RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive248

politics in Poland[edit]

There are lots of things that might be of interest happening in Poland right now. As out own news section notes, the catholic right have won both the presidential position and enough seats in the parliament, which, given their track record, might cause Poland to follow either the path of Orban's Hungary or Erdogan's Turkey, or so many an editorial say. Vaguely right-leaning, "anti-establishment" populists from Kukiz '15 landed a bunch of random people (literally, among them is a gangsta rapper who has no idea how legislation works) in the Sejm, whereas .Nowoczesna basically took all of the neoliberalism and ran with it, with surprising results. On the other hand, the left has been removed from the parliament altogether. The post-communist left is in its death throes, as the amount of voters not disillusioned with SLD leader pursuing (and later, advocating, due to the loss of majority) such left-wing policies as flat 19% income tax and the privatisation of railroads. The void left by the SLD (or, to be precise, the coalition it towers over, ZL) is being filled by Razem, which positions itself to the left of SLD, takes pride in having no leader, no old-timers in its ranks, and a fully democratic in-party decision-making system. Still, Razem hovers around 3-4%, not enough to enter the parliament, and despite the recent successes in the media, suffers from being the butt of "those damn cawmuniss" jokes (in lieu of the usual target, SLD) and their program isn't likely to receive much popular acclaim given the general political climate at the moment. All in all, there are major shifts underway, and the country might end up as a country-sezed conservapedia talk page.

Since Poland is a wonderful case study, with all the shock therapies and political drama, I feel updating the page on it (the content right now is woefully outdated) would be a good thing to bother oneself with. I'd do that myself, but, well, I'm afraid of putting too much moonbat bias in there. Also, I'd welcome updates on Hungaria (Orban's governance requires attention; at times, he's legit sending the demi-Hitler waves), but I don't feel knowledgeable enough to opine on it in detail. Any resident Hungarians in here? VLT13 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on Viktor Orban. See what you can do ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I know we've got one but, as I've said, I don't feel knowledgeable enough to say something genuinely worth hearing. And then there's the bias. Well, one of the reasons I'm wanting more on Orban is his role in the European migrant crisis (which is greater than the space devoted to it in the article on Orban would suggest). He's been a huge influence on nationalists and xenophobes in other EU countries that used to belong to that other camp during the Cold War. Probably the reason most news featuring him (at least, those that reach me) are either blatant hagiographies or emotive dismissals, and both contain relatively little of substance.

PS: I'm thinking about updating the politics part of the page on Poland for starters, but I'm wondering - should defunct parties, parties that receded into obscurity, and parties that receded to obscurity and were dissolved after their leaders committed suicide (*cough* Samoobrona *cough*)be removed from the roster, or should they be superseded by currently active ones? On the one hand, they led to the current situation, but on the other hand, so did the ones before them, and enumerating all the parties active in Poland since 1989 would fill the RW server three times over. VLT13 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Everything that aids in informing the reader (who are most likely not Poles) is fine, anything needlessly distracting the reader can and should be removed... At least that's my two Groszy on the issue Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a post-election update but feel free to expand. Some topics e.g. Janusz Korwin-Mikke and Smolensk sabotage probably deserve a separate article due to the amount of raw crazy. --Tweenk (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The code[edit]

Nevemind instead I have a code. I promise that once I post the code, the code will be my last bar post until November 1st. HOWEVER, I wil not post something at the bar until November 15th if they can decipher the ENTIRE code. If the code is not deciphered until November 2nd, then you all must admit you love Twilight (especially the acting). If you accept say below you accept. When you solve the code, post the deciphered text on the saloon bar. I will give you as many hints as you need, but I will not answer specific questions. If you need a hint say I need a hint please your heighness. If no one accepts, I'll just keep moving along. If at least one person accepts (say I accept underneath if you want to accept.) If no one accepts, I will still post the code and you can still solve, but instead of me not posting until the 15th it'll be by the seventh. Do you accept? ^{— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs}--Jakester499 (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

But I love Twilight and I love your silly posts! Why do you torment me so? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

No.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we redeem the code to win a one way ticket to Washington state? SolPyre (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. What type of code are we talkin' here? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} 01:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would you receive a one-way ticket here? To be fair, there's worse places you could end up. ArcticVixen (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Will probably take a look because I grew up on puzzle magazines (and it'll be something to do when bored). No promises though. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll accept. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Actual Code Part 1 (okay it's an anagram)[edit]

EDIT: I left out a word. Now it's grammatically accurate. Prize is now a hug Edit: hint was inaccurate. Hint: Try and found out what GOLF FIR I SIN is an anagram for Everything below is code

ALGAE TALE RUN GOLF FIR I SIN NAD MAIM SPONGERS EAR A MAILED NEON REF MOTH PAL NET ELK REP 442B

--Jakester499 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What the kurwa mac is that supposed to be??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You have to be good at math, so ill pass.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 18:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not code at all. It is a direct quote from Time Cube.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Almost any nonsensical statement can be believably attributed to Time Cube. Σigma (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an anagram--Jakester499 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Turanga Leela Lois Griffin and Marge Simpson are on another female Kepler planet ID 442B --OneEyedJack (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Clinton's "surge" in the polls[edit]

So I really haven't had much time to follow American media recently (work and stuff keep people busy, yaknow?) but according to Huffpost and MSNBC headlines, Hillary is surging in polls recently... First of all: Is that real or just a figment of pundit imagination? Second of all: If so, what are the reasons? And thirdly: What do y'all think about that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been paying more notice to the whole Carson v. Trump mess, so I haven't really been paying attention. RCP is indicating a rise of a few percentage points, but that's using relatively old data. A neckbeard friend I consulted believes the headlines and is blaming the rise on DA FAMININISTS after Hillary accused Bernie of being sexist during a gun control debate or something. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is a good amount of support for Hillary because she'd be the first. I do think she's a feminist cause for many. (Of course, we've also never had a Jewish president, but that doesn't get mentioned much.)---Mona- (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I still don't trust her to actually be for a good number of the popular things she supports, chief among them Gay Marriage. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The debate didn't really do her that much good, but her literally epic performance before the Benghazi committee gave her campaign a shot in the arm. I must admit that while she wouldn't be my third or seventeenth choice for President, she has a number of formidable virtues as a person and candidate: she is prepared and unflappable. And she does understated wit; I think I'm in love. I must admit that the spectacle made me a bit more comfortable with the prospect of her being the President. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd vote for Hillary only to prevent Donald Trump from being elected. Not otherwise. She is indeed very smart, which makes her dangerous vis-a-vis both her horrendous overt views and the polices she'd actually promote rather the pretty words she spews.---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I oted for Oama because I knew any republican theyd throw out is worse than him, so you'd willingly accept a backslide to crazy conservatism just to spite hillary? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Pollster has Clinton surging in the polls recently so I'd say it's real. I'd attribute her surge in the polls to the positive media coverage Clinton has been receiving lately ever since the Dem debate, since positive/negative media coverage of a candidate usually leads to better/worse standing in the polls. Biden's exit from the race also helped Clinton since Biden was disproportionately taking voters from Clinton. RCV (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we display how long someone is blocked for in the message?[edit]

The current text doesn't display how long you've been blocked for:

“”Oh noes! You have been blocked.

(Or, you forgot to log in/got timed out again!)

You were blocked by Carpetsmoker. The reason given for your block is Test block. We don't care apologize for any inconvenience caused.

If you believe the block was too long or unjustified, then please try contacting Carpetsmoker or another administrator. You will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors by e-mail.

You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences.

Your current IP address is 82.95.88.48, and the block ID is #77872.

Can this be added? IMHO it looks confusing now, especially to new users that you're blocking for just 5 minutes to make them stop and think. It's very easy to be confused and assume you're blocked indefinitely, evne though the block may only be 5 minutes. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this can be done by modifying MediaWiki:Blockedtext (I have no rights to do so); I can't really find any docs on this, but from the source I see that you can add these parameters:

* $6 - the expiry of the block

* $8 - the timestamp when the block started

Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Protip: the MediaWiki docs live at mediawiki.org. Here you go. Took me ten seconds. If you're wondering how I made the link, I used the interwiki prefix for mediawiki.org, which is mw:. Here's the documentation for that feature. --Ymir (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've wanted to fix this for a long time. David, you listening? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

David, in his cave in the wilderness: "Rationalwiki will never update! NEVER!"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

GOOD NEWS WE'RE GOING BACK TO USEMOD - David Gerard (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What's Usemod?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume This is what Gerard was meaning. It's another variant of wiki style. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So can anyone actually add the $6 and $8 to Blockedtext? I don't have the rights to do that either. --Tweenk (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume Techs can do it--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

OMG! FailedScreencapWiki![edit]

I dunno, I liked the previous two incarnations of our wiki better. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Are they available for the wiki-editor head in the giftshop, though? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You can filter the File namespace Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

But that's exactly what the terrorists want! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:42, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I want a failed screencap to cover my hair with! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OMG, welcome to Whatever's-Trending-In-Recent-Changes-Wiki![edit]

OMG guys like ALL the edits are about how many edits there are! Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's too meta for me... what does Rationalwikiwiki say about that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll just get me a time machine and figure that out--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the flux compensator working? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

God, did you know that people here have strong opinions about things? Wow. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am the king of Rationalwiki[edit]

No it's not my sock.It's an imposter!--Jakester499 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the sub sandwich I bought from the Meijer gas station would make a better king. LOL--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User-rights giveaway![edit]

We're low on active techs atm (editing more often than not), is there anybody who knows some techmagic who might be trustable (Techs have a lot of the same power level of mods, just without the vague mandate) with the tech group that might wanna be in it? Also other user rights, from Sysop or Ninja are available if you need and deserve em.'--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to be ninja and have all my other user rights revoked. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'd like to be affixed to a telephone pole's cross arm and left to think about what I've done. Spartacus (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

GIMME THE POWERZ!!!

More seriously: I'm currently "in between jobs" (I love that euphemism) and have more free time for stuff, which is why I'm a bit more active than usual right now ;-) If some help is needed for "tech stuff" (such as preparing the upgrade to a supported MediaWiki version), I have plenty of time right now... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech rights only give you access to things on the surface of MediaWiki, like the edit filters. Gooniepunk (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess, since I can't seem to quit this place like I had hoped, I would like my voluntarily surrendered tech rights back. It'd be nice to see how the edit filters have been functioning again. Gooniepunk (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know ... it was more of a "while we're talking about tech anyway"-type of comment. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what is Ninja status. Like, I know what Sysops and Techs, and Mods, but Ninjas? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} 23:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ninja is a right which allows you to add bot to yourself. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, makes sense, then. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} 02:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Neat. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ninja me pls, in case I ever feel like needing it. kthx, Alec Sanderson (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Pls give me sysop, because i'm the only person who's been on this website longer then 10 minutes who doesn't have it.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I be at-least considered a prospective Sysop? I solemnly swear not to abuse my powers. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 22:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like my sysop rights back. I only want them to clean up my userspace, and delete some things I don't think need to exist any longer. Thank you.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like tech rights, and access to the server if possible. I promise not to sysop-revoke anyone or delete the server. Thank you in advance. CarpetFucker (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing issue[edit]

As I continue to develop my newest article in my sandbox as previously mentioned, I am finding now that linking to comments made by the subject are not working. This is because the number of comments on the blog entry have carried onto a second page and it appears that the link tries to find the comment on the first page (and of course it can't) so straight linking is impossible. Are there any workarounds on that to overcome the issue? BankBox (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Manually adding &commentPage=2 after showComment=... seems to do the trick, for example:

http://autismisbad.blogspot.nl/2015/08/neurodiversity-amendment.html?showComment=1445222843372&commentPage=2#c6760115118959484320

It sucks you need to do this ... welcome to the wonderful world that is web 2.0 programming... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It sucks alright, but thanks for that! Now I'll just have to go through them and find the ones that are on the second page and go from there. BankBox (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What is off limits for discussion in the saloon bar[edit]

Howard Bloom and TAA[edit]

So i just went on wehuntedthemammoth and found an article on the Trollhattan killer. Apparently he subscribed to both Howard Bloom and TAA. This has a creepy feeling for me since how i found this site was through a friend who watched them; I watched a couple of their videos and then found his rape culture video which led me here.--Owlman (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What is it you are trying to ask are talk about? Please excuse me if I'm not understanding. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it's kinda weird seeing how much influence demagogues have even if they are complete bastards.--Owlman (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess what I mean is that with a lot of these shootings and hate crimes committed by young guys I could have been one of them since I didn't have the best background and definetly could've been influenced by the likes of Pat Condel, TAA, or some other person.--Owlman (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

How exactly would watching The Amazing Atheist make you a mass shooter? Please do explain. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey.[edit]

Can I put this little article from yesterday in the WIGO:World? I'm asking because it was from yesterday.

Surprise Ingredient in CVS Homeopathic Medicine You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} 03:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not.--Owlman (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think as long as it's relatively recent (like, within the same month, tops), it's kosher to put in. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I added it. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 06:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

OSMJ worth an article[edit]

I just stumbled across these guys: http://www.omsj.org They seem like they would be perfect for an article here, considering they seem to subscribe to most forms of science denialism. A quick google search seems to indicate that they have been involved in some hiv denialist legal cases. DarkAngelCryo (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Woo blogs are kind of a dime a dozen, but this one's probably worth a short write-up (unless they were particularly active in the legal world, in which case a larger article could be merited). It looks like they shut down in May 2015 due to what they claim were "vexatious lawsuits" and has been dead since (The forum hasn't seen action in the last year, the last official tweet was in May, and the Facebook page link seems broken). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My mom keeps misgendering my girlfriend[edit]

She's American and she's not homophobic either. I've tried explaining that gender isn't a choice the way orientation isn't. She does it when we're in public and calls me straight even after I said it puts her in danger to be outted like that. In her view my girlfriend is just a man who's older by several years who decided to turn himself into a woman without getting "the surgery" so he can finally get laid by tricking lesbians into sleeping with him. I tried explaining how improbable that any man would decide to become a woman just sleep with us when men his age fall in with Red Pill groupthink and hate anything to do with us. She won't lay off and I don't know what to do. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

On one hand, I think "all men that age fall in with the MRA crowd, so she's definitely trans" is one of the most disingenious arguments you could've used. It also lends way too much credence to your mom's rather completely-out-there hypothesis to begin with. On the other hand, you've already used the very best argument I can think of; "Misgendering her isn't just disrespectful, but downright dangerous!" If your mother cares that little for your girlfriend's well-being, well, argue about how disrespectful she's being to you by misidentifying your orientation and making up such ridiculous stories to dicredit your choice of partner. If all that fails, well, I'm sure you don't need my help to come up with some expletives. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I see a lot of TERFs online complain that MtFs are just young men who failed to date women and so they decided to become women so they can sleep with lesbians without being "creepy men." It's insane. Men don't feel like becoming women out of sexual desperation. I don't see this as evidence why my girlfriend is trans. What I see is if she weren't trans then she wouldn't transition. Our culture is hostile enough to men who don't conform to gender expectations and becoming a woman is the ultimate disgrace for enforcers of toxic masculinity. Plus if she weren't trans then her brain would be upset by transitioning. I'll use your suggestion. She might be afraid that I'm trans. I thought about it and I'm not even though there are a lot of guy things I do. Aleksandra96 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just be capricious and misgender your mom back. He'll hate it. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll do that. I think he will get the point. Aleksandra96 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"An eye for an eye makes two people lose their depth-perception." -Nobody in Particular

Also, not to diminish the severity or imply there is none, what do mean by danger? I do not hold your meaning. Σigma (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Bigots exist. Some of them are violent. Some of them drive people to suicide. Living in a hostile society is dangerous. The end. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:29, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Some people use the word "man" to mean "adult human male" and evaluate sexual orientation by sex rather than gender. It sounds like she may be invested in those concepts to the degree that she can't separate the map from the territory to mentally accommodate the more recent definitions. You might discuss this specifically if you haven't already. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct of course, that gender is not a choice, but it is an anatomical fact. If your partner has a penis then your partner is male, and thus your boyfriend. I can "identify" as a black female midget all I want, but it doesn't change the fact that I am a 5'9" pastey-white male. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like someone doesn't know the difference between sex and gender. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Everybody he knows should treat him like a girl. Then we'll check in with how he's doing and see if he has an appreciation to see what it's like to be born into the wrong body. Aleksandra96 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for the article on Bob Jones University[edit]

Instead of saying the staff members got their credentials from degree mills, why not just mention unaccredited schools? I looked through the faculty pages and pretty much all of them got degrees from BJU (one from Pensacola Christian College). Obviously they got their degrees before accreditation but I think it would be good to note that many did get accredited graduate degrees despite the fact BJU lacked certification.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate place to bring up discussion of a particular article is on that article's talk page. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(Re)-narrowing our mission, saving RW?[edit]

I have heard the opinion expressed by several users in different places that RW is best where it stays closest to a very narrow reading of its mission. While I don't have any real opinion either way, I thought we might have a discussion with some community input and not just grumbling across numerous talk pages or the edit war du jour which is usually the place where such thoughts originate Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I predict that this discussion, if it happens, will go nowhere and accomplish nothing. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It will also cause an even bigger shitfest, too. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Should we move it to a forum preemptively thaen? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Besides saving the Bar from a shitfest no, because that wouldn't stop it from becoming a shitfest. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It would just let the shit fester unmolested. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Anyway, how is your sex life?} 02:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I predict that your prediction will come true! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

We should expand our mission to include photos of that damn Spider-Man!—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you have to rape my memory of that one-hit wonder? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

What, oh what, issue is Avenger trying to disappear from RW? I just can't imagine what is driving his ~~conniving~~ just asking questions. I'm so totally stumped! ---Mona- (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Appears Movenger's Law is going to be violated... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 01:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My Little Pony, what else, Mona? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Recent edit wars are still fairly tame compared to what has happened here before. It is editor behaviour that causes issues, not the stated mission of the wiki. Sadly, the former has been a long standing problem. "Being a dick at RW" seems to be considered something of a badge of honour for some. I strongly suspect that a narrowing of the wiki mission would do little to temper that.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: I think RW and its readership would be best served by a radical narrowing of the scope of what is considered appropriate subject matter and a culling of a great deal of the content here. Pseudoscience, the politicization of science and attempts to shoehorn religion into scientific research. Woo, evolution/creationism, climate denial: if the article does not address claims that can be backed up by objective, empirical, quantifiable evidence that would appear in what the English-speaking world qualifies as "scientific" literature -- not social science, lit, history or humanities, but hard data -- it shouldn't be here. The gaps between Homoeopathy and Gamergate, or laetrile and My Little Horsie, or oil-pulling and Gaza are so wide that to make any claim that RW has any sort of focused mission laughable. But nobody wants that, and so we're stuck with a sprawling bunch of articles, some of which do actual good work that is hard to find anywhere else, but most of which are snarky, half-assed second-rate Wikipedia articles or places for people to grind an axe over a topic that is only tangentially related to any sort of core mission. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I sensing some social/soft sciences 'skepticism' there? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:29, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

From a guy with a PhD in the humanities? Probably not. Part of me just wanted to stake out a strong claim for a narrowly-as-possible conception of the mission as a starting point; the other part of me is a big fan of specialization and unmet needs -- that's what the version of RW I laid out would do. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As someone who's more kept a distant eye on things rather than be an active participant, I think that the main issue is less mission creep than drama related to Serious Business. When people regard the outcome of Internet arguments as having Serious consequences, they tend to focus on "winning" rather than collaborating to produce content. Fixing that will take some manner of social engineering, though it might be as simple as having a written guideline. Just my two quatloos. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Great point! It also perfectly illustrates why these attempts to 'get RW back on track' (wherever that might be) are ultimately futile, because people being argumentative will always be a part of the wiki. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:31, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Very well put BoN 192. Drama and general fuckwitery is the issue here. As I said before, "Being a dick at RW"... etc. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@AH: What about stuff like Holocaust denial, which doesn't necessarily rely on scientific data as such, but historical data? And if we can accept use of historical data, then why not accept stuff like Gamergate, which is written using similar sources? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the world need another website debunking Holocaust denial? Do we do something on that question that nobody else does? Do we even do it well? Is there a need there we are somehow set to fulfill because of our skill set? Does a SPOV even work on that topic? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I wold say yes the world does need another one, as long as the another one is RW. I like our wide topic coverage because it narrates the world from a point of view I share, which I like and because I like it the world needs it (the earth revolves around me btw). SolPyre (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's necessary, and I'd add: There's a huge amount of bad social-sciences, bad political-science, bad history and so on that people spout on the internet. It's useful to have a place to link to for debunkings. While some of this (the really high-profile stuff) can be debunked anywhere, a lot of the more niche crankery / reactionary-conspiracy-theory stuff (as well as related things like really bad political-axis graphs) has very little discussion of it anywhere; it's incredibly frustrating to see a friend getting sucked into it because someone presented it to them as this glossy established thing and to have no easy answer. RW is one of the few places that provides good write-ups on that kind of crankery. Bad social science and bad history are every bit as common as bad climate science, and every bit as dangerous; it's entirely on-task for RW. (And in fact in some ways I'd argue it's the more useful part of RW -- because, let's be honest, debunkings of bad climate science woo isn't hard to find. But a lot of this new reactionary bad social science stuff is just starting to fester on blogs and forums and has attracted little attention elsewhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

*cries out to Kitsunelaine* Look! Someone's comparing the Holocaust to internet stuff! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

As a newb contributor but long time reader, my 2 cents is that at some point, it becomes very difficult to judge what goes and stays. Something like The Amazing Athiest. While certainly part of the rationalist community, most would agree that he deserves the respect his RW page gives him, but does that really contribute to the origional goal? His page is currently little more than an erudite Encyclopedia Dramatica troll job. But i like that, i want more of that (For those, such as him, so clearly deserving of such). But i also like the clear headed and rational framing that pervades the vast majority of pages here. At the end of the day, this site has become a pretty expansive store house of good information with an editorial slant that attracts all the editors to some fundamental aspect the forces their contribution. Google Trends shows nothing but growth, which you can compare to conservapedia's trend (no really do it, it's fun) and see that this site is doing something right in it's current state. So I say let it evolve naturally.--Petey Plane (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Petey Plane, thanks for that! I'd been hearing all sorts of talk that the site was suffering a decline. The Google Trends news is most welcome.---Mona- (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, Petey. And don't forget the mind-boggling amounts of crankery that is still out there, just waiting to be covered by us. And woo is far from unimportant or uninteresting. So giving up on RW now would be like closing the mine the moment you've actually dug deep enough to confirm the presence of a major gold vein. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

De Facto V. De Jure[edit]

Which is more important when discussing political and international topics: De-jure law or De-facto situations? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is something that should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Next question! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:13, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

It gets complicated! Are we discussing Class M planets?---Mona- (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a nice subject. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Class Mona? (I'm so sorry. I'm horrible at puns). You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 05:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we are not experts on international law and describing what is is way easier thaen describing what some law (which one applies?) may say or not say... E.g. with regards to the China/Taiwan question or the two Koreas... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Class Mona?" So funny. Someone in junior high -- another in the first generation of Trekkies -- told me that way back when.#dinosaurswerenotreallywakingtheearththen---Mona- (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you did get one thing right. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 00:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So we should edit war on a case by case basis about it, am I getting this right? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Paper on Conservative Voting Trends Regarding Abortion[edit]

So I wrote this paper on the aforementioned topic for a class, and i think it would be a cool thing to post here. It argues that modern conservative voting trends over abortion are not an organic backlash against Roe v. Wade, but rather a result of thirty-plus years of campaigning by a relatively small number of people within the religious wrong. Evidence it uses includes data from forty years of General Social Surveys run by UC Berkeley. This data shows that until the 1980s, conservative stances on abortion were more or less in line with their liberal and moderate counterparts, only increasing in the 1980s, peaking during the Bush 43 administration, and decreasing slightly since 2010. I would like for it to be made into its own article, since that is where it would likely receive the most views. On the other hand, at this point it lacks the full set of citations needed for it to be considered an article. What do y'all think? Essay or article? I've posted a link to it in its present form on my homepage. --Captain Wolff (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - talk page. look for it there. --Captain Wolff (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Good day everyone[edit]

I'm in a very good mood, having removed some serious Trojans from my PC. Being full of euphoria, I wish you all great days. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I doff my cap and wish you the top of the morning --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fuck you. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm already having a great day, I have to plant 230 tulip bulbs today and its not cold and wet outside. SolPyre (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had a helluva evening. Lost my Rocky Horror Picture Show virginity in the best way possible. --Captain Wolff (Another Fine Propagator of the Homosexual Agenda) 07:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A thing that is confusing about creationists[edit]

One excuse they use against evolution is that Darwin helped give rise to Nazism yet these same people use modern medicine which a lot of modern medicine was based on Nazi experiments. Talk about major hypocrites.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well... You're not wrong. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That is, indeed, confusing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Even on the base level it's a dumb argument. Bad people using thing to do bad things doesn't make thing wrong. It just means bad people used thing. It's one of the lowest forms of "debate" imaginable. X Stickman (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying using medicine is not wrong, I am saying if creationists want to use that excuse then they should stop using medicine. Saying evolution is Nazism would mean be the same as saying all medicine is evil.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, no, clearly medicine is wrong. You convinced me of that with your first post. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(Face palm) I was comparing the creationist excuse with a hypothetical. Using modern medicine on people who the Nazis hated is a way to make up for its dark origins. If you do not want to discuss this maturely then stop posting.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How much of modern medicine is in fact based on Nazi experiments? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A small amount? I guess I don't know of any Nazi medical experiments accept the ones where they put jews in the ocean to see how long it takes for people to drown.SolPyre (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I surmise an amount of things related to the bodys tolerance abilities comes from Nazi and axis experiments, if inly because throwing that info out is making the suffering that person experienced even more pointless--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Side note: IIRC that's also why there's actually a minimum number of trials required when applying for experiments using live animals: having too small of a sample size means a larger chance that those animals have died in vain. (It's also the reason why the normally hilarious news of the anti-vax group funding a study that disproved their views was also kind of depressing, because the monkeys involved needed to be euthanized) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Not a lot. wp:Nazi human experimentation. It did help the development of modern ethics, limits of human endurance, problems with transplantation, poisoning... It seems like more of a crime and that they died in vain if we burned the records instead of having them to help save lives in the future. Rocketry, weapons technology (alike M-16s), jet aircraft...all developed using Nazi data or (like NASA) even Nazi scientists. Why is only medicine the issue? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Some stuff was useful in that there was no ethical way to get that data other than wait a long time for enough people to suffer less than common injuries to examine. So, it has value in that sense as a shortcut that should never have been taken. But in that case, it was actually the Japanese Unit 731 experiments that had the most strategic value, in particular because the US got its mitts on them before the Soviets. The data was considered a strategic advantage, exposing the activities of Unit 731 would make the data public, and having it be made public would destroy that advantage, so the US ended up being complicit in covering up the extent of the crimes against humanity Unit 731 committed. Even to the point where the command staff that had overseen the crimes against humanity went on to have long and distinguished careers in the Japanese civil service and the medical profession. It's probably the greatest shame of WWII-era US policy. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 00:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just mentioning one of the arguments that could be used.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I had not known that any medically useful information came out of the Nazi atrocities. If so, that seems akin to loving a person who was the product of rape. You can't wish this person out of existence even tho you also cannot countenance the way s/he got here.---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Google homepage[edit]

A million years ago, in Internet time, Google had a way to design a custom browser homepage with rss feeds/newsfeeds/weather/etc all in a handy arrangement. I'm a little sentimental for 5-10 year old Internet things that have died, and would love to use something like that again, but I think Google shit-canned it along with Reader, on the premise that RSS was dead (I love RSS. Greatest Internet invention since the web page...). Anybody know of an alternative? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Crikey I remember that also. A Google user home page full of widgets and RSS Feeds. I think I remember reading that Chrome can be customised to include many of those old iGoogle features. Don't use Chrome myself so cannot say for sure but it is probably worth researching.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gonna check this out. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Lost images[edit]

I know someone's trying to make a bot to get rid of images with possible copyright violations, but I think something's gone haywire and some Wikimedia images are now disappearing. Bongolian (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Like the one on this article? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually like this one or this one. Bongolian (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't me ;-) I haven't done anything in 2 days, and I've only removed unused images so far. Seems like a technical problem with the commons integration. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Prepare to be keelhauled for breaking the awesum "you're fired!" pic of Fuckface von Clownstick!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean Capturebot2? Yesterday in Recent Changes and in the Logs page I saw the bot uploading and deleting images. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm talking about whatever function of the Wikimedia software allows us to integrate Wikicommons images into articles here. Nothing is uploaded onto the RW servers.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to say that something wasn't right here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"Nothing is uploaded onto the RW servers." --Arisboch

This guy disagrees:

File:Doctor Andreas Ludwig Kalckner , Mexico, 2014, (sombrero-selfie).jpg

SmartFeller (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, the image of the bleach enema guy in the touristy sombrero was deleted for copyright reasons. Here is a public domain image hosted on the RW servers:

File:GA winner.gif SmartFeller (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please investigate why the Jürgen Elsässer photo does not show.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed [1]. BTW, Commons images now come in by HTTPS only, not HTTP. (yeah yeah on that case too) - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So when is this fix supposed to work on our end?—Ryulong (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's working for me. Maybe refresh your cache? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm on http and not https but it's still not working on my end.—Ryulong (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh there's no secure server. So why the fuck is it still happening after a cache clear?—Ryulong (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've found out the problem I'm having. It's that David's fix doesn't work on Monobook and I AIN'T SWITCHIN TO VECTOR.—Ryulong (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

However briefly loading the entire site in an incognito window and after restarting in safe mode seems to have fixed it all.—Ryulong (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Could we do an article on Prions[edit]

I know we have an article on Mad Cow Disease but I was thinking on doing an article on the disease pathogen itself. There is some interesting science behind them.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead! Just please don't leave a stub. Give it some heft.---Mona- (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, do go ahead (is there some woo around this?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I found three natural health sites but only one list woo treatments- the link: http://www.wellsphere.com/cjd-article/herbal-and-natural-remedies-for-creutzfeldt-jakob-disease/116274 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anybody heard from Rob Smith?[edit]

No RW activity since August, no CP or ToW activity since June. With debate season upon us, I figured he's be commenting like mad. Hope you're okay, Big Guy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully he found something better to do with his life than rant on about the evils of the dems on some obscure wiki, like ranting about the dems in public forums! --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It was almost sad how, pushed out of CP, the only place that would welcome him was the anti-CP - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Still alive after 7 yts of Obamunism despite a slew of domestic and business hardships. Trump and Hillary both suck. God save America. More later. nobs --64.134.144.235 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So you're campaigning for Bernie, Rob?

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

19:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I swear[edit]

If I go into work and hear Christmas music tomorrow (Sunday, Nov 1) over the speakers. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, just a little bit less than two months and it's Jingle Bells all the way. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:26, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Saw a house with Christmas lights up already after last night's events.207.191.199.193 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's uplifting to see that you both put Christ back into Xmas.---Mona- (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone hates Christmas music, yet it is continuously played for 1/12th of a year. Great example of how our society is just fucked up. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad sounds kinda nice.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In the USA, there's at least two full months of Exmas music, and the Exmas junk mail starts in September. It's specifically the secular Exmas music that's awful. The religious Christmas music gives the classical music stations leave to play material from before Corelli, and that's a plus. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What's really glaring is when non-temperate or Southern Hemisphere countries use all the "Nordic" Christmas imagery... Snow and pine cones in Costa Rica? What the flying fuck? Also (a treat for my German friends) LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSt Christams, I gave you my heart.... Try getting rid of that horrible earworm now, suckers ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

last Christmas is objectively the best Christmas song ever. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Amazon's got their "Christmas Gift Guide" up. Scream!! (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

O tempora! O mores! Where is the war on Christmas when you need it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh god the Christmas creep! Music Choice has started playing Christmas music already! (Guiltily)I'm listening to it right now as I type this. I like it. ¹⁰⁷ Ag⁴⁷ 01:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So this Christmas.... I haven't even yet made the travel arrangements for whom to visit when and where... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol Feliz Navidad... possibly the only good holiday song. But seriously, I have to listen to walgreens ads after i leave work... IN THE DAMN COMIC SHOP! I'm like oh you have got to be freaking kidding me... QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Carol of the Old Ones. -Juntzing' iPad. 108.168.125.240 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the best parody Christmas songs: "Must Be Santa" by The Billy Nayer Show. You won't hear this one at the mall![2] Bongolian (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Give me a lil and I'll find all the black humor songs about Christmas I got lying around on my various data storage devices.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Awright, I have them, I'll send a link to anyone, who wants it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Y los burritos havaneros... I'm already seeing Christmas lights and Northgate and El Super are already planning their big "Año Nuevo" sales. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Conservapedia has some competition[edit]

A new "encyclopedia" for all those who don't like gays. Should Andy be worried? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ehhhh...Stopping the Homogay™ agenda is only part of Andy's crusade. And if anything he'll try and buddy up to them, since he's almost certainly going to fall for the schpeel of these folks citing legitimate science to justify their stance. --Captain Wolff (Another Fine Propagator of the Homosexual Agenda) 11:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While he might be willing to buddy up to them, I doubt they'll want to associate themselves in any way with him. Even among anti-gay conservatives like these folks, Andy is a laughing stock, with his "Conservative Bible Project" and so on. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic. If we don't have a snarky page on them yet, we should get cracking. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at their site, and personally I don't think there's enough material there to warrant a page here. It's really just one page full of poorly converted GSS charts without any context. If these surveys are the "legitimate science" these guys are using then it's really just another sad example of confirmation bias in the religious right's ideology. --Captain Wolff (Another Fine Propagator of the Homosexual Agenda) 12:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Still... worth a mention, somewhere. Really, it's wind in our sails either way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Medicalization[edit]

You have no entry on this important subject. May I create one? Cheers. 86.175.245.140 (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Medicalization of something specific? Or as a concept? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dirk. Reverend, have a peek at Forum:Dirk Steele said something. This guy is one of the select few who have had a dumping ground created specifically to collect their dribblings where they won't be a distraction. Flux gate gamma (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I dunno if this IP is necessarily that guy. Either way, medicalization sounds missional to me, so if anyone wants to have a go at an article on it, I'd say go ahead. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Plausible deniability is a hell of a thing, but in this case, no. I find the behavioral and geographic identity convincing. I'll just put this in my "I told you so" folder for future reference. Flux gate gamma (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear... I've been rumbled! I should have said 'medicalisation.. and behaviouralism... that would have revealed my geography.88.106.89.114 (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders on Charlie Rose[edit]

This is likely to be very unpopular, but reading the Bernie Sanders hagiography here I figured I might as well. After watching him on Charlie Rose, other than being Not Hillary Clinton (which is certainly a positive) I can't say I understand what people here love about this guy. Anyone can rant about "teh evul 1%" and declare anyone who is actually successful in life a Certified Enemy of America^TM, it doesn't mean that being especially good at doing so makes one qualified to be the president. Listening to his tirades, you'd think that no one with a lot of money had ever done anything good with it; evidently Bill Gates never got the message that total lack of charitable work and complete self-absorption are prerequisites to becoming a billionaire, perhaps Sanders was going to let him and Melinda in on that. To use another example, the idea that the government is going to make college free sounds nice but is so patently unworkable that it's DOA. The US isn't Europe, and unless he wants such a low percentage of people to go to college (which he doesn't seem to, although I personally don't think that's a bad idea) it's yet another pile of money added onto the national debt. Here is the interview to which I refer. If that's the best anyone can offer up, the US is in a lot of trouble. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why the devil can't the US do, what many, many European countries do?! Shit, man, the US is one of the few First World Countries without universal healthcare!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If much of the rest of the Western world pays for citiznes to go to college, why is it so preposterous to think that we would? You do realize that Adam Smith was quite clear-eyed as to how the wealthy will group together to protect their privileges and interests, right?---Mona- (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact, Nixon pushed for universal healthcare. The problem isn't special interests, but that democrats and republicans can't ever let the other side 'win', so the public loses. No, seriously, Nixon was the best Domestic president we ever had, and had a mixed foreign policy record (Southeast Asia was beyond awful, but China was beyond awesome, so it's hard to say). Just that he was such an asshole. CorruptUser (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

China was "beyond awesome"? You mean jumping into bed with a Communist regime who killed more people than Hitler and letting Taiwan hanging out to dry is "beyond awesome"?! WTF????????????????--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And things would be better if we hadn't opened up diplomatically? CorruptUser (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As if doing it like Tricky Dick did was the only way. He did lead the world in abandoning Taiwan first to piss off the Russians and now for cheap computer mice and American flags Made in China. That's the real face of the fabled "international community" and their fabled "recognition".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I agree that our abandonment of Taiwanese independence is unfortunate, but doesn't Taiwan follow the One China Policy which asserts that the KMT are the true government of mainland China?

