RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive249

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Re: Trolling or not - sigh, okay what about the mob pitching in (no pun intended) here instead?[edit]

Okay so neither Mona nor AgingHippie thinks this is big enough for a coop case, but I still think this a matter of principle and I'd like to get some input on where the line ought to be drawn on what users can delete from their talk pages under the trolling exemption from the general rule against talk page reverts. I've copied the opinions already given from the coop archive, just so those users don't have to reiterate them here.

So, once again: Dear mob, does this qualify as revertable trolling? Mona deemed SissyMendelstein's JAQing off trolling and thus reverted it from her talk page, I disagreed and undid the deletion, adding my own criticism of SM in the process and suggesting collapsing or archiving the section instead, whereupon Mona deleted everything, repeating her claim of revertable trolling. Seeing a looming edit war, I thought it more useful to get the mob's opinion on whether Mona is correct in her definition of this case as trolling. To make it easy to keep track of opinions, I've decided to add a sort AfD-style voting option. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Trolling (it stays deleted), because...[edit]

  1. Overt anti-semitism (it's not really covert anymore, if it ever was) is definitely offensive trolling, even if they actually believe what they say. Also, I think SMs "contributions" has passed well into being spam by now. Repetitious and long-winded in the extreme. Dendlai (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I actually think it should be banned. It's the same song and dance on every talk page and always about Jewish "hoaxes" and perfidy. Enough is enough.---Mona- (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Because it is manifestly antisemitic JAQing off, but more than that, we have allowed respected users to determine what constitutes trolling on their talk pages. That convention has worked well and there's no reason to change it unless we do so in formal rule-making. Why SW thinks I should not be so accommodated -- for a user-troll whom s/he agrees is a vicious antisemite -- I do not understand.---Mona- (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. One look at the guy's name and it's obvious he's a troll. And Mona knows what she's doing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Reminder - Coop case October 26th 2015
So, it's just a joke? AH can do anything and doesn't have to take this seriously because he confidently knows no one else will, either. He can do as he pleases and won't be so much as rebuked.
I had been given to understand that this place desperately needs new blood; that it's dying. I joined, and I've manged to recruit one person, tho he's too busy to do much for a bit yet. Someone tell me why any new blood should want to come here, if AH's "eight years" mean he can even delete my comments on a talk page without any repercussions, at all?---Mona- (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Please note that as per the standards of the website, a user may delete talk page comments if he or she deems them to be trolling -- given that you have made noise about me on at least two pages today, repeating those comments on a third fell well within the bounds of what I reasonably consider to be trolling, and I thus removed them. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have made "noises" that are accurate descriptions of your behavior. This same topic was being discussed at your page, I do not fucking "troll." I was explaining my position on an issue in which I am directly involved. Moreover, I am given to understand we are not to delete talk page comments unless some newbie is spewing irrelevant crap about nothing.---Mona- (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You wonder why people don't respect RW? This is a great reason why. People do as they wish, even if they directly contradict themselves, repeatedly. I don't care about the comments themselves...but this is getting completely absurd. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I abided by that decision, Emerald. I didn't like it, but I abided by it. And normally, this is entirely no muss no fuss. I mean, surely you are not comparing my comments to an anti-semitic sicko like SM!? Seriously, why is my judgment vis-a-vis a user like that not respected?---Mona- (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It was just a reminder that you put up a fight to keep your comments on a talk page the user considered trolling even though it was in compliance with stated policy. If you want the rule of law and not the rule of people then rules apply equally to sickos, saints, and everyone in between. If a user is respected or not shouldn't vary how site rules apply. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
But the fact is, we have a rule for this situation that's developed conventions that work, except for that personality clash I was having with AH (since resolved) it hasn't been a problem. Determining what constitutes trolling can always and only be somewhat subjective. And again, I don't understand why my judgment in this particcualr case -- of all cases! -- caused such alarm. I really don't.---Mona- (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hummm, maybe because you see alarm/hysteria every time people disagree. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh, no. A coop case? Seriously?!---Mona- (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, this never happened... "Emerald, your hysteria is getting the better of your common sense and the facts" -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you don't like my views on Israel-Palestine and as is the case with many who feel that way you can be very unreasonable in your interactions with me. But that has nothing to do with making a coop case out of nothing, as was done here. Why such a fuss -- or alarm, if you will -- over this particular revert on my talk page? Or...does it, in fact, have something to do with my views that you and SW so dislike?---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

4. People should be able to do whatever they want on their talk pages, short of deleting entire conversations that make them look bad or impeach them in some way. This was clearly trolling, albeit rather subtle, and even if you are questioning the revert, throwing this into the coop as a knee-jerk response is a big overreaction. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not trolling (revert deletion, but collapsing or archiving is okay), because...[edit]

  1. I don't think SM's JAQing off qualifies as the kind of trolling that can simply be reverted because, although SM's badly veiled anti-Semitic haranguing is getting rather tiresome, SM hasn't engaged in the kind of offensive trolling that the revert option was originally created to limit (e.g. mikemikev's rants, overly abusive comments, spam and so forth). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. This sounds like something already fought in the archives. I read the offending comments, and I've had the same type of question demanded of me by Mona (and several others) which I cannot delete even if I cared to. That's the rules printed for longer then I have been here, and if you want the rule of law instead of the rule of people (as Mona stated her desires to be today) then you need to follow them as well. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

#This SM is more than likely a neo-Nazi scumbag. But there was nothing personal in the comments left on Mona's page. i'd wear rubbing someone like that up the wrong way as a badge of pride, like when Kevin Martin's brother called me a "cock sucker" on my talk page. And I've just completely changed my mind abot Mona. Mi nun kredas ke śi estas bona persono. Spud (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Trolling isn't defined by whether a comment is personal or not. That user is not engaged in good faith inquiries; he's pitching the same bullshit JAQing off on talk page after talk page. There are grounds to ban him and at a minimum I don't want him spewing the same bullshit on my talk page. As I understand it we have generally allowed editors to determine what constitutes trolling on their talk pages. In my strong view, the issue is not whether you, Spud, would let it stand. The issue is whether I should be allowed the discretion to make that determination vis-a-vis my user talk page. I've observed the convention to be that established users have been deferred to on that issue.---Mona- (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd keep anything short of death threats on my talk page. But you know what, Mona. You've convinced me. I think you should be allowed to decide what's trolling for yourself. Spud (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I convinced you!? I thought there was an Internet law mandating that one never be persuaded by arguments; no, one is to dig in and fight to the death. But seriously, I have also changed my mind from time to time. It's a sign of mental health and reasonableness. You might want to trike out your vote if that's the case.---Mona- (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. Reasonable, that's me. Spud (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"As I understand it we have generally allowed editors to determine what constitutes trolling on their talk pages." Really? I was of the impression that that wasn't the case at all - I especially remember AvengeroftheBoN deleting some of your comments from his/her talk page by calling them trolling and I don't recall you happily agreeing that this was AotB's call to make.
Anyway, considering that my opinion seems to be in the minority, I might raise the topic on the policy talk page so we can get the wording of the rules on deletions from user talk pages updated to match current practice (as I understand it RW policies are more descriptive than prescriptive), i.e. that anti-Semitic posts are likely to be considered trolling by default and the degree of latitude that editors have in defining what counts as trolling on their own user talk pages. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Schadenfreude: Seeing that (as I suspected) Avenger is now trying to use Mona's "we have generally allowed editors to determine what constitutes trolling on their talk pages" to delete Mona's comments from his/her talk page. Don't say I didn't told you so... ScepticWombat (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Unwarranted schadenfreude. He can shriek all he likes, to no avail.---Mona- (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • Same person who calls Wikipedia "a dictatorship of politically correct neo-Liberals". Whatever. Not worth fighting about. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    First taking it to the coop, and now bringing it here? Why SW wants to stand his/her ground over what s/he agrees is a JAQing off, antisenmtic shill is absolutely beyond me. It isn't worth all this brouhaha.---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Then just let the comment sit on your talk page without reply. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Or, as I've suggested several times now, either archive or collapse it. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Collapsing" talk page comments is stupid & the cause of some of the most pointlessly stupid wheel-warring & bickering. It's why we blanked the trolltop template two years ago but unfortunately a small number of users have continued using the collapse template the same way. I would support blanking all the collapse templates & replacing them with the raw wikicode in the very few places where they're legitimately used (e.g. in mainspace articles). ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually agree that SM is a waste of time and bandwidth, but I'd like to see where the mob draws the line between obnoxious/tiresome posts and trolling egregious enough to warrant out-and-out deletion in contrast to the general rule about not simply deleting stuff from user talk pages (by contrast, collapsing and archiving is generally a-okay in any circumstance). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    If you are proposing a formal rule to amend the convention we have abided by vis-a-vis user talk pages, this is the wrong page for it.---Mona- (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not proposing any formal rule, merely a clarification of how wide the interpretation of trolling is. It's beginning to seem to me that the exemptions from not deleting stuff from user talk pages are slowly expanding from spam and mikemikev'esque rants and abuse to "I don't like the opinions of this monomaniacal editor". Do we automatically put comments with anti-Semitic contents in the trolling trash can? If so, then perhaps that should be included in the formal rules... ScepticWombat (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Then I guess I'm not clear on why you even bothered to post this? What is pressing about the issue that we cannot continue letting respected users take care of their own talk pages? I can see jumping on newbies who want to delete anyone they don't like, but that's not the issue here. There's no disagreement that SM is a troll, unless you don't think what s/he's doing here constitutes trolling? I mean, would you object to banning a user who's a johnny-one-note on the topic of Jewish "hoaxes?"---Mona- (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure SM fits the bill of the classic troll: He's not simply baiting people, nor is he clearly abusive, and I prefer a fairly high bar when it comes to the definition of trolling in order not to have everyone and their dog use the trolling exemption to delete stuff from their talk pages, just because they find the poster's opinions offensive. I agree that SM is wrong and overwhelmingly likely to be an anti-Semite, but this does not automatically equate to SM being a troll. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well then, we have radically different views of what constitutes trolling. He's a textbook troll, including a nice dose of concern trolling.---Mona- (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I see little concern trolling in SM's posts (he's been showing little "false empathy"), but a hefty dose of balance fallacies/teaching the controversy, conspiracy theories, pseudohistory/historical revisionism, and JAQing off. Probably more of a crank than a troll (compare with the saga of LogicMaster777). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty agnostic about what control page owners have over their personal user talk pages. More concerned about the trend of some users towards reverting or deleting comments from the Saloon Bar, article talk pages and other shared discussion pages. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrong page for this, 5 votes in total; no one cares. Tielec01 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The user talk page preservation rule is stupid and always was[edit]

It was adopted to be the opposite of Conservapedia. In five years, I have only ever seen it used as an excuse to harass people or demand they put up with harassment. It's a terrible rule and should be abolished - David Gerard (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should raise the question of whether it has outlived its usefulness on a page dedicated to RW guidelines? I think it may come off wrong if I do it (I actually mean it as a topic for discussion, not as a means of censure), but if you think the rule is pointless or obsolete then why not ask to get it abolished or at least rewrite the lingo to make it clear that the talk page owner has final cut or whatever? The current situation of having a code of conduct that doesn't reflect actual behaviour seems neither here nor there. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Desysopping proposal[edit]

Proposed here. Get some eyes and votes on the idea. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft[edit]

"Oh, you moved your Xbox to another house? You're banned until the owner of the credit card verifies that you're not hacking into this account because of a security feature you never opted into. Oh, that's not possible? Too bad, this can't be circumvented. We wouldn't want someone losing their account to hackers or something!"

Thanks, Microsoft. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 18:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that unreasonable really... Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's actually fundamentally a DRM scheme, rather than a security feature. They don't want people installing their digital games, giving a friend access to their live account, then downloading them again. It's sane. But it's got a kinda greedy core motivation. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they should go back to selling games in the store where you get a hard copy instead of selling them online. Buying online is causing way more trouble then is ever saved by not needing to keep track of the hard copy, which usually isn't that hard. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
gog.com is DRM-free. And "hard copies" are also not free of problems; it takes up spaces, "CD rot" sets in, or it breaks for other reasons (like my Baldur's Gate 2 disc, which broke when my CD drive broke). Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Disc rot and laser failure are personal hells for those of us really into early CD-based consoles...ArcticVixen (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Keeping track of the disk and the risk of it breaking are why online game sales are an advantage. It's starting to get outweighed by all the DRM bullshit that they put you through. Aleksandra96 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
And discs don't have DRM? Given from your username, I take it you're born in 1996? Let me tell you, SecureROM and such were a fucking pain to deal with as well. You weren't able to copy the disc without special tricks, and you had to install a "no-cd" patch for pretty much every game, just so you could play it without switching discs all the time. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Disks obviously do have DRM, but they usually are less intrusive. I haven't checked if they went through with this, but Microsoft was saying something about being unable to buy used games because the disk would be locked to the console until someone paid them again on Xbox Live. Aleksandra96 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
They didn't go through with it. A funny thing about that is how Sony made several advertisements mocking the idea... Despite also having plans to do that, just as an option for the publishers. I don't know if Sony went through with it. Online passes are a sort-of variant of this, where you're locked out of multiplayer if you buy a used copy (unless the previous owner didn't play online). Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 04:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but they never stopped selling games in the store in the first place. --Ymir (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Not for consoles, but they're getting close. Few stores don't sell PC games that aren't insanely old and trivial or a few of the most recent big name titles. Aleksandra96 (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently bought a 30-year-old Commodore 64 game on a tape and found out that it runs just fine. I feel that the decaying of data storage may be a bit overstated. Vulpius (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
My uncle smoked for 60 years and lived to me 94 ;-) I believe some papers have been published, and unfortunately demagnetization is a very real thing... 02:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Right; the way NarkySawtooth describes it sounds like a useful security feature (not a big console gamer fan; I actually have a special edition Xbox, my girlfriend got it when she worked at Microsoft, but it's been sitting here unopened for 2 years). Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Nintendo doesn't do anything like that, just sayin'... --Ymir (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
(To Narky) Well, I don't know about you, but as a PS3 owner, no problems arise with used copies. I bought a used version of Black Ops 2 with some starter pack and nothing really happened... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 04:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's the PS4 that was going to do that. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 05:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Another harebrained DRM insanity... And it's rather likey, that someone will hack it or did hack it already.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Should RW link to Stormfront and other hate sites?[edit]

I've removed the "external links" sections in various articles about white supremacists that were included by BoNs or known racists, including to Stormfront. Carpetsmoker, however, feels this is information we should provide to readers. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, and I could be persuaded, but my gut says "no." What does the community think about providing this as a, well, "service" to readers?---Mona- (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not have a link? We usually link to it anyway in the references and all links are accompanied with a (hopefully good) refutation of their nonsense. We link to natural news, Conservapedia, and other steaming piles of shit. I don't see why this should be different. Nothing will convince people more that it actually is a steaming pile of shit than showing the steaming pile of shit in plain view ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty common for writers around the net to discuss sites as depraved as Stormfront and announce they specifically are not going to link to it. Conservapedia is insane and in many ways vile, but Nazis? I just can't get to the place where we cheerfully offer readers a link to sites like that.---Mona- (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
"Cheerfully". We offer links to show how insane they are, which proves our points and degrades theirs. If you think Nazism is bad, proving it wrong is surely good. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(EC)ADDING: On the other hand, libraries have generally offered Mein Kamf, but on the other other hand, they don't offer the collected works of Willis Carto, do they?---Mona- (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
One of those is more historically important than the other. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 04:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I got the impression that the usual RW stance was "go look for it yourself; we will not provide a link." Exceptions exist, but I would rather not see hate site links become common here. SmartFeller (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
That more or less used to be (unofficial) policy, but never 100 % clear-cut what got linked and what didn't. Dendlai (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I am sure it is written somewhere that editors should NOT link to such sites. But I am damned if I can find it. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a page somewhere on RW, and damned if I can find it either, where it explains that the rationale is that when we linked to them we got a torrent of vandalism from petulant racists and it wasn't worth the bother when anyone wanting to inhale from the sewer could C&P into the location bar themselves. Queexchthonic murmurings
Some ideas. Links to such sites could be provided using "no referring" -- i.e. it's as if you typed it into your browser, and the target site gets no information where you came from. There are services that do this (i.e. you pass your link to them, then they redirect you to the target site, thereby your origin gets obscured). Maybe http://www.donotlink.com/ can this, too, but I don't know. Alternatively, links to such information could lead to an archived version of the page. Maybe there is a list of domains that will automatically be visited through archive services. Or there is a second link template that goes via an archive (i.e. they send the link to the archive site, which creates the archive snapshot then). Of course linking to such sites should be done within reason, but I am highly suspicious when people want to remove sources based on wonky criteria. For one you cannot kick away the sources of the thing that is meant to be described. How do I know that the information being presented is true? And such criteria as "hate site" are known to be elastic and open for abuse: I simply don't believe people anymore when they say they only want to blacklist these-and-these sources. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────'And such criteria as "hate site" are known to be elastic and open for abuse' That's of course true, and if RW were the government, I'd oppose any ban on linking. But RW is a private community determining when and whether we want to link to hate sites, and if so, under what conditions. For me, the bar of what constitutes a hate site is set very very high, but Stormfront is such by any reasonable metric.---Mona- (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aneris: WikiMedis sites have no follow turned on for all pages by default, so that's not an issue (and as a community we decided that using DNL was really annoying).
@Queex: I don't think that it requires us to link to their site to get boatloads of vandals. Any article criticizing their shit is likely to get that. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 12:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the details, but apparently the default nofollow was not quite enough. Does nofollow prevent discovery from 'what links to here' google results, or does it just affect ordinary search results? I guess they have referrer logs and whatnot, and it only takes one out of the many sites to make an angry post to bring the swarm. As I understand it, the volume of vandals was beyond what RW normally gets, enough for it to be enough of a bother to remove what links existed. Of course, that was X years ago and things may be different now. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I doubt it's much different over the course of the length this site has existed. There are multiple reasons not to link to such sites and that is just one of them.---Mona- (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm with CarpetSmoker - many of the link removals I've seen have been completely unecessary; tantamount to blanking content. Stop removing these, please. The one clear cut case of a situation where I was convinced we ought not provide any outlinks whatsoever (in the case that we were even to write about the subject) was about BoyWiki. I demand an equal level of discussion for consensus as we had then for every future situation wherein attempts would be made to simply broom away relevant links from relevant articles. The majority of topics we cover here are, by definition, of people and systems of thought that we strongly dislike. Thus, the standing policy has to be to link to the slop. There is nothing wrong with that policy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There is now an article on online pedophile activism which links to content from Boywiki & other pedo sites via archive sites. I don't think it's ideal. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Rev, this is not "page blanking." I'm sorry, but you appear to be in a minority on this. I had also understood not linking to such sites to be RW policy and others recall it that way as well. If you can marshal a majority, so be it. In the meantime I've reinstated the link removals.---Mona- (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I would favour not linking to outright hate sites such as Stormfront & its ilk (as distinct from Conservapedia & other such Tea Partyish sites). WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Putting it to a vote -- it's essentially a policy proposal. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RW should not link to hate sites[edit]

