RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive247

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

(Not a) programme for revolutionary change[edit]

Moved to Forum:Mod election 2015 BicyclewheelModerator 17:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh... Hello?[edit]

This is my very first post made in RationalWiki. As you know, I'm originally an incredulous Christian. Specifically a Catholic. Before I've change my religion to an even more cringing one -- fundamentalism. At a school with the A.C.E. curriculum. I've been told that the Bible (often called "God's Word") is inerrant, that the young-earth creationism was true and that evolution was just religion.

That is until I've read internet articles about the evidence of evolution.

I suddenly have a feeling that I've been... deceived. By those pesky liars, by that curriculum. And then came RationalWiki. It saved me from this insanity.

Today, I'm not convinced of being a Christian anymore and I'm now an atheist. And I love to see AronRa's great videos often.

I'm born in the Philippines, but can't natively speak Filipino because my old brother taught me English first.

... Okay, is this a proper talk page to introduce myself? I'm new here.

And I have some Filipino fundamentalist propaganda mill found on Facebook about that Daniel Veridiano vs. Eliseo Soriano case. But is this topic interesting? — Unsigned, by: ‎Eruhbuus / talk / contribs

Welcome to RationalWiki! A couple things. You can sign your posts with the four tildes at the end. If you would like to know what others think of a topic, you can suggest it in our To Do list (read how to edit it properly), though fundamentalist propaganda mills are usually middle to high priority for us. As for the Daniel v Eliseo case, no, I haven't heard of it. What's it about? CorruptUser (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well... So do I. I have no idea about that case. But that propaganda mill also talks about the separation of church and state law in the Philippines. But I found it (the website not law) to be cringing. Here's that website: http://www.controversyextraordinary.com/2015/08/iglesia-ni-cristo-de-lima.html What do you think? Eruhbuus (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
In fact, the whole website, "Controversy eXtraordinary" is mostly anti-Catholicism and gross ignorance... That would be very interesting. http://www.controversyextraordinary.com/ Eruhbuus (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Greetings! Welcome to RationalWiki! Yes, that sounds like potentially interesting and missional information. Also, congratulations on rejecting fundamentalism! While rejecting religious dogma doesn't necessitate atheism, it's certainly one of the saner options out there. Again, welcome! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Welcome!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh... Lol, how do I even reply comments? Eruhbuus (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The common convention is to add an extra indentation (: at the start of a post) compared to the post you're replying to. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Oh? Eruhbuus (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, so according to this convention you should've started your post with one more :. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Oh? Adding more of colon cancers... Eruhbuus (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This guy treats colon cancer. CorruptUser (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What's that line undent thing? Eruhbuus (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
A very warm welcome to you, Eruhbuus! Don't be afraid to ask us any questions, and don't forget to read the RationalWiki guide for the newly de-converted! :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"undent" with double curly brackets. CorruptUser (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, welcome to RW, Eruhbuus]. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Indeed, welcome Eruhbuus. If you are in the mood, Philippines might benefit from your input.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait wait wait[edit]

Rationalwiki actually helped someone who wasn't already in the tank with our general positions? That's pretty momentous, to be honest. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

An outbreak of helpful niceness. Whatever next, eh? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Next, a radical Republican will see the light of day. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I was a right-leaning cafeteria Christian when I found this site. It's pretty hard to be more opposite than where I ended up. ArcticVixen (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think RationalWiki did everything. I think just somehow disprove Alex Jones at his own game with moar ridiculous conspiracies like "the steel beams melted b/c the chemtrails tanks in the airliners would have been too hot. But, woah, dude, glad you saw the light of day. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I came here for information back when I deconverted, specifically for some of the civil rights articles on homosexuality and gender identity. I was a moderate Catholic with some homophobic views, and going to college and actually interacting with the LGBT community made me rethink those views. Which, in addition to some of the other less then stellar things the CC has done *cough sex abuse cough*, it kinda just made me look at the man behind the curtain. So yeah, keep up the good work guys. ANON-Lurker 74.140.196.211 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent events in Hungary[edit]

If the media you consume cover Europe, you most likely have heard of the recent events in Hungary. Orban who already is a rather unpleasant ruler to the right of even most European conservatives and some GOP politicians in the US has built a fence between Hungary and Serbia and continues to play political games with people who fled war violence and insanity in places like Afghanistan or Syria. Maybe we should in some way cover the current (and please imagine more just two scare-quotes) ""refugee crisis""? After all, it has all the racism, crankery, manufectroversy and stuff to it we usually cover. People are fleeing death and violence and countries that could easily support a million of them and more complain about the "incredible strain" of giving water, food and shelter to those human beings. Of course the US could also do more to help refugees, just like our good old friend Fluffington Post recently said. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes we Americans should be taking in more refugees, but you see our problem in this particular case is not one of xenophobia (that's because most of our xenophobia is reserved for Mexicans or Central Americans), but bureaucratic incompetence. We accept tens of thousands of refugees each year, in 2013 we accepted nearly seventy thousand, during the eighties we would accept more than one hundred thousand each year. But you see, there is a "process" which you must go through, paperwork must be filled out, background checks must be done, quotas (depending on where the refugees are from and/or what religion they are) must be met etc... We do not just accept asylum seekers on a whim. Unfortunately for the refugees this means waiting forever. Alsto003 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Alex
Plus, there's the fact that most refugees today come from countries that are oceans apart from the US, so most can't reasonably get to the US without at least staying in Europe first. Most refugees don't even bother trying to get to Europe, which is why Jordan is host to 1.5 million refugees, while Hungary's not even dealing with 100,000. The kind of aid the US should provide isn't in taking in refugees, but providing material support to the countries that already have. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This [1] --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-Is still clamoring for a article on Orban---"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There is lots to say about him. Few of it positive (well at least he's not Jobbik, doesn't really count in my mind) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
the only positive out of these recent events and the climbing death toll is that the EU might get its shit together and deal with this on going tragedy. Even the more rabid tabloids in uk seem to be reversing their position. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Or it (the EU) could crack like an egg over this issue. The Eastern Europeans seem to be a slightly less accommodating towards immigrants than the Western Europeans (which is impressive when you consider just how unpopular they seem to be in Western Europe). In any case the only people who gain in this whole debacle are the euroskeptic right wing populists who have infested Europe lately. So if the EU doesn't snap in half now over this immigration debate it may still do so once one of those demagogues ends up as Prime Minister of his or her country. Alsto003 (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Alex
too late on that one.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm was thinking more about western European countries. Judging by the polls I've seen if Dutch parliamentary elections were held tomorrow this guy would be the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Alsto003 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Alex
Aside from the blatant bigotry, wouldn't accepting the Christian refugees at the very least reduce the economic pressure on the other European states, since one less Christian mouth to feed is still one less mouth to feed? CorruptUser (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think bigots like these care about non-Western Christians? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:15, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The "boat people" of way back in the Vietnam war era and their descendants outperform "native born" people as well as the general population in terms of formal education as well as income. I am loath to argue the merits of immigration on economic grounds. But in the long run refugees tend to benefit countries who receive them with open arms. Just think of the giant shoot-your-own-knee of Spain and Portugal when they expelled the Sephardi Jews. Or what happened to France after the Huguenots were expelled. In order to be politically prosecuted, you first have to have political opinions. People who have political opinions tend to be more intelligent thaen those that don't. Plus, you know... crossing from Syria to France for example is not a trivial task and takes guts, intelligence and brawn. All things that help in getting stuff done as well. In short: refugees are among the best immigrants a country can wish for in the long run. And Eastern Europe needs immigration. Just look at the birth-rates Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Pensacola Christian College[edit]

I know this is a shit school and all but I made an unsurprising discovery, according to studentreview.com 52% of students state they would not return to the school. It is not shocking considering the school is more like a prison. Here is a link- http://www.studentsreview.com/FL/Pensacola_Christian_College.html

So shitty that Cracked once did an life experience article about one of the PCC's female students. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

I read it and it was entertaining, if you ever want a good comedy story then explore PCC's website. Now a sad fact that should be added to the actual article is the fact that most of their staff has their degrees from this school.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, they want to be an accredited school. I'm kinda worried about this country's future...~Zeexcoiler Kingbolt
Also, the school computer I use blocked the school site. The first reason was bizarre (Educational Institution), but the other reason made so much more sense (Religious). Hopefully they don't call me into the office, since I took a snapshot of the block. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

From my knowledge PCC is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools and it is (sadly) recognized by the U.S Department of Education. On a side note- If I ran a secular science program there would be no way in hell I would want a PCC, BJU or Cedarville graduate in it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And what of the Libertyfags?

Actually, I would, so that I could let him/her get totally humiliated by his much more educated peers. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools for Liberty University. Also from what I read about LU's School of Osteopathic Medicine on a thread from the Student Doctor Network Website it seems that several of the Osteopathic students claim the LU osteopathic school is hardly religious. I do not buy it however.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they're the new transfers from Duke? Or is that their Bible Interpretation 101? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

If they want a religious medical college then they should go to Baylor University Medical School. At least it is a good school and has high rankings. The fun part is the school rejects Young Earth Creationism but is owned by the Baptist Church.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And what a wise decision they've made. The Baptist Church itself rejects YECs. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Now if they want a decent YEC med school there is always Loma Linda University.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my Chem. teacher showed us a video about nuclear medicine. Which came from Loma Linda. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Even though it seems fashionable to yell in hysterical high-pitched voices that young earth creationists are sub-human first order retarded cunts, if I had a brain tumor requiring surgery the first person I'd want doing my operation is Ben Carson. Just in case some actual rationality has any place here... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying Carson is a bad doctor or trying to be irrational, I was merely questioning the quality of LU Osteopathic Medical College--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, not sure how I misread that; that I wholeheartedly agree with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well misunderstandings occur, especially on the internet because it is hard how people convey words. As for Pensacola Christian College (yes I know it seems random) their campus looks more like a mall than a school; I say this because when I was exploring the TRACS website I saw a picture of the school and it seriously looks like a mall.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is trump an actual fascist?[edit]

Or does he just play one on TV? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought fascists were better at grassroots organizations. Does Trump even have such a thing? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 13:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Does the Klan count? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If he isn't a fascist than no one is and fascism does not exist. He is a demagogic populist who used hatred of minorities to advance his political career. The fact that he is more moderate on other issues like the economy just worries my more, fascists were never ultra-capitalists. Add to that that he's also a narcissist par excellence and you've got for a really, really scary presidential candidate. Alsto003 (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Alex

I actually see a big similarity between him and Hitler. Let's do a thought experiment: Both preached that the existing political system was a failure and needed to be changed (Hitler: Wiemar partisans, Trump: GOP and Dems). Both said that a certain group of people was responsible for all of our problems (Hitler: Jews, Trump: Mexicans). Both had an immense love of country and wanted to make the country great again, economically and militarily (Hitler: fear France, evil Britain and the Russians!, Trump: fear ISIS, evil Russia and China!). Discounted by the media, but rose by popular vote. It really is eerie. If Trump gets elected, he could end up making America like Nazi Germany, with a massive military-industrial complex, many wars (I would hit ISIS so hard (implying a full military invasion of Iraq and Syria)), etc. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You might as well say they were both politicians. EVERY politician says the current system is a failure, and had 'immense love of country and wanted to make it great again', most politicians blame foreigners or some other group, etc. CorruptUser (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
CorruptUser I am simply saying he is more like Hitler than any other candidate in the race for US president. Not all politicians say that the current system is a failure. My ultimate point is that he should not be president, people shouldn't vote for him, and they shouldn't support him. Instead, they should support Bernie Sanders. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone checked, if he has only one ball, too?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Your comparisons are pathetically weak. Might as well argue that since Obama and Hitler both advocated for universal health care, Obama is a Nazi. I can't tell if you are foolish or trolling. CorruptUser (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The key test is, could he make Amtrak run on time?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm from the northeast where Amtrak is awesome, what with the Albany-NYC line and the Acela express. So, yes he can, I guess. CorruptUser (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser I was kind of joking, but I just wanted to get the comparison out there. Again, the main point is he should not be anywhere near Washington or a public office. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You're somewhat right. He does't have much in common with Hitler but he's more like a modern varient of generic fascism ala Mussolini, or at least as close as a major candidate for president in the US can come to it. The similiraties you named are too general but I would argue that his open endorsement of militaristic dominance of middle eastern countries and the plunging of their resources (he outright said we should just take their oil), his mercantilist trade policy in which countries are competing companies, his focus on white identity politics and nativism, his open content of parts of the constitution that promote egalitarianism/civil rights and his desire to ignore them, his utter lack of care for non-natives, his treating of economic policy as a secondary concern to nationalistic ones, his running on mainly his personality and without much substance, and him legitimizing himself by battling an unseen and exaggerated leftist enemy (often in the form of "Political correctness") also makes it silly to ignore his similaries to other far-right, post-fascist parties. ClothCoat (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Do we have a category for "bright people who think they are geniuses and end up being fools", other than maybe Dunning Kruger? That is, people who are obviously smarter than the average, but whose perceptions of themselves is so overinflated they look like idiots instead? For example, Nassim Taleb, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and so forth? Not sure if we even need it as a category to be honest. CorruptUser (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of vague arbitrary categories for people already. Just file them under extreme wingbattery or unremitting assholes or whatever the latest thing is. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
To name a few possibilities, there's: Category:Insufferable assholes, Category:Smooth-talking bastards, Category:Liberal moonbattery, Category:Libertarian wingnuttery, and Category:Centrist stupidity. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ancient Aliens[edit]

I feel the whole idea of Ancient aliens to to BS. Honestly if aliens every visited Earth the only logical reason is zoology studies because maybe aliens discovered Earth and they wondered how much different our biology is compared to theirs.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The whole concept of ancient aliens is totally Woo, but I can see why they claim aliens are real. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Open your minds sheeple. It's all here Ancient_aliens ;) . --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Humans are incapable of building things. Atleast older humans. It was different with modern humans. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Stop! The sheeple can never know of the truth that us Freemasons are obviously masters at hiding from everyone. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt'

Lets say we are a product of genetic engineering ( I am not saying impossible but VERY unlikely) why would aliens build everything for mankind? Would they not want to see how mankind progresses on its own? I used to be on board with the ancient aliens concept but overtime I realized it was BS--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Because ancient aliens yo. It's worthy to note that most ancient aliens are building all that cool -non white culture shit-, nobody is questioning how Rome or Greece built things but the egyptians? The heads over on whatever easter island is actually called? The mayincatec? Had to be aliens yo.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually a proponent of Renaissance Aliens. Galileo? Da Vinci? Aliens. But back to your point, yeah that does sound pretty fucking racist. CorruptUser (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
In fairness, European cultures didn't build quite as big and majestic structures in ancient times as many other cultures did. Explaining a bunch of columns with a roof on top isn't exactly complicated. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:30, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Large stones on Salisbury Plain. Majestic yes, but not much structural engineering --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and despite the latter (and being located in Europe) it still gets all sort of magical/aliens-y woo tacked on to explain how it got there. I think it's more a matter of not-well-known/not-well-documented history (which regrettably includes a lot of non-Western history) having an aura of 'mysteriousness' so people are more prone to insert aliens of the gaps there. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
But Egypt is rather well documented. It's just that Egyptologists are to Archaeology what String Theorists are to Physics or Evolutionary Psychologists are to Biology. CorruptUser (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There's that, but there's also the fact that what little most people 'know' about Egypt comes from largely false stereotypes and biblical pseudohistory like the tale of Moses. Sadly education of history is often mostly focused on Western history. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:42, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
And most people learn about Rome from a Christian perspective. Really, a Roman Governor in the most rebellious province in the Empire sees a guy running around declaring himself the new king? Yeah, Pontius Pilate would just let him keep on running around. CorruptUser (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I take your point on that, but not sure it is true worldwide. Certainly even my junior school education contained a bit of non-Jesus Roman History and then lots more at high school. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I dunno about "most", but yes, in many countries people's view of history is also distinctly tainted by a Christian perspective, on top of the more general West-centrism. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

On the same subject, I went into a bookshop today and was delighted to see they had Erich von Däniken... on the Science fiction shelf. BicyclewheelModerator 17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


If aliens did build stuff on Earth then why do they not build more stuff?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Because they got bored and left Earth? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Using the ancient aliens piss poor logic, they probably would use it as an excuse.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Who? What? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

If you are wondering what I was talking about, I meant was the idea of using aliens as an excuse for everything. If it is not what you meant then I do not know.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I made an interesting discovery by accident[edit]

I was looking for some information on Chemical Evolution for a response on a Facebook article when I came across a website by accident. It is called "The American Science Affiliation", I am not sure if it is YEC but I is religious. Might make a good article- http://network.asa3.org/?ASAbeliefs --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dunno, the link's dead. 404. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Here is a different link- http://network.asa3.org/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

When I tried to go to one of the website's pages, a popup appeared saying that i need to download some bullshit product. It might not be a good idea to go there, even with adblock and a good antivirus. KOMF 20:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they laced their site with viruses on purpose (I am just joking though). On a side note- when I explored their site I could not find anything linking them to Young Earth Creationism.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Most likely a site for Christian scientists to connect. As far as I know, it is pretty separate and makes no claims about them being a single thing. Overall secular site. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

Has anyone else thought about writing this article? I know it has been suggested a few times. My own knowledge of Jeremy is not bad from the 1980s and 1990s, but anything more recent would just come from reading media articles. Does anybody fancy collaborating on the article? If so, I will stick it up in my sandbox. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It's on the to-do list, but I think people are waiting until he actually becomes leader, even if it looks like a foregone conclusion. BicyclewheelModerator 17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you can safely go ahead now. BicyclewheelModerator 13:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hoofuckinray! I'll drink to that. Kick out the Blairites Jezza! Scream!! (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

San Diego Christian College[edit]

For the article I mentioned they were accredited by the WACS but I checked their site and found no record of them there. If anyone can find information just reply.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I just looked up our article for Malala Yousafzai.[edit]

Seriously guys? Two paragraphs? We can do better than this! Master NecromancerWhat is dead may never die 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and write, good sir. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
She's not a crank or a fascist. In RationalWiki's sphere of influence (developed nations, esp. English-speaking ones) she's fairly well regarded, and doesn't need defending (excepting the occasional MRA calling her a coward because hey, they've got quotas to meet, dammit. Fucked up shit doesn't say itself). So I don't know how much there is to write about.--Tanis (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Eh.. Hello, everyone[edit]

Dunno if this is the best place to put this, but It looks like it fits the bill

I've been lurking for the past few months, however, I'd like to attempt to actually have a part in this Site's goal, so I'll probably stick around and edit the main space a bit more.

Not much to know about me except that my primary reason here is my weak-mind (read: Gullibility) and as a way to improve my writing (It's terrible). I'm hoping my time here could help alleviate both issues. And really, the internet is a minefield of crankery, so why not aid what's been my go-to place whenever I find any not-so-obvious/hard-to-debunk bullshit?

Honestly though, I've been seeing a psychologist due to almost going off the deep-end, and this site's been a great aid in helping me cling to my sanity. I have a habit of being more... receptive to Conspiracy Theories, and if this site didn't exist, I have no idea what I'd be doing right now. Not only do I want to I thank you for that, but I hope I can be a benefit to the mission of this site as a whole.--Pokefrazer (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Pull up a goat and you'll fit right in. =) Welcome, lurker! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Some parts of the wiki have a hateful or anti theist tone.[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Tone argument No Cussing Club.

And some use so many cuss words that they don't sound rational but instead sound hateful. R rated language makes you sound like a gang banger not a rational person. Proper English makes you sound smart. Just my comment about this wiki.— Unsigned, by: 68.148.171.6 / talk / contribs

You have any particular examples? Also, what is wrong with anti theism? Some people will argue that religions actively harm humanity. Super Dude,Where's my car? 08:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
p.s. sign your name by putting in four ~'s. Super Dude,Where's my car? 08:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck is wrong with being anti theist? :-) Scream!! (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Cuss words - I have not heard that for so many years :) . But yeah, like they ^^ said.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Bloody cuss-words are protected by the fucking First Amendment, just as choosing any religion one likes or none at all. If that displeases you, maybe America or the Internet are not the place for you. Also, I wanted to insert the word cunt, but I can't find a motherfucking place in all seven hells that would not disrupt the flow. Cheers Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
You do, of course, have the right to be as obnoxious as you want except... part of our mission is to be a welcoming place for those looking to question their faith. Meeting them with a torrent of bad language is hardly welcoming. What is more, as an example, the reason why the Python's won the Life of Brian debate was because they were polite, reasonable and respectful. That, on its own, persuaded many that they weren't the evil people they had been portrayed as. So, yeah, swear all you want but, as our BoN friend says, it "makes you sound like a gang banger not a rational person".
As for the anti-theist, well, duh! Of course we are. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I find the term "gang-banger" racist and offensive. The IP should apologize for having used it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This phrase is not racist or offensive per se, but is often used as a dog-whistle to accuse all blacks of being prone to organized crime and I have the strong suspicion, that the BoN meant it exactly that way (and proved, that s/he is not worthy of being avenged by Avengerofthe BoN).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Aye. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
And why the fuck would that be a problem?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended someone with the term gang banger. The point of this post is just to say that cuss words make a knowledge base like a wiki look very unprofessional. And also if you don't like religion then you not treating everyone as equal. Last I checked it is very progressive to treat everyone as equal not caring if they are gay Christian Buddhist or part of some conspiracy cult. Yes some religions are indeed insane but others have very good moral codes. Maybe if the wiki was not so hateful some religious people may read it and gain some much needed knowledge about the quacks and cranks that infest there religion and make it look bad. 68.148.171.6 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why in the kurwa mac do you think, that this wiki wants to be "professional" (or your weird-ass definition of "professional") or treating anyone equal?! This ain't the Wikipedia, bro, there's no Dana NPOV, only Zuul SPOV (and judging by the context, your use of gang-bangers sounds too much like certain dog-whistles racists use).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
There are many theists on this site so it can't be that bad. Before you talk about all these other standards you imagine RW should live up to, read the mission statement. I challenge you to raise one valid reason why swearing is unprofessional as this seems to be the increasingly common knee-jerk reaction of "sheltered" people on the internet. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk about trying to forcibly accommodate a balance fallacy here. There's absolutely no inherent logic in intrinsically treating every faith or opinion as equally valid, and just because there's two (or more) sides to an issue, doesn't mean that the answer has to lie somewhere inbetween. One side could simply be right. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> The reason why I don't like profane language in a wiki is because It makes the wikis articles look more like quickly written forum posts made by someone who could care less about the topic and only about how many cuss words he can get in the post. Put simply it looks rude and irrational rather then civil and well thought out. And I don't what you mean by "sheltered" people.68.148.171.6 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no fucking reason to censor profanity. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said censor. I only said make it less common in the articles.And this is not a attack on the wiki just a comment. It's fine to have it here. This is just comments about the wiki. You can say your mind no matter how rude it may be.68.148.171.6 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The concern troll is strong in this one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict). Why should it be less common? You still have failed to provide any reasons, simply repeated the same assertions. Why does swearing make it look less "civil" and thought out? Please, provide examples, reasoning or any kind of base for your claims. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok just give me some time. And I'm sorry if this was seen as trolling that was far from my goal. Oh and can you please make a article about atheists who pretty well worship science Religious types get attacked to much compared to atheists. This has nothing to do with the above topic it was just a idea the came into my head. And I'm still searching the wiki for examples. I really should have done more research before starting this. 68.148.171.6 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(HIMMEL ARSCH UND WOLKENBRUCH edit conflict) I'd say, that the articles about Scientism and Secular religions cover that already, but if you think otherwise... Write an article, this is a wiki, a collaborative project, where even non-registered users a.k.a. BoNs can create articles (but have a look at the links in the template on your talkpage to know, how to write a RW article).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Balance fallacy may apply here. Please provide examples of atheists worshipping science. And for your examples of swearing decreasing the quality of an article, good luck finding them. Arisboch, I checked those pages and it doesn't seem to be what he means, but maybe he meant something like that. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Balance fallacy Never heard of that one. Oops on my part. I can't find sorry... Well now I look like a fool. Can we end this topic now? 68.148.171.6 (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but remember if you still want to contribute you can just write an article yourself or edit anything without a protection that would apply to you (protections are uncommon). Use help under navigation to understand more. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok68.148.171.6 (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"All these young uns' with their gang-bangin' and hip-hoppin!" Bad @ splleing... (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

good moral code[edit]

HI 68.148.171.6 You've been asked several times to cite examples to back up your claims...but then didn't. That is lovely question avoiding. I know this topic was about donkey shit and vagina cheese... but I can't resist asking you to elaborate on something. You claimed that "Yes some religions are indeed insane but others have very good moral codes." That is extremely interesting. Which religion...would you say has this good moral code? Are you speaking broadly about their moral codes or a few chosen rules that sound nice? How do you decide if a moral code is a good moral code? ShabiDOO 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this group?[edit]

What do you guys think of the Capitol Steps?

Here's a sample if you guys need clarification: Capitol Steps Site

P Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

From what I understand, it seems to be a site that is satirical page about the government.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Mod Election Voting Results[edit]

Moved to Forum:mod election 2015 BicyclewheelModerator 17:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch's new template[edit]

This is the kind of thing that needs to be nipped in the bud. If someone wants to be all internet-aggressive, they can use their own words. What says the mob? Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need a custom template for this? Why even welcome racists? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:24, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
This is feeding the trolls on a shiny silver platter. Nuke it. No good can come out of templatizing insults. -Shtrominer (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Damn, I explicitly wrote on the talkpage, where I got the inspiration for this template, that I'm not sure, if this template should be used at all.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it was supposed to ever be actually used. That being said, our current "unwelcome" template is somewhat tame... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, "than". Did Avenger infect your grammar, Arisboch? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Nope, I had a hard time with "then" and "than" even before I started editing RW.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Potato patata, it's all the same... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Than is for comparisons, then is when time is involved. It's not too complicated. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Than/then confusion seems to be a German (sometimes Dutch) thing. SmartFeller (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a user template. IDGAF. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You'd gladly asphyxiate fish? You monster! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Where else would I get my trout?
Rainbow trout transparent.png 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.

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Random Hypothetical Scenario[edit]

Let's say that a fairly large (~30) group of people started relentlessly trolling the site. What would we do? KOMF 19:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ride the escape goat to safety! Baaaaa *vraoooooom* -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
If how we handled that goatse attack is any indication, wage a war to ban them while working on the edit filter. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
What goatse attack? KOMF 21:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
What was it, two, three years ago now? There was this big vandalism spree that involved Goatse which abused a template on the wiki to leave us unable to view RC.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I would say ban the people, and pass it off as a normal trolling and leave it, it isnt abnormal us getting trolled. Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 12:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a article of Gill Broussard and planet 7X?[edit]

http://www.planet7x.com/ http://www.counciloftimefraud.info/the-lie.html The end times pastors love this guy and mike from around the world. Research them both. Oh And make a page about September 23 it's is the new apocalypse day. The end times guys think these two are omniscient if you look at them. 68.148.171.6 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Use RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions for article suggestions. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Randomness[edit]

I recently saw that Secular Talk did two segments about Conservapedia. It turns out that his viewers are trying to change CP, and they have apparently succeed somewhat. (They removed some of the false statements in the article about Secular Talk, but not all). Hopefuly this is the end of the end for Conservapeda. KOMF 09:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how, if Schlafly is still maintaining his iron control of the site. --Castaigne (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Won't happen. Edit an obscure article, fine, but don't say you did or that's the end of it. BicyclewheelModerator 08:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Creation Science[edit]

Recently I was in Vegas for a three-day vacation and on the last day I saw some fundy protesters right outside of Planet Hollywood. I just screamed in their faces how God ain't real. The next time I encounter these people, I want to be prepared with more knowledge. Any advice or articles for it? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Discussing with these punks is just marginally more productive than counting the ants in your garden (stole that line from an awesome webcomic).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I know. But I just relish those rare fights. "What about the kids in Africa!? What about the drug cartels!?" And I called out this African-American protester (I feel uncomfortable saying someone is black) telling him those are the same people who 40 years ago would have called him racist names and segregated him. All he said was, "You need Jesus, kid." Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Seriously, it isn't worth it. I find a better comparison is teaching a pig to fly. You're wasting your time and you're annoying the pig. And they're still a pig. But really, if you want information, do research on particular arguments or points. RW is a good starting block, but there are many other, better places to go from there. Go through the references for articles. As for calling people "black," a lot of black people take offense at being called African-American (my boyfriend's family among them).AyzmoCheers 20:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd keep that in mind. Those Christians are the worst. But that place being Vegas, I can expect to see them on a future visit to warn of God's wrath. Until then, I'll be waiting. With my fake eye to disprove them. Even if it's pointless arguing... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
What do you hope to gain from this? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are you confronting them? Are you doing this just to be an anti-theist asshole? Emulating "The Amazing Atheist" or Thunderf00t is not impressive in the least. --Castaigne (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Encountered them by accident and they were also insulting my people and beliefs, so I just took a massive emotional attack from it. T'was a mistake, but I can't reverse that now. I feel guilty for that now, actually. I don't even know the protesters' group or names. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
How, exactly, were they insulting your people and beliefs? --Castaigne (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"Mexicans are dirty half-brown ****s who should go back to Tacoland." No, I'm not making it up. :/ Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Holy flying fuck, this is omega-nasty!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Along with some more insults that got more personal and would rather not post. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Sometimes I find it best to ignore them, it is like arguing with a brick wall.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The name of the game is Shouting At Lunatics. The goal is to go as long as possible before you succumb to the urge. And we all play it, every day. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I won't make that stupid mistake again. Stooping to their level doesn't make me superior. Thanks. But if I just hear something like that being said about me and my skin color, well, just threaten to record and put it on Tumblr. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Article ideas: TRACS & more fundie schools[edit]

Looking through the page TRACS, I was thinking making articles on schools accredited by them. One that stood out the most (at least in my opinion) was "Boston Baptist College". I explored their website and I think Boston Baptist would make a good article, from what I understand it seems their "science" courses seem less scientific than Bob Jones University or Liberty University. I will post a link to their science page- http://boston.edu/academics/course-descriptions/31-business-busi-sp-565. While on the subject on colleges another idea I have is making articles on Naturopathic Medical colleges. There could be room for a project like that --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

TRACS itself looks like it could use some cleanup and a bit more depth. They list a large number of Christian colleges as accredited; not just Boston Baptist. A general review of all the schools on their list would be quite a research project. They seem to be a high budget organization with a very small office [2]. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I will try digging up information later, though I might get to work on an article on Boston Baptist--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I know Pensacola Christian College has staff with questionable qualifications, almost all of them have degrees from PCC.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I suggest there are two different topics at work here: TRACS and specific examples of fundie schools.
To take up the latter topic first, I think that any fundie school with an even worse science curriculum than BJU/BU/PCC merits a dishonourable mention on RW, so feel free to get cracking on the Boston Baptist College. Especially if it's not simply a trailer park diploma mill á la the Patriot Bible University, but an institution which is at least trying to emulate an actual academic establishment (e.g. by having faculties, a campus, proper lectures, staff with non-diploma mill degrees etc.).
On the subject of TRACS, the approach of just listing the dubious holders of their accreditation will either be superficial (because a list of institutions will not be very informative) or, as Cosmikdebris pointed out, involve an insane amount of work. So, while the latter "Matthewan" approach"Ye shall know them by their fruits" Matthew 7:16 might be both thorough and informative, I doubt whether it's feasible in terms of the time- and workload involved. Instead, and because I do think TRACS merits an investigation, I'd suggest looking into how TRACS actually evaluates those educational (and I use the term very loosely here) establishments which apply for accreditation: Who accredits the accreditors? (to paraphraseWikipedia's W.svg JuvenalWikipedia's W.svg). It would be especially interesting to contrast the accreditation procedure, staff and evaluation criteria used by TRACS with those used by accreditation agencies with more, shall we say, credibility. Of course this shouldn't preclude the TRACS article from linking to those of its accredited institutions, such as BJU and PCC, which already have articles on RW, or from adding new ones to the TRACS article as they get their own RW entries. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: Either the TRACS or the fundie school article might also be amended to include a mention of fundie schools, like Biola University and Houston Baptist University,Neither "university" has an RW entry, but these are their most (in)famous apologists which do seem to have obtained some (more?) legitimate accreditation, despite their "statements of faith" including biblical literalism and other dogma completely incompatible with proper, free, academic enquiry. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, I think we could usefully think of this aspect of the US educational system as operating on a sliding scale:
From legitimate academic institutions at the top, over gradually increasing fundamentalism and blatant disregard of science (from Biola to Bob Jones, so to speak), and ending with bottom feeders of the diploma mill variant, such as Patriot Bible University, whose veneer of "academicity" can be measured in microns. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've started to take a stab at analyzing TRACS, and will compile what I've found into the article over the next few days. What was striking is that the Institute for Creation Research tried for years to create an accreditation organization for fundie schools, then finally after getting TRACS started and approved, TRACS turned around and accredited the ICR "graduate school." To me this puts academic accreditation itself in a poor light. It's as if the Department of Education finally had enough of ICR's shit, and gave in. TRACS, it seems, had a bit of a rough start; I'll try and dig out the sources and build up the article. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I added some stuff on TRACS accreditation protocol, do not worry I did not copy word for word. I used basic information are put it in different wording. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I got a start on Boston Baptist but sadly it is not much, there was not a lot of information to work with.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is a Fundie school or not but what might make an interesting addition would be Great Lakes Christian College. It is the only school I know of where it is required to have a double major. From what I have read, even if someone has a psychology major, they have to double major in bible studies.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My dad has passed away[edit]

I've just found out that my dad has passed away at the age of 70 as a result of heart problems. The worst thing for me is that i hadn't seen him or spoken to him for six years. He was in Britain, I was in Taiwan and I don't have a phone of any description. I suppose the last words I said to him must have been "Goodbye' at the airport in 2009, so I suppose it could have been worse.

