point out they're not and then he uses our explanations for more shit to put on the page. He's done nothing but be a conspiracy theorist here and not get the point that he's so incredibly wrong on everything. And now his latest defense of it all is roping in rape denialism and just incredibly awful rhetorical situations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Stupid =/= bannable. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Annoying + Stupid + Obstinant then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Still not bannable. It needs to get to "I advocate kiddy rape or genocide." levels for that. --01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that would be totally allowable on RW. It -is- how we roll here. --Castaigne (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

How about how he's using everything I'm saying to make examples of? That's edging into ad hominem territory.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Very definitely, but I don't know if it's actionable. I'd put it to DG. --Castaigne (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile

I wonder how much Naqoyqatsi would have bothered if Ryūlóng hadn't filled the wiki with GG. Note - I'm on the same 'side' as Ryūlóng but this amount of coverage is over the top, surely. Overkill much? Scream!! (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The original Gamergate page was here before I ever signed up. Typhoon imported Timeline of Gamergate from Reddit. FuzzyCatPotato made List of Gamergate claims. Stop blaming this shit on me. And it's three pages. How many pages are there on RW about Conservapedia or Citizendium? Or about creationism? But suddenly a new topic shows up and I'm the face of it, there's a problem that has to be dealt with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol, "filled the wiki with GG". Hyperbolic hyperbole much? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

3 pages, two of which are not even much bothered with by Ryulong, and none of which were created by him, are "filling the wiki with GG". I see.

Bullshit does tend to make my already short temper flare up. --Castaigne (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not "we" as in "RationWiki" but "we" as in "the majority of the Internet". The shitfucks known as gamergaters thrive on the attention like a 6 year old with ego issues, and the best response is to stop feeding the trolls. CorruptUser (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Don't feed the trolls" is bullshit. They will find bait regardless. And everyone tried to ignore Gamergate when it happened and look at where that got us as a society.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"As a society"? You make these net trolls infinitely more important than they are.--Arisboch (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You think Gamergate is some tempest in a teapot over video games rather than one woman's abusive ex trying to get the worst of the Internet to drive her to suicide sparking a reactionary shitstorm that's lasted nearly a year. These aren't just trolls pretending to be misogynists or racists or homophobes. These are, for the most part, people actually holding these opinions. These are people like Theodore Beale or Phil Mason actually believing the shit they say. These are literal neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi wannabes. Of course these are people on top of those who still think one woman had sex to advance her career when that was disproved barely a month in but no let's just ignore the trolls instead of documenting NRX co-opting vidya.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, dumbfucks on the net. Nothing new here. Looks still like a shitstorm in a teapot to me.--Arisboch (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Tell that to the women afraid one of these dumbfucks is going to kill them due to the specificity of their vitriol. See how you feel when your legal name, face, and address are plastered on ED for the "lulz".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean Sarkesian? No-one harmed a hair on her head and the Streisand effect brought her fame and money.--Arisboch (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're in the professional victim crowd.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Professional? No idea, there's no proof she staged any of this and she DID profit off GamerGate (look at her Kickstarter or the stuff she got invited to. If it weren't for GamerGate, she would've stayed a relative nobody, you wouldn't (most likely) not know about her and her Kickstarter wouldn't have racked in the insane amount of money it did). And I have no problem with that. I find that ironic.--Arisboch (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Her Kickstarter predated Gamergate by 2 years. It's the same people in Gamergate but to say she and others are better off for it is patronizing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Patronizing"? It's the truth. Look at the wads she racked in with her Kickstarter. Or the stuff she got invited to. All that without one hair on her head harmed. --Arisboch (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's diminishing everything she's accomplished to say it's because of GG rather than saying she succeeded in spite of GG. Sure, no one would have known about her project had these shitlords not threatened her life but do you really think hundreds of people donated to her to spite the internet shitlords or because they were actually interested in what she had to say when they found out about it? Why does it matter that she was never physically attacked as a result? Does everything suddenly change when someone acts out on these Internet threats? Do we have to wait for the next Elliot Rodger to rise up out of the Gamergate quagmire for it to mean something in your eyes?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about the intentions of the people, who donated to her Kickstarter (I'm no psychic, my father's just a simple Russian electrical engineer and programmer, not Professor X) and I also didn't claim, that they did it to spite her (straw man) and what connection has Elliot Rodger (mentally ill) with GG?--Arisboch (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said. You insinuated that people donated to her project because of Gamergate (or proto-Gamergate). I conceded that it probably wouldn't have made the $100k it did had she not been threatened and the news picked up the story, but the way you phrased to me is that she benefited from having had her life torn asunder by people who don't understand what literary criticism is. Or that people donated to her project to spite her attackers. And Rodger was cut from the same anti-feminist/misogynistic cloth as Gamergate. Also distilling the fact he murdered 6 people and planned on murdering dozens more to just being his mental illness is shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Shit, I never claimed (implicitly or explicitly), that they donated to spite these dumbshits, who wrote that crap against her, where the fuck do you keep taking it from (psychic??)!? And "cut from the same cloth" is much too vague to mean anything or to be evidence for any kind of connection to GG. And don't you know, that deranged serial killers planning stuff really exist??--Arisboch (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because he had Asperger's did not make him predisposed to go on a murder spree. His exposure to the MRA/red[ill garbage is what pushed him over the edge.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? MRA did motivate him to do the Isla Vista shooting? Any proof for that? And yes, he was insane. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]--Arisboch (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If Elliot Rodger had not been exposed to the wingnuttery of the manosphere, he and his 6 victims would probably be alive today.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please look up the national lottery numbers in that crystal ball you got that info from?--Arisboch (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

He was mentally ill but not all mentally ill people proclaim they're going on a murder spree because feminism made it so they couldn't get laid.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And what of it?--Arisboch (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Christ, are you not aware of Rodger's postings on incel forums and how incel members - who are a type of MRA - goaded him into taking revenge? Or are you just obtuse? (Checks contributions.) Oh, wait, you're the Chomsky guy. Never mind, questions retracted, you ARE obtuse. I recall that argument. --Castaigne (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No idea, what the fanboyism for Chomsky here has to do with GG or Rodger and also no idea, how you wanna prove, that him roaming incel forums (where?) did cause this. Reminds me of the clowns, who claim, that violent videogames make you violent (horseshoe theory in action).--Arisboch (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

When the guy used MRA ideology to justify what he was gonna do in his manifesto, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to suppose that there might be some kind of connection between the two. It's not because something happens through a virtual medium that it magically can't influence people anymore. Many Western Muslims that decide to join terrorist factions do so after coming into contact with extremist ideology through online resources, for example. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But the cause? Nah.--Arisboch (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

When talking about stuff like this, trying to pinpoint one singular thing as being the cause is a pointless and stupid endeavour. But was it an important factor? Quite plausibly. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring misogyny until it goes away isn't necessarily the most efficient approach to combatting misogyny, though. Sure, speaking up about it will only encourage the reactionaries to yell louder and more viciously (and some of them really like doing so), but is that so bad compared to the alternative? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Better add a few thousand more words to the Gamergate article so nobody thinks we're ignoring it. Fonzie (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess you don't like Dune either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, none of us think Anita Sarkesomething was a professional victim, just that she ended up ahead as a result of the harassment. That is a good thing. What we are complaining about is that this is the internet, and the Quinnspiricists themselves were the ones promoting this schlock, and the only reason it got any veneer of legitimacy at all was because they managed to sucker in people like you to fan the flames. CorruptUser (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So people were just supposed to ignore 4chan ruining one woman's life at the behest of her creepy ex-boyfriend?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually Ryulong, I do like Dune, and to prove it I'm going to paste it into an article on RW. Fonzie (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, you're a conservative, though not a conservative like me. (I'm pre-Burkean. Very few are.) Anita Sarkeesian thriving is NOT a good thing for American conservatism and, frankly, a lot of your cohorts in American conservatism DO consider her to be a professional victim. After all, she IS liberal and a feminist. You need to pay attention to the narratives of your fellow travelers more. --Castaigne (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually consider myself a Liberal. I honestly don't know if I'm more of a Social Democrat, a Libertarian, a Classic Liberal, a Socialist, or something else. If you can define yourself with just one or two words, you probably aren't very interesting. I just happen to be a Republican for reasons non-Americans don't understand. CorruptUser (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I -am- an American. OK, so you're a liberal, but you're a Republican, so even though you're a hippy, you vote for Cruzs and Jindals. Oooook. I mean, that's what I assume you do if you're a Republican, because it makes no sense to define yourself as a party man without voting for those party members. Or at least, that's what you do if you're registered R or D in my state. --Castaigne (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Don't feed the trolls is bad science. --Castaigne (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@141: No, but ignoring storms in teacups is the way you deal with them. GG is entirely a non-issue, really. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{This taste... it's of a liar!} 14:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure the people whose lives were directly affected by these "storms in teacups" would beg to differ. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryu's Story

Ryulong, I just have to ask, what is your story? What caused GamerGate to be such a hotbutton issue for you? I'm not being snarky, I actually want to know. CorruptUser (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I got in too deep by trying to keep the Wikipedia article from turning into a hitpiece and responding to a Gamergater on Twitter with 4chan slang that has homophobic connotations because at the time I was sure it was just the 4chan crowd rather than the mess it evolved into.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So your motivation for the GamerGate articles is that you were banned from wikipedia because of GamerGate? CorruptUser (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, if I'm just doing my regular thing, and then some asshole who doesn't like what I'm doing deliberately and malevolently tries to get me fired or banned from a convention or summat? I tend to take that as a cue to make it my life mission to be the rock in their shoe. I'd probably take it a bit further, really; I'm no liberal hippy and I like being grudgy as fuck. --Castaigne (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This was before the ban.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So you were cyberbullied, is the reason? CorruptUser (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I said shit they didn't like. I became a target. I'm doing what I can so their conspiracy shit is shown for what it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Define "target". Was it insults, was your email hacked, or did they send things in the mail? CorruptUser (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt Ryulong is going to disclose details like that. I know I wouldn't. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As a great guy said, "Thank your stars you're not that way, turn your back and walk away" (he said more too, you can track down the song if you don't know it already; it's a great song). Wish them well (hint!) and be on your way. I've received plenty of death threats and such from my Wikipedia administrative work, once you learn to tune it out and see the humor in someone hurling death threats on the internet over matters you can't even control in the first place you get used to doing it. Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn can look after themselves, there's not anything we on the internet can do that will have any meaningful impact. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's rather defeatist. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So wha exactly are any of us supposed to do on the internet? I could see if you personally knew either or both of them, but really; can you name one positive thing that could possibly come for either Sarkeesian or Quinn as a direct result of something one of us does on RationalWiki? That's exactly what the great guy referenced above was referring to; do what you can, and don't get worked up over what you can't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If your argument is that "nothing we do on the internet has a meaningful impact", that's not an argument for inaction, but for arbitrary action. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Quinn and Wu have voiced pleasure with how the topic is covered here in some form.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, that is something; the little things help, however small they are. To the IP; if you check my Wikipedia contributions, you can see what I've focused on for the past 2 1/2 years. I know that a few thousand people a day read the work I'm doing, which I suppose is a good thing. At the same time I have no illusions that, by meticulously documenting her case study, I'm having any direct impact on Genie's personal life. For a little while, when I first started working on her article, I fell into the trap of thinking that I was having some sort of positive influence over her well-being, and it was only after I realized that there was nothing I could do that I did my best research and writing. More than anything I wish no one had to document Genie's case, it still makes me feel sick in a way that the absolute worst of Gamergate never could, but remembering that I'm not going to accomplish anything of import on her behalf is what makes it possible for me to do my best. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sticking in the craw of the GGers isn't enough of a good reason? --Castaigne (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

At least for me, the only time I feel any schadenfreude is when I'm watching sports (although it's rather intense when watching sports). To use my example above I don't take any pleasure in somehow exposing Genie's "parents", my motivation is only that Wikipedia had inadequate coverage of her case and it provided an outlet for my interest in it. More than anything, when reading about it my thoughts are 1. I'm glad that I don't wish to get married or have children and 2. even if that changes I know I possess the faculties to never become the monstrosities that were her "parents" and especially her "father". That's only my outlook, though, and not necessarily correct; reasonable people can come to different conclusions, as can a reasonable person and I. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

[no outdent, stand-alone message]Something important to consider: There's no rush. Slow, precise strikes are more powerful than several weak punches (a thousand paper cuts sting like hell, but come on, it's a metaphor.) Sure, we could detail and refute a bajillion minor things, but those details are minor for a reason. The people that use those minor details to hurt people will soon forget them, and in the process of trying to keep track of them all... Well... The more you speak, the more likely you are to be wrong. If you're right a thousand times and wrong once, you will be seen as wrong. Also, the major stuff gets lost in the minor stuff. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I can understand where the need to document all the minor things comes from. When you're being Gish gallop'd into oblivion, it's nice to have an easy reference list to check and point people to. I can agree though that it is getting a very significant amount of attention (one of the reasons why I've so far stayed away from GG on RW, except for one edit that eventually got edited down anyways). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You have my sympathy, but sometimes it's best to wait and give things a slight bit of distance until you cool down. Or just try and put it out of your mind because Wikipedia is one of those areas of the internet where the content can often be attributed to popularity over truth. Maybe I'm still a little bitter too because I am a fan of history whose pet peeve is bad history and once got warned because I pointed some of the flaws in Wikipedia's articles on the historicity of Jesus. But maybe that's because I think it's important to note when some of the "first hand" sources weren't even born yet and include passages known to be later fraudulent editions. Nonetheless, you won't do anyone any good if you get so upset over the whole thing that you sound exactly like the kind of conspiracy strawman that the other side is trying to make you out to be. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. Yooooooo, Cobra! - Psycho Gecko 9:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to sort the RW debates by edit/creation date?

I just wanted to know if there was a way to sort the RW debates by their date of creation or by their last edit date. Is there a way to do this? I want to be able to enter a current debate rather than one that ended three years ago. QuantumDude (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to sort pages by age but you can filter Recent Changes by namespace. Here are all edits made in debate space during the past three months. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And in theory it should be possible to change that to be grouped by page... somehow... WalkerWalkerWalker 18:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The new pages log seems relevant, but you can't extend its time range (via the options given; it might be possible to do it alternately, somehow). FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 18:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Some fiddling with the API should get this, but it's been a long time since I did any playing with it so I'm too rusty to come up with a quick solution. larron may be your fella. Worm (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Article creation

Dunno if you've looked at Special:Newpages, but we're steaming ahead of late. Knocking off a few of the "most-wanted" on the to do list. Excellent, excellent - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Is good. What caused the increased rate, and how do we keep article creation high? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 15:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Newpages, it's a few people bothering. That a few are the most-wanted articles suggests that experiment is working - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Flat earth

IIf you want to waste some time check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4fVem_CPw on Flat earth vs ball earth. I weep for america that this doesnt get laughed off the interwebs. Hamster (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Last 5000 Edits

(you have to look at this file to get the full advantages of the svg) --larron (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems broken for me, unlike the other svg files. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The link doesn't work for me. I suggest you convert it to .jpeg LlamaPastor31 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Works fer me. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk)

Now it works for me too. LlamaPastor31 (discuss) 02:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It works and I see me. Hi, me! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 03:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a cool chart! ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How'd you do that?--Arisboch (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Woohoo! I made the list! CorruptUser (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How about updating RationalWiki:Active users? it doesn't seem to have been updated since last September.Spud (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• @NarkySawtooth, FuzzyCatPotato, LLamaPastor31: nice to see that it works
• @LLamaPastor31: "I suggest you convert it to .jpeg" SVGs can be problematic for older browsers, but I cannot cram the information into a JPEG (or PNG)
• @ConfusedLiberal: Thanks!
• @Arisboch: short version: I got the data via an api-query. I have written some routines in R to create SVGs using the often maligned pie-charts
• @CorrputUser: Congratulations?
• @Spud: done

Anybody call their representative to vote against Fast Track?

I haven't as of now, but I'd think I'd better reach for the phone before the economic disaster known as "TPP" will set in.--Palaeonictis (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Answers in Google

Signal boost: Apparently, Googling "What happened to the dinosaurs?" pulls up an Answers in Genesis excerpt in their main answer. Can you guys help file a report against this? (Original article by Greg Laden on ScienceBlogs)ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And "algebra invented" gets a main answer from Gates of Vienna. These right-wingers might be despicable shitheads but they know their SEO all right. Bicycle^wheel 19:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not for me it doesn't. Wit hthe quotes I get scienceblogs, without I get the BBC. Reminder: Google results are customised for you personally. What you see as the number one result, isn't necessarily what I see. If you get AiG as your top result, stop frequenting so many creationist sites. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Erm, A) The last time I was ever on AIG or another creationist website was maybe 2008 or so, and B) The number one result isn't what I'm referring to (speaking of, that particular ScienceBlogs article might be the one I've just posted about) I'm referring to the Quick Answer box that pops up at the top of the search results. They can apparently vary by the country you're in, so if you're not in the US, you might not be experiencing this issue. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Googling from the UK I get this in the answer box. Seems a bit random as the default answer source but at least it's not a creationist source. I'm getting AiG as the second listed result, after an old BBC webpage. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Midsummer/Midwinter

How will RW celebrate the forthcoming solstice(and the equinoxes).