  1. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Is "Donald duck was a KKK clansman for 6 years<ref>http://hatesite.example.com/donald_duck.html</ref>" considered linking? What do we do with BLP and a high standard of referencing? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. It's the moral thing to do. Disagree? Fine, but nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. Typhoon (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Nothing you can say will convince me otherwise" - so you're basically the RW equivalent of Beret Dude from the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on Conspiracy Theories? Good on ya. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    "nothing you can say will convince me otherwise" is quite probably one of the most unrational things one can possibly say. It means that, for example, should good evidence arise that shows that linking to this website helps readers renounce their fledgeling neo-Nazi ideas, you will still be against linking to these sites. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Feel free to call me whatever names you want. Not linking to them is the moral thing to do, no matter how many excuses you'll find. Typhoon (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thought experiment, terrorist is about to detonate a nuclear bomb in London, but only if we don't link to their site. One link only and they will walk away from the bomb. Is it still the moral thing to do? Tielec01 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thought experiment: what if there was a bomb on the bus & if you slow down it goes off but if you think about anything like even the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man it will come to life & destroy the world? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

RW may link to hate sites[edit]

  1. [1] It's useful to show what we're up against and how shitty/atrocious their arguments are, just like links to shitty non-hate-sites. [2] It doesn't affect Google search results, because of the wiki's nofollow status, so it doesn't boost their popularity (any more than actually having a page on them does). [3] It's simpler & faster than saving an archived link or screencap, and doesn't leave the possibility of a quotemine. [4] "Hate sites" seems woefully underdefined. [END] There's no harm but there is some benefit from having these links. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. It won't affect their search ranking because all wiki links have the nofollow attribute because they're all submitted by users. Aleksandra96 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    I believe it's because the settings of the wiki are set that way. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. I don't see how any harm can come from this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. This debate originated when the troll ShittyMendelstein started adding links to Nazi propaganda to various pages, which were quickly reverted as the troll they were. Then, however, Mona went looking for links on other pages and started mass deleting them. Links to Storefront, well, maybe, a case can be made to not explicitly link to them... but for Bob's sake, Jeff Rense? He's a kook that just happens to express racist viewpoints, but his website doesn't explicitly advocate genocide like the neo-Nazis. In cases like that I don't see the point of removing the link or for having a policy forbidding a link from appearing in an article. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. How do we document crackpot ideas, without documenting crackpot ideas? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    The SPLC (and other such organizations) material on such groups, and 2. There is the option of linking to discrete posts but not having an "External links" section for the hate site per se.---Mona- (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Yes, within reason. Specific claims need specific instances. It's not necessary to add tons of links to back up generic and obvious claims (racist site is racist). Paedophilia and other illegal content should not be documented with primary sources since this is spreading such content. For such cases, we should go with credible secondary sources. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. I agree that RW should be able to link to hate sites where necessary, and with discretion-- however, anything specific outside of mentioning the site exists, we should link to an archive version, something to stop said sites from getting any ad revenue or traffic from us, if there isn't already anything in place to prevent that. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    As I think about this some more, it would help to have some sort of directory of what we consider a hate site here on RationalWiki, to point people to when they're editing pages about them so they can follow any rules that result from this, if it does not exist already. And it should be something that the moderators themselves agree upon, as to quash any bickering over what we call a hate site. Perhaps only moderators being able to edit the page and if anyone wants to try and declassify something they would have to start a case on a talk page and convince them. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. RW's mission is to document and denounce that kinda shit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Take a guess? It's a no-brainer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. With the caveat that there should be preference for archives/caches rather than actual sites. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Tielec01 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. As seems appropriate and useful, e.g. the European Union Times links to it as references. Note that we have rel=nofollow on all external links - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I suppose there is no fantasy like power fantasy 14:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Sunlight, disinfectant, etc. Hmmph (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. ArcticVixen (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question for all the above voters: Are you endorsing an "External links" section offering links per se to the hate sites?---Mona- (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Mona: It appears that the ballot statement "RW may link to hate sites" contains an obvious reply to that question; especially given the far less popular alternatives to flat-out allowing links provided in this vote. Snarky external links constitute an important (and certainly funny) criticism to the hate and stupidity the links invariably contain, on top of the obvious relevance and editorial lucidity of just providing the correct links outright - which is not only the long-standing status quo at this site, but also the ballot position which the majority appears to stand by. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
If that's what the majority decides, so be it. But I do want the clarification if possible. Obviously, I'll abide by whatever the majority decides and besides, as I originally stated, I can see reasonable arguments on both sides.---Mona- (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not wild on linking them and prefer not to. However, if we're going to discuss them, or their content, it's an obvious part of doing so. We need to presume the reader isn't a blithering idiot and - to focus on the specific case that concerned you - won't transmute into a raving anti-Semite if they read something Jeff Rense wrote - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

RW may link to hate sites to document claims[edit]

  1. Yes, if the link is documenting a specific case of in(s)anity (e.g. sourcing a quote) cited as part of a SPOV chewing out of the site, its users/contributors or ideas. By contrast, general links to a hate site's main page are pointless. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    What SkepticWombat said. ADDING: Not gratuitously added claims to get the links in there.---Mona- (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC) This is ok, too, But Goonie's is perhaps closer to my position.---Mona- (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. We should also link to them in the main article about the shite, but links to Stormfront and the such should be made only when necessary. KOMF 04:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

RW should only link to hate sites when it is unavoidable[edit]

  1. I say that, only when something like archive.org won't suffice, then it should be acceptable to link to a hate site, or something like boywiki, only when absolutely necessary and needed simply to document something. Otherwise, I absolutely don't agree with the notion of having link after link directly to Stormfront to cite the tripe on that site. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ok, I like this as well. Some version of this or the one above.---Mona- (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. That seems like the most sensible proposal to me. That would mean that those sites would only be used as references, not listed in external links, and links to them would be replaced if a reliable third party source could be found instead. Spud (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. This has been long-standing status quo, as I understand it. "Unavoidable" should be strictly and narrowly construed, and diligent effort should be made to find suitable screencaps or archive links instead. An editor choosing to include a stinky link may expect challenges, and should be prepared to mount a reasoned defense. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    We have had an antisemitic evangelist here, and s/he's been adding "external link" sections to Stormfront and other hate sites. If the majority is cool with that, so be it. But I find it very disturbing.---Mona- (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Though, you fail to mention that the vote endorsing the permitted existence of external links to hate sites - the one currently in the lead - still very overtly includes a requirement of relevancy to the article in question (we're not for linkspam) and the implementation of advanced snark on said links. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Why are you two tagging along on my vote? Mona, I know about Mendelstein. Rev, we are not for linkspam, and exceptions to "no stinky links" should be few and very far between. Even with snark, a link is still a link, and should be robustly challenged in all cases. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    We're commenting on you vote, not endorsing it (unless otherwise mentioned). Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that the vote is NOT on "should we suddenly allow BoN hate-linkspam that is written like an advertisement?". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Mr. Mendelstein was quite willing to word some of his links as if criticizing them. He takes the view: "as long as people read it."---Mona- (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    What do either of your comments have to do with my vote? Explicitly, "don't link to that shit unless you absolutely have to, and the times you have to are fewer than you may think. Expect to defend against robust challenge in all cases." My sense of non sequitur is tingling. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's common for discussions to break out under users votes all over the wiki where matters are voted on.---Mona- (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Right. Discussion is most useful when it is relevant to what prompted it. Immediately going off on a tangent is not something I often see from good faith disputants. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Er, ok. Your discussion of what constitutes "unavoidable" prompted my observation about Mr. Mendelstein's antics. It seems likely to me he'd be one to make a case for his links being oh so unavoidable. That didn't seem tangential to me. But it would appear the majority is trending toward a complete acceptance of hate-site links, so this discussion may be moot.---Mona- (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. IMO unavoidable means necessary to the exposition, and unavailable through other routes. That hardly ever happens, since other routes include "google it for yourself, because RW is not interested in sending easy traffic to that page." SM could try to make their case, and if the mob can't issue a robust rebuttal, then something is broken. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat...[edit]

  • I'm pretty ambivalent on this issue, though I think I should note none of these options are mutually exclusive. By the way, what is people's main concern with links to these sites? That we'll increase their Google ranking? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
    Doesn't the "nofollow" attribute in the a-tags prevent that or am I wrong.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's what it's supposed to do, to my knowledge. I'm just wondering what people are so worried about. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
    You didn't think people on RW making lotsa ado about bugger all? You must be SO.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible risks include:

  1. Raising the profile of these sites
  2. Acting as a conduit for racists looking for racist websites
  3. Reputational damage from hosting or showcasing racist content
  4. Exposing readers to the unpleasant & possibly dangerous people who frequent & manage these sites
  5. Drawing these people's attention to RW & creating onsite/offsite problems for the site & its editors
  6. Sending readers to parts of the internet which might place their online activities under extra surveillance from authorities &/or their internet provider

WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. "Raising the profile of these sites" -> In what way does this happen? This is the only good point in this list, IMHO, but I strongly doubt that this is actually the case.
  2. "Acting as a conduit for racists looking for racist websites" -> I don't think these people need RW for that. A very simple search is enough.
  3. "Reputational damage from hosting or showcasing racist content" -> We're not hosting content? And neither are we "showcasing" it; at least not in a positive (for the racist POV) way. To refute an idea, you must first understand an idea.
  4. "Exposing readers to the unpleasant & possibly dangerous people who frequent & manage these sites" -> What? It's up to the readership to follow the link, and to engage in the community.
  5. "Drawing these people's attention to RW & creating onsite/offsite problems for the site & its editors" -> The pages will still be there, I doubt if the choice of linking will change anything.
  6. "Sending readers to parts of the internet which might place their online activities under extra surveillance from authorities &/or their internet provider" -> We're not "sending" anyone anywhere, we're telling them where they can find some things, and it's up to the reader's judgement what to do with it. We're not masquerading links as anything other than what they are.
Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. "In what way does this happen? This is the only good point in this list, IMHO, but I strongly doubt that this is actually the case." -> There is a reason why respectable news websites only rarely link to them. We ought to take an example from them.
  2. "I don't think these people need RW for that. A very simple search is enough." -> doesn't mean we should make it even more easier for them
  3. "We're not hosting content? And neither are we "showcasing" it; at least not in a positive (for the racist POV) way. To refute an idea, you must first understand an idea." -> Our articles should be able to explain it enough without linking it. Your excuse sounds like when theist say that atheists can't call religion bullshit without first reading the entire Bible.
  4. "What? It's up to the readership to follow the link, and to engage in the community." -> That doesn't mean we're not guilty for enabling it with this.
  5. "The pages will still be there, I doubt if the choice of linking will change anything." -> Well, if it doesn't change anything, then why all the resistance for removing them?
  6. "We're not "sending" anyone anywhere, we're telling them where they can find some things, and it's up to the reader's judgement what to do with it. We're not masquerading links as anything other than what they are." -> Yes, we're not sending them there, we're just dangling it in front of them.
Typhoon (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. "In what way does this happen? This is the only good point in this list, IMHO, but I strongly doubt that this is actually the case." -> There is a reason why respectable news websites only rarely link to them. We ought to take an example from them. -> Good luck finding all of RW a universally accepted definition for "respectable news websites". Never mind that we're not a news site by a long shot. Besides; it's in our mission statement that we are to maintain an overtly critical stance towards the media, not to "take examples" (?) from "them" (again - good luck defining your own terms here).
  2. "I don't think these people need RW for that. A very simple search is enough." -> doesn't mean we should make it even more easier for them -> That's the weakest argument I've ever heard. Our function is literally to be informative about crazy people and movements, shedding light on what they do and where they hang out. We also need to literally serve people links to enable them to look up our statements and do the research themselves. You're swinging for the fences right now.
  3. "We're not hosting content? And neither are we "showcasing" it; at least not in a positive (for the racist POV) way. To refute an idea, you must first understand an idea." -> Our articles should be able to explain it enough without linking it. Your excuse sounds like when theist say that atheists can't call religion bullshit without first reading the entire Bible. -> It is a red herring and a straw man to suggest that this is about us hosting or showcasing content. We're not doing that, period. Also, I think you fumbled that analogy pretty bad - it makes no sense.
  4. "What? It's up to the readership to follow the link, and to engage in the community." -> That doesn't mean we're not guilty for enabling it with this. -> If that logic was even to hold a drop of water, then this entire wiki would be one massive, enabling recruiting ground for hate groups and cranks of all stripes and we'd all be "guilty", as you put it. It strikes me as unlikely to the point of absolute stupification that you would literally suggest this to be the real life situation.
  5. "The pages will still be there, I doubt if the choice of linking will change anything." -> Well, if it doesn't change anything, then why all the resistance for removing them? -> Your tactics are hereby averted. The presence of the links won't change anything in the sense that Weaseloid's hilarious daymare prediction of DOOM won't come to fruition. However, this silly drive for blanking out the links will change something, in that it violates our mission and frankly what we stand for editorially - and the landslide vote speaks volumes on that.
  6. "We're not "sending" anyone anywhere, we're telling them where they can find some things, and it's up to the reader's judgement what to do with it. We're not masquerading links as anything other than what they are." -> Yes, we're not sending them there, we're just dangling it in front of them. -> You appear to be dangling yourself, Sir.
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Voting Result[edit]

Link at will. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

*Live from my campaign headquarters* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqTvN_jddaM Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I finally figured out what Pope Francis meant![edit]

Transgender people are equivalent to nukes because of the class structure of the Victorian era! The King of Lineland was afraid of space-warping people that didn't identify as the gender he wanted them to, and his ignorance was the inspiration for the atomic bomb! Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 05:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

WTF???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 06:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, okay, not *just* the King of Lineland. The ignorance of The Sphere certainly helped. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 06:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I second that WTF. - LucidFox (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not my fault that the Pope is afraid of squares that can move in weird directions. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 06:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A Serious Explanation[edit]

I was reading Flatland, which is a nice piece of satire from the late 1800's. It has a bit about a guy who wants everyone to fit into his binary rules. Flatland had a bunch of math, and some formulas used in the book are used for nukes. Pope Francis said that LGBT=nuke. My mind drew a funny conclusion. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 06:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you mentioned Flatland, my dear Narky... (Abbott is mentioned by name at around 0:30) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well this is disturbing...[edit]

EU nations being sued for billions in secret tribunals DarkAngelCryo (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Truly disturbing part: this is not new. Thee sorts of treaties have existed for a while, and have been exploited a lot during the lat 15 years. Famous examples: Philip Morris v. UruguayWikipedia's W.svg, Occidental Petroleum Corp. vs. Ecuador, mining in Indonesia, etc. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind[edit]

He's out of prison. Are there new developments over the law suit? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this is what I meant in a talk page discussion some time ago when I observed that anyone can sue anybody else for defamation. Hovind's never gonna prevail here, but he can put RMF to the cost of getting the suit dismissed and apparently has. A primary goal of avoiding suit is incompatible with the site's mission. We go after peddlers of bunk and they can be quite litigious.---Mona- (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Nutty Roux and I had a conversation about this some time last summer, and he remarked that Hovind's lawsuit was never served within the deadline needed to have it served. There were other extenuating circumstances, but the bottom line of what we discussed is that the lawsuit, as far as we knew, was dead. However, that did not exactly mean the RMF was out of the water, as there is always the potential, albeit remote, of it being filed again. Gooniepunk (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it was dismissed without prejudice, meaning he can refile the same stupid thing again if he feels like. But then, so could anyone. - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Parallelism in the mission statement[edit]

This discussion was moved here from Template talk:RationalWiki MainPage/About.

Present mission statement:

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
Noun phrase includes:
  • gerund phrase
  • gerund phrase
  • non-gerund noun phrase
  • non-gerund noun phrase

  • Proposed mission statement:

    Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
    1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
    2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
    3. Exploring authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
    4. Analyzing and criticizing how these subjects are handled in the media.
    Noun phrase includes:
    Gerunds across the board!

    I don't see this in any way changing the meaning of the statement; it only creates parallelism, which is good. Thoughts? WalkerWalkerWalker 19:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

    I support. Since this is technically changing the mission (even if in an insubstantial way), you should prolly get majority support. Saloon Bar it! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    Seems fine to me.---Mona- (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    I support it too. It's much neater that way. Spud (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Still support. That makes 4 for, 0 against. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    If it isn't changed, it will haunt me forever. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Just DO it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for that... :| WalkerWalkerWalker 17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh dear, I didn't mean to sound too curt. I kinda meant this. Which really meant; good job, good find, I support :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    I caught the reference, which was why the face. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Replace the four gerunds with Template:Gerund. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    I call dibs on the zapping. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not so fast there, ya buzzard! I would support the Devonian placoderm's suggested use of Template:Gerund, were this not such serious business, and one of RW's founding documents. Not broken enough to need fixing, and "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." A better mind than mine came up with that last bit, but CBA to find out whose. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Geez, Sanderson! You do have a sacred text after all. ;)---Mona- (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ralph Waldo Emerson, if memory serves. Which means it was probably Virginia Woolf. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Replace the four gerunds with Gerard. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC) [ PS: I got "erecting" from the template. ]
    >implying DGwiki... well. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
    1. Speaking and golfing pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
    2. Absorbing the full range of crank ideas.
    3. Affiliating authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
    4. Revolting and constructing how these subjects are handled in the media.

    ~ Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

    This seems like a fairly petty issue and, like quite a lot of suggestions I've seen recently, more like compulsive make-work than fixing a genuine problem. + I don't buy that there would be no change in meaning. "Criticism" and "criticizing", for example, while etymologically synonymous, tend to be understood with slightly different connotations. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    That last point... didn't think of that. Providing analysis and criticism? WalkerWalkerWalker 00:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

    So is this going to happen? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

    Not yet. It's only been a few hours dude. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's literally four years and a day in Fuzzy time ;) WalkerWalkerWalker 00:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    28 November to 03 December is "a few hours"... what? <_< Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, woke up and still don't understand. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

    Gerund or non-gerund, they're all nominalizedWikipedia's W.svg verbs though. I'd be in favour of changing "Explorations" as it's the only nominalized verb being used a countable noun here. For the rest, I'm pretty ambivalent about this. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

    This change will certainly serve to reduce the vast amount of confusion which new editors often experience when trying to understand our highly complex mission statements. Based on this clear improvement I'm all for it.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    I also have an idea about the way to arrange the deck-chairs... Tielec01 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    The bike shed could do with a lick of paint. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 12:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Fine, as long as the soffits are painted sky blue, as is tradition. Don't make me call another plenary session for that... Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    Votes for[edit]

    To change the mission statement to PacWalker's.