Maybe, cause they're afraid, that when they declare themselves independent and Chinese (PRC) warships are gonna land on Formosa, the world will just stand and do nothing except a few token decelerations, token commendations and token boycotts, that hurt no-one, but look good? They have experience with betrayal by the so-called "international community".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"I don't understand why people like Sanders because he doesn't agree with my economic policy prescriptions and he's too aggressive towards rich people". Ok I'm not sure how to respond to this it seems self explanatory why you don't like him and that's because you don't agree with him. That's it. If you agreed with him you'd like him. "national debt". For a soverign nation that can print its own money debt doesn't really matter (or at least shouldn't be top priority), depending on what it's spent on. It would take a truly insane amount of debt and a ton of consistant economic policy screw ups to actually endanger America. ClothCoat (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Do tell me how you gained the ability to read minds and discern my economic positions. I'd like that power, because I'd tweak it so that it actually works. You'll note I didn't bring up healthcaere because the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Medicare (which is actually predominantly private contractors, but I digress) is far more effective than anything else in this country, and that universal healthcare of some sort is the way to go. The problem with sending everyone to college for free is that no other country which does so has remotely the same number of college students, because there are a lot more people going to trade schools, finding work on a high school degree, etc. And speaking as someone whose father has dealt with government contracts from the company side, the government is so enormously inefficient that continually expanding its remit will exacerbate existing problems. Maybe you're familiar with the VA hospital messes? A lot of that is because the people running the VA clinics have no idea what the hell they're doing with either administration or patient care, and have no incentive to become competent in said areas, so you get that. In this interview Sanders seemed to believe that government intervention will solve everything; it can solve some problems, yes, and it can make others a lot worse. The only ones who won from Dodd-Frank were the trial lawyers (the Democrats' owners) because there had to then be tons of expensive litigation to figure out what in God's name that bill even meant. While Sanders seems to agree Dodd-Frank was a bust, it doesn't seem that the larger lesson of being judicious about government intervention in these matters has sunk in. (I'm no libertarian and think the government has a clear place in the economy, lest you consider me some Cato Institute sort; my politics don't neatly fit into any one category) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanders is bad because O'Malley is god. I rest my case. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Do tell me how you gained the ability to read minds and discern my economic positions." Well I did something called "reading what you wrote", where you lay out that you disagree with Sanders programs and show concern that he would expand the national debt. It wasn't brain surgery to notice you said you didn't like him because you didn't agree with some of his economic policies when that's what you just said. Then a weird tangent about how Sanders ~~is a commie~~ thinks all rich people are pure evil and none of the them are any good when it's pretty clear that he's just showing annoyance of the power wealthy donors have over the political system and that economic elites have benefited more over the past couple decades than average people. ClothCoat (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Again with the failed mind-reading, where do you get the idea I think Sanders is a communist? Not everybody who compulsively hates rich people is a communist, and calling someone out for the former isn't a stealth accusation of the other. There's a middle ground between going ultra-libertarian on the one hand and a Pavlovian reflex that rich=bad on the other, and my problem with Sanders is that he lingers on the latter extreme. Yes, almost everyone agrees that extremely wealthy people can manipulate the system too much, it doesn't mean that writing ever more complex tax codes (which seems to be the idea with him) is the way to fix it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sooooooo what you're saying is that you do not support him because you don't like his economic policies? Why are you making this so hard on yourself? Just say "I do not like Bernie Sanders because I don't agree with his policies" and then realize that other people like Sanders because do agree his policies. This isn't difficult to understand. ClothCoat (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Blade, by your reasoning about the VA, Medicare should not work as you admit that it does. Moreover, college funding could be conditioned on aptitude tests and directing those better off in tech school in that direction. It can be done, and Sanders is absolutely right about that. Additionally, while the trial lawyers are very fond of the Democratic Party, they are minor shareholders in it; Wall St. owns the Democrats, as it does the Republicans.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Medicare is predominantly private sector contractors (working with several hundred government employees) doing business with hospitals that are a part of non-government institutions; it works because they're big enough that these hospital systems can't beat them into submission, which is what happens with private insurance companies. None of that has anything to do with why the VA is in a state of total FUBAR. And again, if you want to go the way of Europe with these college exams then it'll come with a precipitous drop in the number of people who qualify for college and can go, which doesn't seem to be accounted for in any way. I personally would be good with that and finding better alternatives to college, but a lot of people pushing this idea seem to want it both ways. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Nixon tried to kill Passenger Rail in the US (and came awfully close), that's reason enough for me to hate him. Also he was this close to letting Israel hang out to dry in 1973. And given his personal conversations that we have on tape, it was for some reason that he did not give weapons to Israel before Sadat and Assad attacked... On Sanders though, isn't it awesome that Mona, Arisboch and myself seem to prefer the same candidate for the US presidency? That alone should tell us something... Though I don't know what... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And most people supported Obama in 2008, because he was basically an empty generic slate with no prior baggage upon which people projected their own ideas of the Perfect President, and then complained when the country didn't actually turn out the way they thought it would. Most people don't know a lot about any particular candidate, and support their own personal image of the candidate rather than the actual history and positions of the candidate. What, you think Trump's supporters actually like his policies? CorruptUser (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama did make some very clear campaign promises... Surprisingly many of which he has actually kept. The problem is that many tuned out after seeing "young vaguely black - but not too black - man who can talk and talks about hope and change is running against Hillary Clinton and (later) some old white guy". I don't think Obama is FDR material, but for Obamacare alone (which while not a great law in and by itself is a huge leap forward) he'll go down in history as one of the better Presidents... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Welk gives us "One Toke Over the Line"[edit]

No, really. In 1971. The lyrics mention Jesus, so...---Mona- (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I remember this. It's fun watching the musicians in the background...they clearly know the term.207.191.199.193 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?[edit]

I started work on this module to make bots for the wiki. When I try to make the edit it says the token is invalid. What is happening wrong here?

User:Aleksandra96/RationalWiki.py

import requests
import json
import urllib

class RationalWiki:
    def __init__(self, username, password):
        self.username = username
        self.password = password
        self.api = 'http://rationalwiki.org/w/api.php'
        self.index = 'http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title='
        self.session = ''
        self.cookies = {}

    def login(self):
        payload = {'format': 'json', 'action': 'login', 'lgname': self.username, 'lgpassword': self.password}
        r = requests.post(self.api, data=payload)
        d = json.loads(r.text)
        login_token = d['login']['token']
        self.cookies = r.cookies
        payload = {'format': 'json', 'action': 'login', 'lgname': self.username, 'lgpassword': self.password, 'lgtoken': login_token}
        r = requests.post(self.api, data=payload, cookies=self.cookies)
        d = json.loads(r.text)
        self.cookies.update(r.cookies)
        print 'Login:', d['login']['result']

    def edit(self, page, text):
        payload = {'format': 'json', 'action': 'query', 'prop': 'info', 'intoken': 'edit', 'rvprop': 'timestamp', 'titles': page}
        r = requests.post(self.api, data=payload, cookies=self.cookies)
        d = json.loads(r.text)
        idn = d['query']['pages'].keys()[0]
        edit_token = d['query']['pages'][idn]['edittoken']
        timestamp = d['query']['pages'][idn]['starttimestamp']
        payload = {'format': 'json', 'action': 'edit', 'title': page, 'summary': 'Bot edit', 'text': text, 'token': edit_token, 'basetimestamp': timestamp}
        r = requests.post(self.api, data=payload, cookies=self.cookies)
        print 'Edit:', json.loads(r.text)['edit']['result']

    def get_wikitext(self, page):
        r = requests.post(self.index + page + '&action=raw', cookies=self.cookies)
        return r.text.encode('utf-8')

    def append(self, page, text, brk=2):
        space = ''
        counter = 0
        while (counter < brk):
            space = space + '\n'
            counter += 1
        wikitext = self.get_wikitext(page).encode('utf-8') + space + text
        self.edit(page, wikitext)

    def get_rc(self, logs):
        i = 0
        titles = []
        users = []
        revid = []
        old_revid = []
        payload = {'format': 'json', 'action': 'query', 'list': 'recentchanges', 'rcprop': 'title|ids|flags|user', 'limit': str(logs)}
        r = requests.post(self.api, data=payload, cookies=self.cookies)
        d = json.loads(r.text)
        while (i <= logs):
            titles.append(d['query']['recentchanges'][i]['title'])
            users.append(d['query']['recentchanges'][i]['user'])
            revid.append(d['query']['recentchanges'][i]['revid'])
            old_revid.append(d['query']['recentchanges'][i]['old_revid'])
            print 'Title:', titles[i], '      User:', users[i]
            i += 1

bot = RationalWiki('Aleksandra96', 'password')
bot.login()
bot.edit('User:Aleksandra96', 'edit')

Aleksandra96 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, do you have bot status, for starters? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:22, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Eww Python |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Your memes end here!} 02:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You're not setting the cookies on the last connection you instantiate, so it doesn't know anything about your session. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the cookies to the last request and it still says the token is invalid. Aleksandra96 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll cut you, Raysenn. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Could not execute: Indentation error in function cut(Raysenn). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{You know who else overthrows nukes? MY MOM!} 22:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh no! My code won't compile because I didn't format it according to the language specification. This is a problem that literally only happens with python! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is a Python specific error. Try writing C++ with no indentation whatsoever and be amazed at how it manages to run. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Judges not by color but by dankness of memes} 19:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody ask me, I have no idea. Probably 1.19 being smelly - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Apparently requests's cookies property only returns cookies set in that particular HTTP response, so when you reset the object's cookies after the login request it erases the session cookie. Commenting out the second assignment to self.cookies fixes the problems in a bodging sort of manner. To fix it properly, I suggest you use the get_dict() method on the RequestsCookieJar object and merge them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(Also, stop urlencoding with replace. urllib.parse.urlencode is a thing. Also, stop sending POST parameters in the URL query string. It's a POST request. Also start checking errors.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That was a big help! Aleksandra96 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I recommend looking into pywikibot rather than writing it from scratch: https://github.com/wikimedia/pywikibot-core

For simple search and replace tasks based on regexes, pywikibot can be used practically without any modifications. --Tweenk (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Gender and pronouns[edit]

I know it seemed like a good idea at whatever time, but is the descriptive value worth it? Walker Walker Walker 06:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Where's the problem? Did ~~Foxwave~~ Fox Elaine throw another fit over someone addressing her with "him"?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 06:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Did who do what when why. No specific occurrence prompted this question, at least to my memory. Walker Walker Walker 07:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Some languages get by just fine without it. In Finnish, hän ("he/she/they"), is gender-neutral, and even se ("it") sometimes gets used informally to refer to people. ArcticVixen (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As demonstrated by Mark Twain in his Tale of the Fishwife and Its Sad Fate, grammatical gender in German is only capriciously coupled to the natural gender of a pronoun's referent. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't stop Germans from changing the word "Studenten" to "Studierende" or to "StudentInnen", though. Your mileage as to the wisdom of said thing may certainly vary... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd go further than just pronouns and say the whole societal categorization of people into different genders is unnecessary. Especially the stereotypes and different gender roles are bull. For procreational purposes it's useful to know who has a uterus and who has a sperm factory and when it comes to sex information about how many holes and appendages are available for use is certainly convenient, but neither of those requires you to divide the population into two groups who're depicted as being physically, mentally and sometimes spiritually inherently different. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Separating people based on gender is not innately harmful, it's the stuff that might come afterward that's harmful. I agree that it isn't very socially useful in a post-industrial society such as ours, but that doesn't mean it should be completely eliminated. Rather, we should treat each other better because we want to. Human appendixes and tonsils are also unnecessary and bull, but we don't surgically remove them just because. We wait until they become a problem and then we deal with it. I just hope you realize that if we all treated each other well in the first place, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion at all. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the concept of gender is evil(!) and needs to be eliminated or anything. It's here now and I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon. Either way, there's nothing inherently harmful about people identifying as one gender or another, but I consider the whole deal rather unnecessary and probably a lot of suffering could've been averted if we never came up with it in the first place. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

"how many holes and appendages are available for use". hehe. There are women with 2 vaginas btw. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What is up with the absurd myth that the proletariat is more socially reactionary than the bourgeoisie?[edit]

Have you ever noticed the ridiculous claim that reactionary social views such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, whorephobia, junkiephobia, drug prohibitionism, welfare-shaming, anti-choicery and police brutality are more common among the working class than among the privileged, propertied class of fascist oppressor scum? Supposedly the rich are "socially liberal" whereas the proletariat support right-wing authoritarian values. This is completely and utterly ridiculous. Communist, anarchist and atheist movements (excluding right-wing, Islamophobic "atheists" who are thoroughly bourgeois, and aren't really atheists because there is one religion they never criticize - Judaism) have always drawn the vast majority of their support from the proletariat and the peasantry, with the only remotely non-poor elements being the progressive intellectuals. The aristocrats, the bourgeoisie and the wealthy oppressors were horrified by the rise of Marxist atheism, and led fascistic crusades for "God and country". Very few proletarians voted for Hitler, and even fewer of the unemployed, whereas most of the petty bourgeoisie and virtually all the grand bourgeoisie did. Sane with Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet and other Christofascist reactionaries - their support came overwhelmingly the oppressors - the more privileged the oppressor, the stronger their support for fascism. Virtually all proletarians opposed them. Groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis are stereotyped as composed of "poor white trash" but the reality is their supporters are mostly wealthy businessmen and fascistic pig-cops and military officers. A quick look at any white supremacist website will show this. Support for leftist and socialist movement mostly comes from workers, welfare recipients, immigrants, prisoners and other good classes who do not deserve to perish in a revolutionary holocaust the way the rich do. Support for the "religious right" comes overwhelmingly from the middle and upper classes, and the proletariat are far less likely to go to church than the bourgeoisie and always have been. In recent years, ballot measures in US states show that the higher someone's income and the lighter their skin, the more likely they are to vote in favor of bans on abortion, gay marriage and marijuana. Even when the proletariat is Christian, it is because of things like Black Liberation Theology - "family values" Xtianity has virtually no proletarian support. These things aren't called "bourgeois morality" for no reason - it's the idea that the bourgeois is socially liberal that is ridiculously absurd. Is it time to get over these absurd myths about supports of reactionary values and racism being "poor white trash" and admit what they really are - privileged, wealthy, aristocratic bourgeois fascist oppressors? Howard McWashington (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Every myth has a spark of truth that started it. Case in point: seems like half of East, South, and Central LA seem to be skewed in the direction of right-wing views. Homophobia, sexism, welfare-shaming, the works. Hell, those views get extreme around Compton, Huntington Park, and Boyle Heights. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 07:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Anyone responding after this point in the thread is guilty of Feeding the Troll and deserves a kick in the shins. Seriously. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What's your problem? Sore shins? 88.106.89.114 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Won't somebody think of the paragraphs!!--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to respond to this troll by saying that collected data is responsible for this "myth". Economic left-right follows a bell shape accross income and education levels(particularly education), and social left-right follows a generally pretty linear trend, getting more left leaning as you get richer and better educated. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this can help elaborate? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

false consciousness? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

To? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What would happen....[edit]

if one were to publicly burn a Confederate Flag in Alabama? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It would maybe start a brawl? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cue "Bad Reputation' by Joan Jett, and cue me charging into the fray wielding a folding chair. --Captain Wolff (Another Fine Propagator of the Homosexual Agenda) 16:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Or how about Freebird like in Kingsman? --User_talk:Sean_Skyhawk 75.49.10.61 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Be down whatever money it cost to buy the flag?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It may even be more effective to hold that flag up and scream "THIS IS MADE IN CHINA!!!"--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, where are the Djihaddi flags made? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question. Maybe we should ask the, say, Peshmerga to gives these thingies a proper look before throwing them into the garbage bin?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Am I going to get killed by Erdoğan for saying that Peshmerga is the closest thing to "good guys" in the Syrian Civil War there is? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No idea, but you should probably be rather discrete about it, when being in Turkey?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well you're not wrong. ArcticVixen (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you live in Turkey, maybe. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour from Paravant[edit]

Hey guys[edit]

What kinda sneaky ninja-shit is that:

(change visibility) 18:43, 2 November 2015 (username removed) (log action removed) (edit summary removed)

???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The kind of sneaky shit that happens when I click the all of the deletion checkmarks on accident while removing dox material. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

MiniNyar[edit]

He got logged out. I got him logged back in. Enjoy posts being signed and whatever else MiniNyar does! Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 03:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Test.

Say what now?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the bot also supposed to actually work or... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

MiniNyar seems to not have actually logged in. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 04:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Old Days™[edit]

I just discovered the abandoned, ancient remains of RationalWiki³. Wonder what they'd say if it'd be alive now and watching us. What do you guys think? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 04:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Where??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rationalwikiwiki was always the fun place to be. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. From the looks of it, it was fun. I don't know about you, but what if we revived RationalWikiWikiWIki to replace the old RationalWikiWiki? Or at least archive those pages if we're not reviving them? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 05:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(To Arisboch) I rediscovered the RationalWikiWIkiWiki Dive Bar. I was just wondering, what do we do with those pages? If we're not using them, why not archive them or delete them? If they're archived, then thank goodness I haven't posted on the talk pages there, since I'm not sure about those places. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 04:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There's Template:Mothball, perhaps you could stick that on them? Bicycle^wheel

19:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I done it. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 19:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

NFL announces games in Twickenham, London, England - also: Who'll win the big game?[edit]

I know, I know, off-mission and all too many people around here hate the game... Still, the NFL has signed a contract to throw the ball forward (gasp!) in Twickenham Stadium, the temple of Rugby Union with more thaen a century of tradition. What do you think of that? Also: Why does the NFL chose to hold even more games at a place where NFL Europe failed spectacularly (the London Franchise was the first to shut down / move)? And furthermore: Who is Playoff bound? Who will win the Superb Owl (sic!)? Is Eli Manning finally going to be acknowledged as a great Quarterback? Who will deflate Tom Brady? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I really do think you have misjudged the interests of this wiki when it comes to sports. As for who wins the superbowl? Me and other retail workers who will be getting payed to maintain a skeleton force at stores while everybody is at home watching the game. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I can only add about this much, I'm afraid. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I am apparently the biggest NFL fan around here... Which is weird given my country of residence... But is there any sport you care about at all? Scoreless draw ball? Backwards pass ball? The one that is a game for kids in most of Europe? Cricket? Olympic Handball? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I may be entering into troll bait territory here, but I do enjoy some types of e-sport. To make a very general human statement: amicable competitiveness can be really fun to both participate in and to spectate, especially when the skill curve is steep. So I'm not heckling this thread, I'm just not a general sportsing person. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't like it because I have to wake up at 9:30 AM EST to see a game, and since the Ravens haven't played a game in London, it's very likely they'll get a game next year. For playoffs, I'd say on the AFC Side: Pats, Bengals, Steelers, Colts (barely), Broncos, and Dolphins (I still think they are a really good team who should be in the playoffs). For NFC: Cardinals, Seahawks, Packers, Vikings (like the way they're playing), Panthers, and the Giants. Based on the way the Broncos D dominated Rodgers, I'd venture to say they win the Super Bowl and send Peyton out to his retirement like a champ, similar to Bettis and Ray Lewis. Eli is an above average QB like Flacco, who turns it on in the postseason. I don't see the Pats going to the Super Bowl again. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If chess is sports, why should E-sports not be sports? Also: Eli is maybe the best post-season QB who is currently active (hey I am a Giants fan). Brady used to be that, but he lost one big game too many (both of them against Eli, incidentally) for that. Also, I don't think the Broncos will win the big one this year (though the guy who comments on the sport in Germany would most likely go berserk if that happens). I think Peyton is just too old... A bit like Lothar Matthäus in the 2000 European Championships of scoreless draw ball... But who knows? Judging from their record, they're playoff bound and once you are in the Playoffs everything can happen... Including what happened two years ago... (I was for the Broncos in that one...) Also on the time zone front: For us the earliest games start at 19:00... Don't even ask about the Monday, Thursday and Sunday Night Games...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yeah no my sleeping habits are pretty bad, so getting myself up for 9:30 AM would be awful. Even if Manning sucks, the defense could carry him ala Ravens 2000 defense with Trent Dilfer. They need a strong running game of course, but being a game manager with a stellar D ain't a bad thing. And Manning's definitely got the football IQ to manage a game to his advantage and not wear out his dead arm. Remember, the year Manning won his only Super Bowl, he practically sucked in the playoffs minus the game vs. the Patriots. I think it was like 6 TDs and 7 INTs that post season because the defense carried him against KC, Baltimore, and Chicago. And the Broncos D is good enough to carry him. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Being a fan of "American" sports in Europe won't be good for your sleep schedule either, exhibit A sits right here ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Marijuana Referendum in Ohio[edit]

25 minutes until the polls close in Ohio (it is election day in the USA). I wonder if a divided state like Ohio is willing to be brave and decide to legalize marijuana, or if they are too scared of new things, or perhaps they aren't smart enough to realize that the 'monopoly' ballot measure could invalidate the legalization one. If only the original measure didn't have the monopoly measure in it, but let's fact it: big money was the only real reason this is even on the ballot in a divided state like Ohio. We will soon see if it passes. Note to any users from Ohio: don't smoke 'em yet, the measure take 30 days to take effect if it passes. I wonder if the police are raiding people's houses right now looking for celebratory contraband. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Looks like it hasn't passed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The voters in Houston rejected a protection ordinance for trans and gay people, also. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And Kentucky managed to elect future governor Matt Bevin, who wants to enact a Right-to-work law, and once ran against Mitch McConnell as senator for not being conservative enough. Quirk (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Shit. San Francisco voted not to tighten restrictions on Airbnb... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 06:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So basically the wrong side won in all these elections? Let me guess: Turnout was abysmal? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Voter turnout in my state has been abysmal for years, but then again, we voted Der Governator into office, once and also voted in Proposition 8. Though it was the adults, so I couldn't do anything short of whining. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 20:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Having the election on a work-day might do that Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A dilemma.[edit]

To start off with, I have severe nut allergies. Usually, I have to meticulously search the ingredient labels for any incriminating ingredients, and even the facility and equipment the item is made on. So when food is specifically nut-free, I'm especially happy. Unfortunately, such food is usually everything-free (gluten-free, wheat-free, dairy-free, etc.) as well. Even GMO-free. Now, I don't want to support companies that advertise GMO-free as a virtue, but they are often the only foods that are guaranteed to be nut-free. So I am presented with a dilemma: support the GMO-free industry, or obsessively scan labels for any hint of trouble? What do I choose? What do I do? ¹⁰⁷ Ag⁴⁷ 21:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you really have a choice? Aren't nut allergies potentially fatal? I feel your pain, by the way. As someone who is somewhere between a vegetarian and a vegan (being a vegan is just too damn hard, and I sometimes eat meat, mostly for social reasons like at Christmas dinner; the way I figure it being >90% "better" is "good enough") I often buy "organic" food. As I see it, buying organic food is definitely the "lesser of the evils", but I wish I didn't have to, and avoid it if I can but this is not always possible (for example, all variants of tofu that I can buy are "organic"). The annoying thing is that organic food has a few things going for it (mostly on the long-term sustainability of some farming methods), which is dwarfed by the woo :-/

I had similar troubles finding a decent massage therapist a few years ago, as almost all also offer woo-based treatments (reflexology, cupping, etc.) ... The same applies to health insurance packages, many of which cover woo (acupuncture, homoeopathy, etc) ... Living a woo-free life is pretty difficult :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You aren't doing the world any favors by dying; buy the organic junk if you have to. Yeah, I have the same issue finding non-organic tofu. I mean, dammit, we grow so many soybeans that we feed them to other food and soy is in virtually everything anyway, why does tofu have to be so expensive? I have a similar problem with trying to find flax oil and peanut flour anywhere other than overpriced hippie stores.

It's like the manufacturers don't realize there is an entire demographic that supports environmentalism and healthy eating but doesn't buy into the hippie bullshit. CorruptUser (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I like to cook using the simplest ingredients I can find. Give me an onion and some rice, and access to my spice shelf, and I'm happy. Dried beans are nice, if time permits. If there happens to be some chicken or pork handy, so much the better. Fresh veggies are nice, frozen ones are OK. Luckily, my schedule gives me time to spend in the kitchen. My partner avoids gluten (not celiac, thank goodness) so I don't do as much baking as I used to. Sorry, rambling. Simpler ingredients. MaillardFillmore (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Rice and onion? Ugh, at least add in a tomato and red pepper so you can make spanish rice. CorruptUser (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So much left unsaid... On another note, garlic is proof that God exists, and wants us to be healthy. MaillardFillmore (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very nutritious... Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, Spanish rice... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 04:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

One of these days I need someone to show me how to use pegao. I think it's a PR thing. MaillardFillmore (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To build what CorruptUser said, I'm frustrated, and even angered at times that companies are bending head over heels to make foods gluten-free, and yet celiac disease is far rarer than nut allergies. And yet, no major company that I know of seems to care about making foods nut-free. I reserve a disproportionate amount of my anger for Little f***ing Debbie. When I was growing up, our school cafeterias would often stock tons (and by tons, I mean tons) of Little Debbie snacks, seemingly not caring that I was being excluded. As such, I grew up hating that calm face on those packages. It's as though the company was a corporate sponsor of SCPS or something. But I digress. Companies have their priorities wildly skewed. ¹⁰⁷ Ag⁴⁷ 21:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A new forum[edit]

So I have just created this forum on public transport. Initially there is only one topic in it (one that I have been wondering about for quite some time), but you can of course raise other topics... Cheerio Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Eric S. Raymond, tinfoil misogynist[edit]

Breitbart has decided to run with a post where Raymond accuses the Ada Initiative of trying to honey-trap Linus Torvalds into a sexual assault charge. This is obvious conspiracy horseshit, but of course all the anti-"SJW" conspiracy types are eating it up. Shall it be mentioned on Raymond's RW page, or should we wait and see if it blows over first? EVDebs (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe wait until it blows over first. We can't be sure of what'll happen right now. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 03:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than the spectacle of a once-respected technologist continuing to beclown himself, anyway. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 15:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a link to this conspiracy on Linus Torvalds? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's on his blog, and also Breitbart picked up the story so the Gators are all up ons. EVDebs (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The sad thing is how people eat this bullshit up unquestioningly. I even saw a "Oh sure shoot the messenger because you don't like the message" as a dodge to the fact that he's an unhinged loon. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hear ye German speakers![edit]

If you know someone who speaks German and is fond of some woo, but you are sure RW won't convince them, the rather well known "TV-Professor" (Americans: Think a less bad-ass and non-atheist Neil DeGrasse Tyson) Harald Lesch has a thing on ZDF (or maybe ZDF neo) That can be found on the youtubes where he talks about sciency stuff and often addresses woo (he is particularly fond of dispelling the moon landing hoax, not surprising given he is an astrophysicist). As each individual rant is in a easy to digest 15 minute format it's also a good way to pass your time. Also, rolled rs. Just thought I'd leave that there. And before someone points it out: Yes I know that some of his views on philosophy/religion are problematic and he has expressed them on the more obscure corners of German television, but that does not affect most of his science talk and woo dispelling. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey! A whole bunch of images are gone![edit]

What gives?! They've just disappeared! Just click around and you'll see for yourself! Anyone else notice this?! Spaceboyjosh (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You're not the first one to get annoyed about it. Something is wrong with the plug-in or extension, that allows the RW users to insert images from Wikicommons without having to upload them to our wiki.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. I'm especially disappointed because my favorite baby article, Bobby Fischer lost it's pic. :( QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed. My Bobby Fischer article has its pic back. QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 18:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Well, you should fight for your outfit. Don't be a slave like I was."[edit]

Has this been discussed here yet? Carrie Fisher interviewed Daisy Ridley, her co-star in the new Star Wars movie, and among other things told her to make sure she fights for her outfit, to not let them put her in a slave getup like Fisher was in. http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/daisy-ridley#_

Disney is also putting the kibosh on their Slave Leia merchandise, and reportedly not allowing Leia to be drawn in "sexy poses" or be drawn wearing the 'gold bikini' in the Star Wars comics. http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/11/03/55448/disney-pulls-back-on-marketing-slave-leia-and-her/

For me, her A New Hope robes and hairdo was definitely more iconic. I don't know how big the RotJ slave outfit was in the merchandising, but I presume it was the most popular, for obvious reasons. Lightning Dust (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fucking Disney douchebags on their anti-"porn" jihad. Shit. Probably I should buy a few Slave Outfit Leah figurines, they'll be worth a lil more, judging by this.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh no! They are trying to take away any fapping material! OH THE HORROR!!! QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 16:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So... are there any Presidential candidates that are not making complete fools of themselves?[edit]

The entirety of the GOP seems to be making complete fools of themselves (or maybe they always were but are much more visible now?), but... I can't seem to settle on ANY candidate that I actually like. I was hoping that the democrats would have plenty of all around reasonable people, and they ARE better than the republicans, no surprise there, but I don't gravitate towards ANY of them. I have always considered politics to be stupid and petty until relatively recently, when I realized how much of a threat the GOP could actually be... but I don't like any of the other candidates EITHER. I have stances on issues that I have my mind made up on but, WHY CAN'T I CHOOSE A CANDIDATE?! Can anyone help me out on this? QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 04:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You may want to consider looking into third parties. Also, nothing stops you from writing in a persons name you do want to see win, it's how jesus and mickey mouse get so many votes. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you basing which candidate you are going to support/vote for based on if you like them, rather than basing your vote on their stances on policy issues and voting record? This seems like a terribly irrational way to vote for someone. Perhaps I am misreading you comment, and by 'like', you mean 'like on the issues', which makes more sense. Either way, you should take this short test or this longer, more accurate one if you haven't already, and they will tell you who you should support. The candidates it recommended for me were the ones I already support, so I think they are pretty good litmus tests. Please let me know what you got. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What were your results Pbfreespace3? ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Deez Nutz. Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pbfreespace3: I took the test for kicks (not a U.S. citizen in any way shape or form) and wasn't hugely surprised at the results. However, one question/answer combo from the long, thorough test freaked me the fuck out:

Q: "Should the U.S. prevent Russia from conducting airstrikes in Syria?"

A (option under "other stances"): "Yes, and declare war on Russia" (my emphasis, obviously)

WTF?!? The U.S. electorate is (expected to be) such numbskullingly stupid jingoists that it's necessary to include a "Press the red button and have a nice WWIII"-option to a question of whether or not the Russkies bombing in Syria is okay? That's effin' scary! ScepticWombat (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. While the aforementioned long test is quite detailed it's useless for those interested in third parties as it only compares answers with Dem.s & Rep.s., whereas the shorter test does include several third party candidates. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The only surprise on mine was how comparatively highly Christie placed. That, and how stupid some answer choices were. Walker Walker Walker 07:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I wondered why the long test had only one science question (and that about space exploration, of all things). I was a bit disappointed as I was looking forward to a lot of creationist and some anti-elitist "Dem God-darn scientimatists ain't gonna tell me what to believe!" options. I mean considering the suicidal option on Russia/Syria, such options would hardly be any more stupid... ScepticWombat (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean I guess the word "policy" was supposed to follow... but still. Walker Walker Walker 07:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone see Marco Rubio's comments on Bernie Sanders and socialism? I generally don't agree with Rubio on much, but it was refreshing to see a politician talking sense and moderation rather than the usual hardline crazy talk. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't appreciate the go move there bit, but eh. Walker Walker Walker 09:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Compared to the usual crazy coming from Republican Presidential candidates, that whole "if you love Scandinavia so much, move there" line is pretty mild. (At my work, my global team includes a couple of Swedes and a Dane who all live in California, they tell me they left Sweden/Denmark because other countries like the US and the UK have much broader career options for people with professional skills, in this case IT.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

All other things being equal, the US/UK can be expected to have broader career options, period, when compared to Sweden/Denmark. I mean look at the population (and hence potential market) scales: US = 322 million, UK = 64.5 million, Sweden = 9.8 million, Denmark = 5.7 million. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Especially if you've had the benefits of a superior education.

Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}

19:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Vote for Vermin Supreme. You get a free pony! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it magic and can it fly faster than the speed of ~~an electronic toenail~~ sound?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Voter Registration[edit]

I've been here approximately three months here on RationalWiki. Am I eligible for voting rights, or do I have to wait a little while before that? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

3 months, 75 edits/--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering that you'll have just passed the 3 months' bar on November 12th (voting will be on November 16th) and as you quite clearly have more than 75 edits, then yes, you should be eligible. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this the only voter registration page or is there one especially for the upcoming mod election? I ask only because the page I linked implies that list is for RMF board elections.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Machines Are Rising.[edit]

Today the RW images, tomorrow the world! You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Dude, it's the roombas. Evil little things. :P QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

They have risen. They don't wish to kill humanity, just drive people crazy as they work in weird ways. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Or is that just what they want you to think? ¹⁰⁷ Ag⁴⁷ 20:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding footnotes[edit]

How do I properly put in the links for that section? I added a part to the Cedarville University article about how Ben Carson campaigned at Cedarville.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

<ref>[www.yourlinkhere.com summary]</ref> and a section of ==Footnotes== <references/>--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Complaint: MichaelDSuarez[edit]

Suggestion: Fractal Universe[edit]

Hi all, new here. Would suggest a new article be made for the newly recycled chimera of Electric Universe and fractals, now known as Fractal Universe. It even has its own domain name, and is now associated with the name Colin Hill. Would also suggest that someone alert Wikipedia about the straight up anti-science being peddled under the name "Fractal Cosmology", which you can also see is being linked by the Fractal Universe's website. 42.60.85.76 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh, you should probably have put this in the To do list. ¹⁰⁷ Ag⁴⁷ 20:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Prion article[edit]

I got one started and I admit it could use some work, I will do some more tomorrow--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I messed up making the footnote on the Prions article[edit]

And I am not sure how to fix it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. You can always check other articles to find the correct mark up. Now what Prions badly needs is some actual references.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I added one ref (for Earth Clinic) so you can see the mark up.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link from the University of Utah- http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/molecules/prions/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Then please add it to the article. Currently the article completely lacks references bar the one I added as an example yesterday. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about love: Am I irrational?[edit]

So, I have been in love with a girl who rejected me who was a good friend and hasn't spoken to me in almost 3 years. Yet I still feel that I love her. I don't think about her constantly, or even very often any more, but it still elicits very strong feelings when I do. Am I just some irrational freak who can't get over stuff or... ? QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we're all irrational freaks one way or the other. Nothing worth losing sleep over. Also, getting over things is overrated; if you still have feelings for her, hone those feelings the way you see fit. Don't shame yourself for having them. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:31, 7 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

"Honing" feelings for somebody who doesn't reciprocate them & hasn't actually been part of your life for years isn't going to do you any good. Stuff from the past can often elicit strong feelings when you think about it, but if you don't think about this girl that often, then you probably are over it (at least to some extent). My advice is not to let it hold you back from meeting new people or finding other things to fill your time & thoughts. Щєазєюіδ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the question of whether or not you're "just irrational", let me just point out - in a bit of a tangent - that in the terminology of logic, "rationality" is always measured against what's called the total evidence, or body of information, that the person in question has. This is why a psychotic person acting on his delusions, or a person brought up brainwashed in a strict religious or political system adhering to those dogmas, is still being rational to the fullext extent of the term by allowing themselves to be led by the information they posses. Indeed, we can only ever be led by the information we actually possess, and no matter how twisted our information is, we can all agree that just overtly acting in opposition to that total body of information can't ever be rational. So; being in love doesn't make you irrational. It's fully rational to be in love and act on that information. Irrationality, however - both for you as a lover and for the psychotic person or the religious nut - means: when people are provided access to new information that enriches their total body of information (or "evidence") yet they still maintain their old trains of thought and action despite their evidence, or information, having been updated to reflect a different situation. Which, in your case, would be equivalent to you finding out that she doesn't love you back but still acting and reasoning identically to the way you did when you just knew you were in love, and her take on it was undetermined still. It's not irrational to be in love and act in love. It is irrational, however, to find out the other person isn't interested and still change nothing about the way you think or act. That would be textbook irrational. Just some terminology details from a university student of logic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

it always irks me somewhat when people insist they are rational in all they do. It strikes me as a kind of arrogance, as if everything they say and do is the result of some long thought out plan so everything they do must be the correct thing to think and do. Its not helped by the most vocal in insistence they are the embodiment of Spock are generally egregious arseholes. Sure you can be rational in the sense that are not waving your cock about in the street, but unless you are talking specifically about conscious decisions are critical thinking skills, you do so much stuff, so many choices in your live without even thinking that rationality is little do with it. Its only after the fact where you try to rationalize your choices that this illusion appears. I doubt people could function if they thought through every decision, no matter how small. I would wager anyone love life that is based on some kind of objectively rational plan is going to be lacking. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I appreciate the responses. I had a great amount of difficulty getting over her to the extent that I have. I suppose ever since then I've just thought that "something must be wrong with me". Doesn't help that I've never even been on a date before lol. QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 15:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That really sucks...big time...sorry to hear this. Please try and learn from the lesson and not fall into the MRA trap (blaming everyone but your own bad luck and possibly perhaps maybe your approach, and become a douchebag woman-hating sleaze-ball). It's losing the friendship that hurts most...no? If you think you could realistically still be friends, let her know that very clearly and hope she is also willing to try. If not, then tactfully let her know you are still interested, assuming you can handle the very possible rejection and perhaps she will too. If not, it all really really sucks, the pain will slowly go away and with luck, new horizons will come. 92.56.189.233 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

3 years with no contact, getting in touch at this stage, no matter how innocently, is going to look obsessive. useful advice beyond the obvious generalities is difficult as your perspective, her perspective, our (limited) perspective are going to differ. There really is no useful advice beyond the 'try not to obsess', but you know, try not to obsess. Try to come to terms with any kind of relationship you had is in the past. It will still be painful but you'll be moving on. I'm sure you know or have been told this before, buts all that can be done. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully so. I'm not really good with social skills in general, as I have ADHD, Anxiety, and Asperger's... a devastating mix when trying to talk to girls you don't already know. QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Foolish humans! Your "love" is no match for an orbital death ray. ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.8.159.238 / talk / contribs}

No...calling an old friend up a few years later is not inherently obsessive. Saying hello 1000 days since the last time is hardly stalking or blatantly-creepy. It entirely depends on how you do it. "hey baby...I've been thinking about you every day..." would very likely come across obsessive. "Hey...remember when x happened (x=something funny), it popped into my head the other day and I thought it would be nice to call you and see how you were doing.." may not.

As per having Asperger's, I read a novel called The Rosie Project...about a professor with Asp. looking for love. It certainly helped me put myself in the head of someone with Asp., even though the book obviously took several creative-dramatic liberties with how the syndrome effects people. It might be insightful for you as well...maybe not...at least you could tell us what in the novel is nonsense. 92.56.189.233 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to contact her without looking obsessive. To be honest, I don't think I'm ever going to find anyone who I like who also likes me. No one's ever liked me. I'm probably starting to come off as a pathetic loser to you guys right now. Sorry :( didn't really mean to make this into a pity party. Just really difficult.QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 04:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Bit of advice. Find a hobby outside your home. A social hobby that involves other people. Meet other people. If proper gender, ask out, if not, ask if they know anyone who is the proper gender who might like you too. Is it easy? Hell no, it's not easy. That's life; everything worthwhile is difficult (good job, love), otherwise you wouldn't even notice it (food, water, shelter, air).

Most importantly; LOWER YOUR STANDARDS. Sorry, if you aren't a young Fabio, you aren't "deserving" of a young Selma Hayek. Forget about what you "deserve" and ask what the women you are interested "deserve", and be what they deserve.CorruptUser (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

They say that meeting potential partners is easier now that dating sites & apps have gone mainstream. I don't have any experience with these so can't really offer any advice on them, but it might be worth looking into if you're eager to meet girls. The most important thing is to try & take things one step at a time, not get obsessed over what might happen with somebody you've met, & not creep her out by coming on too strongly. There can be a tendency for people who haven't had much relationship experience, especially for people with OCD & similar conditions, to invest too much emotionally & 'fall in love' too easily (sometimes even with people you barely know), which could make you mess things up more easily with somebody you like & will make the disappointment more painful when you do. I'm speaking largely from my own experience, but I'm guessing from what you've told us that some of this may apply to you too. Try to get perspective on your feelings & not let them get out of control: when you feel that you're 'in love' with someone (who doesn't feel the same way about you) think about whether it's really about her, or more about you & how you feel about not getting something that you want so much. If you really struggle with these kinds of emotions, you could look into counselling or therapy (or talk to your therapist about it if you're already in therapy for Asperger's etc). Finding people who like you will be easier the more you like yourself. It's good to be aware of your flaws (especially where love & relationships are concerned) but don't be too negative about yourself as a whole, & don't try too hard to compete with or compare yourself to other people. Spending time with people who like & care about you, such as family or good friends, will help your self-esteem. Wèàšèìòìď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to be prepared to send a lot of messages. Don't send long essays or make them too short. For what it's worth all the "quirky" guys I found had serious red flags. Aleksandra96 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your friends and family are no match for an orbital death ray. ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.8.159.238 / talk / contribs}

CorruptUser Are you assuming I loved her because of her looks? Because I can guarantee it was much more than that, she was a good friend who I fell in love with. If you're saying I don't deserve to get someone who I find attractive... um... if I'm not attracted to them at all, why would I have a relationship with them? Just for the sake of saying I'm in a relationship? That doesn't sound like a very good reason to be in one. I can't FORCE myself to be attracted to someone I'm not attracted to, the same way she didn't have a choice in whether or not she was attracted to me. I might not know anything about romantic relationships, but I'm pretty sure mutual attraction is a requirement for it to be genuine. QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 22:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

She was no Salma Hayek, but she liked a lot of the same things as me and she was fun to be around and had a great personality. QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 22:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're not going to be able to get in touch with her, look at it as you not going the way of Hector Berlioz; after several years and a highly important musical piece he eventually courted and married his idée fixe (his words, not accusing you of feeling the same), and shortly afterwards she became a violent and abusive alcoholic who regularly beat the shit out of him. At least it can't turn out that way. (I always try to keep it original; I once felt the same about someone under somewhat different circumstances several years ago but I'm now pretty sure I'll never marry or have children, you could go that way too if you want) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

We're all irrational, pal. Because we have these incredibly strong desires, and they control us. Rationalism is an ideal no one gets anywhere close to reaching. So, please worry less. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!![edit]

DID ANYONE SEE THE COMET THAT PASSED US BY!? I dunno about you guys, but anyone in South LA who saw the comet that passed by a half hour ago? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 03:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Apparently it was a missile test from Edwards Air Force Base. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 05:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No, no. You're in UFOland, so say it was aliens despite having had the ordinary earthly explanation supplied to you. Walker Walker Walker 05:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It was definitely Barack Hussein Obama's Freemason reptilian spaceship! CHECKMATE, sheeple! You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 06:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

PROJECT BLUE BEAM! The time has come!!1! --Ymir (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing help[edit]

I need a template I can use to display a table containing the Lord's Prayer, aligned, in various languages. Do we have anything like that?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 06:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You can use a table? Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I used that table, but the entries aren't aligned. I want it to be arranged so that the texts all start at the top of the cells. Can that be done with this template?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 06:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "aligned"? To the top? Or the width? You can give columns the same width with:

! style="min-width: 7em;" | Text here...

You only need to do this for one cell (in this case a header), and it will apply to all the cells on the column.

To make it align at the top (rather than the middle), add:

| style="vertical-align: top;" | Text

You need to do this for every cell..

You can of course put this in a template, but in my opinion that won't make matters easier... — Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That works. Thanks!--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 00:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we as a community please hash out the Israel-Palestine situation?[edit]

For the past few months, the Israel-Palestine debate has become a hot spot here. A few editors have this as their pet cause, and articles beyond the scope of the debate are becoming sites for intense debate/edit-warring/and general bad vibes (notably apartheid and Black Lives Matter). Recent Changes is never free from some sort of acrimony caused by the actions of a handful of editors obsessed with an issue that is at best marginal to RW's mission. What, if anything, should/can we as a community do to minimise the way the issue is metastasising through the community? ^{— Unsigned, by: AgingHippie / talk / contribs}

There's always that nuke em all from orbit option proposed when I brought this to the coop to solve back in august. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a problem at this point. (Except when Avenger gets pesky.) Things have settled down so why try to make it one? Some of us here know a lot about the topic and I don't see why that should be an affront.---Mona- (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit wars on that subject, though unpleasant and often nasty, are unavoidable unless we were to act against our own principles. (IMO obviously) SolPyre (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no problem with this topic, and has not been for a while now. Not until today, when AgingHippie began making reversions because he said he "will not allow" edits he doesn't like. Which is to say, he literally reignited the very problem he now purports to want to "solve."---Mona- (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No, he just tried to prevent let the BLM article to bloat into a hideous and gigantic monster like the GG articles are.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is an at-all likely threat. Unnecessary scaremongering is unnecessary. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:10, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

We are becoming ridiculous as RW. We claim to dispel woo and stuff, yet seem to have a pet cause (often spouted by woo peddlers of all strides, though not exclusively) that randomly crops up all over articles that have nothing to do with it. And I am not even talking about goats. Goats are awesome. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mona "There was no problem with this topic, ect." Did it die down for a while or something? I've been steering clear of the I/P stuff for a while but from watching the recent changes page it seemed like the the conflict was still ongoing (I'm talking about it in general, I see the spill over into other related articles as a natural piece of the whole). Was there a specific article that was previously not a battle ground that the conflict entered into? Seems like the BLM article was always one of the theaters of war. SolPyre (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Things had been relatively calm for a few weeks now. An occasional bout from Avenger or Sorte, but hardly anything of note. Then AgingHippie decides he suddenly doesn't like the way things are at the Black Lives Matter article (an article which had previously been involved in some of the conflict, though the issues seemed settled), starts edit warring over it, declaring "I will not allow this [yadda yadda]", and then opens this thread in the bar. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ahh, okay. Thank you for explaining.SolPyre (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My impression was that it had all died down. What has happened to make this an issue worthy of a call out in the bar again? It is quite hard to see from Recent Changes which always seems to be full of the same bunch of editors LOL-banning each other.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

TRtWP, SolPyre. For reasons I don't understand, AgingHippie just became very angry at me and 142BoN, and began -- sometimes crudely -- insulting both of us, and engaging in huge deletions of both the BLM article and it's talk page. His aim was specifically directed at the intersection of BLM and the I/P issue. (Which is in currently in high relief among pundits, politicos etc. because of Netanyhau's pending visit to DC and what many perceive as his appalling disrespect toward Obama -- attributed by some to racism. Some are saying blacks, including BLM, are drifting even more to the pro-Palestinian position due to Netanyahu's behavior.) Suddenly, AgingHippe simply declared he would not allow this material or discussion of it to be published. The rest, well, you can see for yourself what has unfolded.---Mona- (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Because when the longest section in an article that is itself not really core to RW's mission is about something that is not really core to that article, it is a sign that single-issue editors are trying to shape the overall project to their particular interests. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There are no single issue editors involved in this matter; not even Avenger is that. Moreover, I recall the community already formally deciding not to jettison the I/P articles. In fact, did you not recently acknowledge that the community was not with you on re-narrowing the mission? Additionally, I just this week created the "smear" section in the BLM article which has zero to do with the I/P issue -- I'm on top of this stuff because I am modestly involved in BLM activism. (Moreover, I spent this weekend guiding a noob who has a contribution to make on the Poe's Law topic, and introducing him to the ways of RW. -- that's in addition to tending to articles touching on Xtianity, it's history and various of it's sects and cults.) If the I/P section is longer that's because of it's high salience at this moment -- the punditocracy and politicos are all about it for reasons I've already stated. Finally, your behavior has simply been unacceptable. Sorry, but that's all there is to it.---Mona- (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, have you edited anything on this site that wasn't related to I-P? If anyone on this site is a single issue editor... CorruptUser (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser: Evidence of the historical Jesus, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, Gamergate, List of Poe's Law examples, Dick Cheney, Mary Baker Eddy, Targeted Individuals ‎(which I started), Useful idiot, Neoconservatism, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, and others. You were saying?---Mona- (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

About reptoids...[edit]

One thing I could never understand was the reptoid BS out there (e.g. most of David Icke). Supposedly they're shapeshifters that look exactly like humans, complete with squashed faces idunno

I always thought that if alien reptoids existed, they would look more like this or like this than like this. Reptoids would probably also be of a lower level on the Kardashev scale than us (tribal stage perhaps, like the example I showed).

Any thoughts on this? I find "real" reptoids kind of cute and possibly friendly, but that's just like, my opinion, man. ‎ ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎Sean Skyhawk / talk / contribs} 05:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button:

, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. SolPyre (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's pointless to speculate, because no selective pressures have ever happened to cause convergent evolution towards a anthromorphic frame in any species, much less reptiles. We cannot and will not have any idea what that would be like, except to say it's virtually impossible that an alien species would have much in common with earth reptiles. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The first step for reptoid sciencing has to be: observing known reptoids. Hence, my David Icke sandbox (mega WIP). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny Corbyn gif, how to get permission?[edit]

So, Britain -- and all proper people everywhere -- are having a cow over Jeremy Corbyn's mere nod -- rather than deep bow -- at a ceremony in a war-dead cemetery. (His enthusiasm level whilst singing the national anthem also caused a BBC bien pensant to announce: "Some leaders sang with more confidence than others.”) This site has a fun Corbyn Patriometer I'd love to see included in our Corbyn article. What are the protocols for obtaining satisfactory copyright permissions?---Mona- (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

~~Low-res (eg. 320p) video/gif of a few seconds would be well within fair use, IMHO. — Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)~~

Not really. Contact Rob Ives and/or West Cumbria Skeptics in the Pub for permission. Most likely they'll be happy for it to be used on RW. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Dos this Twitter chain constitute acceptable permission?---Mona- (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Wēāŝēīōīď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think it's not fair use? Edit: Re-reading Mona's post, I see she meant the second image with the bow-meter; I originally though she wanted a gif of Corbyn doing his bow (or lack thereof), poor reading on my part :-/ — Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Because it's a creative work belonging to its creator. It would be fair use for an article about that creative work or its creator, but not for an article about its subject. Same goes for any political cartoon or similar work. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Although your description of fair use is probably a bit too limited, I agree the animation isn't fair use ... I originally misunderstood which image Mona wanted to use... — Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well, can one of you guys with facility at this stuff put the thing on the Corbyn page? I think maybe the Che and one other picture there would have to go to keep the page uncluttered, and I'd put the gif on the other side of the page near the text about the bowing kerfuffle.---Mona- (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Here it is: Help![edit]

A Jedi mind-bow

The thumbnail is too small, while this full monte is awfully big. I just am not competent to try to re-size it and stick it on the right side of the JC page (and two of the current pics should prolly be removed to avoid overwhelming the page). Help!!!---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You cam adjust the size of the thumbnail bay adding |320px (or |480px or whatever size) to the thumb code. You'll have to play about with the sizes until it looks rightBicycle ^wheel

07:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The secret to resizing gifs is to make them a round number fraction of the original - i.e. 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 depending on how the original size can be factored. Don't try to shrink something like 100px down to 30 or 40, it should be 25 or 50.

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

19:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt to help guys, but I read it all, went to the link of the gif, and still don't get it -- where and what it is I'm supposed to do!---Mona- (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You should be able resize within the wiki code in the article. Eg [[File:Patriometer.gif|thumb|right|300px]]. Play around with ???px but bear in mind the advice above about round number fractions above.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Copy the code above. Change "right" to "left" if you want it on the left of the page. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Copy the code above" What code? And what is the page and thingie in which I actually insert this? (I am so, so stupid at this stuff.)---Mona- (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

do you want this in the Jezza article? Where in the article? I will do it for you :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

But the thumbnail is too small, and the gif itself is too big!---Mona- (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Use the "number"px to resize as I said.. very simple.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I just give up. This is a great weakness of mine. I'm a software moron and get very confused and frustrated.---Mona- (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

TRtWP, you are a new god in my personal pantheon. Thank you!---Mona- (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, here's the Mediawiki manual on images. "px" here refers to pixels. [[File:Patriometer.gif|thumb|right|300px]] is telling the software to display the image as a thumbnail, aligned to the right edge, 300 pixels in size. --Ymir (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not particularly mission, but very funny.[edit]

http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/flatulant-goats-force-jumbo-jet-land/npGxG/ Looks like those goats dodged a bullet. DarkAngelCryo (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's goat related, it's on-mission. Bicycle^wheel

20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

But, wait, wasn't it sheep? I saw the same report elsewhere saying it was sheep, not goats... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 21:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I never knew goats could do this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Python AI to find batshit posts[edit]

I like reading the ravings of insane people on the internet but I don't like wasting time on their websites. I think lists of regexes and words using recursion should be able to identify insane posts based on a certain number or combination of triggers. I could have the bot scan their sites and dump posts to a certain page. Aleksandra96 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find the task more challenging than what you just described. But by all means, try ;-) — Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting a computer to identify posts that are insane should be easy! Aleksandra96 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How would your program differentiate between a RW page and an "insane" post? If you would do a statistical analysis (as you mentioned), then most RW would be classified as "insane", which is not completely inaccurate in some cases, but probably not what you're looking for. — Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a joke. Determining insanity in posts is a very nuanced skill. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so python and AI are two of my interests, and Carpetsmoker is dead-on that what you're asking is crazy more complicated than you think. On the other side, I have like 5 implementation ideas floating around my head since you asked, so hit me up on my talk page if you want help. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an AI but I thought about a wiki bot that grabs TERF posts from websites and archives them on a page along with any edits they make to them. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Government censorship attempting to cure social ills[edit]

I buy a lot of reggae/dancehall/dub music, and for the past few years I've been at least peripherally aware that almost every release I've bought has been produced in the UK. I only recently found out why. In Jamaica, they've more or less exterminated modern dancehall with regulations aimed at curbing "violent" music. A lot of the artists I'd formerly enjoyed have been reinventing themselves (or at least trying to) as roots reggae artists with modern, sparse production which in my opinion pretty much sucks.

Of course they do have a gun violence problem in Jamaica, and a lot of reggae (used to?) glorify drug use, murder and homophobia. But then again, so does a lot of hip hop. Is it really a good idea to attempt to obliterate a significant portion of your country's culture in order to try to fix antisocial behaviour? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah. My ethnic homeland has been for years trying to cure their problem, and one thing they've done is ban/discourage narcomusic or narcocultura. Of course many bands still do it, but occasionally one of the singers gets shot up and dies almost as frequently as reporters do. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 03:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Terrible idea which will have the reverse effect of that intended. I am reminded of the Thatcher beast and her attempts to outlaw "music with repetitive beats" in the hell that was 1980s Britain. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet Union tried to ban Serialism, with the result that people would secretly listen to Serialist concerts broadcast from Finland and Sweden. As soon as you try to ban a type of music you instantly make it interesting and cool. Bicycle^wheel

07:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Some help, please[edit]

Ugh, my parents are going on and on about the conspiracy theories about the missile launch on Saturday, I'm trying to tell them it wasn't actual UFOs/aliens, but they just counter back with "..then why did they?" Any advice to finally convince them once and for all? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 05:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How about "'Cause the military guys wanted to try out their new and shiny toys and see, if they work as advertised?"--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Tried that, and they went, "but the missile was too big" and "then why did the blue flames come out?" For the latter I told them that the sunset screwed tthings up - they regularly have launches during daytime - and they still fell for the UFO explanation. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 05:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't explain, ask critical questions. — Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, JAQ off their little theory like the Magic Bullet! You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 19:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Carpet avalanche in the RC[edit]

Could someone give ninja right to Carpetsmoker and his bot, they're cluttering up the Recent Changes!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm a ninja, but apparently you need to mark bot edits as such in the API, but not so with deletes (API consistency ftw), which took me by surprise and by the time I figured this out it was too late :-/ Sorry :-( Most of the other (non-bot) stuff should, IMHO, not be hidden? — Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletes might not be hideable for a good reason - so a rogue bot doesn't go invisibly deleting stuff. Bicycle^wheel

19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Preferences → Recent changes → check (✓) Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist. puts all deletions on one line. Scream!! (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to kiss you. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's the opposite: deletions are always invisible. edit are visible by default, and you have to tell MW to hide it. — Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with permissions obtained in private correspondence[edit]

I obtained permission to use File:Evil starbucks.jpeg from the author in private correspondence. How to deal with this? Upload a screenshot of the permission as a second image? Or is me just stating it enough? Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did when I got permission from Mike Stanfill to use his Far Left Side cartoons.

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

19:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I asked to use the David Cameron poster that's now in funspace. Seems like the way to go, most people are cool about these things. Bicycle^wheel

08:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Who controls the RW twitter account?[edit]

David? Or someone else? Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Satan, of course :D --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I second that question and would very much like an answer.---Mona- (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I registered the original account but I believe that DG is the current mouthpiece.

Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

19:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

^This also matches my recollection. Walker Walker Walker 09:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

yep, it's me. Trent and (iirc) OsakaSun also have the password, but basically I've run it for the past whatever - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Back to back elections[edit]

So we are having the mod election right now, and they run for year terms nowadays. However, in December-january we have our Board elections, do we really want to run separate elections ontop of oneanother? frequent elections is part of what killed our elections, so how should we avoid this?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Olympics style? On year-off year kinda thing? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more have them at half years - mods in july and board staying where it is since its a legal thing, which iirc was what we discussed when we agreed to do elections--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Does the board need to be elected to meet our legal obligations? If not then let's can the board elections. I'm not privy to the board's inner workings but as far as I am aware they are yet to meet this year. Can't Trent/DG just appoint the board they think will be most useful? Being on the board is hardly a privileged position given that it involves a fair amount of work and no extra "powers" (so to speak). Tielec01 (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What would be needed to move the yearly mod elections to July? A policy vote or just some backdoor handshake type thing? The other possibility is running the two elections at the same time instead of one after the other (I don't like the idea but it is an option). SolPyre (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion seems enough, given we already agreed on having them and it was somewhat arbitrary for why its happening in november.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why we agreed to have them in August but the date was set for November. Also, there's no problem with short gaps between mod and RMF elections, it's happened before. Bicycle^wheel

08:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In the future, let's just set the mod election to be 0.5 years away from the board election. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Having an election in July would probably be best, but it would mean the current mods would be elected for either 8 months, or 20 months... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I vote 8 months. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does it matter? We could easily run them simultaneously. Bicycle^wheel 10:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And my new article is in the main space![edit]

Oliver Canby is now in the main space after I decided I'd done enough. I just added the last claim this morning which needed to be there. I could scrounge for more but I think this will do. Does this fit into any sections that could be added on the right hand side like was done with John Best? Or will the category batshit crazy do? And thoughts on the article? BankBox (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well done on an interesting article, just needs a little polishing. Definitely an unsettling individual. Tielec01 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the Reverend for the vax side box, although I think Canby is more straight cure over anti vax. BankBox (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the article itself are best left on that talk page. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No problems! I'll be looking at doing some more polishing on the artice later. And just out of curiosity - you are "The Officer", I presume? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Also see the talk page for a note on needed changes to sourcing. I've got more work to do it seems! BankBox (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Allright, no offense inteded. I meant to do sort of a "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?" but that sounded even more certain than what the milder version I wrote above now sounds like. Oh well. So tell me, as the Canby expert, what's your take on this "The Officer"? The claims are, it's a person who has been in contact with him. And some legal points are raised by him, as by you. As someone interested in Canby you must also be interested in "The Officer" - otherwise it's like a Batman fan who doesn't care for the Joker. I'm genuinely interested, what's the deal here in the Canby story? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Due to Hippie's vandalism, I've deleted the article. BankBox (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know...[edit]

...what Shemitah is? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 04:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This might help. Ŵêâŝêîôîď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor guy[edit]

https://news.vice.com/article/the-anonymous-leak-of-supposed-kkk-names-is-actually-kind-of-lame "Certain mistakes were even more serious, such as the inclusion of anti-government cartoonist Ben Garrison on the list. Garrison is not a KKK member, but a few years ago someone altered his drawing the "March of Tyranny" to include an anti-Semitic drawing of a Jewish person, and the image — as well as other manipulations of his work — circled widely on the internet. (Update: Garrison's name has since been scrubbed from the list.)" Think we can do anything for him?122.106.136.245 (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing you could add to our Anonymous article. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC Garrison is still an a-hole who's a fan of Alex Jones.—Ryulong (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not a specifically KKK asshole - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Just "Jews control the world and are using 9/11 as a weapon" asshole. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait, that WAS actually him? I'm so confused now... Walker Walker Walker 22:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Since his (genuine) cartoons contain a load of paranoid NWO shit, the doctored versions may be satirising the racist implications of his loopy worldview. But since they originate at 4chan, there's also a fair amount of TROLOLOLing involved. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bombings in Paris[edit]

Bombs have gone off in Paris, see here. SkyNews live news link here (not an endorsement of SkyNews, I grabbed a live link off of YouTube). For any Swedes, here is the live link to SVT. DAESH is allegedly the main suspect, appears unconfirmed. Lots of rumors flying around, as always during atrocities like these. InfoWars has probably written half a library of nonsense on these events already... But fuck those guys, they don't get a say in this. A dark day, and my heart is with the people of France. :( Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And since we're on RationalWiki, and this isn't the first place anyone here goes at times like this anyways (but we come for the larger debate and analysis), I'm just going to leave this here - for the sake of discussion and as food for thought. Working, obviously, under the hypothesis that these attacks were religiously motivated. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as nobody has any clue who did it and why I suggest not starting any hypothesis on the sole basis that it fits your personal bias... --Irian (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm following "Paris" trending at Twitter; that's the fastest way to get links to French reports. (I can read French.)---Mona- (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Irian I detest that. It's not my "personal bias", you asshat. ISIL and others have recieved multiple mentions, and I've been so clear about how nothing is confirmed at this point that even you should be able to grasp that quite lucidly. Nobody knows what is going on. Now please, stop trolling. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

So-called "experts" on CNN speculate that ISIS has infiltrated the fleeing refugees from the Syrian war and got in that way. They should STFU before they know anything for sure. We don't need frightened Fenchman turning on the refugee community right now.---Mona- (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I'm willing to suggest strongly that this has nothing to do with the refugee crisis. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"so your condescending attitude aligned with the news report to give us...irony." WTF? Are you talking about my WIGO update? I was quoting directly from, I think, Reuters.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"France's military is bombing Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq and fighting extremists in Africa, and extremist groups have frequently threatened France in the past." The motive?---Mona- (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, the hypothesis - which is unconfirmed - of the involvement of religious fundamentalists is one that is spun by experts currently. A butchered corpse (as in, dismembered with some form of tool) was reported, and atleast two suicide bombings out of the multiple explosions have been confirmed. And more happens even as I type on the keyboard. And any suggestion, as from Irian, that I've invented the narrative where any references to religion are at all relevant is so retarded it's offensive. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Targeting a friendly soccer match and a concert of young attendees, among the places. The hate in picking such soft targets... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny how Hollande chose to say that he closed the border to prevent people from coming in, rather than closing it with the motive of preventing escape of the responsible (atleast according to the SkyNews translator). Odd reasoning. I've switched to the SVT stream now, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Even the left-leaning SVT is now consulting an expert and author of a recent book on jihadism to comment, lifting out similarities to the islamist attacks in Mumbai, India in 2008 - though maintaining that it is not confirmed that there's an islamist or even religious connection. But the suggestion that I brought up the connection to insane religious zealots as a symptom of some kind of raging bias on my part? Allow me to scoff at that, to put it mildly. I'm looking at you, Irian. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear god, I'm on Google with the latest reports in English and Spanish right now, and every major network for both languages are staying solid on the ISIS theory right now. My heart goes out to the Frenchmen in Paris and outside the country, wherever they may be. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes... those poor people. The fucking hate. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The band playing at the concert the terrorists attacked was the Eagles of Death Metal, for the record. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And the actual concert hall that was stormed was the Bataclan theatre. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Hmm, looks kinda reminiscent of one Earth Kingdom building from ATLA to me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

This is allegedly the first time the borders of France have been closed since World War II. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Holy FUCK, no! They just reported that up to 100 people have been machine gunned at that concert by these monsters. Just at the concert hall, up to 100 casualties. Young people... THE FUCK...... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to SVT, french police sources have now confirmed that 100 people have literally died inside that concert hall, and several tens of people outside of it, including cafés and bars... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