On Halloween, for a brief period, RW abandons all snark...

As 31 December becomes 1 January, in commemoration of Janus, RW presents both sides of the argument.

Any more? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You ask the RW to abandon snark?! NEVER!!!--Arisboch (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You'll take our snark when you pry it from our Cheetos-coated fingertips! CorruptUser (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we do present both sides of an argument - but only so that we can point out that one of them is absurdly wrong. Humour is a good way of demonstrating this absurdity.

Perhaps we should celebrate the solstices by getting drunk and dancing naked around bonfires at night? But I guess most of do that anyway.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

More like wear goat-themed party hats while having a massive outdoor party also known as an orgy. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 05:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do some entries appear in edit mode but not read mode?

What about a RW 'Lord of Misrule'? 86.145.120.196 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe celebrate that railway troll as the God of all the Internet? LlamaPastor31 (discuss) 23:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(reset) Railway troll? [15]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No. This guy. LlamaPastor31 ^{Over 109,859 served!} 03:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

Can someone help with this article? I wasn't familiar with this subject before, so it could use a look from someone more informed. --Tweenk (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What is cultural appropriation? Maybe I'll read the article first... LlamaPastor31 ^{Over 109,859 served!} 03:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's somewhat like having a toilet plunger with the handle shaped like a crucifix because you think it looks cool and thinking it makes you a Christian, as far as I understand. --Tweenk (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact I'll probably put that into the article. --Tweenk (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's one of those things that can be harmful, but is frequently highlighted with cherry-picked stupid quotes from tumblr blogs to demonstrate problems with "SJWs" or whatever. There's gotta be a line between hijacking someone's real religion or culture to sell cheap knicknacks and enjoying learning about and participating in elements of other cultures. But I feel like that line is never really discussed in the context of this particular issue. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel like we need a new template: "The subject of this article is cringe-inducingly American. People from other countries should look away before their sides split." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah...

“”Can blue men sing the whites, or are they hypocrites...

Congrats to anyone who knows the quote. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So in the 30's, 40's and 50's, white kids starting listening to rock blues and rock. Their parents complained about the evil black people's music infecting their kids' souls, and prevented the kids from listening to anything other than boring orchestral pieces, never mind that 200 years prior Waltzes were considered obscene and degenerate. The end result is that by being exposed to a bit of black culture, the kids grew up wondering why there was such a divide between white people and black people. Some of the kids started copying the music too, which caused moral guardians to try and clamp down on it. The more that parents restricted rock, the more the kids fought back. Bit more history, but long story short, the "cultural appropriation" of "Jive" is what led to the end of the Jim Crow era. CorruptUser (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As someone from a white upper-middle-class background in New England, every now and again I hear someone (usually people from a background similar to mine, who are still at the phase where calling things bigoted and racist is purely feel-good point-scoring) seriously saying that white people shouldn't play the blues because black people somehow "own" it and are uniquely entitled to play it. To which I can only respond that Albert King thankfully never got that message, because his session with Stevie Ray Vaughan is one of the highlights in music; I mean come on, who doesn't like Stevie? Or Janis Joplin, for that matter. That argument is as ridiculous as saying Jimi Hendrix or Phil Lynott or Derrick Green shouldn't have gotten into rock and metal because that's "white" music or something. Although it's sometimes hard to find the line, there is a point at which screaming about something being "cultural appropriation" is just empty whining. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Musicians steal from musicians all the time, continuously, as hard as they can. c.f. Kraftwerk->hip-hop. But there is an actual thing we're talking about here - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In the end, all culture is a mix of multiple previous cultures and folk stuff is often enough used just for fun and deco, own culture or not.--Arisboch (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Does it count if the culture was more or less made up entirely? For example, Samurai culture as we know it was basically blatant propoganda invented during the late 19th\early 20th century; "Bushido" as a word did not exist before the Meiji Restoration. Did you know that Samurai would sneer at swordsmanship? And that until the 19th century, guns were more prominant in Japanese warfare than in European warfare? And that Samurai were generally despised by most villagers and townspeople as being little more than heavily armed thieves? So perhaps unironically, more or less the same as European knights.CorruptUser (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that while some "cultural appropriation" might be a problem, if what's being appropriated is stories, music, or cuisine it's not an issue. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Very simple rule. If it's something sacred to a culture, it's off limits, otherwise it's fair game. CorruptUser (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

On this wiki, no-one pulls any ounches, when it's about religion, be it Bible or Koran!--Arisboch (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I gotta point out that this wiki has no problems attacking or dismissing things sacred to cultures(our own and others). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about "cultural appropriation" here. There's a difference between criticizing the Quran and dressing up as Mohammed for holloween. CorruptUser (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the latter one is much more bothersome, you have to look for a good quality traditional Arab garb, keffiyah, agal and sandals first (plush donkey is purely optional).--Arisboch (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Both are considered blasphemy and insulting to that religion. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "insulting to that religion" is a particularly strong concern. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Anonymous user!sheep BAG FUCK} 21:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A slightly better analogy for USAians might be wearing military medals like Purple Hearts or campaign ribbons ironically. I don't know of anyone bold enough to do that. That said, when I was in Prague in '92, from a street vendor I picked up a mess of Order of Lenins and other assorted commie gauds for just such a purpose. Also got a Russian veteran's issue pocket watch, said to be made from steel from WWII guns and enamelled with various logos referencing the Great Patriotic War. I thought all of these things might be imitations or fakes, but the watch seems legit. I showed it to a watchmaker who said it was a Soviet era knockoff of a Rolex design from back when Rolex made pocket watches. The watch still runs great. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

---

I added in my thoughts and edits. It's still quite a bit more strict than I actually believe about the concept of cultural appropriation, which I have long believed to be somewhat silly (with few exceptions, such as appropriation from Native American/First Nations/aboriginal cultures as that generally ends up becoming massively racist), but it's something. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "meme face" t-shirts and general merchandise exist is misappropriation of my culture. I now fully understand the plight of the displaced indigenous peoples of the world. Seriously though, it does somewhat bug me, and "cultural appropriation" is the only concept I can think of that explains it. X Stickman (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As both the person who first suggested the article, and one of the few religious people who posts here, I thought I'd give my view. While Pagans aren't "oppressed" in the same way alot of religious groups are in the US right now (mainly because we're mostly white people), we're definitely looked down upon (most Americans view us as either at war with God, or just a bunch of weirdos). My personal view is, show us as much respect as you'd show any other religion. If you routinely criticize all religions, go ahead and criticize. If you routinely mock all religions, mock away. Just don't single us out as somehow LESS worthy of respect than religions you happen to be more used to. I'd say the same would apply to Native American beliefs, Voodou, Santeria, and other religions. Also, when it comes to coercive cults, their beliefs (ie, Scientology's belief in Xenu) should be seen as separate from their problematic practices (ie denying medical attention to people in need of it).--Mustex (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Four Horsemen

So, Richard Dawkins is Death, Christopher Hitchens was Famine, Sam Harris is Pestilence, and Daniel Dennet is War. My question to you guys is, while it's kind of off-topic and clearly off mission, since Hitchens is now dead (RIP), who do you think would be one to take his place as Famine? QuantumDude (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely you're aware that all four of them (including Hitchens, posthumously) have been excommunicated from atheism for their various and manifold heresies? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, excommunicated from atheism :P QuantumDude (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, what do you think Atheism+ is for?--Arisboch (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not only excommunicated but also silenced, as Dawkins complained about in a recent interview with a national newspaper.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No actual suggestions, though? QuantumDude (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No gods, no masters, no horsemen.

Really, Bill Maher seems to fit with that group in some ways. Or Michael Shermer. Not that I really get what membership in such a group entails. SpecialFFrog (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Maher's an anti-vaxxer, so he's perfect for Pestilience ;) Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 05:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the other and frankly, superior Four Horsemen: Ric Flair, Arn Anderson, Tully Blanchard, and Barry Windham. ;)--71.62.250.238 (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Great idea!!! RationalDate.com

So Coast to Coast AM just launched ParanormalDate.com, so loonies can be sure of a good convo about Bigfoot, Carnivora, Zecharia Sitchin and the like on their dates. The domain name RationalDate.com is available, what are we waiting for? Just kidding... Ithaca8 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A "paranormal date" sounds like you tried to eat dinner with someone but a spooky ghost spooked you, but a "rational date" just sounds like a glorified book club. Majorly less attractive. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Rational dating" sounds like a terrible idea from LessWrong [16][17][18] - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Sounds like" Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 10:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"RationalDating, get together with your fellow rationalists and skeptics, and date them! only costs 19.95$ a month!." who better to set that up but us. Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 12:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Change it to RealGoatDate.com and watch the BIG $ roll in. Leuders (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

And... my god, the people who come on rationalwiki thinking they're super-rational to yammer on about one of their political bugaboos, they'd so be into a site like that. I feel bad for anyone who'd sign up. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So... we'd need some way of being able to say you are a sysop, so no one accidentally dates LogicMaster. CorruptUser (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think they're still on a date that started in 2011. Their partner left after ten minutes, the restaurant closed at 11, it went out of business and now the building is derelict but they haven't noticed any of that because they've been too busy researching their 'government is religion' brainwave non-stop. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"I thought this was RATIONALdating!" We could do deals with bars and liquor stores worldwide - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the official booze of rationality? I'm going with Guiness, because they accidentally invented about 10% of statistics, not including the Guiness Book of World Records. CorruptUser (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Vodka, comrades!--Arisboch (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Damn reds, we need a drink for red-blooded 'Murricans; whiskey! It'll put some hair on your chest, or if you are a lady someone else's hair on your chest, or someone else's not-hair on your chest, I don't judge! CorruptUser (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Red Bull and Jägermeister, for the 90's kids. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A Jägerbomb?--Arisboch (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Jägerbomb! Brah, we gonna do so many Jägerbombs! C'mon brah! CorruptUser (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm pretty sure most adults(and many minors) drink. It's not particularly unique to the rationalist crowd. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys, my olde historie teachre styled himself as a matchmaker from heaven. He called himself eHarding.com. I checked, the domain name is open. So what are we waiting for? Let's do it! Of course, if you're lazy, you could just go to Mensa Match.

Do you think we need an article for the church scene in Kingsman?

So for those of you that haven't watched Kingsman: The Secret Service, SPOILER ALERT: In the movie there's a several minute long fight scene where one of the characters is tricked into killing all the inhabitants of a WBC ripoff. I think we should have an article on it because it caused a massive uproar among Christians, saying that the movie was promoting violence against them. So what do you think, do we need an article for it? Master Necromancer(fear me!) 14:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh. We don't have a article for God Bless America, and they outright target expy's of the WBC. Causing an uproar (that seems to have not really taken off much) really doesn't justify having an article on something that is otherwise completely unrelated to our mission. --Miekal 14:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The WBC itself incites violence against themselves. That's their entire MO; piss people off, get their rights violated, sue into oblivion. 50% of them are attorneys, disbarred or otherwise... CorruptUser (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the movie twice and this doesn't make sense. Galahad is in there more out of trying to investigate what in hell is going on there and then the mind control wave causes him (and everyone else in the room) to kill each other. Outrage is only from people who don't understand the context. wp:Kingsman: The Secret Service Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hellstorm, anyone seen this shit?

I already added it to the to-do list. Thought I'd draw attention to it, for those who know more about history than me (the only parts I can call out are racist crap about evil Jews and Mongoloid Russians): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCOKNCwHmQ --Mustex (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this when I was about halfway through the docmentary. Having now finished it, I would like to make the comment: Bizarrely, as a layman on history, the documentary would actually seem fairly legit if you took out the periodic references to "X person was a Jew." And I checked wikipedia and found some of the incidents cited in the documentary are legit. I actually think that may make it worse, that the people making the documentary are trying to use crimes committed by the Allies to justify the atrocties of Nazi Germany.--Mustex (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Time Cube is...

...currently a redirect on my computer. Looks like the era of Time Cube is coming to and end.--Palaeonictis (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What is it redirecting to for you? It still works for me. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 04:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Some domain website with time cube as a redirect, must be an error on my ISP's part. It has absolutely nothing to do with Time Cube.--Palaeonictis (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki in May 2015

(you have to look at this file to get the full advantages of the svg)

--larron (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is officially bigger than Conservapedia. Huge success for ethics! Vulpius (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

whoo I made the most edits list for this month! Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 12:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you call...

... the group of fallacies where evidence doesn't match up with the conclusion, because the evidence is too broad / too narrow / not representative / chosen purposefully / etc.:

• Apex fallacy
• fallacious Composition and division
• Cherry picking
• Overgeneralization
• Texas sharpshooter fallacy
• fallacious argument from analogy
• Generalization from fictional evidence (maybe)
• Overprecision

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fallacies. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Would "imprecision fallacies" work? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was still the joke section above. I didn't get it. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone looking for work?

One hundred dollahs! Wonder who we've pissed off in Pakistan ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I think this would work. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Wasn't something like this posted here, maybe 6 months ago? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That was $50, about the price of making a website capable of racking in millions of dollars. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this is the same one, actually. The difference is that now it's $100. Whee! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How high does the price have to go before the RW foundation remove the offending pages for the sweet, sweet cash? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Church and state

As an atheist is surprised me that not the constitution allows states to make their own religions, but just not congress and not a national U.S. religion but allows individual states the right to choose their own religions. Before you say then rights don't apply to states from the bill of rights, well those were for America. The Establishment specifically mentions CONGRESS can not, not the entire nation. Over 30 states had official religions in the past, even after the clause, source for that here http://www.toberight.com/2010/10/there-is-no-separation-of-church-state-in-the-constitution/ . Sure some founders said things like Jefferson but Adams and other dissenters specifically called it a nation of Christianity and such. Also, founding word is not automatically law. Whenever we say something is unconstitutional because of it's religious links we are WRONG absolutely. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.176.153.211 / talk / contribs} 04:21, 12 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Another heap of right-winger nonsense that displays their inability to count past 10. Look up incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Despite the Establishment clause specifically saying Congress, the 14th amendment modifies that to apply to state governments, not just the federal government. Compro01 (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

^ This. We're not in the 19th century anymore. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 05:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

20th--Miekal 22:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Creep Shaming Question

Ok, I'd like to start with the understanding: I am NOT here to defend MRAs when they cry "creep shaming!" I'm starting this thread to ask if the current form of the article is accurate.

Now, it's been a while since I've really interacted with MRAs (all my MRA friends stopped talking about me because I was "obsessed" with ending circumcision, and they thought rape apologetics were more important *vomits*). However, when I did interact with them there was one key point they always brought up in creep shaming that seems completely unaddressed in the article: attractiveness. The basic argument was "more attractive guys are allowed to be more sexually forward than me, while all women are shamed for their sexuality equally!"