My mum and my sister want me to come home but I'd really rather not.

Soon I'll have to go off to work and be very cheerful in front of a class of three Taiwanese 7-year olds who only started learning English last week. It might be a bit of a struggle. Spud (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't know what it is like to lose a beloved one, but I give my greatest condolences to you and hope for your emotional recovery and those of your family. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
My condolances. Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 07:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
And mine. BicyclewheelModerator 08:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Mine, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I very sincerely feel your pain. So sorry--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Dammit Spud. So sorry to hear this. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
i really cant think of anything that has already been said, but i give you my condolances Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 12:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
My condolences. I lost my own dad 4 years ago, and there's not a day goes by when I don't think of him in some way. Nothing I can say will make any difference, but for what it's worth - it does get better, and my only advice is to focus on what you want to do and feel, not what you are supposed to do/feel. Vaya Con Dios. Worm (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
So very sorry to hear of your loss. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry for your loss. It's unfortunate that you weren't able to talk to him.--Owlman (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
My condolences, Spud. I lost my mom in December and I'm still reeling from it. It will take time to heal. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Moment of silence for your late father, Spud. Stay strong, buddy. You can to make a real, tangible difference for those children. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your messages of support. They really mean a lot to me. Thanks especially for sharing your own experiences of loss.

I think it should clarify that I did communicate with my dad through email, Facebook and the good old-fashioned post in the six years since 2009. I just never spoke to him on the phone in that time.

It was two hours after I made the original post here that I cried for the first time. That was when I went to work and had to say aloud, "My father has died", to another human being. Quite a different experience from just typing words to that effect on a keyboard. The first lesson with the three 7-year old girls went quite well. In the next lesson, the kids were misbehaving. I put on my stern teacher face. A girl asked, "Are you OK?" I had to say, "No, I'm not OK. My father died last night." I remained pretty grumpy for the rest of the hour. Before my other classes, I felt I owed it to my students to explain why I wasn't feeling very happy that day. The kids tried to offer me some sympathy but they're only aged 8 to 12 and most of them still have all four grandparents living. They really don't understand what's happened.

I'm not feeling too bad right now. But I feel different and I'm not sure I'll ever feel quite the same again. Spud (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had put a message here already. Sorry for your loss. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

UPcoming video game 01[edit]

Does anyone else think Fallout 4 will be dumbed down from the other games in the series?

Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As a Bethesda game, I expect it will take several rounds of patching before it is actually playable. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 00:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's say both the modders and the developers clean up the mess, then what will the game be like? I've already heard numerous complaints games like Oblivion and Skyrim in the ES series (especially Oblivion) are dumbed down from their predecessors. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not really sure how much there is that could be dumbed down, besides a few obvious UI improvements. That being said I've been trying to avoid news about it, so that I don't enter a "they changed it now it sucks" state of mind. I want to experience it without prior expectations. (You know, besides all the other Bethesda RPGs). Samstr (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that dumbed down is an overused buzzword that doesn't really mean anything. Vulpius (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
^ this. Samstr (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I myself avoid these news, but whenever someone praises something in this upcoming game (key word here) it usually refers to some new killing mechanic or something. The crafting system itself already looks dumbed down: the only bench we see in the trailer and the only one it was mentioned in e3 was a weapons bench, which in reality is backwards. Now the whole game looks geared towards killing like your little kiddie Call of Duty Black Ops game. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"Dumbing down" usually makes these games better. I play them as exploring games rather than goal-oriented games. Combat is mostly a nuisance. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I started playing TES with Morrowind. I played Daggerfall just to see what all the fuss was about, and maybe 5 minutes of Arena just to say I did before giving up. Yeah, Daggerfall was impressive for its time, and the randomly generated dungeons were nice, but meh, Morrowind was better in spite of being compact. Oblivion was an improvement over Morrowind on a number of things but a disappontment in others, and Skyrim was mostly an improvement over both. "Dumbed down" just means "they took out the overcomplicated nonsense no one really wanted anyway". Did we really need "left pauldron" and a dozen other armor slots along with each item of clothing as opposed to Skyrim's 4 piece armor? Did we really need "short blade" skill and "long blade" and "axe", etc, over just "one hand" and "two hand"? Did we really need 0 mana regen until halfway through the game and you found some unique items? 24.94.59.147 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Graphics were okay for their time, but overall Oblivion was the most dumbed down, especially with the Acrobatics skill, which was a joke. That game really just felt like it was holding your hand to the missions. There were improvements to the interface but the gameplay was atrocious. I didn't feel alone in this:
(Note: he addresses the target audience of the game as "casuals", which is an oversimplification, so keep that in mind) Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, anyone that non-ironically uses the term "casuals" in gaming deserves a good punch in the face. Anyway, Oblivion's main flaw was the lack of depth to Cyrodil. Morrowind was its own unique world, filthy outlander, Skyrim was basically Norway (even Gloomreach, yeah, it's real), but Oblivion was just "generic medieval setting". The leveling system was awful as well, but Morrowind's system was just as flawed. Skyrim fixed the leveling, somewhat, though as far as I could tell the future of Skyrim looked bleak given its progressively more dangerous bear infestation. CorruptUser (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
A punch in the face? Why? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For being what we call "hardcore gamers." Anyway, Corruptuser's description of Skyrim as Danish/Norway was spot on: I personally don't see how people say Oblivion is better than Skyrim (maybe for "console gamers", but then that's probably me demanding too much for games). Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It's just MOON: Remix with guns. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 03:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Basically. Funny how I know this. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I'm making a joke. Fallout is nothing like MOON: Remix. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I know. I'm just saying I happen to know that game. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

National Sigh Day.[edit]

This year's version: US children born on 9/11 are now legally eligible to hold part-time jobs in many fields; people still blowing each other up over "BUT MUH 9/11". [braces for drone strike] ArcticVixen (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

MURICA!!!! YEAHHHH!!!!! Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 13:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm about an hour and a half outside New York City, in Connecticut, and it's satisfying to see the Freedom Tower standing as our giant middle finger to al-Qaeda (I guess the equivalent in the Arab world would be a giant thumbs up, but hey). However much one may like or dislike the US, the fact is that it's still standing and bin Laden is decomposing under the ocean; irrespective of any other world issues, at least that one got the bullet he had coming to him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Tumblr's thoughts[edit]

We're too disrespectful of religion and too fawning over Dawkins, apparently. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

In other news: People are still people and misconceptions still abound. Also, when I read that title I was worried Tumblr had become sentient for a sec there. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:37, 11 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I was worried a Tumblr user had become sentient. 94.8.157.220 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Addict admits to lying about finding God at sentencing.[edit]

Story in my local newspaper about a man who admitted who lied about finding God to receive a lighter sentence over possession for the purpose of trafficking.--Cms13ca 13:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Damn! This proves atheists have no morals! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone's mad[edit]

Not sure who. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty standard conspiracy-mongering site. --Tweenk (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to that I learned we actually have a WP page now. PsyGremlinParla! 12:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikispooks is either the brainchild of, or has collaborative links with, a long time RW friend. I won't mention any names but the article linked from the Wikispooks article is one of his. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I like that the article's sole thing against us is "someone wrote an essay and it was deleted BOO CENSORSHIP!" - while not saying the actual essay is still here. BicyclewheelModerator 07:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Best of all is that we allow anonymous edits, while I didn't see any edit buttons on wikispooks to allow a BoN to actually add that (as Bicycle Wheel hilariously points out) the essay in question is still avaliable on RW! Talk about crankery. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Even talk pages are locked, which speaks volumes for their openness and willingness to debate the issues they raise. BicyclewheelModerator 21:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto[edit]

It's been requested that the video game Grand Theft Auto be a page by itself. I'm wondering how would that work out? I'm hoping that if it does turn into a page it doesn't become less than a summary of the plot and controversies surrounding the game.

Also, if we were to cover Grand Theft Auto, wouldn't we have to cover other video games like Mortal Combat and Shadow of Mordor to maintain consistency with our mission statement? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So the criteria is, if enough people get their panties in a bunch about a game, it get's an article at RW?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much (well, typically if the right winged pundits trash about something). Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It be nice, if only the right-wing nuts'd be getting their panties in a bunch about games...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
An article could be valuable. However, it should focus on attacks and controversy around the game, rather than the game itself. Samstr (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In what ways could it be valuable? Video game talks a little about the game. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it, but it seems a little arbitrary. Is the sexism in Grand Theft Auto especially more relevant to us than, say, the sexism in Game of Thrones? (Something I've rarely if ever seen mentioned on RW, despite the attention it's got from media & the blogosphere). Are all sex-&-violence controversies around popular media individually worth covering, or is it just that RW has become fixated with video games above all other mediums? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now for an article idea about video games, I have one- Bible games, yes they exist and are made by a Christian gaming company known as Wisdom Tree. They are famous for making unlicensed Nintendo Entertainment System games.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The first Bible games we should cover are the NES games. AVGN has touched upon them...
Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10[edit]

I used to be a pretty early adopter of new OSes until I got in on the Windows Vista beta, and I don't need to explain why that turned me off. Only went to W7 x64 out of necessity brought on by 32-bit RAM limitations.

I decided to just whack W10 (x86 due to performance) on my laptop since it's a very light-duty system on a 32GB SSD that I can reimage in a minute if I don't like it, plus it didn't cost me anything anyway.

Admitting that I actually really like it and am putting it on my desktop feels disgusting. ArcticVixen (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm of two minds. It's mostly improved all of the systems I've installed it on. A lot of this is the reinstalling Windows effect: any new instance of a Microsoft OS will run better for a while, until the serious patching starts. I wish for the love of Mother Vinegar that they'd re-enable A,B,C rather than A-H, I-P; that is really annoying, especially when you have a folder with both subfolders and files. So far I haven't lost any software to it. I lost the version of Word I'd used for almost twenty years, Word for Windows 95, to Windows 7. I also lost my MIDI composing software. I use a great deal of older software, and every frogmarched update means a risk you'll lose some of it. -Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
You can always get Open Office or LibreOffice as free replacements. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I got it, and my verdict: it's kay'Legionwhat do you want from me 04:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I would wait five months before getting it; might be full of bugs still. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm using it without problems.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been fairly happy with it - loads nice and fine, works fine. This is a fairly clean release, bullshit like forced updates and the myriad of opt-out settings aside.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Can't say I've ever run into a situation with software being too old that couldn't be fixed with DOSBox, a VM, or just using one of my old relic machines. Clearly not solutions for everyone though. ArcticVixen (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Windows 10 OS fried my motherboard since the architecture of the OS is actually sufficiently different from 8.1 to cause incompatibilities. Newer motherboards nowadays are prepared for this change in. This is out of personal experience, so my apologies. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
W10 isn't that bad. The only problem is that sometimes Cortana just pops up. Mostly an ok OS. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I'm not saying Windows 10 is horrible, just that since there were some architectural incompatibilities with my motherboard the motherboard itself just fried, since the OS is still relatively new with undiscovered bugs and such. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
That's one of those things I'm more inclined to believe is a coincidence or something without knowing more. You're literally the only complaint I've heard about that sort of thing. It's... pretty hard to screw up something that bad. 72.160.117.58 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it can happen; it's not 100% sure-fire that the new OS won't screw up the system. The rest of the computer parts were fine, so it suggests (but does not prove, admittedly) that the OS was to blame because the motherboard redirects all those instructions from the software. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"The rest of the computer parts were fine, so it suggests..." - No, it absolutely does not. Motherboard failure is not exactly a rarity, and they commonly (I can't say "usually" without hard data) fail without damaging anything else in the system. What model of mobo and CPU? You wouldn't be the only person with that "architecture" unless you were diffusing your own silicon. so this sounds like a serious fault with Windows 10 if that's what caused it. What kind of failure mode did the motherboard suffer? What was the timing in regards to the OS installation? The fact that you share an system architecture with thousands upon thousands of people, and you're basically the first person to assign the blame to Windows 10 for a dead mobo doesn't speak well to that hypothesis. Countless motherboards blow every day without affecting any other parts for an incredible amount of reasons. It's not an uncommon occurrence, so it's a pretty big step to assume that a new OS blew it up. 72.160.117.58 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather enjoying Windows 10 so far. My only real complaint is that they changed the default games. I have a habit of playing FreeCell when I'm on the phone, but I can't seem to get the new cards app to open at all; very frustrating. AyzmoCheers 15:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I am saying that the situation suggests that the OS blew the motherboard up, there's no proof on either side. All I can do right now is wait a couple more months until Microsoft patches those potentially dangerous bugs up in accordance with the precautionary principle. My motherboard was an ASROCK HD+ and I was using an AMD Black Edition Dual Core Richland (with integrated graphics). The motherboard packaging said specifically it was made for Windows 8.1 (it booted up nearly instantly when using that OS instead of something like Lubuntu or Linux Mint, so probably the new OS had something to do with it), so that's where the problem could have been (the motherboard burning happend hours after the installation of the new OS). Most new motherboards nowadays have a Windows 10 compatibility seal showing those can handle this transition. As for me being the only one complaining about hardware failures, I doubt it.
Note that none of my experiences imply Windows 10 is a horrible piece of software, just that it probably won't work all the time. Hopefully with my new compatible motherboard and an incoming 750W power supply coming in, I can play Fallout 4 flawlessly. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples[edit]

We need an article on the indigenous people of the world, describing particularly the Africans, Asians, and the abuses they've encountered through capitalism and imperialism. We already have one on Native Americans but that's not really enough to give them their dignity back. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how lumping all the RotW in one big article is going to do anything about the marginalization of the RotW.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Native Americans should stay as its own article. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
If your aim is to "give them their dignity back", an article on RationalWiki isn't the way to go about it. & If you're grouping all indigenous peoples together so that you can describe the abuses they've encountered through capitalism and imperialism, then it sounds like it would really be an article about white colonialism more than it would really be 'about' those peoples. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The non-white people of this fine planet have nothing in common apart from the fact that they don't fit the arbitrary defintion of "white" invented by (you guessed it) white people... Hence an article about all of them would perpetuate the very racist oppression you want to dispel. Plus, Indigenous people(s) (rivers of ink have been spilled about this tiny s) do have their own agency. Just look at Tecumseh or the leaders of the Zulu who gave a good fight to the British (and looked like winning for quite some time) lumping them all together into one article does both sides a huge disservice and perpetuates outdated stereotypes... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It would also seem to me that the notion of 'indigenous people(s)' poses problems of definition just about anywhere in the Old World, with the possible exception of Australia or South Africa. People over yonder have been mixing it up since the human race began. Linguistically and genetically a Brit and a Hindustani are kissin' cousins. It's really only in the past 400 years that any one group of Old Worlders acquired the sort of military and technological ascendancy over others to make 'imperialism' and 'colonialism' meaningful labels. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
So what do you do in the case of Vietnam, where a thousand years ago the Vietnamese committed genocide against the Degar and forced them to live in the harsher mountainous terrain? Or the Turks who, at the same time, invaded Anatolia? Or the Saxons in the British Isles, along with the Normans? Or the Native American tribes that were constantly at war with one another? Or the Ainu in Japan? "Indigenous" seems to mean only "we were the last group to hold this territory before Europeans showed up". 24.94.59.147 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That's part of the point. To me, at least, "imperialism" and "colonialism" and "indigenous peoples" convey strong images of people with guns fighting people with spears. There were plenty of displaced peoples and fallen empires without that, and it's just the way of the human race. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, not being logged in was pissing me off. Anyway, it's interesting to note that it seems that only the "evil imperialists" developed a moral system that views equal rights for all as something desirable. Or perhaps a civilization did so in the past, but their neighbors disagreed. But anyway, in most of the world, the very idea that someone other than your tribe should have any inherent rights at all, let alone equal rights, was unheard of. Even the Quran was downright progressive in its day, what with the "full rights for us, partial rights for subjugated peoples of the book, death to pagans" portions. CorruptUser (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
He conquers who endures.
—Persius
--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Uh, you know that they let conquered peoples keep their religion, which was pretty much unheard of then. And Muhammad grew up in the Bedouin tribe, where women were held up to a very high status compared to the Byzantine and Abbasid Empires. Only when the blending of Byzantine Christian culture with Muslim traditions did women's rights take a nosedive. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Separate welcome template for WP users?[edit]

As WP is the big one out there and we are quite emphatically not WP, maybe it would be wise to have a welcome template for people who are or appear to be familiar with said website and how we differ from it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ideally the fact we aren't WP and the links inside the template should tell them how we differ without needing a new template doing so.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a Wikipedia editor (with a different username there) and just registered today, and I think it would be helpful if the welcome template gave a bit more about copyright policy here. Master of Time 21:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Information on our Copyright policy is (or should be) atleast one of the links provided for you in the template. in answer however, we follow Fair Use copyright law and in general if it wouldn't survive on WP, it has little better odds here. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
All original content at RW is released under a Creative Commons licence unless explicitly stated otherwise, if that's what you're asking. See RationalWiki:Copyrights for details.
As for the prosed template, I don't see the point. Everybody with an internet connection is probably a Wikipedia user and everybody who knows the basics of wiki editing probably is or has been a Wikipedia editor. Giving people special treatment because they happen to mention Wikipedia in their first edit at RW doesn't seem like something we should want to do. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
What the mustelid said. Scream!! (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. At another Wiki where I used to edit a lot, there was actually a a help page specifically for Wikipedians.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Rationalwiki rules on sock puppetry?[edit]

Can someone clarify this? Are you allowed more than one account? Or are there certain circumstances which will allow? I'm asking this because there doesn't appear to be much security regarding this.Krom (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you concerned about a specific risk or just asking questions? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I currently have at least four accounts on RW - there's no ruling against it. In passing, I have only used one at a time. Scream!! (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
People change usernames as the whim takes them, that's fine. There is, however, an expectation that you not be a dick with it (fake consensus). We don't have checkuser and probably won't any time soon - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't my only one, but it's the only one I ever use. ArcticVixen (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually <insert name here>. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I think at one stage we had both a user and his sockpuppet elected as moderators. DamoHi 09:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I am actually Krom and The road to something something... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm you. Fonzie (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Guess who I am. Spartacus (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I, too, am Spartacus. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ is out of his mind 03:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm David Gerard. Blacke (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sysops alert[edit]

There are now 666 sysops in RW. What now? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

My cake was chocolate. I don't know what the frosting was, but I've tasted it before. The frosting tasted like cinnamon or something? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 00:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Carrot cake here. (But I thought this whole wiki would change significantly) Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
My cake was meatballs Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Bork bork. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Black Forest cake. 24.94.59.147 (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
No cake. I'm on a damned diet still. Zero (talk - contributions) 11:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

THE CAKE IS A LIE Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

*munch**burp* Now it is :D --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You just ate Obama's cake! Thanks, Arisboch! To za Gulags with you! Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Did you drink Kool-Aid with it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Я только пью водку с пирогом, товарищ [I only drink vodka with cake, comrade!!]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Drushba! Or how you spell that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The transliteration of Russian (this is not mistake, since Russian Cyrillic is different from, say, Ukrainian or Mongolian Cyrillic) into Latin characters is a tricky thing since the first computers made it into Russia (even though there ARE standards for thatWikipedia's W.svg, the net didn't care and used improvised transliterationsWikipedia's W.svg).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocking rights[edit]

As a holder of blocking rights on conservapedia I demand that you give me blocking rights here so I can get rid of those who keep reverting my productive edits. VargasMilan (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. You think, you get any kind of "blocking-rights" by just demanding it? What kinda drugs are you on???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice try, but no. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Asking for blocking rights has set back your ability to get them by atleast 3 months.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Especially calling the sysop-tools "blocking rights" and the previous edit wars hint to a intent to abuse the sysop-tools when given.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Why doesn't Conservapedia extend the olive branch by first granting all sysops on RatWik blocking rights on Conservapedia? CorruptUser (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Guys, the NFL season has started![edit]

For all the fans of the best type of Football: Whom do you support? Who will win the Super Bowl? How will Peyton Manning disappoint this year? Is the classic playoff fizzle-out ever going to get old? Do Brady's balls still have air? How will Cleveland get up the hopes of their fans only to crush them in despair once more? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As a PAtriotic member of my states American football cult, I support my team because it means for several hours on saturdays nobody visits my workplace. I'd rather America play rugby, that looks like a real sportsmans game.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Football invoves using the foot to manipulate the ball. In the US version of the game no one knows how to do this so that, when a kick is required they have to bring on a special player. Hence, whatever the name, it is clearly not football. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, DMR Although I have to sympathise with your view, you would also delegitimise Rugby football league and union and that's heresy!
Although the accepted etymology of the word football, or "foot ball", originated in reference to the action of a foot kicking a ball, this may be a false etymology. An alternative explanation has it that the word originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.[5] These sports were usually played by peasants, as opposed to the horse-riding sports more often enjoyed by aristocrats. In some cases, the word has been applied to games which involved carrying a ball and specifically banned kicking. For example, the English writer William Hone, writing in 1825 or 1826, quotes the social commentator Sir Frederick Morton Eden, regarding a game — which Hone refers to as "Foot-Ball" — played in the parish of Scone, Perthshire:
The game was this: he who at any time got the ball into his hands, run [sic] with it till overtaken by one of the opposite part; and then, if he could shake himself loose from those on the opposite side who seized him, he run on; if not, he threw the ball from him, unless it was wrested from him by the other party, but no person was allowed to kick it. Football (word)Wikipedia's W.svg
Scream!! (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It's so good nobody outside America bothers. Now Scream!!, Rugby League does a fairly good job of delegitimising itself with no need for external forces :). Proper Rugby on the other hand is indeed the finest spectacle imaginable and the World Cup is about to start! --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
A user with the name Wigan embedded in their name disparages Rugby League - Eddie Waring will be turning in his grave! Having said that, the modern RL game is, indeed, losing its roots and trying to mimic the NFL - all those stupid team names! By the way, to answer the original question, I follow the Jets - well, I would if they would stop beating each other up. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh my, Eddie Waring :) . I used to quite like Rugby League but it has totally lost its soul.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
My reaction to any kind of sports enthusiasm: Meh. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I only need las Aguilas. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiibaaaaaaaa, Aguilas! Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Football is the worst spectator sport. Baseball games get called on account of rain. The only weather that stops a football game is a lightning storm, and you can blame lawyers for that. Football games have been played in blizzard conditions that make the skills of the players irrelevant and turn the game itself into low comedy. And you're expected to sit in the drizzle and cheer. Football is also unwatchable on television with the sound on. All of the networks mix in a constant background of crowd noise, which turns the audio into a blanket of rising and falling white noise that grinds my teeth and gives me a headache. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't live in America and I care for American Football. In fact I am de facto season ticket owner of my local team (haven't missed a home game this season and the season is almost to playoffs). And I like the fact that American Football is played come hell or high weather. Some of my fondest memories regarding Football are legendary games in nasty rainfall. It may have partly negated the skill part of the game. But boy was that a fight! If you got to swim through mud to get to the opponent to tackle him! If the passing game becomes pure chance! Only few people that care for Football can ever say they don't enjoy that. And boy was it worth standing in the rain for three hours! (plus, our guys won and it was a rivalry game, so that was kind of a big deal). Of course I also love a pass hanging in the air for what seems like ages only to be caught for the touchdown. Anyway, when it comes to the NFL, I would like Eli to get his third ring. There. I said it. I say he can do it and I'll be damned if I doubt that he will do it. Are the Giants the best team? No. Is that necessary for winning the Super Bowl? No. In short: Go Giants! And Fuck the Cowgirls ;-) (losing against them sucks) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Shit, Avenger, that was just straight up poetic! Makes me want to go to a football game right now... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Thanks for the compliment ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Call for regulars who aren't sysopped[edit]

Anyone who's editing regularly, isn't insane and needs the mop? Add your name here and the agents of stifling institutional hegemony will bless you with suck as appropriate! - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't need a mop, but I bet I would look good waving it all around... or not. Slurm und Drang (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I edit regularly enough to be considered. AyzmoCheers 21:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I am much too insane. Purple monkey dishwasher. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, nope. I only edit on a few pages, and am too insane for this, too. And, Emerald, it's yellow ape tapwater. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
But...Simpson reference :-D I just don't see what's pleasurable about clean up after cranks dribbling about and some public wine fests (no cheese served) about editors that don't get their way. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Do I count? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, yes you do despite all your recent juvenile edit-warring. More appropriate would have been knocking you back to non-patrolled.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

How about here? I'm new to this wiki but not to the software (I'm a user at Wikipedia with a different user name), but would like to try out being a sysop. Metamorphosis (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to admire your cheek but I think that three minutes is hardly enough on-wiki time served. Sorry. Scream!! (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Depends on if my mantra of "edit rarely, lurk hourly" is a qualification. ArcticVixen (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A book and a radio series that may be of interest to some of you.[edit]

  • The CBC ran an fascinating series called "The Myth of the Secular," on the place of religion and secularity in the contemporary world. HERE is a link to a blog post that in turn links to all seven episodes.
  • In Earth's Deep History, The historian of science Martin Rudwick complicates the simple dichotomy of "science v. religion" to show how the development of our knowledge of the age and natural history of the planet, starting with James Ussher, unfolded in an intellectual context strongly shaped by Christianity/the Bible. Really cool stuff. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    Christianity has had nearly two thousand years to make life on this planet better. Most of that time some form of Christianity was in absolute or near absolute control of vast swaths of territory. Evidence based medicine has only had about three centuries (being generous) and look what it has done? Infant mortality is now lower in the worst countries thaen it was in the best mere few hundred years ago. Live expectancy in Sierra Leone is now higher thaen it was in the Roman Empire under Augustus. Smallpox have been eradicated. Other diseases that used to be a scourge of humanity are now distant memories - distant enough to let anti-science people think a vaccine is not worth it. And that is only medicine. That is not even getting into trains that are faster thaen any flying carpet or seven headed dragon could ever become. Or robots that are better and more precise thaen any Golem. I like science. And I think religion harms science. Even though for quite some time in Europe monks were the only literate people (apart from many Jews, who were and are a surprisingly literate people) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    Fascinating, but completely overlooks and fails to engage with the specific arguments raised by Rudwick. How bout you read the book, and then contribute to the thread on it? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    Religion is only harmful to science when religion goes out of it's way to mess with science. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    This sounds very interesting to me, actually. Though regrettably I don't have much time at the moment to check it out. If you want, could you summarize a few of the most noteworthy parts? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Retreated[edit]

Did you know that this site is prophesied by the Bible?[edit]

I didn't know that, but Bill Muehlenberg explains it all. This very website is fulfilment of God's promise that people will hate him! Who would have thunk! Blacke (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait the bible prophesied the Internet and did not mention porn? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Or cats? BicyclewheelModerator 10:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Or catporn? Blacke (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes on talk pages[edit]

Paravant seems to be engaged in their own Jihad crusade to needlessly delete all footnotes on talk pages. Can we please get some semblance of mob agreement on how to deal with that? I thought any talk page owner had some modicum of last reserved right to decide themselves how they want their talk page to look like (e.g. archiving or other things such as hiding certain BS). What do y'all think? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

They are annoying. You press the "Add Section" button and the section goes post the Footnotes, then has to be moved above them. I don't think they should be banned completely, but they should be discouraged. Certainly, only used when they really add value to the discussion, as opposed to just being a gimmick. Blacke (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Paravant has the right of it. Don't recall any talk page footnotes before about 6 months ago. Scream!! (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
appeal to tradition Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Says the person who defends Israel on, presumably(?), the grounds of it being traditionally their homeland. (Didn't mean to get involved in this but that's just too much!)Scream!! (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
It is my sad duty to inform you that I am not a Jew, nor to my best knowledge do I have any significant Jewish heritage beyond "statistical noise" in my DNA Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Who suggested that you are Jewish? Not me! Do you intentionally rub folk the wrong way when they are doing their best to be neutral? Scream!! (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about you being a Jew.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I understood the "their" that way. Sorry. And no, the historical connection of Jews to the land between Jordan and Red Sea is not the main reason why I support Israel. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Footnotes on talk pages should be discouraged from use due to the footnote section having to constantly be moved, and footnotes on talkpages for minor asides should be set back into proper place: IE, not a footnote. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict; twice even)And what if they are already there? Paravant has made note of themself insofar as they constantly edit in other people's contributions to talk pages to remove ref tags. Which in my not so humble opinion is simply beyond the pale. After all, when I dared to hide a particularly incoherent rant by Mona I was firmly reprimanded, to say the least Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I say someone contributions to a talk page are either untouchable, including their layout (be it italics, bolding or footnotes) or we can do with them as we please. Paravant's stance is not understandable if they on the one hand disallow me from hiding a comment by Mona on my own talk page (even going so far as to lock me out from my own talk page), yet removing footnotes without any rhyme or reason simply because. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not removing the comments in ref, besides one because I was lazy, i'm putting them into ()'s like they should be. This is not the same situation as you being a massive prick and breaking decorum because you dislike a user. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't horribly mind footnotes on talkpages, but they should be used sparingly. And the whole keep-the-footnotes-section-at-the-bottom thing in big capital letters is serious baloney. Unlike articles, sections on a talkpage (and all the more so when they're user talkpages) are typically separate only-tangentially-related threads, so putting the footnotes of all threads together at the bottom in a separate top header doesn't even make sense. And as has already been pointed out, it also doesn't mesh with the add-a-new-section function. Just put the <references /> thing at the bottom of the relevant section, optionally in its own subsection of that section. You can even customize based on the topic, like I did here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Footnotes belong in content pages, not conversations. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. A simple HTML link suffices. Footnotes make the damn talk page sloppy as hell. --Castaigne (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, fairly obvious really. If a link on talk page is absolutely required, then just use an HTML link. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Articles benefit from being pretty; talk pages can't even be made so. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
~~♥~♥~♥~♚~♛~♚~♥~♥~♥~~
♪ BUT THIS IS SO PRETTY ♪
~~♥~♥~♥~♚~♛~♚~♥~♥~♥~~
Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has w:Template:Reflist-talk that retains footnotes in a single section. Why aren't we using that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Because footnotes don't belong on a talk page in the first place. They don't make for good dialogue. If you want to link to something offsite, use a direct hyperlink (like I have below) which doesn't require people reading the thread to scroll or click down to another part of the page first. If you want to make an aside, like all this crap, use parentheses or superscript/subscript. If you want to discuss a past revision of an article, link to it in the page history; don't copy-paste the whole thing to the talk page. If you really feel compelled to copy-paste it, use essay or user space. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we please have those talk pages with footnotes on them archived? Then let's have no more of them and no more of those screaming big block capitals. Spud (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Well the reflist-talk thing is a per-section use rather than just for the whole fucking page. The use of links inline seems like it'd make more sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I say give users control over their own talk pages insofar as they can decide how to deal with footnotes on their own talk pages. As for the use of footnotes in general, they are a good way of making an annotation or linking to something without breaking the flow of the text. Annotation in brackets, especially if they are already within brackets look awkward at best. I don't really understand all this vitriol and bile against footnotes on talk pages, especially given that Wikipedia has solved said issue ages ago. But thaen again, we don't have tagging either, so that's that Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't even have #hashtags & like buttons. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It'd be nice if at the end of this all we'd at least get some suggestion if not an outright policy. My suggestion would be: On User talk pages and in userspace the user in question decides. On general talk pages there shall be a subsection for the refs of that section if and when needed and refs are to be used moderately and never to excess Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The current policy of "there is none because until recently nobody ever thought it mattered" is best.Talk pages don't need a reference, use a html link. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC, @Avengerofthe BoN) You keep trying to reshape the wiki to your convenience rather than make even basic attempts to follow how things are done here. & You haven't been using footnotes moderately: you've been using them pointlessly to separate fragments of your comments from the rest of the sentences they belong in, then deliberately did so again after you'd asked about this issue here & been told not to stop it, then edit warred over it repeatedly. This is disruptive behaviour. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
[ec] What we do have says A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. If you feel there has been abuse, take it to the coop and see how far you get.
I hope, Avenger, that you are not in the habit of walking into a crowded room IRL and demanding that everyone start following your own idiosyncratic style preferences. That usually does not foster collaboration, but it is in fact analogous to much of your activity so far on this wiki. MaillardFillmore (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Weaseloid's recent additions to the Community Standards page (i.e. policy against use of footnotes on talk pages) represent a commendable resolution to this debate. Blacke (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Footnotes on talk pages is a silly idea. If you want to link to something from your comment do it within the comment - not as a footnote.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines on Footnotes on talk pages[edit]

It will be worth pointing out that, as this is a vote on a change to our community guidelines (either for keeping the change in or removing it) it is a vote on policy, and thus certain rules apply namely 75 edits and 3 months since account creation. . --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Bit of clarification for new users: As per RW custom, ineligible votes will be struck. This does not mean your opinion is not made note of, just that it doesn't count in the tally of votes. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Voter registration is for board elections only. It should not be cited in ordinary votes. Actual eligibility guidelines are at RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Voting. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, corrected the Eligible users page. Seems Fuzzy got the functions of his template mixed up. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I changed my comment to reflect actual policy vote rules. Atleast how I read them. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow them[edit]

  1. Useful when needed. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Allow them, even for archiving, it's not a big offa deal, since you can just insert a footnotes section at the end of every archive page.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. I am in favor of allowing them and leaving the decision of whether to allow them on any talk page in user space (including a user talk page) up to the discretion of the user whose space it is Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. I agree with the Fuzzy Cat. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disallow them[edit]

  1. For all the reasons already given in the previous discussion. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Footnotes are not needed on talk pages, (obiter dicta can be put in parentheses, you see, and links are easily put in line) they make a mess, and interfere with clean archiving. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    That is horseshit, if you add a <references/> to the end of every archive page (let the archive bot do it).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    Fuck right off with that. You are quite happy to impose a burden on everyone else (and in practical terms, remembering to do it may be the greater burden than doing it.) Also, the archive bot has not been working that well lately. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    Fuck off yourself, you lazy prick. And the archivebot is anyway broken and needs to be repaired, why not an improvement??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    You think you've got the skills and access to fix it? Are you volunteering to clean up after every incompetent attempt at manual archiving? I didn't think so. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    Haha, stupid ad hom throwing idiot.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    I didn't think so. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Don't really care about other users' talk pages but they should be avoided on article talk pages, the Saloon Bar, etc. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    Paravant's removal of 'em from Avenger's talk page resulted in Avenger crying "vandalism" and becoming quite resentful. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    What's that got to do with me? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 04:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    "Don't really care about other users' talk pages" <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    Because I don't. I don't really care if other users do care about other users' talk pages either. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 04:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Come on, they're just effin' stupid on talk pages. The point of talk pages is to communicate immediately (Nicht Wahr?) so having to shoot to the end of a page or section to find out what might be either just a sarcastic comment or something really important is a real pain. Scream!! (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'm generally against them too, but sometimes they can be useful e.g. when listing a bunch of references, bloating your post with all those external links can look nasty and unreadable. Either way, I think making a big deal out of it (be it in support or in opposition) is kinda silly. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:03, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
  5. Whole bunch of nope. — Unsigned, by: Castaigne / talk / contribs
  6. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Not on talk pages... too difficult to follow and really not needed. --TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 15:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  8. There is no upside to using them on talk pages. On article pages, they allow referencing without breaking article flow, or are a means of creating a delay before a punchline (i.e. the Pratchett approach). Neither of those purposes make any sense on a talk page. If it's not important enough to be a link or a parenthetical comment in your main text, it's not important enough to be included at all. Queexchthonic murmurings 09:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow them to be used in moderation[edit]

Goat[edit]

  • Import whatever coding goes into w:Template:Reflist-talk and keep footnotes to a per-section thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a huge issue on user talk pages. Definitely don't want to see it anywhere else though. I'm voting goat because the other two options above are a bit too prescriptive for me, although if it looks like "allow" is going to win I will change to "disallow". Tielec01 (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • More goat than anyone can possibly fathom. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
  • This is not worth dictating - David Gerard (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of my best friends are footnotes.1 Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 08:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow them on article pages, but let people decide on their own talk pages? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am torn. Disallowing stupid talk:page-mutilating footnotes is the sort of bureaucratic overreach up with which we should not put, and yet, putting footnotes on talk pages remains a dumb idea (as in two short planks dim.) So, yes, the goat says "meh" to enshrining Avenger's Codicil in debatable time-wasting text. I would like to think the mob continues in such a healthy state that RW can discourage "show me where it says so in the rule book" sealioning without having to resort to formal boilerplate. My vote to disallow footnotes on talk pages still stands, and thanks for reading this rant. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tielec01 and David Gerard. Let people manage their own talk pages even if it looks ugly. --TiaC (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What is to be done if the goats have it?[edit]

After all, there seems to be no real consensus of anything, right? So is there a established procedure in the case of "goat" or various conflicting third options winning out? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing because the goat options are not a unified voice. Disallow is still winning by any straight margin. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
"Goat" doesn't count as a vote. This is in the Community Standards. I've removed the numbering from the goat section to avoid further confusion on this point. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

1Footnotes are notes that appear at the bottom of a page, but sometimes narwhals slap them down wherever. It is different from a footer.2

2The footer is like footnotes for lazy people, and for some reason the text is often blue, but sometimes it's different and you're struck by déjà vu.3

3A popular rap singer from India.