O_O 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

~~Looks like this might be the biggest terrorist attack in Europe since World War II.~~ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SVT just updated their numbers on display to "about 140 dead so far". Obviously not counting those thay may have time to die at hospitals, or en route to hospitals. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sarcozy just said that whoever the terrorists are, they have declared war on France. Quite literally declared war. As translated by SVT. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Twenty Bucks says that the French are going to invoke NATO Article 5 within the week. Even if DAESH hasn't officially claimed responsibility, the evidence will likely point towards them (one of the gunmen captured by police at the Bataclan Theatre claimed to be a DAESH member.) In all likelihood, an invocation of Article 5 means a full-scale ground invasion of Iraq and Syria, which means that America is going to have tens of thousands of "boots on the ground" and no means to equivocate about it. --Captain Wolff (Another Fine Propagator of the Homosexual Agenda) 00:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If there is any type of coherent group responsible for these actions (which seems likely, although is speculation) - never mind one that owns a meter of territory anywhere in the world - is going to be on the recieving end of one hell of a retaliation soon enough. And whoever they may be, I hope it spells the end of that organisation. On the very specific assumptions given, and hopefully not involving any more loss of life or destruction of property than necessary to achieve said goal. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Were the perpetrators shouting "Allah Akbar!" or "This is for Syria"? The worst terrorist attack in Europe was the Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Muslims actually, which is the last direction we should be going on in an event like this. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bit late to the party here but that's either "state terrorism" or a genocide in the middle of a war. So... a worse category? But not the same category. Might as well declare Dresden a terrorist attack. CorruptUser (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted, crossed out the suggestion given on live TV stream of this possibly being the worst terrorist attack in Europe since World War II. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope to God the nuttier outlets on the Right exercise restraint with what they say. Inciting Europeans to violence against the refugee population will only invite more hatred and attacks. --Captain Wolff (Another Fine Propagator of the Homosexual Agenda) 00:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Haras Rafiq (interviewed by the fairly leftist SVT as one of their experts of choice), the attackers were literally screaming "Allah Akbar!" or "This is for Syria!", and atleast one of the guilty has alledged that he is an ISIS member. Separate facts, Jihadi John was killed in the last 24 hours, and Mosul and other cities are either under siege or have fallen in that same time period, add or take. Rafiq is suggesting that these terrorists may have been waiting to strike until ISIS ran into serious trouble in their warfare, in order to boost morale and so on. Considering the obviously extensive planning that went into this horrendous attack, and the fact that they struck almost as soon (on the hour) as the ISIS loss of territory and manpower was confirmed. Rafiq also made some good (and to the educated, obvious) points by being very clear that we separate Islam and Islamism, a separation my muslim friends share fully (tokenism intended). He also bravely pointed out that we understand that islamism and jihadism, in its violent Salafist and Wahabist forms, is a collection of truly shitty and anti-human hate ideologies, all of which we need to resist as harsly as we do Nazism. The difference being that the Nazis aren't holding territory right now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit security "expert" on CNN says the terrorists were "probably" encrypted, and "they read Snowden." IN the menatime, Trump tweeted it is "interesting" the attacks occurred in a country with tough gun control, whereupon the French ambassador to the U.S. tweeted back that Trump is a "vulture: and that his "repugnant" tweet lacks "human decency."---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm so happy I'm viewing the SVT live stream, is my comment to that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SVT just reported that the District Attorney of Paris (if that title even translates into that, I dunno) has named 5 killed terrorists, though some are still on the loose, and that the death toll may likely approach 120. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona: Fuck off. Seriously, fuck off. This isn't the place for you to try and redirect the attention towards how dumb the people you don't like are (are you surprised about Trump's tweet ?) and yadda yadda yadda. What superiority do you claim for your condescendance towards that CNN expert? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to Rev Percy...Jihadi John likely was killed about a year ago. A press release was issued in the past 24 hrs. nobs One guy I talk about music with on another website was at that concert hall. These animals shot at him - he was only injured, thankfully, but over a hundred more people weren't that lucky. Trump is an offensive dumbass and that CNN analyst might have things wrong, but to my knowledge none of them ever opened fire on people enjoying a concert. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

To Reverand: Problem is, a percentage of Muslims are social conservatives, which can intertwine with Islamism with regard to beliefs on how society should be run and how punishments/judicial systems should be administered. How do you combat Islamism without alienating Muslims and radicalizing them? ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also fuck off NewFrenchHotness. Trump deserves criticism for exploiting a tragedy for political means. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Donald Trump tweet dates from January & was posted in relation to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Yes, that is a real concern. The difficult path to a solution, I believe, has to be in large part an intellectual and educational one, and an effort of enlightenment. Most muslims are moderates, and moderates can still be reasoned with (with any hope of success). It wasn't for naught that I left this link in the first place, of which I am now reminded. It may not go so far as to sum up my views on the subject, but it comes damn close. And despite parts one may object to, there ARE parts that are absolutely brilliant. I'm not here to hand out proverbial fliers, but since the question was just posed to me by you as it was, I'm not going to pause for a second - and instead flat out link it again, and I suggest you watch it, Sir. These are not easy questions, but there's no solution for anyone without an end to religious fundamentalism. And in the end, the fundamentalists are wrong about us, and about the world. That's not enough to neuter them (far from it), but it is enough to spur endless resistance to them. Since, you know, they're wrong. For all their terror and destruction, philosophically their game is up, as it has always been. They may think they have God on their side, but we have something far greater - reality. And the fundamentalist worldview will not last, ultimately - largely by their own making. Acts like this do not only risk to spur people into extremism, but it will turn good people off from it. And the vast majority of muslims fall in that category, as I mean it precisely here. This is not a system of thought that sane people can share with madmen knowingly, and that will be made blatantly clear to said moderates. And that link is one step on that path (though, here Harris is preaching to the choir). But still, as with the moderate muslims - it's about providing reason to reasonable people. And don't shoot the messenger in case you're not a Harris fan - I know I'm rightfully conflicted about the man. But as an adult, I don't let that color the contents of that particular speech. And that particular speech is brilliant. Again, since you asked. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Twitter is not quite a cesspool but it's very polluted, while French Twitter is actually decent and human. The straight news reporting on CNN has been pretty high quality (Anderson Cooper generally is, as is Jake Tapper) and MSNBC is reported to be pretty good (expert talking heads on both are generally gross, self-important idiots yammering and speculating), but several smart people say this is the time to rely on newspapers. The New York Times is reported to be doing a great job, and the French press is as well.---Mona- (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wëäŝëïöïď, yes, the Ambassador's reply, however, is from today.---Mona- (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

But he appears to have taken it down (probably when realising he was responding to an old tweet). Wèàšèìòìď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ah, ok.---Mona- (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There were also attacks in Beirut and Baghdad.—Ryulong (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That is very worthwhile to point out, Ryulong. Thanks for those links, adding to the insight into the atrocious nature of fundamentalism. This is clearly not a culture war between moderates. This is religion imploding itself. And it is horrific to watch people come to harm in the process. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to say that: 18 people died from a bomb explosion in Baghdad today, 44 people died from a bomb explosion in Beirut---Mona- (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm ever more motivated to cause moderates to reflect as best I can. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, Mona, the terrorists apparently did scream Syria (well some), so your condescending attitude aligned with the news report to give us...irony. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought me and Chris were the only ones who even mentioned if the attackers named Syria or not...? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wha? Oh well, it did get reported apparently. I think some really good press coverage could also be the LA Times. I learned there that the cops are taking precautions in protecting some critical sites. http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-paris-attacks-live-updates-htmlstory.html You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 02:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is with a heavy heart that I link this news post containing a Twitter video, displaying the carnage inside the concert hall. The video appears to feature dead people in the background - beware. I hope this is not in violation of any RW rules, in that case, remove this link immediately. I only link this because it is part of the existing coverage of these atrocious attacks, because it is a message sent out to the world from one of the victims of this horrid attack, and because people too easily fall into excusemaking on behalf of the attackers when they fail to realise what acts were really comitted. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

WTF? If you mean my WIGO update, I was directly quoting a reporter mentioned in, I think it was, a Reuters story on the "Allahu Akbar"---Mona- (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Twitter is atwitter with wingnuts ranting about Muslim immigrants/refugees. Those poor refugees are fleeing this same violence!---Mona- (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Even now, in this time of horrifying and tragic history, hypocrites will seize the moment to hawk about their unfounded beliefs. Why would someone be so heartless and cruel to say such horrible things about this event when they weren't even there?! You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 03:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So does anyone else think that far right parties like Front National gain from this fear?--Owlman (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Authoritarians always do better when people are traumatized and frightened.---Mona- (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, fear overtakes reason. As summarized in Macbeth, "how can it be that a man may be loyal, tempered, and reasonable, while anger and fear overtake the body?" You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Islam is a violent 'religion'/cult, hardly surprising stuff like this happens Ghost (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm seeing many reports that witnesses say the terrorists cited Syria as their motive. (Go away Ghost. My Twitter is suffused with horrified Muslims simultaneously sending love and prayers to Paris, while also dreading what they know the fall-out will be for them in Western cultures teeming with people like you.)---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, I agree to your sentiments directed towards Ghost. I mean, come on Ghost, I linked a Sam Harris video on the 2nd post in this thread, but even I (as him) make it specific that there's a vital difference between moderates and extremists, between the salafist/wahabist jihadist camps and the vast majority that is left. We even linked bombings directed towards moderates. Give it a rest. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me the French government is gonna use this horrific event to limit the freedoms of the innocent, in the name of fighting terror. Much like the U.S. did after 9/11. I can only hope that people will see through the charade, but experience tells me that won't be the case. My thoughts go out to all the citizens of Paris and France as a whole, stay strong guys, and don't give into the Big Brother type shit that they're bound to push. - Shouniaisha (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

France24[edit]

They're very good, and they have a live feed in English.---Mona- (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice coverage. Thanks, Mona! You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 05:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Gooniepunk's thoughts[edit]

I commend you, Gooniepunk. Until every religious person gets their shit together, and calls out the extremists of every religion they are a part of, the world will continue to be a cesspool of human filth and evil. When the Church that my family believed in, supported, looked up to, and gave hope to them, was revealed to be living an entire damn facade covering up child abuse, it occurred to me that religion is nothing but hell, and serves no purpose other than to subjugate others. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 05:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that Iran does have a fundamentalist army that's fighting ISIS, right? Sort of. Hezbollah, basically a mirror image of ISIS if they were more patient and wanted a Shia ruled world instead of Sunni. CorruptUser (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I was vaguely aware that Hezbollah was fighting Daesh. However, Hezbollah existed and was (and still is) a terrorist organization. So while you have crazies fighting crazies, it still doesn't excuse the fact that religion begot the crazies. Gooniepunk (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Would Hezbollah commit this kind of atrocity? Someone once commented that there was a huge difference between e.g. al Qaeda and the Provisional IRA. The Provos killed people, but they tried to avoid killing large numbers of random members of the public: their aim was to kill state agents (military, police, politicians) and their political enemies, and while they accepted that some people who fell into neither category would die, they tried to minimise that. By contrast, al Qaeda has sought (especially on 9/11) to kill as many people as possible, who cares who they are. I think Hezbollah are nearer to the Provisional IRA (or even to traditional armed forces, albeit those of a quasi-state actor) than to al Qaeda in their tactics. What happened in Paris was an al Qaeda-style attack (whether it was them, or ISIL, or someone else behind it) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"THE source of evil"? I disagree. I've been an atheist for more than 20 years now and for a while I tended to believe that, too. But now? "The" source of evil is human nature. Humans are basically shit. If you get rid of religion, humans will find another reason to hate each other, no problem. Get rid of religion and people will believe other irrational nonsense, because that's human nature. Rationality is something learned much later - but it does not replace our basic nature, just cover it. We are completely irrational at heart. I do not defend religion because it's, at best, stupid nonsense, and at worst another reason for hate and murder, but I do not believe anything would change if we got rid of it. It's just a symptom, an expression of the basic problem "human nature", but not the core problem itself. --Irian (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No doubt great evil has been done in the name of various religions. But, not all religions are equal in this regard. You can't blame Wiccans for what happened in Paris. Indeed, when was the last time a Wiccan terrorist committed mass murder? If you look at the Quran, it is full of the idea that evil people deserve to die (i.e. death penalty for this, death penalty for that.) Once you believe evil people deserve to die, you just need to convince yourself that certain people are evil (even if it is a whole country), then you feel justified in killing them. (And in case anyone feels I am picking on Islam, the Torah is just as bad, so this argument condemns Christianity and Judaism too.) But, where in Wicca is the idea that anyone deserves to die? Although Wicca has no scriptures as such, I've read many books on Wicca, and I never saw anything in any of them like "God/dess says these people deserve to die". So let's not tar all religions with the same brush. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Give it a little more time and more people and I have no doubt that it will happen. Every idea can be transformed into hate. If you found a "Society for loving each other unconditionally" now I would not be surprised if 20 years later a brutal war breaks out because the one half believes that their unconditional love is much more loving than that of the other half. But perhaps we are lucky and I'm just cynic. --Irian (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm compelled to believe religion can be a source of great evil, but history is also fraught with more nuanced examples where religion was used as either a rallying cry in a just war/resistance (think Gandhi's invoking of the Hindu God against the British or Stalin......yes Stalin's use of the Orthodox Church in the battle against the Nazis) or as a measure of social justice (think MLK or the Catholic Left in Central America). I guess what matters here with regard to religion is its intentions or driving goal. Is religious subjugation the primary goal, as we see in the Daesh's goal of a Caliphate, or is religion used for more secular, legitimate reasons like rectifying an injustice or ending a foreign invasion/occupation? So, I think that distinction is essential before condemning groups with certain religious leanings or labels, because there are variations. Also yes, Muslim militias are indeed fighting ISIS, as we see with Hezbollah and the Kurds. ChrisAmiss (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Irian, I just don't see a Wiccan equivalent to al Qaeda or Daesh ever happening. It is an exceedingly unlikely prospect. Every religion is different, and some religions are far more likely to develop religiously motivated violence or terrorism than others. Beliefs matter. @ChrisAmiss, Of course there are decent Muslims, who whatever bad potentials exist in their religious tradition, don't follow those potentials. But I think any religion with the death penalty in its scriptures (the Abrahamic religions, but also found in some Hindu scriptures, and I'm sure some other religions too) are more likely to produce terrorist atrocities than a religion whose scriptures/tradition lacks this element. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just heard a rather reasonable response/comment from Danish ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Martin Lidegaard except for his rather weird balance fallacy of finger wagging against both Saudi Arabia and Iran(!) in the context of emphasising that Middle Eastern, Islamic countries need to step up their engagement to curb this kind of terrorism. I mean, sure, Iran has sponsored several terrorist organisations, but they all fight for quite explicit quasi-national goals in the Middle East, rather than the global jihadism espoused by the various Sunni terrorist groups that have targeted the West since the 1990s (here, I'm excepting some more localised jihaddies, such as the GSPC, which targeted France in the late 1990s/early 2000s during the horror show in Algeria). While Iran is certainly not my kind of regime and needs to be tackled in its bid for regional power, putting it on the same level as Saudi Arabia when discussing support for terrorism against the West is simply bunk. It's the Saudis who need to decide whether they want to ride the global jihaddi crazy train or actually do something to curb the activities of jihaddi groups, and not just when they target the Saudi regime. So far, Saudi signals have been mixed, to say the least. While the Saudi regime has condemned terrorist attacks, it's hard to see where it has actually worked to help prevent them, and when Saudi Arabia began to use the same blunt instrument (military intervention) that has, until now, yielded mixed results (to say the least) when used by Western states fighting "terrorism", the Saudis targeted, of all places, the already dysfunctional and civil war ravaged Yemen trying to depict this stepping up of the Saudi/Iranian proxy war in that country as a strike against "terrorism". ScepticWombat (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I fear Syrian refugees are going to pay the price for this. Any goodwill folk had for them, isil has taken away. Borders are going to close to them. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona's thoughts[edit]

These ISIS monsters were not primarily driven by religion. They cited Syria and President Hollande's bombing decisions there. That is not a justification -- no more than the Catholics in the IRA were justified in blowing up London department stores because of British oppression. Religion becomes the unifying system for people who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are fighting the Other, who is attacking them. (Yes, ISIS blathers about establishing a fucking Caliphate, but that's their organizing goal. It's not remotely achievable. They are pissed about French bombs in Syria.) I make these points because it is easy to ascribe all of this violence to religion, but this terrorism is at it's base political. If Westerners don't grapple with the actual causes of Muslim terrorism -- if it misidentifies the primary causes -- it isn't going to adopt effective policies for addressing the problem.---Mona- (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

not gonns lie, I was expecting you to blame Israel &/or Netanyahu. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Anyway, how is your sex life?} 13:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mona. Blaming this purely on Islam (or more broadly on religion) is jumping for an easy answer, just like the wingnuts who are making this all about immigration or gun control. Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Mona's blaming France for daring to combat (in a multilateral intervention, no less) what is essentially a rogue state with a well-trained military force and whose laundry list of human rights abuses and crimes grows every passing second, instead. Because that's so much better. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Where and how? By saying "they" are pissed about French bombs in Syria? How on earth is that Mona blaming France?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

NFH, that straw you pile up is silly. Anyway, the West has been fighting a "war on terror" for almost 15 years and it's only become ten times worse. I recall that neocon freak, Michael Ledeen, declaring in National Review (to argue for the Iraq War) that we need to turn the Middle East into a goddam "cauldron." The depraved fool actually wanted what we've got. And how has that worked out? The West needs to learn what actually motivates Islamic terrorists and consider stopping the meddling policies that provoke them. And Raysenn, that does include reevaluating our paying for Israel to bomb Gaza.---Mona- (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS: eliminate the "gray zone"[edit]

Apparently, one purpose of attacks like these is that ISIS feels they are forcing Muslims worldwide -- but especially in Western lands -- to abandon liberal and democratic ideals, and "alliances" with Christians, Jews and secularists. ISIS describes such Muslims as residing in a "gray zone." They calculate that crackdowns on Muslims after terror attacks will radicalize these Muslims and drive them to "the truth" of ISIS.

The U.S. and allies who lied their way to war in Iraq created the mess in which the ISIS mold grew. As the Washington Post reports,"almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." It's going to take humility, but the West must acknowledge that its polices in the Middle East have been, for many decades, manufacturing angry Muslims who hate us. Reacting to the Paris atrocities with yet more troops, bombs and drones can be expected to fix this? Based on what rational analysis? After all, ISIS may not be wrong in assuming that some Western Muslims -- especially young males -- will be driven into their arms by any further Western demonization and "crackdowns" on Muslims.---Mona- (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, the basic idea that the German Red Army Faction had was that when the state struck back against them, hard, the proletariat would see how evil the German state was and side with them. Didn't work. Of course, a lot less collateral damage when the GSG9 and legal system dealt with the RAF. Dropping bombs is a bit more imprecise, which will, probably, mean they have more of the effect RAF was after. In short: what RAF and daesh and other terror organisations usually WANT is the state to strike back hard, and preferably indiscriminately, in the hope that it'll radicalize more people. Dendlai (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, because terrorist groups didn't exist before Iraq? That's mostly a strawman, and ignores the Salafi perspective on Iraq entirely. In the US's view, Saddam was a monster who murdered and oppressed his own citizens, specifically the Kurds and the Shia. The Salafis, however, supported Saddam because they too despised the Shia and Kurds (the nationalist Kurds anyway). To them, Saddam was a Sunni "holding down the fort" against "Shia aggression". And to the Salafi-Jihadi, anything other than supporting the eventual conquest of the world by Salafism is aggression. Please stop ignoring the effects of religion in this. The US has done far worse things to every South American country than anything we've done in any Middle-Eastern country, yet the closest thing they have produced to anti-US terrorists was Cuba. How many sub-Saharran terrorist groups do you see sending people to Belgium for revenge over Leopold II, the guy who murdered over ten MILLION Congolese? I know it's hip and trendy to blame the US for everything, but that conjecture just doesn't hold up. Really, you should learn about the lesson that "The Outlaw Josey Wales" provides (long story short, the left wing accidentally promotes KKK propoganda).CorruptUser (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Difference is, tho, the "proletariat" does not generally identify as such; they are often quite nationalistic -- good patriots -- and supportive of their country's military policies. Young proletariat males are likely to join their nation's military, as did so many after 9/11. But Muslims in Western countries already feel "othered," and even marginalized. Their young males just might, indeed, turn to ISIS in the face of perceived discrimination and/or bombing of Muslim countries.---Mona- (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Ah yes, because terrorist groups didn't exist before Iraq? That's mostly a strawman" It might be had I written that. But I didn't. And all that misdirection and hand-waving ignores that even the U.S. Department of Defense has Commissioned a study finding that our polices generate terrorists. No person with two IQ points to rub together can fail to see that what we did in Iraq has left a destabilized nation in which extremism is growing like cancer.---Mona- (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Still a partial straw man since al Qaeda existed before Iraq. You are ignoring that part of the reason our policies generate terrorists is because of whom our policies have been used on. CorruptUser (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Still a partial straw man since al Qaeda existed before Iraq." Not even sort of. The DoD was examining primarily AQ (the study is from 2004). It's our polices vis-a-vis the Muslim world that make them hate us, not "our freedoms." And all we've done since 9/11 is manufacture more and different terrorists.---Mona- (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

EC. I may very well be wrong, I am sure someone will correct if I am, but I do not believe the west had such a problem with radicalisation with al Qaida. At least pre 9-11. It seems obvious to me the on going war on terror and all the evils that entails is very powerful recruiting tool for such groups. I make no claims as to understand all that Isis does , but it seems to me that what happened in Paris is the realisation of all the fears intelligence agencies have been harping on about - our radicalised Muslim youth returning from Syria to spread their jihad. In the uk, the government have been pushing for ever more intrusive surveillance that I feel sure these events will allow them to push through, while its anti radicalisation has been accused of creating radicals. Couple that with more military intervention and drones which I sure will now happen, I fear we will make the same mistakes as after 9-11.17:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC) AMassiveGay (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Al Qaeda's origin was Egypt's secularization, and had little to do with anything the West was doing. Prior to bin Laden, the Qutbi plan was "take out near enemy (rulers of Islamic countries that weren't religious enough, i.e., all of them, but especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia), then the far enemy (any non muslim ruler of a place that was once Islamic, i.e., Spain, the rest of Serbia, India/Kashmir, parts of Russia, and yes Israel), and then conquer the world. Bin Laden came in and said that rather than going after Saudi Arabia first, go after the US first because it supports Saudi Arabia and props up a lot of Islamic countries, and if the US falls so does Saudi Arabia. The reason al Qaeda hates the West is not because of the West's actions in the mid-east but because the West stabilizes parts of the mid-east that al Qaeda wants unstable. CorruptUser (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's huge crock of asserted bullshit, and run's directly contrary to what the Defense Science Board found. This and this. The same Report cites the U.S.'s enabling of Israel's subjugation of the Palestinians plays a huge role.---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Our own articles, including that lovely essay on DAESH's origins and beliefs, gives a lot of attention to Saudi Arabia's relationship with the US. Do you propose we change them?-- Forerunner (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

While Salon is a better source than "blogspot", an article by your Lord and Savior is not exactly a good source. Here, read our article on Qutb before you spout more nonsense. CorruptUser (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again with ad hom and sacrasm. Your opinion of Glenn does not address the Report he cites and its contents. He put blow-ups of his screenshots at blogspot. Blow-ups of text from the Defense Science Board's Report. If you wish to ignore that text because it appears on a blogspot host, I can't reason with you and will not try. Finally, if you think there's some article at RW that demonstrates your assertions please do quote from it -- the specific portion(s) that support your claims and contradicts the Defense Science Board.---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The article on Qutb. Read it, it's SHORT. But if you want a real analysis, our token right winger actually created a VERY well written analysis of the whole thing. I helped, but just a warning, as an essay only Rob and people he allows can edit. CorruptUser (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's funny to see people argue "It's all because of X! No, it's all because of Y! No, no, this subset is clearly primarily motivated by X! No, no, these studies show Y is definitely a major factor!" when it's clear the reality is an ugly mess of both X and Y. Actually no, it's not funny, it's depressing. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

It's actually not X and Y but χ and Y, and the distinction is important. CorruptUser (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing either of: "It's all because of X! No, it's all because of Y." My position is that the conventional, popular, and dangerously wrong view is that "It's all X," where X = "insane, violent religion." The primary cause is Y, where Y = "imperial Western meddling in Muslim counties for a century or so, including deposing their democratically elected leaders and supporting their tyrants, as well as supporting Israel in its military subjugation of an Arab people (who are largely but not exclusively Muslim)." Most people in the West want to focus on X to the point of excluding any serious look at Y. But X is merely the package in which the anger at Y is sold to non-extreme Xs, and delivered to those who do Y.---Mona- (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I read the Qutb article; I've read better and more about him and it than that. I don't know how that supports any of your arguments CorruptUser. It certainly does nothing at all to undermine the findings of the Defense Science Board.---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Islamism or what we call jihadism in Islamism's most violent forms is mostly a by-product of the failure of Arab nationalism, a feeling of inadequacy due to the Arab defeats in the 1948 and 1967 war against Israel, the failures of Nasserism and other economic forms that did not provide a long-term improvement for its citizens, and in general the tyranny/corruption of Arab regimes across the Middle East who stifle secular voices which paves the way for radical right-wing views to proliferate. The West plays some part in it in terms of supporting this authoritarianism and not cracking down on Saudi Arabia, but it can't be blamed exclusively. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Chris on this, though the roots of Islamism was formed prior to '48 but '48 did provide quite a bit of fertilizer for that tree of evil.

As for my link to the Qutb article, the point was that the Salafi Jihadis were created in more a response to the local governments than anything the US was doing, and more importantly which you seem to be ignoring, were formed as a combination of the religion and politics rather than politics alone. To simply say "oh, terrorism is mainly the result of the West's political issues", a popular belief among the Left these days, is to imply "all religions/cultures are similarly capable of creating terrorists", which isn't borne out by the evidence; we don't see South American terrorist groups trying exterminate the US and so forth in spite of being far more cruel to South America than anywhere in the Mid-East. It also ignores the actions of the Mid-East itself, and is a double standard in that you don't turn around and say "well, the Wests' actions are actually caused by the policies of the Mid-East". CorruptUser (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the notion that not all cultures/ideologies are equally prone to produce extremist strains, it's not because they're not trying to blow up targets in the West that there can't be plenty of terrorists being violent and extremist domestically. FARC anyone? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)wells

As far as South America goes, to my knowledge groups opposed to US imperialism in that area did not have global resistance or jihad as part of their ideology, which makes them different from international groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda that commit mindless terrorism and don't concentrate their acts to a specific local area. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Tarek Mehanna's sentencing statement[edit]

Chris: Also, the globe has gotten smaller, a lot smaller. Between the Internet and ease of air travel it is easier to commit violence even on U.S. soil than it ever was before. As for this from CorruptUser: 'To simply say "oh, terrorism is mainly the result of the West's political issues",' The Defense Science Board. They told Donald Rumsfeld, who felt a need to know, why there are terrorists who specifically hate us. I've shown you their determinations. Additionally, do read the sentencing statement of an American Muslim young man who was (absurdly) convicted of providing material support to terrorists. He very eloquently sets forth his reasons for the court:

TAREK’S SENTENCING STATEMENT
APRIL 12, 2012
Read to Judge O’Toole during his sentencing, April 12th 2012.

In the name of God the most gracious the most merciful Exactly four years ago this month I was finishing my work shift at a local hospital. As I was walking to my car I was approached by two federal agents. They said that I had a choice to make: I could do things the easy way, or I could do them the hard way. The “easy ” way, as they explained, was that I would become an informant for the government, and if I did so I would never see the inside of a courtroom or a prison cell. As for the hard way, this is it. Here I am, having spent the majority of the four years since then in a solitary cell the size of a small closet, in which I am locked down for 23 hours each day. The FBI and these prosecutors worked very hard-and the government spent millions of tax dollars – to put me in that cell, keep me there, put me on trial, and finally to have me stand here before you today to be sentenced to even more time in a cell.

In the weeks leading up to this moment, many people have offered suggestions as to what I should say to you. Some said I should plead for mercy in hopes of a light sentence, while others suggested I would be hit hard either way. But what I want to do is just talk about myself for a few minutes.
When I refused to become an informant, the government responded by charging me with the “crime” of supporting the mujahideen fighting the occupation of Muslim countries around the world. Or as they like to call them, “terrorists.” I wasn’t born in a Muslim country, though. I was born and raised right here in America and this angers many people: how is it that I can be an American and believe the things I believe, take the positions I take? Everything a man is exposed to in his environment becomes an ingredient that shapes his outlook, and I’m no different. So, in more ways than one, it’s because of America that I am who I am.

When I was six, I began putting together a massive collection of comic books. Batman implanted a concept in my mind, introduced me to a paradigm as to how the world is set up: that there are oppressors, there are the oppressed, and there are those who step up to defend the oppressed. This resonated with me so much that throughout the rest of my childhood, I gravitated towards any book that reflected that paradigm – Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and I even saw an ehical dimension to The Catcher in the Rye.

By the time I began high school and took a real history class, I was learning just how real that paradigm is in the world. I learned about the Native Americans and what befell them at the hands of European settlers. I learned about how the descendents of those European settlers were in turn oppressed under the tyranny of King George III.

I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the civil rights struggle.

I learned about Ho Chi Minh, and how the Vietnamese fought for decades to liberate themselves from one invader after another. I learned about Nelson Mandela and the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Everything I learned in those years confirmed what I was beginning to learn when I was six: that throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. With each struggle I learned about, I found myself consistently siding with the oppressed, and consistently respecting those who stepped up to defend them -regardless of nationality, regardless of religion. And I never threw my class notes away. As I stand here speaking, they are in a neat pile in my bedroom closet at home.

From all the historical figures I learned about, one stood out above the rest. I was impressed be many things about Malcolm X, but above all, I was fascinated by the idea of transformation, his transformation. I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie “X” by Spike Lee, it’s over three and a half hours long, and the Malcolm at the beginning is different from the Malcolm at the end. He starts off as an illiterate criminal, but ends up a husband, a father, a protective and eloquent leader for his people, a disciplined Muslim performing the Hajj in Makkah, and finally, a martyr. Malcolm’s life taught me that Islam is not something inherited; it’s not a culture or ethnicity. It’s a way of life, a state of mind anyone can choose no matter where they come from or how they were raised.

This led me to look deeper into Islam, and I was hooked. I was just a teenager, but Islam answered the question that the greatest scientific minds were clueless about, the question that drives the rich & famous to depression and suicide from being unable to answer: what is the purpose of life? Why do we exist in this Universe? But it also answered the question of how we’re supposed to exist. And since there’s no hierarchy or priesthood, I could directly and immediately begin digging into the texts of the Qur’an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, to begin the journey of understanding what this was all about, the implications of Islam for me as a human being, as an individual, for the people around me, for the world; and the more I learned, the more I valued Islam like a piece of gold. This was when I was a teen, but even today, despite the pressures of the last few years, I stand here before you, and everyone else in this courtroom, as a very proud Muslim.

With that, my attention turned to what was happening to other Muslims in different parts of the world. And everywhere I looked, I saw the powers that be trying to destroy what I loved. I learned what the Soviets had done to the Muslims of Afghanistan. I learned what the Serbs had done to the Muslims of Bosnia. I learned what the Russians were doing to the Muslims of Chechnya. I learned what Israel had done in Lebanon – and what it continues to do in Palestine – with the full backing of the United States. And I learned what America itself was doing to Muslims. I learned about the Gulf War, and the depleted uranium bombs that killed thousands and caused cancer rates to skyrocket across Iraq.

I learned about the American-led sanctions that prevented food, medicine, and medical equipment from entering Iraq, and how – according to the United Nations – over half a million children perished as a result. I remember a clip from a ’60 Minutes‘ interview of Madeline Albright where she expressed her view that these dead children were “worth it.” I watched on September 11th as a group of people felt driven to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings from their outrage at the deaths of these children. I watched as America then attacked and invaded Iraq directly. I saw the effects of ‘Shock & Awe’ in the opening day of the invasion – the children in hospital wards with shrapnel from American missiles sticking but of their foreheads (of course, none of this was shown on CNN).

I learned about the town of Haditha, where 24 Muslims – including a 76-year old man in a wheelchair, women, and even toddlers – were shot up and blown up in their bedclothes as the slept by US Marines. I learned about Abeer al-Janabi, a fourteen-year old Iraqi girl gang-raped by five American soldiers, who then shot her and her family in the head, then set fire to their corpses. I just want to point out, as you can see, Muslim women don’t even show their hair to unrelated men. So try to imagine this young girl from a conservative village with her dress torn off, being sexually assaulted by not one, not two, not three, not four, but five soldiers. Even today, as I sit in my jail cell, I read about the drone strikes which continue to kill Muslims daily in places like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Just last month, we all heard about the seventeen Afghan Muslims – mostly mothers and their kids – shot to death by an American soldier, who also set fire to their corpses.

These are just the stories that make it to the headlines, but one of the first concepts I learned in Islam is that of loyalty, of brotherhood – that each Muslim woman is my sister, each man is my brother, and together, we are one large body who must protect each other. In other words, I couldn’t see these things beings done to my brothers & sisters – including by America – and remain neutral. My sympathy for the oppressed continued, but was now more personal, as was my respect for those defending them.

I mentioned Paul Revere – when he went on his midnight ride, it was for the purpose of warning the people that the British were marching to Lexington to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, then on to Concord to confiscate the weapons stored there by the Minuteman. By the time they got to Concord, they found the Minuteman waiting for them, weapons in hand. They fired at the British, fought them, and beat them. From that battle came the American Revolution. There’s an Arabic word to describe what those Minutemen did that day. That word is: JIHAD, and this is what my trial was about.

All those videos and translations and childish bickering over ‘Oh, he translated this paragraph’ and ‘Oh, he edited that sentence,’ and all those exhibits revolved around a single issue: Muslims who were defending themselves against American soldiers doing to them exactly what the British did to America. It was made crystal clear at trial that I never, ever plotted to “kill Americans” at shopping malls or whatever the story was. The government’s own witnesses contradicted this claim, and we put expert after expert up on that stand, who spent hours dissecting my every written word, who explained my beliefs. Further, when I was free, the government sent an undercover agent to prod me into one of their little “terror plots,” but I refused to participate. Mysteriously, however, the jury never heard this.

So, this trial was not about my position on Muslims killing American civilians. It was about my position on Americans killing Muslim civilians, which is that Muslims should defend their lands from foreign invaders – Soviets, Americans, or Martians. This is what I believe. It’s what I’ve always believed, and what I will always believe. This is not terrorism, and it’s not extremism. It’s what the arrows on that seal above your head represent: defense of the homeland. So, I disagree with my lawyers when they say that you don’t have to agree with my beliefs – no. Anyone with commonsense and humanity has no choice but to agree with me. If someone breaks into your home to rob you and harm your family, logic dictates that you do whatever it takes to expel that invader from your home.

But when that home is a Muslim land, and that invader is the US military, for some reason the standards suddenly change. Common sense is renamed “terrorism” and the people defending themselves against those who come to kill them from across the ocean become “the terrorists” who are “killing Americans.” The mentality that America was victimized with when British soldiers walked these streets 2 ½ centuries ago is the same mentality Muslims are victimized by as American soldiers walk their streets today. It’s the mentality of colonialism.