    1. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    2. As stated above; I saport. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    3. Me too. Spud (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    4. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    5. ArcticVixen (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Votes against[edit]

    1. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    New Year's resolutions[edit]

    Should there be a funspace article on them?

    • Ten little resolutions
    • On 2 January one of them accidentally falls

    etc etc. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

    Nope. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

    California shooting news?[edit]

    Are there any updates to the story so far? There's some reports of a DAESH-link and that the police are looking for a Middle Eastern suspect. But that might just be Pamela Geller fans jumping to conclusions and filling in the gaps with bullshit...again-- Forerunner (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

    Sources on those claims? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    There were suggestions about being near a Planned Parenthood, but the location is a social services center.--Cms13ca 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    There'll be another one this week. America has a nice one-per-day rate going on with these shootings. ArcticVixen (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Already happened in Houston. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 23:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Seems the Houstan shooting was not premeditated. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Actually... Vulpius (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sounds like bullshit. I haven't seen that reported anywhere (probably thanks to the biased liberal media of course!). I live not too far from San Bernardino. Hey, we get national news attention for once! Thanks Second Amendment! --Ymir (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Note: by "that" I was referring to the claims about zomg DAESH! --Ymir (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've heard not a whisper of DAESH or "international terrorism." Some speculation about "domestic terrorism," but others saying some facts tend away from terrorism (meaning, I presume, a political motive). Way too early to know, but either CNN nor my journo sources on Twitter have hinted at a Muslim-related motive.---Mona- (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    I heard there was three suspects on World News Tonight. As for a motive, I do not know though I heard rumors of a disgruntled employee or something along those lines.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    NBC identifies one shooter as Syed Farook. Other may be his brother.Woman isn't identified.---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Happened at Inland Regional Center, a place for disabled children. Shit. I always pass by SB on my way somewhere else. Freaks me out. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 17:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Apparently there were only two perps, both husband and wife, both Middle Eastern names; there was no third shooter. He was a former employee of the local gov't agency that was using the building for a Christmas party. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yesterday the state Democrats launched a bill proposal in the Senate/House to restrict gun sales and was pretty much rejected by the Republicans...who then passed another bill allowing more sales. Fuck goddamn. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 16:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    Before a motive is discovered, we should hold off on calling it a terrorist attack. I am not saying it wasn't but until a motive is found it would just be a crime.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

    A cursory reading of Google News (US edition) yielded the following:
    San Bernardino, California, Massacre Suspects Could Have Terror Links - NBC News
    San Bernardino shooting: Syed Farook reportedly had contacts suspected of terror ties.:
    12 pipe bombs, more than 2K rounds of ammo at Calif attackers' home: Official
    San Bernardino shooting live updates: Victims begin to be identified
    F.B.I. Treats San Bernardino Attack as Possible Terrorism Case
    San Bernardino Shooting Could Be Related to Terrorism, Obama Says
    Obama: 'Possible' that San Bernardino attack was terrorism
    --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Reports are that he left the Xmas party after a dispute; we know he came back with his wife and what they did. He may have picked that party as a target for workplace-related reasons, but nobody just has all that ammo sitting around and a plan like that unless they've had this in mind for a very long time. It seems most unlikely this was only because he was pissed at co-workers.---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Nothing new, just more members of the Homo genus killing each other as usual. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    The US has more mass shootings than any other developed country in the world. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/ It may not be new for you, but that just exemplifies the fact that it's a huge problem. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Humans kill each other for stupid reasons every day, it's disgusting but no longer surprising. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    This attitude leads to inaction, unfortunately, but it's understandable considering the overwhelming magnitude of it pressuring down on people. But it's not like something can't be done. Gun culture in America has brought it to a sorry state, where it feels like wanting to push any productive reform is met with rhetoric that encourages more violence. Alas. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not going to stop anytime soon. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not with the Republican majority. They rejected a bill proposed by the state Democrats to restrict gun sales and promptly passed another huge bill to protect the sales of guns to people on the terror watchlist. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 16:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    I haven't done my usual rounds on the internet yet; has anyone actually established a motive for the shooting yet? (got it now!) Hallucion (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    It's ~~~~ for sig. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Watched the news while munching on McD's -- the FBI sounds confused, but they haven't ruled anything out yet. Nothing makes sense about the perpetrators. Hallucion (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    BoN AFD franchising[edit]

    Why isn't there a policy on it and how should it be handled? Discuss.—Ryulong (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

    Well, let me start with what I consider the obvious: any such policy that might get made would need what could formerly have been called a 141 exception. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    This has never been a problem. No need for WikiLawyering. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    The intrinsic problem of trying to ban BoNs from participating in and voting on AfD discussions is that, often times, those articles may have been worked on by a BoNs. It would therefore not be good faith on our part to exclude such editors from having a voice over our content. Gooniepunk (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    If said articles have been worked on by BoNs then surely those BoNs would meet a certain threshhold for allowed participation in AFDs. I was attempting to suggest that we set a minimum number of edits sort of thing.—Ryulong (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Eh, it's a solution in search of a problem, and doing so just adds layers of bullshit where they aren't needed and where they haven't been before. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    A similar restriction is held for changing policy and imposing punishments so why not one on similar decisions hashed out on the site?—Ryulong (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Because there has never been an issue with socks voting on AfD, at least not since January 2008. Besides, even if there were, keeping/deleting an article doesn't have nearly the impact on the site that changing policy and imposing punishments (let alone electing officers and officials) has. Bottom line, there is no need, never has been a need, and never will be a need. Does that answer your question, Katherine Harris? Gooniepunk (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not socks that are the issue. And no it doesn't answer shit.—Ryulong (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    If a BoN makes a cogent remark in a deletion discussion, I see no reason not to accept it at face value. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    "It's not socks that are the issue." Indeed. Ryulong trying to gerrymander an ongoing AFD case is the issue. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed. As I said above, this is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. So far, it fails to pass even a basic-level "Do we really need it?" test. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe if we didn't allow random BoNs whose edits are total shit across the project to vote I wouldn't be bringing it up.—Ryulong (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    This is the last straw. Delete the Saloon Bar. 94.1.186.192 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Alright, done. (also, your edit did a bunch of weird stuff, so be careful about what buttons you push) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 05:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    Blackwater Nuclear Detonation "slick"[edit]

    Could someone please help with my search for a physical description explaining the Blackwater phenomena associated with an underwater Atomic blast — Unsigned, by: 125.238.92.247 / talk / contribs

    ? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    ??? Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    !!‼!!‼!!‼!!‼!! Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 05:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
     ; Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Are you talking about "black rain"?Wikipedia's W.svg --Ymir (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Looks like it. Some sort of underwater equivalent. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Don't worry. The fact that nobody here understands what you're talking about is clearly not evident of any sort of conspiracy against you. :^) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    What the fuck are the "Blackwater phenomena"??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    Youtube has become the Conservative Talk Radio for Millenial Reactionaries[edit]

    Has anyone noticed how the reactionary sphere on Youtube has become analogous to conservative talk radio? Is it just me? But whereas Mark Levin eventually had to let the sponsors have a word, these people can carry on their long-winded demagoguery for up to hours. Maybe it's just my human tendency to try and pattern-match things acting up but I can't help but see the resemblance.

    Full disclosure, I am a TAA fan, and I hope that doesn't immediately make me an enemy here. But I've been growing more and more disillusioned and frustrated with that sphere of the internet and I've come to the conclusion that the people reacting to the overzealous Tumblr users are, as Jon Stewart put it so elegantly, Lupus. And while they love to criticize feminists for being in a bubble, or "hugbox" (in chan speak), I've come to notice that now a reactionary can have his (sometimes her) own media-bubble echo-chamber.

    Think about it. Some kids can go their whole day and listen to hours and hours of Sargon of Akkad, Armored Skeptic, TL;DR, Internet Aristocrat, AtheismIsUnstoppable, Thunderf00t, GirlDoesRant, TAA, etc. And while I'm a fan of the Drunken Peasants Podcast (don't hate me) I can't help but notice how harmful it could be to people who actually try and substitute it for an intellectual discourse. And I know such people exist. Of course, there are the neoreactionaries, who are mostly obscure but you do get an extremely popular one every now and then like Stefan "Stop Marrying Assholes" Molyneux.

    I think Gamergate was when I realized the reactionary movement had become Lupus. I know it had been Lupus long before that but it was made especially salient then. I do consider myself a feminist, but I always thought, and still do, that sometimes advocates for "progressive" values overstep their boundaries and sometimes engage in anti-intellectualism. That is why I was initially interested in the movement, but now I'm sickened by it.

    151.141.68.97 (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    It sounds like you're starting to find things you find objectionable in content you previously enjoyed. It happened to me with TotalBiscuit. Once I saw how much of a douche he was on social media, I unsubbed from his channel. I don't know how attached you are to TAA, but I suppose it's a matter of weighing how important things like feminism are to you and whether or not you can enjoy the content in spite of it, or if it becomes too much. The problem here is that that culture is in a downward spiral, becoming so much more noticeable and impacting on the people who subscribe to it. It's a damn shame. On the other hand, I guess it allows people to make sure they know what type of beliefs they're supporting by giving these people ad revenue. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ugh, that happened to me as well. Found TotalBiscuit and wife through other channels, and enjoyed their content at first, and I realised that they are both 'complete' douches. ArcticVixen (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    There's a fundamental asymmetry to progressive/reactionary evangelism. Reactionaries start by telling people that their pre-existing opinions are correct, and then hope to steer their audience into more extreme beliefs by taking advantage of tribalism once it's establish that the neoreactionary and the listener are 'on the same side'. Progressives start by telling people that's there something they need to change about the way they think or act, and many people get very defensive about that. It always takes a more superficially combative tone, because it is pushing for change. Of course, once you get past that initial tendency to defensiveness, it's pretty clear that neoreactionaries are far, far more aggressive - it's a part of the tribalism they employ, decrying anyone not in their bubble. It can be very difficult to winkle someone out of that mindset once they've fallen into it. Worse still, at that point they start evangelising about their own (slightly more moderate) position, hooking others in. The Neoreactionary internet is a chain of slightly more extreme demagogues, passing punters down the line to each other, a whirlpool leading into the abyss. Neoreactionaries are selling comforting lies about the past. Progressives are selling ambitious promises about the future. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's the resistance to change. Behavior that was previously considered acceptable, such as calling someone a retard, is being challenged, and some would rather cling to what they know than be brought into a realm where they have to see other people eye to eye. It's a culture trying to relearn how to treat other human beings. Or trying their hardest not to. And these people, these people with agendas-- they're capitalizing on the fear of being wrong. They're in the game of reassurance. "No, you were always right. Don't listen to what they say. Now, listen to what I say." It's quite sad, really. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    I would be careful about saying that reactionaries are necessarily one way or the other. For example, the leading intellectuals of the early 20th century often supported eugenics so I don't think we can always discount the reactionaries or conservatives. But I like the idea idea you have proposed that the reactionary sphere is a ladder that starts in sane territory but has many rungs and they all go down from there. Ultimately, the difference between TL;DR and Davis Aurini is not a qualitative difference but only one of degree. 151.141.68.97 (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    Plus, reactionaries by definition are anti-progressive. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    "For example, the leading intellectuals of the early 20th century often supported eugenics so I don't think we can always discount the reactionaries or conservatives." Huh? So what? Eugenics was enthusiastically embraced by people along pretty much the entire spectrum of progressive/conservative and left/right, but with different justifications. The progressives who embraced eugenics thought they could improve society by creating "new men", while the conservatives who supported eugenics saw it as a cure to what they perceived as a degenerating modern society. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not at all, SW. Margaret Sanger believed Eastern Europeans were about 50% clinical morons who should not be allowed to "spawn and swarm." She proposed offering them the choice between sterilization or labor camps. Her mottos included: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit," and, "Birth control, to create a race of thoroughbreds." On her Board of Directors she had Lothrap Stoddard who was cozy with Hitler and loved the Nazis race laws. Stoddard wrote: The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World-Supremacy. Reading Sanger's primary books -- which I've done -- is stomach-turning.---Mona- (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    So, some progressives shared the concern over "degeneracy", that doesn't really change the point that conservatives weren't the bastion against eugenics that the BoN seemed to imply above. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    A lot depends on the local meaning of words like "conservative". Religious believers, especially the Roman Catholic church, were the chief opponents of the Nazi eugenic schemes, and occasionally had the institutional confidence to defy the Nazi government openly. They did so for essentially conservative reasons. It isn't unreasonable to see twentieth century eugenics as a manifestation of a naive belief in "progress" and engineering. The problem was an inadequate grasp of heredity and biology; all of these ideas came out before science even had an inkling of the function of DNA. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Very true, Smerdis. Margaret Sanger's chief opponent was Monseigneur John Ryan, a strong activist for economic justice, including the rights of labor and a living wage. He strongly opposed Sanger's notions of "inferior people" not being allowed to have children, including the disabled. Also, he saw protestants and atheists trying to effect a basically social Darwinist solution to the poor by trying to limit their numbers by not paying fathers enough. For Ryan, the common people had a right to have large families and to support them. Of course, he also totally rejected the use of "artificial" birth control per se. While that is a very bad position for women, much of Ryan's theology and politics were grounded in progressive concerns. In the 1920s the U.S. Supreme Court infamously upheld Virginia's compulsory sterilization law, with Oliver Wendell Holmes declaring: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Ryan mobilized nation-wide opposition to this ruling. ---Mona- (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    I guess I'm fairly out of the loop, but is Armored Skeptic a reactionary? I thought he mostly did videos debunking creationism, but again, I haven't seen any videos he has made in ages so I wouldn't really know. I occasionally watch TYT and Secular Talk, and they too can frequently get on my nerves for seeming "echo chambery". (Full disclosure, I've never even heard of most of the channels you listed, I'm not trying to defend reactionaries and crazy people). Samstr (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    Questions on Anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC)[edit]

    I have a few questions:

    1. Isn't this be readily falsifiable because the speed of light from any particular point to surface of the moon would be different from the speed of light from that same point to reach Earth (at some/most angles) so the skyview is different (some stars are not visible on Moon because the light isn't there yet) because of that?
    2. (minor point) How would gravitational lensing work under ASC? Actual infinite speed is difficult to bend to say the least.

    K61824CP≠Child Porn? 19:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    For 1, ASC says that light travels infinitely fast coming at you, so the light would have infinitely quickly hit the moon and bounced towards you.
    For 2, ASC proponents have no fucking clue, but I suppose they could say that gravity has a proportionately infinite impact on light particles while light is coming at you (or perhaps that light is proportionately infinitely more massive) and half its impact when light is going away. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Gods above and below, this is at the edge of my ability to comprehend so take what I say with an appropriately adjusted amount of seriousness. 1 No, because ASC proposes light moves faster towards any observer not faster towards Earth so the location of the observer does not signify (I don't understand whatever FCP meant). 2 What FCP said seems as good an explanation as any. SolPyre (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    SolPyre's answer for 1 is much better, thanks Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    Ten Plagues of Egypt[edit]

    For the idea of the ten plagues, honestly there should rational explanations of what the ten plagues could have been (considering myths are used to explain things)

    • Water Turning to blood- An algae discoloring the water
    • Plague of Frogs- a water spout pulling frogs from their natural habitat
    • Gnats- Obviously animals and bugs migrate to other places
    • Flies- warmer weather allowing more flies to breed
    • Diseased Livestock- an new infectious disease spreading among animals
    • Plague of Boils- possibly disease
    • Thunder and Hail- just a severe thunderstorm in the area
    • Locusts- They are common in Africa
    • Darkness- Solar Eclipse
    • Death of the firstborn- Not an actual disease that kills the firstborn exclusively but a disease that was first among them.

    If you have other ideas then post them; I am willing to listen to other ideas.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    No offense, but what you're doing here is the same things that many christian apologists are doing - that is, trying to shoehorn in events as having happened instead of taking the obvious path of dismissing the idiotic unproven story as being patently false. You're clasping for straws here - there wasn't darkness recorded for three days anywhere in the historical record (and I have no idea how that would even work unless the rotation of the earth was screwed with for those three days, etc). How about; there's no archeological evidence whatsoever of any of the Exodus events having ever taken place? How's that for a myth. And if you really want to discuss the folklore and the path to the manmade cobbling together of the exodus myth, then that's something different entirely. But you have not been clear that that is your intention here, so you'll excuse me if that was what you meant all along. And even then there's a difference between just tossing out ideas for what might fit and doing anything remotely scholarly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well that certainly was not my intention, I was going for something that would go against biblical literalism. For my idea for the final plague, it would go against a literal take on the bible because they mention the deaths of only. As for a solar eclipse, I do not think something like that was mentioned in the bible. Honestly, I was not going for defending a literal bible interpretation.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    No, but you were going for wild conjectures that are no more provable than biblical literalism & only slightly less improbable.
    How is this for a rational explanations of what the ten plagues could have been: a piece of storytelling built around the religious beliefs & agrarian concerns of a nomadic culture from a long time ago? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Right, although if you feel like analyzing the text it can be worth considering where the authors got the ideas for the plagues. Frogs and other animals being sucked up by storms and dropped elsewhere is something that really happens, for instance. --Ymir (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Better example would probably be for the darkness, as Reverend has "no idea how that would even work", which has been documented in the past. The 536 Dust Veil and 1780 Dark Day are both examples of how there could be extended periods of localized darkness due to significant amounts of ash being ejected into the sky through massive fire or volcanic eruption.
    Not saying that the plagues actually happened or anything. Just that it's possible. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Very convenient of you to sidestep my actual point regarding the darkness, which was that "there wasn't darkness recorded for three days anywhere in the historical record". And you guys seem to forget - Exodus didn't happen. The plages never happened. Now, sure, the article in the Telegraph and all that - but this is akin to offering perfectly rational hypothesis for where the UFO that crashed at Roswell was actually taken, rather than - as the standard story goes - taken to an army base. And I'm over here going like - we know Exodus is completely fictional. I'm studying biblical archeology at the faculty of theology as we speak for crying out loud. I'm not saying this discussion is worthless or that the article wasn't interesting - but just keep this in mind. This is akin to using climate models to explain how Mount Doom would work. The models and the science aren't the problem; it's the forgetting that said models are being applied to Middle Earth. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Roswell is kind of a bad example, since something actually did crash there, and the U.S. government did try to keep it hushed up. It was a detector sent up by the U.S. military to detect Soviet nuclear tests. Analyzing the mythology around Roswell provides an excellent case study in how myths evolve, because it wasn't until the 1970s that extraterrestrial visitation believers rediscovered the incident and incorporated it into their lore, which in turn helped solidify the tropes of flying saucers and shadowy government coverups. --Ymir (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    I can agree fully that Roswell is a bad example, as indeed something did crash there. The LOTR analogy was probably more apt. Regarding the academic study of mythmaking; here's Dr. Richard Carrier on Roswell. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    To make my point with infinitely more lucidity than I could ever hope to muster, I suggest to anyone participating in this thread to give this a (re)listen - five or ten minutes should cover the essentials of this summary. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    "The models and the science aren't the problem; it's the forgetting that said models are being applied to Middle Earth." Aww, but applying such things to middle earth is so much fun. The Atlas of Middle Earth by Fonstad is amazing! SolPyre (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    I should point out, there's an article in The Telegraph that discusses this sort of thing. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    They always leave out the Plague of Zucchini. I was there! It was awful! 0 Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 06:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    There are no rational explanations; This thread is utterly pointless.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋
    "It can be worth considering where the authors got the ideas for the plagues."-Ymir. This. Thinking about what horrible things were feared by the zeitgeist thousands of years ago gives us a little peak into their heads. Mostly the plagues are biological/ecological phenomena beyond the comprehension/control of ancient man. SolPyre (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    The point of this was figuring things that could have occurred in real life, because there was no tools to explain natural occurrences they end up becoming myths.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm with those who feel that looking for rational explanations for things that didn't happen is sorta pointless. For instance, as it's Christmas, I'm sure we are going to see the usual articles in newspapers on what the star of Bethlehem "really was" and who the Three Wise Men "really were". (Though I must admit I've never seen anyone try an a rational explanation for the multiple zombie saints who "appeared" at the time of Jesus' death.)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    I suggest that Rationalzombie94 looks up this section on EuhemerismWikipedia's W.svg before crafting yet another low quality article à la the spree of fundie school stubs. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    More on that: here's Dr. Richard Carrier, again. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Banana.gif Banana fallacy #2 Banana.gif[edit]

    What is it with creationists and bananas? from CMI:

    Baboons are said to share 92% of their DNA with us. Granted a high degree of shared DNA, even if it were 90%, would that make them 90% human, as most interpret this? It is worth repeating what prominent evolutionist Steve Jones reminded his audience of recently in the context of man/chimp DNA-sharing: “We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down.”