4"Salad," as used elsewhere, can refer to a variety of different dishes.5 However, in this context, it is used to mean "a jumble of stuff."

5What's a dish? I don't know, I'm just footnotes. I think it's a like a Peruvian, maybe?

Appeal to the minority[edit]

Relatedly, I remember hearing something about how cranks tend to prefer non-mainstream sources over mainstream ones. Something like "second source bias". Anyone have any idea what it's called? FuzzyCatPotato of the Obscene Hyundais (talk/stalk) 23:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I umm, prefer quasi-mainstream sources. I use the BBC for any information about the US, because I was convinced back in 2008 that the US news media had all decided in a back room somewhere that Obama would be the next president (over Hills that is). Except for Fox, which was basically the opposite. Today, it's still that way; if none of the news companies had given Trump the time of day the way they all ignored Huntsman over Romney, he would not be nearly as popular as he is. But the more he stays in the limelight the worse the Republicans look, so of course they will promote him up and down every channel. CorruptUser (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm in something of the same boat. I tend to rely on The Guardian and The Economist websites even for US news, mostly because most American news sites are full of monetization crap that conflicts with my browser defenses and tends to make them load unreliably and badly if at all. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
What do you guys think of Al Jazeera and CNN?I know CNN is an American new channel mostly, but, hey. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
There are a few US-American news sites I rely on, mostly e-versions of print outlets: NYT, WAPO, also NPR. Other than that, CBC. BBC, Radio-Canada, Le Monde, the Economist, Guardian and then sources specific to the Caribbean, West/East/Southern Africa and Quebec. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I trust the 11 o'clock Telemundo news. It's like they're trying to make gore websites a legitimate topic on TV. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I watch the Spanish channels for the weather. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 13:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I used to quite enjoy Telesur and its Venezuelan National Anthem blasting all over the screen.... In seriousness, though MSNBC is one of the more watchable networks. Other thaen that of course HBO (Maher, John Oliver) and Comedy Central (daily show). For serious political news the German ARD (always to be taken cum grano salis but that is true for all TV) and of course ARTE... Unfortunately the good political programs are mostly relegated to the late night Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I find Al Jazeera tends to be pretty decent for news, especially their in-depth/investigation programmes. They are not as good as they were ~10 yes ago (their cover of Libya was more "cheerleader-ey" than Iraq) but they are still decent. ABC (Australia) tends to be pretty good too. I find the BBC on non-British affairs has had its teeth progressively pulled and is now more likely to mirror the govt foreign policy line than pre-Iraq. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 07:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Found it. FuzzyCatPotato of the Expensive Arc welders (talk/stalk) 14:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I've been calling that the Contrarian Fallacy: "I hold a view at odds with the mainstream one, therefore I am an independent thinker." It's a special case of affirming the consequent, I think. <3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 16:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of a crank I was talking to a couple weeks ago. He rejected the validity of the sources I brought to the table (universities, the US State Department). What he DID trust was some Swedish Wordpress blog. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Trouble[edit]

In the house I live in in Brooklyn, another resident was recently starting problems with some people from blasting music in a bar next door. They left, threatening to burn the house down and came back later to take pictures of the house. The cops were called twice, once for the threat and the other time to file a report when they started taking pictures (as if to know what house or to send someone else). I'm a little tipsy as I write this. I don't exactly live in the best of neighborhoods either (to get an idea people have tried to break into the house twice last year), so.... it's not like it's positively some bs threat. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Translation to Portuguese[edit]

I´m a Brazilian English Teaching student. I wish to create a Portuguese version of this wiki. How I could do that?

I´m on the regular wikipedia as Kemal Oliver, already doing some translation there.

11:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)nicoliver

Welcome & thanks for your enthusiasm. I suggest starting by creating Brazilian versions of some of our existing articles. See RationalWiki:Languages for further guidance. There are a couple of Portuguese articles already here. A whole Portuguese version of the wiki is only feasible if it really takes off with other contributors. We did have another Brazilian editor a few months ago but it didn't really work out well as he was writing some quite opinionated stuff which didn't reflect the views of the RW community. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

09:27(BR-time), 20 September 2015 (UTC)Weaseloid

Oh, nice. I'll look for that, so!

User:Nicoliver/sig 09:27, 20 September 2015

If there is not a few regular and trusted editors who are sufficiently fluent in Portuguese (or whatever language....) to actually verify what a noob writes in that language, we should not be letting said noob leave stuff lying around for others to clean up later when it turns out that the wiki has been littered with libel or anti-semitic barbs. This is exactly what happened less than a year ago. Let's try not to make the same mistake again. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't there recently an issue with someone writing up Portuguese pages and they ended up being full of spam or something?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This user so far isn't being much better it seems. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 12:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
To be clear. yes, the previous Brazilian editor, LTR, was a bit of a spammer because most of his articles had links to a Patreons page on them. But that was the least of the problems that the anti-Semitic shit brought here. And now we've got another Brazilian who recreated the page about Olavo de Carvalho, the obscure Brazilian academic that LTR blamed for most of the world's problems. And then he goes and creates a page that says Jesus was white and people who think he had dark skin are dupes of Afro-centrism. Sadly, I can't see this ending well. I just hope he doesn't say Jesus wasn't Jewish. Spud (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Olavo's WP pageWikipedia's W.svg indicates he's probably missional though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The WP article also has a template at the top of the page which reads, "Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable." So until The New York Times or The Guardian runs a story about what a nutjob Olavo de Carvalho is, I don't think we should touch him with a ten foot bargepole. Spud (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

How do I mark an article for deletion? Kyrgyzstan was basically created by some new guy as a nearly blank page, expecting the rest of us to put in the work to actually make an article. Either someone fleshes it out or it should go. CorruptUser (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That's very easy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted it. We don't need a consultation on deleting a nine-word entry. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Kind of surprised it survived this long to begin with. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:10, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

"Snarky Point of View"?[edit]

Hi, I'm a Wikipedia editor with a different user name here. From what I've read I've noticed that this wiki has a bias in favor of the left, thereby disbalancing some information here (this was done as a response to Conservapedia). So this raises the question: what does it mean by "snarky point of view"? Metamorphosis (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Eat Read that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Basically, as well as deconstructing bad logic and authoritarianism with reason and facts, we also use mockery. This also makes articles rather less dry and boring. BicyclewheelModerator 18:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Essentially RationalWiki is satire? Metamorphosis (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No. It incorporates satire as part of a broader view that most subjects we cover deserve a moderate amount of contempt. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Our goal is a "better world", which often conflicts with the Conservatives' goal of "stable world". Whether that's through more or less government intervention is irrelevant, but we tend to go with what the evidence points to rather than gathering evidence to support our own biases. CorruptUser (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I think "bias in favour of reality" rather than "bias in favour of the left". It is possible that the bias in favour of reality was indeed a reaction to CP.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Everyone claims, that reality is biased towards their political and so on point of view.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but see, I'm right. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Stephen Colbert's quote applies in this wiki. I'm myself a leftist with an hate for Conservapedia; it all makes sense now. Metamorphosis (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Everyone claims, that reality is biased towards their political and so on point of view." And sometimes it's true. The rules of evidence used in American courts are a roughly good guide for how to think about controverted issues: consider relevant facts and -- where experts disagree about facts beyond your competence to assess -- evaluate the credibility of the competing experts. Go where reasoning in this way takes you, but not necessarily to the moral conclusions others draw from the same moral conclusions facts. This devotion to logic, empiricism and reason (for matters amenable to that epistemology, which includes the natural world) leads to fact bases disruptive of many status quos, and so is inherently non-conservative.---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So basically the "ideology" here is logic, empiricism, and reason are non-conservative methods of thinking, or am I simplifying things here too much? Metamorphosis (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well for some reason some issues are highly controversial even here. And if you are familiar with the biggest flamewars on the web, it won't take much guessing as to which ones. Also Mona claims to have worked in lawyerism, so that might explain some of the metaphors she uses. Whether other users would see it the same way or use the same metaphor is an open question, though. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's impossible not to simplify things too much. But those are stated favored ideologies. You're pretty on the mark. On the whole it's pretty left leaning, but that doesn't tell the whole story. We have and have had numerous editors who lean right or libertarian or authoritarian communist. You've highlighted the biggest commonalities that we try to share. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Meh, we value empiricism a tad more than logic. Logic is only useful when it's not blatantly contradicting the evidence. CorruptUser (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh let's not start an epistemology debate and discuss the relative value of a priori and a postiori knowledge, and instead calm down and just agree that you're wrong. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What, be reasonable on the internet? Never! CorruptUser (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona raises some lofty goals - "consider relevant facts and -- where experts disagree about facts beyond your competence to assess -- evaluate the credibility of the competing experts. Go where reasoning in this way takes you... devotion to logic, empiricism and reason...". However, I don't think this site has ever taken those goals particularly seriously, because whenever someone asks whether this site actually is taking those goals seriously, they get the mocking response of "Drink!". Blacke (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Quod erat demonstrandum Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
cry moar, gator - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This has no necessary connection to "GamerGate". I would have said the exact same thing back in 2013, when few had heard of "gamergate", and those few who had thought it was a type of ant. Blacke (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You keep confusing this place with Wikipedia. Bad move. --Castaigne (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
SPOV - stupid point of view. Yeah, the wiki started off as a bit of a reactionary joke, but for awhile there it threatened to be something more. There was a period where we had a fair few doctoral candidates and PhDs. I wonder now if we have any editors with scientific qualifications beyond a bachelors degree? Given that we claim to represent the scientific point of view the question is somewhat relevant (not to imply that you need a science degree to understand science, but it helps). Tielec01 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Do people planning to go further than a BA/BS count?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Admirable, but all the good intentions in the world won't help you make sense of a structural equation model, or a difficult factor analysis. Or whatever statistical methods "hard scientists" use (of which I am not one). Tielec01 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I have a MS, but it's not in anything scientific. My BS is in mathematics (sort of), which is kind of scientific, and I'm in a field where your credentials are comparable to a PhD. But in math. CorruptUser (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
What kind of math? Tielec01 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Presumably applied mathematics. Metamorphosis (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
What did this have to do with Gamergate again? Metamorphosis (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Complaining about the rationality of RationalWiki is an old and boring argument. People need to discuss actual issues and not dismiss their opponents as irrational. If they stick to the topic at hand, they're not going to fall victim to the drinking game joke. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there is one "expert" on the very important field of Glenn Greenwaldology and "civil libetarianism" (which is a word my Spellcheck does not know). Apparently she also holds some sort of law degree. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

People who complain about RationalWiki's point of view or style general fall into two groups. The first are people who don't get it, and think this is supposed to be a knowledge collection project like Wikipedia rather than information on various cranks written to expose their bullshit. It's not an academic resource, in that I'd never cite it in a formal publication if possible, but it's not trying to be. People sometimes don't understand that, just because it has wiki in the name it isn't trying to be like Wikipedia. The other group are the cranks themselves trying to hide their defense of their own crankery under bluster about the rules. Gamergators are a fine example, as with everywhere else they try to game the rules here to get places to push their bullshit narratives, and either through ignorance or willful ignorance try to appeal to a Wikipedia-like neutral point of view thing. It's easier to shield their bullshit when criticism can be called non-neutral PoV, after all. --Mr. Democritus (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

you forget the third group, those who believe that snark is the lowest, laziest, most disingenuous form of humour perpetrated by folks in the mistaken belief they are funny. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I enjoy snark, and I don't expect this to be a knowledge collection project. And I'm definitely no crank. I fall into none of these categories. I came here looking for a reasonable perspective on the FEMA camp B.S. And that was a relief, to find your debunking and have solid information to utilize in order to find and share the truth- because I felt what I'd just heard on youtube, a conspiracy theory, was crank. However, I do find your general insistence that all alternative medicine is crank (which, homeopathy, I agree, is crank, but not everything is!), to be the point where you lost me. Which is unfortunate. There's so much info on this page that people should pay attention to, for the sake of reason. But then you slip your opinions in there without proof either way, and you will not be able to reach open-minded people, because they read something like that and see you as closed-minded. Like myself. The power of intention and the mind is undeniable. Prayer works for cancer patients- and you don't have to prove or disprove a particular god in order to see the power of mind over matter, for example. For another, while your GMO page properly debunks the idea that such modification are inherently bad, I found it immensely lacking in the acknowledgement that profit motives cause misuse of this technology, and that confirmation bias is very much a reason to distrust it, rather than an acceptable practice!

BoyWiki: Paedos ahoy[edit]

...please do excuse me if this isn't the right place for bringing this to you lovely folks' attention.

BoyWiki is a rather proudly paedo wiki not covered here on RW -- they do have a page on RationalWiki, however.

What happens next? --Lola Lazerface (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, great find. Poe's law alert the moment I read their own page description. We need a snarky page on them, stat! And for the opening quote... "Get sexy, kids!" - Pierre. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even gonna look at it, cuz if there is illegal content I don't want a man in black showing up at my door tomorrow. Highly recommend following suit.---Mona- (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
With -Mona- 100% Scream!! (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Ditto. Nothing good can come of this. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not comfortable with that link sitting there on our site.---Mona- (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Links redacted. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Good catch. I got the link to their main page but forgot to unembed the one to the RW entry there. Duh.---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Since this could be a link to illegal content, should we delete the revisions containing the link, just to be on the safe side (actually, if the others OK this, you could do it, Mona)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The site's contents doesn't APPEAR "worse" than NAMBLAs (which is pretty damn bad). Still, we need a page on these appalling muppets. I'm getting serious Louis Theroux vibes.
AFAIK we don't link to Nambla's website or to other pedophile advocacy sites. If there are any such links on RW they should be removed. We have an article on NAMBLA as they're a fairly high profile organisation which gets a lot of media coverage. We've got nothing to gain by writing articles on specific obscure pedophile websites, & a lot to lose. Leave it the fuck alone. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I may be competent to determine whether there is anything legally risky at that site, but I'm not going to visit it to find out. Frankly, I don't see any compelling reason to have an article on that site. Arisboch, as fr as I'm concerned go ahead and delete revision links.---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Weaseloid I'm not calling for us to link to any such disgusting drivel. But I'm going to push the point that as rational sceptics documenting the full range of crank ideas etc, we can't skip the predatory evil of paedophilia. That's like skipping the holocaust on a history wiki because it's "just too dark" or some such nonsense (the legal points aside, which are valid, and which I do not contest). That's some old bullshit. We need people to be able to Google that whackjob page and reach RW with a refutation of flying colors, instead of reaching that soon-to-be-vanned site. Let there be rational light! I'm not going to take any wild steps here, nor have I. I haven't linked to anything but Pierre, nor will I. But I'd most certainly like to argue that we can't do enough to call out paedophiliac apologism. I'm adamant on that point, my dear Weasel, though I do prioritize any and all legal points we collectively make to safeguard RW. Let's just say I'm morally outraged as fuck over that site. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
An exxample of a topic being missional doesn't mean we have to cover it though. We may lack of a actual notability guideline, but at the same time we willingly don't cover every single instance of crazy woomeisters on the internet because they aren't worth the time of covering.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure we do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
An essay by you and other other user is hardly grounds for deciding we need to cover every random website that pertains to the mission regardless of notability. Time for me to find some 0 subscriber one video 1 view youtube channels. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Though me and FCP don't argue for that in the essay at all, if you'd actually read it, the work in progress that it is no less. Anyways, I can fully sympathize with all legal points here, but - maybe I was dropped in the sink as a baby, but I fail to understand why the community doesn't rally to quadruple the size of the paedophilia article or something in response to this. Y'all covering your asses as far as I can tell right now - and I'm not saying I'm in the right, for the record. Now, certainly, no links and all that - we do have a legal reality. But I'm just saying. You people need to get pissed at that site, and channel some creativity. Though I don't mean to place any malice in anyone's mouth (nor will I stand by having any deviously placed in mine by anyone else) I do stand by that sentiment. If nothing else, I'm just pissed at that site, and I wish we could find a way to stop shivering over here and just punch that site in the nads, the snarky way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Why that site specifically, which none of us had heard of an hour ago? It's certainly not the only example of pedophile advocacy on the internet & you haven't explained why you think it's such a significant one. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it was brought up. I did read around on it a little - there were no pictures, nor did I even mouse over any of the more suspicious outlinks on that site *shudder*. My point regarding the site is that it certainly appears to be an actual, serious attempt to "build a case" for paedophilia. It's the attempted paedophile version of metapedia, afaik. You're reversing the logic here, Weasel. It's not that I'm rushing in here making a big deal of this site - this site was brought up by another user. Why not start here? That site should be reported to law enforcement (though I can't imagine they've missed it) and we need to start shredding it as the little part of what we can do towards the common goal of moral humanity - to rationally slaughter that site and its contents. I don't think I've been hard on any other point than that I'm pissed at a pedo site; I can't believe I'm not being given even the sligthest nod of agreement here - truly odd. I implore you to take the opportunity to just clench your fist at this crap with me. Rally for fuck's sake, buddy. What's the world come to when a damn reverend is the least impotent voice against actual paedophiliac nonsense? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the first or only example of a pro-pedophile website, and it's ridiculous to act like it is. We can do without promoting it, drawing attention to it or attracting attention from it. This issue has been a problem at RationalWiki before & involved a lot of unpleasantness which we don't want to revisit. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though I'm still reeling from your decision to not show more passion on this topic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I came across this wiki (BW, not RW) by reading a Salon.com article and subsequently Googling "Wikisposure", which is how I ended up on the fuckawful BW site. It seems that it was intended to be a completely serious paedo shitwiki as evidenced by the page on RW. It very much looks like the (EVEN MORE, fuck) outrageous, crazy shit was put there by ED trolls. Never mind, read poorly. --Lola Lazerface (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said initially, it went full Poe's law pretty fast. Though, Lola, for what it's worth - your intentions were very good by bringing this topic up here alltogether. The links were also cleaned up by sysops for good reason, but again, this is certainly something missional in my view. Harsh criticism (to say the least) of paedophilia belongs on a site like RW; dedicated to tearing evil bullshit a new a-hole. That's my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to do better next time. Thank you so much. --Lola Lazerface (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You didn't do bad. The community reacted quickly and undid your mistakes, and you've been nothing but sympathetic to that. For what it's worth, I'd like to personally welcome you to RW. Whatever people whine on you for; just don't stand idly by as moral atrocities take place. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How about we do a more general article on pedophilia apologetics, much like we have for rape apologetics? That sounds like a better idea than giving publicity to this one site (which, as someone mentioned, is likely to be paid a visit by the feds sooner or later). KevinR1990 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

KevinR1990 has a point. We can cover the topic a little more broadly. It also makes it clear what our mission statement is. Sorry to pop in like that. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Start by adding to our pedophilia article. If there's enough to write about, it can split into a separate article later. Avoid naming or linking to specific sites. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 05:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As I advocated all along! Glad to see you come around on that position, Weasel. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The fuck are you talking about? You said six times we should write a page about that specific site. And I said no & I still say no. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, down boy! Before I'm now forced to take your hand and walk you through why you're misguided to the point of parody, I'm going to atleast say that I'm elated that your choice of avenue for lying about me, to me, is in the public eye of everyone present at this forum. Good job! Now; In the very beginning of this ongoing and quickly developing discussion, before several good points made by members of this very community grew forth (e.g. regarding the legal implications and so forth; a point I hadn't initially considered closer and am glad was raised quickly) which I did not contest but adhered to instantly, - before any of that was established - I certainly suggested the importance of covering the nasty business of paedophilliac apologism by stating that I figured we'd need a page on them. I very clearly meant that what they are doing is missional in the general sense that other outrageous nonsense is (and is covered on RW), and I weighted my every word on an ethical standpoint and not on any coercive specifics. Mine was, and is, a point of moral character, a hope and a wish that we could nail these guys somehow, and of submission regarding the specific path the RW community will decide upon regarding this. I even specifically say above;
"Though I don't mean to place any malice in anyone's mouth (nor will I stand by having any deviously placed in mine by anyone else) I do stand by that sentiment. If nothing else, I'm just pissed at that site, and I wish we could find a way to stop shivering over here and just punch that site in the nads, the snarky way.".
I even, in anticipation of your unfair and predictable antics, specifically stated that I'm not going to stand having a troublemaker like yourself try and make this into something it's not. I suppose I will have to put that note in bold text for you next time. Further; my most recent words, and the ones that represent my position thus far (to anyone but an angsty quote miner like yourself) were;
"I can fully sympathize with all legal points here, but - maybe I was dropped in the sink as a baby, but I fail to understand why the community doesn't rally to quadruple the size of the paedophilia article or something in response to this. Y'all covering your asses as far as I can tell right now - and I'm not saying I'm in the right, for the record. Now, certainly, no links and all that - we do have a legal reality. But I'm just saying. You people need to get pissed at that site, and channel some creativity."
I mean, juxtapose my words;
"...I fail to understand why the community doesn't rally to quadruple the size of the paedophilia article or something in response to this"
with your own words;
"Start by adding to our pedophilia article.".
How are we not in agreement? Oh, right - because you're a bully. An incoherent one at that; I certainly did not say we "should write a page about that specific site six times", and I honestly wonder why anyone who wants to maintain even the pretention of being able to produce lucid thought would invent nonsense like you just did. A point I'm sure you won't revisit, as per your M.O. I mean, the first rule of fraud is making sure it's not obvious to everyone that you're doing it, right? I was adamant about not linking out to that site numerous times. I've grabbed some snippets from the above for you (but not anyone else, as naturally nothing could substitute actually reading the conversation from start to finish) since you're clearly both unwilling and unable to not stray from anything I've ever actually said. For starters;
"I'm not calling for us to link to any such disgusting drivel."
"I'm not going to take any wild steps here, nor have I. I haven't linked to anything but Pierre, nor will I. But I'd most certainly like to argue that we can't do enough to call out paedophiliac apologism. I'm adamant on that point, my dear Weasel, though I do prioritize any and all legal points we collectively make to safeguard RW. Let's just say I'm morally outraged as fuck over that site."
"You're reversing the logic here, Weasel. It's not that I'm rushing in here making a big deal of this site - this site was brought up by another user." and "I don't think I've been hard on any other point than that I'm pissed at a pedo site; I can't believe I'm not being given even the sligthest nod of agreement here - truly odd.".
You've clearly fallen off your rocking chair if you're going to seriously attempt to misconstrue the above into anything you've alluded to so far. You're a disgrace to discuss with, so blatantly uninterested in taking any kind of moral stand, so actively resistant towards joining your brothers and sisters on this forum in - if nothing else - a moral outrage, and still so deviously fervent in attempting to paint me out as something I'm not. On top of that, your biggest crime is that you can't even present a plausible case. You just weave lies as you go, resort to rude personal attacks and - with the inflated self-esteem of a rebellious preteen - think you can just sit there and lie unreprimanded, when everyone has the answer key sitting but a turn of their scroll wheel above your construction, irrepairably conflicting your tall tales. Whatever colors you showed here, they certainly were yours. Well done. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no horse in the race, but I would like to put in a word in favour of paragraphs which are wonderful things.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry. When Reverend goes into block-of-text mode, that usually means he'll be spouting a lot of defensive/vindictive BS, so you're probably not missing much. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
@142․124․55․236 You (of all people) randomly siding with a bully against me - and obviously for that reason alone - is in itself hilarious (like getting hate mail from Hitler!), considering your past history of being caught red-handed, making yourself look like a totally decent person to the point that regular, non-autistic members of this community literally wash their hands even of your compliments in fear of association with you. And to those who read in the links I just gave: The simple fact that you would jump in here randomly and equally randomly call bullshit on me only serves to remind us all that you must still be applying soothing ointment regularly to your battered rear end from the last time you decided to ignore human decency and act out (to your disgrace). So, thanks for adding nothing but an indictment against yourself and a reminder of past wrongs done against me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bob I fully agree that that section of text could use some formatting help. You mention paragraphs; any clue on how I could insert those? Thanks for the suggestion, anyways. My blocks of text can be kind of a headache, especially to bullies and trolls, the heads of which they land on like a ten ton hammer of justice. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
See? And Reverend, creating paragraphs is rather simple, actually. You just inadvertently did it by making two posts at the same level of indentation. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
@142․124․55․236 I saw! And thank you for helping me with the paragraphs. Your previous accusation of my vindictiveness doesn't hold much water, either. Thanks again, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Your previous post directed at me says otherwise. But anyway, you're welcome. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Reverend, I see you're accusing me of lying, bullying(?!) & personal attacks in a thread where I haven't done any of those things & where you've been singularly patronising to me in every comment. Eh bien. Since you challenge me to me "revisit" my comment, very well. You did say, in a series of comments, "We need a snarky page on them . . . we need a page on these appalling muppets . . . We need people to be able to Google that whackjob page and reach RW . . . I'm just pissed at that site, and I wish we could find a way to stop shivering over here and just punch that site in the nads . . . It's the attempted paedophile version of metapedia, afaik . . . That site should be reported to law enforcement (though I can't imagine they've missed it) and we need to start shredding it". How is any of that to be interpreted if not as a proposal to write about the website BoyWiki? & If you really "advocated all along" not writing about specific pedophile advocacy sites, why argue against Paravant when he queried the notability of this site? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Their understanding of ancient civilization is like if someone said "Jesus's hands bleed, and hands punch, therefore Jesus is a symbol for punching. Jesus symbols are given to kids, therefore, the societies that worship Jesus advocate kids being punched. Therefore, kids being punched is good." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 05:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And then there's a section that basically says "not molesting your kids is immoral." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 05:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Still nothing rational going on, I see. As is expected. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Another one of your great "jokes"? Grow up. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You know, I don't quite like you. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I love you. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I love me too. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
What a lovely exchange of ideas we have here. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Not sure entirely how the conversation's going on here, but I've added some info onto the main Pedophilia article (although I believe this should probably be made into a bigger article regarding pedophile activism on the internet). I haven't linked directly to the site (using archive.is instead).