So, unless this argument has fallen out of favor, I think we need to make some addition to the article to address this "it's harder for unattractive people to get laid, this violates my rights!" bullshit.--Mustex (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of what you're referring to might be covered by the incels. --Castaigne (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a lot of overlap, but in the case of Incels it's usually a more personal complaint that an individual can't be laid. MRAs, at least in my experience, tend to be a bit older and better at putting a veneer of objectivity over their bitching, so they frame the problem less as simply getting laid, and more as being "shamed" for attempting to get laid.--Mustex (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna guess that they've almost entirely invented this double standard from popular fiction, with little-to-no relevance in the real world. A person hitting on you repeatedly after you ask them to stop is a creep no matter how attractive they are, e.g.. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

^^^Quoted for truth. --Castaigne (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, not all women are direct in their rejection. They might say "I'm not looking for anything right now." etc. and someone who is socially awkward or has Asperger's may not understand that this actually means "no", and they may be considered creepy due to a lack of social understanding when the answer is not direct, which I believe to be a legitimate grievance for the "creep". Other than that, I don't think there are legitimate reasons to ask someone out more than once. Oh, and that attractiveness thing is complete bull, people who say that ARE really creeps. QuantumDude (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, fucked-up situations like this are worthy of criticism. The problem is, that generally isn't what most MRAs are thinking of when they howl "creep shaming"; they're much more fixated on idiocy like that mentioned above. I can only speak as a man, but I've had unwanted advances a couple times from women; it didn't matter how good looking they were or weren't, it was still annoying (though I can't say I felt in any way harassed). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have actually been in a similar situation to the one I described, when I was in high school. I have Asperger's, too. It's not fun to be called creepy (or a "stalker") when you don't even understand what you did and couldn't interpret what they meant. I had to have it explained to me after the fact in order to understand it, but to be so... vague about it to someone with Asperger's, then turn around and call them a creep or stalker (it's not like this was repeated or I was following her or anything), is cruel and extremely painful and damaging. I have a better (but not great) understanding of social interaction now, and I now endeavor to tread very carefully and make sure anything vague is explained to me fully. To boil this down to "girls only call it creepy when unattractive guys do it" is indeed infuriating and indicates that the person is, indeed, a creep. QuantumDude (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My only saving grace, as someone with PDD-NOS and also happens to be 6'3", was that the one person I ever had romantic interest in lived several thousand miles away and communicated with me through e-mail (long story, although nothing terribly profound). I was able to get through that phase without doing so in plain view, and with someone who had a fairly similar personality and didn't ever have to worry that I'd actually try something she didn't want (and I can unambiguously say I never would, if you met me it'd take only a few second to figure that out). It was very hard to navigate that, especially given how brazen some of my peers were, but I eventually rethought a few things I'd said to her; she actually helped me a lot, and when I expressed concern about some of what I had written she went through some of it to explain if my reconsiderations were right. I seem better than I am with social interactions today, mostly because I lack the flat affect of most ASD people and because I can use scripted speech without anyone else knowing it. The aforementioned romantic interest faded years ago without any kind of falling-out, and I since seem to have morphed into the Temple Grandin type ASD, but I did learn a lot in the process; one is that women—well everyone, but because this is about MRAs—don't care, regardless of how good you look you're a creep if you act like one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just responding to the claim that there's never a reason to ask someone out more than once: Maybe not asking someone out every day, but I have a friend who I've asked out multiple times (usually at least a few months apart), and while she's said no every time, she doesn't seem to have a problem with me asking. If anything, she seems rather flattered.^{— Unsigned, by: Mustex / talk / contribs}

Non-Biblical evidence sources of Jesus

RW should have article on each source of evidence apologists use to prove Jesus existed.

So far:

• Serapion
• Josephus
• Tacitus
• Pliny the Younger
• Suetonius
• Thallus
• Phlegon
• Lucian
• Hadrian

Any others? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just have a single page with each of those as sections. No need to split things. --Castaigne (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Something about those gospels that didn't make it into the official Bible maybe? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yay, I finally had Sex Reassignment Surgery!

Technically been 2 weeks, but I was too tired and in too much pain to write anything, but I figured I needed to share something to keep my morale high, and you guys are a nice bunch, so sup! Was supposed to have had it done over a year ago, but the NHS kinda fucked up and thus I've been waiting for years (which, as a depressed 23 year old, seems like forever) and so they had to give me a private alternative they were to pay for. So yeah, I now have a vagina. Swollen so much it's actually impressive, and I have to keep shoving giant glass medical dildos into it for 20 minutes 3 times a day to keep it open, but a vagina nonetheless! Wooo! :D DarkFire (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations from the US. I wish we had a national healthcare service that covered sex reassignment for everyone.--Owlman (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed so, it's a travesty how backwards things are over there with regards to health care in general I have to say :(. Wishing you a decent president who can actually implement a national healthcare service over there, from this side of the pond! DarkFire (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Btw I assume, based on your profile, that your preferred pronouns are feminine.--Owlman (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. It also wouldn't make sense for me to be celebrating the acquisition of a vagina if I identified as a male ;) DarkFire (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, medical dildos are a thing? cool! Also, congrats. Super ^{Dude,Where's my car?} 19:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep! It's literally just a boring giant glass dildo with no features - a glass cylinder with an end that tapers and rounds off. Thanks :D DarkFire (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats!--Arisboch (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) DarkFire (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Incredibly brave of you. Congratulations, we shall have to ask you if male privilege is a thing. 😉 Tielec01 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been on hormone therapy for 4 years and been passing for 3, so I can probably say enough about that :P. Male privilege is definitely a thing (people think I'm less intelligent and good at my subject now I'm female), though there are some female disprivileges that have their advantages (for example, people are kinder to me and much less presuming I'm dangerous now I'm female). DarkFire (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Way to go, girl! Massive congratulations from one 23-year-old MtF to another. :P - I'm stuck in the US for the time being, so getting to a position where I can actually get anywhere in transitioning sure wouldn't be so easy. Hell, it's way more stigmatised to be transgender than an outspoken atheist in some parts of the US. My actual RW account has a name that I use across several sites, and the last thing I need is a discussion on my transgenderism to show up on Google, so I have to go to BoN mode to talk about being transgender and stuff. I'll open a separate discussion about that, though, because I'd like to be able to openly talk about it. Just know that you definitely aren't alone on here. :P 79.141.164.4 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ohay there fellow 23-year-old MtF! Sorry to hear about your situation! The way people treat trans people here in the UK isn't much better, buuut, we do have an NHS that is run by professionals, and the psychiatric consensus is that a diagnosis of "F64.0 Male-to-Female Transsexualism" is best secured by means of months of psychotherapy and being treated with hormone therapy followed by at least 2 years of further psychotherapy and being "full time" legally for surgery, and so yeah, they allocate funding for it, even if it is dramatically underfunded (mostly because it's part of the already underfunded NHS Mental Health budget). Reading situations like yours is how I've coped through a very long, bureaucratically-choked waiting list - at least there's something for us poor people here, a very geographically-privileged thing. On the plus side, trans rights as an issue is really taking off and the US appears to be moving into position for a Great Leap Forward on this front, taking the tails of the same-sex marriage debate. I'm sorry for your suffering in the meantime :(. DarkFire (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

(BoN here) Wow, I wrote a big response to this, then I remembered that I still had to go make an account and all that stuff to stop being a BoN. Had my response in the clipboard to come back and finish typing it. Then I copied some other text. Oops. Anyway, I think I made it sound so much worse than it is! Fact is, I've got a small group of friends who immediately came to my side, they switched pronouns and everything in about a day! I've also got a wife who did the whole "I'm going to just try and be straight" thing, and let's just say my coming out to her was about the happiest moment of her life! Honestly, SRS would be nice, but it's out of reach, and if I can just get by the way I am (even if passing is WORK, in spite of the fact that I don't worry about doing it out in public all the time), you know, I'll live. Yeah, I've been out at some events and such with friends, and though I had to exercise some caution, it's pretty hard to tell it's me when I'm done up (don't take that as "ugh I'm so gorgeous it hurts", because I never said I looked GOOD :P). Let me tell you, going from tux and tie at high school prom to long hair and a long dress at a ball in college, well that's just MAGICAL. Those are some of the best times I've had in my life, honestly, when I actually could be really out an open for a night. Maybe this place'll get to a point where I'm comfortable being out all the time, but my plan's don't include keeping myself around here any longer than I have to, anyway, so I'm not particularly worried. :P ArcticVixen (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

S'alright; hello there, ArcticVixen :P. Ahh, that's good to hear! Yeah, with support being so crucial to transition, I thought you were sailing it alone in the cold heart of the US; glad to hear the environment is alright then! What state are you in, may I ask? (Being a trans activist since 2009, back when there wasn't a trans rights movement as-such, we all kinda found each other online, so I know many trans people from across the world!). Good to hear you can pass, too! Had any HRT/speech therapy yet, or are you making do without o.o?. Definitely get your life sorted before SRS though, that's what this all taught me. I experienced initial delays in getting SRS because I had my surgical assessment having just come out of the psych ward having just attempted suicide, and had to wait 6 months to try again with the understanding that my bipolar disorder would be under control, and I felt like "this is just gatekeeping bullshit". SRS thus far has been a really rough ride; the stress is almost traumatic (so many things can go really wrong at any moment), so yeah, I can definitely see why they want you psychologically alright before having it. If I was having a depressive phase, this would've probably made me go manic, which would be a really bad thing right now! Still, you seem to have a good idea of what you're doing as it is, so... awesome! :D DarkFire (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new cunt! (There should be greeting cards for that.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never been able to find a belated Get Well Soon card. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Aha, thanks! Indeed so, or cunt balloons or something, anything; my boyfriend had no idea what card to get me, so he got one with a small kitten on it. I got the reference even barely escaped from general anaesthetic and on morphine lol. DarkFire (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! It is heartening to hear that everything is going well; I have a horror of hospitals and surgery. --Castaigne (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A bit late to the convo but Giant Glass Medical Dildo would be a good name for a band. CorruptUser (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Also late, but congrats! I'll be starting... well, hopefully soon. ED: I always forget to sign. Iggles (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Another late congratulations from another trans woman x Bicycle^wheel 16:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Another transwoman here. Though I'm no-op myself, congratulations nonetheless! - LucidFox (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The congregation begins! ArcticVixen (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This makes me happy. NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 23:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Challenge to my fellow Sysops.

Once a week, find a random article around the wiki that looks like it needs improving, and improve it's brains out. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 17:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Like using "its" when you mean "belonging to it" and "it's" when you mean "it is" or "it has!" Nowhere Man (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

When asking for word quality to improve, one's word quality will degrade. Such is life. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 23:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. So I'm good for the week, right? Space Turbo (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I have to start doing stuff again because of this. Fine. --NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 23:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denial as cover story

Suggested here. It seems just about ready; any opposition? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Needs to be exorcised of abstract straw man conjectures. See talk page. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do feminists hate MGTOW?

I mean, if you think about it, feminists say "We don't need men to survive", and MGTOWers are saying "We don't need women to survive". So, why are MGTOWers so hated, but feminists are encouraged? BiscuitCat (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Because most feminists don't hate men and oppose their success but many MGTOWs hate women and oppose their success. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a feminist, but I don't hate MGTOWers (or anyone, really, except for one ex). I'm not a fan of many of the MGTOW-specific statements but I don't hate them. I just don't understand them and, frankly, don't really want to. MarmotHead (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No one cares if people go their own way. Every time I have seen someone go off about being "hated" or "assaulted" in that kind of movement it seems to be after they make a statement endorsing physical violence and sexual abuse against people they don't like. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Go read this website's page on MGTOW. You'll understand the question a bit more after that.BiscuitCat (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because MGTOW is a reactionary, misogynistic & anti-feminist movement. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how it is misogynistic. Could you explain that to me? BiscuitCat (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Men apparently need to go their own way because interaction with women -- or at least "modern" women -- is seen as inherently harmful. How is this not misogynist? --SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The clue is in the damn name. What else would they be "going their own way" from? - ArcticVixen (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If they want to go, then they should, nobody'll stop them (although sexual frustration could become a problem...).--Arisboch (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, that's the most disingenuous comment of the past week. If the article so fills you with rage, there's a talk page for you to JAQ off on - David Gerard (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sealions gonna sealion. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So, you apparently haven't read much from MGTOW and how they basically flat out admit they want to roll back all progress made by women in the last century or so? Space Turbo (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll be glad when they actually do go their own way instead of constantly whining that life is so, like, unfair. Bicycle^wheel 20:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently only women are feminists.

You must be thinking of lesbian separatists. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If that group actually exists they went their own way. Instead of wailing like the men going their own way and never doing it. That kind of pretend running away is cute when a 4 year old does it as the parents drive slowly behind. Not a bunch of angry misogynistic adults demanding random strangers to do the same and beg them back. It will be a blessing if they go. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all of you saying they "should go" are even referring to. It's not like these guys are setting sail for a desert island or boarding a spaceship voyage. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point I am just getting sick of the public wailing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal in the News and on the Interwebz

So what happens when the media finds a white lady who has claimed to be black for a decade, led a chapter of the NAACP, gets outed for being a con artist, and still claims to be black? Well what you get is a fairly entertaining media circus, with twitter, the blogosphere, clogosphere and reputable news sources all contributing their various different thoughts about this confused white lady. Any thoughts? Alsto003 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Alex

I've decided to reserve my opinion for the moment after reading this. I'm not sure right now who is lying about whom. --Castaigne (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I watched a friend (Who is Trans white), another friend (Who is cismale white), and a third friend (who is Ace ciswhite) who had to suffer her facebook post be the scene of a battleground argue out whether transracial is really a thing, with the main point of the former being "this isn't a thing because it's new, not established like transsexual" and his being "that's just the same thing transphobics say about trans"--Miekal 00:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As an upper-class white male who is easily taken for being totes-cis-nope-nothing-else-possible, that particular argument is going to be one in which Sit Out And Wait For Consensus shall be my main focus. My White Privilege detector just simply says "Shut up." --Castaigne (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I see Irish people claiming to be white. _{(also, unrelated note: I wasn't logged in at first, and the ABC asked me to type "Big Brother," and of course it was under the ceiling cat.)} Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Always watching...

FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 05:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I find the whole story utterly bizarre. This obsession with needing to categorise everybody into one social construct or another is incredibly divisive. I get the impression this is much more of a thing in the US than in many countries in Europe. In France, for example, the question simply isn't asked in things like the national census or job applications mostly to uphold the principle of equality - worthy but perhaps naive. While the UK census ethnicity questions are hilarious in their contorted attempts to classify but not offend while failing at both. Wikipedia entries for Americans almost always state the subject's ethnic backgrounds, listing sometimes it seems every last drop of blood of their forebears. Dolezal seems to have a lot going on with her identity perhaps understandably so given her upbringing. But whether she's been dishonest or simply self-identifying is as nothing compared to the sharp relief the story has thrown the whole question of ethnicity into. And Piers Morgan? You have an opinion on this? Just STFU FFS. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter so much if there wasn't this singular fixation on "privilege"; otherwise, who the hell would care if you want to change your appearance and mannerisms? This is the sort of thing that such fixations create; after all, you're supposed to seek "privilege" to get ahead in society. I've become increasingly convinced that the endless perseveration on obsessively tracking how much "privilege" someone has is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy, and both has the exact wrong effect (think of D.A.R.E. and sensitivity training) and detracts from actually listening to what is really being said. To use myself, just because I have PDD-NOS (and know a few things about fixations and perseveration!) doesn't make me think I'm somehow inherently more qualified to talk about autism than the Yale neurologists who have and still periodically do use me as a lab rat for various studies (they kick me some good money, so no complaints there).
But I digress. I've heard the "self-hating white" argument tossed around far more flippantly than I'd expect, and predictably the SJWs have nothing to say in response. Also, as I've said elsewhere, this isn't really a great case to latch onto "transracialism" or whatever the hell; she blatantly lied about herself, period. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the whole deal is a bit silly. The Spokane NAACP board has effectively said they don't care, and regardless of whether they do or not, it doesn't undo any good work she's done. So who gives a turkey. Also, why are her bioparents coming out with this whole thing now? Just my take. Iggles (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC) (I even remembered to sign)

Apparently some journalist started sniffing around her and contacted them.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention that 4chan has been following this story closely. For the trolls of 4chan this is manna from heaven, it is a godsend. For it is this story more than any other which they can use to troll the people who they dislike the most in this world (which may or may not be somewhat, though certainly not entirely, justified depending on who you are talking to), SJW's, the eternal enemies of the Lulz. Alsto003 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Alex

RationalWiki Demographics Survey Mid-2015

I've wanted to find out what the RationalWiki community actually looks like.

After discussing it a bit with David Gerard, this survey was born.

No personal information or questions required.

If you've got time, please answer it up.