    The argument made can be summarized as "We don't look like 50% bananas or 92% chimp, therefore humans are special, therefore God exists, therefore etc.." Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    It sounds like a combo of the banana and crocoduck idiocy. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Creationists seem to think two wrongs make a right, rofl. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not quite the same as the Crocoduck, although it's certainly based on the same profound misunderstandings of pretty much all branches of biology. I wonder if we cover this particular argument somewhere and if it's worth covering? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's their job to keep being wrong; it's our job to keep documenting it. So this should be integrated into an article somewhere... sourced nicely as it is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know, you may laugh it off now but I have a feeling its not something you can refute. I mean, I thought evolution was solid until I read that a few months ago. Now I'm leaning towards creationism: an observable, testable and repeatable science. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    They have a fetish for phallus-shaped fruits. Ask them, what they think about cucumbers.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ray Comfort literally celebrates how "banana-shaped objects are made to fit perfectly in the human mouth" as he sort of fellates the air. No shit; he literally does an "o" face as he fondles the shaft of the banana. Watch his infamous clip on this, the atheist's nightmare. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    Him and the AmazingAtheist have something in common after all. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    So, are there no archiving bots anymore?[edit]

    'Cause if there ain't, I could maybe take a look at the code of the current defunct ones and see if I can maintain one. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png rerorerorerorerorerorerorero 14:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    This was also brought up Goonie's talk page btw. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    To my knowledge,Pibot is completely borked (hasn't been active in over a month). ZooGuard once had ZooBot setup in place of PiBot, but then turned it off when PiBot reappeared. The only one with access to the bot server that PiBot runs off of seems to be Trent who, as we all know, has been MIA for a while. Gooniepunk (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Pretty sure I can run a wiki bot using a cheap VPS or something. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Rollin' around at the speed of sound 03:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    'cause the archive bots are crap and no-one did find an adequate replacement yet.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    Is mass shooting denialism a thing now?[edit]

    Seems like MSNBC is saying that (From 11:55 to the end of video). K61824I am STILL single 18:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    I've got notes I'm working to integrate into my David Icke sandbox. Long story short: every mass shooting since Utöya has had serious levels of denialism from the nutcase community; we're talking front page of Infowars level. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    No death has ever in fact occurred in history, except at the hands of government conspirators working for the revenooers - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Joy of Satan article English please[edit]

    Please make English Joy of Satan article.--Jakester499 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    ? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Please make viral freezing blasphemer article. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 22:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Now that would be something to see. SolPyre (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    If you want an article created & don't want to do it yourself, post at RW:TODO. Preferably with a few words about why you think it would be interesting & relevant to us, not just "please make". WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    Okay. — Unsigned, by: User:Jakester499 / talk / contribs 02:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    I was going to translate Joy of Satan (español) into English. Then I noticed it was completely unsourced (and slapped that template on to it). I tried looking for reliable sources that backed up the claims made in the Spanish article. I couldn't find any. I could only find those claims repeated on a couple of websites that looked even shittier than the Joy of Satan one. So I didn't bother. Spud (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    meh ... time for AfD? Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe. (Or should I say, "Quizas, quizas. quizas"?) Spud (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well, here is their website http://www.joyofsatan.org/ 5.40.87.189 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Winter is coming (astroturfing)[edit]

    Reddit is being hit hard by astroturfing and shadowvoters. I expect them to come here and to branch out to all other forms of political discussion as the election continues on, so be prepared (you can ignore the bits about "sticking up for Bernie" if you don't like him; the post just has good advice about how to deal with the nonsense in general). Eoan (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    So that's Reddit, eh? Not sure what the big deal is.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    People and corporations should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns, and not have to go through stupid superpacs. 1 dollar, one vote in my view. Ghost (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    @AgingHippie The issue is that r/politics is normally a fairly "liberal" subreddit, actually a bit like this place with a small smattering of libertarianism that occasionally shows up. Over the past few months, posts like the two examples I gave have periodically made it to the front page and comments containing their sentiments are regularly given a lot of upvotes and support.
    But now, for whatever reason, users of the subreddit have done a complete 180 and are trying to silence submissions (with downvotes) that tell Bernie supporters to still vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. That is very atypical behavior for the subreddit since its users normally go on and on in support for that kind of sentiment and about how Democrats need to vote more in unison like the GOP, don't sit out from the midterms and etc.
    And the awkward comments further down the thread about Citizens United that are getting hundreds of upvotes are very unusual for the subreddit too, as similar submissions about that ruling regularly make it to the front page without this kind of large opposition. Several discussions about this stance from Bernie Sanders have also been going on for months in various different parts of the subreddit without incident and instead with a general level of support. But now all of a sudden we're seeing the almost-unanimous r/politics user-base of Democrats turn on two of their side's favorite pet peeves: voter turnout and the Citizens United ruling (and there are more examples than just those, too).
    To help put all of that into context, the sudden change in behavior is almost as awkward as it would be if around 30% of RationalWiki's users suddenly started going on a crusade about how it's wrong to joke about Conservapedia because "free speech". Eoan (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think we'll need to worry. /r/Politics makes for a rather easy target as it's on the same site as the massive /r/SandersForPresident hypetrain circlejerk subreddit and requires no larger action than the click of a mouse to contribute to a bloc vote for or against a post or comment (especially now that /r/Politics hasn't been a default subreddit in a while and at last check ran only twice as many active readers as /r/SandersForPresident). On top of that, there is little recourse mods on said subreddits can do without either igniting a firestorm of "omg censorship" accusations and/or having Reddit's admins to intervene/take the blame -- RationalWiki, on the other hand, is afforded a lot more protections against wandalism or shadowvoting or what-have-you (with the possible exception of the WIGOs, but they aren't particularly important). There is a lot more freedom to review and reject changes to articles and so forth, and see who may be posting them. Unless someone's willing to put in the significant amount of time to set up an account and start making very slight changes that would go relatively unnoticed until the election, I'd kind of doubt anything too extreme or fawning would stick. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    guys guess what I did[edit]

    I fixed my first typo!!!! IT said terrorsit and corrected to say terrorist!--Jakester499 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Truly an event that everyone should know of. Please, add this momentous occasion to History of RationalWiki... Why hasn't a mod made a site-wide announcement yet? Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    *Sigh* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    Gave you a mop. You should be good to go. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    uhhhhh, nice for you? Hallucion (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    HELP! Can't edit WIGO:World[edit]

    I can't seem to edit the WIGO:World page! An "edit" tab is absent. Metamorphosis (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Could you explain your problem in more detail? Also; consider re-titling this section to something other than the very non-descriptive "HELP!". Like, "Can't edit WIGO:World" or something? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    It has protection on it for auto-confirmed only, I presume that's what they are running into. Lightning Dust (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not considered auto-confirmed yet? Metamorphosis (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    Try again. You now have more than ten edits, and should be autoconfirmed with that. SmartFeller (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    An comic[edit]

    Any ideas in what article it might be useful? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    No. Why does it have to go in any? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    Explains difference btwn physical vs sexual "fitness" in evolutionary terms. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    So what? If you don't know where on this site it belongs, then it probably doesn't belong on this site. Finding stuff on the net & then looking for places on RW to cram it isn't a good way to build quality content. It just adds to the shitty scrapbook aesthetic we have going on in some of our less focused articles. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Seems like it could fit with the third paragraph of our On the Origin of Species page (which is pretty embarrassingly short). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    There, or elsewhere. I think this comic is a good find, and I think we could easily welcome it into an article. Sweet addition, FCP. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    Presidential address[edit]

    It was a fairly agreeable plan to fight terrorism; I liked the idea to review the visa system and the idea of stepping up stricter background checks. Anyone else see the speech.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    Big fan of Barry Hussein here, but I didn't like hearing him imply that the no-fly list is well vetted. Tuppy Glossop (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    I will try to have faith in the government on this one; though I am skeptical on how effective it will be to fight ISIS.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    The moment I learned that Linda wasn't completing the mission, I just knew the government would have to act in her stead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well I did not watch the address, but I got the general vibe. He was sticking to his message. What bothers me is that he does not report allied gains against ISIS. Imagine if every week, there was a live military press conference listing all of the airstrikes conducted in that past week and all of the targets destroyed, as well as the estimated number of killed and the territorial losses for ISIS. People would overwhelmingly support Obama's current policy if they heard about all of the frontline battle news, but they don't; all they hear is what the news media tells them, which is often ISIS victory, which gets them better ratings and thus more money.
    If he would have mentioned all of the strikes he ordered, it would have a far bigger impact than what he sad. He should have gone up to the mic and said this: "Since the war on ISIL began, we have dropped over 32,000 bombs, striking 16,000 ISIL targets, killing 15,000 ISIL fighters, demolishing 4,000 buildings, and destroying and hundreds of vehicles. ISIL has lost the control of large swathes of Syria and Iraq. They've lost key cities like Tikrit, Baiji, and Sinjar, and even as I speak, the Iraqi city of Ramadi is in the process of being liberated by US-trained Iraqi soldiers. The campaign against ISIL has so far been a success. However, this will not be enough to defeat ISIL. I am announcing that we will send in several hundred soldiers to advise Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the frontlines, who will train new soldiers, spot airstrikes, and provide tactical advice that will lead to more ISIL defeats in the coming months. ISIL won't be defeated soon, but with time, this campaign will succeed in destroying ISIL. Thank you." There, that's the speech he should've gave. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Insurgency[edit]

    How much of a threat would a libertarian-leaning insurgency be to the U.S. government? Alex Jones and the like seem to continually state it as a practical solution. After frequently dismissing it, I started wondering how it would play out. Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege were examples of federal forces triumphing over well-armed civilians, but they had superior numbers and the opposite happened at one of the flashpoints during the Bundy standoff, where the gov forces withdrew. I think him and people who think like him tend to overestimate what they would be able to do, with the U.S. military having put down severe domestic threats before and now being one of the most advanced military forces on the planet. Any thoughts? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    Once libturds figure out how to shoot down stealth bombers, I'll worry. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Such an insurgency is completely unrealistic.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh good, I have an excuse to drop a link to this. ArcticVixen (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    An amusing link, but was it being detained? Was the link free to go? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    Any rebellion or insurgency in the United States would have to have widespread support (>20%), which likely means that it won't be conducted by right-wing libertarians if it happened at all. Likely, things would have to get really bad before people resort to outright insurrection, for example a ban on unions, internet use, gun ownership, or an outright subversion of everything democratic (banning of political parties or thoughts, etc.) Even then, a purely right-wing 'libertarian' insurgency would be easy to fight, as they would not have popular support, and the government has flying robots than blow people up from 30,000 feet without them ever knowing anything was coming. If a rebellion ever happened, it would be among the political left against the right-wing corporatist establishment, and it would have to have broad-based support from whites and average workers, as well as soldiers and some political figures. Then there might be a threat to the US government. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Voting for change is probably the best option. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Regarding basing edits on TOW content[edit]

    Hello RW community, this is Reverend Black Percy writing.

    As any supposed holy man of the cloth, I guess it's probable (or even expected) that I were to take a dramatic tumble from grace atleast once. I don't know if I can muster "dramatic", but I've got plenty of "stupid" to balance out the equation with. In any case; it's likely that the time has come for me to place myself in the limelight for my fifteen minutes of fail. So, armor off - here goes.

    Considering the recent edits that have gone back-and-forth over the Yonaguni Monument article (see the article talk page for details), including a major revision that I made that openly included a large portion of text which was intentionally lifted straight off of TOW (about 6,800 of the 11,800 added symbols, according to Ruylong's estimate) by myself (though, as I explain quite vitally on the aforementioned talk page, with the perhaps idiotic intention of having said content reworked by myself and the community into fully original and missional writing, based on the content in the refs). Now, in retrospect, I - perhaps very stupidly - realise in absolute clarity that the insertion of TOW content isn't defendable with anything but an appeal to the absolute retardation of the editor in question. Which would be me. I'll even prove it to you.

    The purpose of this statement is really threefold; Firstly, to offer the community my honest explanation of this debacle. Secondly, to give the apology that the community deserves from me (as especially important in the context of my explanation). Thirdly; I mean to provide the reader with as many direct sources to the events described as I can. Transparency repels no truth, so here goes.

    I'm new to wiki editing - and I don't mean to pull a Homer Simpson defense here - but, now recollecting, on the occations I did copy straight from TOW it was always with the, to me, clear (and even noble *sigh*) intention of getting back on that text soon, to rework it at some - in retrospect - vague self-conjured moment to be; to have the community pick up on this process and help transform the article completely... In my TOW lift edit to The God Who Wasn't There (as I will describe below), I reflect this position of innocent stupidity in the edit summary;

    "More to come."

    And then, life happened. What a mess. Hearing this now; the mere thought that I wouldn't need any kind of alarm clock for the train cart I set in motion to stay on the tracks and hit all the stations on time just seems unrealistic. I, who on impulse chase after butterflies to the point of forgetting which direction my house is in. All of these naive editorial fumblings seem to me now as pretty indicative of a remarkably green-horned editor. *waves awkwardly*

    To extend this travesty further, I myself lost track of these "additions" (that never got past the point of glorified rip-off as I lost track of them), wandering between topics as the days went on, edit-jumping frog between various topics which happened to interest me at the moment; all the while constantly learning new things about the actual process of editing. Learning which, by absolute necessity, involves a sober amount of trial and error. I mean, not even a month ago from today, I would literally cobble together texts with a scope rivaling this one, yet without even making segments of the text. Believe you me when I tell you I'm new at wiki editing; a willing (albeit slow) learner. And today, I grew like The Incredible Hulk in terms of RW character development, as I quickly got the opportunity to learn my own body weight in "DO NOT"'s.

    And this moment couldn't have come too soon (though one could perhaps have wished that we'd all be spared the actual misstep itself) - I've always been glad to make things right once I've come to agree that I was in fact causative of the problem (which, for the record, hasn't been the case close to the amount of times that this has been the accusation). But I won't waste your time on disgusting self-defense. In this case, my exact complicity in being a grade-A moron seems all but apparent. And so, I now make sure to stand by those same principles I've always boasted. I fucked up. And I'm terribly sorry for having done so. I hope you can ever forgive me.

    I must admit to harboring a hope that most of the editors here - that I've had, and daily have even now, truly the priviliege of interacting with (and learning from) will attest - if nothing else - to the plausibility of my good intentions in all this. The plausibility that I can be trusted in what I declare here and now, without suspicion of "whitewashing" (though, I don't think owning up to a mistake and parading said mistake for all eyes to see is what whitewashing means... But I digest).

    Since the cogs started turning following the Yonaguni Monument debacle just hours ago, the following instances where babby's first editing strategy has been aptly and diligently identified by WatcherIntheDark include;

    His note on reverting one of these pages reads;

    "I'm getting EE flashbacks. This entire edit is copied from Wikipedia:"

    The most remarkable feeling came from having my gut turned by reading that edit note, all the while not even knowing what EE is, or what the flashback might entail. I could just tell, instantly, that I had waded into serious no-no territory even from that phrasing. Now, I have absolutely no problem with "coming clean" with this - my terror is, in fact, a fear of being confused with someone who is resisting scrutiny over this in any form whatsoever. This scares me enough to make me want to state it plainly; that I've never gone around claiming that these particular seminal revisions weren't partially based on TOW.

    Now, let me pause you right there - that past sentence? The one I just wrote there? My God, does that sound like a fuckwit thing to write. "I didn't explicitly claim..." sounds like an outrageous, even laughable creationist defense of some convoluted variety. The truth of the matter is (I half say to myself in retrospect); people expect that your edits are kinda sorta yours when they're done in your name and without further explaining. So that's just the worst thing I've ever had to write, and it defends nothing.

    But on the other hand, as is (hopefully) apparent from the Yonaguni Monument talk page, consider that the moment I was snapped out of my old, it-turns-out-poorly-motivated half-asleep mode of editing and realised that this whole thing was a problem - never mind such a clear-cut problem - I instantly made sure to distance myself from this stupid practice of mine, and from any supposed ownership of the text - credit should have been given even as I pursued this moronical mode of editing. Anyone who attempts to construe this into me having tried to ever argue that one of these numerically limited TOW lift edits (all the TOW copy edits I've ever made can be counted on one hand, though I don't explain away the fact that they were comparatively and disgracefully long in terms of sheer symbol count) were not exactly that is an absolute liar. I never lied about authorship when confronted on the issue, for a moment, once.

    So where does that leave us? Well, to "continue down the right path" (sounds disgustingly pretentious, doesn't it?) - or rather, to do something concrete rather than bore you with platitudes - I'm going to help WatcherIntheDark in his very apt digging into my contributory backlogs (which, to my defense, contain a most fair number of edits that are very much my own, from start to finish). Here, we find my article on Roger Leir (the full edit history of which is visible here). The edit summary for creating the page reads;

    "Started an article on the great ufologist Roger Leir. Adapted the base from Wikipedia and worked from there. In progress."