Not sure entirely why we should avoid mentioning certain sites – egomoral was mentioned on the Pedophilia article previously. – AOAPJM (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bulgarian Orthodox's Church statement on the refugee crisis[edit]

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=bg&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bg-patriarshia.bg%2Fnews.php%3Fid%3D184530 --ZooGuard (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear Truthers[edit]

Yes, there are actually nuclear truthers. I am so terribly amused. Wish I had the time to write up an entry. --Castaigne (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen that sorta fuckers on politikforen.net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You mean like this? Okay, it's not very long. --Ymir (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Something about CERN, the LHC, and a red moon[edit]

More of that doomsday prophecy nonsense. I expect a bunch of people not realizing it's the "goddamned pos particle," not the "God particle." I have no idea if my family members are really this gullible or just pretending to be. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 21:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Search 'september 23' on Youtube and get a load of what people were claiming was going to happen. I wish I had time to do a proper, thorough writeup of the whole phenomenon. :( Memesis (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
When the red moon/lunar eclipse occurred, I made a crack and said, "It is a fine night for an apocalypse". Now the sad part was my neighbor was claiming the red moon and the Pope coming to America was foretold in the bible; now my neighbor is not a bad guy but he is not very bright. Though I really enjoyed the moronic conspiracy theories tossed around during the red moon/lunar eclipse.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I find Hagee's version to be particularly amusing. Jediapostle87 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So, for the upcoming mod election[edit]

Are we doing any alternatives as well, or just 4 with no alternatives? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO there should be 3, an odd number incase of disagreements but it's not that big of a deal to me. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
3 vs 4 is insignificant, 3 now sounds good cuz odd. I don't think alternatives are needed, they haven't come into play. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We already voted on this. And actually they have more than once, including the current batch, which is composed of the 6 elected and 1 alternate, though said alternate hasn't edited for a while. Having a fall back plan of atleast a single spare is atleast future proofing ourselves--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
IK the vote took place, I actually specified that it was my opinion (instead of a request or something). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I was more talking to fuzzy in an attempt to keep this from turning into a renewed discussion on numbers --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant is right, the vote took place, 4 won. I didn't know alternates came into play; we should def elect 1 alternate then. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Alternates weren't mentioned at the time. BicyclewheelModerator 12:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Dark Side[edit]

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150924130225AAMgS10 αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What's it say? This link's filtered/blocked on the computer I'm using. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Question: Does anyone know that "dark" version of wikipedia ? Its something like, rationalwiki.com ratiwiki.com... something like that?
Answer 1: I'm a sysop there, it's a pretty good site. Would be best if Paravant wasn't a mod, though.
Answer 2: LOL. I would feel deeply sorry for anyone who considered rationality to be "dark".
Answer 3: This? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Also, how did you not google "rational wiki" before asking here...? holy f*ck
The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Esta gente pendeja. I really hope he just misunderstood and meant to say Conservapedia or some thing or other. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
He's not wrong. We're all Gothic over here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:53, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I find the comment on Paravant entertaining. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I'm single handily ruining the website, somehow.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought that was going to go in a more... layered direction. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 12:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it bad that I saw "dark version of wikipedia" and immediately thought "Hidden Wiki?" PsyGremlinParla! 12:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Unlike us, that genuinely is a "dark side" wiki. And just knowing that something bad exists doesn't make you bad. Spud (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was alluding to, so no. Well, it doesn't speak ill of you, at least... Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 00:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Just in time for Halloween to... we needed a theme TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 15:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. For the whole month of October (or at least on Halloween) we should put up a banner proclaiming us the Darkest Corner of the Internet or something like that. :/ Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
But... but... we're already a "wretched hive of scum and villainy." PsyGremlinParla! 12:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm so so sorry. I just meant like a banner on Satan's birthday to commemorate RW... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

This[edit]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/24/south-park-portrays-shocking-rape-and-murder-of-donald-trump/?utm_source=ET&utm_medium=ETFB&utm_campaign=portal&utm_content=inf_11_60_2 Master NecromancerWhat is dead may never die 00:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not even remotely surprised. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Everyone in my family cheered when that South Park scene made it into the late night news. Lel. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Dirk Willems[edit]

Anyone every heard of him? He was persecuted and killed by the Catholics, his story is amazing. He has my absolute respect. He arrived from the Netherlands and held Anabaptist (Protestant) beliefs, resulting his persecution and arrest. His pursuer fell into icy water calling for help after chasing him from the prison he had escaped from, Willems stopped to pull them up (where he was of course arrested and eventually burnt at the stake)<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not until you mentioned him - and I'd call that dedication well beyond the point of, well, stupidity... ScepticWombat (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yo[edit]

What up?--ADtalkModerator 02:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 :O 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:45, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Holy shit it's AD! Quick, fix up the place! --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My God. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
What brings you back, AD. Miss that RW crazy? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Old times, and curiosity. I got started here right after the switch to this site, lurking as I edited CP. Rode the roller coaster through the mobocracy, sysop wars, MarcusCicero nonsense, RWW, and so on. Mod and board member and whatnot, although no longer the latter. Still somehow a mod. Weird.
RW came to mind because I remembered Gerald Celente, suddenly, and went to check my article on him.--ADtalkModerator 03:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We've been not electing mods for about 2 some years, though that is changing in a month or two. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm... recognize Weasaloid, Sophie, and Bob, but no one else, I think. Probably some name changes, though.--ADtalkModerator 03:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed to the latter.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Who are you?--ADtalkModerator 03:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mikal/Miekal. I forget which I used when you last edited. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mikal. Huh. Howdy.--ADtalkModerator 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Who? Javasca₧ sysop and 'crat! (does it matter?) 03:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I will never leave!--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I see Goonie, too!--ADtalkModerator 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not for long. (Though it won't be the first time he's 'retired' by a long chalk). WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If this section of the saloon mysteriously burnt down, would it be the end of the RationalWiki Old Guard? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be the beginning of the old guards new rule, for we would be terrified and give them powers beyond that of Trent, even. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Man, its all GamerGate and Zionism here now. This place is no fun anymore. Also, Hello. --Revolverman (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The hazards of user-driven/-generated content, I guess. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
SSDD.--ADtalkModerator 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
By all means, feel free to stir up a shitstorm about any other topic. It'd be a welcome change. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wow, all the old names! I've not been on the main site in ages (been on FB a bit - maybe should use same name here?)... Nice to see it again but yeah - WTF is with the zionism flamefest? TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 15:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Eh, they seem to be arguing over two different terribly-written versions of a controversial article.--ADtalkModerator 18:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Haha Larron is still crushing it with the data! Some things don't change.--ADtalkModerator 18:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Fuuuuuck... userpage in the top most edited pages? Must be bad. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 19:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There was a time when arguing over whether or not MC should be banned was not just a major item, but the major item of discussion for weeks.--ADtalkModerator 19:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... but we were rational about it :P TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 21:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AD. Good to see you. I don't do much here these days though. If you want to get reinvolved in RW drama make an edit to Gamergate. :-)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't... sound like something I want to do. Wait yes it does.--ADtalkModerator 01:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Checking in just in time to nominate for moderatorship is serendipitous. You were one of the few decent ones. Tielec01 (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It was kind of a crazy coincidence. Oddly, it also happened at a time that was just begging for moderation with the Zionism thing. I think that's turned out great.--ADtalkModerator 19:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Zionism missional? If so, which part of our mission statement covers it?[edit]

Moved to Forum: Is Zionism Missional

Oliver Canby[edit]

I've started a new article on Oliver Canby in my user space, and I felt that I needed to pop in here for a bit of a hand. It's obviously not main space ready - I've put a background from memory and managed to grab some direct links. The main reason for the decision to have a crack at this is because of the latest entry on his blog "Autism is Bad" calling for a 28th Amendment that has to be seen to be believed! I'll be addressing that but the whole thing needs filling out. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of material on his blog, and there are some alternative blogs criticising him here and here, as well as a couple of inactive blogs here and here. I'm not sure if this one could help as well as I'm not expert. I do have a court decision against him similar to that of John Best here and paragraph 36 is of particular interest. BankBox (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done some more work on it - it's not quite ready yet because there's more to do - but I would love some opinions on it here. BankBox (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems decent enough for mainspace? Needs more snark, IMHO ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Snark? Sorry, you've lost me on that one. And on your edit, that was there because on his blog he has been challenged numerous times about the subject and he has been accused of being a closet gay - and there are some examples of him saying things that could well be very suspicious. I was going to put stuff about that in a separate section (as per the notes section). BankBox (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I NEED TO KNOW![edit]

I have been hearing things about Conservative (from CP) and some "red telephone messages". I can't find any information on it anywhere, so can someone please tell me? KOMF 10:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

See deleted article Conservapedia:Red Telephone. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I NEED TO KNOW! 2[edit]

I would have started a whole new section entirely, but this title cannot be more perfect. Anyways, what was NASA's big announcement? I desperately wanted to watch NASA TV at 11:30 today, but I didn't have access to a TV at the time. All I'm hearing are vague "stuff" about Mars. SO WHAT IS IT?!?!?!?! 107Ag47 20:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? The only thing I heard about was the Supermoon Eclipse yesterday. What is it? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
See the Wikipedia article on Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes. The Grauniad has a more current piece. 75.133.2.98 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
there was a SMBC cartoon that is relevant to how NASA handles announcements.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't wait for some wing-nut at CNAV to work this into lunar bukkake theory. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 23:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Mmm, bukkake...

But in all seriousness, I never heard anything coming from NASA about Mars, so this surprised me a ton. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

I know there was a Facebook trend about it a few days ago. Water on Mars IS cool, but I was hoping it might be a bit more fun than that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a leftist conspiracy. Scream!! (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I NEED TO KNOW! 3: The Revenge[edit]

What typefaces do we have available here, besides Arial and Times New Roman? More specifically, I need something Script-y and something Blackletter-y. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:31, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Will Papyrus work?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... Not really what I was going for, but it looks nice enough. Any other fonts you know of? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
You can use <tt> to specify a monospaced font, and the <font> tag works well for other fonts, if they happen to be installed - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
So is there anywhere I can check to see what's installed? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:43, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
My understanding is that it depends on what readers have installed on their computer. So if you use a fancy font that you have installed, it'll look fine to you but most readers (who don't have that font on their computer) will just see the text in a default font like Times NR. (This was once the case with my RW signature for a long time before I realised). Hence why it's best to use one of the WP:core fonts for the Web (boring as they are) if you want your text to look the same to everyone as it does to you. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I NEED TO KNOW! 4: The Space One[edit]

Wait, the first few were about space. Ffff... Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"I NEED TO KNOW!: The TV Series: The Video Game: The Movie: The Album: The Toy" 107Ag47 01:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The Android App! 207.191.199.193 (talk)
iKnow - The Apple Product Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

FAQ on GMOs[edit]

So I think I'm going to start this page over the weekend.

So... I have ideas for three sections.

1) What is a GMO?

  • Farming
  • Selective Breeding
  • Mutation Breeding
  • Horizontal Gene Transfer

2) Dangerous to eat!

  • Background on biology
  • Safety testing
  • Really, more on biology
  • No, GMO food won't alter YOUR genes (seriously, how the fuck did this canard get started? What the fuck did these people did in Middle School bio class?)
  • GMO varieties not less healthy than regular crops
  • Added nutrition

3) Corporate greed!

  • No shit, but exists in regular farming
  • And have you seen the markups on organic foods?!
  • Anti-GMO movement causes half the problem by making it harder for newcomers to get in on the GMO market

What else needs to be added? CorruptUser (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A section on why labelling is unjustified because of the unjustified fear it creates. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget to cover Yields yields yields! Stop people from starving! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for doing things more efficiently, but there isn't really a lack of food in the world; it's just distributed very unevenly. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Good point. Though, regardless, reverting the global food production methods to all-organic would only be able to literally yield enough to feed about 4 billion people tops, and that'd be with even more overkill land use than today. Whatever today's starvation problem is best defined as, a theoretical global shift to all-organic would quite simply kill off billions. That's billions with a "b". And yes - this shift (with denial of the consequences) is actively being advocated by a number of pro-organic (and thus anti-gmo) propaganda groups. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
OMG thanks! I would add the parts about modifying existing food, like adding vitamin A to rice, that have improved population health in staving locations. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
And don't forget pesticides. As anyone growing outdoors food crops - or, for you young hip people with your skateboards and your hats on backwards, - anyone who grows their own weed knows, there is no such thing as pesticide free farming (on any serious scale whatsoever - molds and bugs gotta eat, too!). There's only "organic" and synthetic pesticide options - where the organic options are often pretty toxic, used in larger doses and applied less effectively. Besides, a single regular sized cup of coffee exposes you to one thousand times higher cancer risk than a year's worth of pesticide residue does in non-organic food. The GMO woo people are basically making the exact same argument that vaccine denialists make against mercury, by completely disregarding that eating a single can of tuna has 200 times the mercury content even of the discontinued thiomersal-containing vaccines. The American Cancer Society put out a major paper in 2006 openly underscoring that there is no scientific proof that pesticide or herbicide residue is a cause of cancer in the United States. And the idea of added hormones in milk is retarded - when a cow is pregnant its natural estrogen levels in the milk are raised atleast 33-fold. And before you ask - no, there are no dangerous side-effects from this. Furthermore, the reason that young girls go into puberty earlier in some cases is because they're getting fatter, earlier. The female body won't go into serious puberty until it is nutritionally capable of carrying a child. This is, for the record, a reason why many female top-tier olymptic gymnasts and acrobats in low-weight sports don't go into puberty proper until after they stop competing professionally. And best of all, anyone who is worried about bacteria and infections in their food might want to know that surprising amounts of third world organic farming is done with night soil - yes, that's human feces. Which also means that third world farmers who live on alprazolam metabolites and gasoline fumes since they need to sell the organic food they are growing, its the fecal matter of these people that end up feeding the soil to produce these allegedly "purer" organic food products. How is this better than synthetic fertilizer, again? And best of all, atleast 30% of the organic food in the US is imported from China! And unlabeled as such! I mean really, would you trust that coal polluted, river dumping, utterly corrupt, communist-industrial hellhole to produce your himalayan greens veggies that restore your chakra and provide extra quantum life energy? I think not! And so on. Short story - if the list article gets started, I'll add to it - with good sources. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
IDK how relevant it is, but if you want non-food examples of genetic fuddling we readily accept, Fluffy and Fido are a long ways from their "natural" forms… if not -- corn, bananas, oranges too I think, certainly all flour products (in the US), are either highly selectively bred, or added to. And frankly, I'd rather eat my bread with some folic acid than have kids being born with preventable neural tube defects. Point here is that when we're used to it, we don't question it, and I wonder how many of the anti-GMO crowd would eat a proper wild banana! Argenti Aertheri (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It's very relevant, and is something I plan to include. Everything domesticated is technically, genetically modified. Anything that exists only because of human interference is technically GMO. Chickens, dogs, goats. Cats are... different, since the bastards aren't quite domesticated. CorruptUser (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget bananas. Scream!! (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget the fact that you don't need transgenic modification to accidentally make plants poisonous or give them pesticide resistance, you can do that with selective breeding and hybridization as well (see Lenape potatoes, celery high in psoralens, and pesticide-resistant sunflowers), which are both "natural" forms of genetic modification. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sooo... my sandbox so far. Will add a lot to it in the near future, but feel free to contribute some things you feel are important; when it goes live as an article you'll be able to contribute anyway :P. CorruptUser (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Just saw a bunch of suspicious looking new users being created. Possible wandalism spree on it's way. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Or more likely spam accounts not getting through our various anti-spam features. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Do the spambots in these parts use fundie usernames? I smell a troll. Blitz (Complaints Box) 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I hear the sound of someone socking... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
No, just spambots. Some of them can hack the captcha to create an account but then don't post anything as our edit filter stops them posting links straightaway. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, spambots! On a roleplay forum, I made a sockpuppet pretending to be a spambot, and posted semi-personalised ads. All of this was in-character, of course. Watching everybody else's characters respond to its flood of inane and random ads was the most fun I'd had in months. Of course, my other other sockpuppets for other characters played along. Playing both sides is even better! *evil laugh* 107Ag47 23:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Y-you damned monster! Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
What's better, I even named it "Trusworthy Advice". *evil grin* 107Ag47 03:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

lolwtf Withoutaname (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like dozens of Christianists---Mona- (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It caught me in the right mood and I binned the majority of them just in case they CAN make it through the filters. My first-ever vandal binning, and I'm sure it shows. --Maxus (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Amused. --Castaigne (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Chiropractors[edit]

I myself have noticed this but I am not sure if anyone else has; I have noticed that any time I go past a Chiropractor office their sign mentions the prefix Dr. then it will mention the name then the prefix D.C (example- Dr. Joe Smith DC) but when I see the sign for a medical doctor it will just mention the name of the physician then M.D or D.O. Does anyone think it is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it seems plausible. Maybe it's some special cases. I've seen it around these parts, too, but they mostly just announce "Chiropractic" or "Firstname Lastname, LA" or "Dr. Firstname/Lastname/both." Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

I only know of two that do not use the prefix "Dr." and mention Chiropractic. On a related note- near where I live there are I kid you not five Chiropractors within a quarter mile radius--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Leaving the website[edit]

Hope my page creations on race (Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Mongoloid, Racial polyphyletism) and edits to racialism, as well as page creations on palaeo-anthropology (Multiregional hypothesis, Recent African Origin hypothesis, Assimilation model), were/are of use. I am perm-leaving now though, and my account will not longer be active.

I don't really fit in here or agree with RW's left-wing political stance on most issues, and was only really using RW as a data-dump.Krom (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, pity that you're leaving. Would've loved to convince you of the merits of leftism. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Don't leave Cry.gifCry2.gif--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your additions will be sorely missed. And for the record, there's no requirement to even touch left-right politics with a ten foot pole here. I don't think you were that different here. But I respect your choice, and regardless of your political positions - thank you for your additions. Welcome back at any time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Biola University[edit]

I think I will get a start on that article as I am not using a tablet computer. It might make a good addition to the Fundie school category. Another idea for that category would be Great Lakes Christian College as it is the only school I know of that forces its students to double major in theology.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence where they are forcing students to do anything. They are an accredited institution. People pay to go the school there. If someone doesn't understand the curriculum before they pay the admission fee, then they probably aren't qualified to attend anyway. Just because the college specializes in Christian theology, there's no evidence that anyone is forcing anyone else to do anything. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yah no. I also don't see us needing an article on every christian university unless they are really engaged in openly bad practices or are solely diploma mills. Lest we get bloated with small articles on a bunch of universities solely because they are not secular.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
True that. If a school is doing something notably egregious, then it may warrant mention in the Fundie school article. The diploma mills and those with questionable accreditation and/or heavily promote creationism, for example, are usually on-mission. The run-of-the-mill theology college probably doesn't warrant its own article here. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it just seemed that way to me. I probably misread it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

S'okay. You have an interest in this topic. That's good. I would ask only a couple of things. Add the facts first and include references -- if the subject matter is appropriate the snark will be self-evident. Second, indent your responses in talk pages!. Cheers, --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I have a better idea than than Great Lakes Christian College. How about an article on the accreditation mill "American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions". They have "accredited" many Christian diploma mills including Patriot Bible University (formerly).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Instead of creating a new article, why not add to Accreditation mills? --Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, good point--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Who runs or ran Capturebot2?[edit]

It doesn't seem to have run in ages, certainly not since July.

(no, it doesn't run on the main server. I have no idea who does run it.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That reminds me, do we know who runs/ran Pibot yet? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think we need to actively recruit or witch hunt an existing user who can replace our older scripts with ones people actually here can run. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Uh, Pi did Pibot. Thus the name. He gone? :( --ADtalkModerator 01:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. I should dust the old bots off again. It is Labour Day weekend here so I might accidentally get a chance. - π 07:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Heeeeey everyone coming out of the woodwork again!--ADtalkModerator 19:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If anyone feels sad or depressed[edit]

This.

You're welcome. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Why did she spray that friendly bear and direct it to her kayak? >.> At least the bear found a nice kayak buddy, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Her voice is unbearable. Haha, get it? Unbearable, people, unbearable. I'll let myself out... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

I don't know if she knows this or not, but bears don't speak English. And even if they did, the bear probably wouldn't care about her constant please of mercy.'Legionwhat do you want from me 15:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Bears speak fluent Russian. They are secretly KGB agents looking to take over teh world with kayaks... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
And they're in constant battle with Ukrainian mammoths!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Or American mastodons.--Palaeonictis (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Fun:Precautionary Principle[edit]

So, I added obvious asinine examples of using abusing the Precautionary principle, but perhaps it would be better in funspace. Things like "you can't prove your fetus isn't the antichrist, therefore you should play it safe and get an abortion". If I create a fun page, would anyone else like to add to it? CorruptUser (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I lol'd at that second to last one. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Quite possibly! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
So that explains my constant diahrrea and the occasional visit from Cthullu with those weird messages... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Alright, Created CorruptUser (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jakester499's many threads[edit]

Mobile Version[edit]

Even Conservapedia has a mobile version. Why don't we?— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

Cause the technical staff of the RW is too goddamn lazy to implement it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Expanding our Mission to include Consumer Rights issues[edit]

Wouldn't that be a good idea?— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

Consumer rights are a very good idea. It's not a good idea for that topic to become part of the RW mission. For one thing, we have problem article all over the site -- poorly written and/or poorly sourced. Expanding the remit would not be helpful.---Mona- (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
We could have an article about Consumer rights in relation to woo-peddlers without modifying our mission, and I think it could be a good idea.--TiaC (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So how about we improve our article sourcing and writing and then do consumer rights. I think there could be a lot that we can provide on the subject.-Jakester499 (talk)

Halloween decorations[edit]

Like the Santa hat we did last year how about a jack-o-lantern or a ghost like on our ghost page. it is the season and my favorite holiday.— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs


Halloween is the most wonderful time of the year.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Me too Jakester499 (talk)

What I found annoying was when I was a child and I would got trick or treating, me and my siblings would get Chick Tracts from several houses. I do not see why people would want to give hate promoting material. I know fundies think it is good but I guess they forgot the bible quote "Judge not less he be judged Matthew 7:1". Now I am no bible scholar and I do not intend to be but if you give anything out at Halloween it better be candy and not hate speech.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Halloween is a symbol of American commercialism - crap! Unfortunately it's spreading - no need for RW to aid it. Scream!! (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Even anticapitalism was commercialized, just look at the Che Guevara t-shirts.--129.69.212.19 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with talking about a holiday. Everything is commercial in one way or another.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
For some ideas, I recommend looking at an earlier post by someone else on the Bar. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Here is a link- http://easyday.snydle.com/halloween-decorations.html--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mole People[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_people We need an article debunking/confirming the mole people of the NYC Subway system?— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

Wait, do you mean "homeless people that live underground" or "humanoid monsters"? Because I don't think a significant number of people actually believe in the latter. CorruptUser (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean homeless people that live underground. I want to know more about the alleged literal "cities" that existed in the NYC subways during the early 1990s and in that book described on the Wikipedia page. Apparently the Straight Dope talked about it. Allegedly the were evicted in the mid 90s by the NYPD. They released several documentaries on it. However a reporter said their were actual cities with doctors, schoolteachers and mayors made of homeless people. Some say it was faked and even the straight dope admits it was exaggerated.— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

You mean like tent cities. No, they do not have actual doctors, but they do have volunteers. "Schoolteachers" amounted to either people volunteering with the homeless or other homeless people. They tended to have their own 'security' made up of volunteer homeless people. Generally speaking, the people you see sleeping on the street? Those are the people that even the tent cities won't let in. They aren't terrible for the city to have, but it's a lot of NIMBY; the city doesn't provide dumpsters or sewers, so the trash and shit builds up, causing a public menace. At the same time, no one wants them as neighbors because nobody likes being hassled by an army of homeless people for change, no one wants people banging on the windows at night to see which homes are empty and thus easy targets to burgle, and shops don't want them scaring away customers. CorruptUser (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It's funny; in Europe many countries are frantic about finding everyone a proper roof to stay under, notably including asylum seekers etc. Any less would be considered an outrage and a potential human rights violation. In the US, you don't even care about your own citizens being homeless. >.< 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The homeless are the people that even their own families refuse to have anything to do with anymore. It sucks for those that are thrown out for not being... traditional enough for their families, but most of it is from drug addictions and such that the families refuse to deal with it anymore. Remember the golden voiced homeless guy? He had 9 children, all grown, and NONE of them would take him in. Of course, a lot of it is chicken and egg; homelessness also leads to drug addictions and crime, and yeah, it's better to get them into some form of shelter, whether asylums or slums, than on the streets. CorruptUser (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
its not entirely true about addicts. Many homeless drug addicts only became addicts after becoming homeless. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC) maybe I should your post more thoroughly AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


So how about we do an article on the homeless-Jakester (Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner Jakester499 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

It's simple, just sign your name with four tildes, these guys: "~". It's easy and creates the links to your talk page. CorruptUser (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding :-) Jakester499 (talk) (Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner 19:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

Without having read the above too closely; we lack an article on mole people. One that we must have. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not just New York City, either. I remember there was something similar in Las Vegas, too. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Chris Christie looks like the lawyer from Stephen King's thinner[edit]

Stephen King's Thinner was a movie about a fat corrupt lawyer who gets thinner and thinner every day. Now right before he gets thinner he looks just like Chris Christie. https://ilovesplatter.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/thinner-fat-suit.jpg http://www.nj.gov/governor/library/photos/gov_christie_press_lrg.jpg (Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner Jakester499 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

Troll Club[edit]

Goals[edit]

These are the goals I want:

Major Goals: -Do a major check of our current and existing articles -Do improve our writing/cite sources -To update all of our articles with current information To add our articles to as many categories as possible as long as they qualify for them -To categorize everything as much as we can -Model our portals after Wikipedia's portals but just with Rationalwiki and include WIGO for each of portals -After accomplishing the previous expanding our mission to include consumer rights issues -To create a mobile version of our website -To do everything on our to-do list -To translate our wiki into as many languages as possible

Minor Goals -To go more in depth on the on the 4chan Article -To improve and add to our Annotated Qur'an -To cite sources on our Lyndon LaRouche article --Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner 20:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs

this might be better placed on your user pageAMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you should start out by reading a good number of our guides, first. They are linked on the side and in the welcome template on your talk page. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to separate UFOlogy from general Alien Aficionados and make any one who believes in alien contact with earth a separate category[edit]

We need a category referring to the general belief that aliens have come to earth and/or have made contact with humans. It needs to be separate from the UFOlogy category and ancient aliens category. Jakester499 (talk)

Is there a real difference between UFology and Alien contact when both are equally fake?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why. And besides, please don't start too many freaking fires at once. This is getting ridiculous. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe we can combine the categories into one giant super category --Jakester499 (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That is what we already have - the ufology portal. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Then why isn't Mike Bara or Richard Hoagland in it?--Jakester499 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We already have a ufology portal. Mike and Richard already have articles and they happen to be sorted as conspiracy theorists and not ufologists. If this is optimal for them or not is a side question - the point remains that the ufology portal stands on its own legs comfortably. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the original header and statement - - why do we need to do this?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Is their an easier way of signing your username on a post other then typing the double bracket thing.[edit]

It makes my fingers tired. Jakester499 (talk)

The singing button on your toolbar, its a pencil? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Test --Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner 22:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Test 2--Jakester499 (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Double bracket thing"? The standard way in MediaWiki to add a signature is with four tildes: ~~~~ which MediaWiki magically turns into a signature when the edit is saved. You can also put dashes or whatever in front, but this is just a social convention and means nothing to the software. As Paravant noted, you should also see a button in the toolbar above the edit window which inserts the tildes for you. For more info see our very own help page and the MediaWiki help. --Ymir (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering your multiple "test" posts both here and elsewhere (in rapid succession) - please test this further on your userpage, on a template or using the preview? I think that might be better. Just a suggestion. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, frick. I used to sign with ~~~~Zexcoiler Kingbolt. I just figured out that it's just ~~~~. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hear ye hear ye it is the pseudoscience herder[edit]

I have discovered my calling I shall be the Shepard of pseudoscientists , a pseudoperd if you will. You shall all refer to me jakester499 as Jakester, son of horrorMovieperd Jakesmer, whom I have inherited his interests. All shall Tremble in fear of my pseudoperding and my skills in drawing art, for I am Jakester, son of horrorMovieperd Jakesmer who was the son of armchair historian Jakesir who was the son of the artist Jakeler who was the son of avid gamer Jaker. (And yes thou will refer to me as Jakester, son of horrorMovieperd Jakesmer.) --Jakester499 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Kids, don't do drugs. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Honestly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Fortunately, I am the Commander Shepard of pseudoscience. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Wandalizing Other Wikis Illegal?[edit]

If someone on this site blanked a ton of pages on Conservapedia or aSK, would they be banned from RW? KOMF 10:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We generally don't care all that much about what you do on other wikis. Though I wouldn't recommend going on vandalism sprees on other wikis either. There's bound to be more meaningful/gratifying things you could be doing instead. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
You wouldn't get banned but you certainly wouldn't get any praise for it either. Being told to fuck off and stop being a wanker is all you'll get if you come here boasting about your vandal spree on Conservapedia or aSK. Spud (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If it makes you feel like a big man go mental. Tielec01 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be illegal, but mostly unenforceable, meaning "who gives a fuck". RW started as a troll-plattform against Conservapedia, anyways.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't CONservapedia threaten to report trolls to the CIA FBI ATF NSA and EPA? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy's all talk and no action.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I know. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Komf, if this is the sort of thing you mean, then it should mean a banning at RW. No proof it's actually you though is there? Scream!! (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Petition to Remove John Hanlin from the UCC Shooting Case[edit]

Hello everyone,

A friend of mine started this petition to remove John Hanlin from the Umpqua investigation. Shortly before the shooting, he made it known via social media that he believed the Sandy Hook shooting to be a possible government hoax. We feel that someone like this should not be in charge of such an important matter. I will also share this on the facebook page. Thank you all. A mere peasant 05:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I should probably also share the link. https://www.change.org/p/oregon-state-senate-oregon-state-house-the-douglas-county-police-remove-john-hanlin-from-the-ucc-shooting-case?recruiter=396813892&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-no_msgA mere peasant 05:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Signed. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Signed. Thinking like that is bad for investigation--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Pensacola Christian College looks like a mall[edit]

Seriously, PCC looks more like a mall than a college. Just look up PCC on the TRACS website and it will show a picture.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

... and? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 12:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I am just stating my opinion.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
that's nice, but why are you doing it in the bar? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize there was not point for it being here so I actually deleted it earlier but this part showed up again.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of the term "BoN"[edit]

I'm just curious. What separates the term Bunch of Numbers (BoN) from the well established IP or IP address, that everyone else uses? --Slimy goop (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. But its use is very well established here and is a tradition I wouldn't like to see die out. Spud (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just local usage, probably nothing to do with how it rhymes with "anon." Also probably has nothing to do with the Tibetan shamanic tradition.Wikipedia's W.svg SmartFeller (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just one of the quirks or memes from the early days of RW that has stayed popular & will stay popular as long as it stays popular. You might just as well ask what the whole goat thing is about. I doubt anyone can really explain it. It's just a thing. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I for once wish it to never die out, lest my user-name turn into an obscure reference to the past of this here site... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
BoN isn't IPv6 compatible though! "Bunch of hexadecimals" doesn't quite have the same ring to it ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hexadecimal numbers are still numbers. There's nothing magical about base 10. --Ymir (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Our special vocabulary can be found here and "BON" in particular here. I guess that it's only the real old-timers who remember. :-) --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that it's not a great look when new, unregistered users are addressed in obscure in-house jargon. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I guess that's why the terms are explained in the DysLexicon. Perhaps it should be in the welcome template?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
So new users have to find their way to the jargon dictionary. Perhaps it shouldn't be used to address newcomers so much? Flannan Isle (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. But all societies (whether on the internet or not) tend to generate their own vocabulary. This is especially so in a rather rule-resistant group such as this. Personally it's an abbreviation I tend not to use - but good luck with getting it banned! :-)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You're the first complainant in over 7 years, AFAIK sorry, I meant as far as I know, If a 'newcomer' is so befuddled by the appellation then they should either sign up or push off IMHO ( sorry again: in my humble opinion). Scream!! (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible material for future fundie school articles[edit]

Here is a link of schools that teach creationism- [3]--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Page 404s 'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Server Error 503's. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh, I just checked the link and it worked. Well I use windows 8 on an HP laptop but I do not know if that is the reason.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No trouble for me either. Copied to here. Thanks RZ. Scream!! (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that list is nationally comprehensive in any sense of the word, maybe those should all be redirects? Or maybe not. A question, really. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Idea for a fundie school- http://www.gcuniv.edu/academics/som.asp, this fundie school accredited by TRACS also teachs oriental "medicine".--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I created an article for this "school" and wow it actually surpasses BJU in pseudoscience.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sexbot Panic![edit]

How do you all feel about sexbots? Personally, I don't particularly care. I think the manosphere is blowing them out of proportion, dudes ain't going to drop women over a sexbot. I also feel that claims they don't do anything to solve issues like sex slavery are true but because these are systematic issues that sexbots aren't built to solve. Those are issues that require international government attention. BlackProg 01:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the only required response.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I envision a brave, new world where people only have sex with their own personal sexbot (harem (if you're rich)) and romantic relationships have become so much more profound and stable because people's 'love life' is no longer relevant to it. (Now try to guess if I'm being serious or not. ;) ) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If someone wants to have sex with a robot, who am I to say no? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 07:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Sexbots? FUCK them :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Did vibrators and fleshlights lead to the downfall of civilization? --Revolverman (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You talking about developments much too new. Ask about dildos or Mrs./Mr. Rosa Palms and her/his 5 daughters/sons a.k.a. hands.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering that nearly everyone has vision problems these days... CorruptUser (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The manosphere's response demonstrates with inarguable clarity just how completely divorced from reasonable human thinking these people are, and it could do with a writeup somewhere itself - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I personally look forward to the future world that Blade Runner and that Jude Law movie with him being a sexbot predicted. Oh wait, I forgot that's Japan already. Also note how Demolition Man predicted the invention of fancy Taco Bells. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 10:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Norway's largest newspaper on RW: "The moral police of the web"[edit]

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Fmeninger%2Finternett%2Fnettets-moralpoliti%2Fa%2F23537579%2F&edit-text=

RW was mentioned alongside a Norwegian Facebook group in an editorial in VG yesterday. The editorial is very harsh, and maybe rightfully so.

Just as anonymous are the people on RationalWiki, who have created registries of dissenters in the debate on immigration and religion.