When Sgt. Bales shot those Afghans to death last month, all of the focus in the media was on him-his life, his stress, his PTSD, the mortgage on his home-as if he was the victim. Very little sympathy was expressed for the people he actually killed, as if they’re not real, they’re not humans. Unfortunately, this mentality trickles down to everyone in society, whether or not they realize it. Even with my lawyers, it took nearly two years of discussing, explaining, and clarifying before they were finally able to think outside the box and at least ostensibly accept the logic in what I was saying. Two years! If it took that long for people so intelligent, whose job it is to defend me, to de-program themselves, then to throw me in front of a randomly selected jury under the premise that they’re my “impartial peers,” I mean, come on. I wasn’t tried before a jury of my peers because with the mentality gripping America today, I have no peers. Counting on this fact, the government prosecuted me – not because they needed to, but simply because they could.

I learned one more thing in history class: America has historically supported the most unjust policies against its minorities – practices that were even protected by the law – only to look back later and ask: ‘what were we thinking?’ Slavery, Jim Crow, the internment of the Japanese during World War II – each was widely accepted by American society, each was defended by the Supreme Court. But as time passed and America changed, both people and courts looked back and asked ‘What were we thinking?’ Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the South African government, and given a life sentence. But time passed, the world changed, they realized how oppressive their policies were, that it was not he who was the terrorist, and they released him from prison. He even became president. So, everything is subjective – even this whole business of “terrorism” and who is a “terrorist.” It all depends on the time and place and who the superpower happens to be at the moment.

In your eyes, I’m a terrorist, and it’s perfectly reasonable that I be standing here in an orange jumpsuit. But one day, America will change and people will recognize this day for what it is. They will look at how hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed and maimed by the US military in foreign countries, yet somehow I’m the one going to prison for “conspiring to kill and maim” in those countries – because I support the Mujahidin defending those people. They will look back on how the government spent millions of dollars to imprison me as a “terrorist,” yet if we were to somehow bring Abeer al-Janabi back to life in the moment she was being gang-raped by your soldiers, to put her on that witness stand and ask her who the “terrorists” are, she sure wouldn’t be pointing at me.

The government says that I was obsessed with violence, obsessed with “killing Americans.” But, as a Muslim living in these times, I can think of a lie no more ironic.
-Tarek Mehanna
4/12/12

Americans arrogantly go about our business as if we should be able to invade, bomb, shoot, drone, topple governments, support dictators -- whatever we want -- and when relatively powerless members of our victim group become angry and fight back, we get all self-righteous and rant about their benighted religion. As long as that continues the fires of anti-U.S. sentiment and terrorism will burn very hot.---Mona- (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, you are missing the point; something about the religion, the culture, or who the hell knows causes Muslims to be more likely to join terrorist organizations when they feel they've been wronged than other groups when they've been wronged. Yes, the US has done a lot of bad things to Muslims across the globe, but while it has done a lot of bad things to Catholics, other Christians, Buddhists, and who knows what else that we don't know about yet, it's mainly the Muslims that are calling for our blood. CorruptUser (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you know, I wonder if something about the religion, the culture, or perhaps even the genetics caused Irish Catholics to be so damn prone to joining the IRA back in the day. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Did the IRA have as a goal to conquest of Britain by the Catholics or the end of British 'occupation' of North Ireland? CorruptUser (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of goals... moving the goalposts are we? I thought we were talking about people's proneness to joining terrorist organizations. It's not like reality offers everyone a complete list of potential terrorist organizations to join with their goals meticulously spelled out either way. If you want to figure out why Salafi-jihadism is the most popular extremism in Islam while the IRA were the most popular extremism in Irish Catholicism, the first thing you should do is analyze their histories. Essentialist assumptions should be your last refuge. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Not exactly. It'd make sense to compare the IRA to many Iraqi insurgent groups, or the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan, or any other number of insurgents that use terrorism as a method. But the end goals of the IRA and al Qaeda are vastly different. CorruptUser (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

How the fuck did Mehanna become a victim of American policy against Arab countries?! He is an natural born American and if he didn't try first to go on jihad in Yemen and then didn't join the propaganda company of the al-Qaeda, he'd be still working as a pharmacist and not siting in a cell.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The genetics?--Owlman (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetics - the fuck? I'm not with Mona on arguing for the religion they profess playing any type of backseat role in their choice to commit atrocities, but genetics? 'Fuckouttahere, man. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's not really a realistic possibility. Sorry for being an asshat. CorruptUser (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean atleast culture is very much up for discussion. But genetics? Nah. I'm glad you saw reason. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It was more a "position of the stars at birth" sort of thing, first crazy thought that'd I've heard other people express. CorruptUser (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with using the term culture because it tends to get thrown around in far-right circles as a dog-whistle term for expressing disdain or hatred towards immigrants. As an example, people expressing disdain for multiculturalism as an excuse to deport Muslims. Or when it's used to say "THEIR CULTURE is barbaric"! I think the more appropriate term would be ideology, and strictly Qutbism in this discussion. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch asks: "How the fuck did Mehanna become a victim of American policy against Arab countries?!" He himself did not. But, the culture he identifies with has been very much fucked over. We have not done that to Catholics in huge numbers -- but Britain did, and we see how that worked out for them. Human beings are tribal, Arisboch. Even I, in my younger days, identified tribally with the Irish Republican cause, and I've never set foot in Ireland. Now, Mehenna did, it is true, try to get terrorist training in Yemen, but got no where. The core of his case was posting pro-jihad videos on the Internet. (The "material support" statute has been upheld as constitutional; I expect this to be reversed someday, as the High Court usually does get around to correcting its serious free speech errors.) But none of this is the point: The point is the reasons he so well stated. Those are the same reasons behind virtually all Islamist terrorism directed against America and Americans.---Mona- (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Culture vs Ideology[edit]

I understand your concerns, Chris, but I have to disagree. I believe polygyny bears some responsibility for terrorism, in the sense that you have a lot more young men with no wives/girlfriends than in other parts of the world. I wouldn't chalk that up to "ideology". CorruptUser (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The harems godda be gigantic and very numerous to make any kinda difference on a national scale.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well there are plenty of foreign fighters for ISIS from areas where polygamy is institutionally legal, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, etc. Not sure if it's a sexual repression issue as much as it is an ideological one that attracts people who feel it's cool or hip to be part of a social group with a clear purpose. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. If 2% have 3 wives and 6% have 2, that's still 10% of men with no wives. Then add in that the typical birth ratio is 1.05 to 1 so there's a gender imbalance right off the bat. Then there's the issue of gay rights. If you truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, are yourself gay, and there is a group that is offering to let you escape from your own inner demons and go straight to heaven... CorruptUser (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But I don't understand why'd that be an issue if it's institutionally permitted for them to do so (with legal processes of course and ability to financial provide for said wives). And polygamy at-least would theoretically increase the population, presumably if they're born females. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the disconnect between us is? The natural gender ratio at birth is around 1.05 males to 1 female, varying by overall population health and other factors (sick women are more likely to miscarry male fetuses). It doesn't take too many men having multiple wives to throw off the gender balance for everyone else either, but I can't find anywhere online that shows the actual statistics of the number of polygynous marriages. CorruptUser (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There are large numbers of frustrated young men with no marriage prospects in many of the Islamic countries of the Middle East and South Asia, and this is a significant factor in recruitment of militant & extremist groups. It isn't down to polygamy so much as the arranged nature of most marriages. Dating is virtually non-existent & men without the right social status, income & connections have very little opportunity to meet potential wives, especially in places like Saudi Arabia where genders are segregated in most public settings. I don't see anything to be gained in assessing this as "ideology not culture". Ŵêâŝêîôîď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue was viewing terrorism's causes in terms of culture (attitudes towards polygamy in this instance), ideology, and extraneous factors like outside influence. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I thought we currently arguing over whether "culture" or "ideology" was a better category? CorruptUser (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I was getting at. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So are Homophobia and Polygyny covered by "ideology"? If so, then I'm fine with using "ideology" rather than "culture". CorruptUser (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

They're both prevalent in the Quran, so it makes more sense to ascribe them to ideology than culture. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh, it's just that "ideology" belongs in a group with religion. FGM is not in the Quran as far as I know, but is a cultural thing. But it's mostly semantics and is not an incredibly important detail, so for you, "ideology" it is. CorruptUser (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyhoo, apparently the Bataclan Theatre was owned by Jews and had been the subject of protests/threats because it hosted pro-Israel events. A major terrorist attack with multiple locations and they didn't forget to target some Jews just because. Hooray, all is right with the world! Wait... CorruptUser (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The cause of this atrocity was not France's policy towards Muslims or Muslim or Arab countries or anything else like that; the cause was an evil religious ideology. Remember that France opposed the Iraq war, voted for Palestine to be recognised as a observer state at the UN (resolution 67/19). There is nothing anti-Muslim about bombing Daesh in Syria, considering that other Muslim countries, e.g. Jordan, are bombing it too, and that Daesh is a downright evil organisation which needs to be destroyed. It is true that France has some difficulties with integrating integrating immigrant minorities, including Muslims, and members of these minorities face prejudice and discrimination, but that doesn't in any way justify or excuse or explain this act - ask the question, do Muslim countries do a good job of integrating minorities, especially non-Muslim ones? Do minorities (including non-Muslim minorities, or different branches/sects of Islam) face prejudice and discrimination in Muslim countries - yes, and in many cases far worse than Muslims or other immigrants face in France - consider Shi'a and non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Baha'is in Iran, Ahmadiyya in Pakistan. The answer to this atrocity is not for France to change its policies in any way, but to respond to Daesh aggression with absolutely merciless annihilation. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Zack writes: "There is nothing anti-Muslim about bombing Daesh in Syria, considering that other Muslim countries, e.g. Jordan, are bombing it too, and that Daesh is a downright evil organisation" I don't know a single Muslim who disagrees that ISIS is evil. And, it is true that ISIS does not have grievances against France that are the same as Islamists (and Muslims per se) have against the United States. But that said, their motives for the Paris terrorism are political. Will McCants (of the Brookings Institute) described their purpose this way: "I guess if this were just about an attack in Europe, you might say that it is in reprisal for the attacks being carried out in Syria and Iraq. I don't see this as necessarily part of the propaganda effort or the war with al-Qaeda, because they've already succeeded in attracting far, far more recruits.Given the target of a major enemy in Europe, in light of attacks on Russian civilians and an Iranian ally in Lebanon, it seems to me that this has to do with the war to expand its territory in Syria and Iraq. It is putting its major adversaries on notice that if they continue to impede its state building that they will pay a price." That sounds about right to me.---Mona- (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In the contemporary West, "religion" and "politics" are seen as separate spheres, and there is often a desire to label something as one or the other. However, in many cases, it is impossible to clearly distinguish the two; that is certainly the case for Islamism, in which religion and politics are inseparably intertwined; but the same is even true in many non-Muslim contexts, e.g. the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Indeed, for most of human history, politics and religion have been more often mixed up than separated, it was only with the Enlightenment that they began to be seen as two separate things. So, I think it is a mistake to apply the modern Western idea of a clear distinction between religion and politics to groups like Daesh which explicitly reject that distinction. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

'In the contemporary West, "religion" and "politics" are seen as separate spheres' Yes, especially in France. However, it remains the case that for,e.g., Al Qaeda the grievances with the West, especially the U.S., are political issues even the most secular mind would recognize as rational (if not always reasonable). Moreover, the role nationalism plays for many -- including secularists -- is not far different from extremest religions packaging political goals.---Mona- (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Rational"? E.g. that the feet of the infidels desecrated the holy cities of Islam (despite being invited there by the Saudis)? Or the West having the audacity to buy Arab oil (which more or less directly fuels al-Quaeda)? Or not allowing them to murder Shiites? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Defense Science Board findings[edit]

Yes Arisboch, rational grievances. To quote from the 2004 Report of the Defense Science Board that Rumsfeld commissioned:

Today, however, the perception of intimate U.S. support of tyrannies in the Muslim World is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy.

If there is one overarching goal they share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the “apostate” regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward — and potentially dangerous — situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive.

And:

Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

Or:

Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination. […]

..the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim World … is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none — the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam.

The more people like you simply ridicule their religious beliefs -- and their objection to U.S. troops occupying an area of one of their most important religious sites -- the more we Westerners demonstrate utter arrogance that rightly enrages Muslims and manufactures terrorists.---Mona- (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If there is one overarching goal they share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the “apostate” regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states.- -Mona- How awful of the West not to let Islamists to turn these countries into even worse Islamist shitholes then they already are, amirite?

one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights- -Mona- Yes, how could the US not simply let the Islamists use the Palestinians as cannon-fodder like they do now, amirite?

truly Muslim self-determination- -Mona- Do they mean by "Muslim self-determination" the beheading of Kurds, Yezidis, Shiites, gays, "uppity" women, alcohol-drinking men/women or something else?

The more people like you simply ridicule their religious beliefs- -Mona- You see, in most countries of the Western World, people make fun of any and all religions and normally, no-one gets their panties in a bunch in a violent way (exceptions exist. Few of them). Why do you seem to be OK with them doing it?!

their objection to U.S. troops occupying an area of one of their most important religious sites- -Mona- Eskan Village is a "most important religious site"= In what religion, pray tell??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"How awful of the West not to let Islamists to turn these countries into even worse Islamist shitholes then they already are, amirite?" It's not the place of the United States to interfere in the democratic decisions of Muslim populations. When we do that, we generate terrorists. "how could the US not simply let the Islamists use the Palestinians as cannon-fodder like they do now, amirite?" Non sequitur. The U.S. pays for Israel to steal from, oppress and slaughter Palestinians. This pisses of Mulisms and generates more terrorists. "Do they mean by 'Muslim self-determination' the beheading of Kurds, Yezidis, Shiites, gays, 'uppity' women, alcohol-drinking men/women or something else?" They mean staying out of their nations' business. When we don't do that we generate more terrorists. "You see, in most countries of the Western World, people make fun of any and all religions." Yes, we do. That's our culture. But when we gleefully heap ridicule on the religious beliefs of a people we are bombing, invading and whose tyrants we support, that pisses them off even more -- and generates more terrorists. If we want to reduce terrorism, we need to stop doing the things that generate them.---Mona- (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So anything except sticking the head firmly in the sand and waiting, until someone sticks a handgrenade up the exposed ass is "generating terrorists"? What an isolationist drivel.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Straw men and false dichotomies are logical fallacies. In any event, I've shown you the rational grievances held by Muslims against the U.S., including those held by Islamist terrorists -- whose numbers increase when we keep doing the same arrogant, often lethal things that created their first generations.---Mona- (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

All you shown is isolationist drivel and apology for Islamist terrorism. As usual.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, for my Islamist-terrorism apologia, I go straight for Department of Defense reports commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld. Doesn't everyone?---Mona- (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

And btw, most of your quotes attributed to me are actually taken from the Report of the Defense Science Board. Your argument is with them and the reality they set forth.---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The 2nd parameter in {{q}} does, IMNSHO, refers to the one, who posted it, not those who created it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, OK, got the point, Rumsfeld was a closet pantywaist and peacenik. nobs

Help in Fallout 3[edit]

Political Spectrum[edit]

Where on the political spectrum are the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S.? Ideally the Democrats are supposed to be on the left and the Republicans are supposed to be on the right, but some articles here have said that both are conservative and only one is more extremist than the other. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Right-wing, globally speaking. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 09:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. But are Republicans in the far-right or just right, globally speaking? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Globally, I would say moderately right and quite right. Neither is really far right, although the Republicans could be if certain internal elements had their way.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Both are pretty broad parties & cover a fair chunk of the spectrum, with some overlap. But anyway, the simple left-right spectrum doesn't really adequately summarise the different attitudes to financial policy, social policy, foreign policy, etc. The most right wing elements of the Republican Party (e.g. the Tea Party crowd) are religious conservatives with libertarian views on fiscal policy & welfare. This makes them rather different from the authoritarian regimes we historically think of as "far right". Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing observers from multi-party systems have to remember when assessing the U.S. two-party system is that the two parties represent an astonishing variety, since neither party can afford the kind of (attempted) ideological consistency often seen in multi-party systems where each party covers a much narrower slice of the electorate. It's a less extreme version of what Japanese politics was in the era of (almost) complete LDP dominance where one had to analyse it in terms of which politicians or cliques were in the ascendant. Still, taken as an average (if such a thing is possible) then both U.S. parties would be considered right, quite right or far right in Europe (depending on which country one used for comparison) and probably also in Latin America, though I'll confess not to be well versed in that region's politics. In East and South East Asia (incl. New Zealand and Australia?) the U.S. parties would probably only be right/quite right, I think, and in Africa I'm even less sure. Where Russia is concerned, neither U.S. party would probably get any further than right, and in several Middle Eastern countries, either party might even be considered vaguely leftist (with the possible exception of the hardcore fundamentalist slice of the Tea Party). At least, so goes my 2 cents' worth. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. Of course, this also depends on your definition of "far right". ScepticWombat (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Democratic Party of today would not and could not elect FDR. Reagan took the country to the right, and the Overton window did the rest. The result was Bill Clinton, who pushed the Defense of Marriage Act, welfare "reform," and oversaw a draconian "tough on crime" package led in the Senate by Joe Biden. The Democrats today (successful ones) -- except for Bernie Sanders -- are Republican Lite. Those who support unionization for, e.g., fast food or service workers, or benefits that obtain in nearly all other Western countries (e.g., state-provided college tuition), or meaningful enforcement and regulation of the banksters, these either suffer a party that only pays lip service to these issues, or they go third party. This Republicanification of the Dems is also exacerbated by the near impossibility of getting elected on a national level without lots and lots of corporate or other special interest money. (In the meantime, the GOP has mutated into a wingnut Circus Show in which Barry Goldwater would be deemed "too liberal," as would Eisenhower.)---Mona- (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to talk "globally", the US is Far Left as far as democracies go, due to India. CorruptUser (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"the US is Far Left as far as democracies go" What? Is that sarcasm?---Mona- (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You are comparing the US to Norway. India is a democracy that outnumbers all of Europe by 2 to 1. As India is an extremely conservative society that makes the Republicans look like Bernie Sanders, this whole notion that "the US has a right wing and far right wing party" is unfounded. And when you start including quasi-democracies and non-democracies, the US looks ever more left wing in comparison. I think the US is too far to the right IMHO, but I don't see the need to distort the facts to argue my case. CorruptUser (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"You are comparing the US to Norway". Um, no."but I don't see the need to distort the facts to argue my case." Then please stop doing it!---Mona- (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I would say that (on average) the Democrats range from dead center moderate to a little bit right, and the Republicans from a little more right to most of the way right. IMO obviously. SolPyre (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Compared to what? How "Right" and "Left" someone is is meaningless without something to compare it to. Compared to Europe, the US is far right, but compared to Africa or Asia the US is far left. CorruptUser (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd seriously dispute whether the U.S. political parties would be "far left" in any of the democratic systems in Africa or Asia, and suggest that the Democrats would be moderately left at most. Similarly for the India comment in which CorruptUser seems to forget that there are actual communist parties which have held power in West Bengal and at least 3 different communist parties are currently represented in the Indian parliament (the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Revolutionary Socialist Party (India)). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There isn't any "far-left" party in power in the U.S. today. Remember this article? ^{— Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs} 00:44, 16 November 2015

If we define the U.S. political spectrum as reflected by the ideology of politicians elected, then it goes roughly from Bernie Sanders on the left to the various wingnuts on the right. In those terms, Sanders would be far left, the Democrats as a whole somewhere between centre-left/centre/centre-right, the GOP establishment would be right and the Tea Party far right. Now my personal opinion is that the Democrats, overall, is a right political party, mainly based on its attitude to redistribution which places it as something of a social liberal party, though with a huge caveat for its tendency to go along with tough on crime and extended government powers in the name of fighting terrorism. Similarly, social liberal parties in other countries tend to support, for instance, gay marriage and similar "leftist" policies in the area of social issues or "values politics", while at the same time preferring a relatively small scale of redistribution and lower taxes when it comes economic policies, though still higher levels of taxation/redistribution than classical liberal or libertarian parties. By contrast, conservatism is extremely hard to pin down as it depends far more on the national context, conservatism being a necessarily eclectic ideology (depending on what is there to "conserve" to begin with). The GOP would be a sort of oxymoronic liberal conservative party (extremely liberal on economic issues, extremely conservative on social issues). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's nice to see an elaboration of the relative and global political spectrums, but I forgot to mention another dimension in political tendency, as it is two-dimensional: weight of the government. It can go from statist to libertarian. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's usually an authoritarian/libertarian or populist/libertarian axis, as "statist" would make little sense (you can regulate in heaps of ways that have nothing to do with states). Personally, I'm apparently a "soft left authoritarian", because that's what you get for being in favour of redistribution and regulation against the ability of, for instance, companies' ability to discriminate. In actuality, I think that the "extra axis" is more about regulation/laissez faire, but that's probably just because I feel a bit irked by being labelled an authoritarian... ScepticWombat (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Recall of Michigan Governor over the Flint water crisis[edit]

I do not know how many of you heard about the water crisis in Flint, Michigan but some people are blaming it on the governor though the problem was old lead pipes that were installed before he was elected. How can you blame a governor for something that was installed long before he was elected?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Because of the general "The buck stops here"-attitude attached to the governor's office?

Suggestion 2: For not showing due diligence and having the pipes replaced or at least raising the issue (not knowing the kerfuffle, this suggestion is preconditioned on the governor not having tried to tackle the problem)? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thing is, it was found out maybe a few days ago.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you taking the recall initiative so seriously, when it looks like it's based on some random guy's "thoughts from watching the news and reading the papers."? Just because somebody says something, doesn't mean you have to listen. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do know it failed. You cannot blame someone for something that is under the jurisdiction of the City of Flint.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, but why even bother worrying about somebody saying something stupid/misguided?

I never said I was worried, I am saying I am confused on how someone can blame a governor on something that was installed long before election--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Greatest hits of October 2015[edit]

So I got the page hit logs and ran them through a handy shell script Trent had there. Here are the greatest hits of October 2015, straight out of the page hits log!

243794 Main_Page
 90098 Project_Blue_Beam
 76713 List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_studying_the_evidence
 55852 Roko's_basilisk
 26400 List_of_forms_of_government
 24493 FEMA_concentration_camps
 24393 undefined
 21288 Denver_Airport_conspiracy_theories
 18008 Undefined
 15532 Gamergate

Some of it I wonder at, e.g. I have no idea why Undefined has so many hits, but they're there in the raw logs.

I tried putting the whole list into RationalWiki:Pages by popularity 2015-10, then only the first 1000 lines, but MediaWiki and/or Apache choked on it. So now it's up as raw text at http://rwdocs.org/statistics/201510.popular and you can see if you can do something better with it.

The raw page hit logs are available to anyone who would like to do stuff with them. They just have a date stamp and a URL, so contain no private information at all. (If they weren't so big I'd just put them up. Yes, I meant to dump them on archive.org ages ago ...) - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is User:LMM getting so many views? In particular since that isn't even a created page? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the re-name of that Brazilian dude who went antisemitis on us, IIRC. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thought that was LeandroTelesRocha or similar. Walker Walker Walker 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right -- he WAS renamed into some sort of strain of initials, but this ain't the guy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple others that don't make much sense either... gonna see if I can Gegl a link: search on them. Walker Walker Walker 17:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that told me nothing. :? Walker Walker Walker 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

At least in terms of "undefined" I can see how that would make sense. Someone's code somewhere not putting anything in the page title portion of the URL could drop a bot onto that page, I imagine.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still gobsmacked that a page I made as a joke way back when is so popular. Bicycle^wheel

18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I need to get busy and write an article about Undefined. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Raw pagehit data will shortly be at http://rwdocs.org/statistics/201510.pagehits.xz (hundreds of megabytes, expands to 7,235,593,627 bytes) if anyone is curious and wants to see if they can do better. Note that most entries are MediaWiki talking to itself, calling bits of its website page furniture, etc. I can't believe some of these numbers, but they seem to match the full Apache-NCSA-style logs (which are confidential because they contain IP numbers, but if anyone is particularly curious I'd be delighted to answer questions about anomalies) - David Gerard (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps also recording the user-agent and/or referer header might be useful? That's not too private, imho, and might still explain some of the anomalies... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User-agent should probably stay private (in checkusers on Wikipedia it's a really useful tell), but referer is probably releasable (though I'm reluctant to fiddle with it until I know what Trent had in mind) - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I took a look at the "undefined" thing, and I noticed that they seem to come in clusters. So on Oct 2 from 04:51 to 04:56 you have 780 hits, but no other hits on this day. The same for Oct 15 with 2444 hits from 15:14 to 15:35. Interestingly, later in the evening there are a few small clusters, 2 at 20:04, 6 at 20:08, 2 at 20:10, 4 at 20:12, and 2 at 20:14.

All of that sounds like some sort of bot to me... The evening activity on Oct 15 almost seems like someone doing some development on the bot and testing some stuff (which is why I mentioned the user-agent).

Oh, and /wiki/undefined is a 301 to /wiki/Undefined, and most hits go to /undefined; so the actual number is closer to 20k, and not 42k. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

just had another thought, what if it's a user-script that does jQuery.ajax({url: 'http://rationalwiki/wiki/' + some_var}), where some_var is undefined due to a bug. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm proud to say that the Didit generator that I created and brought to life with the help of FuzzyCatPotato is actually more popular than all the other "didits" (Goddidit, etc.)). Bongolian (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I can say that I accidentally launched a couple hits to Undefined or something like that the other day while testing some js, so the bot testing theory is plausible enough to me. Walker Walker Walker 20:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo answers[edit]

Why is the website RationalWiki so overtly liberal in its political articles?
As someone who is centrist and whose vote is very much up for grabs in 2016 (I'd never vote for Trump or Sanders, that's all that's for sure), I like to think of myself as pretty rational and level-headed in how I analyze things. Free markets are good, but some regulation is needed. Immigration makes America great, but our borders have to be protected; you can't deport 14 million folks, but they shouldn't get the right to vote either.
I see this website called "RationalWiki" and it just slams religious people and Republicans to an extreme extent, calling them lunatics, nuts, etc. Are they really as rational as they claim? Because those smarter-than-thou types on the left really piss me off, just as some of the wingnut stuff on the right does too.

The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well... Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, he's not wrong on being overtly-left. But he isn't right on us being irrational. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have any serious question about the intention, note the answer chosen by the questioner. Walker Walker Walker 00:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's only "left" by American standards. The top answer mentions ties to Clinton as a joke. Clinton certainly isn't "left" by European standards. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose anybody knows anything...[edit]

About a group of Alien sightings in the 1970s, one of which was in britain of a thing that was 2.5 meters tall, robot like with red eyes. I just read about it in a ufo book whose artwork i enjoyed as a kid and was wanting to look up the details of the case. I was hoping somebody here might have hear about it. DarkAngelCryo (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The only UK sightings I know anything about - and I'm not saying they're real or not - were those around the Dyfed Peninsular in Wales in the 70s. Those also featured reports of giant figures. Not sure about online sources, but there is a book called The Dyfed Enigma that documents the sightings. PsyGremlin^Hable! 11:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

that may be it, although some of the details differ the creatures seem similar.DarkAngelCryo (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

NYT editors slam Hillary Clinton[edit]

And I'm as pleased as I am surprised. When asked during the last debate about her coziness with Wall St., banksters, and the huge corporate donations to her campaign, she claimed Big Money loves her simply because of how she responded to 9/11. The Editors weren't having it:

Twitter exploded with demands to know what campaign donations from big banks had to do with New York’s recovery from 9/11. Answer: little to nothing. Since 2001, she and Bill Clinton have earned more than $125 million for speeches, many of the most lucrative made before financial groups. That does not account for the millions given directly to her campaign, and to political action committees backing her. Nearly 15 years after the 2001 attacks, Mrs. Clinton was earning more than $200,000 for a 20-minute speech. Most of those took place behind guarded doors. But one can guess that she and the financial executives were not still talking about 9/11.

She also tossed in the non sequitur that 60% of her campaign donations are from woman, and about that I give not a shit. Hillary is owned by Wall St.---Mona- (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"And about that, I give not a shit." That should be put as a quote above her article 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 04:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I am humbled and flattered. AgingHippie grabbed my last two sentences and stuck them right where you said. Thanks guys! ---Mona- (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But didn't the Jews that control Wall Street also carry out 9/11? Why would they like Hillary responding to it then? I'm so confused! ^{(Warning: Poe's Law in action!)} --Ymir (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Chief rabbi of Israeli settlement says Paris deserved it[edit]

From The Jerusalem Post:

A religious Zionist cleric from a Jewish settlement on the West Bank told mourners on Saturday... [at a funeral] the attacks in Paris were deserved..."The wicked ones in blood-soaked Europe deserve it for what they did to our people 70 years ago," [Dov] Lior said.

This same piece of scum feels Palestinians should be used for medical experiments and that bombing all the civilians in Gaza to death is justified. He has a significant following among settlers and other Israeli Jews.---Mona- (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So I read the Haaretz piece and while I understand why they published it I don't understand why you seem believe every word of it. Fear-mongering is a very effective political strategy and contrary to popular belief its use is not confined to the right wing. The left in my own country (USA) used it against Dubya, the Indian left uses it against Narendra Modi and Haaretz is using it against Netanyahu. Now, being a leftist (well, at least in the US) I tend to believe that all of these politicians would love to go and establish fascist dictatorships in their respective countries if they could. But history has shown that in order for anyone to take power in that way they have to have overwhelming domestic and especially military backing plus at least some unequivocal international support. Netanyahu does not have any of those things, so implying that he will soon establish a fascist dictatorship and that the next election will be the last one is kind of irresponsible (though given the trajectory that Israeli society (in particular) is on I am not surprised that Haaretz published it, after all I certainly would have). In essence I believe that it is a mistake to take that article quite as literally as you seem to be. Alsto003 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Alex

Alsto003: I have extensive experience of Haaretz and know it to have a reputation for reliability. I avoid sources who do not enjoy such a reputation, unless to use them as examples. Moreover, the Google results yield literally hundreds of articles. I don't know if this one is there, but you may wish to consult: How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews (with Video) This article is reproduced (in sum and substance) in a book by the same author, a book which even its fiercest crtitics have had to conceed is "technically accurate." Do see the lovely material about Rabbi Lior.---Mona- (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it is accurate. Remember you're talking about Dov Lior, this was the same guy who said that Dr. Goldstein (I'm sure you know of him), was "Holier than all the martyrs of the Holocaust.". I was not surprised by his latest pronouncement about the attacks in Paris, how could anyone be surprised or disbelieve that quote when it comes from the same man who thinks who thinks that a hateful rampage killer is worthy of any exaltation at all (let alone more than the victims of a genocide)? He needs no introduction, he is a thoroughly despicable character and I could go on at length about that. Alsto003 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Alex

"Netanyahu does not have any of those things, so implying that he will soon establish a fascist dictatorship and that the next election will be the last one is kind of irresponsible" Netanyahu, and others, have already taken the nation of Israel toward fascism. See this book. (Which its critics agree is accurate.) Then see this article by a recent director of Israel's Shin bet, it's FBI. I have more documentation of Israel's lurch toward evil and fascism if you are interested. <---Mona- (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I know very well that Israel is marching towards authoritarianism and fascism. My disagreement with you here is rather minor and it is that I personally don't think that Israel has gotten there yet and I have trouble believing that it will happen as soon as the author of the Haaretz article seems to believe. In essence I do not believe that clock is running down as quickly as you think it is. Bibi may indeed be a fascist, but at the end of the day Bibi is also a career politician who knows very well that Israel has to at least maintain the facade of good faith in order to avoid being damned as a pariah by every country but the United States. While I can easily picture Israel going full fascist on the world I cannot picture them doing that with him in office, even if he is the one setting the stage for it to happen. Alsto003 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Alex

RWDocs[edit]

http://rwdocs.org/

Is this ever going to be a thing? If it is, how much shame should we feel?

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I remember, a long long time ago, we had a discussion about rationalblogs and rationalvlogs and stuff and nothing came of that. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is so HTML-tutorial esque. Like the template used on Khan Academy, except as a full-on webpage. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's actually refreshing to see a page of little but text and no layout elements. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Kind of bothers me how little there is. With no links; just the main RW Docs Home page and...nothing, really... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 04:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

rwdocs was apparently a project of Trent's. I'm just using it as an address to dump fat downloads most people won't be interested in, but the interested people will be very interested - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Props on the Orff though. Walker Walker Walker 06:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I do have to admit, it was cool. And I loved that Illuminati George Bush pic that flashed by in the video. Gotta hand it to Trent, he did a cool job on that. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} ^Amen! 06:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

War on Christmas[edit]

http://images1.tickld.com/live/477423.jpg oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The might of the Christian armies shall never stand up to my powerful magic spell. The demonic power contained within the phrase "Happy Holidays" can destroy their very souls. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wait till spring when my Muslim army celebrates their holidays; beware the Eids of March! CorruptUser (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Mod election wtfery[edit]

I have no frickin' clue how this is supposed to work, but I've got it to the stage where I can get a "Vote" button with no candidates. I have no idea where the votes end up either. Yay Nx-code! I'll poke it again shortly.