    This was, as I recall it, my first real field test to see if TOW barebones could actually be permitted on the site. Was this good research into our policies? Not really, no. Should I have pulled my head out of my ass and proof-reread our rules instead? Duh.

    That edit was from the 12th of September, this year. As it seemed to fly nicely, I made a mental note that working from a TOW start was - somehow - permitted. Somehow I thought this. In my brain. That this was sufficient. In retrospect, even having made a similar TOW-based edit just hours ago from writing this, basing off of TOW already feels like something I know to be wrong, as if I didn't just literally learn (in my own sawdust-filled cranium) the nature of the prohibition against doing so, from A to Z. This most recent lesson - which grazed my skin as if grazed by a sniper's bullet - is sticking, I'm very proud (though tomato faced as all hell) to say. What fate will befall this article now, I cannot say - but I'm happy to have brought it to the mob myself. As someone who claims to have understood his mistake, nothing less could be permissible from me, even by my own - as of recent - doubtful standards.

    I don't know that I have much more in my heart right now (and my head is, by all authoritative accounts, under suspicion of being void of content). I mean, the actual practicality of this scandal is fairly simple. Material was copied, by me, from Wikipedia, and added here. Again, I can't shake this - from outside the view of my own head certainly bizarre - need to condemn this behaviour, despite being the one on trial for not having grasped it. The irony is not lost on me, nor is literally the inappropriateness of even considering indulging this shift from accused to accuser. Another impulse pulls me also (perhaps in a more proper direction); as the defendant in this case, I should really learn to just shut the fuck up when the judge is talking. I guess I have the benefit of text in that I can blather now, as if this platform was rightfully mine, and not outrageously taken for granted by me. I'm actually sorry if this annoys you, too. I don't mean to make things worse by explaining.

    My only solemn wish right now is that you atleast know why the practicality of this was indeed the case; why the context and the motives on my part play a not unimportant role in understanding the situation (aside from confirming my intellectual ceiling to be about hobbit dwelling-height). Naturally, all of this supposing a neutral mode of reasoning from you, the reader. Against a mean-spirited reading of the above? No defense could be implemented beforehand, I'm afraid. What I can do is be perfectly honest in what I write right here and now, and then accept that we'll go from there.

    It's important for me to be able to say this, if nothing else. RW has become very dear to me, and I like to think that the vast majority of my edits have been of atleast non-revertible quality. And with all this being said, I don't think I'm Hitler, either. There's likely more than one editor here who I imagine wouldn't miss pissing on me until I gurgle the stuff - it would seem they may be in luck today. I'm sure Ruylong will be Ruylong; a man you all have far more experience dealing with than I do. I say that without toxicity directed at you, Ruylong. I only blocked you because I thought you could unblock yourself, for the record - it wasn't meant to silence you unfairly.

    However - most importantly - I'm not writing this out of a position of persection complex. I don't feel persecuted. And indeed, I'm not making this about anyone but myself. As humble as an excuse of any veracity by sheer necessity must be, the fact remains that nobody can instruct me on who I am. I can, however, always instruct others - if nothing else but in the sense that even a stupid nonsense instruction from me still instructs about me as it was I who produced it. But again, I digest; I mean to say that I feel like a person with a single starting premise - respect is earned. And I try to earn it because I chose to, not because my world ends without it (allow me the luxury of a scoff).

    I'm quite complacent without the respect of people who have denied themselves mine by their tone or actions - indeed, from the wrong person, respect can even be costly to recieve. Which brings me to my attempt to not be costly like that in your RW lives. There's a significant lot of you people who I, in the rampant silliness that is me, respect. You can shower and scrub all you like; it won't come off. What I am inviting here is the judging of people I respect (which has nothing to do with agreeing with me), and indeed the judging of my own self-respect (which, as we all know, can be a harsh voice of criticism). All of these necessary critics demand of me that I "carpe diem" and just communicate openly what's on my chest and what I know to be true, rather than to not do so.

    Demanding sense from an idiot isn't something you should expect to be able to ask of me; the extent of my mental powers end at my ability to atleast make the choice between silence and communication. And I choose communication - fuck it. I want us to talk about this. I mean, of course I do - I'm apologising, and for good reason too! It's not even up to me if this is to be discussed, I might as well be honest about my support for that notion. Naturally, I'm opening up to a discussion as well, as this is the Saloon Bar after all. Regardless; these are my honest to the flying spaghetti monster two cents (and I think the fact that I'm all over the place with this might corroborate the fact that I'm baring my chest as best I can).

    What you just read here is the best I can do at a short notice, fueled purely as I am by the absolutely dreadful realisation of how utterly I blew it; not just once but repeatedly (a truly frame-worthy inability to think even two steps ahead). To think about what the hell I was really doing in these particular cases... I can only direct you to my decent heart to reach deep in its pockets and atleast attempt to pay for the crimes inflicted by my wobbling reasoning faculty. This is how much I care about how I conduct myself here. That's all.

    Thank you all for taking the time; not only the time to read my rambling thoughts, but also the essential patience required of you all to put if with my almost geriatric learning curve when it comes to (sadly but clearly even basic) editing etiquette - be you well-wisher, neutral or adorable nemesis alike. And good night. It's past 8AM in Sweden, and I've yet to go to bed. Don't misinterpret any silence on my part as any type of reply it itself. It's my turn to listen now, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    Heja Sverige! Just to clear up the mystery, EE refers to Exiled Encyclopedist who was a rather notorious TOW copy/paster (to other non-jargon speakers, TOW refers to The Other Wiki, i.e. Wikipedia, as does WP). And yes, TOW copy pasta is not a dish on the RW menu, although many editors probably use it as their first pit stop for gathering basic facts (how much, when, who and so forth), and not being TOW is a pretty important part of RW identity (an extension of the stuff about not being an encyclopaedia in general), meaning that TOW plagiarism is apt to meat with some very non-NPOV responses. Finally, was it really necessary to post a wall of text that long? I mean, it's quite a way into tl;dr territory, isn't it? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for that. And thank you for reading that erratic block of text, if you did. I guess I betrayed my text right away, in that I haven't fallen asleep just yet. So much for the drive for credibility I suppose... The tl;dr fact, I think, comes from the fact that I literally just told it all right here, and also from the fact that it's enough to not give a fuck about me to not bother reading it, I suppose. And a third reason - which I just realised corroborates my story - is that as I just found out how big a deal this was, I didn't know if I was on the verge of getting permabanned or if this was a slap on the wrist sort of thing. And I do care about RW, and I stand by the notion that the vast majority of my edits are good. Still; that doesn't excuse this travesty, so I allowed myself the platform to just be blunt. Again, fuck it - it's not even up to me if this is discussed, so the best way for me to stand by the convictions I constantly recommend to others is by acting on them now, when I was clearly at fault. That's about it. Again; this is how much I care about how I conduct myself here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    It was so long I almost decided to write "Cool story bro" but thought better of it. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Nah, not even close to permaban territory, merely grounds for dismissive remarks, a note in the little black book of RW transgressions, a blotch on your electronic karma, and at worst a stint in the cyber-pillory. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Bro I don't even have sysop and since when is "cool story bro" code for anything other than cheeky tl;dr? I wouldn't ban him even if I had the power to do so. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    If I recall correctly, EE eventually got permabanned for doxing and being an obnoxious twat; not copying stuff from Wikipedia. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, what this guy did isn't worth any banning. I was just being snarky about the length of this post. :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    As there are no moderators who have taken an interest in this matter, it falls on me, as the longest-serving user present, to take it upon myself, to deal with this situation. To whit. Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame? Don't do it again, fix whatever you can, and then don't do it again some more. Tsk Tsk. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    From one reverend (or at least ordained minister) to another: Ego te absolvo. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Eh, based on character count, the first post was equivalent to about 75 full "Hail Mary" recitals. I guess I won't permaban you now. ArcticVixen (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Uh oh. Does this mean I have to write my own apology essay if I forget to add </vote> again? Or if I abruptly cut off the actual discussion currently going on with a dumb and under-indented comment?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
    You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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

    ...and don't you forget it, you miscreant. Bad dog! ScepticWombat (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Damn it. Don't worry, I'll have my final draft posted on the main page in a few hours.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Your grovelling shall appease the horde. The Arctic Vixen [Get foxy with me ♥] 02:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I have often used old Wikipedia text as the starting point for articles. Mostly, material that I originally wrote for Wikipedia back when Wikipedia was in its second year of existence and thereabouts. There was a need to get pages up about important subjects then. Wikipedia was a hell of a lot more fun back then, and I inserted none too subtle snark into articles I started. Most of my versions have long been altered past recognition or deleted there, and the current Wikipedia article will likely only contain a phrase or two from the old text I borrowed. This may or may not be a violation of an unwritten policy here. But I am not embarrassed to say that I've done this, nor for that matter convinced to stop. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Evil Guberment and the Military[edit]

    So I have a question. The fun part of the right who believes an oppressed states of America is right around the corner usually always thinks the military is going to either apparently be replaced wholesale with silver shirts and go along with it. But how so? Like, we're meant to view soldiers as brave men (and women) fighting and laying down their lives to maintain and safeguard American Democracy, but where do these brave souls vanish to when the government declares martial law and rounds up the libertarians?

    And if the military IS composed mostly of people who want to jackboot the place and are just waiting on the order, why does this never come up during all these celebrations of the Military? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Eh, you're expecting internal consistency and rigorous logic from this group of conspiracy theorists? Why? ScepticWombat (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Because Republicans are hypocrites and don't recognize that they hold contradictory viewpoints at the same time. Generally, the military should only be respected as much as it actually contributes to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
    Can you actually point out similar cognitive dissonance on the left? Since this is generally a left-wing community, we could more easily control ourselves and fix discrepancies on our side. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    There are a lot of leftists who are good at seeing Western crimes, yet bad at seeing crimes of non western entities... And of course the tendency is reversed for the right (ignoring slavery for instance) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    From what I've seen, it's generally assumed that our soldiers are the good guys, and that the foot-soldiers of oppression are gonna be blue-helmeted United Nations troops shipped in from pinko Europe and the savage Third World. The soldiers — that is, the real soldiers who hold to the uber-patriotism of the conspiracy theorists and don't "sell out" — are of course gonna rebel and defect to the resistance. Some of the second-wave militia groups that focus on recruiting from the military and law enforcement, like the Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, preach precisely this. That said, there are people on the other side, mainly those who actually take the "libertarianism" they claim to support seriously, whose attitudes towards militarism and police brutality make Black Lives Matter look like Rudy Giuliani. KevinR1990 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm guessing there's a bit of waffling on the issue among the militia people: The "good" soldiers will definitely defect and join the "resistance", while the militias probably expect another portion to side with the evil blue-helmeted, jackbooted oppressors. Cue No True Soldier claims to distinguish between the two groups by the militiamen, I'd wager. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    More doublethink[edit]

    So the above was largely inspired by a discussion (well, a rant) my future brother in law went on after I posted my Gun Views (essentially read what Sanders says on them), and later I posted a statement imploring the GOP to not wreck whatever credibility they have left by actually considering putting Trump on their ticket, and got a comment that went "banning Muslims is legal" based on the power of the President to bar those whom he deems a threat to the nation.

    And, I, just, how do you possibly doublethink that Banning Assault Rifles from civilians is a bare rise of Fascism move that will end with concentration camps and persecution of your RTC™ beliefs, but then see letting the President at will ban an entire category of people from the nation, letting out that Genie, as not only not a visible threat of potential Fascism but not at all a possible threat to your ability to freely exercise RTC™ beliefs? I want to believe that Trumps insanity is him just saying whatever right-leaning view will get him cheers, but how do actual people possibly meld these to. I try and it hurts and is what led to me deconverting --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    But it's constitutional to own muslims. Why, our founding fathers invited a few of them, gave them a home and some clothes in exchange for doing chores around the farm, but then they got too uppity and they joined the traitors in the north in oppressing our right to invite in more muslims! But guns, it says right there in the constitution that it's ok for well regulated state militias to be armed, therefore regulation of guns is illegal. CorruptUser (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    So I have heard there is this voting method that supposedly produces better results than normal voting...[edit]

    In essence it means that every person can vote on every single candidate/option with either "support" or "against" and does not have to chose one. Let me give you an example:

    • What do you want to eat?
      • Cucumbers
      • Goat
      • Cheese
      • Pickles
      • Rice
      • Beans

    So in a "normal" system, I would have to chose one option. For example, if I wanted Cucumbers and pickles, I'd have to chose... Now let's say polling already suggests that pickles does not get more than fringe votes... Than I would "have to" vote for Cucumbers even if I actually like pickles better...

    Now how do you determine who wins? Simple, you just add up all the "in favor" votes and subtract the "against" votes and the option with the biggest net in favor wins.

    If this were to be implemented - if only in say the New Hampshire primary - the ramifications could be drastic. Many political (and ESC) election strategies are based in the fact that "there is no such thing as negative votes" - sure people can vote for the other guy in a two person race. But they will quickly dissipate in a field of 34. And if you do something that is hated by 90% and liked by 10%, you will still get a huge chunk of the vote despite being hated. That's the whole rationale behind this (which did very well for an almost universally hated entry). We might of course discuss whether such a voting system might be a worthwhile way of resolving Coop cases with more than one possible outcome... But I am not (yet) suggesting any policy change... Just giving a bit of food for thought... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Every voting system has it's positives and negatives. What you have described above is a very simplified version of the STV. I agree that our coop system is being gamed by people who understand that flooding the coop with non-sequiters and nonsense voting options will kill off any chance of a binding agreement. Tielec01 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't really understand STV (because I am generally against any form of constituency based electoral system), but what I know of it, it is distinct from this option in that it produces different outcomes. Also, this system allows voters to "spread their support" if for example there are two or three parties which I equally like, I can vote for all of them. And vote against the Nazis Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    STV also allows you to spread your support, the only difference is that it doesn't allow you to rank candidates equally (on the other hand the system above assumes you are ranking all candidates equally). Tielec01 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    STV also does not allow people to explicitly vote against a specific candidate which would be quite valuable for any of the moderate Republicans still out there (yes, all two of them) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I see, good point, so what you are saying is that there are three possible voting options, a 'support, an 'oppose' and a neutral or blank option? I'd like to see the counting methodology for this as it strikes me as potentially incredibly complicated. Tielec01 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, that are the options. And the counting is simple: Just take the number of support minus the oppose and ignore the blanks. In some cases there should also be a requirement of the winning option having to receive x amount of "positive net votes" so to speak. I mean, it would be dumb to elect a president that more people voted against than for. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    FYI: CGP Grey made some wonderful videos on the STV system.
    Enjoy — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 03:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    The voting[edit]

      • Cucumbers: Mild oppose.
      • Goat: Strong oppose; this sacred animal shall not be slaughtered!
      • Cheese: Strong oppose.
      • Pickles: Strong oppose.
      • Rice: Minor support. The only one I don't find objectionable on the list.
      • Beans: No thanks.
      142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
      Wait you actually want to eat rice without beans? Don't ever try to go in the general vicinity of Central America with that attitude... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
      I tend to eat my rice solely with ketchup/sweet chili sauce and meatballs/chicken nuggets of moderate proportions. Though if there's a bunch of vegetables mixed with my rice, the beans would probably annoy me the least. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
    Rice and beans is surprisingly tasty... So my support vote is certainly for both of them... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's much better when you mix those together (or is that mole? Or both? Wait, it's both). Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 18:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    So what are the drawbacks to this system of voting?[edit]

    Maybe it being "complicated" but not even that is true imho... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    What you describe is called approval voting, and it's one of the zillion or so voting systems proposed as an alternative to straight majority/plurality setups. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Psuedo-Christians[edit]

    An example of the non-TRUE Christians.

    "They built a long gibbet, low enough for the toes to touch the ground and prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [native Indians] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles. When the Indians were thus still alive and hanging, the Spaniards tested their strength and their blades against them, ripping chests open with one blow and exposing entrails, and there were those who did worse. Then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." American Holocaust, by David E. Stannard, p. 72

    Disclaimer: not to be confused with true Christians 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Ever heard of no true scotsman? Samstr (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Of course, but I was joking. I dislike that Christians can dissociate themselves from violence like that yet a different standard seems to be applied to Muslims. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    But of course that works both ways. Muslims also dissociate themselves from violence and apply a different standard to "Christians" or the West. And it's unique to neither. All social groups do it to some degree. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    My concern is first and foremost civil liberties in my nation -- the U.S. -- and then for our Western allies. Muslims in Western nations are marginalized, and it is far more serious that double standards are applied to them than whatever double standards they may apply in Muslim countries. More serious for us.---Mona- (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yea, you also seem to disagree with the way the media reacted to the PPFA shooting in contrast to the California shooting. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, CNN's terrorism "expert," Bob Baer, announced the Colorado shooter was "just crazy." The ones in California are terrorists. And what nobody ever wants to look at is why so many young Muslims find anti-Western ranting so persuasive. They tell us, over and over, and the Pentagon commissioned a study in '04 to ascertain why, and they all say the same thing, to wit: it is our policies. To understand that is not to apologize for terrorism, but if the goal is to "war" against terror, to stop it, some thought should be given to what is so pissing them off. The anti-abortion people can't have what it is that is pissing them off; they have no right to expect it. The same is not entirely true for the angry Muslims. ---Mona- (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    The policies? What has some American guy adhering to Islam to do with the US bombing the DAESH??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    He is not following Islam. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Trump[edit]