The editorial is referring particularly to Norwegian topics on the wiki. The article on Nina Hjerpset-Østlie is mentioned in particular as "pure mudslinging". It also criticizes the name of the categories used in the article, like "batshit crazy" and "racists". Though I think lists (or "registries") are good, I agree that many of the articles on Norwegian islamophobes and their organizations are overly harsh, or at least very unnuanced. Though I don't personally have enough knowledge or interest in the topic to improve them myself. Maybe I'll do something eventually. --Slimy goop (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed categories that I think were a far stretch from her article. It's not much but it's a start I guess. --Slimy goop (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Reminds me of what happened on the Brazilian Portuguese stuff. One person with a command of the language either for reading or writing can fill the wiki with biased 'facts'. Articles relying on languages other than English should be treated with suspicion until there is a consensus by trusted native speakers. Google translate is not sufficient. Scream!! (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing attention to the article, Slimy Goop! Now, just to point out the minor fact that the headline of this thread may not convey fully; VG is in fact Norway's largest tabloid newspaper. I mean, even the wikimedia commons picture used for the wiki article states: an excerpt from the attempted-SUICIDE note of a 14-YEAR OLD describing downing a bunch of PILLS, a soccer player SCARED by burglars and who is now INCREASING SECURITY, a note on the TRIPLE MURDER where the 30-YEAR OLD may have had AN ACCOMPLICE, and on the mid cover it says the KIDNAPPER wanted to SELL SEX TAPE with NATASCHA. Further; the article linked is in fact not a news article of any kind, but a personal opinion piece, provided by the daily tabloid's stock commentator Anders Giæver. And while he dedictes more than half of his opinion piece (and the illustration) to some completely random norwegian FaceBook group that has literally nothing to do with RW, Anders suddenly switches target completely and leverages the following asinine criticism of RW;
It looks quite as trustworthy and seriously out. But behind the seemingly troubled academic façade, used "encyclopedia" of pure harassment and humiliating.
While Google Translate butchered that norwegian phrasing pretty bad, the message remains readable - Anders very obviously has not even read the first subtitle of the first article explaining what RW even is. He even explains RW to his readers as;
Rational Wiki is an encyclopedia on the net borrower both name and layout from Wikipedia.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Best of all is how he explains how we're after "allegedly" irrational things such as global warming denialism. Though he terms it "climate scepticism" - which may make sense, since he also very specifically laments how we're harsh on people in the Norwegian far right - a country that, for the record, has a relatively strong right wing. And don't forget that the party leader of the 2nd largest party (and the furthest right) Siv Jensen is a climategater and climate truther. And besides, like we're not harsh on anyone but these obscure norwegians? Hello? Most hilariously of all, what with the lamentation of the mudslinging against these fine upstanding conservatives, Anders seems to be utterly unaware of the existence of Conservapedia (or any wiki outside of wikipedia) and RationalWiki's role in contrast to CP. All in all, a craptastic tabloid opinion piece. Also, for the record, Anders is one of those really, really old people who ends his piece by arguing that anyonymity should mean surrendering the right to saying anything of any controversial weight or meaning whatsoever. He further seems to imply that the members of the RW community are all hiding behind perfect anonymity, as if we're the underbelly of the darknet. Meanwhile, David Gerard lists his freaking cell phone number on his userpage. All in all, a pointless opinion from clearly the world's greatest journalist - who couldn't even take half a second to look for the "About" page on the site he's about to publish about to 2.4 million tabloid-reading Norwegians (alleged readership of VG). Consider this my own opinion piece on his opinion piece. Also, would someone add him to the official list of people whose opinion matter? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and Slimy Goop - on the basis of what I wrote above, I rolled back your uncategorizing of that far right woman. We can't go in and just break everything the second under-researching assholes complain that we're not conservative enough. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Who cares what an opinion piece in a tabloid has to say? There was some vandalism over the weekend of an article about a Norwegian woman, forget her name. I think it was Paravant who had to keep reverting all the glowing crap this new user wanted to insert about this Norwegian Islamophobe. Clearly some wingnut eyes in Norway are on this site -- who cares?---Mona- (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, user:Reverend Black Percy! I find your involvement and understanding of the editorial impressive. However you make the fallacy of attacking the messenger instead of the message. VG is indeed a tabloid, however I think that it generally is a reliable one, and that their opinion pieces are of fair quality. The author of this editorial, Anders Giæver, is not as you seem to imply some crazy right-wing pundit. He is a member of the staff, and comments on and gives valid criticism on the whole political spectrum, and has done so for as long as I can remember. Anyhow, Norwegian newspapers are independent of the government, so Siv Jensen’s opinions on climate change are completely irrelevant.
The fact is, as Giæver's main point with the editorial is, that many of our articles are defamatory and overly biased against the subject. Not everyone who routinely criticizes Islam is racist, crazy or even islamophobic. I’m not saying RW should be as careful as Wikipedia on biographies of living persons (they have a strict policy on that). To the contrary, we should be allowed to call quacks, islamophobes, misogynists and climate change denialists exactly for what they are here. However I think we’re going to far slapping such strong labels on anyone we don’t like. The articles here on Norwegian critics of Islam seem to be particularly bad, written mostly by just one or two obviously very biased users. By the looks of it, User:Millicent, who has created many of the articles in dispute, came back after a long time of inactivity just to expand on them when seeing Giæver’s editorial on Tuesday. Now, that’s curious.
Regarding the reliability of RationalWiki: I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect newcomers to understand at first glance that the site is not always reliable. RationalWiki appears like a genuine encyclopedia, and the few disclaimers and warnings of its reliability are vague and well hidden. I think RW should be a supplement to Wikipedia, so I’d advocate providing links in all articles (or at the very least, in biographies) to their Wikipedia equivalents, so that people are encouraged to read more neutral articles as well.
On a side note:
What I find very interesting about VG’s editorial is that it criticizes the anonymous left, and not the usual far-right. In harsh opinion pieces, Norwegian mainstream media very often attack the act of writing far-right bile on the internet (and rightfully so) and the act of hiding behind anonymity. These opinions pieces strangely often use some variation of the drawing as in this editorial, a man shitting in "the toilet that is the internet". This must, however, be one of the first times I ever saw an attack on left-wing groups on the internet by a large Norwegian newspaper. The criticism is valid, and I think we should take it seriously, and improve the wiki. --Slimy goop (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
User:-Mona-: Which article was vandalized? I took a look at the edit history of Nina Hjerpset-Østlie, and I found it really strange that nobody except for Millicent changed the article after the editorial in VG was published. No other article on a Norwegian topic is affected by new users either, AFAIK. --Slimy goop (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The article was just a stub with two references at the time of the op-ed piece in that tabloid newspaper, and needed expansion, so this seemed a good time to make it more solid with more background and more references. The woman in question works for an organisation that promotes Fjordman's screeds about Eurabia as "fantastic Fjordman essays", that calls Norway's (conservative) Prime Minister a "cultural traitor" for visiting a mosque as recently as this summer, and that constantly promotes blog posts by Sweden's infamous "Julia Caesar" with claims such as: immigration of Africans is a "mass import of mentally retarded people." She also was a main author of anti-Muslim blog posts on a now notorious Islamophobic blog for many years. When a person chooses to be part of such organisations and activities, she cannot complain that she is described as Islamophobic, which she is. There is nothing in the article that isn't fair or accurate or well sourced or based on mainstream scholarship on racism and Islamophobia. Other than that, Reverend Black Percy has said all that needs to be said. Millicent (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've often wondered whether graphically making the site look less like Wikipedia might be possible. It might be desirable. And sans-serif fonts are the work of Satan. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If RW switched to a serif font, I would never get over it. I know my opinion is completely arbitrary and stupid here, but serif fonts and wikis (or comment sections or forums) shouldn't mix. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
There's always good ol' fashioned Papyrus. Or Lucida Handwriting. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You know you want him. Or maybe you want Comic Papyrus. Nah, probably that sexy pile of bones. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a feast of beautiful, readable fonts via google web fonts, suitable for inclusion via CSS. I have a particular fondness for Lilita One, but that's too heavy for a full screen of text.Queexchthonic murmurings 10:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Slimy Goop: "Which article was vandalized? " As I said, I simply don't recall the woman's name. (It as Hanne Tolg Parminter) But Paravant slammed a new user into the VB or placed a block or something for misbehavior at that page. He might remember who she is. It was an article on some Islamophobic hack in Norway.---Mona- (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling all admins: Fundies Say the Darndest Things needs a new manager![edit]

I know that [FSTDT] has an article on here and it's been a go-to humor website for me for a long time. As of 10/1/15, Distind (the current admin) is looking for new management. This site has had quite a long history and has been through multiple admins, so if you feel like saving a piece of internet skeptic history, here's your chance.— Unsigned, by: Unkorruk metorran / talk / contribs

In terms of actual humans with actual time to do serious website management, rationalwiki is running a bit short too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ISIS[edit]

I read an article just now about how our government does not know what to do with teens who try to join ISIS. I have a simple solution, lock them up and while in prison force them to see a psychiatrist; we try teens as adults as it is when it comes to premeditated murder so do the same. Terrorism is terrorism no matter how you slice it. As for forcing them to see a psychiatrist, we could use medical science to gaze into the minds (not literally but a figure of speech) of potential ISIS members and maybe prevent others from following suit. ISIS is a global treat that needs to be dealt with. If you disagree then present your own solutions and they can be discussed rationally.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier or at the very least more legal (maybe, I ain't no lawyer) to just revoke their travel documents (that what Germany does to combat to combat football hooligans traveling to other countries to stir up shit, AFAIK)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is an interesting link- http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
"Our government"? Which one would that be? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Everything I know about prison tells me this is not going to end well for the teenagers. Even more because we need less non-crimes in prison, not more.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I meant the American government (Mistake on my part)but the thing is, what do we do with criminals? We keep wanna be ISIS members out of prison they are likely to escape, we have to do something about them. If not prison then what?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually try to solve the issue instead of just using jail as a catch all avoidance of it?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Send them to a psychiatrist? Yes. Send them to prison? Nah. Send them to American prison? FUCK NO. That'd just make everything worse. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I am not unreasonable and I can compromise on this issue- first a fair trial then send them to a mental hospital. If they are able to redeem themselves through psychiatric care but those who are beyond help keep them there.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That won't help either. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If prison or psychiatric hospitals won't work then what will? Kids need to know actions have consequences. Like I said- something should be done. How many of these kids suffer from mental illness and need the psychiatric medical attention but they do not get it? To me ISIS preys on the mentally ill who think nobody cares about them or those who have voices who tell them to destroy. If none of us can compromise on the issue and do nothing then more will try to join those monsters. Now my question- what is your solutions?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The amusing idea is that you beleive sending them to prison or a mental health hospital will cure them in america. You need to stop acting like you have even proposed a solution--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
not treat all Muslims like terrorists? Maybe treat them with the same dignity and respect you would anyone else? You know, not help to radicalise them in the first place? Failing that is Guantanamo still open? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
question: if I run off to join Isis tomorrow, assuming I don't behead anyone, what crimes specifically can I be charged with? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Since the group was founded by inmates at Camp Bucca, locking them all up might be counter-productive. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@AMG, maybe Treason?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I am willing to compromise. With wanna be ISIS members, get some kind of psychiatric medical help. I know it does not cure mental illness I should know as I suffer from mental illness and I can tell you it can be pure hell. But psychiatric care would show these troubled teens that there is hope and help, but like I said- SOMETHING needs to be done and soon but because the American and other governments cannot decide on anything, there is no actual protocol to deal with troubled people who want to joining ISIS. If not prison or psychiatric care then WHAT? House arrest maybe with mental health care? We cannot let more people join ISIS because more people will die senseless deaths!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, many (most?) Guantanamo detainees are known or suspected terrorists where there simply isn't enough solid evidence to convict them, and where there's nowhere to release them to (as neither the US nor their home country governments would welcome them back). It's a very dubious situation for everyone involved. Putting people in jail (or mental institutions or house arrest) on mere suspicion of wanting to be a terrorist would just be opening the door for much more of the same, as well as furthering divisions and radicalisation as aMG points out. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
locking people up as mental patients for political crimes doesn't seem much of a compromise. @paravant: I realise everything in treasonable in the US, but fortunately here in blighty that won't wash. For clarity as the internet is incapable of not taking things literally, the Guantanamo thing was hyperboleAMassiveGay (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I know, but I was gonna mention Guantanamo anyway before you did, since it's the closest thing to a real world example of what RZ94 is proposing (at least within the US & its allies) and is a massive fiasco. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I stated, if someone can be properly treated for mental illness then let them go but for those beyond treatment then keep them there. If someone is associated with ISIS then but they did not actually commit an act of terrorism then just keep a close eye on them but if someone associated with ISIS did some act of terror then lock them up. So far world governments have screwed up on preventing teens joining ISIS. If anyone has any compromise then I am willing to listen but so far I have seen none.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
is not loving america enough a mental illness? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
you are right, western governments, and societies in general have failed in preventing radicalisation. What you are suggesting would add to that failure AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Just because a nation has flaws, loving your homeland is mental illness. AMassivegay, you disgust me and you offer no solutions. What I am asking is an very straight forward question- What is your solution?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Straightforward as in simplistic. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to provide a solution to recognise yours is fucking awful. As weaseloid all ready stated we've already tried it with Guantanamo. Didn't work. But really, how exactly do I disgust you? And what exact mental illness do these returning Isis chaps have that you have diagnosed? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Did I say I was a doctor? No. My point that everyone seems to be missing is- we should work together as a global community to prevent terrorism but no everyone has their heads up their asses doing nothing. This website complains about republicans non-stop but why not look at ourselves. Is there anything more incompetent than us no coming up with anything? AMassivegay, you say my ideas as you put it "Fucking awful" and you do not need to come up with anything; then why are you even posting? Now to all of you- THIS IS WHY ISIS IS BEATING US! WE ARE JUST WATCHING PEOPLE THROW AWAY THEIR LIVES! OUR OWN STUPIDITY IS DOING US IN! NOW HOW ABOUT WE DISCUSS THIS LIKE MATURE ADULTS! IS IT THAT HARD?!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
What causes terrorism & how to prevent it has been a massive concern for the global community this century (and before) so your assessment that everyone has their heads up their asses seems rather wide of the mark. It's a very very complicated issue & won't be solved by trite solutions that involve throwing basic principles like due process & human rights out the window. ALL CAPS ranting doesn't help either, if indeed you do want to discuss things like a mature adult. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
EC. if all you can suggest is detaining people and questioning their sanity you are part of the problem. Look at what drives the radicalisation of young muslim people, and I am pretty sure you will find Guantanamo, drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, torture and black sites right up there. Add that to the islamaphobia rife in western societies, on TV, in tabloids, in the street, you get angry young men ripe for the picking. I don't and cannot offer solution because its a complex and difficult situation and I, dispite my wishes, am not a genius. Your solution, at best, is shutting the stable door after the horses have bolted. At worst, it adds fuel to fire of radicalisation that could only be worse if you made them draw pictures of Mohammed as well. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the people who go to join ISIS go through Turkey, which allows anyone to cross into Syria if they want to fight for ISIS. Turkey has even let ISIS use Turkish territory as a staging ground for launching military offensives. Turkey has financially supported ISIS by giving it weapons, recruits, and money for oil. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also huge funders of ISIS. If you want to stop people from joining, you need to stop their ability to actually get to their territory, which is easily accomplished by the United States establishing a Kurdish country that surrounds ISIS. Then the flow of recruits will stop, as people will be stopped by anti-ISIS guards along the border who stop them from getting into ISIS territory and joining them to fight. If the US truly wanted to cut off ISIS form the world, it would have told off Turkey and supported Kurdish separatists there, as they would easily cut off ISIS's border with Turkey, which stretches for 75 kilometers. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think its treating the symptoms not the cause. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry I snapped but it is very frustrating when someone wants to discuss something but instead of getting any responses that would be useful all I got was being told my responses are wrong. I will start fresh, we need a good idea to prevent kids from joining ISIS. Now there are some psychiatrists who disagree that most terrorists do not have mental illness (here is the link- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/frontpage-forensics/201305/terrorism-and-mental-health--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)) but I am thinking from the perspective of children who have mental illness and coming up with a psychiatric protocol to deal with it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If you provide bad solutions, you can't expect people to jut look past that.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I am willing to compromise. I know there would be no way for any psychiatric therapies to stop an ISIS member, what I am saying is we should focus on psychiatric care for teens who want to join ISIS, there may be hope for them. The American Psychiatric Association should discuss with the FBI, Homeland Security, the National Institutes of Health and individual state health departments for the development of a protocol to deal with teens and adults who plan to join ISIS. Like I mentioned, doing nothing will not help. I am aware those who are a full ISIS member is (probably) beyond redemption.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of seeking medication first, we actually try to address why they think ISIS is a better bet than western culture and all its islamophobia is?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, start out with a psychological evaluation then go from there. I can agree with evaluating why someone wants to join ISIS because there would be psychological reason behind it- depression, sense of belonging, mental illness or someone who is a criminal and gets a thrill out of violence. Once enough psychological evaluations are completed then health organizations and law enforcement can develop a protocol to help potential ISIS members.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yah thats not what I said. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I hardly think psychological illness is the primary recruitment factor of ISIS. Might have something to do with the US foreign policy of bombing the shit out of everyone and letting god sort the good from the bad? Tielec01 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Repression in general has made ISIS as nasty as it is. The Iraqi people have undergone the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, US sanctions that increased child mortality, and the US occupation (cough Fallujah cough) to follow. 3 decades of oppression and imperialism will probably be enough to send you over the edge in terms of embracing religious fanaticism and make you less empathetic to your fellow human as a result. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/teenage-jihad-inside-the-world-of-american-kids-seduced-by-isis-20150325?page=7
I think this article might highlight the problems we have with ISIS recruiting of teenagers better than just going on about mental illness. Quirk (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"ISIS's message is, 'Come and help us build a utopia that will protect every single Muslim,'" Hmm... Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
JAQing off if frowned up on this website.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Pfft, spoilsport. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"Come and help us build a utopia that will..."? Sounds like about half the revolutionary recruiting messages ever (the other half being "Come and help us punish..."). --65.101.119.25 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A new frontier: Dispelling myths and woo in social sciences[edit]

I know that there is already some coverage of some social sciences on this here wiki. However, compared to religious and "hard science" (medicine and the other subjects you can get Nobel prices in, as well as biology) woo it is sadly under-covered. What do y'all think? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, 'cause we need a fresh new shitfest besides Israel/Palestine, Greenwald-worship and GamerGate.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I like this idea. There's a good long list of psychological crank theories and woo out there for documenting, a good portion of which even persists among psychology undergraduates, but especially tends to form a group of common assumptions about the human mind that exist among the general public. Quirk (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I assume you mean pseudoscientific beliefs relating to social science (eg. functional neurology)? Tielec01 (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I say even as an active university student of the social sciences (that is, not studying any natural sciences) that the social sciences certainly breed various veins of postmodernist, anti-empiricist nonsense from time to time. I've shared classes with abrasive vocal, politically active students (in this particular case, overtly self-identified "third wave feminists" and vengeful subscribers to "prejudice plus power" - donning various bulky garments home-woven from what looked like burlap) who childishly argued with me about issues of natural science that could only be raised by a person completely uneducated in them; e.g. how come and why the contents of a glass of water "had" to be made up of atoms (offering no alternative theory) and scoffing at the word "hydrogen" (?), to in the next breath claim that "hermeneutics are more important than physics" and that "Carl Jung and deep ecology" (but not Freud because that's sexist and he didn't approve of soul energy theories) deserved more mention in a truncated summary supposedly of all the scientific developments 1800-1950 than did physics, chemistry, biology or any other natural science. Screw atomic models, germ theory, evolution, the periodic table, galaxies and DNA - make room for Feyerabend! In conclusion - I'm all for this suggestion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Social science shouldn't breed postmodernist anti-empiricist worldviews; certainly these views hold no water in the mainstream of social scientists. It sounds to me that you are talking about Arts students (eg. Feminism/Hermenuetics). The first claim you mention (water & atoms) sounds like a philosophical question rather than a factual claim and the second claim (physics versus hermeneutics importance) is a value judgement which is a matter of opinion and probably isn't an empirical question (depending on how you define important etc...). Tielec01 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Correct. And as they were co-students, they were not representative of the actual field of study we had. The professors didn't touch those positions with a ten foot pole, because the professors I had for that course kicked ass. But I'm just so painfully aware that there are academic people out there, vocal people, who cannot possibly claim in their defense to simply be unintelligent - and who literally think that knowing jack shit about the natural sciences is a plausible premise for making any type of statement about anything, never mind wiping their own arse. So, for what it's worth, it's clear that a social science woo section needs to reflect our coverage of natural science woo. Note that I'm certainly not calling social sciences woo; I'm just agreeing that we should invade the echo chambers of the postmodernist art students whenever reasonable to do so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
What even constitutes social science woo? Aren't the social sciences generally not bound to hard line theories considering that the human element is involved in every one of them?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by hard line theories, but there are theories in the social sciences. There are also mathematical models that attempt to account for "the human element" and, as with any measurement, there is variance that must be accounted for. Social sciences are younger than natural sciences and measuring inside the old noggin' is harder and more fraught with error than looking through a microscope. It's natural that appropriate measurement tools and techniques will take time to develop - especially with the inherent resistance people have to behaviour/cognition being predictable and measurable.
RBP - there is a tension between Arts and Sciences, that much is obvious, but I find these arguments as ships passing in the night. One side wants to argue semantics and the other empirical data. I don't see these being fruitful articles on RW, we don't have the philosophical expertise on hand to do them justice. Let's stick to social pseudo-science (eg. The Game / seduction theory), which is well within our abilities. Tielec01 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Evolution, gravity, relativity, continental drift, etc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Starting with 'A' - Attachment theory, attribution theory, anticipatory regret theory, availability heuristic, attitude-behaviour consistency theory... (these are just psychology, which is obviously my area of expertise). Tielec01 (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there psychology woo then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, in terms of within psychological science, much of what Jung and Freud espoused was pseudoscientific. I would say that this wasn't widely accepted even during the height of their power; I wasn't around at the time. There are still Freudian psychoanalysts purporting to be psychologists and this I would firmly call woo (I haven't even checked if we have an article on it but we should). Furthermore there are wide-spread mistaken beliefs that people have about IQ / cognitive ability / g (my area of research) that I often encounter on this very wiki and even among psychologists. There is commercial abuse of these tests and personality / motivation / emotional intelligence tests that definitely goes into woo territory, which I have tried to write a little about here (but wikipedia is a far better resource). Of course this is by organisations who have a profit motive.
Outside of the science, I'd say wide-spread public ignorance is the hallmark of any scientific field. However, IMO people like to think that they understand psychology because interacting with people makes up such a large part of our lives (whereas the speed of light in a vacuum...) People form strong opinions with very little real evidence in a way that they wouldn't with other subjects. A normal person will not argue with an engineer about the load capacity of a bridge, however, people feel very comfortable arguing against psychological principles. To this extent there is alot of misinformation, misunderstanding and general ignorance out there which you could call woo. I'm open to the fact that other people probably feel the same way about their field though, so YMMV. Tielec01 (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'll add my input, for what it is worth as a doctoral clinical psych student. Psych definitely has some woo, but that varies widely on who you ask. You list attachment theory, but I'm not sure how many practicing psychologists would agree with you on that. I'm not a fan myself, but I'd wager that the vast majority of practicing psychologists rely on it. I'm not personally aware of any big criticisms either (Wikipedia has 0 based on a quick scan). Nor am I sure attribution theory counts as woo. It is simplistic to be sure, but it works to an extent. Bigger woo would certainly be the MBTI test. There is no data supporting the use of it for really anything and it pretty much is Forer Effect gone amok at this point. Positive psychology has taken on some woo aspects in the last couple years and I imagine that mindfulness will soon be heading that direction given the popularity it is seeing. AyzmoCheers 13:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I was listing then as examples of theories not as woo. Yes MBTI is woo (Jung again). Not so sure about positive psychology I just think they adopt a style of communication that would appeal to the kind of person that needs positive psychology. The evidence for some of their claims is weak, which is to be expected as the field is in its infancy. Having said that I put into practice some of Seligman's recommendations. Good to see another psych, there used to be a few of us here. Tielec01 (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The social sciences are a bit more diverse than the natural sciences, and require a grasp of a number of different methodologies. FWIW I've tried to supply articles covering various aspects of pseudo-linguistics and bogus archeology. One problem is that the social sciences more easily get dragged into political quarrels about nationalisms and ideologies in ways that the hard sciences resist more successfully. Looking for the influence of wishful thinking is one line of attack. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Archaeology is more of a physical science though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I had a nice long conversation with an archaeologist that I think provides useful illustration. She's got a lot of fancy hardware, she knows how to use it to have a very good idea what's buried without digging, whether that's a fort, a trash pit or mine workings. This is useful because (a) we can't afford the resources to dig up the whole planet's surface to see if there's anything cool under it and (b) digging stuff up can only be done once. If you dig it up today, in fifty years with a much better technique and understanding you're going to wish it was still buried. The analysis is validated by occasionally digging things up that you "found" with magnetic / radar / whatever surveys and seeing if they're as you anticipated. So far, so hard physical science. But then, sometimes after others in her field dig a few bits up, and sometimes just based on the survey, she's going to try to come up with a story to explain what she found. "Based on what we've found we think these hill people traded X to the valley people for Y, and that must be where they learned Z". And she admits these stories are sometimes going to be wrong, wrong, wrong. She says more than one colleague has given instructions for them to be buried with specific weird objects purely in order to frustrate future archaeologists who come upon the grave. Why was this 21st century human buried with so many graphite rods and flat pieces of steel? Were they of religious significance? Was this human a great king? So they're at least aware when their work shades over from real science into something less... reliable. Tialaramex (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Censorship" lists[edit]

Dumb idea: When we revert something because it disagrees with our ideology significantly changes the tone of the article without talkpage consensus, would it be worth it to document that fact in some way?

Example: Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#Censorship_list

I can't quite explain why I think this might be a good idea, but it has something to do with honesty and showing that even though we don't agree with some views, we don't try to totally erase them from existence. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Said disagreement is not erased, it still exists in our fossil records. We can't be expected to list every time some random passerby takes ill to our article content. As well, it would quickly spiral out of control on hot topic issues like gamergate every time the newest Gger shows up to throw a stick at our coverage and/or Ryulong.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC):
True, it's not *completely* erased, but how many people will check the fossil record? And yeah, I'll admit pages like Gamergate would be a shitfest, but I think that's true regardless of whether or not we document this stuff (eg, see the talkpage now) Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The only difference between how it is now and your talk page idea is it puts a list of "this random bon showed up, yelled about how bad we are and made a bunch of changes before being instantly reverted and leaving/being banned" instead of leaving those in the fossil record. We wouldn't really get any more honesty by listing them in a easy to find format. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
While I appreciate you taking the time to raise the issue, FCP, I must contend that I'm with Paravant on this one. Also Paravant - well put. I thought the same thing - won't this just create a LOT of manual work for us to keep that list up to date? Besides - just humoring the concept - wouldn't some kind of software change that allowed to us to mark certain undone revisions for that kind of list collection be the (only?) reasonable way to create such a list, anyway? Just a thought. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Para: I think visibility of information is a big deal.
@RBP: It'd be cool if there was a "rollback and post to talkpage" option. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Reverting messy or tendentious edits isn't censorship & shouldn't be branded as such. Talk pages are for discussions & don't need to duplicate the role of the fossil record. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
So basically like the fossil record, but with extra commentaries? I dunno, sounds kinda navelgazy to me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, navelgazey, and Category:Solutions in search of a problem. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medicine[edit]

I read how Naturopathic "Physicians" claim then know as much as an Medical Doctor or Osteopathic Doctor but if that is really the case then they should have no problem passing the USMLE or the COMLEX tests. If N.D's want to be licensed as a Primary Care Physician then they should have to pass either test. But we all know they cannot.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us posted on what you read. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
While what you read and your thoughts on it seem perfectly agreeable to me - if the source was good and contained anything novel or worthwhile mentioning, add it to the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried finding information on the NPLEX test but could not find anything. The Wikipedia article was right about the little information on the NPLEX--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Give Me Sex, Jesus[edit]

Will probably only watch on the weekend, but looks like a cool documentary on the "Purity Movement." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Rant About Incels[edit]

Just a stupid rant, but this group just pisses me off. The ironic thing about them, though? If they were actually just interested in sex, I'd legitimately feel sorry for them. I was late losing my virginity (the night before my 21st birthday), and there was a gap of several years between my first sexual experience and my second. So, I actually feel kind of sorry for socially awkward guys who are in their late-20s/early-30s still trying to lose their virginity, with so much social pressure. For those guys, I wish prostitution was legal. To me, there's nothing wrong with one of them saving up some money, going to a nice, safe, legal brothel, trying his damndest to be respectful, and having another human being give him an orgasm. To me, that's a reasonably trade for money. Orgasms feel better when someone else gives them to you (also, if we stopped treating people who've done sex-work like trash, it might reduce the prices, since more people would be willing to do it in the absence of stigma).

However, what incels seem to want isn't just sex, but love. They want to be loved without ever doing anything to earn it. They have nothing to bring to anyone else's life, but they still want validation from others who should value them for...existing...congrats, you beat the odds, your parents had sex, and they produced offspring with your exact genetic code...good for you! Good for you!--Mustex (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a named group of people?! I thought that this was called high school (played a lot of StarCraft and Dungeons & Dragons).NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 12:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
They want to gain wizard powers first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Moderate nitpick: prostitution is legal under certain circumstances in many developed countries, including the U.S., Australia, Netherlands, and Germany. Okay, granted, in the U.S. only rural Nevada permits it, but while Nevada is a blasted wasteland, it's not too hard to get to. And then of course there's the fact that "escorts" are everywhere despite the law, and both customers and workers have a low chance of being caught. Most prostitution arrests are of streetwalkers and their customers (who by total sheer coincidence are disproportionately poor and minorities). This doesn't detract much from your argument, and I broadly agree with you, but I like having facts straight. And just to head off snarky comments, none of this is knowledge from personal experience. --Ymir (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Dino's out of prison[edit]

Figured I'd let you know.--Palaeonictis (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I figure everyone who's interested probably already knows. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 01:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the "automotive city" on mission?[edit]

If you don't know what the concept of the "automotive city" is see that other wikiWikipedia's W.svg. Basically I would argue that it is on mission because it is a now widely discredited ideology that was once framed in scientific terms and is still held by a notable fringe, mostly on the political right (but also by some alleged "leftists" in the developing world). And there is the added benefit that its advent as an idea coincides with fascism and Stalinism and many of its early proponents were also fond of fascism. And in many ways the automotive city and the fascist city are incredibly similar... So what do y'all say? Should an article on said issue be made? Or should it be shot with extreme prejudice? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds not implausible, add it to to do - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else got an opinion on said issue? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I barely grasp what the whole thing even is. ArcticVixen (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
American City Design from some time before but in particular during and after the 50's shift to white flight suburbia. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Basically the idea that each and every thing in a city (including its built environment and its people) has to be subordinate to the "free flow of (car) traffic". The idea first arose in Europe in the late 1920s and early 1930s but it had its biggest influence on cities in the US. That being said, places from Brasilia to Bielefeld, from Frankfurt to Fort Worth and from London to LA show signs of it. The biggest problem with this ideology is: Not only does it produce ugly cities (do you like pedestrian underpasses?) it is also woefully inefficient at its stated goal. Car traffic in cities that went as far down this path as Atlanta or LA is no better thaen it is in places that couldn't or didn't tear down most of their inner cities and old towns to build ever more arterial roads. And it should be obvious to everybody that there is only so much tearing down and paving over you can do before no-one wants to go to the city in the first place because there is just nothing there. It has been measured once that in ca. 1990 London a cab was no faster thaen a horse drawn cab in ca. 1890 London. And all that even though there have been numerous changes to the road network and the built environment to - arguably - make London "car ready". Induced demand is a bitch. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Related to Heroic Materialism? See also: Suburban Hell. Flux gate gamma (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I have not yet added it to to do, but someone added gentrification. If that is missional, surely the automotive city is as well Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"you are distroice in hell !!"[edit]

Just wanted to show y'all a picture I just snapped about an hour ago as I was walking home from the store in Uppsala, Sweden. Law of exclamation, anyone? Also, my first file upload so comments are helpful. Maybe I should've resized it down? Etc. Enjoy being santified: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Santify_close.jpg Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The image seems to give an error? Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's try this link instead: http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/e/e4/Santify_close.jpg Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It says it got uploaded in the upload log? Maybe it just needs a moment to settle in. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Log/upload Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
To show pic: [[File:Santify close.jpg]]. See here . Scream!! (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Since the note is written in English (well, sort of), I take it there's a large foreign community in Uppsala. Mainly students and staff at Mid-Sweden University, right? Spud (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's written at all. It reads like Markov chainWikipedia's W.svg generated prose, with Bible texts segueing into unrelated matter based on the appearance of similar phrases. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll correct myself. Uppsala UniversityWikipedia's W.svg. There often used to be adverts for jobs at Mid Sweden UniversityWikipedia's W.svg when I was looking for teaching jobs in The Guardian in the 1990s. That's why I know that one. Anyway, I'll ask gain. Am I right? Spud (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean with 'foreign community'? That there's a non-negligible amount of non-Swedish students in attendance? Or something more? Either way, English is a lingua franca in much of the world these days; Occam's Razor would suggest your hypothesis makes some unnecessary assumptions. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
First off; thank you all for taking an interest in this measly addition. It warms my heart.
@Spud While any "real" answer probably lies in searching our statistics on that matter, I'll have to point out that the fact that the note is in english really matters way, way less than one might think here in Sweden. I mean, I easily read more english than Swedish in a given day, and I'm only considered exotic and enthralling by the ladies here. If you sort top-to-bottom by "% English speakers", us swedes actually beat Canada in english fluency. Though, speaking from my own experience - yes, there's a certain amount of brilliant foreign minds of various stripes present at SLU and Uppsala University, absolutely - and we're happy to have them all. Personally, I study at Uppsala University. Though regarding this specific nonsense text, the name given seems italian. There's even an international number and an email adress given in case you want to contact this certainly very scary individual.
@Smerdis Semi-schizophrenic theists can't even write a shopping list without it coming out as some kind of alchemical formula.
@141.134.75.236 Yeah, besides the fact that to us swedes, english is as smooth as a 50 year old behind, every single exchange student that I've encountered have really been proud to basically "go swede" asap, at least as far as their self-identification goes. Not that anyone is demanding that they do, but... S'cool, good people. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2015
Yes. A non-negligible amount of non-Swedish students. And faculty. Many of whom would have English as a second language. That's what i meant and nothing more.
I'm well aware of the status of English as the world's lingua franca. I rely on that in order to make a living.
So I suppose this message could be part of one loon's crusade to save the whole world (not just the people of Uppsala) from going to hell. Maybe identical notices will be posted on walls all over the planet.
And, Reverend. We do have our own page about Santa Claus. You didn't have to link to the Wikipedia one. Spud (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mental[edit]