Also, we should probably have picked a returning officer as yet. I could count them, but given I'm a candidate that's unlikely to be the best idea - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no longer a candidate and can volunteer as returning officer. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yer on. I'll email you the list of votes from the server when it's all over (email me with your preferred address to send this to) - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So is voting anonymous? Or how exactly does all of this work? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I ... think so? I think it has a DB table that notes if you have voted, and a text table it writes the votes themselves to, without a way to correlate them ... awaiting tech details from Trent - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I have a handle on this ... see RationalWiki:Technical_support#Moderator_elections for the saga. Gah - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It was always touted as being anonymous, at least to the extent of matching votes to editors, to the point where one user voted with multiple socks and we were unable to do anything about it as we weren't sure which votes belonged to who. I think it is a good idea to have a returning officer who is not running for election, but tradition has also dictated that the data is released for others to crunch too. Tielec01 (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WE ARE OPEN, I think. Please try to vote and note if you have - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sorting this out David!--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please make a separate article on BioShock[edit]

Just food for thought.^{— Unsigned, by: jakester499 / talk / contribs}

How does it relate to RW:MISSION ... ? Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a parody of Objectivism and seasteading - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a parody as much as a direct critique of it. But I agree with Carpet, it's not really missional (unless anything even vaguely critiquing cranks is missional). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{I... I AM A MONSTER... COACH} 02:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we could make an article out of it, the question is how useful or long would that article be, and how much could we write without making the article something from the bioshock wiki?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Useful? No. Long? Also no. Will probably create a shitstorm one way or the other? Very yes. I support the creation of this article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Open your heart, it's gonna be alright} 03:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And the sequel touches upon dominionism and American exceptionalism. If MLP is missional... Vulpius (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

One character's name is intentionally almost an anagram of Ayn Rand.—Ryulong (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

After reading up on Ayn Rand's early life, I think Andrew Ryan was intended to be an alternative Ayn Rand--what if she was born male, that sort of thing. --Maxus (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, but the mention here is good enough. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you kindly make a Bioshock article? --Ymir (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I was going to make a redirect. Looks like we already got one! Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Restarting the Panther Parties?[edit]

I'll admit, I'm completely unknowledgable about these things, but would it be possible to reestablish the Black / White Panther Parties in Detroit, maybe Ann Arbor? Luckily I live near the birth-place of the White Panthers, and I was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping me reform the movements (preferably both the Black and White)? I'm only one man, and not very knowledgeable in these matters, so any help would be greatly appreciated. - Shouniaisha (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

lets not.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 11:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Any specific reasons? - Shouniaisha (talk)

Because they really didn't accomplish much except prove that being an extremist group (be it the KKK on the right or Weather Underground on the left) does nothing to further your cause and, in fact, is more of a burden to your cause by making people think "OMG, they are too extreme for me!" Gooniepunk (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And that even if the group starts off with good intentions, given enough time an NGO Army will ALWAYS turns into something horrific. CorruptUser (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume the sole reason for restarting a party with baggage is name recognition. You'll attract a bunch of malcontents who only remember the worst aspects of those parties - and like them. If that's not what you're after, then try starting a new party that's not based on the battles of forty years ago. If that is what you're after, then you're part of the problem. There's enough hatred, division and spite floating around already without someone stirring up more. Bicycle^wheel

18:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's already been done and disowned by the old BBlack Panther party. Read the WP article. nobs

Well, last time we tried that it didn't go along exactly swimmingly. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Bird don't sing, the wind doesn't blow} 00:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright The Panthers' have had their share of controversy to say the least. And, as I said I'm not a very knowledgeable with these things, so forgive me if this idea is just as stupid, but perhaps starting a new organization with similar tenets but less connection with batshit crazy people would work? I don't want to water down the policies too much. Also, how should I go about doing this? Should I talk with some friends, see if they'd be interested in starting something, maybe gauge the local college as well? - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Start by listening to the song "Bloody Revolutions" by the band Crass. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah Crass. Well, freedom has no value if violence is the price,Don't want your revolution, I want anarchy and peace. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

An absolutely brilliant song, and that's the kind of thinking that I want to promote with a new party building partially off of the Panthers. Less gun-toting and talk of violent revolution, more of a movement of anarchistic thinking and promoting community-mindedness. -

Shouniaisha (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Because anarchy and peace has such a fine track record. What could possibly go wrong?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No, just no. There is no need for paramilitary organizations as long as there's democracy. You want to know who joins non-government paramilitary organizations? George Zimmerman, that's fucking who. And he's the nicest example of such. Better off organizing voters, getting candidates that actually care about the community, etc, but no more militias. CorruptUser (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The biggest unanswered question is "why?" 173.202.214.83 (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I want to get into political activism and stuff like that, and when I read over the White Panthers' tenets, they really jived with my beliefs. And this could just be my naivete talking (in fact, yeah that's probably it), but I want to bring a change to the corrupted landscape of politics in Detroit. Not to mention the economy. - Shouniaisha (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've started with a rough outline of the group's principles and other political interests. I got the main tenets from RW's page on the White_Panther_Party Feel free to comment on any ideas or revisions. Obviously, still a WiP. - Shouniaisha (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Universal Life Church[edit]

Who ever came up with the ULC was a total genius; I bet the people who run it sleep on a pile of money (figure of speech, of course).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, something's got to fill the hole in their soul from bilking people in dire situations. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The free ordinations that ULC offer (I think they were always free) is no way to get rich. The soul hole they give to prosperity gospel ministers upon ordination is big enough for a bank. Bongolian (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the ordination part is free but the certificate costs money as well as other ministry supplies.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've known at least two ULC ministers. One was in it just for the giggle of being introduced as Reverend Jim. I don't think he paid for a certificate. The other one was into alternative spirituality, and I believe she felt the credentials lent legal weight to some of the rites she performed. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As a ULC-ordained minister, I can say that I am not a ULC minister because of profit. Indeed, the reason I became an ordained ULC minister and registered with my county (after having learned bout it on RationalWiki nonetheless), is because I wanted to fill the gap for fellow members of the LGBTQ community whose respective churches refused to marry them (I perform ceremonies at cost of travel expenses only for them). That, and my being a legally-recognized minister really gets under the skin of my Catholic priest uncle, whom I despise. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Good for you, Goonie. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I got ordained yesterday and I think I will call myself Reverend from now on, why? Two reasons- for the fun of it and I have been interested in Pagan ministry.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As a card carrying SubGenius, I became ordained by the ULC and thusly refer to myself as a Pope as need be. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As a dudeist priest i just sort of you know, wander--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

For the hell of it, I may get the clergy shirt too.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What article would this work for?[edit]

http://io9.com/what-if-natural-products-came-with-a-list-of-ingredient-1503320184 Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Chemophobia and/or Appeal to nature? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but they did a half-assed job I think. I used to read about this stuff, but no longer have access to the summaries. I think many of the volatile aromatics are missing from the foods that they detailed. As an example, coffee is an eye-opener in more ways than one: there are well-over 1000 different chemicals in it, mainly due to the roasting. It has turned out to be one of the most healthful foods that people consume, with moderate consumption having been documented to extend life expectancy in at least one high-quality epidemiology study. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This is why I pity the starving Americans. They have no food; everything they eat is either medicine or poison, and the medicine all tastes bad while only the poison tastes good. This is an incredibly odd and unproductive way to approach cuisine. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved cock pen[edit]

I have just moved the former chicken coop to a newer, more fitting location, at RationalWiki:Cock pen. I hope this is acceptable. SockTheory 09:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Really, what were you thinking? You not only moved the page, but also all the archive pages and all mentions. You get a few points for being thorough, but minus a crapload of points for just moving these pages without any prior discussion with the community... I've undid most of your changes, except the moving of the archive pages ... You can redeem yourself by fixing the archives (make sure that RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive_list works). Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If they don't fix it, there should be a batch move tool. If not, I can try putting MiniNyar on my computer. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 12:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the archive pages have all been moved back with a load of stupid redirects left from [RationalWiki:Cock pen/Archive_]. If a bot can easily clear them up, that would be useful. Щєазєюіδ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll go mop them up. Walker Walker Walker 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no techie, but what was the harm in doing this? Everything seemed to function fine (again, not a techie). Tielec01 (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It was dumb and not at all discussed until after the fact? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tielec. SockTheory 07:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your question Tielec01? The harm in what? Having the Chicken Coop page moved? Having the archives at Cock pen/ArchiveN, or having redirects for the archives? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well my question was really your last two questions Carpetsmoker, but it seems a bit redundant now. Tielec01 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

To the middle question: once Carpetsmoker had moved it from cock pen to chicken coop, the archive list was borked, I believe. Except for 9. SockTheory left Archive 9 by mistake/technical error. Walker Walker Walker 05:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Apostasy[edit]

This has always struck me as a totally victimless "crime" (note the quote marks). And yet it carries the death penalty as a sentence in at least 14 countries. Can anyone think of another example of a harmless (so-called) crime that can be punished so extremely?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

smoking weed? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

EC Trafficking in, using, or possessing many drugs. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In many cases, drug trafficking is hardly victimless. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Most likely in those 14 countries, being gay warrants the death penalty as well. Also, granted, not as extreme as a death penalty, the jailing of dissidents is most still pretty extreme. And on the opposite extreme, white collar crime (which can have upwards of thousands of victims) doesn't get punished harshly enough. - Shouniaisha (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Extramarital sex does have consequences in an ancient society that has no access to medical care. What if the only blacksmith for miles around catches a fatal disease? The whole village suffers, so there are indeed victims of Heinrich Smith's infidelity. And if Heinrich is having sex with a man, it's even more likely he'll get sick. Drugs harm the person using them, and the whole village will suffer if the only miller snorts himself into a coma. For a crime to be truly victimless, it has to actually not do any harm to anyone, not just only harm the person engaging in it.

I don't care about extramarital/homosexual sex or drug use now, so long as only the person(s) doing it only harm each other, because people are easily replaceable. And besides, some of that is fun; we all have our vices. But if we are on a colony ship with only 50 humans and absolutely everyone needs to survive in order for anyone to survive, the rules will be different. For instance, assuming we screen out the diseases, homosexual sex may be mandated rather than forbidden, because rubber is in short supply and we don't have the ability to raise children just yet... CorruptUser (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool story. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Apostasy is only "harmless" from the PoV of more or less secular or multicultural societies (i.e. our societies), not from the PoV of fundamentalist theocracies (i.e. the countries that have apostasy laws) where it's (1) turning your back on God & (2) undermining the values of society & the orthodoxy that upholds the establishment. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

While I have no problem with religion, killing someone for switching religions is nuts.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The New Deal and the Great Depression?[edit]

In response to Bernie Sanders' speech about his views of Democratic Socialism, I'm seeing a few different conservative outlets like Freedom Works claim that FDR's New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression. Now on various social media, I'm seeing conservatives pull random citations to overly technical papers from low-key relatively unknown economists that also make that assertion, in order to deceptively avoid setting off other people's alarm bells for citations like Fox News, Freedom Works, Conservapedia and etc.

My question is this: how can I effectively fight that bullshit? I don't know enough about economics and that period of history to feel very confident in my ability to dispel what looks like obvious historical revisionism in a public "debate", and the article here on the New Deal doesn't really address that particular assertion.^{— Unsigned, by: Eoan / talk / contribs}

Did the new deal prolong the depression? Only if you think intervention and any amount of regulation is what caused the depression in the first place.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@RobSmith Is the guy you wanna talk to about this. Really. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I really can't imagine they'll actually get the answer on how to combat this from Rob. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Rob would totally set them straight. He's an expert on the New Ordeal. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Now now don't be that cruel to somebody AH. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you forgotten? I am Foster The Cruel. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about any of you guys but my grandparents and their parents would have laughed you out of the room if they heard something like that (the ones who are still living certainly would). These hacks are the same people you despite saying that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression still acknowledge that WWII ended it. So massive spending on infrastructure apparently prolonged the Great Depression but massive military spending ended it? Sure... Next they're gonna start claiming that lower taxes leads to higher revenues— oh wait... Alsto003 (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Alex

The New Deal didn't prolong the Depression; the lack of money did. I don't mean "we were too poor", I mean the lack of "worthless fiat" floating around. The problem was the dollar was TOO VALUABLE and there was unexpected deflation. What does this mean if you are a farmer who just took out a $10,000 loan to buy new farm equipment? Well, if the dollar is twice as strong you now have the equivalent of $20,000 of debt without seeing the extra benefits of the debt. This is identical to the Asian Financial Crisis, when the Asian countries borrowed in dollars expecting the dollar to crash in value (and thus, the debts worth less) only for the dollar to grow in value. Oops! And so you had a whole lot of destructive things going on; farmers throwing away food simply because it wouldn't pay off their debts, homes being foreclosed, people thrown out into the street, etc, which just made things worse. WWII didn't solve the depression with massive industry but through government printing money and the money supply finally flowing. CorruptUser (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You can refer to various economic indicators like GDP or unemployment from the twenties to the forties (there are plenty of graphs and tables on the Internet). The Depression bottomed in 1933, and sharply turned around with the implementation of the New Deal. Things steadily improved until 1937, where GDP and earnings were similar to the pre-Depression high (recovery in unemployment was not as dramatic, but it was improving). The reversal of policies from budget cuts (since things seemed to be going well, and opponents gonna oppose) led to promptly worsening conditions. Some New Deal-ish policies were instituted in response, and things started recovering again, but things only clearly got better than 1937 a few years later from the buildup and entry to WWII (the largest deficit spending, lowest unemployment, and fastest GDP growth in US history). The what is easily conveyed, and the why can be summed up rather simply. But some people think that ideology is preferable to research as a source of information on the past, so political opinions are notoriously difficult to sway. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The theory behind Keynsianism pump priming and expanding the aggregate bases is sound. But the political realities when implemented tend toward corruption patronage and cronie capitalism. It was Milton Friedman who dared to utter the blasphemy that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. nobs

As someone who thinks Friedman was the greatest economist in the Keynesian school, I'm going to have to disagree. While bailouts and other "stimulus" spending is mostly political bullshit that only makes things worse (see 2008), ok, I can't entirely disagree, but there are indeed ways for government to spend to increase the economy. Like, IDK, hiring all those unemployed construction workers to fix our terribly maintained infrastructure, solving both problems? CorruptUser (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean "stimulus" spending? Oh, look! 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't give me that bullshit. Half the construction was for pet projects and other pork, and the infrastructure was a small fraction of the bill. This was the third bill after the first two basically threw 1.5 trillion at the problem, and that's not including the AIG bailout or the Chrysler/GM bailouts. CorruptUser (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

IS Bernie Sanders electable?[edit]

Well, is he?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

100% not. Sadly. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe stood a bit of a chance 4 years ago, when Occupy and the "99%" were still an active and vital part of youth discourse. Now, when it seems as though identity politics is enjoying a resurgence on campus -- not that that ever went away, but BLM, Trans issues and other such movements, are taking up a lot of the same youth-activist bandwidth formerly taken by OWS -- I can't see a white male septuagenarian really firing people up, especially not young non-whites, whom the Dems really need to motivate if they want to win. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Bernie has a long-lasting influence on American politics by making "the moderate left" mainstream (like it's in Europe). Whether this will actually happen, I don't know, but here's to hoping... Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC? with how long it was here without an edit? Okay.) I was going to make a comment here about Bernie Sanders at one point. I was going to say that his popularity is... Mostly from the non-voting internet types. But maybe they'll actually vote this time. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 12:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AgingHippie albeit for slightly different reasons. Several years ago he could have won when economics and inequality were on everyone's mind but now that popular discourse has shifted to social issues he will no longer stand a chance. To many of you, the protesters at places like Mizzou and other universities are justified in both their anger and their demands, but to most of the electorate in this country, they look like a nightmare strait out of the 1970s, except this time thankfully without the violence. It is foolish to believe that the majority of this country has moved on from those years of societal chaos. I was not alive during the seventies but almost every single person who I know well who was alive during that decade still votes with those years in the back of their mind. Or so I have deduced; after all I cannot imagine why my father and bunch of other people who I know who are center left, would have voted for Bush Sr. in 1988 if they didn't have those memories floating around in the back of their head. Mark my words if he goes up against anyone but Trump this election will end the same way as the Bush-Dukakis election. Alsto003 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Alex

Depends on whom the Republicans nominate. If Trump, any Democrat will win. CorruptUser (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect he is. Voters here as elsewhere are looking for a candidate with a moral center. The other question ought to be 'is Hillary Clinton electable?' I find her appeal as a candidate simply incomprehensible. If she is the nominee she will generate no enthusiasm and many Democratic leaning voters will simply stay home. Hillary is exactly the opposite of what voters seem to be looking for now, a candidate who changes positions at will based on the results of the latest polls and focus groups. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Smerdis. With Hillary's recent Anti-ISIL strategy of more broad bombing and ground troops (which could mean the more rationale position of using special forces) I would probably not turn out in support, but in fear of anyone the Republicans choose. I definitely disagree that people aren't thinking about income inequality; it's more of the establishment Democrats don't care or even favor the status qou.--Owlman (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Smerdis and Owlman. If people did not care about income inequality and how the system seems rigged – not only against the poor but also against the other socioeconomically disadvantaged such as women and black people – Bernie Sanders would not now be polling at around 30% in the democratic primary. While it's true that he currently isn't polling as well among minority voters, I believe the reason is due to a lack of focus instead of a lack of ability. And as the state primaries draw nearer, he will improve that focus accordingly.

As far as the general election goes, I also agree with the sentiment that Hillary Clinton would possibly have a more difficult time than Bernie Sanders. No one actually seems that excited about her beyond “first female president”, whereas Bernie actually seems to be drawing the same kind of heart-felt enthusiasm that Barack Obama did in 2008. And whereas she has been mired in mostly manufactured controversies over the past 20 years, he's a bit fresher on the scene and has shown in his recent speech on democratic socialism that he can defend himself just as well as she can. Hell, he's linked his policies to FDR and the economic views espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which is more than she has done to justify and explain the context behind her positions.

People's feelings on either side of the primary seem to be that a vote for Hillary would mostly just be a shoe-in vote against the Republicans while a vote for Bernie is actually a vote for Bernie and the types of policies they would actually like to see implemented. And I think that that kind of enthusiasm could make all the difference in the general election. People who normally don't vote would engage in the process – some of them for the very first time after years or even a decade or more of inaction – and increase the voter turnout, leading to bigger gains for the Democrats in Congress than they would probably see otherwise. Eoan (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see how it is. Hillary is a woman so she must like shoes, huh?! (Psst, maybe you were looking for "shoo-in".) --Ymir (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was. Thanks :P Eoan (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Something the Democrats should keep in mind[edit]

I was just looking at an old Obama campaign speech from 2008 where he attacked Bush's war in Iraq and his abuses of the Constitution. That was a huge part of why the Dems were so successful that year -- his rallying of the youth/activist/antiwar vote, the people who wanted to see a saner US foreign policy, an alternative to the Republican Party of War. While he has a handful of praiseworthy accomplishments -- ending legalised torture, the nukes treaty with Iraq, and Cuba come to mind -- Obama has largely done the opposite of what he said he would do. Instead, he has radically expanded drone warfare; has been unable to meaningfully end either war in Iraq or Afghanistan, expanded state surveillance of the citzenry, and has stuck his successor not only with ISIS and a shooting war in Syria, but also the clusterfuck that is Yemen, and the clusterfuck that is Libya. The Dems cannot run hard against Obama's record (especially so Clinton) and present the people who were a big part of his success with a viable alternative to a permanent war footing and continued erosion of domestic rights. Look for a lot of the college kids and other active types who rang doorbells and manned phone banks to stay home next year. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they're going to stay home next year if the democratic candidate is the person who wants to fight for single-payer health care and tuition-free public higher education, and when they're the ones who say they stay home when politicians don't fight for their views.

Look, I harp on those people all the time too. I absolutely hate how they stayed home during the midterms last year. But this is a presidential election year, and for once they actually have a candidate who is actually representing the things that they've been complaining about all of this time. They seem to be just as fired up and ready to go now as they were for Obama in 2008, and their candidate is telling them at every chance he gets that he needs their help. And they repeat that fact to their critics and their allies alike non-stop.

You're going to need a lot more than just something that amounts to "lazy kids" if you want to convince people to disbelieve the signs that are out there. I hate their apathy too, but I can't deny the enthusiasm and self-critique that I've seen coming from them over the past few months, which has translated to Bernie Sanders thus far reaching 30% in the polls after all of the more cynical people like the two of us said that he probably wouldn't even make it that far. And yes, I was cynical about his chances too. But I've since changed my opinion in light of all of that. Eoan (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And as far as the foreign policy goes, I think that Bernie Sanders has that base covered better than Hillary Clinton does as far as it applies to the youth vote without also pissing off the establishment. He has acknowledged that we probably won't be able to completely avoid getting involved in conflict, and his proposal to deal with that is to create an international organization like NATO with the sole purpose of fighting terrorism and addressing its root causes. He said that Russia and the Middle Eastern countries will be invited in, and that he will press for the later to lead the effort against ISIL with the western world providing support.

I honestly think it's a brilliant idea because it would allow countries like Sweden and Finland to join in the initiative without having to go through the difficult political discussions at home about the possibility of joining NATO, not to mention its potential to help diffuse the tension with Russia. And I think that younger voters would be willing to accept those positions because of how they perceive Hillary Clinton's proposals to be more "hawkish", as it were. Eoan (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders strikes me as being the last angry man and not much else, while Hillary Clinton is a slimy snake who wouldn't know integrity if it slapped her in the face. Sanders hasn't really explained how an economic model in countries which have 21 million or fewer people is feasible in the U.S.; if it is, he'd do well to provide some detail. And while the VA has been in a state of total FUBAR for years, he also helped pass a bill that made it more difficult to fix. The Democrats would do well to find something besides them, but it doesn't seem likely. It's hard to believe I'm saying (and I know it'll be unpopular here, but someone has to break out of the groupthink) Marco Rubio is starting to look better, I've far from made up my mind but I'm definitely giving him more thought now that I've sat through Clinton and Sanders. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've heard before this idea that just because something works in a small country doesn't mean it'll work in a larger one, and I've never understood the thinking behind it. How do economic theories change in applicability based on population? If anything it seems to me that things like universal health care would work even better in the U.S., given its large economy and tax base. The rah-rah laissez-faire capitalism types never seem to think their favored economic system's effectiveness depends on population. And you really think Marco Rubio, who denies climate change, wants to ban all abortion, even in cases of rape, and thinks it's a good idea to try to start a war with Russia, sounds like a good choice? --Ymir (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That an economy with more than 10 times as many people and which is far more diverse would have some differences isn't much of a stretch to think of. As for Rubio, I said I'd think more about him, not that I'm sold on him. If it's just those three, it's a toss-up between a crotchety old guy, an anti-science nut, and a professional sleazebag; sounds good, huh? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

And your evidence for why those differences would be as you claim (or indeed that they would be period)? Walker Walker Walker 17:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Read: where is this socialism-breaking nonlinearity against population that no one else can ever find? Walker Walker Walker 17:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head the logistics are vastly more complicated, as the physical distance between places is much larger than in any Scandinavian country. The medical industry learned this when Olympus (you most likely know them for cameras, but endoscopes are their cash cow), in its infinite wisdom, decided that the British could run the American part of the company; they quickly discovered that getting equipment where it needed to be was vastly different and more complicated than they realized, and decided that the Americans who had been running things knew what they were doing after all. And the idea that Sanders is going to force through a single payer healthcare system borders on laughable; Steven Brill, the person who knows as much about this as anyone, essentially said that it was so unrealistic as to be not worth the effort (link as needed, it's a fascinating article and Charlie Rose interview). There are plenty of things that can be done (like capping profits on prescription drugs, doing the same with medical equipment, and not actively preventing the completely FUBARred VA from becoming un-FUBARred), and however unfortunate it may be a single payer system isn't one of them. Being the last angry man doesn't mean you can bypass Congress, which in reality-land isn't going to pass this however good it may be (and I'm someone who'd greatly benefit from such a system, so it pains me to have to say this, but I have to be real about it). Besides, isn't in on the person who makes the assertion "It'll work here" to say something besides "Trust me, it does because it works there"? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Survivalists[edit]

Over half of the wacko doomsday scenarios they come up with, nobody would be able to survive those scenarios. There would be no point in prepping for them; take a nuclear war, mankind would be stuck underground and eventually run out of food before radiation levels went down to safe levels. Or take a zombie apocalypse some survivalists say would happen, most epidemiological models figured that mankind would perish. In the end nobody escapes death.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paravant Wow, sourpuss much? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 Yep; and assuming a catastrophy is not total but "merely" incapacitates society, it's illegal in the US to horde emergency supplies. This point is actually often raised by the (likely majority of) preppers who are of the militia/libertarian/freemen persuation - they see it as an example of how hard-working John Galts like themselves are having their work stolen from them by the NWO. Meanwhile, emergency hoarding legislation exists equally - if not entirely - to prevent large freelance entities such as the armed forces, religious organisations (especially those that own compounds and guns), various corporations and even that same guv'mint from hoarding supplies. It's a legislation that aims to redistribute to individual families from whoever has it gathering dust, no matter how many guns they have to claim it's theirs. Though I put very, very little stock in any zombie apocalypse concept (to put it nicely), there is a general point to be made about numbers in any massive catastrophy event - as Penn & Teller put it (paraphrased); "In these catastrophy scenarios, people always claim that 90-95% of the population of the world is gonna die, yet they never figure that they are gonna end up among the bodies. Well, we always loved playing the odds, so - in the case of apocalypse, we're betting we're gonna die. You should see our credit card bills! They're higher than our cholesterol!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I said "most", not all.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sweet; not that it matters. It is the real scenario of a popular culture-style "zombie outbreak" I'm highly sceptical of, not epidemological modeling in any scientific meaning. So, I really held nothing against you in what I wrote. Thus, your minor change of emphasis changes nothing in relation to what I wrote. Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What religions are the most ethic and/or rational?[edit]

𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Many congregations of Unitarian Universalists could be described as ethical, and at least as rational as the general run of the saner sort of humanity. The same could be said of many groups of Zen Buddhists, if one were to call that a religion. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Excluding of course those Zen Buddhists who supported the militarization of Japan from the Meiji Restoration on past World War II. Bongolian (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. You will notice I did not say squat about all Zen Buddhists, so no need to pull out that irrelevant Scotsman. If you look hard enough, we all have horse thieves among our forebears (metaphorically speaking, duh) but that does not mean we should all be hung. Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deists are functional atheists who, to varying degrees, let natural science explain how the world is working except at some point in the chain "invisible watchmaker/science god is involved in some way". As for ethical, that depends on what you consider ethical, and what takes away ethical. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not one of the three abrahamitic desert dogmas, that much is absolutely certain. I'd wager - on a limb - some specific variety of Buddhism (and not a generalist Buddhism) and/or Jainism (depending equally on a similar number of caveats)? Though, if the question is really meant to "rank ethics" rather than to "rank religions", no religion would come near the top of the ethics ladder in my view. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Desert dogmas" Never heard that one before. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The more important question is which of the desert dogmas has the most desert dog mass? I would guess Islam followed by Christianity followed by Judaism. SolPyre (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha. Hi dad. While Islam does have rules against dogs, it's also true that if a dog gets dangerously out of control you have to muslim. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is the religion but the person, someone can be a certain religion but be rational/ethical while someone who is none religious can be highly unethical.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, but the question doesn't pertain to people but to the actual religions, i.e. I would imagine that rulings, scripture and top-level organisational moves (in the sense they exist) are the defining traits here. The one thing that is overt is that whatever scripture a religion contains in this context is to be given the utmost weight. Which makes the three death cults of the desert fall into the wastebasket all on their own. Also, didn't anyone get the dad joke I made in my reply to SolPyre? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Jainism and Bahai, followed by the version of Buddhism that gets peddled over in the West. The absolute most important thing for a religion to be moral is to not claim a monopoly on truth. That is, you can never say "Only my religion is correct". CorruptUser (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Or, indeed, to introctrinate children into them. Or to perpetuate them at all without proper reasons behind every bit of information that they entail. Or to, on principle, make oneself unconvinced by discussion or debate surrounding those ideas. These are all deeply immoral tactics to essentially masturbate to fruition an unwarranted sense of good or accomplishment through blantant intellectual dishonesty. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You cannot meaningfully separate a religion from its adherents without bumping into a category error. I would go further, and say that religions do not exist in any detached ideal form. There are always unrecorded facets of ritual or other expectations of collective behavior, inaccessible to posterity or outsiders, which vary with time and across geography. My own experience of Unitarian congregations, for example, is that each group has its own character, only loosely formed by central dogma. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But atheists say only their religion is correct! Checkmate, atheists!!! --Ymir (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

No gaffe, no hateful statement directed at a national, ethnic or religious group, no physical assault on a protester is undoing hos poll numbers. Is anybody in US-America whose opinion is worth listening to getting nervous that he might actually win the primary? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm waiting on the rush of sketchy outside money to help put him out, but we'll see. SockTheory 06:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Trump is polling high because a lot of people have him as their 1st choice. But from what I've read, very few have him as their second favourite. It's all or nothing. As candidates start dropping out in the republican primaries (won't, like, half of them drop out after the first 3-4 primaries usually?), Trump will (probably) do worse and worse. He might be able to build enough momentum in the early primaries to sail through, but I doubt it. Dendlai (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is not worth listening to, but I'm a bit nervous, not only that he might win the primary, but... <shudder> ... After all, the US did elect an avuncular cognitively impaired movie actor as CINC once upon a time.

Is it time to dust off Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here again? Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I'm particularly worried. He attracts a fair number of crazies on the right, but the moderates are far too terrified of him. My mother has flat out refused to vote for him under any circumstances, even if it means Hillary gets the election (much to my dad's chagrin). Ayzmo ^Cheers 14:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like the Liberals in British bi-elections. No one minds voting for them as long as they're not going to actually win anything. He's a 'I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more' candidate but middle America will never elect him. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And, surely, his Muslim database (with serial numbers tattooed onto the forearm ) is a step too far, even for him. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, given both his history, and the people he's running against, Trump may be the closest thing the Republicans have to a pragmatic centrist this cycle. He'll say whatever he thinks will win applause and get him attention. But he's been willing to trim his message based on the reactions he gets, which is something most of the other candidates have sworn they'll never do. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nate Silver, possibly the only American worth listening to right now, isn't worried. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama got in because he was seen as an outsider who was new, and offered a fresh chance instead of business as usual, with yet another politician. He wins and it's business as usual. Trump comes along and acts exactly the opposite of how a politician should act, is a giant racist jackass but a few people are excited that this might mean finally we won't get just another politician. If he wins it'll be business as usual... 166.137.252.80 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned that he makes Ted Cruz look reasonable by comparison. Vulpius (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"just another inexplicable skirmish in America’s culture wars"[edit]

The Japan Times: Of kimono and cultural appropriation in which the Boston Museum of Fine Arts cancels Kimono Wednesdays after a flood of 'Jargonistic polemics against cultural appropriation and self-appointed experts on sartorial “cultural respect”' from SJW drama queens. Better here than WIGO World, I think. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3-month-old breaking news on SJWS GONE WILD!!1! --Ymir (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"You're on camera. Here's $50. Become an engineer!" Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 15:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Considerably more than 3 months old... The Japan Times article is fairly late. Though, I'd say, pretty decent overall. Doesn't go into enough depth about how asian or asian-american are terms that oftentimes just don't plain work. (Japanese is not Korean is not Chinese etc). Dendlai (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with you for precisely that reason (2nd gen Korean-American here), I probably wouldn't say that deeper discussion of it would fit this particular artice, considering the primary issue at hand is a particular brand of cultural appropriation rather than the nebulousness of the adjective "Asian". ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually remember hearing about this back in July (for the most part from the (white and black) friends/acquaintences I had trying to get me to speak out against this), and controversies like this are one of the continuing reasons why I sharply disagree with a lot of the times "cultural appropriation" is argued. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Same here. I see in the news a yoga group in Canada just had to close. As far as I can see, cultural appropriation was meant to be against the use of other cultures' stuff in a disrespectful way - eg the Washington Redskins row. It's starting to descend into "our culture didn't create it so we can't use it." Bicycle^wheel

20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Locally there was a kerfluffle involving some college administrators who dressed up in mariachi costumes for Halloween. Now I kind of get the business about war bonnets being like military medals that must be earned. But what do you have to do to earn the right to wear a sombrero? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering the pretty strong anti-Mexican sentiments in the US, I'd say it's a bit questionable to dress up as a Mexican stereotype, yeah. But I also agree that "cultural appropriation" isn't always exactly clear-cut. Dendlai (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

How?! Mariachi hats are sacred, but not that sacred that some people threw a hissy fit about musicians from Jalisco, dammit. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I am suddenly possessed of an urge to find a fez in my size. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The wife of one of my friends is a white belly dancer. She's totally into it. They got freaked when a few months ago Salon published something about this constituting appropriation of Arab culture. My kitchen regularly appropriates Greek, Arab, Asian, Indian and French culture.---Mona- (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between cultural syncretism and cultural appropriation. Taco Tuesdays is syncretism. Concert goers wearing Plains Indian war bonnets is appropriation. If hipsters in Greenwich Village or Portland or San Francisco suddenly decided tefillin were the new fashion statement that'd be appropriation. Most people recognize the kimono and yoga issues as being extreme views that shouldn't be supported. Also it just so happens that the yoga thing is only being reported on by highly conservative/reactionary media in Canada; and these are from the yoga teacher's Facebook so it seems she's a reactionary asshole just like everyone reporting on that story presently. And finally, dressing up like a Mexican stereotype is just lazy racism.—Ryulong (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The tefillin example is interesting (though I don't fully disagree), because calling it strictly cultural isn't quite it. Walker Walker Walker 05:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(Ryulong) It was hilarious actually. Dressing up as the stereotypical version of my parents allowed me to make a political point about my views this year's All Hallows Eve. :] Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 05:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The point of cultural appropriation is that the item is taken entirely out of its traditional cultural (TL note: religious) context and made meaningless or generally disrespected by the people involved. This is compounded when the original culture was originally mocked or discriminated against for adhering to the particular traditional use.—Ryulong (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that dressing up as a form of cultural appropriation covers pretty much everything from toga parties to manga cosplay, I'm inclined to see it as mostly not that big of a deal, with some grey areas. Wearing blackface or yellowface, for example, crosses a line into outright racism that wearing a kimono or a sombrero, in my opinion, doesn't. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A whiff of complete BS around the Toronto yoga story - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we expand our Scientology section(s)+Debunking religion in general[edit]

I want full documentation and criticism of Scientology doctrine. Stuff like the Marcabians, their view on evolution etc. Also I want to get into the physics of God and religion as well as neuroscience basically to debunk religion using physics, biology, neuroscience, etc. As much as we comment on religion, we never actually try to debunk it. Something like the parting the Parthenon/pantheon/however it's worded kind of debunked Greek mythology.--Jakester499 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Parthenon, eh? Well you know what they say of the Acropolis where the Parthenon is. Bicycle^wheel

19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If this was the mid 2000's i'd say yah, let's give it to Scientology more but in 2015? We don't need to go all out on a point by point on all of the nonsense. Debunking actual religions? sure, lets go after them full steam. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the guy called back from retirement for one last assignment - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just don't get killed on the beat on your last day before retirement. Also, mmm, that is some Web 1.0 goodness. A "seven-megabyte site" indeed! --Ymir (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

*riddled with bullets* "...Damn... Just three edits away... from retirement! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Query about permissions for reusing content[edit]

I'm not sure what the general procedure is for this, so see this question on my Talk page. The question is in regards to this. If we have some specific procedure it might be a good idea to write it down in RationalWiki:Copyrights or somewhere else. --Ymir (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Trump and Muslims dancing in the streets?[edit]

Now, I'm pretty sure Trumps' claim that there was "muslims dancing in the streets" during 9/11 is completely egregious and up there with the truther nonsense, but I'm not sure exactly how egregious. Can anyone fill in any pertinent info?