    Dude. No. Just no. STFU. Seriously. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    I hope that's the end of his election hopes, now that he's truly crossed the line. I see that before calling for a ban on all Muslim immigrants, he'd already said that he wanted a registry of all Muslims in the US to keep track of them better. I wonder if he'd like them all to wear paper green crescent moons on their clothes at all times. Spud (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    He could still win the GOP nomination. It's gone from curiosity to comedy to bombast to danger to threat. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ahahahahaha. You think being an open fascist is going to hurt him in the republican primary? Or that the American people will remember his openly fascist statements when he does the whole "drift to the center" thing come main election? Now, he's polling a tiny bit behind Sanders or Clinton in the main event, but nothing a little bit of scandal wouldn't overturn. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe he will get the attention of the "freedom loving" folks by desiring the limit free speech in a way that's been compared to North Korea so far. I can't see how one can reconcile making America great again by taking out the constitution and bill of rights he doesn't like. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    This Greenwald analysis gets it right. Trump is dangerous even if he loses -- which is not certain. He's made it acceptable for the roiling hatreds and prejudices that could not be said out loud to finally be said. The "center" shifts so that Ted Cruz -- Ted Cruz! -- is now the "moderate."---Mona- (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure Donald Trump can say something so outlandish that it hurts him. There were so many things that he's said that I thought would instantly cost him the election, but I've been proven wrong so many times already that I'm afraid to say that he's jumped the shark. I hope to god that he does, but only time will tell. I just don't understand how these Trump supporters think. Samstr (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    There is no shark for Trump to jump. the GOP has nurtured crazy in its base, and this is the result. A fascist Frankenstien monster they cannot control. The unhinged base loves every outrageous thing Trump says because they agree with it, and are sick of being "silenced" by "political correctness."---Mona- (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    But: the GOP base didn't used to be like this. Not entirely. The transition came with Breitbart and Fox News and Hannity. The American right-wing is up to its receding hairline in outright fabricated stories and conspiracy theories. There isn't a debate to be had anymore. All the power is to be had by pandering to the completely bullshit beliefs. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that
    I think that depends on what you mean by "like this". Radicalism and wild-eyed conspiratorial sentiment among the American right wing isn't brand-new. It's been an undercurrent for a long time; the further-out parts of the right wing went nuts over FDR, the '60s counterculture, abortion, Clinton, etc. The Paranoid Style in American Politics just turned fifty-one, after all. However, the mainstream right-wing blocs (in both parties before the 80s/90s) would pander to them at election time (see: Southern strategy, promises to undo Roe v. Wade) and then mostly ignore them while in office. It is true that such ideas have become increasingly welcomed into the mainstream Republican party. Something something deal with the Devil. --Ymir (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Is Trump an act?[edit]

    Given his personal history and the way he is described by people personally interacting with him... Is he an act? And if so: Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, and because it's working. And I allege it's working because of a fundamentally broken right wing media. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    If it's a joke, no one seems to find it funny and too many people take it as real for a purpose that would only seem to produce a mirror to look at the horror we have made of ourselves. Where a generation went to war against ideas 70 years ago considered the antithesis of American values...an entire political party now runs on as part of their platform. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk)
    If I had to pick almost the perfect parody of the GOP today I could not do a better job than Trump. It is so frigging obvious what he is doing that I almost cannot believe somebody like this is serious. My hope is that this is all being documented by people hired by Trump to show just how bad his followers are, eating up his bullshit and will, some time down the line, go Surprise! Reveal that this was an object lesson on just how nutty a significant portion of the GOP is today. I mean the guy has more Mostly False and Pants on Fire fact checking ratings than I have ever seen, he is so baiting the worst aspects of society and is over the top narcissistic that I just cannot believe he is real.........at least that is my hope. If anything, what I described could make him one of the most popular people today and perhaps history for pulling this off. I want to believe, I WANT to believe. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 02:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Was what Hitler did from 1920-1932 an act? Was it? Answer that question and apply the same answer to Trump. I don't think it's all an act. He believes something like 90% of what he is saying, but then again most politicians do. He simply tunes his rhetoric to whatever the Republican Party members believe deep down, which is a good strategy for seizing power over the country. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Trump is the embodiment of Poe's Law. It could all be an act and it could all be serious for all we know (it's probably somewhere in between these extremes though). One thing is sure, however; he's a jerkface that really, really, really should never get elected. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:02, 9 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
    Trump could also be entirely genuine, and win the election. A few presidents who didn't appear to be too likely to win won, and Trump is not very far behind. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    I saw a description of him yesterday in some comment channel or another. "He is Hitler stupid. A holocaust in clown shoes".--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Trump isn't necessarily those presidents, however. He's making a lot of crazy person noise to win over Republican voters, and that noise isn't going to go away now that he let the Genie out once the general election starts. And this doesn't preclude the establishment leadership pulling a revolt if he looks likely to be the nominee, they have to know a Trump nomination would be more damaging to the party than Hoover, Bush 2 and Nixon combined. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    I just want the GOP to be out four more years by either Clinton or Sanders. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Trump is pushing the public discourse to the right, at least on certain issues, & that may be his aim. Even if he doesn't end up running, the GOP leadership will need to pander heavily to the Tea Party crowd. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm gonna have to say yes, because it would destroy my faith in humanity even more if he turned out to be completely genuine. Of course, needless to say, the fact that so many people are hoodwinked for him has already done a lot of damage to that. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    I kinda want trump to be pres. It would be hilarious. Terrifying, but hilarious. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    What drives Muslim terrorism?[edit]

    Fedora asked me to elaborate on my argument that the West, specifically the U.S., must come to terms with the valid objections Muslims have to our polices that cause a small minority to turn to terrorism. As long as we comfort ourselves with bullshit about how they "hate us for our freedoms" and such nonsense, the terrorism will continue to be perceived as the mere result of this savage, inscrutable religion. Which helps no one, and certainly will do nothing to end terrorism.

    In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld commissioned the Defense Science Board to determine what drives Muslim terrorism. Among it's findings were (my emphasis):

    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. Thus the U.S. has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle that is both broadly cast for all Muslims and country-specific. 23



    This is the larger strategic context, and it is acutely uncomfortable: U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself. […]


    Not only is every American initiative and commitment in the Muslim World enmeshed in the larger dynamic of intra-Islamic hostilities — but Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims.


    — Pp. 35-36


    Today we reflexively compare Muslim “masses” to those oppressed under Soviet rule. This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning -to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies — except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends. […]


    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.


    American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.


    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.


    • Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.


    • 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. […]


    • Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic — namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is — for Americans — really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves.


    Thus 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.

    All of the above is consistent with what terrorists themselves identify as their motives. It comes wrapped in a package of religious rhetoric but is fundamentally a list of entirely comprehensible political grievances.---Mona- (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    So the terrorists are pissed at the US, cause they make it harder for them to take countries over? Next time you pull out an obscure Pentagon study telling us, the sky is blue.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sure Arisboch, reducing it to those tendentious terms is so very insightful. You are fit to be a Ben Carson foreign policy advisor! ---Mona- (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    @-Mona-Very eye-opening Mona. You definitely did your research. What were the motives for 9/11 in your view and do you have anything to say on the causes of the radicalization of the two Muslim shooters in Cali? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    The motives for 9/11 were essentially what the Defense Science Board recited. OBL had been quite clear on that before 9/11 in video-taped messages. The videos described here are post-9/11, but say the same things. As for the couple in San Bernardino, it isn't yet entirely clear how to characterize their motives, at least not to me. Certainly the male's co-workers were targeted and that's a new spin.---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    How are Saudi Arabia, Eqypt, etc corrupt countries? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Wow, well, many books could be, and have been, written about the corruption and tyranny of both. You might start be looking into their human rights records. And the House of Saud, they are a dynasty of oil-rich tyrants. OBL was part of that family who was thoroughly outraged by them, as well as by U.S. support for them.---Mona- (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    You fail to mention that bin Laden was born into millionaire wealth... Complaining about corruption as a multi-millionaire is a bit hypocritical. Furthermore Saudi Arabia is among the top funders of terrorism. Beginning with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the Saudis have bankrolled pretty much every Sunni militant group. Whereas the Islamic Republic that currently holds Persia occupied does the same for all violent Shia groups... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Saudi Arabia is tyrannical because a small group of people (we're talking 3 or 4 hundred here) own EVERYTHING in the country, and execute people weekly for crimes that aren't even illegal in the USA. They bomb other countries, killing thousands of civilians. Egypt is tyrannical because the government cracks down on Islamists, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an organization supported by a large portion of the Egyptian populace. Also, Egypt likes to jail reporters for covering street protests. That's why. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 'Apostate' and 'secular' have the same meaning, as there is no separation of religion from civil government in Islam. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 01:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    There's been no separation of religion from government in the long history of all three Abrahamic faiths until rather recently. Enclaves of Jews reject this, and are working to make Israel conform to this rejection -- with some success that is very concerning to the secularists there. (The Orthodox State Rabbis control most of family law in Israel.) Xtianity had to be dragged kicking and screaming into "godless" government. It wasn't really until the 1960s that the Roman Catholic Church was willing to stop calling it a heresy.---Mona- (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    In Israel it is somehow softened through the recognition of foreign marriages, who circumvent the religious family law system (this shit is the same for the Christians, Muslims and a coupla other religious groups I forgot there), but of course it is a rather rotten compromise called "status quoWikipedia's W.svg". IMNSHO, it is a buunch of complete bollocks. I'd like for Israel to do it like Germany: from the perspective of the state, there is only the civil marriage registration form, the religious ceremonies that the (hopefully) happy couple does or doesn't do is the private biz (and that of course would end this embarrassing compromise about gay marriage, which is currently recognized, but not conducted in Israel).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    Welcome back Rob! Things have gotten... weird here. CorruptUser (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    I see the DAESH is still in the top 5 Google results, incredible seeing it's almost a year old. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 02:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    People become terrorists because they want to[edit]

    rote armee fraktion[edit]

    Cults[edit]

    Or maybe terrorist groups are mostly made up of the same people that'd join cults? People that think they don't have a purpose in life, are in a bad place, etc. It's nothing new, really. The group offers the people a purpose in life and a sense of belonging. That's what most of the homegrown terrorists were lacking. That they happen to be "murder cults" instead of "give money and women to leader cults" is just the type, but not why people join. That's also why people join the KKK and the Skinheads; disconnected from their communities and the cult then sweeps in. As for the causi belli, the salafist screed is a crock of shit. "Troops defiling the holy land"? The US bases were never in Mecca nor medina. Saudi Arabia is a big country; not all of it holy. Corrupt governments? Jordan is the least awful country in the Mideast (possibly including Israel). The Salafis are pissed because the Jordanians aren't also Salafi and they are more than willing to live in peace with Israel and practically ally with the US and SA, not because of corruption. Collateral damage? Really, the fucking nerve. "Oh, it's ok to kill Muslims if we kill America too, but when we fuck up our country and the US bombs us, it's evil America". Starving kids in Iraq? For fucks sake, the terrorists are trying to EXTERMINATE all the Iraqis that went hungry (the Sunnis had it good under Saddam, sort of). Really, they just grasp at any excuse. CorruptUser (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Well the Cult argument certainly has some merit to it... Though the surrounding society certainly also plays a role... For example Scientology is rather successful in California, but mostly a non-starter in continental Europe. On the other hand the KKK was more successful in the 1920 than it is now... So people don't espouse radical violent ideas in a vacuum. Society accepting the moderate form of said ideas is also a factor... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Absolutely. Terrorism attracts predominantly young (not exclusively) males (not exclusively). The IRA did. Not to say there are not elders in their ranks, because there are. Older, seasoned leaders are necessary to be effective. Young people -- starry-eyed and idealistic -- find meaning in many kinds of causes. Some of them become terrorists.---Mona- (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    But Mona, what about the "legitimate grievances" (tm)? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Venge, dont start this shit with Mona CorruptUser (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    There is definitely something perversely appealing, especially to the mindset of people who like to think they know how the world works (given that so many "smart" people, like engineers or other educated persons, dive into cults or reactionism), in the idea that you possess "secret knowledge" about how the world works. As someone who was once much more conservative, I'll readily admit that somehow, it just felt...right that a just war was the only path to peace, that lowering taxes would actually increase government revenue, and all the other non-intuitive mechanisms you believe if you try to frame everything as one "big picture" that excludes actual humans. Hell, even from a liberal side, you get stuff like excusing virulent hatred because there's a secret "privilege plus power" loophole, or claiming to revile doxers while jubilantly harassing those you "stumble" upon information for. From a religious side, you get the idea of stuff like "it's okay to horribly injure or even kill this person now, because it will save their soul later"; or in this case, it's okay to murder other Muslims without no limit in sight, because there it will serve some greater "society of Islam", even if you get fidgety when held to specifics. Probably the same thing that motivates conspiracy theorists - that you are one of the chosen few aware of this utterly non-intuitive TRUTH.
    BTW, Avenger, you're the one who came up "legitimate grievances" on this page, so....WTF?KrytenKoro (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've had... an interesting conversation with an al Qaeda recruiter about a decade back. Well I think it was al Qaeda, was definitely one of them. It's amazing some of the stuff they believe, until I ask simple questions. Eg, "it's proof of Islam that a billion Muslims have memorized the Quran!" "Wait, even the women?" "Well, no..." "And what about the third of Muslims in Pakistan etc, who are illiterate" "well no..." "So why did you say a billion?" "Well..." CorruptUser (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I was gonna make another header for it but it seems to fit under this one as-is, but I've got a half developed "theory" (i.e. something that makes sense in my head but is hard to put into words because I haven't thought it through too much) that there's very much an element of simple gang culture in it, much the same as youth gangs in europe and america. ISIS is not completely different to a crazy inner city american gang, albeit taken to extremes due to the general nature of the area and lack of any kind of solid authority to combat it. Looking at the media coming from the younger members, especially the ones who have travelled from outside of the middle east to join up, and I'm reminded an awful lot of those dumbass selfies you see of some teen posing with a gun in one hand and a fan of dollar bills in the other. They've even got that gang sign they flash whenever there's a camera aimed at them. Combine all of the "benefits" of gang membership (sense of belonging, sense of purpose, being "cool", etc...) with religious justification and you get ISIS. X Stickman (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    CorruptUser, that sounds like an interesting story of yours that I wouldn't mind hearing sometime. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    It sounds more interesting than it is. I think I mentioned it some time ago on the wiki, but anyway, about a decade ago I played Runescape, and some guy with the username "Muslim Omar" messages me out of the blue, trying to talk about Islam. I was bored, so why not. Anyway, going to skip over some boring stuff, but he claimed that Saudis weren't really muslim but couldn't give me a straight answer when I asked why they weren't really Muslim. When talking about the world and such, he went on a rant about how other people need "proof" and are obsessed with it, as if that's a bad thing, but when I asked him that without evidence or proof, how he'd be able to tell if he was wrong or not (I hadn't learned of the term 'falsifiability' yet). He insisted that faith alone was good, so I asked him the hypothetical if he had faith in the wrong interpretation or whatever, since the vast majority of people MUST be wrong, how he'd be able to test whether he was the one guy that was right or among the many who was wrong. He couldn't answer. He insisted that men could never take orders from women, so I asked him if Mohammed had to listen to his mom. He said yes, so I said that if Mohammed could take orders from a woman, why couldn't other muslims, and he had to go back to his books (i.e., his handler). When he talked about Israel, I asked him what he would be doing if he were Israel, or something like that, and he admitted that if he were the Israelis he wouldn't like the Palestinians either. So I asked him if that's the case, how can they really be considered "evil", and he wasn't able to give me an answer, said he had to go consult his books. Some time during this I had asked that if such and such is a sign of god's will, how is the 6 day war NOT a sign that Israel should exist, and he couldn't give me a good answer. So I asked him what about the signs point to god's will other than what he claimed was right, and he went on into circular logic about it. There were a few other things, but eventually I got bored with him, and so I pretended to be a girl and asked him if he was willing to talk to me as an "equal" when he thought I was male, why being a girl would change anything. It's most likely he was a Salafi recruiter of some sort; I just say Al Qaeda because that's the most well known of the Salafists and such. CorruptUser (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Any screenshots or other type of references, this sounds interesting? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Considering this was a decade and several computers ago, no I'm sorry I don't. CorruptUser (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Alright. I used to be a Muslim myself. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sounds like there's a story there. Care to share? I'll buy the drinks. CorruptUser (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Desperation/Alienation?[edit]

    Elaborating on what CorruptUser said in the last one (Cults), it may stem from their alienation, and desperation. The reason organizations like ISIS, or al-Qaeda, hell, even Hezbollah or Hamas, relish in the retaliation that the US and other countries dish out in different forms (Trump's rhetoric, the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe, the bombings in Raqqa), is that it alienates moderate Muslims. It incites contempt because so many innocents are injured in the process. Moderate and non-extremist Muslims are discriminated against, those escaping violence in Syria are turned away by large nations, and then those who couldn't get out are dying than for the simple reason that they're Muslim. When they join these aforementioned terrorist organizations, there is a sense of unity and brotherhood (the whole "For the Cause" enchilada) amongst its members. Others, they join out of desperation, to give their families a better life. ISIS thrives on alienated and desperate people who join because of many of the things I said. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 07:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    All of the above?[edit]

    I think that people fight for different reasons and there is no universal standard for driving people to terrorism. For some it could be American politics, for others it might be they suffer from mental illness and violence seems appealing or desperation. Just blaming one thing is not going to help. It would be nice to study the psychology of terrorism and I did find a link on the subject behind the reasons of terrorism- https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208552.pdf. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    GOPdildos[edit]

    Yes, it's a thing. Spreading around the Twitterverse. Some folk have put together hilarious photoshopping of various GOP holding dildos instead of guns, and a few other things. My fav is a toss up between the second Huckabee and the first Cruz. Because I'm 12 at heart.---Mona- (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    So hawt m8. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Guns don't kill people, rectal trauma does" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Funny joke. Wood read again. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Looks like their lives just got a bit more HARD Hallucion (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    You know, when people say the GOP are just standing around with their dicks in their hands, I don't think they meant it literally. Tfaddict (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    I thought it would be funny to take some of the republicans and photoshop Ferengi ears on them, perhaps include captions with the rules of acquisition at the bottom. Samstr (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Alleged Bitcoin founder raided[edit]

    The supposed founder of Bitcoin has finally been "found" in Sydney, Australia. Opinions? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Bitcoin is still relevant?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    I thought tradition had it he was from Japan? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Bitcoin was ever relevant? Anyway, we'll see if it turns out to be real; wouldn't be the first time it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Supposedly, the guy has 1.1 million Bitcoins, but his bio says he's been mining them since 2009, which isn't exactly going with Nakamoto's pattern... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 06:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Most people think Satoshi Nakamoto is a pen name. I'd say it's unlikely they (whether one person or multiple) are Japanese, given Japanese culture's emphasis on harmony and deference to group consensus. They don't generally go in for the cryptolibertarian stuff. I'm pretty sure they're your standard white male computer nerd(s). (Which makes them not stand out! How cunning!) --Ymir (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Don't be so sure, there are Japanese hackers, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    There's Matz (the Ruby guy). He's a Mormon by the way. Not exactly "typical Japanese". Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    By now, his identity isn't discovered and him being that guy from Sydney is not proven.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Hacker" (in either sense) does not automatically imply "someone who thinks creating a decentralized cryptocurrency is important enough to devote years of your life to it". Yes, of course there are plenty of Japanese programmers. They mostly spend their time developing actually useful things like programming languages. Nakamoto's Wikipedia article lists some other circumstantial evidence against him being Japanese, like him only ever using fluent English, with no Japanese idioms, stylistic touches, etc. --Ymir (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Turns out Wright wasn't the Bitcoin founder. He lied to get a bigger tax rebate. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 06:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Can somebody please tell Paravant....[edit]

    Current protected pages[edit]

    From Special:ProtectedPages:

    We have 1 mod protected page:

    1. Kent E. Hovind v. RationalMedia Foundation:‎ mod protected

    We have 1 admin protected page:

    1. Main Page‎: admin protected

    We have 3 indefinitely autoconfirm protected pages:

    We have 4 temporary autoconfirm protected pages:

    Do any of these pages not need their protection? Do any of those with temporary protection need longer or indefinite protection? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Apart from the temporary autoconfirm protected pages, I think that most of those choices do make sense. Certainly it doesn't make sense to give the Main Page over to anyone, and I can see why Anita Sarkeesian, RationalWiki, and Thunderf00t would attract spam and stupidity. Samstr (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Main Pages for websites should never just be editable by anyone. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    All seems right to me. SolPyre (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    I can at least shed light on the Viharo article -- there are occasional spates of vandals who want to call him gay for some reason if you check the logs. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    It's the most wonderful time of the year[edit]

    So I guess we should discuss the fundraiser. For starters, it might be nice if the fundraiser page itself were updated. And people considering whether to donate might like to see some financial statements that are less than a year old. On a similar note, was the Form 1023 ever actually filed? --Ymir (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Never mind that the current donation bar lists $100 out of $4000 as 0% progress (when $40 is an entire 1%)... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Trent's basically doing this - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's also not auto-updating. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's never auto-updated, it's a template. It's always been "Trent or Stabby update it every day or so" - David Gerard (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Who gave the 42 cents?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Probably people giving $π or some multiple of it. $3π would be $9.42. $10π would be $31.42. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Or someone giving in non-US-dollar currency? 217.42.77.251 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Popular pages, November 2015[edit]

    Rationalwiki:Pages by popularity - I also tweaked the script a bit this time around.