Feel free to criticize. :P FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I lolled. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The gnostic/agnostic thesit/atheist distinction is bullshit not recognized outside of some... rather limited circles. The Political Compass is... flawed, and shouldn't have been used. You might as well have included the Myers-Briggs test. There are a few other sloppily worded questions, such as "Does the non-material / spiritual exist?". The survey also makes very poor attempt at distinguishing lurkers from active community members, something I thought would be fundamental for anything pretending to be a "demographics survey".--ZooGuard (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is the "gnostic/agnostic theist/atheist" distinction bull? Yeah, DG and I agreed the PC probably wasn't a great question, but it's better than nothing. And you're right, those questions were badly worded. Improvements for the next survey, eh? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge and epistemology should be based on observing the flight of birds, the shapes of clouds, and the entrails of sacrificial victims. I thought everybody knew. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that I don't see any potential uses for asking these kinds of questions, but for me personally, most of them fall into my "don't really know/don't really care, shouldn't matter either way" category. Also, it'd probably be more respectful to trans folks if you asked "Are you trans?" as a separate question instead of unintentionally implying that e.g. female (cis) and female (trans) constitute different genders. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Unintentionally implying" - Oh come off it, that is not an issue. If I'm supposed to be offended or feel like I'm being assigned to a separate gender, I'm sure not feeling it. The question is gender and trans/cis in one field. Leave it to us trans people to decide if it's a problem (hint: it's not). ArcticVixen (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Come off from where? I'm not saying you should take offense at it; it just seems like there are better ways to handle the subject. Also, you not finding it problematic doesn't mean no one else might. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm offended that Goat is only an option on one question. Bicycle^wheel 13:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The "Afterlife" and "non-material" existence questions need a "maybe?" option, imo. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I would have liked to have seen "I don't know' and "It doesn't matter" as options. Spud (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I found it pretty astounding the way the yes/no-dichotomy implied "This is something we can justifiably make absolute claims about." Using "non-material" and "spiritual" as synonyms also seems pretty questionable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I take issue with the metaethics stuff. Just... what?! I'm not a philosophy major, IDK what half of those are. My own moral viewpoint is "morality is not inherent in the universe, but morality exists in the form of social constructs and thus 'whatever we want them to be', and I want them to be 'whatever produces the best society'". CorruptUser (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

All this is useful information for a better survey. Given that the current survey underwent the extensive vetting process of me making it and DG saying it wasn't complete shit, hopefully the next is a bit better. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone clearly had fun shitposting in that survey. See: Someone put "your mom" as a country. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It's like human misery in video game form} 21:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone also replied "Ostrich Penis" in a couple places. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"My dic -> 8==============D (( | <- Your mom" made me laugh way harder than it should. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{JESUS CHRIST, THEY'RE MY OWN BUTTOCKS} 23:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I don't think that should make you laugh at all. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"On RW, I mostly: fix bad grammer" - I lolled. Генгис^evolving 13:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Electric Universe thoughts

I've read a number of posts concerning the "Electric Universe". I was a member of that group for about 4 years, until I could no longer tolerate people who questioned some of the basic postulates in physics, as well as some of the Velikoviskian construction on the planetary structures. I resigned from EU because of these fundamental differences. Some of them are fascinating, but not true, at least in my opinion. They are fantasy.
However, that being said, I do believe that the attacks on the entire EU argument are without merit. Now it is true that some of the basic arguments of the EU are still up in the air, so to speak, but additional discoveries lend credence to them. For example, some of the Martian morphology is consistent with the EU's interpretation of events and is not consistent with an inertial argument. Anyone who has ever seen a welding rod dragged across a sheet of steel will immediately recognize the features of the craters on Mars. (And why would it not be possible for such a thing to have happened? We recently had a visitor from outer space hit Chelyablinsk, Russia--from out of nowhere!)
This may be my one and only post to RationalWiki, because I do no find it rational. Rather it is reactionary, not logical in any sense of the word. The real world operates in the realm of the possible and the provable. RationalWiki seems to take the position that anything that is outside the very narrow boundaries that you have set is neither possible nor provable. Clearly that is not true.
Maybe you folks should rethink your worldview and attune it to reality. James P. Hogan (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

coolstorybro.jpg - David Gerard (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Drink! 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 07:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

^ Two people who need meme detoxification.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

James P. Hogan? Is this a pseudonym, or RW needs to update its article on life after death? --ZooGuard (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. First thing I thought. --Castaigne (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

James Patrick Hogan is my real name, the same name as the late science fiction writer. He was born in 1941 in England and I was born in 1945 in the US. He came from an electrical engineering background and I came from a civil engineering background. It is a very sad thing that he has passed away as he was a very bright fellow. Neither of us are (were) afraid to take the Establishment on when we think they are wrong. So far as I've been able to determine we are not related, at least past 1700, according to extensive genealogical research that I've done.^{— Unsigned, by: James P. Hogan / talk / contribs}

It's horsecrap. It's like a crazy person who occasionally makes an accurate statement about the weather happening around them with correct statements, and goes off the deep end on other things. It's another "I don't agree with RationalWiki or reality on this, so it must not be rational." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How about the graduate student that discovered that electromagnetic tubes align themselves with the magnetic field of the earth? They are exactly like Birkeland currents and was predicted by the EU. Is she full of bullcrap too?

Or how about the article in Phys.org which shows that the structure of galaxies follow magnetic fields. You can't have magnetic fields without electric current. Is Phys.org full of crap too?

Or maybe you're wrong.^{— Unsigned, by: James P. Hogan / talk / contribs}

Electric Universe? Average German psytrance producer. Have one great track back in 2002, hasn't done much exciting since. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 15:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's average? Bad ones must be really bad... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

HEY! I like Electric Universe! Silence in Action is a great album! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 21:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalist child discipline

I think we could do with a good article on Christian fundamentalist theories and practices in disciplining children. It's been in the news a bit recently re the Duggar family coming under scrutiny, & the article Castaigne linked above re Rachel Dolezal's upbringing is quite eye-opening. (Since redacted, available here. There's also this one posted on WIGO blogs.) Other than our not very edifying piece on To Train Up a Child I don't think we really cover the subject in our articles, and it's quite a huge issue.

The principle is routed in the theory of original sin - i.e. that children (even babies) are inherently sinful & their spirit must be broken ruthlessly so that they can become good Christians. Blanket training is apparently a common practice, in which an infant or toddler is trained (through beatings and the threat of beatings) to stay on a small blanket when commanded - not for any specific reason but only as an exercise in obedience for its own sake, such as one might do when training a dog. Aside from the issues around corporal punishment & intimidation, I'm sure this level of enforced obedience and the lesson of constantly repressing one's own wishes & behaviour must have lifelong psychological effects. Plus this style of discipline is very closely linked to the Christian homeschooling movement, which tends to keep this all behind closed doors & keep children from realising how different their childhood is from most other kids'. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you...and I am horrified again. I read the article about Dolezal's upbringing and things made a ton more sense. That was complete crazy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

To Train Up a Child ... what else? - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WOW, I had no idea! The media has said nothing about this! I didn't care about it before but now I'm siding with Rachel simply to spite her parents and Christian fundamentalists. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't go quite that far, since she's an adult and ultimately responsible for her own decisions, but yeah... that certainly couldn't have helped. Some other fundamentalist groups also have pretty horrifying ideas about discipline, Christians definitely aren't unique in that regard, so it would be good to get in on those too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a terrible coping method to entirely divorce themselves with what they were and identify with the ones she was forced to abuse. She certainly needs a great deal of help. However, she did try and do good things for others where other people turned to violence. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly inclined to decline to pass judgment myself for pretty much those reasons. Yeah, the whole affair interests me, mostly for the number of received ideas it calls into question. But it's too complicated a business to be reduced to point-scoring. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do some external links have a lock symbol?

Some external links have a lock symbol next to them, and some have the usual external link symbol. Why is this? Does it denote something about the page being linked to? QuantumDude^{I am beyond your understanding} 02:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It means the linked page has HTTPS. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{A vain death of a plump bird.} 01:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact it means the link has been written with HTTPS, regardless of whether the linked site is actually set up that way. Compare: http://www.ebay.com, https://www.ebay.com, http://www.wikipedia.org, https://www.wikipedia.org. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What the fucking fuck...

I was looking at Good Gopher to see if any progress was made, and it found the following in their terms of use:

^{— Unsigned, by: KOMF / talk / contribs} 04:58, 24 June 2015‎

They're afraid of these frivolous lawsuits.--Arisboch (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see anything out of the ordinary in that. --Paravant (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty normal liability disclaimer, although not very well written. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's google's - [19]. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There's found poetry of a sort in there. War, acts of God, or if the air conditioning goes out..... all these things are one with us. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 14:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

wp:Nest Labs. But yes, the found poetry of the lawyer disclaimer. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If the air conditioning at one of Google's server farms went out, it really would be a disaster. You can't keep hundreds of heavy-duty servers in a room together without air conditioning. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 17:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're also playing Clicker Heroes. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 22:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Oh. Cookie clicker. Yeah, clicker heroes is way better. Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd play Clicker Heroes, if it were programmed in something less horrible than Flash. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{rerorerorerorerorerorerorero} 20:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This business with Confederate flags

What's you guys' take on it? Should it be banned à la swastika in Germany? Is it just much ado about nothing? Personally, I think this talk about symbols used by particular extremist movements is silly. The problem obviously isn't the symbols, but the ideology. Don't ban the symbols, ban the propagation of the ideology. (Cue someone going "But free speech!" in 3, 2, 1...) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

butt freeze peach 111 FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the current moves are to prohibit the State from using or sponsoring the flag, which means town centers can't fly it and whatnot. People will still be able to have Confederate flag bumperstickers and such, as per freedom of expression. That sounds fair enough to me. Similar to the secular position on religion in that regard. DarkFire (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(Ecx2) Not banned, but it should be taken off of things like capitals and flags, etc. It's 1) lazy flag design and 2) Reflecting a history of terrible that shouldn't be put onto government things. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec3)they shouldn't ban them but they shouldn't be used by state or federal governments either. It seems to me like the focus on the confederate flag is just an easy fix for folk to say they are doing something without actually doing anything about all about the racism. Certainly diverts attention from the tougher issues. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I do have to admire the cleverness of Nikki Haley's announcement to remove the flag. Republican Presidential candidates were being asked to take positions on the flag's removal from the state capital. That's a question where any answer they can give will alienate somebody. So she acted to remove the issue. But yeah, the whole fuss is a symptom of the politics of symbol and gesture. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem I have right now is people calling it "heritage." It's not even the right flag if they're not in Tennessee. Sure, it saw some use in the civil war, but it saw more use as a KKK and pro-segregation icon than it had during the war. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Its heyday of popularity seems to have been in the late 1950s and early 1960s, actually; that's the period where it was included on state flags and erected over government buildings. I have no idea why, of course. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a mystery. On that note, is the article I 'subtly' linked to a stub? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 06:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

To quote Indiana Jones, "It belongs in a MUSEUM!". It's a relic of history and needs to be retired to its proper place, not used as a symbol of Southern government.

Now, as for private companies, to me it's up to them whether they want to sell it or not. Their business, not mine. And if you fly it, well, more power to you because I know where you stand. (And know exactly what to think of you.)

But government...it's gotta go. --Castaigne (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes think about this, because I usually openly wear an inverted cross. Those familiar with Christianity will, or should know that symbol has two wholly unrelated meanings, but a stunning number of Christians—just about all of them, it seems—don't seem to realize this. When people ask me about it I explain what the two meanings are and that I know what it is I'm wearing it for, and that whoever it is I'm talking to may make of it what they will. I'm from New England, so have no stake in this, but from my vantage point it seems largely the same; it's a symbol, and it's up to you to put meaning into it. This is why I can't get freaked out over Christmas decorations on town buildings, and why I can't say flying the Confederate flag is all that horrible; at their core, they're all just shapes and forms (every now and then having severely impaired gestalt perception has its advantages, I suppose, and it also helps that Piet Mondrian got me through an art appreciation class that required me to replicate a piece of art). That said, given what it's typically taken to stand for I'd think that as a state you'd want to put that behind you as much as possible, which would be entirely incompatible with flying it over the capitol building. Museum yes, because you have to acknowledge it, and at the same time that should not be interpreted as something you should be proud of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As someone from an area that gave the Confederacy one of its first flags, I think that it's as inappropriate for it to be used to represent any local, state, or federal government in the U.S. as putting Benedict Arnold on our money. Even if you want to sidestep the issue of slavery completely (which really isn't possible in relation to the Civil War), it's a flag associated with treason against the United States. Plus, I seriously doubt anyone flying it nowadays ever even served in the Confederate Navy. -Psycho Gecko 07:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I was surprised to find out that SC was still being allowed to fly the Confederate flag for that very reason. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 14:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on the flag and the original question: People have the right to PERSONALLY fly any flag they want on their own property, with the exception of flags that are obscenely violent or sexual. I personally think that Germany was wrong to outright ban the Nazi flag and the Nazi party, because if that's their point of view, then that's their point of view. That being said, both the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag are irrevocably associated with hatred and violence towards minorities, so if you're flying one you're, in my opinion, a complete piece of shit. Also, because they are associated with hatred, the governments of respective communities have the responsibility to take them down from public spaces, with the exception of places where they are historically significant such as battlefields. That's my take on the issue. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 14:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So no L'Origine du monde flags? Pity :D--Arisboch (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally find banning the Nazi party and it's iconography acceptable from a free speech point of view simply because of just how much more intertwined everything involving them is (particularly in Germany, Austria etc)- the flag is the party is the government is the leadership that led them into war and genocide. Plus the south as a whole didn't have to go under a total reorganization like Germany did to fix it's issues:the Nazi party was a poison that had to be fully purged from Germany, while the same isn't as true of the southern democrats. (Edit: Is the ban as necessary now (at least for it's iconography for personal use, the party and offshoots can stay banned forever)? Maybe not, and that could be something dealt with going forward, but at the time i feel it was justified to crack down on Nazism as happened) --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A tiny aside: It's "etc" not "ect". Just saying because it's the 2nd time I see this in this section. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see why Germany did it. A madman started a bid for power under that flag using fear and anger at a harsh punishment from WW1, tried to exterminate millions of people, caused the deaths of millions of soldiers/civilians, and resulted in the iron curtain in eastern Europe/Germany for decades. That's not a legacy to be proud of. I see the confederate flag the same way, it was there for traitors to fight for the right to own slaves. It was in the succession speech. Individual people can fly it...but government endorsement of a war against it is insane. The Connecticut "Don't Treat on Me" is more historical as it seems to be people who want to work together as a nation...but don't want to retain their independence. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy with Nazi iconography really works. A lot of Southerners identify with the Confederate flag and the Confederate era generally because of regional loyalties & family history etc. rather than for explicitly racist reasons. Maybe that's shortsighted & maybe it makes other people uncomfortable, but I can't view everybody who wears or displays this flag as some sort of hateful Klansman. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

To me, a display of the stars and bars says redneck doofus, not hateful klansman. MaillardFillmore (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

True, and I don't think everyone who displays it is going out lynching black people. So many of those who fly it do deny the original use and history that it was raised to wage war against the US for the explicit purpose to keep other people as property. The Nazi flag analogy moves me because I had family that did fight with the Nazi's, with an SS gun to their head, and it's not like I go out flying the swastika because it's my history. There were good people during that time and flying that flag is a disgrace to their efforts and lives because of what was attempted under that flag. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's never been quite ironicked enough, has it? For the most part I can live with motorcycle gangs and punk rockers decorating with Iron Crosses and swastikas. It isn't automatically meant to be taken seriously in those contexts; they're mostly declaring war on conformity. If I were German I might not be able to overlook it so easily. If all the Stars and Bars meant were "I'm a rebel", or a Skynyrd fan it wouldn't be a problem. There is a difference between bedazzling it onto your denim jacket and flying it from a state government building. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wal Mart dropping the cheap-ass Made in China Confederate flags only raises the value of them, 'ol supply and demand fundamentals being what they are. People will either sneak off to gun shows or use Craigs List to get what they want. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So how does the mob feel about associating RW with AllTrials.net?

AllTrials is an effort led by Ben Goldacre (who may be little-known in America, but has some small mainstream fame as a skeptical doctor in the UK) and Sense About Science to get drug companies to publish all trials of their drugs, not just the ones that work out well. I'm on the mailing list, and they did a mailout last week about how one drug company, Richmond Pharmaceutical, was causing legal problems for them. I emailed asking if there was a highly linkable page I could post on the RW Twitter or official Facebook page, and James Cockerill, their campaigns manager, emailed me back suggesting:

Also - If RationalWiki would like to formally join the Alltrials campaign, please send me you organisational logo, and a brief statement explaining why you think it matters - I will add you to the supporters page.

I think this would be a great thing for RW to get behind. But I suspect the mob should decide, as we do.

It would I think need to go by the board, but mob approval would swing that in a sensible RW.

So! What do you all think? - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea

1. David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Scream!! (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Arkady (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
4. ArcticVixen (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
5. At best, we help something good and get a bit of publicity. At worst, nothing happens. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
6. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Though they might want to be forewarned that we're not always fucking family-friendly, and some of the shit here might be something a respectable activist group won't want to be associated with (like a few hundred instances of people poking fun at an obviously disturbed CP editor).

   I suspect GG or similar cranks bugging them is a much more likely happenstance, but they're probably used to cranks by now, individually if not as an organisation - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

   I don't think GG would care. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 06:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

7. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) (No idea if IP votes count for this.)
8. --Arisboch (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
9. DarkFire DarkFire (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
10. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 23:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
11. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
12. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 02:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
13. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{My wishes over their airspace} 02:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
14. User:KOMF
15. WTF not 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 03:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
16. --Owlman (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
17. --Spud (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
18. --SolPyre (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
19. KevinR1990 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
20. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
21. Me. ħuman 21:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
22. Why not? --Σigma (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
23. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
24. Definitely. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• Sounds good, but what will this actually mean for RW? Will there be any changes? Or is it just that RW will show up on a list somewhere of organizations that support/endorse AllTrials? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pretty much. Anyone want to essay to compose a short para to represent an RW mob on this matter? - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Essay:RationalWiki joins AllTrials campaign -- Community essay FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• And then I go look at Channel Awesome and see an interesting coincidence. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how this amounts to anything more than collectively signing a petition... --Inquisitor (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not. So what's the harm? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Just playing devils advocate here, but don't you think this may cause some pharmacuetical companies to restrict their research on some of the more risky stuff, like cancer, ebola, or AIDS for example just to avoid negative publicity? nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 04:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but I doubt it will be a big thing. Discouraging results can be as useful to research as encouraging ones (which is why I wonder why they don't already publish everything, one way or another). ħuman 21:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I ate some "cruelty-free bacon" the other day; just think how encouraging it'll be when the latest cancer med is labelled, "Not tested on humans". nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 22:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's a YES

That's 20-0, gonna take this to the Board to approve use of the trademark. Now we need to pick our sentence. PLEASE GET TO EDITING Essay:RationalWiki joins AllTrials campaign and then we can quickly pick something - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I like Weaseloid's a whole lot - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Board unanimous too. Weaseloid's text got the acclaim, so I've sent that in with links to both our wiki logo (the actual PNG at top left there) and the larger printable version. We can join hundreds of other groups :-D - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Logo's up, bottom of page - text as a mouseover, or click on the logo. We also have a subpage - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RMF board news!