I don't have any further info on it (and I highly doubt that any further information exists that doesn't come directly out of Trump's ass), but it mirrors that neo-nazi conspiracy theory about the "dancing Jews". - Shouniaisha (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

According to WaPo. There never was any sort of dancing going on. Maybe it was just one person or a small group talking about it, but by no means was it some mass coordinated event. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 05:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

He specifically named the Muslim community of Jersey City, New Jersey, so it's relatively easy to fact check via, say, local then-authorities, who have confirmed that no such event occurred. Walker Walker Walker 05:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Official Data[edit]

Zero counts. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 06:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

He was off by several 1000 km[edit]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=youtube+911+egyptians+dancing+in+the+streets
But don't worry Trump fans, the Muslims in Gaza and Egypt have paid for it.Talk to Civic Cat 20:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump: Literally a Neo-Nazi[edit]

Yep, it happened. Stormfront infographic. I mean, the support of concentration camps should have been a dead giveaway. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 06:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean, technically, it's all a biiiig misunderstanding. But, hey, that's how neo-nazis get their start, anyways. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 06:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost the entire right wing is in line with stormfront's ideology. With the exception of generally favoring Israel because they seem whiter than the rest of the middle East. Stormfront, except in actually being honest about being neonazis, isn't that fringe anymore. Don't want to live on this planet anymore, etc. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can call Trump a Neo-Nazi when he is gungho about Israel. "I'm a thousand percent behind Israel". Oh wait, that's right the Zionists had a pact with Hitler early on to help the Jews emigrate from Europe to Israel. Sorry, never mind. SissyMendelstein (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to vote for him (I'd personally be in favor of someone who gets realpolitik, not quite Kissinger (who'd be ineligible anyways and far too old even if he legally was), wish him well and vote for whoever. Calling him a neo-Nazi is only goingp to sound like shrill screaming, and it only bolsters the not entirely meritless idea that American Democrats are ridiculously hypersensitive. In the meantime, I'll sit back and laugh as both parties beat the shit out of their own. (When either party decides they care about Burma and the crazed junta running it I might support someone, but as long as Zoya Phan and her siblings are scattered around the world no one has me won over). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 09:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So when a politician uses racist rhetoric, perpetuates racist canards & proposes racist policies, we shouldn't comment on it? Just shrug our shoulders & wish him well? ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Being someone who is not in any position to have any actual influence over the process, and who isn't especially concerned that Donald Trump is going to be a serious contender for president, that seems a lot more productive than raging about something I can't control. I'd say about the same if Louis Farrakhan or one of his ilk (I'm a white man who's quite familiar with his supporters and how equally deluded they are about his message) became a similar three-ring circus for either major party. When something actually happens that has a tangible impact I'll make my stand, until then there's less harm in allowing racist windbags and corrupt degenerates to make themselves look ridiculous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

References that are not references[edit]

Would someone be willing steal this and this for me? If so, we could "borrow" w:Template:efn for use for notes which aren't citations, as was briefly discussed last time this was brought up, which would make creating distinct explanatory notes easier and prettier (i.e. ^[i] or ^[a] vs. ^{[note 1]}) Walker Walker Walker 06:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We need w:MediaWiki:Cite link label group-upper-roman and w:MediaWiki:Cite link label group-upper-alpha too.—Ryulong (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you borrow it? Normally round here, if someone wants to copy a template to use, they just do it, and other people can use it or not as they please.

I can borrow the template itself, but the pages I asked for have to go in MW space to act as an input or whatever you care to call it for cite.php, so I can't do that, because I can't edit that namespace. Walker Walker Walker 14:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Very confused. This seems to suggest I should be good, but... I'm not.^[a]

↑ See?

And this:

function getLinkLabel( $offset, $group, $label ) {
   $message = "cite_link_label_group-$group";
   if ( !isset( $this->mLinkLabels[$group] ) ) {
     $this->genLinkLabels( $group, $message );
   }
   if ( $this->mLinkLabels[$group] === false ) {
     // Use normal representation, ie. "$group 1", "$group 2"...
     return $label;
   }
   if ( isset( $this->mLinkLabels[$group][$offset - 1] ) ) {
     return $this->mLinkLabels[$group][$offset - 1];
   } else {
     // Feed me!
     return $this->error( 'cite_error_no_link_label_group', array( $group, $message ), 'noparse' );
   }
}

Would seem to point to the MW message name I was using... Walker Walker Walker 17:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And that code dates to a 2010 version of the Cite extension, which I would hope our installed version is newer than... (?) Walker Walker Walker 17:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Although actually... I shouldn't bet on that, should I? Walker Walker Walker 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think ours is. See Special:Version. Also here's the Cite documentation in case you didn't know where it is. --Ymir (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Does Special:Version actually give a version number for the extension? Because clicking through that r##### link and then on the cite extension led to an extremely current version (read: last change yesterday), which I'm sure isn't ours. Walker Walker Walker 21:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I guessed based on the revision number matching the 1.19 Mediawiki release. I could be wrong. You're right that the links are fucked up because Wikimedia changed from SVN to Git. Sure would be nice if we could get upgraded to a supported Mediawiki version... How much would it cost to hire a contractor to do the upgrade? --Ymir (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask questions you don't want answered. Walker Walker Walker 11:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm serious. If our tech staff don't have the time to maintain the servers, we really ought to consider a course of action before someone finds a security hole in old MW versions and we get pwned. Other possibilities might include moving to active hosting, where the server host manages the installed software. I'm a computer nerd (as you might have guessed), but I've got personal stuff going on so I'm not sure it'd be wise for me to volunteer for sysadmin. --Ymir (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

In my experience the upgrade to the current MediaWiki software is rather painless. If there weren't any customizations to consider, the upgraded site is usually up and running quickly. The problem comes with the modifications. I upgraded a MW site to the latest and greatest and found that Semantic MediaWiki on the site was completely borked. In RW's case there appears to be a lot of code that needs to be tested, and this will probably take quite a bit of work to get right. The only other thing I noticed about the newer MediaWiki builds is that the code is getting rather large and consumes somewhat more resources than the older builds. On some servers and/or hosting services this might also be an issue. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

41st Anniversary of Lucy's Discovery[edit]

Saw the Google Doodle just now. Now I'm waiting to see every Fundie screaming and shrieking.

How goes today's historic...day? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 17:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like most of the backlash at the moment is on Twitter. There's a byline on Conservapedia calling it "indoctrination", but that's all I could really find on a cursory search. I suppose we'll probably see more as the day progresses. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, Google the word Conservascreedia. Laugh. Walker Walker Walker 20:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speak of the devil: Answers in Genesis just put up a piece talking about Lucy. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, all of those links are complete horseshit. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 05:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's absolutely painful to read the comments on the stories of this. Like, If I continue reading comments of that magnitude of stupidity, I'm going to give myself an aneurysm. And possibly make it burst. QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 03:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Article on Artificial Life[edit]

Does anyone think it would be a good idea? Here are some links-

Seems like an interesting concept.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now I want to reinstall Creatures. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 20:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Spergs[edit]

Mm, we're making all the right people butthurt. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Found it. It isnt hosted anywhere but you can still download a zip." erm... Walker Walker Walker 23:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

But wait... does this mean I can now call myself an aspie virgin authoritarian cunt? Walker Walker Walker 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Shoot, Madman posted and didn't even shit talk me. This is unacceptable. Walker Walker Walker 23:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And they now know we're reading/laughing, so expect more and better to come. Walker Walker Walker 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The fuck's a sperg? What the fuck's a kiwifarm? And more importantly, why should I give a rat's ass what people think about us? - Shouniaisha (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would guess it short for Aspurger's syndrome, I can't help you with kiwifarm. SolPyre (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized it's a shitty abbreviation for Asperger's. But they do kinda have a point about it being a liberal hugbox. There is this sort of groupthink mentality going on. - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RW has always had a problem with groupthink,as do most online communities, and it's something we should be very careful to push against. That's why we need to protect dissenting voices on here. Tielec01 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Amen to that! As the late great Abbie Hoffman once wrote, "You should measure democracy by the freedom it gives to its dissidents, not the the freedom it gives to its chickenshit conformists", or something to that effect. - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not something we do very well at RW, and more worryingly it's something that I think we have become worse at over time. Tielec01 (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[ec] A group of people who whines about SJW and feminism, and who seem to consider ED a good source. Yeah. But I'm impressed it took them a whole three pages before they went full-on GamerGators. It's all about the ethics in wiki editing. Dendlai (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait, who are we talking about here? RW or those kiwi guys? - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Either the kiwi guys or Aneris, pick one. Dendlai (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I recall, Kiwifarms is a rebranding of the CWCki Forums, which surrounded the whole Chris-chan mess that happened a few years back, and now centers around other sources of online drama (Ahuviya Harel, et al.) now that Chris's situation has gotten depressing. Kiwifarms is... kinda cringey really. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The CWCki even calls Chris "a dried out husk of a lolcow." There's nothing going on with him besides cyberstalking and keeping his life under a magnifying glass. They even caution people against trolling him because it makes the troll a target who will have to spend the rest of their life dealing with their dirty laundry and having harassed a severely Autistic man. You're right that he's just depressing now. I don't put much chance in there ever being a "good" troll again. Aleksandra96 (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

How many years did their R&D take to come up with these brilliant japes? "Call people autistic!" Ah, yes; I can hardly breathe! Maybe they'll honk their noses next. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 17:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The answer to that question sounds suspiciously like the punchline to a "how many Bammers..." joke. Walker Walker Walker 17:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well this is all going in a predictable direction for both sides. Knew nothing good would come when I saw that thread go up.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing good? Whaaaat? Their adorable green-and-white striped pants are at least good to kill a few moments staring at. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 17:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

And yes, it is fun being obtuse like this. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see groupthink at RW (I do see some unattractive, unfair and arbitrary application of not-rules-because-there-are-so-few.) Ideological views are pretty wide-ranging, except for essentially total consensus on core anti-woo. And that's fine, because we couldn't be what we are without protecting the core.---Mona- (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RW's groupthink is more personal than ideological. If you don't fit in or the mob don't like you, you'll struggle to get your ideas to stick, even if you're right. Bicycle^wheel

18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm. It seems I can hold indirect conversation with them. (I think. Usually these types get fussy over invitations.)Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 20:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh good lord[edit]

Stop it already. We don't need to make this into a pointless pissing content between us and them. @Narky, stop needlessly antagonizing them. Plus, they do a good job on calling out the bullshit in the CA community, even if I don't always agree with their wording, so they cannot be 100% bad.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I had no plans to do anything else after the green background thingy. That's why it was green. And I wasn't trying to antagonize them. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 22:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I need to make a comment about soup for some reason. Please let this be the last comment here, even though it looks like I'm mucking things up further. The soup king demands it, for his crackers grow stale. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 22:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

DFTT[edit]

They feed on our attention. Let's not give them what they want. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Yo, gatorade me bitch!} 03:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In which Raysenn is proven right Walker Walker Walker 09:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Idea- Make articles that make fun of low budget disaster films[edit]

I am aware there is an article that makes fun of the movie but there are plenty of low budget disaster films to make fun of (2012:Doomsday, 2012 Supernova, The Apocalypse, Meteor Apocalypse, Magma: Volcanic Disaster, Arctic Blast). Maybe would could make fun of those movies because they violate the laws of physics at every turn.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

an article doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but how about forumspace or even the dreaded Funspace? Bicycle^wheel

18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had a good horselaugh at a movie as I got out of the Dwayne Johnson vehicle San Andreas. The premise is that Johnson is the world's greatest rescue chopper pilot. Horrific earthquakes destroy the Hoover Dam, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. After they strike, the world's greatest rescue pilot never gets a single call on his radio, not even while he's still tooling around in his rescue chopper. Instead, he's free to seek out his ex and his daughter while the catastrophes unfold. Maybe he had the good sense to turn the radio off. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want hilariously bad then watch 2012:Doomsday, it is a religious disaster film with poor physics and pseudo-history.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Bicycle wheel makes a good point. Making fun of these "films" would be great for the forum space or funspace, but an article on the subject should present the issue in a more academic way. You'll find in most cases with creationists and fundies, their own words backed up with good references demonstrate their flawed arguments nicely, and in many cases are as priceless as the snark that goes with a good RW article. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I get your point, I am fine with that but in my opinion 2012:Doomsday would make a great addition. Not only does it violate the laws of physics and it claims Mayans were Christians.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

So, here's a novel idea. You could add 2012:Doomsday to RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions and see what the community thinks about it. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As an example, I put COINTELPRO in the todo list a little while ago, and this article is percolating into a fine start evan as I write this. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, boy![edit]

Navigating RationalWiki with a Steam controller is an enjoyably pointless novelty! ...Now if only I could use Steam's keyboard without putting Firefox in my Steam library... Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I bet you can't wait for RW to implement Big Picture Mode! I want a VR David Icke squirming next to me as I peruse his article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

But you are a VR David Icke! M Night Shyamalan (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Holy macaroni - that needs to go in my sandbox! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Election Results.[edit]

As Returning Officer, I hereby tentatively certify that Gerard, Fuzzy, Paravant and Goonie are our new mods. I have posted the numbers HERE and HERE. Note that I am calling it tentative, because I think the mob should see the data and ensure it passes the stink test. If nobody finds any hanging chads in the next 24 hrs, we can call it official, I think.

ALL thanks go to Tielec01 who did the grunt work when it became clear that my number-crunching skills were not up to the task. PacWalker also had smart things to say on my talk page. Thanks for caring. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no longer a Mod! Free at last! (runs round RationalWiki naked) Bicycle^wheel

18:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad someone made head or tail of it, and next time Tielec01 is returning officer :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want the job anyway. *eats tub of ice cream, sobs* -CU

I certainly hope that ice cream is GMO - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Cows genetically engineered to make tastier ice cream when

Come on science |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Everybody betray me! I fed up with this world!} 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

59 members voted? More than I imagined!--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

...And I, for one, welcome our new RW overlords... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! Congrats everyone! Fortunately I am immune to their mod powers as I exist on the quantum level! QuantumDude ^{I am beyond your understanding} 15:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you're single? Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast! *throws a giant blanket over the "winners" and dons a sweet cardboard crown* I declare myself to hold all four moderator spots! Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I declare myself the Great Khan! Walker Walker Walker 23:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki: the poem[edit]

Le Douche Liberalle:

My peers convinced me, that there was no middle ground in politics, that both sides were extreme, and that both had their plus sides; the answer was in between, then I found Rational Wiki.
I used to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but then I found Rational Wiki.
I used to believe that vaccines caused autism and didn't work, but then I found Rational Wiki.
I used to believe in homeopathic medicine and buy herbal supplements, but then I found Rational Wiki.
I used to be treated by "energy healers" and chiropractors, but then I found Rational Wiki.
I used to be a creationist, but then I found Rational Wiki.
South Park told me that Global Warming was just a liberal hoax and scam, that any geologist could tell me so, and to shout MANBEARPIG at Al Gore for his Oscar winning Powerpoint Presentations. Then I found Rational Wiki.
Hollywood action stars told me that Gun Control was for "pussies", then I found Rational Wiki.
Penn & Teller would protect me against frauds and charlatans but also tell me that environmentalism and public safety laws were bad, then I found Rational Wiki.
I used to be a "libertarian" and vote Ron Paul, but then I found Rational Wiki.
Encyclopedia Dramatica told me that being an apathetic apolitical troll and stalking and harassing folks was cool, then I found RationalWiki.
Maddox and Dick Masterson taught me that chauvinism was funny, but then I found Rational Wiki.
GamerGate told me that feminism in games is bad and that it was all about "ethics", but then I found Rational Wiki.
I was a moron, but now I am not, thanks to Rational Wiki.
I was liberal once, and now I am liberal again, thanks to Rational Wiki.
I was right once, and now I am right again, thanks to Rational Wiki.
They tell me to "do my own research", and I do, from Rational Wiki.

I can't tell where it falls on the "sincere yet sadly sycophantic" to "Poe's Law example" scale. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The worst part is that literally several (!) of those isolated statements kinda sorta describe the role RW has helped to play in my life, no doubt. I'm not even kidding, I'm sorry to say. So in my tiny ant life, RW has certainly mattered. But not in this buttery prose style, naturally - it does come across as kind of drearily sycophantic. And the "I am no longer an idiot" one can obviously not really be said in my case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I used to think Wanking was a city in China. Then I discovered Smirnoff. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Presumably it's supposed to be sung to this tune. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Help a beginner out?[edit]

Okay, so I'm pretty new to wikis, and I'm probably going to need some help along the way. Right now I'm trying my hand at writing an article, and I was wondering how to cite a specific page number (like for a pdf). Are pdfs even an acceptable resource? Thanks in advance. - Shouniaisha (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Depending on where they are from, PDF may be cited. The only thing that is looked down upon because of its format is youtube videos, as a lot of cranks roam those parts... As for which page... Just say which page page five of the pdf like this Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course we'll help when you ask so nicely! Welcome to RW. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you have questions that don't fit in the Saloon Bar. Regarding .pdf's; as that is really just a file format there are no rules against those whatsoever. Just use good sources and give page number and additional info as you would a book. And Avenger is right on YouTube sources - unless you literally mean to source crank stuff, or quotes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you both so very much for the info. I've only got one source so far, but I'll try and use mostly archival documents, and reviewed shit. - Shouniaisha (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No problems. Don't forget to consult the help pages, also. And take care to use high quality sources whenever possible (no loon sources, e.g. the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes). When in doubt, feel free to ask. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

PDFs (and indeed all other formats) are fine, but watch out for translation issues (see below). Bicycle^wheel

09:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Citing sources in languages other than English[edit]

So is there any established precedent? Because sometimes a good source happens to be in some non-English language and not quoting it would imho do this site a disservice... But of course quoting it means some of our readers won't understand it... So...? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sometime, it's rather unavoidable, if we have articles about people, groups and/or organizations not having made a splash in English-language media.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Google translate has a feature to translate entire pages. Obviously it's not 100% accurate, but maybe you could try using that? I don't know if that'd be acceptable though. - Shouniaisha (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

He could try Google translate. Altho, that's pretty dicey translation software. This pertains to whether or not the subject of an article is an antisemite, which the subject denies and has sued over the accusation in Germany, and apparently won. Avenger wishes to label the subject an antisemite but I can't check any of the references that are in German. This conversation is going on at the talk page for the article and I'm not certain why Avenger brought it here.---Mona- (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My general impression is that we ought to use caution with non-english and especially machine translated sources. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As a last resort I would say. I know I recently used a Spanish citation as there was no other apparent source - it was not an especially important point though. In controversial articles in particular, I think it is unwise to use citations in anything other than the English language.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but is more readily verifiable than offline sources. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. If you mean books, aside from there being a lot of them available -- or at least parts of them -- on Google books, one can always get a book from the library. But how can a non-German speaker/reader verify a majority of sources, especially about the most critical claims, that are all in German?---Mona- (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's an online source in another language, readers can use an online translator. It won't be perfect but they can get the gist of it and it only takes a couple of clicks. On the other hand, going to the library & ordering an obscure book is a lot of legwork to check up on something you read online, & if it's a book in another language that you can't read it'll be no good to you anyway. Most of the time when somebody cites something in an article to an offline source the statement & citation sits there unchallenged, & I suspect usually unverified by other readers/editors. So my order of preference would be: online source in English, online source in another language, offline source in English, & (last resort) offline source in another language. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the words in question (the trial is about to go into its final round in front of the German "constitutional court" or "supreme court") were "glühender Antisemit" which you can ask you translation service of choice to translate for you but has been translated as "fiery Antisemite". The only English language sources that have covered the story at all are these two, which show that something about this whole thing is squarely on mission if Antisemitism and dog whistle terms are... And as for the general points regarding sources: Yeah, Books and other offline stuff is to be avoided if possible... Hard Paywalled (you gotta pay to read even one bit of it) stuff likewise Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That last article would suggest that in Germany some want the law to deem as antisemitic what is not reasonably considered so. Jeremy Corbyn also attends Al Quds day rallies; a lot of pro-Palestinian people do. That cannot be the threshold for calling someone an antisemite any place reasonable, including at this wiki. @Weaseloid, I guess I agree with you. However, I'm quite reluctant to trust most translation software, especially when fine legal points are at issue.---Mona- (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ken Jebsen (a political friend of Elsässer) has said (and been fired for those comments) "I know who invented the Holocaust as PR"... And Elsässer has said similar stuff, though he has been a bit more careful about the more direct stuff Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to quote something, that presumably means you can understand the original, so why not translate it? (I'm referring to the sentence "But of course quoting it means some of our readers won't understand it... ")--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 06:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Racist or just plain stupid family members thread[edit]

First off, happy Thanksgiving everyone! Hope you all enjoy your evil GMO potatoes! Anyway, I thought I'd get this started off a wee bit early,. A nice thread to post the idiotic ramblings of your family members during this Thanksgiving (I know there's bound to be some). Whether racist, homophobic, islamophobic, batshit insane, any flavor of stupid will suffice. - Shouniaisha (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Uncle is ranting about how he shouldn't have to pay higher health insurance for being a smoking alcoholic, and blames Obama Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Besides one other cousin i'm the only liberal person in my family, and she's still a christian liberal. This should tell you what it's like at the many, many family get togethers my family has. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Same's with me. My father and sister try to adhere to a rather orthodox strain of Judaism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of my family is atheist. My significant other, however, is not. But my way of "celebrating" Thanksgiving is - you guessed it - Football ;-) Romo threw three picks as of now... It's been a good day in that at least ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My dad and I somehow got on the topic of the "America is a Christian nation" subject after arguing whether south LA missile a few weeks ago was a missile or a UFO. Blegh. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 00:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had to insist that my mother and my aunt (her sister) not discuss either religion or politics with me. It drives me crazy and a few times I've sent angry email after stewing about it -- especially when the aunt sent me a bunch of VHS (!!) tapes with the Truth as communicated by Glenn Beck. She had also implored me, that if I loved my children, I would not vote for Obama in '08. (This aunt was a delegate for Rick Santorum.) I told her, not long ago, that Congress is run by millionaires, and she said there were hardly any! Fox is all they watch; they think CNN is "liberal," and they sometimes worry about Fox, too.---Mona- (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

*Reads through thread* Ok - holy hell I love my family. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I think I would be amused by the Glenn Beck Tapes. Also, on a completely different note, does anyone else watch The Jimquisition? On a few occasions he mentions a "Fox vs. CNN mentality", which always seemed a little strange to me. Samstr (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Truly FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My aunt went on about how glorious welfare is, and that it's mainly used by lazy people who've given up looking for a job. My mother (somebody who exhausted their unemployment, and spends the day sleeping and talking on the phone) was just as eager to place the blame on the nonexistent welfare queens. Also, they threw in some insults towards Arabs for not learning an entire different language in the six weeks that they've been here. Surprisingly, that's all they complained about. I'm honestly shocked they didn't mention the "Islamification of America" or how Trump's leading the crusade on big bad Cultural Marxist thinking. - Shouniaisha (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A certain friend of mine was watching a sitcom in which one of the actors happened to be Indian. The said actor spoke English with no accent. During one episode, the actor's character talked about homosexuals and did other "uncouth" things, and then this said friend started going on about the actor's "vulgarity" and started hurling all sorts of racial slurs at them. The stuff the actor was saying was no more "vulgar" than the dialogue usually encountered in the sitcoms this friend's watched, yet he never complained about "vulgarity" when watching any of these other white-people sitcoms — which, to me, indicates the complaint about "vulgarity" was just a pretext to say anti-Indian things. Indeed, every time he opens his mouth to talk about Indians or Chinese, he always says something racist or wiggles his head mockingly while putting on an Indian accent to show how ridiculous Indians' head-moving gestures are. Ironically, this said friend is a hardcore New Ager who claims to be so spiritual, enlightened, and pro-Eastern Wisdom compared to everyone else. Blah.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 06:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not one to celebrate holidays (that is a whole other quagmire), but this one had some notable... differences. I haven't had big holiday celebrations for years and this was the closest; I went to my mom's boyfriend's house with my grandparents, mother, and brother where everything seemed fine and none political until Fox News came on (my grandfather is still an avowed Republican even if they disgust him) and talked about Trump bashing people. My mom's bf immediately stated that the media always gives Trump the raw deal and never talks about if what he is saying is 'reasonable'. He then talked about how whites are becoming a minority, which scares him, and how affirmative action is helping Mexicans, which I presume he means all Latinos, who haven't lived her more than half a year (which is untrue) steal all the construction jobs from white grandchildren. My grandfather mentioned the refugees, specifically the Syrians, and my mom's bf said we have to watch out because they are changing the demographics of America. He preceded to state that black people think differently about violence compared to white people which is proven by the prison population, that Jews own Hollywood, aliens came to Earth thousands of years ago, and stated his admiration for China's autocratic rule; his preferred policies are that businesses their use taylorism and how failure in management results in death specifically in firing squad. Oh did I mention he recognizes that he death penalty is unequally applied, but still thinks its justified? Now how much my grandfather agreed with his views idk; I do know that he believes in ancient aliens, believes in secure borders though he is alright with some immigration, tolerates homosexuality even if it makes him uneasy, believes in racial equality, and is against affirmative action and universal healthcare.--Owlman (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds exactly like my uncle (surprisingly he didn't say anything stupid this year), save for the ancient aliens. Unfortunately my dad (who's a pretty liberal guy, though we kinda go back and forth playing devil's advocate) believes in all that alien bullshit. Now, personally, I believe that aliens have to exist (or at least had to). It's a statistical improbability that out of the entire universe earth was the only planet to harbor advanced life. Which he agrees with. But then he goes full moron and thinks that humanity has been visited, not once, not twice, but "countless" times throughout history. It's Puma Punku this and biodome on the moon this. It pisses me right the fuck off. Thankfully he's smart enough to know not to bring up politics or conspiracies during holiday get-togethers. - Shouniaisha (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the solar panels that my parents installed on the roof are evil because solar energy receives government subsidies. At least according to my grandparents. Samstr (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to repent[edit]

For some reason, the sources won't display properly in my latest two additions to the Ray Comfort article (Could use some help with that - the portrait text and the quote both incorrectly display ref #1, even when there's a separate ref plainly given for the portrait subtitle that should number as ref #2). And then it hit me.

Pictures sometimes won't display instantly after being uplodaded here, so I uploaded it here as well. That's it, I'm barring my door shut. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what's wrong. One moment. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems it didn't work. Moar spells and trickery, if you please, my dear Narky. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That edit was from before I thought I had found the reason. Now I'm stumped, because it's not an issue caused by the template (which has happened before). Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, good... let the hate flow through you Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness though, did the code just break with my 666 symbol long edit? I can't wait for this entire conversation to be screncapped to the InfoWars forums as proof of... something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed that, if I change the order of things, I can get different errors or none at all. Which must mean... Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it by putting the {{raycomfort}} template after the {{cquote}} template. Navboxes fuck up references sometime. No idea why, but I've ran into this problem a number of times. More such weirdness came up at Tech Support a while ago (where I did exactly the reverse to fix it). Gotta love MediaWiki. Perhaps an update to the software might help (DAVID!!) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That didn't work, it ate two more refs. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

But it fixed the first two refs! ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. It changed the order of the error, so it went 1213 instead of 1123. It can be fixed by putting the navbox where no ref comes before it, but... That does look ugly. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've got a fix: Make a table in the opening section, have the text in the left side and the picture on the right side. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sshhhh, you'll make the html5 "semantic web" evangelists cry. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Ah; I just clicked the first two and those seemed to work. Thanks. I did some more looking, and the source of the problem is at Template:Randomarticles, which uses dpl. It seems that all references prior to a dpl tag or template are "eaten". Note sure which flavour of DPL we use (there seem to be 3), but here's a discussion about it and here's a 2009 bugreport that's still open... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope you like centered images! =D Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 22:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks old timer. Though, Gerard wasn't kidding when he said the MediaWiki software is made entirely of cocks, squared. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Old timer? D= Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 22:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm your Uncle Gerry; I do magic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Meaning - I quote the brilliant Dr. Steve Brule whenever I can. Just CTRL+F my talk page for "old timer". This is how I say goodbye to people I just met for the first time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

non-English RW articles[edit]

Taking this from the AFd discussion, do we want to keep them? Purge them? Keep some and purge others? Jumpstart the Rationalwiki project into all colors of the language rainbow?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I vote to keep some and purge some, although this may be my bilingual bias speaking... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 01:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the main concern moderation and legal issues? If so, I can see why deletion would be prudent. It would be crazy to have RMF exposed to a libel suit for example just because no moderator understood the language of the offending article.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think having RW in other languages would be great, but there is the issue of moderators and legal issues. Does the Board have a position on articles in other languages? If not, should it?---Mona- (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Some arguments in favour of keeping these pages:

Some pages deal with topics that are of primary interest to some region, for example Juan Andrés Salfate (español) is primarily of Chilean interest, and not everyone reads English equally well. Similarly, something like Modern Science in the Bible is primarily of Dutch interest (almost all references are Dutch).
Why not have these pages? Some pages like Ψευδοεπιστήμη or Nemmeno sbagliato (Italiano) seem to have been a rather large investment of time.

The only argument for removing these pages that I can think of is that RW is not a very large community, and it's difficult for the community to judge the quality, update, or otherwise improve these pages. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't we be hosting utter tripe, even fascist crap, and not know it?---Mona- (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's happened before. ArcticVixen (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Nja, den risken lär väl inte finnas - länder där man inte exklusivt talar engelska upplever ju som bekant ingen form av politik, agenda eller kontrovers överhuvudtaget. ...Eller vänta, hur var det nu med det där egentligen? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Which is to say, yes, this really is a huge potential problem. We need to codify english as the article language here, even if all sources were to rely on translation. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more productive to maintain a list of users who can review pages. I have good reading knowledge of French and Latin, for instance. And I really need to translate more pages here into Latin. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes. There is a global shortage of snark in Latin.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can also pretty decently read French, but only have some Church Latin. I aspire, however, to read Esperanto. (No, really.)---Mona- (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sign me up for translating Swedish, Norwegian (as this is simply drunk Swedish) and Feminist Interpretive Dance. Just not the language of subtle humor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can read Esperanto (mi ne ŝercas), Catalan, Spanish and French. I can get the gist of texts written in most Romance languages without much difficulty. (I deleted on sight plenty of Portuguese articles that obviously had nothing to do with our mission.) The wisest heads at RW at the moment seem to have decided to neither discourage nor encourage more articles in languages other than English. I'm happy to go along with that for now. Spud (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My largest concerns are legal.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"I can read Esperanto (mi ne ŝercas)" That's so cool. If I recall correctly from looking into it some years ago, one can find instruction online. It's something I've always wanted to do, in part because as a kid the nuts at church were ranting Esperanto was a plot by the NWO, Communists, the Trilateral Commission and all that crap. But the very idea of it totally captivated me.---Mona- (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can do something cool! Ĉu vi scias ke mi estas juda? Spud (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty much indifferent to whether we continue to invite new contributions in other languages, but in my view the paranoia about "hosting utter tripe, even fascist crap" is misplaced. The guy posting dubious stuff in Portuguese was noticed & brought to community attention pretty rapidly. Sure it's possible for a dubious article/edit to go unnoticed for a long time, but this can happen (& has happened) in English just as easily as in other languages. Re the existing articles I don't care if stubby useless ones are deleted, but clearly others have been a work of some effort and ones like Loi de Poe are filling a gap for terms internet users may search for (compare French Wikipedia's weedy Loi de Poe entry). Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If we do end up keeping these pages, then I can offer to help patrol the Spanish language pages. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 05:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the way we do them right now is bad, as it does not help to attract monolingual speakers of languages other than English. There is no part of our mission statement that is not equally valid to other languages. And given the "recent" spread of evangelical insanity in addition to Catholic dogma in much of the places South of the Rio Grande having a "Spanish version" of RW catering to Latin@s may well be good idea indeed. And if there might arise some cultural differences, so be it. German WP does not even have fact tags, for instance. And they get by fine. I say let's start: Project Spanish RW (given that it is the language most likely to succeed) and make it so that it is not just sub-pages of English RW... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As between "SJWs" and a serious left[edit]

While I have very little use for the epithet the "SJW" thing has become, I do find some of the cultural left utterly unserious and even infantile. Not all of this essay speaks for me. (Certainly in an American context I am far more left than right and do not remotely wish to see a "balance" between the two; the right in the U.S. is a freak show.) But this is true:

What I will call the New Leftism has recently fought tooth and nail for the noble cause of…gender free bathrooms. But it has been notably ineffective at mobilizing towards a single goal which truly matters in broad political or economic terms (yes: that means to the average household). The harsh truth is this. While you might win gender-free bathrooms, without a government to invest in the sets of rights and obligations that underpin them (for example, the actual bathrooms, the roads, the electricity, the taxes, the courts, etc), such a victory is merely an exercise in vanity.

...

What do religious fundamentalists, gated-community dwelling wannabe oligarchs, and New Leftists have in common? A lot more than you might think at first: all want to approve the books their neighbours read, the films they watch, the words they say, the signs in their backyards. All want safe spaces, where threats cannot intrude. All want control over culture as it is — not to reorder society with a new set of institutions entirely (i.e., basic income, debt-free education, open universities, whatever). Surveillance states want “protest free zones”, and Political Correctness wants “safe spaces”. Evangelicals want warning labels on everything, New Leftists want “trigger warnings”.

...