    There's also an adulterated version of the list on the blog, do please use this to propagandise RW to your friends! The list of pages for outside readers over 10k hits (so not the Saloon Bar, which is 25496 hits):

    - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Interesting how Red Room is so high up... Would not have expected that. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Reddit /r/deepweb seemed to like it, specifically [1], an AMA with User:Deku-shrub, who wrote it - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    And our List of forms of government article is so crappy... Huh. Well, that one just climbed on my list of priorities then. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yep. Anything on this list is an entry point and we need to glance over it - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    SOS to restore an article[edit]

    We had a bit of an issue with an article being deleted -- Targeted Individuals, upper case "I" -- and redirected to "Targeted individuals, no upper-case "I." This was an error (and lost our extensive edit history until yet another editor fixed that) as the name is generally capitalized in both words. However, the editor who made this change is concerned he will mess it up if he attempts to restore the first article. I assure you, I would probably crash the site if I tried.

    Can anyone do this thing?---Mona- (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    If you can read this, I'm willing to say the site has not crashed. Yet. The reason I gave for moving it back to upper case was "quasi-demonym may be treated as a proper noun" and I still see history on both the article and talk pages. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    I forgot to thank you for that Alec, so thank you.---Mona- (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Adding reader alert to freely available books[edit]

    I don't understand it, but Typhoon is removing text in two (so far) articles like that bolded here:

    Theodor Herzl, a Serbian/Austro-Hungarian Jew [7] and a journalist, published in 1896 a work entitled Der Judenstaat (freely available for download) which laid out the foundational principles and goals of Zionism.

    I do this as a service to readers, to know that cited books are immediately and easily accessible. Typhoon has said this constitutes "advertising" for the works. Since I'm not a Zionist and do not even agree with Herzl, this makes no sense. In any event, does the community have any problem with this?
    ADDING: Typhoon is so weirdly intransigent on this he won't even maintain the staus quo until the community weights in. ---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    It's breaking the flow and we never put it that way when we have ref tags to do this. I didn't "remove" any link to it, I merely added ref tags and formatted it properly. It's how we do it on literally every other article on this wiki. You're acting unhinged over this and you even tried to remove my sysop for it. Typhoon (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, you switched to "breaking the flow" after I pointed out this wasn't an "advertisment" and I don't even agree with Herzl. This is a personal pique of yours, and so you are simply changing rationales when the one does not work. There's every reason to let our readers know the books we describe in the text can be immediately checked, given that it is usual (and correct) to assume it must be obtained via library or purchase. I do not grasp your real problem.---Mona- (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Are you serious? I'm not switching to anything. It looks like some advertisement in how it breaks the flow of the text. I repeat, we have ref tags to inform any reader who is interested about learning more. This is how Wikis do it, which is why I formatted it to look like that. No one uses these "alerts" you invented. Stop wasting everyone's time over the most lamest edit war, ever. And for gods sake stop abusing your sysop tools to unilaterally desysop people that disagree with you and stop acting like you own the Zionism article, down to the last period.Typhoon (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    It does not break the flow. It isn't stated in the reference tag; it's in the text so the reader does not assume they'd have to work to get the book. And we who collaborated on the Zionism page -- with which you have been wholly uninvolved -- liked it that way. You did not care until we had a larger edit war on the postmodernism page. This is personal for you -- you can't even leave it be while we discuss this. At any rate: What does the community think?---Mona- (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    It absolutely does break the flow. It goes without stating that Project Gutenberg has free books. Everyone who cares will click on the link and get the entire book. You have no right to accuse other of being personal over it when you threw a tantrum and abused your sysop tools by unilaterally removing sysop rights just to get your way. Typhoon (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    I think it should just be cited using the ref markup just like any other reference. "freely available for download" can be included in the citation. A person interested will see that when they follow the citation, while keeping the word flow more concise. Seems like an unnecessary parenthetical to me.Petey Plane (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Thank you. Typhoon (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Agree, that's what refs are for. I also appreciate the inclusion of full books into the refs. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    I don't know if I'm answering the question here, or if I'm unwisely sticking in my naked hand right between two furious corgis, but... Since you ask, my own two cents are the following;

    Adding "(freely avaliable for download)" after a book title, or generally inserting "trivia" of that kind - even when done in the perfectly good drive for helpfulness - into the flow of the article text outright isn't something I would personally support. That kind of information - in my world - belongs in a note (and by that I mean "notes" as used in this article, among many others like it) and not visible as an equal part (albeit in parenthesis) of the actual sentence of the article you're trying to read.

    I would also suggest that, were one to add a note as described here with that (unquestionably helpful) information, it'd be a good idea to provide a link to the freely avaliable work in that very same note - the idea being, of course, that the book is legally avaliable from some uncontroversial source, free to be read by all.

    Finally, considering the relative level of excitement over this: I ask that this statement not be treated as in this moment "deciding", or as an endorsement of edit warring of any kind - besides, way more people need to weigh in here before anything can be said about this in regards to what the community really, currently thinks regarding this specific poll. So, I'm literally retracting this vote in the case that it be used to club people over the head with prematurely. Thus, in the far distant future, when enough people have weighed in as for the decision to be "final" - tally me as: Allow under the condition it be placed in a note (and only done with an outlink link to the work in question, so as for the note to not simply state "This can be downloaded, you know!"), otherwise Disallow. I would also fully support placing this type of information in a simple External Link or including it as part of the ref for the work, just having it say something akin to "This work is avaliable freely [link here], you know". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) :Obviously, I disagree, but the community seems to be going the other way and I will of course accept that.---Mona- (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Rev, about this: "External Link." I completely forgot about that option. At the James Randi page I noted in "External Links" that the documentary about him streams on Netflix. There should also be an external links category for these, and that's what I will do.---Mona- (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    There, that solves that. I'll do the same with the Sokal/Bricmont work in due course. I wish I'd thought of that sooner, or Rev, if you'd just said something! I've not added an External Links section myself before and entirely forgot the option.---Mona- (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm so happy to have helped, if I did! And Mona, ally and friend - "sooner" (and variations on that) is maybe the one word that I'd want you to require the Two-Man RuleWikipedia's W.svg system before using ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, yes, I've admitted I was wrong about that. I do admit it when I'm wrong. That said, Typhoon should have left the status quo until the community chimed in. S/he simply would not.---Mona- (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's good to see that you're slowly learning how articles on Wikis are formatted. Now if only you stopped abusing sysop tools before you get burned. Typhoon (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't feel burned, Typhoon. External links is the better idea, and I just didn't think of it. And unlike many, I admit it when I'm wrong. I haven't seen that you do.---Mona- (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Please stop projecting. Abusing sysop tools to get your way is not the same as "admitting when I'm wrong". Typhoon (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    If you believe Mona's been acting consistently unjustly (a position which I find defensible, but perhaps not bannable or actionable myself), start a coop case. It's better than shouting at the air in here. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Typhoon, in the context of another dispute between us, you ran off to the Zionism article and removed my text after I told you it existed, and would not allow the status quo while the community decided or a mod got involved. This was something you felt needed immediate doing. And, if you know so much about editing here, why didn't you come up with the External Links option? Why did you not seek compromise, suggest External Links, and instead go and undo the edit at the Zionism page that demonstrated my good faith use of this reader alert convention? I begged for mod involvement multiple times. I took it to the Saloon. You did none of these things. I've owned my behavior, but you have not owned yours. Do you ever?---Mona- (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Hey, Typhoon, I may not agree with Mona on different issues, but even I know that you're just unnecessarily removing tags that indicate to the reader that they may download a book. C'mon, dude. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 00:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    S/he just wasn't being reasonable. At the Postmodernism article I wanted some text written by Aneris which I had copy-edited. Aneris and I made 2-1 to do this. But Typhoon informed me that Aneris is a "slymepit" or some such, and therefore his vote doesn't count. Repeatedly. What can one do with a mentality like that? Then Typhoon absolutely insisted on romping off to an unrelated article to remove a similar reader-alert there. Nothing could convince him that this was not urgent. That we could wait for a mod, or the community. I lost it a bit, and did do the sysop tool thing, which I've repeatedly admitted I should not have done. But I did try reason and good faith negotiations, to no avail. I was frustrated!---Mona- (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Project idea (No it is not a Fundie school)[edit]

    I was thinking of adding the distance learning school "Indian Board of Alternative Medicine". It seems their degrees are legal in India but they can be earned within a year and these are "medical" degrees that include Naturopathic and Oriental Medicine; there is no residencies or campuses and it has a sketchy tuition payment plan. Here is the link- http://www.altmedworld.net/. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Are there any notable quacks who came from this school? I haven't checked out the link but it does sound like it is on mission. Samstr (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    So far I have not had much luck but if I do not then I will drop the matter.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    Spelling of "San Bernardino"[edit]

    I have seen a couple WIGO submissions misspelling it as "San Bernadino"; even though that's what it sounds like when most of the media (and most singers of "Route 66") say it, the name does have that extra "r" in it. Maybe it's difficult to retain that rhotacized schwa ("er"/ɚ) sound (itself relaxed from the original Spanish "ar"), so most people just pronounce it as a schwa (ə); I know this issue tripped me up when I started searching for the city name and Google corrected me. Julyo (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    I suspect that's largely a product of the weird-ass way Americans pronounce the name 'Bernard'. It comes out as 'Bɚ-NARD', so it's not consistent with the spelling of San Bernardino. This side of the pond, they're the same. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    Does anybody still call it "Berdoo"? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    Hells Angels. Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    Misspellings fixed. Nowhere Man (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    Evolution needs a rethink in nature?[edit]

    So what do you rational folk think about this? http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080 Ralphy (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    Because science is an evolving process that doesn't require a desperate need to have been correct in the past to be correct now, sure, so long as its supportable?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's interesting. Just as was the idea of a synthesis of more mechanisms added to natural selection in evolutionary theory when synthesis first became a thing many decades ago.---Mona- (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Enabling HTTPS[edit]

    Who can make changes to the actual web server RationalWiki runs on? Adding a no-cost TLS certificate to the server and allowing users to browse and edit the wiki without sending contents and login passwords (which, contrary to advice that people seldom listen to, are often reused) in the clear would be an easy improvement. --U12345 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    This is true - one of several basic security functions this site sorely needs since yesterday. Let's hope the donation bar overflows and miracles happen in the RW software department, no? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Donation bar? Miracles in the software department? It's one fairly idiot-proof Python script that adjusts the Apache configuration and renews the certificate automatically, it's a turnkey solution that shouldn't need more than a fraction of a man-hour, should it? Unless extensive third-party resources stuck on http are in use, I suppose. --U12345 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    This is eminently sensible to me as well. Arcane (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    This is a fucking pipedream seeing, that the MediaWiki the RW runs on is coupla YEARS old!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 06:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    @U12345 I was on about both miracles and donations due to the fact that what Arisboch pointed out above. Any kid running an outdated metasploit should be able to bring down the site as things stand today. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    I have a bag of popcorn and I want to watch some (Internet) Masterpiece Theatre for some lulz[edit]

    So tell me, what is the story of a Mr. Mikemikev and his Sockpuppets.--Jakester499 (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    A neo-Nazi who seemingly spends his entire life creating sock puppets to edit his views into various wikis and such. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    Why do "they" radicalize?[edit]

    In a recent interview, a Canadian Muslim and former militant (who has since worked for the government) explains the causes of radicalization among young Western Muslim (mostly) males. Mubin Shaikh identifies both factors that I (legitimacy of grievances) and CorruptUser (the need to join a cult/cause for meaning) did. Shaikh says:

    You're dealing with a social movement. It's beyond a terrorist group. And social movements have grievance narratives. The reason why those grievance narratives resonate is because they are based in fact. It might not be complete fact and it might be their way of interpreting world events, but the reality is that when they say that their grievance is about Western foreign policy, particularly the bombing of Muslim countries—they're not wrong when they say that.

    And:

    Isolation and marginalization. The context is different in North America versus Europe. In Europe it's far worse, especially in France. France was a colonizer of North Africa, of Algeria in particular. Usually, colonizers tend not to be able to integrate the colonized populations very well in their own host societies. And so [there are] very high levels of unemployment, lack of opportunity—that's really what it comes down to. It's not that poverty causes terrorism, but what is poverty other than a lack of opportunity? So for those who have a lack of opportunity, the only options they have really is the criminal underworld, things like that. It's very easy for most of the youth who are in those conditions to be very vulnerable to recruitment by violent extremists. And it's no accident that France has the highest number of foreign fighters in Syria.

    Shaikh also observes ironic similarities between groups like ISIS and New Atheists. Whole thing is worth a read.---Mona- (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Didn't we already discuss this?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yup, but today this just-published Vice interview was brought to my attention. It's totally on point, and the words of a former "jihadi."---Mona- (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, I know someone that was from Algeria. Survived the genocides that took place there at the end, and had to flee. Went to Israel. CorruptUser (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Jeebus, not exactly an oasis of peace. Was s/he Arab? Did Israel give him asylum?---Mona- (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    He. Yes, he was Arab, his family had been in Algeria for (they claimed) thousands of years. But since he was a Jew, didn't matter, had to flee for his life. CorruptUser (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, the "civilized" French were quite barbaric in Algeria.---Mona- (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    It was other Arabs who basically said "leave before we kill you". Not everyone in his family got to leave... CorruptUser (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Putting this tangent back on the track of the subject matter; so what radicalized those other Arabs/polarized the local Algerian society? After living there for thousands(?) of years, what suddenly made these people undesirables in their homeland? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    A book I've long been meaning to read is Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth. It's considered a classic of intellectual, revolutionary, anti-colonialist literature in the context of Algeria's struggle against France. You might find that explains thing well.---Mona- (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    History of the Jews in AlgeriaWikipedia's W.svg CorruptUser (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    From what I could find, after having been accepted by Algerian Muslims to escape the Inquisition, Muslim Algerians came to view Jewish Algerians as pro-colonialist (French) traitors. One of the articles I found excerpts a couple of letters from an official in the National Liberation Front to the Algerian Jewish community. This is not an area of history I particularly know, however.---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Some came during the Inquisition, others during the Roman era. When France conquered Algeria, eventually the Jews were given French citizenship (the French Jews looked down upon them, and wanted to "civilize" them; something that insulted the Algerian Jews). This pissed off the Muslims who were not treated likewise, so they turned on the local Jews. This in turn made the local Jews embrace the French instead. Then you have the revolution; some Jews supported the FNL, most supported the French, so as a result nearly all Jews had to leave when the FNL won. CorruptUser (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    So here too we have an instance of Western discriminative policies and a Western country waging an unjust war leading to radicalization. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Pretty much, but it's a circle of violence. Arabs mistreated him, he doesn't care why, he ends up disliking other Arabs... And if we want to go back further, France was in Algiers because of pirate on the Barbary Coast that had murder-raped a million coastal Frenchmen (and others). CorruptUser (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Are you sure? Because there's only 1 very minor mention in passing of pirates in this whole articleWikipedia's W.svg about the French conquest of Algeria. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Read the final paragraph of the summary from this articleWikipedia's W.svg, to get an idea of the average Frenchman's opinion of the Barbary coast of the time. Of course, the reason the leaders decided to invade was money/power, as it always is. Because it probably was.
    As for today with radicalization, follow the money. It's rich donors that are funding all the terrorist groups (IS being the most notable exception). So you have these rich oil sheiks living lives straight out of Wolf of Wall Street, but they want to absolve their sins. How do they do so? Carbon credits funding Jihad, of course! So the mujihadeen make the world "more Godly" enough to counterbalance the drunken billionaire orgies, so it's a net "plus" in religiosity. Take out the money, and Al Qaeda's leadership dies. As for the foot soldiers, well, that's another issue. Maybe the UN could create an international Boys and Girls club or something. CorruptUser (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Discussion? View history?[edit]

    Did RW get an update? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Sometime between my last looking at RW at work (Work sucks if you have nothing better to do) and me looking at it at home, the wiki became slow as a crawl and reverted to a default state look, so maybe?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Last nite for a nanosecond when I refreshed the page -- after first getting an error message and being told the service was unavailable -- I saw a page saying something about the "lies" of Darwin. I wondered if we'd been hacked.---Mona- (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's hella slow. I'll spam DG. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    This happens when memcached stops. I just restarted it. Now you need to wait for the 1000000 layers of caching in MediaWiki to update ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Urge to lurkers[edit]