I hear this term used many times but can someone here define, in rational or scientific speak what 'mental health' actually means? Thanks. 86.173.113.105 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Mental HealthWikipedia's W.svg? I'm not sure what you're confused about? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Given the current political focus on this issue, I was looking for a more objective and rational view than 'psychological state of someone who is functioning at a satisfactory level of emotional and behavioral adjustment' Are religious people, for example, more adjusted? Also 'mental health may include an individual's ability to enjoy life, and create a balance between life activities and efforts to achieve psychological resilience' may apply to mass murderers for example. So I think Wikipedia definitions can be questioned. 86.173.113.105 (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Did... Did you not read the next sentences about the WHO defenitions? they go further in depth and you seem to be picking out two specific statements while disregarding the rest of the defenitions...NolanSyKinsley (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I did read. Also 'However, cultural differences, subjective assessments, and competing professional theories all affect how "mental health" is defined.'
So is the definition of 'mental health' subjective? Or is there any science behind it? That is what I was attempting to understand. 88.106.87.110 (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you are unlikely to get anything useful from the Saloon Bar at RationalWiki. What inspires you to ask here? - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably the same as whatever inspires his usual JAQing off on the issue. See Forum:Dirk Steele said something & its archives. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is subjective. It isn't the same for everybody. The amount of anxiety that one person can handle will be different from another person's. That isn't to say there isn't a "normal." As a society we have agreed that someone who is hearing voices, someone with no conscience, or someone who compulsively washes their hands until they are raw is not "normal." They would not have good mental health. Even those I mentioned are on a spectrum though. Most people have "heard" their name even when they were alone, for instance. AyzmoCheers 13:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We've been infiltrated![edit]

Wikipedia - SJWs have conclusively won. .... It's not something to look forward to. Rational Wiki is full of similar bullshit due to similar infiltration and corruption. How does anyone say the word "infiltrated" without laughing themself to death? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

yep. too late now. 86.173.113.105 (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
At first I thought it was a joke/poe, but the I clicked around on that website and realize it's not. How depressing... Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If RationalWiki is a left-leaning site by design and intention, in what way can it have been 'infiltrated'? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Left-wing and SJW are not the same thing per-say.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)-"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
They pretty much are when a Gamergate enthusiast uses it though. (Which the poster of that Reddit clearly is.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
'If RationalWiki is a left-leaning site by design and intention'. Is it? Should this be made clearer in the purpose of RW statement? 86.173.113.105 (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
ARGH IT'S "PER SE". IT'S LATIN. Pet peeve. --Ymir (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Latin is a dead language and pretty much any other language looted it's corpse.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Still, educated people should at least know the most handy Latin phrases. To say nothing of the fact that the Britannic pronunciation of Latin constitutes first degree rape and third degree corpse mutilation. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Says the one who doesn't even know what Pot calling the kettle black is. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
RW was intended and designed to be left of Conservapedia - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
As CP is so for to the right that it makes Genghis Khan look like a communist, being to the left of them wouldn't necessarily make a project "left leaning".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
RW was infiltrated by anti-GamerGaters in 2007! - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
And by Zionists / anti-Zionists (pick your poison) in 1948 Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
(EC)To get pointlessly unsnarky and explain why: it appeals more specifically to people who like well justified(not always accurate or entirely rational) knowledge. Gamergate, by its nature, requires conspiratorial thinking. The opposition they get here, while sometimes ideological, is also ethological. I don't think there's an alternate universe where you'd get the corpus that makes up rationalwiki's other subjects(such as 9/11 truthers) without also getting dislike for gamergate. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I get kind of irked by this "left leading" idea which seems to be coming up occasionally. We shouldn't support anything because of its political ideology or because it happens to support some particular left-wing idea. For example quite a number of people on the "left" are anti-vax or anti-GMO. We should support things for which there is impartial evidence.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No one's suggesting that every left-wing idea should automatically be accepted. But it's hard to deny that RW's stance on various issues falls under the left-wing umbrella. Something something about reality having a liberal bias. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Also: Left wing Antisemitism is indeed a thing. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Is that surprising? The Nazis started out as a Worker's Party, ya know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Which was later taken over by Strasser and Hitler (simplified). Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
My point is that it's the truth of the concept which is important - and nobody is arguing this. And thus calling us "left wing" is incorrect, even if many of the evidence based ideas we expouse would be acceptable to the left.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I did say "Something something about reality having a liberal bias." But I agree with your point. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Everyone claims, that reality has a bias towards their own political stance and/or pet cause.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Well the D in KPD stands for "deutsch" whereas the D in CDU stands for "democratic. Still nobody would argue that the KPD was more nationalist thaen the CDU... Calling the NSDAP a worker's party because it called itself that oversimplifies things and is intellectually lazy if not dishonest. That being said, it can't be chance alone that so many KPD sympathizers joined the SA in 1933. The takeover of the bourgeois right on the other hand has also often been swept under the rug. Among the people who voted in favor of the Ermächtigugngsgestz was one certain Theodor HeussWikipedia's W.svg Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating & relevant as always. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The point I was making (but some might not have been able to glean from my words due to incompetence either on the sending or the receiving end) is: Just because the NSDAP called themselves a workers party doesn't mean they were one. And that's all I am going to say about that for now Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Gah, I lost my notes on some mathematical doohickey[edit]

I calculated this, wrote it down, lost it, forgot it, remembered what it was, didn't write it down, and forgot it. Can anybody help me out? It goes like this:

There are two values: [a,b]

On a graph, the x axis ranges from 0 to 100 (concentration), the y axis (output) goes from 0 to infinity.

At 0 concentration, the output is 'a'.

At 100 concentration, the output is 'b'.

At any other concentration, the output is higher than floor(a,b) but at least one possible concentration value must result in output<ceiling(a,b)

At any concentration value, if the ratio of a:b is exactly (concentration):(100-concentration), the output is exactly a+b. This must be the highest possible value for output.

If the values of a and b are increased at a ratio of A:B, then the concentration which satisfies (concentration):(100-concentration)=A:B will see an increase that is equal to (a1-a0)+(b1-b0).

Example: [a,b] = [25,75]

Possible coordinates are (0,25), (25,100), and (100,75)

And if we assume (50,c) and (75,d) are valid coordinates, then...

[75,125] is valid at (50,c+100) and [125,175] is valid at (50,c+200)

[100,100] is valid at (75,d+100) and [175,125] is valid at (75,d+200)

It's not some sort of homework, I swear. It's just something I'm curious about and have seen some programmers give up on, causing them to simplify it to concentration=0 and concentration=100 Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 10:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The function you are describing is called lerp, it is used all the time. Other interpolation functions are used as well. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Council for Christian Colleges and Universities[edit]

I came across this on Wikipedia and this is a group of colleges/universities that support creationism (Well not all but plenty do). Maybe this council could be a good addition to the site or some of its member schools. We already have articles on some of these schools (Cedarville University and Biola University). Tell me what you think.

The link to the site- http://www.cccu.org/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Good on these institutions, the lie that is evolution needs to be exposed. In due time the scientific establishment will release that the earth is young and that YEC is correct. Ghost (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah because a book with a talking snake makes far more sense. I am not against believing in a high power but you do not need to take the bible literally. There is no proof for creationism. Tell me, how does genetic diversity come from just Adam and Eve when Eve is just a female clone of Adam. Plus they only had male kids in the bible so did those male kids have sex with their mom who was a clone of Adam. How about this- how do you get enough food for the animals on Noah's Ark and prevent the animals from eating each other? Also disease would have spread on the ark so how would they survive that? Your bible is just an allegory.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Anybody who actually is worth listening to about Adam and Eve wouldn't ask as stupid as a thing as you did. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I could give a shit what you think Paravant but I state a valid point. Eve would be a female clone of Adam and according to the bible they only had male children. Where does human genetic diversity come in if the bible was a literal history of the Earth? If you want to complain about me then use the talk page.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, RZ94, are you so dense that you cannot recognize a joke when you see one? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but it is hard to tell if someone is joking on the internet. It is not like I can see facial expressions on through the computer or hear a tone of voice through text.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
General discourse from both YECs and Non is that Adam and eve did have more than just male children, and that incest of some relations was the mother of said males children, but not Eve so far as i've ever read. That the bible doesn't explicitly mention they were there is not surprising, Women tend to not be mentioned. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not just general discourse: it's what the Bible says. Genesis 5:4 WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Back to the main subject at hand, I think this group would make a good addition to the wiki.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Can you find someone who can actually write to do the article? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


FAQ on GMOs[edit]

So I think my project is about 2/3 done. Would anyone object to me putting it to prime-time a bit early? CorruptUser (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It could make a good side by side article. Not saying you have to.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks like a fantastic start. It might be helpful to address some of the argument from Monsanto bits, or at least wikilink to the article, in there. I assume you're going to address GMO labels ant things like that in the anti-GMO section. It might be helpful to talk about bananas and strawberries? Not to be nit-picky, three's some copy-editing that needs to be done: fluoride shouldn't be capitalized and there're some grammar issues here and there that could benefit from another eye. I'm not sure it is quite ready to walk quite yet, but it is close. AyzmoCheers 19:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said earlier, everyone is entitled to edit that part of my sandbox within limits; fix up what you like, add whatever you want, though I have effective dictatorship powers until it's live. Which I'm tempted to do now. Make live that is; I'm always tempted to go full dictator. CorruptUser (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is some material for the anti-GMO section:

Any more on this, anyone:[edit]

Burzynski bust? Scream!! (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone attempted a password reset on my account[edit]

Anyone else have this happen to them or is it a targeted activity? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone attempted to reset my password, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The asshat BON [4] who vandalized a few pages did it. I blocked the IP for a day. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
How would I tell if this was the case? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You get an email. Scream!! (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Which advises itself not to pay any attention to it, if it was not sent by you.
The attempt came, according to the e-mail, from IP "69.178.195.142", from what IP came yours?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I got the same email about the same IP resetting my password. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Man, the Dakotas? Fun place. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Carrington, eh? And Daktel sounds more like a diuretic than an ISP. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The Dakotas should just cease being North and South and fuse into one. Would reduce the number of states Amtrak doesn't serve... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I ranted about that once to my fiance. Didn't feel the need to waste time with Amtrak though. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
And someone tried to reset my Instagram password, too. The fuck is happening here?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 12:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Just checked my email; a reset had been requested from 69.178.195.142. Not by me, for the record. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Democrat Party debate[edit]

The first debate for the Democrats is taking place tonight in America, so we may as well talk about it. Opinions on who will come out of the top? Last minute predictions? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My biases (that a word?) say Sanders will come out on top, but he's facing Clinton, a major party member... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
My two cents: I think it'll be a tough night for all, ending in kind of a toss-up between the main duo with a slant towards Clinton, unless O'Malley, Webb, or Chafee somehow roll natural 20s on their Charisma check. Clinton's been hemorrhaging support for a while now, and will need to reassure the current base that she's still trustworthy and gain the trust of all those folks who support Sanders. Similarly, Sanders is going to need to gain the trust of the more moderate folks who think his ideas are a little too pricey or pie-in-the-sky, especially when the GOP in Congress is so discontented. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Sanders will win, but he will have to use this chance to launch his minority outreach. Clinton may fumble by looking like a robot, but I doubt it will be a big blunder for her. O'Malley will try everything he can to appeal to any fence sitters between Clinton and Sanders. Joe Boden may jump in, but seeing as he hasn't announced anything I can't imagine he would want to. Chafee will probably attack Clinton the most, but him and Webb will end up with no poll changes. The only thing I am disappointed about is that Lessig isn't going to be there since his appearance would force the issue of campaign finance reform which I doubt will be a major talking point.--Owlman (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"reassure the current base that she's still trustworthy." Are you kidding me? In what world is anyone connected with the Clinton dynasty "trustworthy?" I wouldn't trust a Clinton as far as I could throw one. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Well Lessig on the stage would be a softball for Sanders as he has stated his position on campaign finance several times now. I guess he'd hit citizens united out of the park. As for Hillary, I guess it really is money down already for her. There might well be some ticks on the game clock, but it is fourth and long and if she doesn't convert, she won't get the ball back unless Sanders fumbles. The other candidates are mostly the hands of a soccer player. They are not really good for anything, but you never know. I wanted to get a Handball metaphor in as well but for the live of me can't find one that an American would understand... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
So I am unsatisfied by this debate. There was little attention made to campaign finance reform and voting rights. Clinton just moved all her positions and kept her plan ambiguous, but she did come out strong on the GOP manafactuversies. Sanders was the only one with actual economic plans. O'Malley showed that he will have to aim for the VP if he wants to stay relevant. Chafee was a strong critic against Clinton, but he got very little air time and blundered from his Glass Steagel vote question. Webb also received very little time, but seemed confused and only referred to his past record without mentioning a plan for the future. The discussion on foreign policy produced very little inquiry for the future and the environmental discussion felt idealistic. Criminal justice, civil liberties, and immigration showed many fractures in the more homogenous answers; I was quite surprised by the responses to Snowden.--Owlman (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, It is a modern debate with time limits on discussions. We'll have to actually change the debate structures to get anything resembling issue discussion, even when we have candidates who base their entire premise on issues. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Bernie. I am forcing myself not to get excited again and be made a fool of as I was when I got all starry-eyed over Obama in '08. (He's GOP Lite.) But Hillary makes me puke. All that talk about reining in Wall St is bullshit and she doesn't mean a word of it. There's a reason Wall St lavishes her with money. Plus, she had to rattle her saber and gratuitously throw in crap about Iran as an enemy. Bernie -- because he might deliver, and he's not Hillary.---Mona- (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but one would expect some mention of voting rights at a Democratic presidential debate especially after what happened in Alabama and how California has passed universal voter registration. Hillary can't avoid being a hawk and I wish Chafee got more time since he is her biggest critic.--Owlman (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe Bernie will do his best to deliver, but I don't think most of the changes will come with his election if he wins the nomination, Like my prediction I expect him, regardless of whether he is the nominee or the president, to be the start of a leftward shift in American politics which will culminate in actual change under the next realignment, aka the reversal of the right-wing shift under Nixon - Reagan. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Paravant, I think I concur in your prognostication, except I want it to be true so badly that I'm afraid it clouds my judgment.---Mona- (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Aginghippie, I could build you a mechanical throwing device which could hurl the Clintons to a different continent if it will help you trust them... CorruptUser (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The pundits are all declaring Hillary the winner, but every single Internet poll disagrees, from about 75% Bernie at CNN and Slate -- to even the pro-Clinton Kos at 56%. Bernie wins by a lot online.---Mona- (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The media chose Obama over Hills eight years ago. Now we will see if the media can once again decide for us. CorruptUser (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
"Hillary," Bernie" "Jeb," "HILLS?!?!" When, exactly, did it become common practice to be on a first-name basis with candidates? It seems to be the thing to do this time out. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
When we got more than one candidate who shares a last name with a previous president, but not a first name (hence why it does not include Bush Sr. vs Dubya). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Since when is "Jeb" his first name? CorruptUser (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It's de facto used as one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:14, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Since he didn't want to be identified as a Bush. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Mitt Romney's actual name was Willard. Willard for crying out loud. And Jeb Bush in actually John Bush. When I originally heard of Jeb Bush, I thought it was short for "Jebediah", which further confirmed my anti-South(US) tendencies. But none of that changes thee fact that he would make a terrible president.

Wasn't there some law...[edit]

...which states that "the worse a website looks, the crappier the content is likely to be", or something to that effect? I distinctly remember reading a page about that here last year, but I can't seem to find it now :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably the Timecube Law. Compro01 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I dunno. Try Time Cube Law? Last section. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Those aren't the droids you're looking for. You mean Haig's Law. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
That's the one; thanks. Not sure why I had so much trouble finding that page :-/ (btw, speaking of the Time Cube, do you know there's a Page 2?!) Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Time cube has many more pages. Page 16's picture is strangely reminiscent of the bizarre screeds of Frances E. Dec. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Haig's law -PsyGremlinParla! 09:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Comes from a wiki, where the techs still didn't get off their asses to install a mobile view option or SSL.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Mobile views are often stupid, and TLS is overrated. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The mobile view in the MediaWiki software is one of the best one eva and SSL is really, really compatible.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

An honest debate regarding bias in media[edit]

So here comes the question: I think we are all in agreement that all media are biased (with "public" outlets like PBS or ARD [German public television] possibly less so, at least on domestic issues). And I think we are all in agreement that there is a meaningful way to compare bias of one outlet to another. So here comes my question: Do you think the bias in RT (the outlet formerly known as Russia Today) is bigger, smaller or equal to the bias in several American cable news outlets. I would also like to hear what makes you draw your conclusions as simple statements of opinion are not all that much fun.All the best Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ do you not know how to talk. In answer to your question, hard as it was to find: both are incredibly biased, in different ways. US Commercial media has a strong bias to the politics of their owners and whatever will get the most media hype out, while RT has a strong bias to whatever Putin feels like being said today. RT is much more corrupt Biased, however, as I can atleast generally trust american outlets to mostly be telling me the truth. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget most US commercial media towed the line regarding the Iraq War with very limited dissent (if any). RT mostly did the same with regard to Russia's intervention in Ukraine, so I'd put them on an equal basis there. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
In all honesty outlets like RT and (possibly) SputnikNews have a habit of being more biased than cable outlets, well, maybe on par with Fox News, since they both do end up directly or indirectly supporting conspiracy theories (RT with FEMA/WWIII-type theories, and Fox with Birther/Liberal Agenda theories) to make the other one look worse. Such as in the case of RT, it frequently uses these types of theories in order to paint and portray the West, more specifically the Unites States, in the role as the evil and nefarious mastermind behind world events, while Fox News and famed tabloids The Star and the Daily Mail, considerably right-leaning news sources, continually make the Republican Party (and to a certain point the Tea Party) out to protect traditional American/Christian values and the Democratic Party as the as more out to destroy those values. RT continually brings in people like Alex Jones to talk about the aforementioned FEMA camps, Lyndon LaRouche and others to talk about the impending failure of the US government/economy. So, the bias in RT can be said to be roughly equal to or bigger/much more ever-present than other news outlets like Fox News and the Sun. "Paravant" does make an interesting point by saying why each side is biased. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The interesting thing about RT's bias is that they are neither explicitly allied with the US right (like Fox News) nor with any other political movement in the US. In fact the RT bias might in my mind fall under the German term "Querfront" which is originally a term for an attempt to create a "broad" movement of both left wing and right wing individuals and organizations who share some common goal. Movements like this have happened in the time between 1929 and 1933 de facto in the KPD and NSDAP jointly voting down proposals of the democratic parties and voting for nonsensical proposals. Attempts at similar things are currently en vogue in the German fringe and PegidaWikipedia's W.svg (which we need an article on as it is squarely on mission) outright thrives on it. It should thus surprise nobody that people who like Pegida also like RT (which also has a German language version) - in fact people who won't give an interview to German media will gladly talk to - even fake - RT journalists. See this link - it's in German but even the imagery is hilarious... My point is: There are maybe three degrees of bias in the US... There is RT. Thaen there is a rather large distance... Thaen there is Faux Noise which is biased but on occasion has a decent person on their "hard news" segments only to shit all over it with one of their talking heads or commentators (hey even Papa Bear has his stopped clock moments). And of course after a huge amount of distance there comes balance fallacy TV (CNN) and "not the left fox news even if you count Olbermann who has been of the air for years now" (MSNBC). As for the network news, I can't tell as I don't watch them. As I won't be unbinned tonight, you will probably not hear from me before tomorrow, if that. Good night and good luck. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RT is an excellent source for facts and analysis of Western governments and their behavior that said governments don't want discussed. Western corporate media either doesn't cover much of these issues or generally covers them a in pro-Establishment manner. But if I were Russian, I'd prefer American news over RT to get some of the ugly truth about my own country.---Mona- (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

More like ludicrous conspiracy theories and the latest propaganda by Pootie-Poot taken as gospel.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 09:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There will always be bias in the media, no way to get around it ever. GMucking (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This is just an excuse for inserting your kinda bias into everything.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 09:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of excuses, this reminds me of Avenger saying "There will always be civilian casualties in war, no way to get around it." (paraphrased) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Pussy Riot has the right position. They know extremely well what's bad about Russia and it's media, but regard Wikileaks, Assange, Snowden and etc. as Western counterparts to themselves. They don't fall prostrate before our media, either.---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear fake-BoN, do tell me of the major shooting war that neither killed nor harmed a single civilian. But please do so at some other place thaen this saloon bar section as I don't whish to derail the discussion. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So Mona, to dig a bit deeper on what you are saying... Do you really believe that RT has the truth™ on Western countries that is censored in and by the evil corporatist media? For someone who is throwing whataboutism around with as much abandon as you do, it sure is remarkable how you can't see it when it's there. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

RT is incredibly biased when it comes to most subjects, it's blatantly obvious. They don't even try to hide it. It is a pro-Russian source. RT also supports anyone who is supported by Russia and does not treat US allies well. It has supported many conspiracy theories, such as the US knowingly and intentionally created ISIS with the purpose of sowing havoc all across the Middle-East just so Halliburton could make more money. It also says all Syrian rebels are ISIS and lies about which targets Russia is bombing, because it always trusts whatever the government says. Its covering of the MH17 crash was biased towards the Russian side, and it has said the Ukrainian government are fascist Nazis. Even though it is incredibly biased, it is not always biased against the right side. For example, its reporting on the Israel-Palestine War is pretty good and objective compared to US media. I watch RT about once every 10 days, and only short clips online.
RT is basically the Russian version of Fox News. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
They actually managed to out-bullshit Faux Noise.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
They'd manage to out-bullshit the biggest cattle breeding operation this side of Corpus Christi if they ever put their mind to it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

NASA's Unexplained Files[edit]

FYI, One of the producers responded on the talk page. I can find very little on the internet about this show (there's not even a Wikipedia page), and we're on the first page in Google. It's probably a good page to start expanding if someone has the inclination. At least the claim "a few real scientists that have been deliberately quote mined" should probably be references or expanded on (or removed)... Personally, I couldn't bear to watch more than 14 minutes of a single episode. Note that this show is not to be confused with The Unexplained FilesWikipedia's W.svg (which is a spin-off? It's also on Science and judging from the episode list it's probably full of bullshit). Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Gator link dump on user page?[edit]

See User:Tallyrand. Delete and oversight, or pat him on the head and tell him what a clever fellow he is? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Leave it. We don't need to care. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete and forget the linkspam. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
All links have rel="nofollow", so it's not going to influence search rankings. As long as it's legal, anyone can put anything on their talk page as far as I'm concerned. Do we really want to start censoring pages in the User: namespace? Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
i didn't delete it because it was gamergate, i deleted it because it was linkspam and we don't have an obligation to host it. It's even in our CS as a reason we can mess with peoples userspaces.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
We don't have "an obligation" to host anything. And since the "linkspam" doesn't influence search rankings I see no reason why we should care; one could also see it as "references" supporting the paragraph of poop text he wrote on his userpage. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Spam is spam, regardless of its effect. Unless you think we should just turn off our anti-spam account edit filters as well,afterall they won't "hurt" the wiki to be overwhelmed with them. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
But this isn't really spam; certainly not the the sort of stuff that the spamfilter protects us from (automated "buy viagra" sort if stuff). This is a human being expressing his opinion through a list of links. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
He could do it just as well without the linkspam. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with not caring. While I disagree with Paravant about bothering to delete it, I don't actually care what happens to it. So I'm a bit confused why two professed non-carers have bothered restoring it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:23, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My inclination is shown in the dichotomy I presented above. Hint: I do not favor a pat on the head and an effusive "who's a good boy?" Hosting is hosting. I don't think RW needs such a collection, to be linked by Talleyrand or his twit followers. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that RW doesn't "need" it, but RW doesn't "need" many of the comments posted by various cranks and assholes on talk pages, user pages, etc. I don't see how it's different from "Your position is wrong, and here are 20 links to prove it" Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if my idiom was unclear. "RW needs a dump of linkspam about as much as I need an extra hole in my head." That may not reach the level of "kill it with fire" but it still indicates that, in my opinion, that kind of content is a detriment to RW. Other people may argue about whether that is so, or the degree to which it is so, but I am happier with it gone. Is that better? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't personally see it sitting there on the guy's userpage as a big deal. Leaving it alone wouldn't be an endorsement. I don't mind it being deleted either. (PS: Insisting on restoring it and keeping it around could be construed as an endorsement, on the other hand.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Welcome to ZionWiki[edit]

Where everything is rehashed endlessly and the points don't matter. ArcticVixen (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In my experience that has been this wiki for 100% of its existence.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"Any sufficiently large community will have continues flamewars about the Palestinian question" Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The probability that an online discussion will devolve into flamewars about the Israel-Palestine conflict reaches 1. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
We got another Internet law, what's it's name?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
*rubs sleep from eyes* Whut I miss? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 20:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The aftereffects of the Zionism shitfest. I'll go on record to propose this law as the First Law of Internet Flame Wars. Or Mona's Law/Avenger's Law to follow naming procedures for Internet laws. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Movenger's Law? Avona's Law? I'll ship it. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Movenger's Law. That gave me a well-needed chuckle in the morning. When is the wedding I wonder? :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You sunnovabeaches, why'd you forget me?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It should definitely be my law. Pretty much wherever I've gone online in the last 4-5 years Zionism comes up, and when it does, well, you can, see what I do. It'd be fair to say I am known and loathed by Zionists in multiple venues, including Twitter. But I have to say, I've encountered many who are much better at acquitting the Zionist side of things than is Avenger. He's not even in the running. ---Mona- (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
"Pretty much wherever I've gone online in the last 4-5 years Zionism comes up." Where ever you go, there you are! (PS: the problem is you!) Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine it now. Mona x Avenger OTP. I'm trying to contain my laughter right now... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I have the "headlines with 'BUSTED' or 'EXPOSED' in them tend to be full of crap" one? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 08:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"rehashed endlessly" is so right. Israel-Palestine arguments, like debates between believers and atheists, are nothing but boring, because they, for the most part, follow a script that has been hashed out countless times in countless forums. At least with the I/P thing, there are always new events to fit into the formulaic back and forth, but even then, there's little of interest that wasn't said, usually by smarter and more articulate people, years and years ago. The rest is largely just echoes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

But I'm sure I can resolve this decades-old not-quite-a-war if I express my opinions in just the right way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
"Where ever you go, there you are! (PS: the problem is you!)" Pas du tout! Ce n'est pas un problème! It comes up in my vicinity; I set the ethno-religious, supremacist oppressors of Palestinians straight. Problem solved!---Mona- (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
" if I express my opinions in just the right way" Oh, if that's all I were doing the Zionists wouldn't care half so much. But no, it's the facts I cite that grossly disrupt the narrative they seek to maintain. Facts that ChrisAmiss, I and others edit into articles here, and which are percolating up all over the Internet. You do agree being straight about the actual facts is virtually always a proper goal, yes?---Mona- (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You're doing exactly what I was talking about. ArcticVixen (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Asking: "You do agree being straight about the actual facts is virtually always a proper goal, yes?" is exactly what you were talking about?---Mona- (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The premise to this section is clearly wrong. This is Gamergatewiki. A non-prize to the person who makes the most imaginative link between the two!--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bob, this is the Internet we're taking about. Of course someone(s) has already forged a nexus(es) between Gamergate and Zionism. ---Mona- (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add a corollary: Any sufficiently big political movement that is not explicitly about Zionism will at one point debate Zionism. Even if it is not a political movement but only a semi-large group of people who will talk to each other from time to time Zionism will come up. There will be no agreement on the issue and people will say nasty things. Even political movements that are explicitly about Zionism and officially have a given stance on it will have huge disagreements on Zionism. Even if discussing politics is explicitly banned, the issue of Zionism will come up. The longer a debate about Zionism goes on the more the likelihood of accusations of racism/antisemitism/genocide/intention to commit genocide/whataboutsim approach one. The longer the debate goes on the more the likelihood of serious disruptions or even splits of the community reach one. Nothing is an exception to this rule, not even groups directly founded as exceptions to this rule Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

KIC 8462852 and a 'Dyson Sphere'?[edit]

Is this one of history's greatest discoveries? http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-can-t-explain-the-bizarre-mass-of-objects-orbiting-a-distant-star. Or just some mundane astronomical phenomenon? I know we don't know, but any thoughts are welcome. Original paper is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf Scherben (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's no moon... Also, in (all of) Phil Plait's own words: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Methinks it's the first in a chain of events culminating in first contact. Of course, I have no proof, and I'm taking this almost entirely on faith, but I'm being really optimistic here. Who's with me? 107Ag47 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not placing all my eggs in one basket, so to speak, but I'm also kind of leaning towards that possibility if the researchers truly don't have any other explanation for the weird activity and some more proof that intelligent life is doing it... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Since when were giant discoballs an indication of intelligent life, though? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:48, 16 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm filing this alongside the WOW Signal. Ie. something that probably has a natural explanation, but could also be something indicating an alien civilisation. I really do hope so. Scherben (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Armchair activism time.[edit]

https://www.change.org/p/facebook-stop-banning-atheist-pages

Does anybody even know if Change.org petitions even do anything? In either case, it can't hurt. Also, we should have a page for Atheist Republic. Master NecromancerWhat is dead may never die 13:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's a clear demonstration of the abusive powers a majority can wield in a purely algorithmic environment. On the other hand, I have very little sympathy for users of Facebook and Change.org and their intersection mostly just amuses me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Just another example of why Facebook is stupid and obviously not intended for any sort of intelligent discourse. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
well, it was intended to be a website for people to keep in contact, so it's really not a surprise when it isn't full of intelligent discourse. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The Change.org petitions got totally out of control. My inbox was flooded with them for the most inane of "causes." So several years ago I unsubbed.---Mona- (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Facebook, Change.org is useless. BankBox (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Has anything off that site actually accomplished anything notable? ArcticVixen (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
According to this they apparently have had success, although when I looked at it, it was limited to Australia. That might have been caused by the site reading my IP though. Notable? Not sure. BankBox (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Might be by IP address. The petitions that cause actual change are limited to the US. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Not so. Here, here and here are just three examples from Australia. BankBox (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I meant to say that most of the examples highlighting important change on the website cite petitions from the US. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers[edit]

I don't know where to do this, but I would like the community at large to have a look at my recent edits of our page on beer. Do you think this is good? Do you think it is bad? Should we head further down this road? Should we mention IPAs more? In any case: Prosit. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My largest objection against the reinheitsgebot is that it's a No true German, and that almost all beers taste like the same (it's even worse than British beers). I Spent 2 weeks in Germany in March, and tried as many different beers as I could and all except one tasted the same. Certainly compared to the Belgian tradition, Germany is inferior in variety. I didn't know about all the other stuff, though. I also happen to be drinking a German beer right now, which is a very rare event (MUST BE MAGIC!!) which mentions the 1516 reinheitsgebot on the front, but has "Hefe" as an ingredient; it also mentions "Hopfenextrakt"; I wonder what that exactly means... Some sort of processed hops? Certainly seems like stretching it ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah yeah "Hopfenextrakt" which means extract of hops and is used to get a more stable taste is also legal according to the modern beer laws and not mentioned (or even thought about) in the 1516 law. Almost all major breweries (I like to use the term "Fernsehbier" ~ TV beer as the beer which makes TV advertisement tends to be sub-par to my taste) use "Extrakt" instead of real hops. Good catch, I will update accordingly. And as for the taste being all the same: Especially compared to Belgium, this is at least in part due to the Reinheitsgebot. And in another part due to many, many breweries having gone bankrupt since at least the 1970s. One of the reasons for that is that beer consumption has overall decreased slowly for most of the last four decades in Germany. Another reason is that even minor sports clubs and bars now have only one beer on tab that gives them a certain amount of sponsorship for the privilege. In this dog eat dog competition you either join or die. (Heck even the American Football team whose games I watch has an official beer sponsor) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I like beer and all[citation NOT needed], but I wonder what the missionality of this page is ... Your Reinheitsgebot section is missional IMHO, but how do the Know your beer! and American beer, Craft beer, and Greed fit with RW's mission? Maybe move to Fun page? Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I mostly added the Reinheitsgebot section because I thought it was missional. The craft beer section I am not married to. However, do have a look at the talk page of beer as the question of missionality has come up before... And the current funspace article is too different from the mainspace one for the two to be possibly ever fused... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
"...almost all beers taste like the same (it's even worse than British beers)."
Berliner Weisse tastes the same as Dortmunder Alt tasted the same as Bamberger Altbier? You can find variety if you are willing to travel. You can make make weird beer in Germany, you just can't call it "bier". I had a cabanis beer in Berlin that was labelled "trunk" (drink). Peterdjones (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no doubt there are more German beers than those that I tried; but most "mainstream" beers that you find at supermarkets, bars, and restaurants seem to be the same. This is different from The Netherlands, where you can find a wide variety of beers (including German) in almost all supermarkets and most bars/restaurants. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Strange degree program (name wise at least)[edit]