Hasn't even met this year. Last communication, I emailed elected board members asking someone who wasn't me to be secretary. No takers as yet. That said, the wiki is still up and our hosting bill's paid ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

... Yay? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Or something. Thankfully nothing's come up, but hm - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I expect, much like the election that put them in, the board to come into being at the 11th hour. All will be fine David. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the end. All my "contributions" wasted.Fonzie (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@ME: ? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, 1918? QuantumDude^{I am beyond your understanding} 03:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, that's already taken. Why not try it with the sixth hour? The 6th hour of the 6th day of the 6th month, 20xx. Oh, wait, that was twenty days ago... Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 06:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The foundation is still a 501(c)3 right? Are there any duties that aren't being done that are going to get us in to trouble? I know UK companies, even closely held ones like mine, are required to have board meetings and keep minutes. Don't really have much of an idea about US affairs, but I expect being a registered charity would make things more stringent. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we are required to meet, per se, but there are some forms that have to be filed every year from what I understand. ħuman 21:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You could write in the by-laws a quorum is required every so often or under what circumstances, or that annual elections aren't necessary and offices can be held for multiple years. A Secretary, who doesn't have to be a Board Memnber, could be appointed to make sure the organization is compliant with State and Federal laws, like keeping minutes to meetings where a quorum may or may not be present. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 22:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

D&D characters dying.

So I had an interesting experience today. While my nerd friends and I were playing some D&D, one of our NPC followers - a goblin cleric named Borkle - died from getting his brain sucked out by a mind flayer. Now I'm genuinely sad. Anyways, if anybody was still interested in doing the online D&D game over roll20, I could try DMing. I would like to warn everybody though, I have never DMed before and I only have the books for 3.5 expanded. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 01:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar experiences but while playing Dwarf Fortress (not the most geologically accurate game ever but it tries). Why do I get attached to little lines of code and ascii graphics? *shakes fist at the learning curve* SolPyre (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, you have eight-hundred engravings of your favourite dwarf's death. They're all masterwork and engraved by the same dwarf. The dwarf that made them engravings never slept during the engraving binge that resulted in all those engravings. There is another engraving. On the engraving is an image of the dwarf making eight-hundred engravings of a dwarf making eight-hundred engravings of a dwarf dying. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 07:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not like losing a family member or anything. I'd say it's very similar to having a favorite character in a show or book series die. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 22:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait. I know it's far from perfectly geologically accurate, but what other game actually takes the spot of "most geologically accurate"? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I would have to give the "most geologically accurate game ever" prize to that hypothetical planet simulator I hope one day to find in some forgotten corner of the internet. (In other words DF takes the prize because of all its rock and soil types. But, it comes so close to being a geology simulator that it annoys the part of my brain that looks at an awesome globe spanning underground magma ocean and thinks "this shouldn't exist") SolPyre (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if you're still looking for players I've dug up my 3.5 books and made a roll20 account (I'm SolPyre over there too). Fair warning, I've never played a real D&D game before, I used to buy the rule books because I liked reading them, which is strange now I think about it. SolPyre (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Obligatory thread for the SCOTUS LGBT marriage decision.

Just want to say this: seeing the president of my college's gaming club get married to her girlfriend of 5 years is hella satisfying. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 22:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone on my Twitter is excited and full of joy except Brianna Wu who can't stop going "but what about trans people!" man, can't gay and lesbians just have this one day to be happy without someone making it all an oppression olympics competition? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually unfollowed Wu over that (and also over the "Rev60 Criticism Bingo). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Don't they call people like you stalkers?} 23:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What pisses me off about it is the whole "What about MEEEEEEE? ME! ME! ME!! vibe that is coming off of her. She got to marry, but instead of being happy for people not allowed to because of discrimination, she tries to make it all about her again, the privileged snot.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I always think it's a bit weird that she's so hot in support of trans* rights, but for some reason won't herself speak up about being transgender. It's like she's ashamed it or something, it sits very weirdly with being an activist. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys, a major LGBT hurdle has just been overcome; is this really an appropriate time to be calling trans activists attention whores, shame them for not being as happy as we determine they should be and shame the ones that don't (openly) identify as trans (maybe because they aren't or maybe because that would put a big (extra) strain on their lives)? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

When someone is openly trying to be an attention-whore, there is no shame in calling them out.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

She only really said one thing that wasn't "come on, we can't stop here!". Of course, said thing was pretty ehhh, but... Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reminding people that there are still battles left to be won is attention-whore-ism? Eh, if that's how you want to construe it... And I'd say there is shame in it if the attention-whore-ism aspect (assuming there is one) is largely irrelevant and your focus on it deflects attention away from the important issues. That's pretty much what Gators do when they label supporters of social justice "SJWs". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, looks like it's time to unfollow John Oliver for being an attention whore. I mean, Brianna Wu only brought it up on Twitter. John Oliver brought it up on TV, in a show with his name on it. -Psycho Gecko, 01:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless she deleted a lot of tweets, I'm not seeing what she said that was so horrible; not even whatever it is that NS finds objectionable. <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 02:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Of the three that mention transgender stuff in relation to the ruling, they say: "In 2005, if you said we'd have universal health care and gay marriage, I wouldn't have believed you. Next train stop: TRANSGENDER RIGHTS." and "While #MarriageEquality deserves celebrating, @cathexing has thoughts on what transgender people face. It's not over" and "With all respect to LGB people, historically they've been lukewarm ally at best for transgender people. They've always put themselves first." The last one is a bit harsh (if somewhat true from what I've heard) so I can see why it'd rub people the wrong way, especially on the day in question. I guess I'm not enough of a Twitter person to unfollow someone over that, nor do I see how it's all that attention whorish. Then again, I don't follow her in the first place. User:PsychoGecko 3:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been collecting Freeper quotes. This is a day of many delicious tears.

I will also be monitoring the situation with Good Ol' Roy Moore over thar in the neighboring state of Alabama. Looks like we might get some tasty popcorn out of there. Here in GA, we've been gay marrying up a storm today. --Castaigne (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been surprisingly quite today in Alabama. I didn't see any public wailing and gnashing of teeth. It mighta been different if I'd been riding the bus to my old workplace or passed through the square where street preachers feel obligated to shout at people. But seriously, I haven't heard much outcry, or seen much on Facebook. I'm sure that will change. --Maxus (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am personally looking forward to the WND commentary section tomorrow, especially the user comments, it will be epic I tell you, epic!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the decision, and hope its implementation goes smoother than the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (sorry, I personally find the short form name extremely vague and annoying). As much as I'm looking forward to the reaction you describe, though, I'll save a few laughs for the social justice warrior responses to said reactions; just because someone supports my point of view doesn't mean they can't look like a frothing lunatic themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally prefer to refer to it as "Brown v. Board of Education of ToPikachu". |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Open your heart, it's gonna be alright} 00:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So, uhh... How's that marshmallow alert? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, darn. All he said was "we will burn." He didn't say "we will burn via self-inflicted burnination." Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Who said what now? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Some pastor supposedly threatened to light himself on fire. It seems that wasn't the case. He did do the usual "we going to get murdered for our beliefs" nonsense, though. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 01:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Christian-genocide-paranoia is "the usual" in the US? >.> I guess I shouldn't be surprised. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Josh Feuerstein made a video about the decision, and it stopped just short of calling for armed revolt before they started rounding people up for the FEMA death camps. I wish I was joking about that. Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Living in the USA has taught me that yes, is actually is pretty "usual". ArcticVixen (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, time for me to weigh in with my rightwing perspective and layout the response given when asked about this (usually asked by my bible-believing, patriotic veteran, Southern redneck, anti-Republican, loyal Democrat friends): The only way it can be stopped now is by criminalizing homosexuality through the election of state houses and governors willing to pass and sign the legislation. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 21:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

All these "'Murica!" tweets are making me sick. We did it first. {{SUBST:User:Mkbw50/sig}} (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you Dutch or Danish then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Finally!--Arisboch (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a question for someone with more experience in legal issues. Mississippi is saying that they cannot perform gay marriages at this time. According to the AG, the stay that was issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has to be lifted before they can issue licenses to gay couples. The stay was issued until this case was decided by SCOTUS, but, as to my knowledge, was not issued pending a decision (meaning it did not automatically expire). I'm trying to decide if this is a legal hoop that the state must(depending on interpretation) actually jump through, or if this is just something the AG is saying to avoid marrying gay people. Anyone have any insight? Ayzmo^Cheers 03:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

IANAL, but it seems to me that lower-tier courts don't have the function of signing off on SCOTUS decisions. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've got my own two cents here which I put on my talk page, not yet confident enough to drop it elsewhere. I'd be interested in folks' thoughts.Iangoeswest (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think some of the SCOTUS's rulings seem pretty questionably founded (for example, see: A Fish Is Not A 'Tangible Object'). In response to some of the dissenting opinions: With the control the Supreme Court seems to have over American law and some SCOTUS judges' reasonings being based more on what the law should be rather than what it is, I can empathize with the idea that it's acting more like a legislature. That said, when the plutocrats and fundamentalists seem to have considerably more influence in the official legislature than in the Supreme Court, I can't say I object to the Supreme Court going a bit beyond their intended role when it does a better job at protecting the people's rights and ruling in society's interest than the actual legislature. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As for the Supreme Court going beyond their "intended" role - intended by who? The principle that the Court gets to make the final call and to trump acts of the other branches has been accepted without serious challenge for more than 200 years, in the very case citations trotted out by the dissent. I find the whole hair-pulling and teeth-gnashing on the part of the dissenters to be incredibly insincere and downright dishonest. Concerns about overruling majority preferences (and acts of Congress) didn't seem to bother the dissenters when they were with the majority in Citizens United. Or does Justice Scalia imagine that the "original" intent of the founders would have been to allow the Dutch East India Company to pour unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of the 1800 election, because 'free speech?' The countermajoritarian difficulty of 9 unelected individuals having the final say is certainly an issue for discussion in a democracy, but their selective pronouncements about the 'proper role' of the judiciary is sickening to folks who are keeping score. Well, to me anyway. Iangoeswest (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

By who? I'd say most people that come up with these 3-separate-powers systems. I'm obviously not against there being a group of legal experts reviewing laws and judging how constitutional, morally justified, overcriminalizing or ineffective etc. they are, though I find it odd that you'd pour that function into a judicial court. Why force a party to put themselves on the legal frontlines before a law can be challenged and colour the review of laws with the context of specific legal cases? France, for example, has a Constitutional Council that reviews laws a priori before the legislature gets to pass them. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Courts go beyond "their original intent" by ruling in ways that make those people unhappy. Nothing new there. Scalia's original intent seems to come directly from his butt as well, often contradicting what people wrote at the time and the actual letter of the law. His written dissent in the gay marriage ruling was an embarrassment to anyone who can write at an above 5th grade level in my opinion. The article on RW has some pretty good examples of when he attempted it and there have been judicial critiques of it a few times. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that whenever Scalia cites judicial overreach it's because he doesn't like the outcome of the ruling. But that doesn't mean judicial overreach can't be a genuine concern and that we shouldn't have genuine discussions about what the role of a 'Supreme Court' should be. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Yep. However, people citing overreach without any idea what it's reach should be, or what that overreach is, sounds just like someone being pissed at the ruling. I am all for the discussion if someone can present a cogent argument to that effect. Not Scalia's babbling about "legal higgilty piggaly." I have gotten sick of pages of going around in circles over, and over, and over...and over again. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Best stopped clock moments

One of my favorites: https://www.facebook.com/ColRobManess/videos/vb.559064320775674/1081172291898205 Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 11:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

What does it say, so I don't have to sit watching a video while I've got music on? Bicycle^wheel 11:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's Megan Kelly agreeing with the guys that did Draw Mohammed day that freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 12:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to say because I roll my eyes whenever I see the stopped clock analogy that it is such tedious analogy. Why is the banal fact that people you disagree with occasionally say things you do agree with is in any way interesting? Is that that we are so keen to demonise our ideological foes that it comes as a genuine shock or as I assume it is just so we get to chance to make tiresome lists of all the examples we can think off that we all love doing. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's something that started as an odd form of doublethink that then just became shorthand for "person I otherwise disagree with said something I agree with". You see the opposite in a lot of the crazier folk out there in various positions, that they literally can NOT agree with someone they've previously disagreed with. So they either have to pretend they never disagreed with them in the first place, or they have to convince themselves that they don't currently agree with them (by either arguing they don't really mean it, or even doing a full 180 and arguing that they never believed x in the first place anyway). This is a step away from that where it's "I disagree with this person in general and would like to remind you of that, but in THIS instance, I agree". X Stickman (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris and Dan Carlin

I don't know a lot about Sam Harris, because the New Atheists bore me, and since he seems to be number four on the list I never really got to him, but since we have an article on the guy and I imagine a few of you are fans: there's a two-hour long interview with him on Dan Carlin's podcast this week. Haven't listened yet, but will put it on when I'm cleaning out the garage. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Sam Harris the one who wrote in that apocryphal diatribe The End of Liberalism, "the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right...While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant." nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 18:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like him alright. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I always get the feeling that Harris is too impressed with his own cleverness. He paints himself into philosophical cul-de-sacs because of it. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I like listening to Carlin because he's clever and knows how to tell a story, but I'd never say he was one of the great minds of our time or anything. That said, he spent a healthy portion of those two hours running circles around Harris, who mostly came off looking like an idiot. His entire discussion of foreign policy treated the historical/political/social/economic factors that Carlin pointed out as undermining his position as trivialities. It's like the guy lives in a world of concepts that are lacking any grounding in how the world actually works. That might be fine if you want to grow up to be a philosophy major at a liberal arts college, but it's not how grown-ups are supposed to engage with the world. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there any transcripts of Carlin's podcast perchance? I tend to miss a lot when all I can go on is sound. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, and I can have the same problem. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just me JAQing off

I was wondering what happens when someone moves a page into the "User" category. Does it create a new account?

Userpage Talk 20:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Userspace pages can exist without corresponding to a real user account. Sysops can change a user account's name, though, and this will typically also move the relevant userpages over to the new name. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe 141 is lying. How do you think they got to be the four-armed invisible 141? Maybe they gained the power of the BoN through secrets that are not easy to part with. Think about it: Isn't it suspicious that a mere pile of numbers knows so much? Isn't it odd how they make no account? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 11:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Any Internet radio suggestions?

As you may know, I'm a Brit living in Taiwan. While I'm pottering about here and on other wikis I usually listen to BBC Radio 5 Live via the Internet. For the next two weeks, while Wimbledon's on, I won't be able to listen to it for most of the day. I'll just get a message saying that the programme is unavailable outside the UK due to rights restrictions repeated over and over. In past years, I've switched to BBC Radio 2 for the fortnight. But I cannot stand to listen to Steve Wright in the Afternoon again. Steve Wright is an absolute dick! So, what can I listen to instead on internet radio between the hours of 9:00pm and midnight for me? That's !:00pm to 4:00pm UTC, 2:00pm to 5:00pm British Summer Time, 3:00pm to 6:00pm Central European Time, 9:00am to noon in New York, 6:00am to 9:00am in Los Angeles and 11:00pm to 2:00am in Sydney. I'm open to any suggestions. Spud (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm no big fan of radio, since it has people interrupting the music to say stuff I'm not interested in and the music they repeat ad infinitum on radios typically has plenty songs of the this-is-very-popular-apparently-though-it's-absolutely-abhorrent-to-listen-to kind in there. I also don't listen to it for the news because my hearing isn't very good, so I'll look for written sources instead. If it's just the background music you're interested in with radio, I'd say just look up a playlist of music you like on YouTube. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Just download some old radio programs like x-1, you'll be fine for a while --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The World Sefvice or Radio 4 are good go-tos. You might want try the CBC or one of the big NPR stations like WNYC or WBURPeace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Try ROK radio; Tunein radio. There's loads out there Scream!! (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Soundart Radio is totally amazing, except for that weird presenter who plays random noises on Wednesday lunchtimes. Bicycle^wheel 19:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I just listen to WWV for the steady beat. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

How about you download some BBC R4 podcasts. You can do worse than Life Scientific, Inside Science or, my favourite, The Infinite Monkey Cage. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What the lads said about Radio 4. There are some great programmes that make you think and not just about the scientific. In Our Time, More or Less, Thinking Allowed and Woman's Hour (or at least 45 minutes of it). There's also the History of the World in a Hundred Objects and Germany: Memories of a Nation by Neil McGregor the former director of the British Museum. All these are downloadable as podcasts. Генгис^marauding 11:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, lads and lassies. I listened to WBUR yesterday (I was disappointed when I realized it wasn't called WBURP). I'm going to listen to WNYC tonight. I'll listen to the CBC tomorrow for Canada Day. And I'll certainly listen to Soundart Radio soon, although the Wednesday lunchtime guy sounds like a bigger dick than Steve Wright. And special thanks to Smerdis for making me laugh. Spud (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Project Creationism

If you're wondering why KOMF is spamming up recent changes:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Project_Creationism

Project Creationism! Because RW needs better and more cretinist articles.