Why is it that college organizers can organize no-platforms (i.e., ban) speakers they find threatening…for crimes against the people like using the wrong language, terms, phrases…but not organize actual large-scale political demonstrations against serious issues that matter? Can you remember the last time there was a series of huge marches on Washington for a single issue solely concerning youngs…who are borked like no generation in modern history? I can’t.

Much of the Western left is focusing on the ultimate in First World Problems as the world burns. I'm only maginally less annoyed with them than I am with Gamergaters and others who would make them into some Huge Problem, for almost entirely wrong reasons.---Mona- (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"Why is it that college organizers can organize no-platforms (i.e., ban) speakers they find threatening…for crimes against the people like using the wrong language, terms, phrases…but not organize actual large-scale political demonstrations against serious issues that matter? " I guess Mizzou and all of the other campus activism re: BLM never made it to the headlines where this writer lives. EDIT: Nor did the marked increase in activism re: rape on campus, I guess. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Those things happened, yes, but not so much in Europe. Moreover, there is a good deal of this bullshit popular on U.S. campuses. "Safe spaces" and "trigger warnings," as well as a lot of focus on the right names for various and every-diversifying sexual minorities and what is "proper" to be said to and about them. It's getting very First World narcissistic.---Mona- (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is inane. And I say that as someone who reads Tumblr - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

David, assertion noted.---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This essay screams "quit caring about stuff that I don't care about!" I could totally see it saying "same-sex marriage doesn't mobilize toward a goal that truly matters" at some point. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the rest of it is lazily-written self-serving garbage. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 19:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is important; that's not what the author is arguing about or against. (I was agitating for SSM when some here were still in Daddy's nutsac.)He's making the same sort of criticism academic Freddie deBoer does. There is a strain of cultural Stalinism on campus, and online as well. I've seen it on Twitter and a few have tried to subject me to it (being me, and not an intimidated college sophmore, I had no difficultly telling them to fuck themselves). That, and as I said, some of this is grossly self-indulgent, narcissistic bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

if you want them to care more about political causes not social causes, I can promise you that this is the wrong way to make it happen--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, "social causes" ARE political issues. In any event, the point is how they prioritize their politics and police people on the "right way" to speak. The left could, of course, leave all such criticism to the right. That would be a really good idea because they need stuff to demagogue more effectively with. The powers that be were intensely interested in destroying Occupy; they care far less about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" and all that shit. There's a reason for that.---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want then to care about what they carec about less, I can promise you this, everything you and all the new old left say about them, will not accomplish that. At best you will win some converts to "the right priorities", more then likely vyou'll just jade them into doing nothing--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC

Paravant, I am not trying to convince college kids and others to "care more" about this or that. No, I'm letting the adults and reasonable people know there is an issue, and bringing that issue to light. Do you think the Koch brothers give two tinker's damns if a lot of left-wing political energy and capital are spent on trigger warnings and safe spaces? The right answer is not: "Of course they don't give a tinker's damn." The correct answer is: "Yes, they are delighted."---Mona- (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That's it exactly. If your politics is about representation, language, and imagery, your 'victories' will consist of nothing but tokenism and etiquette. These things may in fact be good things, but it's silly to imagine that they can change the way the world works. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, gender-free bathrooms are at least a practical goal that can be achieved through political action. Universal respect and an environment in which all sorts of identities have equal social capital and representation is, I agree, a fool's errand. No conceivable government could achieve these goals, and politics that isn't about influencing what governments do is just annoying noise. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There have been big changes over past century in how, for example, women, homosexuals & ethnic minorities, are viewed within society, & these aren't just because of changes in the law. In fact the changes in law were largely achieved because of shifting public attitudes towards these groups. So I can't agree that campaigning for respect is a fool's errand. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

But what if it doesn't bring about change, and the world was made a better place for nothing? Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 18:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Neither I nor the sites I linked and/or quoted are anything but supportive of social changes -- as well as legal -- for gays, women, minorities. Real people have to live their lives in the here and now. But that reality has nothing to do with the issues *I raised.---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Can the Chicago police officer get a fair trial[edit]

With the release of dash-cam footage of the Chicago shooting in 2014, can Officer Jason Van Dyke get a fair trial? Compared to the current trial of Const. James Forcillo, who is charged in the death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim in the Toronto streetcar shooting, details were kept away from the media and the public until the trial.--Cms13ca 00:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a serious concern. A fair trial is a fundamental and important right. Officer Van Dyke, however, is paying the price for a police department that has been brutal, and which lies constantly. The community was not going to have it any longer, and see yet another officer get away literally with murder. The blame should be laid at the feet of CPD; for the prosecution would not be happening had that cam footage not been released.---Mona- (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has time[edit]

A critical survey of vestigial structures in the postcranial skeletons of extant mammals FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

An interesting article. Any particular reason you posted it? Also, I have never heard of that site before. Seems to be some sort of wannabe arXiv. DarkAngelCryo (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Seemed like a useful article for evidence of evolution αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 11:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Vestigial structures are constantly brought up in arguments about evolution. Bicycle^wheel

12:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

^ αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How long does it take for poeople to notice and comment on new fun pages and essays?[edit]

Hi! ClickerClock (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, hi! And now I'm going to refer to top-tier satirists as "Poeople" now. You inadvertently gave me a new word. ArcticVixen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I pronounce it, Master? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections on TOW[edit]

Any bad apples? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 11:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If I didn't look at WiA every so often to see what people are saying about us/Ryu, I wouldn't even know there were arbcom elections on wikipedia. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, WiA exists. Walker Walker Walker 05:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh look, WiA is still WiA. That was boring. Walker Walker Walker 05:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nav templates breaking refs?[edit]

Maybe this thread belongs in the techichal support forum, but... what's the prognosis on getting this fixed? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone steps up and fixes the outstanding DPL bug: I would say there is no prognosis and we'll have to "deal with it"... Maybe I'll take a look at it at some point, maybe not. The fact that RW hasn't received any updates in a long time isn't exactly motivating here... Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be on the tech support page & examples would be useful. Ŵêâŝêîôîď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

While I was out Ryulong was finally stripped of his sysop status[edit]

What led to this? Did we all get tired of him being a complete self-mockery? I have thought about suggesting that he be banned but the way he keeps stirring drama and staying here even when everyone hates him is a lot funnier to watch. Aleksandra96 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fatal error in process ironyMtr.exe Walker Walker Walker 00:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You have your own forums to poke at Ryu at while mocking him, no need to spread the shit here. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well done Paravant! Instead removing the comment, getting into an edit war about it because you have no good reason to delete these comments and packing a sad you approached this like an adult and commented on it in the hope others will refrain from carrying this on. Might I also point out that this is the Saloon Bar so people can pretty much comment on what they want - even if you don't like it. Amazing! Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

When I want advice on what is "proper adult ways to act" you'll be the last I ask about it ace.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I wouldn't give you any advice anyway. But if I need advice on how to be a fascist bullyboy can I come ask you? Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

NO SOUP FOR YOU! Walker Walker Walker 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, you always seemed to have it good enough on how to do that with all the "remove users rights, block eternal" thing you and your friends kept doing to users you didn't like. No need for me to advise you on that at all. | Now if we want to talk about were I got my bad fascist habits from, watching you guys do whatever you want without punishment really didn't help at all. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I ever did that, sorry Paravant. Once as a mod I stripped all the other mod rights (including my own) but that was it. You must have me confused with someone else. But nevermind because that was some 3 years ago and this is now. So why don't you, you know, stop being such a flagrant jackass and throwing your weight around, deleting comments you don't like (in violation of the community standards), fucking with other peoples userspaces (in violation of the community standards) and "barring" people from editing articles (which you can't do). OK? Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Because you never once supported Nutty and his stupidity when he decided he knew better and acted as community cleaner for "trash users". But of course, I shouldn't do what the adults do, that would be silly. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not as a mod, no. If you have a problem with Nutty then address him, not me.

And you know what, I don't see any reason for us to host a users comments which are only designed to poke at another user and cause shit. This isnt some innocent user being maimed by the corrupt hand of tyranny, it's an idiot who wants to shit on users here. Or do you really think his comments above were designed for spirited discussion about how Ryulong abused his revdel?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not as a mod, no. If you have a problem with Nutty then address him, not me. And the issue here is you recent...err..."tactics" of the last 24 hours. Not the actions of users 3 years ago.

I don't see any reason for us to host a users comments which are only designed to poke at another user and cause shit. It doesn't matter how you see it - it isn't your call to make. Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So discuss how Ryulong shouldn't be banned because its lolzy not to do so. I;m sure great things will come from OP's intended discussion. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about Ryulong, know nothing about this user nor have been following discussions regarding him. All I have seen in the last couple of weeks is your chucking your weight around like a self-aggrandising bully. So, just as a suggestion, how about not deleting peoples userspace pages, deleting comments and attempting to stop users from editing? Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Shitpost Brigade is out in full force. ArcticVixen (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, additional shitposting might've substantially improved this thread. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost like, otherwise... The thread would be a shit post! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't here for a short time, what did Dragondragon do to lose his sysop-rights?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted a link here: http://aleksandra96i.tumblr.com/post/134297466267/ryulong-finally-thrown-out-of-the-council-of-rw

It looks like all he did was piss off Paravant, again. There was a lot of tension between them since all Ryu does is kick up shit and start trouble. I'm against banning him. I hope he realized he isn't wanted here and leaves. He already failed on the first day of a LANCB because someone said something he disagreed with. Aleksandra96 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Damn, all this cool shit happens again when I'm away from RW! --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It was too anti-climatic. He technically gave permission for Paravant to make him sysoprevoke. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Jacobin attitudes on campus[edit]

Most here agree that the "SJW" epithet is bullshit, and that includes me. But, the fact that reactionary asshats such as those in the Gamergate cohort rant about nonsense does not mean there is not a strain of illiberalism running through some on the younger left. In my strong view, the vicious attacks on Erika and Nicholas Christakis at Yale are an example of this problem.---Mona- (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Obama's position on this seems the most reasonable -- yes, people shouldn't have to face racism or sexism or anything like that. But while those issues exist, the only way to fix them is not to plug your ears, ignore the opposition, and hope they go away (or no platform them), but engage them and crush them. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

inb4 Mr. Price of Fish contrasts (not wrongly) with his foreign policy 104.5.9.13 (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

−

(ec) The triviality of the issues involved (Halloween costumes? Really?) is annoying, but isn't the real problem. It's the focusing of so much bitterness at soft targets that annoys me more than anything else. Every one of these fusses underlines the general helplessness and powerlessness of the left in the USA. If I were an evil right wing mastermind, I'd make sure that identity politics and labelling kept the left divided and perennially agitated over silly symbolic stuff. It's just like keeping the rubes whose grievances are genuine stirred up about gays, guns, abortion, and Jesus. The more worked up they get about that stuff, the less they'll focus on us. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The original e-mail was entirely reasonable, and just asked (not demanded) students to ask themselves some simple questions before chosing their Halloween costume. Erika Christakis' reply e-mail was fairly over the top and a bit embarrassing (it can pretty much be summed up as "a little blackface isn't wrong, is it...?"). I'm also less than convinced that allowing racism/homophobia/sexism/etc at college campuses do much to advance free speech. Like with gamergate, this seems to be what it boils down to 90+% of the time: "don't you dare criticise my racist/homophobic/sexist fun! I'm only having fun!" Dendlai (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't her email at all. Erika's email was "I don't know what costume is right or wrong, only that I shouldn't mandate right or wrong. Think for yourselves, like grown-ups. Because if the university can tell you 'no offensive outfits', nothing prevents the university from telling you 'no miniskirts'." CorruptUser (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you missed the parts of her e-mail discussing appropriation in a rather inane way. But furthermore, you underscore what's so bad about her e-mail: The original e-mail, literally, just asked students to think. Erika then goes on to say "No! Don't let people ask you to think! Instead, think!". Huh? Nothing about the original was the university telling people what they could wear. It was just a lot of people whined that "I don't want to think... Why is the university telling me what to do?" Dendlai (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So where was the part where that excused the PC brigade from, by letter of the law, assaulting people who attended a conference? I don't believe there's an "I'm offended" defense for spitting on people. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The original email was by the administrators. Erika basically said "Administrators, not our job". What Erika said was pretty reasonable to me. Really, these damn kids need to grow some thicker skin and get off my lawn. CorruptUser (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"The administrators"? Lessee... "Office of LGBTQ Resources", "Afro American Cultural Center", "Yale Dean of the College Office/Office of Student Life" and so on. Seems like the kind of people who should talk about this. That some thin-skinned students took it as an order (illiteracy), and instead of arguing just... Didn't want to think, is a bit sad. Why is it whenever people cricize things they consider racist/homophobic/etc, they're accused of wanting to stop free speech? Because that's what I see more often than not: people confusing free speech with freedom from criticism. Dendlai (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Presumably because they're expecting freedom from being assaulted in the name of "safe spaces"? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's because they want to dismiss that criticism in any way they can. It's a way of shutting down the argument. You see it all the time with reactionaries online-- the same people accusing others of being "pro-censorship" for being critical of a peice of media they like turn around and try to, say, flag the video and get it taken down. Almost like they want a "safe space" from criticism. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[re-adding 'cause an edit by Paravant removed it] Nothing I've read about this thing talks about people being assaulted or spat on. The worst thing mentioned in the linked articles is "yelled at". "Criticized" is the common thing, which thin-skinned people, it seems, can't handle. Dendlai (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(yeah I got hit by that too, looks like we were all editing at the same time). The situation is even more ludicrous online, because-- with things like Anita Sarkeesian's videos, for example, which have that same reaction from these types of people, these guys could just... Y'know. Not watch them, if it upsets them so much? It's a really weird trend. It's a little more understandable when it's happening on colleges, but most of the aggression I've heard about has seem to have been caused by... The people complaining about criticism being censorship. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[4], [5]. There are plenty of conservative news outlets that discuss it too, but the idea that they might have a point about anything doesn't seem to go over too well here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dendlai, it's absolutely unhinged to see anything racist in Erika's email. To think reacting by demanding the woman's resignation is reasonable, to reject all her overtures to smooth things over -- to react as if all of that is other than outrageous is itself outragous. In the 60s and 70s college students fought to be treated like adults and not have the university behave as in loco parentis. Now, some of you want to bring the nannies back, not to patrol sex lives and partying, but rather to act as if the KKK might be lurking in College Masters at Yale. You know, there is an actual problem with white supremacy booming in the U.S., but it isn't fucking at Yale. Jesus.---Mona- (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't really talk about Erika's e-mail being racist. I rather think it's inane in its attempt to disccuss appropriation and Halloween costumes in general. Also, the original e-mail only asked students to think before acting. Sheesh, you're misreading the original letter as badly as Erika and the poor students who thought they were given an order. Also, reading through your links, some students have been critical of her husband and thinks he's not fit for his position. I didn't see anyone asking for Erika to be fired in what you linked. You being outraged that some students dismissed Erika's husband's attempts to defend her is weird. People have to accept and agree with any defense/argument that's put out there...? Dendlai (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Blade's links. One student was spat at (that's bad, as everybody seems to agree). Assaults aren't mentioned, the conference wasn't stopped, people protested it outside. There was, according to the links, shouting on both sides. One student put up some posters, oh noes. Dendlai (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

FFS, students were demanding the resignations of both Erika and her husband. Hundreds signed a letter totally mischaracterizing her email and then denouncing her for crimes she didn't commit. At a rally about this manufactered controversy a student declares she wants an apology and that Erika's email means Yale is: “not a home. It is no longer a safe space for me. And I find that incredibly depressing. This was once a space that I was proud to be a part of because of the loving community.” This was a popular sentiment. Is this a toddler, or a young adult?---Mona- (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's because the Christakises (Christakes?) were overly tactless in their approach to a request that white Yale students not dress in blackface, wear Native American regalia, or other Halloween costumes that are racially insensitive and they were doing so in their position as Resident Faculty. Maybe this student expected Yale not to house people who think that blackface is freedom of expression instead of you completely disregarding someone's emotional state over being told that "racism is a form of free speech".—Ryulong (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[EC]Dunno the number of students asking for her or her husbands resignation (and the articles are veeeery vague on that). The letter you link to doesn't mischaracterise her e-mail in my opinion, but is a pretty good description of what she said (and doesn't ask for any resignations, it just states the signatories views on Erika's letter and behaviour). The one manufacturing the controversy was, definitely, Erika. An e-mail was sent out asking students to think, no more, no less. Erika and others go on a rampage claiming "censorship". Uh. No. And debates about safe spaces I've found to be generally meaningless, since people overall don't know what the concept means and make up straw men to debate it (as an aside: asking for a college campus to be free of racism isn't something I think is too much to ask. Really). Dendlai (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's true that racism isn't conscious and deliberate assent to a set of propositions about the inequality of the races, but instead is some sort of unconscious, systemic social miasma that flows from the inevitable marginalization that comes from the presence of racial minorities, then yes, it's definitely too much to ask for a college campus or anywhere else to be free of racism. This is classic equivocation, of course. It confounds racism as actual racist belief with racism as a vague miasma of social unease. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You can take a look at what the media says, which now begins to resemble what the internet says for some time on this business. And here is a fairly comprehensive overview of the demands made by many (all?) Campus groups. With every new week, the sjw article here looks ridiculous and ridiculouser. Alas, most people still ignore the underlying ideology (or worse deny there is one, as if "safe spaces" to "cultural appropriation" popped out of thin air). If you want to get at the heart of it, you have to look at the postmodernist movement as well as the critical race theory movement in particular, with such "nice" tenets as "Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism", human-group based (races etc) essentialism. Let me also mention again that the same people are behind intersectionality, and it's also linked to prejudice plus power and that this didn't come out of humanities, but from Harvard law school, so much for the "levels of analysis" mentioned here. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 Board discussion[edit]

So, in the upcoming two months we are supposed to be having an election for the Rationalmedia Board of Trustees, who are charged with heading the company that owns Rationalwiki (and in theory any other projects that will never likely happen). Last election, we barely even had one because nobody was that interested in running. Currently, David is the only active RW user on the board, with one user explicitly resigned recently, one retired and two mostly inactive. Of our officers, both are LANCB users. So David is functionally the only person on the board.

The question has been raised if we should even have elections for it (since the position, while largely not very active, has potential major responsibilities), or if we should just have David appoint people who are interested and he thinks would be good, which would morph into the board sustaining itsef. So... opinions before we restart the electioneering again?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the board. And I haven't retired, and I don't see what "mostly inactive [on the wiki]" has to do with it. ħuman

21:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you talk a little bit more about what the position entails and what kind of responsibilities are associated with the job's description. SissyMendelstein (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You be responsible in some way for the financial upkeep of the foundation, supposedly hold meetings every so often where supposedly minutes are kept but not transcribed for our reading and help run the annual begathon that keeps the wiki online. If we ever do get sued, it's you taking the brunt mostly.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See here. This is an important conversation to have; as board positions come with responsibility but not power they are not appealing to the jack-booted fascists that now rule this site. I would say that this year the board has not functioned effectively; from what I am able to tell. Maybe we need to change our approach to the board. Tielec01 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, also, atleast 4-7 other users of the wiki will learn your real identity, since this is going on forms being submitted to some state official in new mexico or something. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You're giving me the impression that there isn't a lot of interest and dedication to maintaining an inner party that would manage this place effectively. Has the inner party ever given consideration to selling the domain, website and content, to move on? What would be the magic price to buy this site outright, something reasonable. What's the lowest price you would take? SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'll sell it to you for 25k, just send me an email. I'll even throw in a bridge too. Tielec01 (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack booted thugs huh? SolPyre (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that appointing trustees would be against the very spirit of this site, aka the mob. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{I reject your reality.} 12:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I think that it would be very anti-democratic to have the board appoint itself.

How many people are willing to run for a position? Can we even have a meaningful election? As I recall, last time there wasn't that much to choose, and this "election" might be worse still. Perhaps we should first check who exactly is interested. If there are only four people interested, and those four seem reasonable enough to most people: we can probably appoint them without a "formal" election. If it turns out there are 15 people interested, then by all means, lets have an election! Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible approach. Is there hidden somewhere a summary of the articles of RMF, the obligations of its Directors et cetera? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Then we need a plan for finding out who is interested, should we start a page? SolPyre (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we could just do nominations as usual and see what happens? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

^second Walker Walker Walker 15:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I do wonder whether it would be judicious to approach people who might be appropriate for board membership to gauge their level of interest/prepare them to take on a role. Tielec01 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I occasionally point out that it would be a good idea for the board to communicate with the wiki from time to time in order to tell people what it is working on and to remind the world that it exists and functioning in some way. I am usually roundly jumped on for making this suggestion.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is nonsense at best[edit]

Take it from me, former chairperson of the RMF, that the entire idea of a discussion on the Wiki about the governance of the Rational Media Foundation is nonsense at best. Whether or not you like David Gerard, in this case, he is bound by the bylaws of the Rational Media Foundation, which state that an election must beheld. This is something only the Board itself can change, this Wiki has no power over it. I mean no disrespect to David here, nor do I want to put words in his mouth, but even he would probably agree with me here. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hubris? Not sure I understand what you are saying? Tielec01 (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I mean nonsense. Sorry, these 20 hour days or work/school/studying are killing me. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Goonie is correct. This is legal stuff about the structure of the board of the nonprofit corporation called RationalMedia Foundation, Inc.

There's nothing wrong with a board that doesn't do much; in many ways it's what one strives for. Although 0 meetings in a year because nobody will even volunteer to be the person organising them may be less than optimal. (I didn't step up because I have enough jobs and am flat-out at work and home. Stabby is still treasuring. Trent is flat-out at work and I believe home. The wiki ticks on ... the bills are still paid ...)

FWIW, my theory is that pretty much all small charities are incompetent and that's fine too. Or at least not intrinsically a disaster - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

An aside about RW culture[edit]

Tielec01, the arbitrary actions taken by mods and sysops here cannot be cured as long as the site lacks clear rules and standards, as well as procedures for vandal-binning or de-mopping anyone who's been active for more than, say, 3 months. (Newbies, who can often be vandals and assholes, probably do need to be able to be ejected pretty easily and without a lot of fuss.) In the world at large this is called "rule of men" as opposed to "rule of law." This site is under rule of men (individual wills) in the absence of anything other than wiki power politics to constrain them. For all the reasons rule of men leads to Kafkaesque situations and unequal treatment in the real world, it leads to it here as well.---Mona- (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What if we made it so that no one was ever deleted, banned or purged, for having different view points on things, but instead they were put in a kind of timeout, for short periods of time if they violated rules. This way no ideology or bias could ever dominate rationalwiki, which is the opposite of how it works at PC wikipedia. Wikipedia has cabals of admins and they keep a pretty tight control of maintaining the PC bias concerning political and social areas on their that are about sensitive subjects. If you could figure out how to build a better wiki where people of different viewpoints could battle it out and allow competing ideas to thrive, the stakes are pretty high: being number one on google for millions of keywords. I just spoke to my anonymous insiders in the upper echelon of Wikipedia and the encyclopedia is falling apart like a house of cards because the bickering, vicious hall monitor crusades, mount everest bureaucracy, infinite petty squabbles, cabals, and ruthless purging of people who don't agree with the PC narrative is causing a rumbling implosion. If you guys could structure yourselves differently you might be able to usurp their neo-liberal caliphate with something that is beyond left and right, beyond good and evil. Create a wiki that allows different pages to exist for the exact same topic. For instance have two pages for Leo Frank, one where people who think he is innocent can make a page, and where people think he is guilty can make a page. Have a page that allows both sides of the case to present themselves. Make it so that you can have an infinite amount of pages for each topic. So that different people can own a page there, and recruit teams to help them develop it. Imagine a wiki, that has an infinite supply of wikis, where there could be like evolution unlocking the path to supremacy on the internet. Each wiki could make up its own rules and regulations, or just allow multiple pages for individual topics. Wikipedia has basically become a dictatorship of carrion eaters. Basically there is an internal war going on, watch the life of brian by monte python to understand their war. Nows the time to rethink how your organize yourself. It would be my ultimate dream to see you guys become the supreme mack daddy of encyclopedias and number one on google for 10 million popular keywords. But seriously you really need to institute a rule of a citation for every sentence, its too far gone the other way, right now your whole encyclopedia is written unsourced and its hard to take it seriously. Only thing I could probably offer is some shekels of support. What are your costs to run this carnival sideshow? SissyMendelstein (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you not do so many wall of text posts, please? It's hard to respond to you. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Mona, I was just joking above. Having said that, I agree with the general gist of what you are saying. Tielec01 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"as long as the site lacks clear rules and standards, as well as procedures" -> Okay, but it's not RMF's job to do anything about this. It's not the "boss" of RW's community, it's the "facilitator" of RW's community. If you want to change this, you should come up with some concrete proposals about this and we can maybe have a discussion and maybe a vote about it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Mission" is obscure or non-existent. SPOV is a bogus claim. As a matter of fact, several fallacies I wrote were deleted. (1) One original; (2) one established and clearly useful where I added own research citations (I proposed deletion after it was completely butchered and redefined into nonsense); (3) one that was mentioned by some rationalist site that is apparently disliked; (4) and one that even has an academical paper (this was reverted into oblivion). Reasons given: the active voters for the most part didn't bother trying to understand them at all, and the reason was pretty much ideological dislike of me as a person. What could be possible: consolidating them into larger articles, find and describe common meta-structures of some of them etc. What's also not well understood, apparently, is that the user experience is not the same for everyone. If you attract a few trolls early on, and they follow you around, these are the people who pretty much come to represent "the RationalWiki" since that's all you see. Generally, the SJ postmodernist influence makes the rationalwiki in many ways a laughing stock (e.g. "levels of analysis" for a Harward Law school "theory" on "oppression" -- I can only cringe hard). — Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

blah blah about Wikipedia being a dictatorship[edit]

Paravant, how do you intend to differentiate yourself from other wikis, to make people want to come here than go to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a dictatorship of politically correct neo-Liberals, why repeat that here? If you do that, you might as well just put their articles through a content spinner. Seriously what are you trying to do here, that makes you more valuable in terms of content than wikipedia? All ive seen so far here is people foaming at the mouth and calling each other names. This is like the bickerwiki. I want to know how you are going to usurp wikipedia and rule the Internet. What's the strategy? Right now all I see are a bunch of people who were picked on in highschool for being weird, calling people names for having different opinions in the talk pages. What's the plan for putting WIkipedia out of business? and becoming the encyclopedia grand poohbah? SissyMendelstein (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The secret plan for us to usurp Wikipedia and be the place everybody goes is we don't have one because thats utterly stupid and you should feel ashamed for even typing it, in jest or not. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 07:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well there is the "mission and objectives" of RationalWiki (which seem pretty cool), and then there are the facts on the ground. Why is there so much content on this wiki that is unsourced, uncited and unreferenced? How do you intend to make people take this place seriously, so that it's actually still around 10 years from now? or 20 years from now? SissyMendelstein (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have an issue with our content, point out the articles with bad and no sourcing. We aren't in the game to compete with wikipedia, we never have been.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 07:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have specific pages to cite, it's a general feeling I get as I surf through this encyclopedia, I'm finding that there are large swaths of sentences, paragraphs and sections everywhere that are not cited. This is just a general observation that there doesn't seem to be any kind of strict adherence to providing references on this wiki, it gives the impression that members can surreptitiously write what ever they want on a whim, without a strong bibliography and oversight. SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia. Not even close. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I spat out my Earl Grey when I read that anyone could consider RW as an encyclopedia!^{[citation needed]}--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Lol, what the hell is going with the MLP article?[edit]

Are people still having flame wars over a fucking ~~kids~~ ~~girls~~ cartoon? - Shouniaisha (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. I was wondering when someone would make a totally fucking useless post about a particular page being overly present recent changes. I'm surprised there was never one for no platform but maybe I'm not looking hard enough here.—Ryulong (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Fucking hell, I say anybody and everybody who engages in edit warring over MLP should be banned for a day, simply because they need to re-assess where they are and what they are doing with their lives. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I support this motion. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I clap loudly.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ArcticVixen (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The difference with No platform and MLP, is that No platform is a meaningful and worthwhile discussion. MLP is not. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, there's meaning in discussing the motives and ethics in no platforming, but not so much about pastel talking horses. I mean, I'm a fan (or, was, since I kind of stopped watching) of the show, but in the end that's all it is, a show. - Shouniaisha (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, don't tell me there'll be another imminent shitfest again... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 16:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How is MLP even remotely on mission? Why does Ryulong have a burning passionate hatred for Bronies? It's creepy. Aleksandra96 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

MLP is apparently on-mission to some extent. I remember a few weeks we discussed it and took it to AfD. But Ryulong? Meh. If he's not doing the same shit to the MLP page like he did awhile back, I don't think it'd be fair to insult him... (even if I did then) Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 16:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

FFS, "coop case"[edit]

So, SkepticWombat has taken the issue of my reverting a troll to the coop. Not to have me cooped, but to discuss whether I should be allowed to revert an antisemite for trolling (SW agrees the user is an antisemite). We have always generally respected users such as Paravant, AgingHippie and others to determine what is trolling on their talk page. I'm not participating in the coop case and will not abide by any "decision" made there, unless and until someone sets forth why this issue even belongs in the coop over my strong objections that this is not coop case material. We can't take every revert to the coop!---Mona- (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Archived, as not worthy of waking the chickens. Go about your business. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Slashing and burning[edit]

Discussing this topic here has produced nothing other than the joy of our observers and emotional distress of our users. I suggest we stop. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Who the fuck ARE these "observers"? What is the great, worldspanning conspiracy that has thrown its might behind harassing some wiki on the internet? Again, I thought we didn't wipe shit from main pages. Whats next, Red Telephones? --Revolverman (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The observers are people posting anti-RW threads & blogs at Reddit & other sites, including dox & speculative slanders about users + threats of IRL interference. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No, FCP, you and Carpetsmoker started this. Slashing and burning will not stop it. You've just aggravated it more. Congratulations.

We're not Conservapedia, we don't play that game.

And finally, are your actions in accordance with moderator consensus and the will of the mobocracy? --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And when can we expect Oberstgruppenführer Mona to re-protect the Saloon Bar and her own talk page again, since you've seen fit to resysop her? --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What outcome are you looking for here, Castaigne? Your behaviour looks a lot more like "aggravating" the situation than FCP's does. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The outcome here is open, frank, and honest discussion. Without fear.

I don't believe in cowardice, revdeling, or slash and burning. The innocent have nothing to hide.

Last, the more you try to cover it up, the more you egg them on. Keeping discussion in the open is more prophylactic. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Castaigne, perhaps you have not received my emails, but I believe you are definitively incorrect. For your sake and the sake of others, please let this issue lie. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

. This entire thing has devolved into bickering like stupid children over what basically amounts to nothing. Jesus fuck; grow up people. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Strong words from one of the two that created this situation. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't create the edit war and fighting over whether or not something should be archived. In my opinion it should in fact not be, but it's not like there was a lot of constructive dialogue going on there, so why care so much? Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It was you and FCP's invitation that brought this on. You invited them in. Your actions led to this. And now it looks me like you and he are scrambling to cover-up your fuck-ups. I prefer to rub the dog's nose in their own mess, myself. It teaches a lesson. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know if I've received them or not. I never read my email. If you have something to talk to me about, post it publicly or not at all.

Further, I do not believe myself to be incorrect and I can guarantee that I am right. You will never be rid of this issue at this rate. But congrats on you and Mona driving off Revolverman.

My way may hurt more, but it's better because it's honest and forthright. Truth often hurts. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is the joy of the GGers, the solution would be having a really boring discussion about it. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

From the RW article on Cranks: I would rather lose completely and suffer any penalty, up to and including death, than compromise.- ~~Adolf Hitler~~ Castaigne2 So. I won't be considering Castaigne's judgment on what's good for myself or for this wiki any time soon. Doubt few will. And CS, yes, I've clearly had a meltdown. The mop thing sent me over the edge for sure. So, I'll go back to my novel for a bit.---Mona- (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I remember that particular shitstorm. Good times, good times. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions?} 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, so is Mona a sysop or not? CorruptUser (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Mona, you've had a meltdown and you've lost your mop? Man, Chrimbus put me like a month behind on everything happening here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

She already got it back. No need to worry. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:43, 31 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

FCP restored it pronto. I had the meltdown after Gerard de-mopped me. I knew I'd get it back, but was angry and upset he'd added more bullshit for "them" to spew bile about.---Mona- (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Gerard de-mopped you...? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he did, and for good reasons. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Castaigne overlooks that the good reason I had for a 1-day lock here was to prevent him from again undoing what mod FCP agrees was correct to do. #sourgrapes FCP had taken off some time and we need an active mod; as soon as FCP was back, I stepped back. (And the lock was no longer necessary because you used his magic mod powers to uphold my valid reasons for the lock.) Too bad for you, misanthrope Castaigne! (Who wishes both the Palestinians and Israelis would all just die already. Cuz he's that kind of guy.)---Mona- (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I would question the wisdom, and veracity of your claims, after a very public meltdown from the harassment/threats you have received when you go around publically antagonizing people. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@EmeraldCityWanderer What? I stated the truth. Do note that Castaigne didn't deny it. He long ago told me he's not pro-Israel; my documentation of facts unflattering to Zionism are not why he's hostile to me (or so he says). No. He said he hates Zionists and Palestinians both and thinks the best "solution" would be for them all to die. On my archived talk page:

This is kind of funny, considering I am not a Zionist. My actual favored solution is for one side to genocide the other, so this conflict ends permanently - and I don't care which side does it. Or, we could turn the entire area and the surrounding 100 miles into a glass plain. That would successfully conclude the argument for BOTH sides...

And here, he's said he loathes idealists. Well, that's pretty much me. And finally, you should know by now that I can back up my claims, and when I've erred I promptly admit it. For example, I once said Castaigne called me a "cunt." He didn't. It was 142BoN he called a " mincing fucking cunt." On the Zionism talk page; I was part of the discussion. But it was not me he hurled that gem at. So, I have conceded I misremembered his gross behavior as having applied to me, when it was another.

He's a crank, and a pretty malignant one.---Mona- (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame that Rationalwikiwiki no longer exists so that the uninvolved can keep track of all this. (or maybe it isn't)--False Flag (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

[1] See?

[a]