I know this is not the strangest but Michigan State University has a bachelors of science to PhD in Packaging available. I looked at the requirements and I am wondering why they just don't call it industrial engineering? Here is a link and make your judgment on this- https://reg.msu.edu/academicprograms/ProgramDetail.asp?Program=0405 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for keeping us all abreast on interesting programmes offered by major state schools. I look forward, with bated breath, to your next message about such topics, which are, I'm sure, of interest to many users of this website. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 I'd wager they have good reasons for calling it packaging and not just "industrial engineering", an obviously much wider and less descriptive term.
@AgingHippie Boring topic or not - way to be a dick about it, Hippie. Besides, if you want to scratch your sarcasm itch, there's way bigger fish to fry right above you. Peace to you too! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple or three decades ago I took a summer job at a Scout camp in southern Michigan, near Jackson. The fellow who ran the range next to mine was also a college kid, in the packaging program at Michigan State. He seemed sane enough, without obvious deficits. In that belt-tightening epoch, the U of Michigan closed a whole department (geography) due to lack of interest, or funding, or whatever, so it's not like a sizable Rust Belt university would keep a program going if there were no call for that specialty. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I do know it is ran by the MSU College of Engineering, that is why I suggest calling it industrial engineering. Not saying it is a bad degree program (there are worse) because someone could get a job in the industrial engineering field.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
This is usually down to the wishes of the company sponsoring the course. Welcome to modern further education. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A shitfest in waiting or a worthy addition to our page: the Historikerstreit[edit]

So basically in the 1980s there was a big public quarrel among German historians regarding Stalin, Hitler their crimes and what one has to do with the other. old auntie wiWikipedia's W.svg has a bit on it (though the German version is more fleshed out) and there is a lot of kookyness to it. What do y'all think? Long overdue addition to our project or off-mission and just an invitation for yet more shitfests? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Historikerstreit is of interest largely to European history professors Of A Certain Age (ie those who cut their teeth thirty years ago, when it all went down) and the poor grad students they supervise. Not sure it would cause a shitfest, unless a bunch of Stalin Fans and Holocaust Revisionists take note. Which I guess is what would probably happen. Still, worth a snarky article on. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I can hear the tankies coming. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I suspect, that Mona is one, judging by her wanting to fuck up the Communism article, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I apologize in advance for asking a stupid question, but: What are tankies? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Read and shudder.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Well it seems for some people the search for a dictatorial homeland never ends... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, speaking of dictatorial homelands... ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:27, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

FFS, Arisboch. I've been hating on Joseph Stalin my whole life, and smacking around idjits who tried until quite recently to claim Alger Hiss was innocent. He fucking was a spy for Stalin. You just can't stand the idea that Cuba is not Satan in all things, whereas I insist on considering actual facts.---Mona- (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Now MoTankie, you just cease that objective analysis of facts right now ;) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a bad habit I've developed. It compels me to admit that American Stalinists were even right about some things, such as racial prejudice. For the longest time the majority of "patriots" were white supremacists. That blacks like Richard Wright or Paul Robeson became Stalinists isn't shocking given that the CPUSA was far more accepting of them than the real Merkins.---Mona- (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So there is a rough consensus for on mission by virtue of nobody having argued off mission? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect policy[edit]

Is there a policy on redirecting common misspellings/alternative spellings like e.g. Moving the Goalposts ? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

there's no policy, I support that shit tho Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I took said issue to the saloon bar, because a user who shan't be named, deleted said redirect. Twice. So I did not want to start a stupid deletion war before asking for some community input... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
142, care to share your opinion? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As you wish. Allow me to present you with a reductio ad absurdum argument: [5][6][7].
*takes a bow* And I couldn't have done it without my lovely(?) assistent, Avenger. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Alternate capitalizations is probably a bit too fanatical ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. No decent wiki capitalizes article titles like that and it shouldn't take too long for readers to work that out. Anyway, if they were that dense, they'd probably expect the title to be written as "Moving The Goalposts". Creating alternate capitalization redirect pages would just be a waste of time and energy. Spud (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
But wouldn't deleting them once they're there be an even bigger waste of time? I mean... What harm do they do if they're there? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It can be annoying if Moving the goalposts is ever moved for example, since double redirects aren't followed (so there's more work). It also "breaks" the "what links here" special page. Not a huge deal, and doesn't really matter that much. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I Wonder[edit]

If Steve Jobs is in hell, does he have to use the computers he sold? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

.... not a fan of Macs then? SolPyre (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather use a virus-infected Windows 1.0 <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Windows and a virus infected Windows OS is definitely the worst thing that can happen. Hell, RW doesn't work on my old infected machine. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I prefer Ubuntu and will get it for my new PC for which I will hopefully soon have enough money Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm writing this on an Ipad, though. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Real men™ use Linux, wget, and vi. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Fuck vi, SciTE is the way!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I fear I'm becoming racist[edit]

I'm a minority, but I'm having a hard time not being racist. I interact with blacks, and the "gangsta" "thug" culture regularly due to where I live. It's horrible and glorifies violence over trivial things like shoes, reputation, "bitches", minor insults, etc. In comparison to whites they seem very prone to violence, and I was encouraged to hate "white people" and it seems the anti-white racism is pretty common in my neighborhood. I've learned it's not just around me where this is the case. I'm trying to say it's all stereotypes and that's good when I'm behind a computer reading leftist articles, but I daily have to face reality where my illusions are shattered. It doesn't appear to be some, or even many people but almost all (if not all) I interact with. I'm trying not to become prejudiced, and I really don't know what to do at this point. I've never seen whites that weren't Hispanics act like this so much. This is a genuine problem I have. I can tell by my thoughts that I'm becoming more prejudiced every day. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the key factor is poverty, and not so much race. For example, if you adjust prison rates for poverty the amount of blacks are not that much more than non-blacks (in .nl anyway, not sure about the states). There are also white cultures that glorify violence, such as 1% motorclubs (Hell's angels being the most famous), certain black metal crowds, etc. The whole MRA thing is also mostly a white people's party, AFAIK
I will admit, I've also sometimes thought "racist thoughts" ... not sure why, as I have almost no negative experiences with minorities (in fact, where I live there are very few) ... Obviously, I've never acted on them (in action or word), and I suspect that many people have such thoughts on occasion... -Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything contradictory in believing that "gangsta" culture is something pretty terrible that needs to be changed (I don't think having a taste for gangsta rap makes one fall into that particular culture, to be clear) and drags Black people down, while still having leftist ideals about what can help these people have a better situation. Do you actively hate all black people because they're black, or are you just wary of a particular subculture and its values ? The first would be a big problem indeed, the second one isn't. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright, more the second then. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As a minority in that situation, I can attest to that. Poverty seems to be the cause of a bunch of things like that in my corner of the city. Though that anti-white sentiment is pretty absent, but many of the older people have Ben Carson/Jim Bakker mentalities. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Fedora Well, I appreciate your honesty. Here's a fitting punishment for you - my two gargantuan cents. I can easily say that I've also had a lot of disturbing and/or very disappointing interactions with individuals whom could easily (especially so with malice) be sorted into the typical ethnic or societal groups. Other people, who would fit into other groups, almost never cause me any trouble whatsoever. A certain basis for stereotypes in my personal experience, if you will. And yet, I can't say I face the same doubts you do - though naturally, depending on how far left these "leftist sites" you regularly read are, you're bound to meet a reasonable amount of propaganda there - like everywhere where people are pushing an opinion, for the record.
Besides the point that CarpetSmoker raises above (that one must never forget that poor people will always act like poor people), my reasons for not facing that same doubt while still sharing your general record of having had your left-leaning ideals challenged in everyday life is that: I'm not trying to unify the statistics I read with the real world I walk out in. I mean, I don't think I personally meet that many people in a day. I meet a reasonable amount of people in a day. Maybe counting everyone I see during the entire day, a thousand people, add or take? Per day. I get in the actual proximity of way fewer people, in the hundreds maybe, and I interact with much fewer still. Counting cashiers at stores, the bus driver, people I share class with... I'd wager it's 50 people in a day. 100 tops. And those people aren't all that randomly picked, either. For one, they're people who obviously are at the same locations I chose to go. They happen to frequent, for whatever reason, the same place I am at, at the same time as me.
Now, in my case - I'm certainly not under threat with a deadly weapon to go to where I go - I actually pick which places I'd like to be at, also when I'll be there (besides university, though I did pick what and when to study). Having counted me, regarding the remainder present: I don't think many of the people I interact with at these places in any given day are under any threat of violence to be where they are, either. Though some present are probably forced to, to some extent (e.g. your exhausted, grumpy employees working at the store or some such). Thus, it can be said that we're all reasonably choosing to be where we are; I know I certainly am. And naturally, I frequent said places at specific hours of the day, and at specific weekdays, and so on. Meaning: I certainly don't register (as if present) what goes on there at hours other than the ones I'm there during. I also know that since I choose to go where I go, I'll often opt out of going alltogether if I'm feeling down or in a bad mood on that particular day. It's not the end of the world for me. If I'm hungover or feel like shit I can snooze my appointments without risking too much in terms of consequences (certainly not bodily punishment). Other people though, especially employees, may not be able to not go to the same places I go voluntarily, just because they'd choose not to if they were given the choice. In this scenario, they have to be there. Some people, no doubt, are instead present where I am (rather than at home) because they cannot go home at that time (for whatever reason). It's not for everyone that home is a sanctuary; some may even be driven outside just because whatever they do that day (say, ditch school) they certainly couldn't spend that "ill-gotten time" at home (e.g. assuming a parent is home that day)
Regardless, I'd like to point out that the attention I personally pay to my surrounding comes and goes a lot as I'm just making my way to wherever for whatever, almost always on foot. I often listen to music, mind wandering, thinking about all sorts of nonsense - I fade in and out of making any type of recallable record of my surroundings. And why shouldn't I daydream? I'm just me, walking. Though from time to time, things get etched in my memory. I certainly pay a lot more attention (and memory) to instances that startle or anger me, like people being unexpectedly loud right next to me for no apparent reason or witnessing some angry public exchange between strangers, than I pay to, say, twenty instances of parents passing me with a stroller? That just doesn't stick in the same way, though it's equally present. I'm not threatened or annoyed by that, it's even mundane. It just doesn't rile the ol' memory recording machinery in the same involuntary way. And obviously, as I'm walking, I'm not really out there "collecting statistics", nor could I do so with this "method" even if I wanted to. That's not how you do statistics. That's just me a regular case of me, walking around like a Joe Schroe - not there against my will, and not there at a time that wasn't of my own choice (add or take). Hell, I don't even go outside if I'm in any number of bad moods if I can help it.
One could say that I'm there in "the best of worlds", in a sense - meaning, if I'd have felt that anything major spoke against my need or desire to go outside, I probably would've stayed at home. And since I'm rarely "forced outdoors", I atleast try to remember that other people present where I am at the same time may not have had that same luxury of choice. I can't hold them to my own standard of having "chosen everything", of having had options and of only permitting myself outside because I felt that my tank wasn't on empty. Further; about the numbers of people. There's, again, not all that many people I interact with. And during these interactions, maybe obviously, I'm investing my own sense of meaning into them. It's not just up to the people I meet if it's a crap day or not - on days where I'm happy, people generally feel nicer and the town looks inviting. I notice that I pay attention to fuzzy things like children laughing or couples holding hands. On a shit day however, everyone potentially comes off as a nose-whistling bag of dicks to me. But through all of this, I'm very aware that I'm not objective. The thing is, my experiences are incomparable to statistics. Real life isn't like, "One the one hand, I read this statistical analysis - but on the other hand, I've also only met rude people who were brown!" Science is more like - you need other comparable statistics to refute or refine statistics. Your experiences are not a basis for statistics.
It's not like "Well, I read that youth gang crime is down, but where I work the only consistently rude customers are some hip-hopping hispanics!". You can't try to unify actual, proper statistics and your own life experience. That's literally impossible, as they're intrinsically based on a wide view of society that can't ever represent one person's experiences. You'll constantly reach the same conclusion if you try: that what you read doesn't reflect your experience at all! Give them the chance and scores of people will draw this conclusion, correctly no less. You know why? Because your experience, conversely, doesn't reflect what's in the statistics at all. Statistics can be true for society without being relatable to your life. I mean, obviously - you weren't present at all those places, sometimes nationally, that the statistical data was collected from, all at once. And we all know how insanely selective that type of memory-centric "data collection" would be, anyways. And so on. And this is where the fallacious nature of any direct comparison between a person's everyday life and actual statistics becomes rather evident. Think back on one of those times, when you'd experienced or witnessed that kind of event - one including members of a to you given racial group - that would later cause you to write this thread. At that time, you were probably not out conciously "trying to make statistics" - and if you were, you still wouldn't be "collecting data" in any scientific sense of the word whatsoever. I'm guessing that you were just out living your life that day, a big part of which is running into assholes. And there's no statistics indicating that the last asshole's been born just yet.
And, to go on a tangent, what's the charm of homogeneity? There's no homogenous culture that's not needed jails. Not needed therapy. None that eradicated bullying. None where older siblings and younger siblings live in perfect harmony. None that never say a suicide. None where disrespect never hit hard, or coversely: none where underserved respect was never coercively demanded by scary looking people. No culture where children growing up never saw their mother cry once. And no culture where ideas about this-and-that group (especially contrasted with "other groups") wasn't present. Homogenity is itself a fairly ridiculous term - look at Rwanda and the all too recent mass murder and ethnic cleansing that took place there. The citizens of that country actually convinced themselves that there was some kind of absolutely major difference between themselves and their neighbours. From the viewpoint of "another race", that looks like a joke ("Y'all black as ace of spades to me"). And from space, the idea that humans are all that different from eachother looks equally laughable ("Y'all upright apes to me").
But I digest. Back to our present. Maybe people keep that casual view of statistics in their head while they interact with "other groups", naively thinking that their own experiences and personal observations could somehow "complement" the actual sciency statistics they've read (and not, instead, muddle them up entirely). So, I imagine, if one thinks like that during any interaction with a member of "another group", a negative such experience - especially if one has conducted themselves with manners - could certainly fuel doubt. "But I've read so many nice things about "them". Maybe all those statistics were wrong, as they certainly don't apply to my experience? Because when I look at my own life, I've almost exclusively had bad experiences with [pick your group(s)]." And so, I figure you reach that point where you juxtapose mis-applied actual statistics with a hyper-subjective, semi-intentionally cherrypicked selective memory experience, and end up surprised that these two "data sets" don't match up with eachother at all. An outrage!
Worst of all, then, is the rather normal everyday occurence of talking to other people and comparing experiences, maybe thinking to yourself that "their experiences will certainly add to my own "experience-statistics", and I'm already having trouble reconciling what I've read and what I experience. If we're now two people who can't fit the statistics into our own experience, then we may be on to something!". Though, I'm going to suggest that it's not with anybody one raises thoughts like these, on race and on racism. The anonymity of the Internet aside - I'd wager that the people that seem most likely to entertain such a conversation would be your friends, maybe people you agree with generally. People you know aren't "racist" or intrinsically hateful - and people you also know wouldn't call you a racist, either... Could this be how an echo chamber is born? When seemingly many people, people you respect (and maybe care about) no less, all basically agree that the real sciency statistics "must be completely out of whack". Well, if you ever find yourself in a situation remotely like this scenario - whatever you do from here on out, just don't go for the cardinal sin of data collection - searching for fitting pseudostatistics that specifically push confirmation for your pre-held convictions. Those exist, ad naseum, and can lead to fractal wrongness.
As a final note to this fever dream of a post, I bring you the mother of all oversimplifications. Here goes. In this context, the term "statisticians" refers to those based in universities and governments which would be internationally acclaimed, and for recitable reasons. I'd wager that statisticians - for all the formative strife within their profession and their various ongoing discussions on method - generally don't suffer from these same problems of personal doubt you do at all. As far as I'm aware, it's not statisticians that are leading any charges in society. While their political adherence can be powerful, as long as they remain under my definition here as arguably netural, they're specifically trying not to mix up their own life with the statistics they study. They've learned it fucks up their statistics! They're not out meeting a lot of people and basing data on that touch-n-feel experience; they deal largely with numbers, in the form of data gathered by people who aren't trying to shoehorn their lifes into the data they report, either (fun fact: if I simplify past this point, this text will turn into one fugly kindergarden watercolor painting). My point being, "real" statisticians (flimsy terminology, I know) sit in buildings and deal with numbers and variables, hopefully not even "getting the chance" to feel very much emotionally pro or con against any of the people and actions that their data represents.
The point is that - in comparison to how we remember our interactions from everyday life - in the absolute ideal scenario, for the statistician there's just the question of sound science and various bodies of scientific data, much of it impersonal. And - it should come as no surprise - the numbers that this process produces don't nearly fit into the specific life narratives of any given single person of any given single "group", who interacts with members of various other "groups" and tries to find patterns of productive and destructive nature. So, what was my point in all this? Well, besides a retrospective realisation of how long it just took me to say comparably little - under the condition that the stuff you read on society and racial issues is based on sound statistics and as truthful as one could ever hope to read, then stick with the statistics. Don't confuse society with your life. Those are my two, big-ass, insanely oversimplified, daydreamy cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Holy shit that was hard to read as a single paragraph. Sorry, but I broke it up so I wouldn't be a wall. ArcticVixen (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, much better. But still, ¡puta madre! that is a big chunkin ton of text you wrote there, Rev. Black Percy. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No greater compliment than getting your text structured by someone else. It implies it was worth reading, if nothing else to laugh at. Good show old bean. And yeah, that did kind of turn out longer than I thought, huh? Oh, well. The most oversized two cents I'll ever give, methinks. Also lol, ArcticVixen's segmentation of the text helped to elucidate how poorly it was written - sorry for leaving you all with such a godforsaken mess of a text. Anyways, I hope I've made it less crap now, but who knows? If you read it before my edits, I weep with you. If you find it in yourself, please read it all again. It's rather different this time around. All the best. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I get the gist of it. You should write a novel. Or at least a novella. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I just might've done so! But seriously, thank you. I was suspecting you might have just as well tried to curb my writing enthusiasm after reading the above, so hey - I'm just glad if you found my addition useful. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I work with mostly black coworkers, who while they're about 98% awesome, see no trouble with spouting off about what a great leader of black people Louis Farrakhan is. I thank my stars I haven't fallen under the spell of David Duke, and I think that if I were to go on at length about Duke being a great guy I'd be quite rightly brought into the office of our organization's president for racial harassment. They're also stunned when I mention that my town (in very affluent suburbs) has a serious drug problem and has its share of drug-related violence. Because apparently white people can't experience these things, or something. And god forbid I mention how isolated the town I live in is and what that level of isolation can do to a person; apparently having good parents (as I do) lowers my standing because... well they never actually get around to saying why that's such a horrible thing, or why it means I can't know the meaning of hardship. Autism doesn't seem to mean much to them either, my brain perpetually being in total FUBAR mode can't possibly make things more difficult. All of that reminds me that racism (in its literal definition, which is how I always use it) is not unique to any one group, and reminds me of how similar we all are in the end. Styx, anyone? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I may explain the stiff reaction to autism. It seems there are a lot of, and I mean a lot, of people in my neighborhood with some sort of autism or other condition, and most of the time those are misdiagnoses. Hell, I was supposedly schizophrenic and autistic for a while before it turned out I never had any condition...after some 4 years. They might just be dismissing your autism off as something along those lines of thinking. Though I might be wrong... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Mine's a matter of record from Yale-New Haven hospital, they've used my brain for all kinds of studies (quite a way to earn a few bucks). I think it's a combination of what you say and that we work with some severely autistic people, and the connection between me and them isn't immediately obvious; it's there, but you really have to know what to look for. The one thing that comes up is they seem to think I can't tell them apart because I think all black people look alike, it's because I use the wrong part of my brain to recognize faces (I've seen the MRIs of my head myself and they look really whacked out, it's a hallmark of autism) and my facial recognition is horrible as a result. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I remember something about that condition. Forgot the name of it. I saw it in a Doug Coupland novel once, where all of the characters have some form of autism. Oh, and btw, you mean to say that your brain has been helping researchers further their...research into autism? Cool. Lastly, yeah, it's common 'round here, so maybe it's both of what was said. '''And the Sun will continue to rise, Now and Forever...''' (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've been used for several studies on autism, mostly related to visual tracking while watching social interactions, emotion recognition, and facial recognition (or in the case of the last two, lack thereof). These studies are usually pretty enjoyable, I always encourage people at college to go see what their researchers are doing so they can take part; advance science and get paid, doesn't get much better than that. (I think the condition you're thinking of is prosopagnosia/face blindness, the underlying mechanism is different but it has a similar effect) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It is very compelling seeing a doctor or scientist conduct their studies. Every time I have to go in, I'm in awe of the wax and plastic being used to expand the prosthesis. Though when it has to be jammed back in the socket the nervous reaction is a b*tch... '''And the Sun will continue to rise, Now and Forever...''' (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not alone. I myself am white, and probably the most left-wing person within 100 square miles. And yet I still find racist thoughts and reflexes pop into my head whenever I see black people. My god it was hard to type that. Does it have anything to do with me having bad experiences with people who happened to be black in the past? Most likely yes. It is something that happens to most people, and stems from a base human reaction to different tribes and civilizations. We are precoded to be fearful of other races and ethnicities, as it offers a tribal advantage in the short term. If human tribes were at war with over human tribes over resources, it is helpful to know who is who. At least that's my theory. Keep in mind this is not something that is unique to America, you see it all the time in the Middle East and Europe. Take for example Pakistan/India. If a Punjabi sees a Pashtun (the ethnic group most Taliban are), their mental reflex is "oh, terrorist sympathizer". If they see an Indian, they might be fearful. In the Middle East, if a Turk sees a Kurd, they think they are a terrorist. Same with Kurds to Arabs. In Europe these feelings have subsided since the Cold War and EU, but they are still there. The French are surrenderists, the Spanish are weird, the Italians are emotional, the Germans are big and bad, the Poles are stupid. If a Serb sees a Bosnian or Albanian, their heart rate rises. Same with Croats. The Greeks hate the Turks, and the Ukrainians don't like Russians. So how do we fix this? Well, there is one simple way. The way to stop racism is by thinking. I would urge you to watch this video, which I prefer. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone in my family minus my siblings, cousins, and I have that reaction. I remember a few years ago we had to stop for gas somewhere by Compton/Exposition Park, and my dad got out and told everyone not to get out of the car, because there was a large amount of black people there. Likewise, some of them also reacted the same way with my dad. To my dad, it was "black people - gangsters" and to them, "illegals - gangsters." You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! 23:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Truth Contest/The Present[edit]

Has anyone here heard about The Truth Contest, or their book, The Present? People seem to either say it's legit or it's a cult, and I can't decide. It has a lot of positive reviews but a lot of bad reviews too.

I'm guessing you guys will say it's a cult. I've heard that before. But could you explain why?--206.221.158.110 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing too special. http://antispirituality.net/truthcontest.htm 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Canuck Election[edit]

So the Canucks are having an election. Is anyone watching? If so, who are you rooting for? I, for one, was orginally hoping that NDP would win with Thomas Mulcair, but with his more centrist move idk if I still want him to win. Justin Trudeau seems good, but not very qualified. I am, currently, unsure who to root for or who will win, but I hope Stephen Harper is ousted. I honestly don't know much about Canadian politics so feel free to fill me in.--Owlman (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about any of the domestic issues and I don't think any foreign policy issue could possibly be important enough to either matter to the Canadian election or influence the world through the outcome of said election... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, some of the big news outlets have taken an interest in the Canadian election to a varying degree. I take it they're just passing the time until 2016, lol. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You gotta fill the 24 hours with something. In Germany the 15 minute evening news (the only ones anybody ever watches) usually find time enough to mention even obscure elections in Burkina Faso that can never possibly have any bearing on Germany... That's why the cliché "Americans know nothing about other places" is so pervasive with Germans. There are other reasons for that of course, but our no-nonsense, the world in your living room type of news (nota bene, that only applies to the most watched news program, private channels do have gutter news) does a lot to reinforce the illusion many Germans have of being well-informed about world affairs... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I forgot that there was one even after I heard about it early this month and from this wiki itself. I actually remembered through John Oliver's show. Outside of the antiterror laws, anti environmental stances (leaving Kyoto Protocol), oil pipeline plans, the TPP/TTIP/TISA/ACTA trade deals, islamaphobic laws and Syrian refugee crisis I can't think of much impact this election will have.--Owlman (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Woah, woah, woah, hold the phone. Germany has 15 minute news? How does that even work? All the outlets here devote a half hour to domestic city-, county-, and state-wide issues, another 30 minutes for world news, and they never even mention this sort of thing. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
MFW Canadian politics Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The main news (viewable online under tagesschau.de but you might need a German IP for that) are from 20:00 to 20:15 qith "prime time" only beginning after that. Even the other channels don't start prime time shows before 20:15 (one attempt to start them at 20:00 had abysmal ratings and was scrapped). Sure there is also the half hour edition later in the night with a bit more commentary. And there are of course local news on local channels. But the only news most people watch are those quarter hour, commentary free (until recently, there was not even a teleprompter, the anchor literally read the news from a piece of paper) somewhat bland but highly informative news. They are of course not entirely unbiased (nothing ever is) but even things like "who got how long to put their soundbite on the air" are serious business about this program. Oh and they also have a bit on the weather. When something serious happens (and sometimes just when Michael Ballack hurts his leg) another fifteen minutes or so is devoted to a special show after the news that disrupts normal programming. In case of domestic elections (even regional ones) a lot of programming is usually devoted to it. Starting at 18:00 when the polls close... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This one is the 42nd Canadian general election. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Liberal Bible Project" joke[edit]

I had a funny little idea. Suppose we made our own "translation" of the bible as a friendly gesture to our good friends over at Conservapedia. But this one is identical to the KJV, except for one single verse. Like Genesis 1:3 becomes "And God said, Andy Schlafly is a twat; and he was a twat." or of course "HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS". Because if they can corrupt the bible to fit their own views, then we sure as hell can too. I think it could be really funny if done right. Anyone else got any ideas? HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This would have been far more relevant years ago and if discussed in CP space. Whether it would have been funny then is up for debate.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Meh. I'm never relevant anyways. HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You might consider writing up the first twenty or thirty chapters on your user page so that people could get a better idea of what it might look like. I'm thinking it would get old quickly but I could be wrong.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Recently (can't find it now, damnit!) saw mention of a concise modern retake. Genesis & Exodus in one verse/two sentences each. Might have been somewhere on Patheos. Scream!! (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Careless, Uneducated, or Dishonest: my History Teacher[edit]

My history teacher was discussing historical conflicts between church and science and she brought up evolution. She used that to segue into a winding speech about her personal opinions on the topic, which she began by saying "It's [evolution is] just a theory. We can't prove it." I objected to that and immediately raised my hand, but she asked me to put my hand down, saying she did not want to debate me. She went on about how it's really just a wash between evolution and creationism and how we don't (with the implication that we can't) know which is true and how we only accept evolution because it sounds more sane. She also insulted archaeology, saying that archaeologists could just as easily misinterpret findings as interpret them correctly (I know about Iguanodon, but I think they deserve more credit than that). I feel that the opening statement is technically true, but very misleading, and it angers me. The rest of the exchange is similar (technically true, misleading, angers me). Am I making a mountain out of a molehill or was she acting inappropriately? Descartes (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC) 06:56, 21 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Your reaction to this farce was not just appropriate, but necessary. I'm guessing this was in America? I'm guessing, High School? Worth noting is that she's not the biology teacher. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I also have to agree that her digression was pretty inappropriate, and thought your response was pretty reasonable. Personally, I wouldn't be too deeply concerned unless she starts making this a pattern or she starts assigning homework/tasks that carry the creationist slant. (As an aside, please remember to sign posts by adding four tildes ("~~~~") to the end of your message in talk pages. That way, we can better keep track of who said what. Thanks!) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Funny thing is, I'm nearly certain she's not a creationist; she's just making a misguided attempt at presenting sides equally. I could not care less what her views on creationism are, I just wish she wouldn't present evolution in a dishonest way that gets half the class to say that creationism should be taught alongside science. It is an American high school, but it is a private school, and a very liberal one (maybe she thought she was challenging a generally liberal class?). I'm not overly concerned, but I find it hard to remain sane when a class I am not interested in insults the classes I am interested in. Descartes (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
B-b-but history is interesting t-too... '''And the Sun will continue to rise, Now and Forever...''' (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't hate history, I just find it less interesting compared to science and math classes. I actually was recommended for a higher history class, but I barely have time for my advanced science classes. Also, I prefer Arab history (Umayyad and Abbasid) and we are not covering that. Descartes (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, you did state that you love Arab history...alright... ''And the Sun will continue to rise, now and Forever...'' (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple of things:
  1. That history teacher sounds rather inept. Starting to rant about something rather unrelated to her expertise, instead of, for instance, discussing the topic from a historical perspective is unprofessional and the same goes for not checking up on the bare facts if you want to go into creation/evolution (plus it makes her sound lazy as well as ignorant).
  2. The history teacher sounds even more ignorant if, as the story implies, she thinks that archaeology is a sort of coin toss when it comes to correctly interpreting their finds. Basically, it's a science was wrong before fallacy and it ignores that the reason we continue to fork out money for archaeology is because it isn't simply guesswork, but it actually has a tendency to get things right. This similar to why archaeologists and historians continue to spend money on 14C analyses: They actually work (within certain well-known limits, of course) — claims by creationists/biblical inerrantists notwithstanding. Also, for the huge spans of history where written records are scarce or missing, archaeology is the only way historians can access the past (and it's extremely useful to check against written records too, btw). Any historian or history teacher ought to know this.
  3. What does archaeology have to do with iguanodon? Don't you mean palaeontology? If your teacher made this conflation, I'd be even more worried about her qualifications to teach history at all, given how much of it relies on archaeological discoveries.
  4. The "Just a theory"-gambit is old hat and simply indicates that the person using it doesn't have a clue about what "theory" means, especially within the natural sciences.
Long story short, I think the teacher in question is not worth her salary if this is what she thinks teaching history is about. That she's teaching at the high school level sounds rather disturbing. Any ideas about what her actual qualifications are and where she obtained them? I mean there are such things as fundie schools, not to mention diploma mills. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, the archaeology thing was my fault. I meant to say palaeontology. I was tired, and it has been a while since I read anything about palaeontology. As for her qualifications, I doubt that my school would be so careless, being a small private school. Also, my father works there, so I'd like to think it's a decent school.Descartes (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
If we assume that the school's "quality control" hasn't missed something then perhaps you've just witnessed an inverse stopped clock moment, at least if this kind of stunt is uncharacteristic of the teacher in question. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Without knowing more about your situation, I cannot recommend a choice between doing battle with this teacher and the school administration, or keeping your head down and doing what it takes to survive her class. (Even if I had complete knowledge the choice would still be yours.) N.B. those choices may not be exhaustive, and there may be still a way to find common ground, to establish a friendly basis for honest discussion, while still honoring the constraints of staying on topic in limited class time.
There may even be room to introduce discussion of the balance fallacy and the Overton window,Wikipedia's W.svg if context permits. Who knows? SmartFeller (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with arguing with a teacher over something that will most likely affect the worldviews of all of the students in the room, especially if you're right. Don't be coy, if you think the teacher is spouting nonsense, point it out and argue. You don't have to do this during class. Either way you will offer academic debate and rational thought, something that is desperately needed in the schools of this day. What state do you live in might I ask? Is this Texas or Illinois we're talking about here? Is the majority of the student body 'conservative Christian' or not? Reiterating my point, don't be afraid to call stupid people out on bullshit, EVER. Even if it is a teacher.
The reason I am engaging you is that I myself have argued with teachers before on similar subjects (politics), and am able to offer advice on what and what not to do. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Descartes has already mentioned a couple of times that this happened at his private, and liberal, high school - so it's not about fundie schools. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

the difference college makes[edit]

Speaking of creationism in schools, my ANE teacher just went over Babylonian World Order and discussed why this and genesis are the obvious reasons both are not true, and how you have to crap all over science if you plan to think it word to word. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We've circled something here[edit]

pretty on the nose about internet conspiracy theories ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never entirely understood the Lizard Person conspiracy. Like, the Moon denalists and things like 9/11 was an inside job or Secret OWG cabal, while still dumb and fake, have a kernel of "actually possible with reasons why", but Lizard people? Just so out there.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
How could you forget the secret Merkel hand sign, you sheeple?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty tempting thing to say that those who have power are fundamentally different from the rest us. This explains why they have power, and why they do (horrible thing) with it all in one swoop. Sure, lizards specifically is kinda dumb, but it creates a sufficient level of difference as to undermine the empathy we feel for, say, other mammals. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Personalizing abstract concepts (which are the rule rather thaen the exception in capitalism) is one of the characteristics of structural Antisemitism. Just sayin' Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
And out of left field --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI, you're being kinda obnoxious. I'd personally appreciate it if you stopped. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You might as well draw in a chain of fox heads on sticks. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 10:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Guys[edit]