Goals:

1. Cleaning up stuff here
2. Porting over stuff from EvoWiki
3. Updating articles, forever
4. Responses to specific articles

2 is the most important one, because EvoWiki has hundreds (if not 1000+) decent articles on creationism/evolution that more or less belong to RW. (Many can be merged.) 2 also requires EvoWiki Curator rights. Anyone know how to make Trent hand out curator/ability to grant curator?

Gentlemen, 2015 is going to be a bad year for not having substantial anticreationist coverage. Hopefully. Especially if more people help. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that this will be a bad year for internet creationists...

My Userpage/Talk 20:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That too. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. You have my axe. Or my keyboard, as it were. Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 23:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

KOMF kindly ported some pages. They need RWifying. See Category:EvoWiki ports. help pls FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 23:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little bit shit at RWifying articles, but if you need someone to assemble the facts and put them into layman's terms, I'm your man.Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Project Creationism#New arguments might be your forte, then. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk)

Internet creationists - 'persons who claim to have invented the tubes'? 86.153.166.39 (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I forget where the discussion is, about deleting EvoWiki articles after porting them. Doesn't a copy-paste move lose the history, or does it even matter? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the history disappears, but it's not much of a loss, and there's no real alternative. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If I rememer corectly there is almost nothing we can import from EW becasue their article format of claim and counter-cliam is so different to ours. The last time I looked I think there was just one that that could be used. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

FCP has actually been doing not badly at recovering the useful material. It's work, but there's worthwhile stuff there. "claim|response" goes well in an SBS, for example - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Massive anti-vaxxer Facebook page meltdown (bring popcorn)

For those who like to watch the crazies fight, there has been, ever since the Supreme Court ruling last week, a major meltdown of the Vaccine Resistance Movement Facebook group as a result of the fundies using it as a pulpit to attack gay people (screencaps here, here, here, and here. There's also coverage of the rabid rise in anti-vaxxer homophobia at the Anti-vaxxer Wall of Shame website. Take a look, and grab popcorn. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess that terminates my remaining fragments of the stereotype of anti-vax being a left-wing ideology. I mean, I've known for a while that it's predicted not ideology, but instead conspiratorial ideation, but the moonbat origin story still kinda persisted in my head. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I've seen both wingnut and moonbat anti-vaxxers. It depends on the anti-vaxxer FB page/forum/IRC channel/blog you're reading. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Anyway, how is your sex life?} 13:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but you've gotta agree the portrayal in the media has been that the anti-vax movement was anchored in middle-class left-wing ideology, right? Like that it's very frequently thrown around as the left's equivalent of the climate-change and evolution deniers on the right. I'm just saying the above linked outbursts kinda finish off any mental credibility that notion had with me. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point, really. Conspiracists come from both sides of the political spectrum. I'd still say that there's a larger majority of left-wing anti-vaxxers than right-wing, but it's personally anecdotal (i.e., most of the anti-vaxxers I know IRL are the far-left leaning, anti-big-business, "hippie" type, and they've got the rainbow-filter selfies to prove it. They're lovely, amazing, and caring people; they're just really paranoid of "da chemicals" and anything that could hurt their kids). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) From my experience most conspiracy theorists are subject to creeping crank magnetism from all directions no matter their original views. If something drastically changes they tend to go full wacko on the subject. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated note: I kind of agree with them on the photo about the naked dude. I really don't approve of what TNT!MEN (Totally Naked Toronto! Men Enjoying Nudity) did for the pride parade. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've long thought that part of the pride parades comes from the legacy days when people just didn't want to acknowledge the existence of homosexuals. In fact the very term "pride parade" hails from that era. It was a way to force people to acknowledge the reality of homosexuality. And... it's antiquated, and illegal, and probably harmful. But I also don't want to be the straight guy saying "you've now got enough acceptance to no longer fight bigotry in that way." Fundamentally, I suppose it's up to the parade organizers to make that choice(many pride parades have already done so). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I get the feeling most pride events in the western world are no longer political in any real sense and now more celebratory in nature. I think that's a testament to how far we have come. Sure theres plenty of fights to fight but certainly in my neck of the wood, your mostly preaching to the converted. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think most people have realized that making something illegal for everyone else because their religion forbids it (or they don't like it) is loony. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never quite believed homophobia is a purely religious phenomenon. When ever I have experienced it (v rarely thankfully) or witnessed it, religion had very little to do with it. It's on an almost instinctive level of disgust rather than 'my god says you are an abomination'. I doubt any of them had any religious beliefs of any sort. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's true that it's far from just a religious phenomenon. It has to do with various culturally instilled notions not meshing very well with there being gay people: the cultural norms for sex, the ideal of a nuclear family, gender roles etc. This results in homosexuality being seen as weak, depraved, gross, or treasonous to one's culture. But religion is not unimportant in this regard, as it's one of the factors that has guided many cultures towards blatant homophobia and contributed to solidifying it within them (and often continues to do so). It's not for no reason that citing religion is such a popular tactic for justifying homophobia; saying that the source of absolute morality considers X abominable sounds a lot more compelling than saying X goes against particular cultural norms. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not doubting the religious influence, but really, here in blighty no one truly gives a shit what any church has to say. I don't think it can be over stated just how religious and Christian the US is compared to the UK. The church really does not hold any sway with people over here. The CofE is dying on its arse. It seems more like a rationalisation of their own prejudices. These people would find any excuse to unleash their prejudice if the bible wasn't so handy. I mean, you have to wonder, if we accept that bible is the word of men and not god, what was their justification for hating on the gays? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely isolated from it though. You have pastors telling parishioners (and major politicians) that not just doing this, but that it exists openly, is a sin. With variations on who is condemned to hell. Which really demonizes homosexuals and completely screws up the people who grow up in this environment that are gay. There's a great deal more baggage with major authorities in religion going off about it rather then a few people saying they don't like it. While I think it's using an argument from authority to justify it...a 10 year old who grows up in this isn't going to have the tools to understand that. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It can exist pretty isolated of religion too, though. In my country, religion basically has no influence in the public sphere and most people are irreligious agnostics or apatheists, even if many still nominally identify as Catholic. But that doesn't mean homophobia isn't a thing anymore. It's not because religion is going away that the things it managed to entrench in society are all going away too. There's still plenty of slut-shaming in various secular Western societies, to give another example. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

EC. look, you are really preaching to the choir (I said converted earlier) here. All I am saying religion is not the only factor. I appreciate that in fundy land USA it is an important factor, but as I have said here the UK (if we ignore n. Ireland, and we all do) no one gives a shit about it. Maybe that's why the us seems so much behind on this, but we still have bigots here and they are not religiously inspired. Even in the us, its not the only factor. Your constitution seems to slow down even the most blandly inoffensive and obviously useful legislation AMassiveGay (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And more or less the only reason we ain't have gay marriage acknowledged is the CDU/CSU being cunts and blocking it.--Arisboch (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I just thought it was an interesting subject. People can do it for any reason, but politics and religion for the right seem to be bizarrely intertwined in the US. Which is doubly funny when you contrast statements from the pope on homosexuality (and global warming or poverty), against major religious figures in the US, and what Jesus taught. Then US religious figures start bad mouthing the pope. Like many US religious figures don't really care what Jesus said (pretty obvious to me). -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

maybe their disregard for their religions most vital figure is evidence that maybe religion isn't their main motivator. I probably clutching at straws there though. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And there are also quite an amount of (Protestant) fundamentalists, who hate Catholics almost as much as they hate gays or even more.--Arisboch (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, but that makes sense. In the US this doesn't always make sense. It's difficult to talk to someone about what jesus said when they are hearing at church, on the news from major religious right politicians, and talking heads....the exact opposite. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am reminded of a quote from ghandi which is something like 'i like your christ. Your Christians... not so much' AMassiveGay (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A fricken men. +1 -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Gary Barlow

“”people think I'm mean 'coz I didn't pay much tax, but check this my thermostats set to max! I've got so much money I don't need to borrow splashing my cash like there's no tomorrow!.

—Gary Barlow

^{— Unsigned, by: ‎86.144.29.168 / talk / contribs}

Okay. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

this posted in wigo world talk awhile ago, and someone removed it because it was so banal (banal is my word of the week - everything is fucking banal). Plus it was already established that Barlow is an unrepentant tax dodging prick months and months ago. You know when it was actually news. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

IP Filter

What IPs / IP ranges are we blocking? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

[=userblocks&limit=50 These?] Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is to say, no ranges at all. Our whiny bonbon on the gamergate page got himself banned sometime and turned to a proxy because they weren't satisified with that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never been banned from this site in my life. Also, what the fuck is a "bonbon"? 91.215.154.59 (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

BON. Thanx @ AH & ikan. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 12:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I see a small range banned by Ryulong in there. It tracks back to a Singaporean host, with a single address in-sue by a Canadian game dev company supposedly specialising in 'casual, hardcore games', the totality of which comes across as sketchy as fuck to me. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, I thought we had a whole coop to roll that rangeblock back. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just double checked, there's definitely no active rangeblocks. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I undo all rangeblocks on sight, or at least try to; I also occasionally go through the list and pardon IPs, especially if no clear reason was given to block them for more than a day. . Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

...and indeed, got rid of that one not long after I spoke about it. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer on a roll

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/06/christian-radio-host-bryan-fischer-has-mental-breakdown-on-twitter-over-same-sex-marriage-ruling/ We could create an entire new article just for this shit. Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 13:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought he had a mental breakdown a long time ago, and all the crazy stuff he said later stemmed form that. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Evowiki articles

So what's the deal with these? Are we allowed to edit them, or are we merely hosting them as an archive? If the latter, should they be protected? And should they have their own space? Bicycle^wheel 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea is to RWify them and move/merge them to the right spots. See #Project Creationism. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This will be the longest hour since 2012

There's a second going on the year tonight. Scream!! (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This has happened twenty six times already. It seems to me that the value of the second needs to be periodically revised to keep pace with the earth, instead. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I dunno why we even need to keep pace with the Earth. Who'll notice if we celebrate New Year a second before Earth has finished a complete orbit? Who'll care? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The matter is complicated by the fact that rotational days are not of a consistent duration. It's better to make a negligible change here and there than have to slap an extra minute on rarely, in particular because not all computer systems are written to handle the exceptional case. An extra second can get swept under the carpet with a NTP sync, it's a bit harder to do that with an extra minute. Besides, the standards documents allow for the possibility of a leap second or double leap second, there's no provision for a leap minute. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 09:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, but that isn't an argument against the BON's point which was to get rid of the adjustment altogether. This entire mess is there to help out amateur astronomers. Nobody else benefits. Civil time's relationship to mean solar time is so practically unimportant that we routinely shift local civil time back and forth by an entire hour and yet everybody is supposedly worried about one second. The correct thing to do is abolish/ redefine UTC and base civil time on TAI, giving up the pretence that mean solar time is important. Tialaramex (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's no solution, unless you like drift. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Solution to what ? Step back for a moment, and observe that this entire argument relies on begging the question. To even call the alternative "drift" is to arbitrarily accept that mean solar time should be the deciding factor, thus assuming your conclusion. We're long past the point where measurable variation in the Earth's rotation exceeds errors in our instruments. Calibrating the instruments against the known in-consistent Earth is insane, which is why TAI is even maintained at all in the first place. The people with accurate clocks don't want anything to do with this inconsistent spinning ball of rock. We happen to live on it. Fine. We care about daylight hours. Also fine. Right now today, with no need for re-defining the world's co-ordinated time system, local civil time in some jurisdictions moves about by hours or half hours on the whim of politicians. If the politicians decide it's sunny at the wrong time of day they can fix that any time they want with their local civil time. But they don't need to re-define the co-ordinated universal time to do that, so let's stop messing about with it, fix UTC to TAI (by abolishing/ renaming as appropriate) and never worry again. Tialaramex (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If all co-ordinated time was used for was deeply embedded in computer systems, you would have a point. But it's also how civil time is calibrated (modulo time zones - half-hours and summer time are separate issues and I'm not trying to defend them). Local time can be expressed as a consistent UTC+/-X, you simply wouldn't be able to do that if you permitted significant drift in your reference clock. An unadjusted system is mathematically pure, but it is for day-to-day purposes less useful. You might as well do away with hours and days altogether and adopt an arbitrary standard time interval other than the second. If adjusted UTC did not exist, then it would be a practical necessity to invent it to avoid significant gross drift sometime in the future. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The time zones are a relic of the railroad era. In an age of computers and GPS, there's not really any reason not to get rid of the lot of them and go back to true local time. One result, of course, will be that the west side of town will be a minute or two behind the east side. But that's just how it is in reality; the true time of day is an astronomical fact immune to human jiggery-pokery. And it will undermine the industrial system of lock-step time discipline. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm... true local time would making things like business hours for telephone service, co-ordinating teleconferencing, rail and bus timetables, etc. markedly more annoying. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's part of the point, to move away from "11:07 AM" and towards "maybe around noonish". Increasing precision and synchronized time redefine punctuality in the bad direction of greater rigidity and impose greater burdens of compliance. This is something that's been done to you against your will. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather have my co workers come in at 11 Am, not sometime in the area of 11 am based on whatever clock they happen to be using. It would make everything far to annoying for far to little gain in your "yay no rigidness conformity" bullshit. Timezones may be incredibly artificial, (and outside North America, heavily political to the point of nonsense), but they are better than just having the other half of town not be the same time as my half. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact: It was the necessity of 'railway time' that killed off local time. That need has not reduced in the slightest since then. Greater flexibility in working hours, where practical, is a completely orthogonal issue. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Aardvarks

Are they, or are they not, the coolist animals ever? -Fat Aardvark (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty tempting to put them at at least second ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

They're a long way down my list. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

plz

Plz plz plz can I be removed from da vandal bin -Fat Aardvark (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What would you do with that newly-found freedom? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep vandalizing as his user page directly states I bet. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@AgingHippie I'll dive straight in and get involved with this wikis top quality bants of course!--Fat Aardvark (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Skepnav

RW has a lot (~100) of skepticism- and skeptic-related articles. A skepticism {{navsidebar}} seems useful. What icon would be appropriate? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably. The skeptic movement doesn't have any really iconic imagery to make the navbar really punchy though. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

? Scream!! (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Guy Fawkes was a radical Catholic. And that the mask has been assumed as the mantle of idiotic internet crusades. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

^, Guy Fawkes wanted to free us from the oppressive Protestant tyranny so instead there could be a Oppressive Catholic Tyranny. Hardly skeptical. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

quite aside from those irritating guy Fawkes masks already being appropriated by anonymous. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

sorry was already mentioned AMassiveGay (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

How about an eye looking through a magnifying glass, to symbolize scrutiny? I'd draw one if I could. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A tea kettle in space (unless we have that somewhere)? Pyrrho? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 21:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems workable. How about this -

- Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I like it. Now we just need an .svg version... The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 11:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking skepticism in all its facets, or only the 'reasonable' type? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should go for a goat with a cocked eyebrow and skeptical expression. We have a theme, let's roll with it.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but my only request is that Carl Sagan somehow be included in this image-'Legion^{what do you want from me} 09:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Update

Check {{skepnav}}. Any good? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

IAmA subforum on Reddit in peril, AMA

So, for those folks around here that still use Reddit, apparently Victoria Taylor (Director of Communications and central liaison for /r/IAmA celebrity Q&A sessions) was unexpectedly let go. This has sent the eighth largest subreddit on the site into private mode/damage control as Victoria was extremely deeply involved in the IAmA process and no moderators of the /r/IAmA subreddit were notified of the departure of Victoria or given any forewarning to prepare a transition of responsibilities (in fact, the only reason they knew was because one of the interviewees told them at the last minute). This isn't just limited to /r/IAmA -- Victoria had also been acting as liaison for interviews on more niche subreddits (such as researchers on /r/Science and /r/AskScience, musicians and performers on /r/Music, popular authors on /r/Books, etc.), leaving a lot of people high and dry, and in some cases, having wasted money on tickets to NYC for in-person interviews. Considering one of the larger draws of Reddit were the /r/IAmA interviews, where all the questions are provided by common users, and considering Reddit had recently come out with an official AMA app, this is a rather sharp blow and a mind-bogglingly unusual action on the admins' part.

Current leading rumors behind Victoria's termination include fallout from a very recent botched AMA from Rev. Jesse Jackson, and making good on an ultimatum Reddit had made requiring all employees to move to the SF Bay area or risk termination. I have a feeling that the admins will make some sort of statement later today, considering the news broke just two hours ago and the upvotes are starting to snowball, so we'll see, I suppose. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot. Employees change. Smallish companies serving a large community change too. Unless there was something particularly irreplaceable or controversial about her I'm not getting from you story, it's... life? Like every time reddit makes a corporate decision, its users are completely blown away. I do not understand that site. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So... what's IAmA? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

First you post "I am a/an X" then people post questions about X. Then you answer them. Or you're actually famous and your staff answers them, after your realness is verified by the kinda staff member who quit was nuked form orbit. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Victoria actually sits with a number of these celebs in person and helps them answer the questions. There is no indication that she had quit of her own volition -- much more notice and direct work with the moderators would have been there if that were the case. I have the feeling that you really don't like Reddit. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair description of my views of the site, yeah. I mean, it's not 4chan, but I don't much care for memey regurgitation of last-week's jokes and insular little hugbox(or worse hatebox) communities. I mean, I can recognize that as a gigantic site with lots of variation there's more to it than just that, but my overall impression of the community is a cold one. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

IAmA (short for "I am a....") is a subreddit where people, particularly celebrities or with a particularly unique aspect about themselves (e.g. former Disneyland actress, gay conversion therapy camp survivor, 911 operator), allow themselves to be interviewed by the Reddit userbase for a brief period of time. See: Wikipedia. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing: she was pretty damn close to irreplacable, given that she was behind a large portion of the good quality of the IAmA interviews and the celebrities themselves. This isn't just another "corporate decision" that were essentially tempests in teapots like the removal of upvotes or addition of RedditAds. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

But, see, that was her job. Other people can and will do that same job. I appreciate that some readers might have developed a liking for her, but people move on from career changes. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if she suddenly quit (rather than giving notice and it being ignored), for whatever reason, job #1 for the company was to parachute in a replacement. Not "Let's set up a meeting with HR to see about hiring a replacement in August", not "Jim, draft an email to send to the moderators and we'll get that out to them by the end of the week", but right now put your best person on the problem full time until further notice with 100% authority to do whatever they feel necessary. If the CEO can't get this stuff right they will (sooner or later) sink any company they run, whether it's a good old-fashioned dairy farm or a "media company" making a Twitter-based live-fashion web series. Tialaramex (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never exactly followed reddit, but it very much seems to have succeeded in spite of its management rather than because of it. Their knuckle-headed free speech absolutism, for example, speaks volumes that they don't really know what they're doing. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems kind of odd for an online company to require all workers to move to a certain area. Wouldn't most of them be able to do their job just fine from anywhere with an internet connection? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There's been CEO shuffles. The previous one was ah not entirely with it, e.g. hiring someone to work on a Reddit equivalent to Bitcoin (seriously); I think that might be the one who told everyone to move locally. The present one made her big splash kicking the worst subreddits in the world off recently, and may not have had the time to rethink such orders as yet, as she desperately tries to work out how the fuck to keep the company in the black - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I always thought AMA meant "ask me anything." I see people claiming r/IAmA brought a big share of traffic to reddit, and that Victoria went above and beyond, keeping the wheels greased so active Q&A sessions didn't overwhelm the guest. As I understand it, she fielded the questions on screen, read them to the guest, and transcribed the answers into reddit's format. That's a lot of multitasking while typing at a high rate for as long as the multi-threaded session takes. It's tough to find a drop-in replacement for that kind of specialized skill set.

There is talk of some guests being left hanging after having traveled to do their AMA, not a sign of a well-planned exit. Who knows why, but to me it looks like a case of management shooting themselves in the collective foot. It seems a few other high-profile serious subreddits have gone private (disabled posting and reading) in protest. SmartFeller (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

EvoWiki - so help me I'm gonna do stuff

RationalWiki:EvoWiki is something under the auspices of RW, which has had bugger-all done to it over a number of years now.

So, FPC wants to actually get stuff off it and to RW.

Obviously, porting stuff by copying is easy. But what is the plan at the EW end? Soft redirect to RationalWiki? Or just leave it all there looking like a ghost site? Does anyone still reading this remember?

'Cos unless there's a good reason not to, I'll probably twiddle the database to give FPC editing rights and put in soft-redirects to ported pages. On the rationale that leaving EvoWiki there as a ghost forever is unlikely to be a great idea. - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Would replacing that EvoWiki URL with a page that says something like "EvoWiki has left the building, but if you are interested in debates about evolution/creationism and science/pseudoscience, come join us at Rationalwiki" with a big link to our home page be a good idea? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Who's this "FPC" fellow?

I support (1) porting everything over & either soft-redirecting or deleting the EvoWiki page (preference for deleting, it's easier to tell when all pages are done) and (2) redirecting the "evolutionwiki.org" URL directly to "rationalwiki.org" in the way that "evowiki.org" goes to "evolutionwiki.org". Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

With a redirect forest at this end matching the old title, so all old URLs work? Sounds sensible - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the question. Is a redirect forest (a) workable and (b) worth it? How often is EW linked at all? (Is there any way to find out?) FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hah! The answer is "bugger-all". Google for links to it reveals five total on the internet - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've found google's "link:" parameter less than useful. A search for "-site:evolutionwiki.org "evolutionwiki.org"" in the past year gave 73 results. (For RW, it gave ca. 7000.) Are tops 100 links/year worth it? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

ehh, if we're feeling perfectionist! - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

FPC, FCP, it's all cats, potatoes and fuzz - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody can remember anything much, so anyone who wants to work on evowiki retrieval, I'll add you as a user using my s00par l33t p0w3rz of database twiddling (once I work out how to do that) - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The plan seems to have been to do more or less what FCP's been doing: redigest stuff from EvoWiki to RW, leave a pointer on the EvoWiki page - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

EvoWiki is go!

Meaning I have:

1. created myself an account with all the powers
2. created FuzzyCatPotato an account with all the powers, so he can add more people instead of me having to (ask on RationalWiki Talk:EvoWiki)
3. updated RationalWiki:EvoWiki instructions

So GET HACKING AWAY. There's good material in this archive, let's TRIM OUR WIKI IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIONALIST LIFESTYLE, and not stop until we've COMPLETELY SUCCEEDED or we see a new shiny thing - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I get an account, as I have ported over ~20 articles? KOMF's Userpage/TalkUSERNAME will die. 18:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

How? KOMF's Userpage/TalkAnonymous user will die. 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

1952 US Presidential Election.

Looking at the election map of that year confuses me, the only states are now dies hard Republican.[20] Why the change? ^{— Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs}

Who knows?--Inquisitor (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

because the great and glorious major electoral shift that left the south a wasteland of republicans and the democratic party dead of it's southern racist members didn't happen until the 60's and 70's. Wasn't called the solid south for nothin. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The South in 1952 was getting increasingly disgruntled with the northern/urban liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Several Southern states voted for Strom Thurmond's third-party "States' Rights Democratic" splinter in the previous election to protest Harry Truman's support for civil rights. At the same time, though, they still viewed the Republicans as the party of Abraham Lincoln and the forces that defeated the Confederacy, so they held their noses and remained Democrats partly out of generations of loyalty (especially at the state level, where northern-style liberals held no sway in their party organizations) and partly because they found the alternative even worse. That started cracking for good in 1964, when Barry Goldwater appealed to disaffected segregationists; Richard Nixon paid close attention to this, and implemented the Southern strategy in '68 and '72. KevinR1990 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Infamous cartoon flying around on the net

Does anyone know, who drew the "Hey rabbi... whatcha doin'?!" antisemitic cartoon?--Arisboch (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I just read a half-dozen articles/blog posts about it that don't mention attribution, so it may be safe to say it's an anonymous piece of work... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If I recall, his name (or penname) was Wyatt A. Mann. He has ALOT more then just that "Hey Rabbi... whatcha doin'?!" picture. --173.180.240.167 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I found his real name, but I won't post it here, as RW apparently takes (or claims to take, anyway) a dim view on doxxing (dunno, if it'd be doxxing,though).--Arisboch (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you basically have no understanding of humans. So you in particular should be way more cautious than anyone else, assuming you're sincerely stupid rather than trolling - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

?--Arisboch (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Degolding Young Earth creationism

Discussed at Talk:Young Earth creationism#Gold?. The article doesn't seem to merit gold ATM; it looks like it's mostly legacy. I proposed moving the gold from the YEC article to the general creationism article, which is vastly better. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know you could move gold from one article to another. Probably a better idea to continue polishing up the creationism article so it can stand the vetting for gold in its own right. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't move gold from one article to another. There isn't a fixed number of cover articles. Bicycle^wheel 20:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The other one would need to become coverworthy of its own accord, but yeah, bust this one down to bronze at best - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Golding Creationism

Exactly what it says on the tin. What does the article need for gold (or silver) status? Discussion at Talk:Creationism#Gold. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disbarred AG?

Does anyone know what happens if a sitting Attorney General loses their law license? Do you have to have a law license to be an attorney general? I know there are various requirements based on the state. In many it seems that you must be a member in standing at the time of election, but I don't see anything about what happens after. Ayzmo^Cheers 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If they're a Republican, they get to stay. If not, out they go. Bicycle^wheel 20:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The "evil Republican conspiracy" persecution complex aside, a lot of states (not sure if it's all) have laws mandating their AGs have to be licensed. A lot of that is the result of North Carolina needing to be able to remove Mike Nifong, who seemed to be out to set records for prosecutorial misconduct, in 2007. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the Texas Secretary of State's website, the qualifications for being Texas Attorney General are: U.S. citizen, resident of Texas for at least 12 months, and 18 years old. That's it. "Practicing lawyer or judge" is explicitly NOT a requirement. So, if he's disbarred, it would certainly be embarrassing, and he probably wouldn't be able to personally represent the State in court, but AG rarely actually practice law in court anyway. So, basically, no legal or constitutional fallout.67.209.3.78 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm somewhat scared...

While I was looking around for Project Creationism, I saw a pop-up on the top of the screen that said "This Password is Compromised". Do you think that I have a virus? KOMF's Userpage/Talk Anonymous user will die. 20:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you have any other windows open? Recomment running Malwarebytes and delete ur cache. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I have McAffe, and I am currently doing a complete scan of my computer. KOMF's Userpage/Talk Anonymous user will die. 21:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You want to scan your system with MalwareBytes and SpyBot Search & Destroy on a regular basis, along with your regular virus scanner, be it McAfee or MS Security Essentials or whatever. And run some kind of ad blocker on your browser too. And to be on the safe side, change your passwords from time to time and use KeePass Password Safe or some such to keep track of them.

That said, it depends on where you were and what the pop-up window looked like. More than likely, it was a scare-tactic advertisement intended to get you to click through to someplace what would compromise your system, your credit card, your life, not just your password. It didn't say which password was compromised, did it? Nowhere Man (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't MalwareBytes and SpyBot Search & Destroy borderline malware themselves? If they're the ones I'm thinking of, I've used them before & they're very difficult to fully uninstall. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Not MalwareBytes, no. Proper uninstall, no sneaky 3rd party programmes, and does a fantastic job as advertised. The problem with SpyBot S&D isn't with itself, rather how easy it is to download and install lookalike rogue versions of it which are themselves malicious. The real programme isn't as smooth an install as MalwareBytes. It has a higher install failure rate and it tries too hard to point you towards the paid-for version. Otherwise it's pretty effective although I find MalwareBytes more thorough. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest getting MalwareBytes and Spybot S&D from MajorGeeks.com. I've never had any problems with them, and they also have good free antivirus programs like Avast and AVG. -Psycho Gecko 1:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My recommendation? Get a new anti-virus software. Mcafee is total shit-'Legion^{what do you want from me} 09:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Avira better?--Arisboch (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be useful if you post a screenshot of the message you received. If it was a pop-up within your web browser, most likely it was a spammy website trying to get you to install something dodgy &/or phishing for you to provide login details rather than anything internal to your system. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a pop-up on my web browser, but I did find a few suspicious files when looking through my 86x program files. It was probably adware though, because whenever I get that I just delete the addon, and I just delete all of the suspicious programs every month or two. Also, I did have several websites open, some which display ads, but I was using adblock. Also, it didn't say what password was compromised. KOMF's Userpage/Talk Anonymous user will die. 19:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Did it say anything else? If it was a pop-up from a dubious webpage, it would usually say your password is compromised (or something similar like viruses detected) & then offer a solution which either involves downloading & installing something &/or providing details like email address/password, either of which would obviously be a bad idea in this situation. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

KOMF, follow these steps.

- Run a full scan of your usual AV software. Make sure it is up-to-date first with the latest signature files. McAfee is generally fine at detection on a standard scan although a horrible programme overall.

- Download and install the free version of MalwareBytes. Make sure you uncheck the Pro trial at the last step. Run and then clean any infections.

- Download and install AdwCleaner. Run and then clean any infections.

- Download and install the free version of CCleaner. Take a look in the Tools, Startup tabs and research anything you're not sure about. Less is more.

- Open Windows Security Centre and check that various security settings haven't been disabled, such as Windows Update. If it has been, re-enable it - although this can be easier said than done and you might need to work on that. Once re-enabled, run it and install all essential updates. You may have to restart and re-run Windows Update several times if it has been disabled a while.

These few steps should be enough although you might have something a bit deeper, especially if things like Windows Update has been disabled. A really good resource is Bleeping Computer. Hope this helps. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and install AdBlock extension in Chrome or AdBlock Plus add-on in Firefox. To be doubly safe, only use Firefox with the NoScript add-on. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Idea for an article

(Before you read, I am not sure why the headline is bigger than the others). I came across a school called the "Maharishi University of Management" located in Fairfield, Iowa. From what I read the school teaches plenty of pseudoscience (Much like Bastyr University) and force students to eat vegetarian meals. Here is a link to their site- https://www.mum.edu/?utm_source=MSN-CPC&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=MSN-Brand-Search--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the header for ya. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki shutting down

i have been sent here to bring a message by the government of Wikipedia (the arbitration committee) and the supreme leader of Wikipedia (the right honourable Jimbo Wales). It has been decided by the big shots at Wikipedia that this wiki is bias, and it is to shut down affective immediately. This message has been bought to you by Fat Aardvark, ambassador to the English Wikipedia and commander of the arbitration enforcement unit.--Fat Aardvark (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Imitating Billy mays voice (badly): You shittin me?!?!--Arisboch (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone who is almost certainly jimbob whales, I can endorse this statement as true. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've seen better comedy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick, hide the bias under the floorboards until they've gone. Fonzie (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Fhtagn! I'm caught! *pulls out dual-wielded LMGs and guns down everybody before activating nuclear jetpack and flies off* ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 03:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

My name is John Wiki and I invented Wiki. This Wiki is very Wiki and for that I salute. John Wiki (When you want to shoot, don't talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

In Memoriam of the victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

It's been ten years, and many thousands of people have been killed in terrorist and state terror attacks since then, none of whom are memorialized by the project. Time to take it down? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, assuming that 911 has already been taken out of the rotation. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

^ +1. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I hate America wouldn't say no to that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Or we could add "and the many lives lost to terrorism since then" below it. I think an "In Memoriam" for victims of terrorism sounds like a good idea, and this seems like an appropriate enough date. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And the same for the 9/11 date. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and added it in. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't even have words to express this bullshit