Uhh, is Mexico even missional? Or should we keep it and make it more topical? You sir frankly disgust me! Hello! Look! 15:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Woo, funky religious syncretism, various amounts of major corruption and gang warfare, historical authoritarinism. Seems missional to me. Whether the current article is good, though... Also for future reference, you should put things like this on the article talkpage, it might not get as many views or comments but it is a more relevant place for discussing an article :P --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind next time. Seems like it just needs more sources. You sir frankly disgust me! Hello! Look! 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
And also the right-wing getting their panties in a bunch about either them (either the Mexicans, who're in Mexico or the Mexicans (or their descendants), who're in teh US).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The US right-wing, I assume? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well the Mexican right wing also hates (poor) Mexicans, but they are a bit less open about it... Also, we have apparently found it missional to have an article about a lot of countries. Even some that are merely proposed or claimed countries as far as international law is concerned. We even have an article about a country that exists alright according to the UN but is mostly lines drawn in the sand because nobody knew a better solution to the whole mess... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
We also have Sealand. Could you stop questioning the missionality of things that are clearly missional already? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Who is questioning the missionality of what? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thinly veiled complaints about past losses don't fly, avenger. But thanks for that little derailment--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Avenger, again, hardly lines drawn in a sand nowadays but thanks for playing. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A government holding on for dear live in a multi-side civil war while several places have already said "screw this im outta here" decades ago does not really constitute a "state" in my mind, even if said government is gaining ground... And as for you seeing things that aren't there, well I did not mean any of this (meaning my list of countries) the way you interpreted it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Please learn when to use "life" and when to use "live". Hint: if it's a noun, go with life. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry, my bad. When typing rapidly on the internet proper grammar and spelling (especially in a second language) go by the wayside. I apologize to all my former English teachers and for any offense that people may have felt. :-P Back to the topic though: There is no real reason to call Mexico off-mission as evidenced by our wide variety of countries in different states of existence that we do have articles on... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Grammar Nazi Coat of Arms Text.svg --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That "G" looks surprisingly like the symbol of Greek "Golden Dawn", though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You mean ₪? Not all too surprising, actually, considering both are stylized to resemble the same thing. 141.134.75.236 (talk)
Actually, it's mostly a spelling thing. Spelling ≠ grammar. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Spelling and grammar are sometimes - though not always - intertwined... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of spelling, hey Arisboch, perhaps this is a character of interest to you: Ѡ. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk)
You mean for the "cat smile"? Much too cumbersome, ":3" is much easier to type on a standard German keyboard such as mineWikipedia's W.svg, but it also possible to use such Firefox extension as Clippings or MyWords.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I was thinking about how it looks like a butt. :3 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A butt-emoji? Interesting.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry guys. I have realized the error of my ways just now after thoughtful consideration. Wait, why is there an ass emoji here? You sir frankly disgust me! Hello! Look! 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

New category ideas[edit]

I was thinking of new category idea and I was thinking that we could have a category for TRACS accredited colleges as well as a category for alternative medical colleges.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be a good idea if not for our general lack of articles on specific colleges of this kind. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:23, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Why not start a project on articles of those specific colleges?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Why should we? To attract frat boys cheerleading for their local football team? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If you read what I put originally, I was talking about TRACS accredited schools and Naturopathic medical colleges.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki has transformed into MyLittlePonyWiki![edit]

And it is glorious! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeehaw, we're gonna love and tolerate the shit outta him!!!!!!!!!!111--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And long may it remain so. My Little Pony is the vital issue of our age. Epoch-defining.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The "progressive movement" will soon all share (view x) on my little pony... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I honestly did not expect this much blow back for rewriting a page so it wasn't pro-Brony propaganda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps if you hadn't written it as a anti-brony hit piece instead. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if you weren't a Brony the only conflict on the page would have been Carpetsmoker being mad that I made the a redirect at Gay Agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Can we stop shaming people for their personal likes and dislikes already? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
You know, fuck you. Fuck you for that, saying that I can't be objective about this. I guess I can't be objective about the criticism of the LGBT movement since you know, i;m LGBt, I can;t be critical of white men either because, you know, i'm white mostly-male. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Rewrite the page already so you can unlock it and then you and Carpetsmoker can revert every change I make to it thereafter because I haven't seen any internal criticism arise from your version yet while everything else has been going after the fact I say that the 4chan Bronies are the worst of the bunch and responsible for all of the negative press the fandom gets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So long as they continue the line of "make sure we know bronys are horse fucking 4channers", deleting criticism of the show because "lol talking ponys" and shunting any legititmate criticism of criticism of the fandom as "white washing cocksuckery" i'll be sure to revert you. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Your version just better have those sources I dug up. And the pictures.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It includes much of what you wrote, though not in necessarily the same tone or way. In particular that horribly written portion where you say that otherwise socially acceptable men liking stuff they shouldn't has no repercussions and is just them whining and finding a persecution complex. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
(EC) You know, if you were less vindictive about this whole thing, Paravant might actually include all those things willingly without getting a wry feeling for giving you your way. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
He's clearly on the same level as Don Black and David Duke, the monster. Liking shows about colored horses! What's next? He's gonna shit on a holocaust memorial? Hang the nearest black person? Write "8=====D" on the wall of his nearest alley? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Anonymous user, the truth is... 02:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I made a minor correction, you reverted it for no apparent reason. I suspected much drama would follow if I removed all the nonsense you edited in, and I was curious to see how much drama would follow if I just drove the correction through (you still haven't explained what's wrong with). If you hadn't reverted that change, I would have made a larger edit to remove all the nonsense, and we would have the same drama we have now, except 2 hours earlier. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You went out of your way to keep making that "minor correction" even after I had explained it seemed to be intentional, considering it was written that way originally. It's fucking insane that rewriting this page has caused this much drama because it's clear Bronies can't handle any criticism. Even if they say they're the good ones and not the disgusting ones.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Go to hell. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent display of a lack of bias here. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've xpressed my views, all thats left to say is a reaction to Ryu personally insulting me because of his own gigantic bias against the fandom. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Rewrite the fucking page in a way you approve of already or I'll just delete it for lack of missionality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You seriously saying you wanna blank a page without due process through an AfD? That'd a bannable offense, you punk.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to send it to AFD when only Paravant and David Gerard can presently edit it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Then coop it, that's what the coop is for (e.g. for cases of administrative abuse (you disagree with Paravant modblocking the MLP article) and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, you seem to have a gigantic bias for the fandom. Namely, downplaying any negative qualities as much as you can, while still trying to feign at achnowledging their existence. Whether or not you agree with what I've said here, I think it's clear that you need to hand this page to a mod who is less involved. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Amusing, but no. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Finish the god damn rewrite so you can unlock the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Look. I don't like making blanket statements, but bronies are, for the most part, known for being incredibly defensive and controlling over anything talking about them, and that's exactly what I see happening with this article. I don't trust that you are able to separate yourself from this enough to deliver an article that is worthy of RW. For the sake of getting this drama over and done with, I would suggest to either nuke the page, or give it to someone else. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Because Ryu and by extension you, have gone a long way in revealing you can make a -fair- version of the article, and then when you are told you cannot, instead demand its deletion. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Because you went out of the way to restore the original version of the page first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a better base than your hate--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh please. You could have just rewritten it from that version without restoring it immediately. This is bullshit and you know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I could have, but i decided that not making any edits for a few hours while i debated you looked worse.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I never said "Give it back to us". I said "Give it to someone else who is more removed from the situation, or just delete the page." I don't understand why you think that's a sentiment deemed worthy of mockery. Deleting the page would be a fantastic idea, because so long as it exists, and a pro-brony slant is contested, the defense squad will come out of the woodwork and get angry. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You will not delete it it for missionality as that is not how things work. What you could do is start an AFD.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I'll do that when Paravant removes the indefinite mod-only protection of the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I went out of my way to make my point. The question is, why did you go out of your way? And what does it tell us about your reluctance to accept other changes to this page? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Because you were unnecessarily combative and assholish to make your point about capitalization and didn't like the way I mocked you for that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"unnecessarily combative and assholish" Guess what you're being right now, Ryu? Seriously dude, just chillax a bit, ya know? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm being keelhauled for kinkshaming bronies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Cause you fucking deserve it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Since when were kinks something to shame people over? Do you shame people with a foot fetish too? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:39, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Your Bronyphobia is interesting. You know you use almost exactly the sort of language a homophobe would use? Just replace "Brony" with "Faggot". Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
GOD HATES BRONIES!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So you revert edits because you don't like the person making the edits ... interesting... Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact I no longer like you and the fact I reverted you are not inclusive.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay; so why revert it 6 times then? "That's how it was originally" is not a valid answer. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The bigger question is[edit]

Why the fuck is My Little Pony missional? We are not Know Your Meme nor TvTropes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png really confused by the existence of cutlery 02:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My understanding was that there was some decision to cover the support of woo in the show--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There is one section actually dealing with whatever woo there is in the show and it's incredibly dubious whether that actually counts. The rest is just reactions to the show and about the fanbase. And, again, we are not Know Your Meme nor TvTropes nor Encyclopedia Dramatica. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I'll make it through, prove it to you 02:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That is an understandable question which has been addressed several times on the article talk page. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I had tried to make it missional but Paravant and Carpetsmoker didn't like how I did that because instead of spending 3 paragraphs on how one episode out of 100 concerned woo I rewrote it to say that a number of the show's fans are assholes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
We are not ED. Documenting asshole fans of every fanbase is not our focus. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I'll make it through, prove it to you 02:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Then maybe we should nuke it for not being missional like I did just now except I've undone it because I probably won't have sysop soon. But really. Paravant locking the page down for over a day so he can rewrite it in a way he likes is bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The original plan was 30 minutes of mod lock, long enough for me to make some edits and get out, but then i realized, and this is backed up by you being a twat, that 30 minutes wouldn't be enough time, so i gave myself a "til im done" lock that i'd remove when i was done, which wouldn't have been so long without your twattery. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, then, if we let it be about the bronies, then let's create a page for Gravity Falls and extensively talk about its fans obsession with incest. Let's create a page for Axis Powers Hetalia and extensively talk about the amount of unironic fascists, racists and japanese far-right nationalists in its fanbase. Let's create a page for Sonic the Hedgehog and extensively talk and document the ludicrous amount of porn about preteen furries the fanbase creates. If bronies qualify as missional, then so do all the people I mentioned.
Bottom line is, cartoons are for children, and adults that watch them are by rule weirdos and freaks. And not the type of weirdos and freaks we document. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png To the pure body, to the perfect existence 02:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"then let's create a page for Gravity Falls and extensively talk about its fans obsession with incest. Let's create a page for Axis Powers Hetalia and extensively talk about the amount of unironic fascists, racists and japanese far-right nationalists in its fanbase. Let's create a page for Sonic the Hedgehog and extensively talk and document the ludicrous amount of porn about preteen furries the fanbase creates." Yes, let's! I fully support this. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
No, the Gravity Falls fandom wants to fuck the Illuminati triangle. Clearly missional.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, ageist segregationism, eh? I see how it is. Non-missional my ass! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
It seems missional like Star Trek is, except that it's about LGBT and not science/rationality. At least, that's what I can make out of the description as I've never really watched it. It's perhaps not the most missional page, but certainly not spectacularly off-missional. I see no harm in having it, except, well ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ryu, I think Paravant was wise to lock the page. (I don't care that AgingHippie, and recently, SkepticWombat, reverted locks [not all mine] saying it wasn't the right thing to do.) It can be indicated and useful, if not for too long. That all said, it prolly isn't seemly for Paravant to be doing other than reverting instead of adding a lot of his own new edits.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
My use of modlock was to allow time to both make a new version of the article with content from both versions and to force the edit war to end without having to go out of my way to de-op people, --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Your version of the page still omits a lot of stuff that I had added that was not what you had considered "Bronies are 4channer horse fucking pedos". Modlocking a page because I tried to restore grammatical fixes and cut out excessive plot summary is fucked up. And I didn't even add back in the content concerning "Ask Princess Molestia", "Stellar Eclipse", or "Derpy Hooves" not that I don't plan on it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Just leaving this here, if you are sufficiently aggrieved Ryulong. Tielec01 (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I said it before if you attempt to blackwash the article to make bronys out as this horse fuckin child diddlin disabled hatin' fandom who hail from 4chan and the 4chan contingent is the only thing we talk about, while denouncing criticism of the show as "lol its a kids show who cares" and "they cant at all feel persecuted they're white men!" i'll revert it. Locking it just saves me the trouble and prevents from you throwing a tantrum and deciding it must be deleted because your shit version isn't being allowed in.. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The article was blatant brony propaganda and an advertisement for the series. Kitsunelaine and I removed content we felt was reaching at best and added content more critical of the fandom. I only intend at this time to modify the content on the character perceived as an ableist joke and the stronger sourced content on the fan blog that got taken down. I'm sorry that calling out the worst of the fandom in this way rubbed you the wrong way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I could honestly just copy paste anything i've said to you at this point and it would still be relevant because all you've done is go "you dont like my version therefor you wanna whitewash"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"The article was blatant brony propaganda" I'm sorry Ryu, but that is fucking hysterically funny.So, you think editors here are trying to propagandize for...My Little Pony. Even if Paravant has had some association with the Brony thing, why would he or anyone care enough to "propagandize" for it? I mean, it it's essentially just entertainment and a hobby. You're getting very wigged out.---Mona- (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I would give anything to have your innocent ignorance of this topic, again, Mona.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with both Paravant and Mona. Claiming the article is some pro-brony article is as ridiculous as claiming books are evil. Just replace "article" with "evolution" and "pro-brony" with "pro-liberal." I know I myself might be using a fallacy, thus giving no substance to my argument, but you have to know that right now you sound as bad as Andy Schlafly. You sir frankly disgust me! Hello! Look! 03:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"Your version of the page still omits a lot of stuff that I had added" But User:Ryulong, all of that is still available, just not on the live copy of the website. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So who are we and why are we trolling this way?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Just someone who likes to peek in from time to time, who felt that your setup there was too good to pass without comment. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The important point[edit]

is that bronies richly deserve to be shamed. #notallbronies #butjustenoughofthem - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? Which of the bronies? There are many different ones.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Mostly because when my daughter, who got into MLP as a member of the original target demographic, went web searching for MLP stuff, it's almost entirely brony-droppings. 19 out of 20 things are fine, the 20th is radioactive poop. This is on "safe" search too.
But really, I don't need to justify it. Fuck bronies, they deserve all the shit they get and more - David Gerard (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Fuck bronies, they deserve all the shit they get and more- David Gerard Why?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sheesh David, you sound like Avenger justifying the deaths of Palestinian/German civilians. That's never a good sign. I'm sorry to say, but the adult world is very much sex-normative. I'm sorry your daughter got confronted with it at an early age due to bronyism, but it's not like she couldn't have stumbled onto some gross non-brony porn just as easily. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. David, don't start to rant at people, just cause you're too fucking lazy to teach your children how to use the net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure she'd also have found gross weird porn just as easily if she was into Pokémon and looked up any specific creature. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png That's why our council tax is so high 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've seemed to have become some sort of universal boo-man in some circles... Interesting... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Eh. They're harmless. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

David Gerard: What happened to understanding Rule 34? "For the children" almost always sucks as a reason to be down on something. If some adults want to go all Brony, and a small % of these do it all porned up, why is that so awful? I really do not get it.---Mona- (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh hey look[edit]

It's a page about MLP:FIS! Complete with brony-wank!
Seriously, I question the page's missionality, but it's well-written enough that I don't give a damn if it stays. It certainly does no harm. Not convinced of evil bronyism, either. Now babyfurs, on the other hand...
(Also removed a trolling BoN's bullshit straight from KiA, but meh, who cares?) --Castaigne (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey everyone! How about each makes their own copy of the page and we vote on it?! It might not work, but it's worth giving it a shot and giving Ryulong (as much as I oppose it) a fair chance. You sir frankly disgust me! Hello! Look! 15:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Castaigne: What's your problem with those? Ex nihlo (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Ultimate Question[edit]

Who really gives a shit about any of this? ArcticVixen (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Goats FTW, down with ponies. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
that is all I am going to say about this for now... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So, whatcha fellas think about skub? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png That's just, like, your opinion, man. 22:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

skub? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:58, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Anti-skub all the way. Course I keep my head down in a pro-skub crowd. Those skub supporters can be real pissants, you know. 75.133.2.98 (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I fucking love My Little Pony. Of course it deserves an article, just because it fucking rocks (and mission, shmission). My son used to watch it, I used to watch it with him, and I think I enjoyed it even more than he did. Now, he's lost interest in it, so we don't watch it any more, my excuse is gone. (If only I'd had a daughter!) I'm a closet brony. Maybe I should come out. Resurrection by erection (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, RbE, most of the brony sources, even EqD, do link to livestreams before the new episodes arrive on air. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! 18:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So a JW guideline document has been leaked[edit]

http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/highly-secretive-talmudic-correspondence-guidelines-document-leaked-by-watchtower-insider

The document itself, for anyone who's interested. These have been thoroughly dissected on /r/exjw.ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 04:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Kinda reminds me of the Discovery Institute Wedge Document. You sir frankly disgust me! Hello! Look! 04:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Crazy. I'm actually visiting a "Kingdom Hall" later today - sent by the faculty of theology to ask questions regarding exactly this sort of thing. It won't be brought up by me there, but I'll be sure to link my fellow students to this travesty of a document. Someone needs to bring this into the JW article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Official RW FB page could do with moar[edit]

A few of you are, like me, "editors" on the Official RW Facebook Page. This is explicitly our official outlet to make RW seem wonderful. I've been doing most of the posting to it, but I find myself busy with lots of other stuff. So if you are one of the people who can, please do.

The rules I work to:

  • more or less broad RW/skeptical interest
  • keep the salty language out (Sterile whacked me around the head a few times before I realised why this was a good idea)
  • post no more often than roughly every six hours - this appears to be the best rate to optimise for the Facebook Algorithm to actually show people the frickin' post
  • queue stuff up as far ahead as you like, scheduled posts work well
  • when a topic's a shithead magnet, feel free to argue with them

I don't have the power to add people to it, sadly. Trent does and whichever editor is actually Justin Bramah do - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I add stuff when I find it. I have a couple woo-friendly friends on FB that post some absurd crap at times. AyzmoCheers 13:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I enjoy the unofficial page. Did not know there was another one. Now I do.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What's with all the renaming?[edit]

Getting a bit meta here, but every time a particular shitfest escalates too much for the tastes of some here some super-original new name for this here wiki is invented. Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Either cause at some point, one of the sides' gonna claim, that the other one(s) is behaving irrational or as a running gag (there's also the template {{RATIONALWiki}}, of which the TL;DR version is: "Rational? Fuck you, we're writing whatever the motherfuck we wanna, biyotch!").--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It's because people don't like it when they try to offer food-for-thought and constructive criticism only to be met with clawing and biting from the same small group of people who keep on causing those shitfests all over the wiki in the first place. It's a case of a small minority of people ruining things for everyone else who just want whatever the pointless Wiki War is to end. Like the Israel -vs- Palestine conflict that people keep bringing up here everywhere now.
It's become worse than Reddit honestly. "Hey did you hear about that police officer in NYC who gave this homeless man a pair of shoes?" "RA RA RA POT IS STILL ILLEGAL! YOU WAR ON DRUGS APOLOGIST! QUIT TRYING TO ERADICATE ISRAEL PALESTINE COLLEGE STUDENTS!"
I'm tried of seeing that kind of thing and I think that most other people here probably are too, which is why I used a nickname in WIGOW:Talk to illustrate that point. Eoan (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
That ^^^ --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
But cloppers are murderers and My Little Pony is the best series ever! The truth has to be spread! Like peanut-butter on a pot-sandwich made in Haifa... Also: Ethics in gaming journalism! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a khatWikipedia's W.svg-sandwich :3 --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Isn't khat the stuff they eat in Somalia all the time? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and also in Yemen and a few other African and Asian countries. The Yemenite Jews brought it with them to Israel, where it is now legal (although tightly controlled).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Huh, well I didn't know that, yet... Interesting... I have heard that it makes people aggressive, and/or phlegmatic though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a mild stimulant, not unlike chewing coca leaves. Not especially recommended.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Mostly chatterbox/motormouth wiki these days, tbh. SmartFeller (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Inwiefern? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Breast Cancer Awareness[edit]

I cannot possibly be more aware of breast cancer (Jets v. Patsies is running on the other tab), but why is RW joining in that crap? Is wearing pink really gonna help anybody do anything? Also breast cancer is one of the most survivable types of cancer there is... How about lung cancer awareness? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Or brain cancer awareness, perhaps?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
"The only worthy cause is the worst of the worst! Also, I can't read subtitles and just assume whatever suits my narrative! Yadda yadda yadda!" 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:27, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wasn't this one breast cancer charity (the one with all the pink, if memory serves) also involved in some shady stuff and spend more money on "awareness" thaen on actually finding a cure or treatment? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Eh, I don't know. Yeah, breast cancer is overfunded in comparison, but if they manage to develop something to cure breast cancer, it may be used on other cancers too. But if you want to get rid of a full third of all cancer deaths, get rid of smoking. CorruptUser (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
How do you get "rid of smoking" without infringing upon freedom™? I mean yeah, awareness campaigns, raising taxes on tobacco and cutting subsidies for tobacco farming are all good things... But people (at least some people) will still smoke, won't they? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
So just let them? If the potential danger of lung cancer gets them off, why take that away from them? So what if your country's medical grade card is a bit worse off from it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
So just let them?- 142․124․55․236 Yes, since prohibition is useless bullshit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
We should protect others from inhaling their second hand smoke, though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I just came here to say that the donation link is broken. The banner lives at Template:Holydaze/LMon10. Also yeah, on a personal note I dislike the focus on specific types of cancer, although I don't really care either way about a banner on RW. --Ymir (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The template is Template:Holydaze/LMon10; I couldn't find a definitely good breast cancer charity to link to (Komen is literally worse than useless); I've blanked it unless and until we can find something actually good to put there, previous version is this one - David Gerard (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
How so? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Breast cancer isn't even the most common cancer, but I suppose tat "colon and rectal cancer awareness" doesn't sound as good... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, prostate and breast cancer are the most common for men and women respectively, and lung cancer the most by deaths for both. Colorectal cancer kills only a third as many as lung. CorruptUser (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I fear lung cancer suffers from the things that cause it - unless I am wrong - the main causes for lung cancer are Radon (which can be eliminated through measurements and architectural design), smoking and air pollutants. Unfortunately, one of the main sources of the latter are - at least in Western nations - cars and attacking them is a no-win for almost any politician in both the US and many European countries Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I wish politicians would have listened more closely to Back to the Future back when we had the chance. Who knows, we might have had nuclear powered cars by now... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! 21:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Cars could be powered by toxic waste and produce golden rainbows and they would still be a bad thing to put into a city. They mayor of Paris (I know, what does the mayor of Paris know about cities?) recently said "There is no place for a car in a modern city". He was spot on. If and when I get time and nerve to do so, I'm going to write that article on the automotive city Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

All this talk about funding and which cancer has a higher rate of mortality misses the point of the awareness month which is that the chances a women dies of breast cancer is significantly reduced just through once per year screenings. It is supposed to be a reminder to get a mammogram, not a fund-raising effort. 49.199.149.154 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Except that's not true. Many people believe it is, because they don't pay attention to scientific research, and assume all screening tests are flawless and have no downsides. Official recommendations in developed countries (US, Canada, EU) only recommend mammograms for older women, and then only every 2-3 years. And there's a significant debate (among legitimate medical circles, not cranks) over whether mammograms actually do any good. A recent Cochrane Collaboration review concluded they don't. Go see Wikipedia for a summary of all this. So, you've just inadvertently demonstrated some of the problems with overly simplistic public health campaigns. As a similar example for men, there's no evidence prostate cancer screening does any good, so the same bodies don't recommend it, but a ton of tests are done anyway. Patients want it because it gives them a feeling of security, and doctors don't want to say no. I feel like we should cover this somewhere, but I'm not sure where to put it. --Ymir (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Mylittlepony Forum[edit]

Should we encapsulate the equestrian shitfest in its own forum like we had done for other topics in the past? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends if people are going to be about it like you are about most things - David Gerard (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Uhm, almost all of the discussion is already on the article's talkpage with some tidbits on usertalkpages. Silly proposal is silly? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's a little bit excessive, since the MLP argument didn't spread significantly from the MLP talk page (or at least didn't spawn that many threads here).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Well okay... Just don't go around complaining if/when Ryu starts the anti-clopper-league or something... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I join them, if not for anything else then to tell Ryulong to piss off. :3 --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, I'm not following the talk page -- Ruylong, a guy who has a userspace page with a catalogue of toy monsters he collects, or some similar kid-oriented pop culture thing I know nothing about, has a problem with people because they like a kid's cartoon show? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
No, he says he doesn't like them because they get defensive when he makes broad accusations of pedophilia and 'being horsefuckers' at the fandom. He also insists no one treats bronies bad because they like a girly kiddie show; they only do it because of brony-defensiveness. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:50, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Ryu is unreasonable on this topic. He's behaving like the caricature leftist -- or "SJW" -- the Gators rant about.---Mona- (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, I'm not following the talk page -- Ruylong, a guy who has a userspace page with a catalogue of toy monsters he collects, or some similar kid-oriented pop culture thing I know nothing about, has dedicated much of his life to defending people from an online hate campaign with nasty sexual overtones has a problem with people because they like a kid's cartoon show? says nasty sexual things about a particular group online and gets shirty when they express indignation? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much. When this is pointed out, he in turn expresses indignation of the kind: "OMG how dare you compare me with reactionaries". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well, I pretty much dare, if this is an accurate description of the situation. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It is, to my knowledge. Most of my description is based directly off of literal statements by Ryu. It's possible he's revised his views a bit after much arguing from several sides, but last time I saw him he was still being notably defensive(hmm.. kettle pot anyone?) of his assertions. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
He did sort of say that at least over here: "Particularly when multiple members of this website treat my distaste for people who fanatically watch a chilren's cartoon as equivalent to actual reactionary bigotry" and over here: "Which is still an aspect of homophobia and not specifically its application to adult men liking a girl's cartoon." ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The guy ignores facts like the same way an SJW would. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! 19:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I dunno about what "an SJW" would do. But "ignores facts" instantly evokes "Oh, like Avenger?" for me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Where did I get myself that interesting reputation? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Goddamn it, 142, could you please cut down on your silly feud against Avenger??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's cut a deal, Arisboch. I'll stop saying bad things about Avenger if you swear off trolling and similar chicanery for all eternity. How about it? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

There is only one reasonable reaction to learning about adults watching a kid's show and not thinking that’s a cool thing to do: ignore it, and go spend time on stuff you do think is cool. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Millions watch American idol. I know many kid shows that are far more intellectual. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Millions of people all around the world watch adults play little boy's games (Football and Baseball). And you know what? I am one of them (though Baseball is imho boring as fuck) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Football is played by many young children. Why your interest in football? Do you like young children? Does the football community like young children? That's fucked up man. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
That explains the rash of paedo priests, then. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! 19:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
No. It's an article with (rather strange) discussion on its talk page. It is certainly not forum material. As for the unseemly (but relatively minor) shitfest it has become, AgingHippie sums it up beautifully above and I am pleased that others have noticed the irony in Ryulong's rather unpleasant position. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed any irony, but I had noticed the hypocrisy of Ryulong's position. Who doesn't love a pedant? Tielec01 (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Word of advice[edit]

Never trust polls. See P&T's episode on numbers. Once the people vote then we'll know who is the front runner --Jakester499 (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you see in Penn & Teller either, by the way ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Forget MLPWiki; ChickenCoopWiki is here![edit]

And may it reign forevermore in its magnificent glory! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:33, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Why can't it be PonyCoop? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
*PonyStable.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It could be if Paravant stopped modlocking the page every time I introduce negative criticism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Jeez, will you stop going on about that. I'm amazed at the level patience Paravant has shown after you've basically spent a day calling him a horsefucker. You still seem to be on a quest to piss as many people off as you can. If you want to make a case, this is exactly how not to behave. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't call him a horsefucker. I called the fandom horsefuckers. Also presently the issue is blogs supporting what I say aren't good enough for a website that doesn't have a set guideline for what can be used as a source anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
"I called the fandom horsefuckers" and Paravant is part of the fandom (and you knew this), so you did call him a horsefucker. Seriously, Ryu, don't make disingenious arguments like this. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I don't care. I'm not going to sit back and watch a page fellate a group that's despised across the Internet for their shit behavior because one of those people is a moderator here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, it's all because of Paravant, even though the article version you seem to hate so much didn't have a single edit from him before you started this... whatchamacallit. And "watch a page fellate"? Seriously? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
He's seen fit to lock it down for several hours now so no one can edit it because he was personally insulted by edits I made to it and now he is gatekeeping on the sources I provided to support the claims I made because they're not ironclad New York Times thought pieces but blog entries scattered across the Internet from the first Google Search results for coming out stable appropriation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Seriously Ryulong, admitting "these things are the first things I got using Google Search" about your sources is not a way to make yourself seem informed. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:18, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I have an opinion. Those links I posted were sources that supported my opinion found in a cursory Google search and aside from Reddit came from something which would be considered a source for this website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
"Social Justice Wiki," the one I removed, would be considered a source for this website only for an article on the SJWiki itself: aside from Wikipedia, I can't think of many cases where we have claims backed up by wikis...." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You are ignoring the 4 links I posted to the talk page (which includes the Reddit thread you complained about prior).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't remove any of those, so don't whine to me about that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I acquiesced on the SJWiki links.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and people would have an easier time taking your opinion seriously if you didn't shoot your own argument for that opinion in the foot so many times. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Oh no. I ruined my argument by pissing someone off and insisting that there's inherent issues with the fandom that the fandom hates that they're ever brought up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about 1 person here, Ryu, I'm talking about almost everyone. And no, they're not all bronies. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

The part that's actually about the coop[edit]

Fucking AgingHippie let Avenger out of the bin today after I put him there for edit warring. THEN the genius (AgingHippie) took Avenger to the coop to determine whether he should be binned, and -- GET THIS -- whether he should have sysop back. AH thinks, yes indeedy, Avenger should have sysop back -- so that even sysop-locking a page can't stop his warring. Notwithstanding that Paravant just declined to give Avenger back his mop in light of Avenger's behavior the last month.

This from AgingHippie is the biggest pile of shit I've seen in a long bit -- AgingHippie now recants all the policies he told me to follow only two weeks ago, and says he only told me to bin people for edit warring because, well, because reasons. You really have to go to the coop and read this bullshit to believe it.---Mona- (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the MLP thread, make a new one to piss and moan about AH giving Avenger the mop.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, nope. Read the section header again. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:08, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
AH is a man? CorruptUser (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I declined to give Avenger back his Mop because I was still weary of him, that does not preclude other people from doing so. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but he just edit warred today. What is your view?---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of us edit war, that in of itself is not a marker against Sysopship, situationally. I removed his rights on the grounds he did not really understand RW yet and thus didn't deserve to have a mop at the time, his actions proved this. At the current time, besides being horribly wrong about zionism, being faaar to self-assured about how the problem user is never him and his habit of dragging fights into other parts of the wiki, he is much better in this regard than he was beforehand. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, he's gotten more subtle at his attempts to slant articles his way. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
He just edit warred yesterday over nonsense against both me and 142. How is that "getting much better?"---Mona- (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is third grade-calibre argumentation going on in here. ArcticVixen (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Jakester499's horror forum play (introduction)[edit]

this is a serialized forum play based off of the classic horror radio play from horror radio show "Light's Out", more specifically the light's out radio play "The Dark" which was referenced on The Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror V". This forum play stars me as both Constable Jacob "Jake" Stirr out investigating a call from an old house in the woods as well as Rev. Perseus Black, an old high school rival, a Lutheran minister and a critically acclaimed writer whom I am giving a tour of my nightly routine as a constable serving the night shift so he can write a book about the nightly lives of police men. Of course something goes weird happens and that shall be serialized in my next couple of bar posts.

(P.S. If can't do it at the bar I'll do it at my user page)

--Jakester499 (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You remind me of that user who wanted us to all play some game called nomic. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so I looked it up by the only metric we have for determining a game's popularity. There are 440,000 results for "Strip Nomic". CorruptUser (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia down[edit]

Wikipedia home page:

MediaWiki internal error.
Exception caught inside exception handler.
Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.

"Exception caught inside exception handler" reeks of bad code... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw it on the Wikipedia IRC channel and confirmed it: The Wikipedia is alive and kickin again.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Some stuff about a user[edit]