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/05/crazy-right-wing-preacher-says-confederates-will-march-on-the-north-and-win-this-time-video/ Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 01:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What in the kus emek is his malfunction?--Arisboch (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've seen how this one turns out. http://www.somethingawful.com/news/guns-versus-apaches/ -Psycho Gecko 1:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I LOL'd.--Arisboch (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It turns out that idiots think there are a lot of people who agree with their particular brand of idiocy. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, how many people have screamed civil war since Obama was elected? Now flying under a flag to start slavery again. This is hilarious after 8 years of being with Bush or you are with the terrorist...even ordering french fries instead of freedom fries got me yelled at for being un-American at a Marriot in Denver. :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Except these assholes are actual traitors under a traitor's flag. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say any of the lot threating to lead an armed insurrection to put their favored autocrat in power are traitors. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it a big deal that they're traitors, though? I know it doesn't mesh well with people's implicit assumption of "America's greatness", but I'd condemn people for being murderous or planning to instate a blatantly oppressive government, not for failing to be loyal to a state. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, those acts aren't jailable. And weren't the mirror of blatantly false accusations dropped at anti-war political beliefs circa 2003. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

all this talk of traitors and treason leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth similar to talk of patriots and patriotism. In my mind unless there are actual punishable acts being perpetrated, they both come from the same unpleasant place - that your opponents are not, in this case, true Americans, but can apply to any fellow country men of whatever nation you hail from. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about the actual legal situation, but I feel that just being born in a particular does not mean that you must show loyalty to that place. Treason should only apply if you have made a conscious and in some way binding commitment of loyalty. Members of the armed forces - sure they can be treasonous, but private individuals? Criminal maybe, but not treasonous. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what else to call it. He is calling for an armed conflict to get rid of elected government, that certainly has problems, to scrap democracy itself in this country to a theocratic dictatorship in place. Not the only person so far who has championed the same idea. Where the people who cheer people who say this the most fanatically scream TREASON at the slightest whiff of someone disagreeing with the spew from their blowhole. Doesn't mean I think it follows under the legal treason punishable by death...but what else is it? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

rebellion? Revolution? Insurrection? Are these different to treason? Is it treason to act against an unjust government? I would personally hold off on calling treason to someone just mouthing off AMassiveGay (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Rebellion, revolution, and insurrection are synonyms for an active violent attempt to overthrow a countries government and are far worse then just mouthing off. That's pretty much an active war. I would say it's more incompetent...and most I have read want to put something far more unjust as a replacement. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

this chap clearly thinks the current government is more unjust. He would no doubt say he is the true patriot here. If his words are criminal, would it follow that they are treasonous if he holds no allegiance to the government? If no allegiance how can be he betray it? Its not the country he is saying he wants to go against, only a government he thinks is unjust and corrupt. If He and his chums rose up and won, would they still be traitors? Is just the victor who gets to decide? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, pause, do you see this as either you are with the current administration or not? No...did you read any of the previous comments? This isn't like a child's view of their parents, which some people do view the government as ("You're with us or the terrorists"). As I quite clearly stated he has expressed it's the desire to get rid of democracy and the constitution itself to install his favored theocratic dictator. If they won they would certainly consider themselves freedom fighters and not traitors or terrorists...which if this is news you haven't been paying attention. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

kind of makes accusations of treason meaningless then doesn't it. Unless of course you saying that the founding fathers are all traitors.AMassiveGay (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Radical embrace of combatant-for-justice mentality: Can you guess the origin of this quote?

“”In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending [insert central value(s) of a certain culture/society here] in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility–I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it–and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And please don't cheat by using Google. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I know who said it... so what did I win? --Inquisitor (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A congratulatory pat on the back. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't actually know, but the empathic backings to the statement read as fascist. The talking up how great "we" are, the "totally necessary war" for unstated reasons, the centrality of faith and devotion(though divorced from any particular messages of faith), it strikes a very Hitler chord with me. Could be Mussolini, but he was less publically religious. And, I could be totally wrong. It's a plausible statement for any leader in a time of war, and only the nature of the emotional appeals embedded lead me to fascism as an ideology. Now, away to look it up. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

... fuck. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hehe. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I LOL'd.--Arisboch (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There's hitlers everywhere. (probably only funny to people who hate Ted Rall) ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this particular villain got sixty thousand of his fellow countrymen killed in a fool's errand, sold as the defense of what we hold dear. Grand idealism just doesn't play out well among fallible humans, and you aren't wrong to be suspicious of it. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And right after that he said "My fellow Muslims, ask not what your ummah can do for you, ask what you can do for your ummah." Or something along those lines. ;) 142․124․55․236 (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You think that's bad, you should see that SJW who actually fought a bunch of traitors who tried to secede because they thought the guvmint was comin' fer their slaves. Guy actually talked about a new birth of freedom. But I won't actually talk about him by name in case he were to reach through the internet and castrate me himself. I'll settle for merely skirting around the issue. - Psycho Gecko 1:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Going into Nam wasn't nearly as stupid as the Turkey Cuban Missile Crisis. First Kennedy places nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey. Russia freaks out, tries to negotiate them away, US "acts tough". Russia places missiles in Cuba to force the US to back down. Ok, poor communication and all so far. Kennedy has the US open fire upon the Russians. Everyone is crapping their pants. A sub that's armed with nuclear torpedoes makes a decision on whether or not to fire back. Luckily they choose to (probably) die by surfacing. Crisis ends, US declares victory in spite of technically losing.

I've probably mentioned it before, but I'm doing it again because holy fuck. CorruptUser (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I haven't ever understood why Kennedy is so beloved. I mean he wasn't going to leave Vietnam, he most certainly escalated the Cuban Missile Crisis, and did they same imperial action the US always does to Latin America, invade and depose of the leaders of Cuba. Domestically speaking, his New Frontier and his endorsement of civil rights were progressive, but Lyndon Johnson enacted much more progressive laws. But hey, he gave good speeches.--Owlman (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My guess is because he was assassinated. It's like with how other celebrities get somewhat idolized for dying too early. Chances are Kurt Cobain and Elvis wouldn't be quite so highly thought of if they'd been able to grow old and have their stars fade. Same with Kennedy. But he was killed off, so that leaves a big, idealistic "What If?" hole in history.-Psycho Gecko 09:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I have always assumed. Personally, tough, I don't think he would have gotten a lot done in office and his martyrdom probably pushed people to the left more.--Owlman (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering the context that "and the glow from that fire can truly light the world" sounds especially ominous. SolPyre (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing some homophobe. Off to Google!!! Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 01:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that was disappointing. Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 01:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hehe. Not what you were expecting, eh? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Conservapedia revealing individual's personal information

I just noticed that the Conservapedia article on Gamergate has what is rumored to be Zoe Quinn's birth name. I don't know if the rumor is true but either way they should take it down. I don't suppose there is anything we can do about this? I know CP hates us but do they really tolerate doxing? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 23:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Take it to them, if you consider this doxxing. Try to edit it, you sure find help here (RW was founded as a CP trolling club, so why the hell not? CP is a shitpile, they deserve it).--Arisboch (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been that way since the article was created in September. The name also appears on various blogs around the net & there's no reason to see Conservapedia's use of it as something for "us" to fix any more than any other website's. If you're concerned about the doxxing, probably best not to draw attention to it on RW or elsewhere online. You could try contacting Conservapedia or editing the article yourself, but you do this on your own behalf & I suggest not mentioning anything about RW when you do. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I would love to see Ruylong try to fix it and by doing so get User:Conservative interested in the article. That right there might set the internet on fire. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

“”Dear Gentlemen, I saw your ideas on what constitutes proper behavior on the internet are not what I personally see, and you are therefore less than irrational. Where it concerns GamerGate and its article, you cover up names and the revolt has begun. In fact, by the time you finish reading this, I'll already have completed three ethics. :) :) :) Rest assured, Operation Eggplant will succeed and the gamers will be heard. We may have a beach party meetup as well! Sincerely, Conservative

(Click for more) Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 19:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Roll20 D&D game

So if we are going to go ahead with the game over roll20, and nobody minds a newbie DMing, I would like to volunteer for DM. I have all the books for 3.5 expanded, but I can find other expansion books as well. I just need to know how you want me to make the atmosphere of the game: Lighthearted, semi-serious, serious, or Warhammer40k? Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Kent's back

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/07/felon-creationist-kent-hovind-is-released-from-prison-and-jim-bob-duggar-was-his-welcome-wagon/ The king of fucktard, Kent Hovind, has been released from prison, but will be under house arrest for another month and under probation for another three years. Welcome back Kent. We all look forward to laughing at your shenanigans. Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 20:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it too much to hope he stays away from Pensacola? I mean, I'm kinda torn about seeing his reaction to Pensacon, but it's not like we need more religious people with all the religious schools pumping them out around here. We also don't need yet another street preacher, confederate flag flier, or Halloween Chick tract gifter. Fuck, we're like a magnet for his kind. Psycho Gecko 01:55, 10 July 2015.

Overuse of kinetic typography in crank videos

Am I the only one that's noticed crank organizations use kinetic typography in their videos WAY too much? Some youtube channels like Prager University use it almost exclusively. Master Necromancer^{What is dead may never die} 12:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Remember being in middle/high school and trying to show off in some powerpoint presentation? You'd do word-art or animations or whatever to make yourself seem cool. Then you matured past your mid teens and realize how gimicky and pointless it was. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing a student newspaper in the mid-'90s, we used to remove most of the fonts from the Macs so that people wouldn't use 19 of them on a page - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

EFFIN!

Just seen a SCIENTOLOGY.ORG advert on t' telly. Is this new or have I been missing it in the past? Scream!! (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw it the other day. Was going to mention here but got side tracked by more pressing needs. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Seen a lot of them over the past few years. ArcticVixen (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here in the US, there was one during the Superbowl. I kid you not, I was absolutely floored. Jrock1203 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting look at search engine results and conspiracy theories

"Google chemtrails: A methodology to analyze topic representation in search engine results". In addition to mentioning RW (which appears to be the top conspiracy "debunking" source online, hooray), it covers a lot of interesting research on how people, especially conspiracy-minded people, trust search engine results. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

New Horizons Thread

We finally have semi-good pictures of Pluto! They will be a lot better in a few days. KOMF's Userpage/Talk Anonymous user will die. 02:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

KOMF, maybe your sig should default to "Anonymous users", plural? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

File:HK Disneyland parade 3 by Dave Q.jpg

Good to know that there will be better pictures of Pluto in a few days because you can hardly see him in this one. Spud (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Relevant: http://www.goominet.com/unspeakable-vault/

I suck at pictures. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 05:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RW Community

I've been a member here for quite a while, and all has been well and dandy so far. But I've been consumed by worry recently. I've been a member of various online communities before. However, something always happens to f*** me royally. And it's always due to the mods. Whether they're ignoring their own rules, whilst zealously enforcing them on the unwashed masses of proles, with a strange focus on me, or blatant hypocrisy, or even arbitrarily inventing new rules to get me screwed over so they can punish me. Regardless of the method, I always get banned, usually unceremoniously or even unannounced until I try to log on only to find an error message informing me that I'm banned. I don't know what it is about me, but I'm unable to put down roots anywhere on the internet. I seriously hope RW is not like that. I want to stay here and be accepted. I know that RW isn't going to be like that, but that's what I also thought about all those other sites. So what's going to happen? ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 03:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RW is extremely soft when it comes to banning. Basically it is rarely done. You have to right royally fuck up. Things like blatant racism, vandalism etc will get you a warning before any type of banning and even then it usually gets thrashed out on an open forum where you can state your case/defend yourself. Don't stress. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. At least I have some modicum of reassurance. Though I realise now that all the other sites did not have any blocking policy. That, and the mods had no clearly-defined limits on their power. No wonder they abused it. I still don't know why they constantly picked on me, though. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 03:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As one of those mythical mods you worry about, i can promise you you're only going to be seriously blocked if you actually do something to deserve it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Or I can just go ahead an block him now... you know, save us the hassle later on down the road. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't blocked anyone in ages. I'll get it out of the way... --Maxus (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not going to get memory-holed again! And I'll fight you if you try. ¹⁰⁷Ag⁴⁷ 04:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if literally everywhere you go, the first thing you worry about is who is going to block you ... then the problem might not be with everyone else in the world - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

^ Yes, that ... in my 15+ years of online experience I've been banned exactly once (over a petty argument by a petty admin), and I started participating on online communities as an annoying 13 year old with a less-than-perfect grasp of English, to put it mildly. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got to put in some real effort to be blocked here (Well, unless you edit Gamergate and annoy Ruy...something))--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RuyLopez? :) Bicycle^wheel 15:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And I'll ban you if you look at my pint funny. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I look at your pint ironically? Or will I be banned Dirk S. 31.48.149.246 (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. And I'll give you a shirt to do as well. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest buzz in showbizz: Is Rihanna's BBHMM vid feminist or anti-feminist and Ariana Grande's Donutgate

So apparently some people are debating about whether Rihanna's crime drama/revenge fantasy flick for her single Bitch Better Have My Money is feminist or anti-feminist and there's been a huge uproar over security footage showing Ariana Grande licking donuts in a shop and saying she hates America, which has been given the overly dramatic name of "Donutgate". Fascinating, isn't it? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Without comment on those, to me the real debate is how such overproduced slop got to be considered "music" in the first place. The next trick would be figuring out how the hell it then managed to become popular. Not that people haven't said the same about my choice of music (after all these years people still bitch about Rush), but mine at least requires some talent to create. As to controversial videos, I'm rather partial to Arise and Convicted in Life.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh? >.> And I largely agree about modern 'music', though not all pop songs are equally horrible. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what the old folks said about Rock and Roll back in these days. Or about The Beatles. And so on and so forth. Modern popular music of every generation provokes the exactly same response. Means you're getting old.--Arisboch (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Eh, old is relative then I guess. But really, some things really test the boundaries of what you can consider music. Like this. By what definition is that music? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What is music? What is art? That goes in the exactly same direction. In every generation. Makes me wonder, what I will call "noise" instead of "music", when I'm grow old any grumpy.--Arisboch (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

So all this new crappy music is the abstract art of music? Well, I generally dislike abstract art for similar reasons, so I guess it fits the bill. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"By what definition is that music?" Well, let's see: it's an audio recording containing a rhythm & a melody, made for people to listen to and/or dance to for pleasure. By what definition isn't it music? Other than "I don't like it", which seems like a pretty shitty way to define what is or isn't music. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But your definition explicitly mentions that the intent should be to be enjoyable. When it seems almost incomprehensible that someone would enjoy listening to it, should it be considered music just because it shares some superficial elements with it and was released to the public through the same channels as music? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You're just appealing to your own taste & distaste, which I just told you was a stupid way to define music. Besides which, what on earth do you think the intent of that track is if not enjoyment? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that it's less simple than you think it is, and if you tried yourself to make something that would convince Rihanna fans you would discover that "it's a bit more complicated than that" - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bassist (hence the band, and not the person, Rush), and yeah Rihanna and such is pretty simple and straightforward. I'm also in my mid-20s, and I listen to plenty of contemporary bands (Into Eternity, Chthonic, Disturbed), so it's not about that. Also, everyone is absolutely entitled to their own view and I don't want to interfere with anyone else's listening pleasure. Now I kinda feel bad for derailing this so quickly... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's nice, it's not the same as convincing the fans you know better than them as you are claiming to. Again, I strongly suspect you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do that at all, I'm talking about it from a music theory perspective; in those terms, such music is quite simple. Whatever enjoyment people get out of it I don't claim to know, and such things are indeed more complicated than even our best neuroscientists know. Sorry I wasn't clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is part of the problem that music theory doesn't always capture what actually interests people - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in the same boat. Dancepop and hip-hop don't really count as music, and certainly not something worth taking that seriously. Performers who don't write their own material or play instruments just don't count for a whole lot. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Performers who don't write their own material or play instruments just don't count for a whole lot So Ol' Blue Eyes or Edith Piaf or Ella Fitzgerald or... Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That ain't rock and roll to me. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd swear that if we didn't have gays, feminists and ethnic minorities to rail against we would be lynching each other for not listening to the right music. The only criteria for good music is that it grabs you in some way. I cannot give a shit if it took no 'skill' to make or is not considered 'art'. I will not feel guilty for liking stuff not considered worthy and not liking the dross that some holier than thou muso insists I should like. Music tribalism is even more bullshit that the tribalism involved in sports fandom. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

All true, and everyone is entitled to listen to what they want, but do you have any idea how boring it is to play that on the bass? If purgatory exists, it's playing those sorts of basslines over and over and over and over and over again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

my listening pleasure is in no way hindered or enhanced by your pain nor by the relative difficulty of a particular piece. If you don't like playing a particular piece - don't play that piece. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In my line of work I don't always have that option, though rest assured I take it whenever I can. Nor did I ever argue my pain should influence you, although the sensory issues I have make the pain quite literal (certain songs severely disrupt my thinking, and afterwards I have to decompress for a while). My interest in technical ability is a difference of opinion, as those songs are a lot more fun for me to play than ones consisting of the same 4 notes 200 times (sometimes literally) for 5 minutes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We need people like you holding the line against mechanical entryists like Kraftwerk - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like playing simple repetitive stuff, why do you play bass? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Because I lack the fine motor coordination for the guitar, and in any event Rush (or Genesis, or Into Eternity, or Boston... take your pick) is anything but repetitive (say whatever else you will about it). That's all (ha!). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

So anyone wanna talk about silly media hypes instead of discuss whether modern pop music is really music?

Since that was kinda the original intent. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

no not really. I have no in interest in showbiz news. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)