    Please make an account. We need all the people we can get. To much drama, we need more editors working around the clock. There are a ton of articles bedding your help. If you know anything about them, we need you to edit them. To Rationalwiki, first of all, we need more admins. Also, we need more editors. Please come to us, lurkers. --Jakester499 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    This is the first sensible thing you've posted since joining, Jakester. And it's true what you say (precisely here and now). Hear, hear. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Care to explain why new people are needed? — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 14:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    The point is more: If you like the site and you're already helping, feel welcome to register up and you can help even more. There's infinite gymnasiums tucked away among the depths of our articles that need mopping and so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    There are heaps of existing articles that need work as the Rev says. And a huge list of articles wanted, some of which are glaring omissions. So yes, more registered users. I lurked here for a long time and am not at all sure why. Nothing too scary about having a registered account :) . --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Hit random article on the left. Note immediately that what article you land on needs work. Fix something. Realize you can't do it all yourself. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    You've deleted even fallacies "because reasons", and nobody has a clue what missional means at this point. Also articles of any current relevance or that are even midly controversial are owned by someone and editing is strongly discouraged. I think people should know that they're in for namecalling and other petty disputes for most of the time (unless they're postmodernist, critical race theory etc adherents). — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 14:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    What you are (mis)describing is normal. "Ownership" of articles can change, and has with, e.g., the I-P articles. Some have expertise in that area (me), for others it's GG, and for still others it's GMF or Animal rights. Editors write and edit what they know -- and they should. As long as said editors respect facts and logic there's no problem here. Certainly in the I-P case the drama resulted from "ownership" changing as the majority recently came assertively forward versus an intransigent, noisy minority. Again, nothing wrong with that, and the drama has receded.---Mona- (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ah your agenda is revealed Aneris. I foolishly thought your question posted above was serious. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Every time you lay the disagreements between yourself and other editors at the feet of (your weird idea of) 'postmodernism', you inch closer to outright clowndom. The new inclusion of 'critical race theory' is noted. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    It was serious. And I could come up with a range of (good) reasons, but the reason given above struck me as not honest. You could for example have the stance that more editors could overcome the stalemate in some areas. You could argue that help in area X is needed, where X is something concrete and non-contentious, like someone needs to write on conspiracy theory #237, catalogue more chalatans, add in ten more reasons why YouTuber FedoraJoe with 23 followers needs debunking, that sort of thing. That would be honest and in line of what's wanted. You could argue for a lot of things and cite many reasons, and I'm still curious what current veterans believe the reasons are. My "agenda" is completely printed on the can, no need to always pretend there is anything secret about it. I try to be construtive, at some point had a high opinion but am also on a razor edge of treating the project like you treat Conservapedia and other charlatanery. You say this can be corrected, but it's not true. It is even denied to write what e.g. Sokal says about Latour (factually). Same goes for what several actors have to say about the EvoPsych controversy, all swept under the carpet. Not to mention the dozens of dozens of places that are comically false, one sided, or bizarre (e.g. levels of analysis on Harvard Law School pseudoscience) — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 16:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    This wiki suffers from mass "Fad editing" where everyone focuses on a small subset of articles and people before moving on. It roughly started at anti-theism, moved to George Bush and Republicans, and then moved to Social Justice. Because of this, many articles from previous ads go unedited, mainly because the users don't care about them any more. Maybe they come back when there's something a little bit relevant in the new fad, maybe they're a part of the old and new fads, but for the most part they are forgotten.Keter (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I concur. Extraordinary attention given to articles of minor importance outside of a relatively tiny number of individuals (I am not even going to bother to name those articles :) ). And then the mob moves on I guess. Yet, we still have no article on the Spanish Civil War. However, none of that should effect the message of more registered users needed. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    I would like to direct you to the statement on my userpage: --> ZooGuard (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    The death of internet libertarianism?[edit]

    Is it just me or has internet libertarianism (AKA Paulbotism) been mortally wounded and appears to be in its death throes, if not already essentially dead? Yes I know Reason.com still exists and there are still some right-libertarian YouTubers but they're not nearly as common or popular as they once were and the ideology appears to have died down rapidly, because there was a point when they ran a good chunk of comment sections on prominent internet sites. Maybe I shouldn't deliver the eulogy just yet but I think there was a multiple of factors that caused its downfall:

    1) The retirement of Ron Paul and the lack of a charismatic and prominent leader of the libertarian movement who is as extreme "principled" as he was.

    2) To go with reason 1 the realization that a democratic nation would probably never vote for a radical libertarian movement that would do away with social security and child safety laws, thus leading to openly Authoritarian movements taking up the mantle of Austrian school economics instead and those activists becoming increasingly fringe.

    3) Bitcoin being a scam and harming the credibility of the movement.

    4) The "brogressives" taking a huge chunk of their audience and filling the void left behind. If you think that the internet libertarians from a few years ago were largely middle-to-upper class white teenagers than by now most of them are young adults either in college or the workforce and have since realized that they aren't going to be captains of industry and they want government healtcare and publicly funded college after all. However they kept much of the young white male identity politics by also endorsing reactionary movements such as GamerGate, making the slide from libertarian to Brogressive much smoother (as many former internet libertarians had overlap with Men's Rights Activism).

    If number 4 is the biggest reason for their downfall and we're watching the evolution of a small segment of the population (mostly well-to-do young men) than I expect most of YouTube, Reddit, etc. will become traditionalist conservatives in a few years when much of that demographic has a steady income/job and just want tax cuts to go with their social conservatism. ClothCoat (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    If this means anything: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore#q=conservatism%2C%20liberalism%2C%20libertarianism Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that means anything other than the reassuring idea that internet movements are still fringe among the general public. Internet libertarians would just spam their videos on YouTube and upvote them en masse and downvote anybody disagreed with them, same goes for Reddit. What little "influence" they had came from annoying people on popular sites and making it difficult to express anything that deviated from the libertaria-right, none of them would just spam "libertarian" into Google. So it shows they failed in terms of making libertarianism more popular, but that still doesn't explain their very sudden lack of presence on the political sites they had some sway over. ClothCoat (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    In my experience, libertarians in general seem to be suffering because of the internet which keeps information about the details of most of the libertarian positions and people.
    1. It's hard to reconcile the big picture things libertarianism wishes to accomplish with the details and reality of how things will (or in some cases have) work(ed). Most I have ever spoken with are libertarians in name...and disagree on a significant number of their parties points. Which makes me wonder how a person can disagree with over half the platforms, in some cases, and still be an ardent champion.
    2. Which also brings in conflict that most Libertarians are not really accepting of, and often "expel" those that don't at least walk to the same tune.
    3. Libertarianism has been a fringe ideology that has attracted a ton of potentially violent, weird, and bigoted people that think the lack of governmental oversight will help them.
    That's just my thoughts in discussing it with people. In general people seem to be receptive to the grand claims, while the details either horrify people...or start a big exercise in moving the goalposts around the field. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    It may simply be that for thirty years we've been following the slogans of less government, deregulation, and let the free market handle it; now we see the results and realize how badly they were oversold. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    Ya'll guys are nuts. The right is stronger among youth than it was a decade ago, by a big margin. The only thing I'd really say is that "libertarian" is used a tiny bit less often as a label for faux-centrism. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    It depends if you think libertarianism is a separate entity as neither right or left...as many wish the voting public to believe...or if it's the whore of mostly GOP politicians (like the Paul's) as it has been demonstrated to be as politicians claiming to be have put forward things that are so far right wing it makes the GOP look batshit liberal. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Especially in Latin America, in the wake of the failure of several socialist governments (coughVenezuelacoughBrazilcoughArgentina) |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Anonymous user, the truth is... 02:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    Although Latin America was always home to the right, so it's just strengthening existing strongholds, more or less. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions? 02:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Revision-deleting personal info[edit]

    If you rev-delete personal information that shouldn't be accessible, keep in mind that the "op everyone" convention has led to Gamergaters who have been kicked off other services for stalking getting ops here. So anything revision-deleted as personal info needs to be hidden from sysops too. Please ping a mod when you make such deletions - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    Wait, Arcane is a sysop and people are worried about me abusing tools? Lolz. Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Hi David, happy holidays!. FYI, I came back for the holidays to try to honestly contribute, and yes, I'm one of those worse than Hitler gators whose vileness makes me a corrupting influence and whose word should be rejected out of hand simply because I'm openly pro-GG, so if you think I'm going to use my recently restored mop for nefarious ends, go ahead and yank it away again whenever you want, I have no illicit intentions, just wanted to be able to joke block like everyone else, but I'm not gonna weep if I can't. Arcane (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    This should probably be a rule in general. Even if we don't think most RW sysops are stalkers, giving anyone access to doxxing seems questionable. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes agree. I would suggest making this general policy. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Didn't we decide to stop handing that out like candy earlier this year? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 15:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Wait. Is our policy "not a platform for this" or "Completely hide it even from those going to extraordinary measures to find it"? Because I think it's pretty rare that scrubbed revisions will be the easiest place for these trolls to find this information. I could understand the latter if we had some reason to believe it represented a legal problem for the foundation, but this seems like an extreme solution. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not "find," it's "store and disseminate." Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't have enough of a dog in this fight to argue too much, but if it's gated behind a specialized admin interface, regardless of whether many users could look, it's clearly not the same as actually disseminating. I don't object so much as think it's a bit unnecessary. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Fair point. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    Sysop plz?[edit]

    The upcoming ChristTrollmas[edit]

    Very few people edit monitor RW around the holidays. At least once in the past, this has lead to introduction of questionable material without anyone noticing at the time. Perhaps it would be possible prudent to engage Night Mode give the users a compulsory wikibreak by disabling editing between the 22nd of December 22th and the 3rd of January? *goes back to lurking*--ZooGuard (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    I've put it into place for testing. Let me know how it works for you! - David Gerard (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Those of us who don't celebrate Christmas and are off work in that time would find that somewhat irritating. Just sayin'. AyzmoCheers 21:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    thatsthejoke.gif This will not occur - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    1980 October Surprise[edit]

    I recently saw someone linking pages here to the Wikipedia page on the subject. Then it occurred to me that we don't actually have an article on the 1980 October Surprise allegations/conspiracy theories or whatever you want to call them. I'm not sure that I'd be the best person to write it, but it seems pretty on mission to me. I already added it to todos, what are your thoughts? Samstr (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Genetically modified food[edit]

    A long time back, this page was pushed as a cover story. Does it still need improvement, or is it sufficiently good? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Covered. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Scientology content[edit]

    Would the site be interested in me sharing my experiences in Scientology (including a brief stint in the SO) in the pages or would that be unencyclopedic content? I will also be improving the content on Scientology. — Unsigned, by: ExScientologist / talk / contribs 11:31, 15 December 2015‎ (UTC)

    RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. That being said, I'm not sure if peppering pages with personal anecdotes is a good idea, an essay is probably better for this. Perhaps you can do both: Write an essay about your personal experiences, and then use that as a source for some of the content in the Scientology page? Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'd be interested to read your experiences, but I suggest they go in an essay attributed to you, ExScientologist. Obviously the Church of Scientology is known for being sort of litigious, so anything we say about its practices ought to be verifiable or citable. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    And obviously known for being sort of willing to infilitrate entire governmentsWikipedia's W.svg, too. We need way more Scientology coverage on this site, though naturally - as Weasel points out - exposure of them, not exposing our asses to them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    "not exposing our asses to them" That's pretty much impossible. Their strategy largely is to bankrupt people and organizations with lawsuits that they don't necessarily care about winning. The suit itself is the punishment, and it's one they promiscuously impose. For decades legal scholars have been trying to find a constitutional way to prevent the Church from filing so many suits but nothing has yet been devised.---Mona- (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yep. I made that comment based on the exact knowledge you brought. I mean, obviously. Still... I'm just saying it's up to us to still dare to walk that tightrope. We can't be harassed into silence. I just mean: we shouldn't make ourselves sitting ducks for frivolous lawsuits either. Y'know, the whole, we're not going to give them a free pass but let's be a little strategic on what we post on them. ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    Scientology is pretty obviously on-topic here. I used to be an active critic, though I haven't bothered lately - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    "This is a coup"[edit]

    First 16-minute installment of a documentary on how the European financial elites destroyed he first leftist government of our era, in Greece. Among other things, they took veto power over that nation's laws. Episode 1: “ANGELA, SUCK OUR BALLS”---Mona- (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Is that a direct reference to Angela Merkel? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 04:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yup. A Greek protester in the film has that on his sign.---Mona- (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    A good example of how people can colossially miss the mark. While true, and not a good state of affairs, the documentary seems to go for the typical agitation of people versus people, instead of putting the focus on the investors and the Virtual Senate that effectively runs the affairs. If you move to the street level, the ordinary German tax payer has as good reasons as the ordinary Greek person for their position. Both are duped and gamed by bigger players than them. The question is: why is it that tax payers have to back the mistakes financial investors made, who are of course otherwise adamant to have their risk pay out into their own pockets. Characterising people you ask for support and money and who pay for most of it as Nazis is also perhaps not the best strategy. Again, this helps the bigger players as the yellow press can easily play people against people, which of course it did. Then politicans like Angela Merkel can simply shrug and say: well, the voters also don't want me to throw money into some foreign country who insult me anyway in the most exteme way imaginable in the German context. Maybe the next installments are better. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 23:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    On the value of the word "Troll"[edit]

    I'm of the opinion that labeling cranks and reactionaries as trolls is reductive langauge that makes people too easily brush them aside. This comes from the word's origins, which were "This guy is riling you up, don't feed him". But the problem is, so many people we declare "trolls" these days are 100% genuine, and are hiding behind the language as an excuse. If we keep using these words that are commonly used to brush aside aggressive behavior, this makes our articles on those people easy for readers to brush aside. Do you guys think we're too casual in throwing around the word "troll" when describing real issues? What are your thoughts? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    I support never calling cranks "cranks" or trolls "trolls". Explaining their ideas and behavior is enough. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    I tried to explain/debunk the crank & reactionaries' own ideas to them, but all it seemed to do was encourage them to be even louder. Hallucion (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    I feel like 80% of the threads I'm in where someone screams "troll!" I end up saying something along the lines of "I don't like what you're saying ≠ TROLL!" The Arctic Vixen [Get foxy with me ♥] 10:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    "labeling cranks and reactionaries as trolls is reductive langauge" -> Why is this only the case when using "troll"? And not "crank" or "reactionary"? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Cranks and reactionaries describes a type of person. Calling them a troll excuses that type of person. It's reductive language because the internet has weaponized it in such a way as to have the word mean "insincere" or "not genuine". So many of the people we call trolls are genuine. It also falsely implies a certain impersonal angle. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Hmm, while I agree that "troll" is vastly over-used by some people here, I don't really see the difference, other than that "troll" is indeed used more often and, arguably, "worse" than (for example) "crank", just like calling someone a "cunt" is worse than calling them a "bitch" (but neither is okay). I can just as easily dismiss someone by calling them a "crank" or "reactionary", or a host of other words ("racist", "sexist", "conspiracy theorist", "teabagger", etc.).
    All these words (including troll) *do* have valid uses, but it all depends on the context in which it's used... The problem, it seems to me, is dismissing someone out of hand because "she's just a [label]". If someone comes here claiming that "blacks are an inferior subspecies" I can dismiss it as racist nonsense (which it is), or I can refute it quite easily by linking to the Racialism page. The latter option seems like the better one to me, even in the face of such obvious racist nonsense... Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not just the dismissal with the word "Troll", though. Troll is explicitly an excuse for terrible behavior, and while the other words have their problems, I think that makes "troll" something we should really steer away from. Cranks and reactionaries can be 100% genuine, which makes the usage of the words less troubling. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    'Troll' is a badly-defined word at the best of times. It has at least this many meanings:
    1. Actual harrassment and stalking
    2. Good-natured pranking
    3. Deliberately causing online friction by pretending to hold an opinion you don't
    4. Deliberately causing online friction by actually holding that opinion and insisting on invading places you're not welcome
    5. False-flag dickery to make people you don't like look bad
    6. A flimsy excuse when you're caught out being stupid
    7. A flimsy excuse when you're called out for being a total dick, to try to make it less seem serious
    8. Undirected online mischief much beloved of immature teens
    Queexchthonic murmurings 12:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Good post, once upon a time I feel like it was reserved for definitions 2,3 & 4. Now it seems to be exclusively reserved for "people with opinions I don't like". It never ceases to amaze me that the people most willing to call everyone a troll are often the same ones who engage in meaningless conversations with actual trolls without ever realising it.Tielec01 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


    On the value of trolling[edit]

    Yiff in hell. All my love, Robledo (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    Hell is other furries. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Hell is watching some of them argue over what constitutes "anthro". It's incredible. The Arctic Vixen [Get foxy with me ♥] 11:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Girls with animal features but mostly human bodies aren't anthro and you can't convince me otherwise. Neener neener. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    The view from 4chan[edit]

    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/58482954

    Good for debunking conspiracies but everything else is liberal propgangda

    Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    That's a lot better than some "reviews" I've seen of RW ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Better than some of the "reviews" of RW I've seen on 4chan 'Legionwhat do you want from me 17:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    sed 's/liberal propaganda/stark reality/g' Queexchthonic murmurings 20:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Do I sense a fellow Linux-user here?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 06:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    For work, yes. I'm just glad I don't have to touch Perl. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Are you going to ask them to improve our articles next? :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    Oh it's archived? How surprising. Maybe if the OP included some stupid bigotry or racism it would have lasted longer with lots of posts.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    The day I give a damn about what 4chan thinks is the day I join the Roman Catholic Church as an ordained priest. Gooniepunk (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Why, on the happy day when 4chan becomes your main and only interest, my congregation could always use a strapping young altar boy like yourself. Think about it when you're in the shower if nothing else! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Propgangda? Deviant Art does seem to have an issue with prop gangs these days. Also, now I've got a song stuck in my head. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 14:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Hoppy-Kun looks under stones.[edit]

    So it looks like Matty Hopkins jusr released episode two of his recent doxxing-comedy over David Gerard. I haven't read it, but hey, it'll be a laugh. I hope.Keter (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    What a disgusting man. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Dog pooh stuck on my shoe comes to mind. Horrible creep.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Adam ruined everything![edit]

    A couple days ago, I started watching the series "Adam Ruins Everything", and it ruined everything for me. I personally get a laugh or two out of it, and it certainly brought a few subjects to my attention. EG: tipping, engagement rings, the TSA, etc. Fun times! Anyone else watch it? Hallucion (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC) C)

    Paravant stepped down from moderator[edit]

    Election![edit]

    December 2015 supplementary mod elections: RW is electing 3 new mods

    Nominations and campaigning will run December 20th – December 31st.

    Voting will run January 1st – January 7th.

    Results will be posted here. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    I suggest we draft Tielec01 as returning officer, i.e. when I sent AgingHippie the vote files last time it was Tielec01 who actually beat OpenSTV into giving us sensible answers - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    What if he wants to run? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'll leave the job to mad dogs and Englishmen. Serious question though, why are we electing 3 mods when that wasn't even an option in the voting above? Tielec01 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    142 pointed out that about 50% wanted 4 and about 50% wanted 2, so I split the difference. Yeah, yeah. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well it was 6 wanting 4 and 5 wanting 2, so we should elect 3.0909... mods. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 23:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    @BW: Perhaps we should elect Ryulong after all... Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    So who gets to be the 0.09'ish mod and what does a tenth of a mod do? Okay, I admit I'm being a wee bit silly here, but I'm nevertheless curious about the answer... ScepticWombat (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    Martin Shkreli, the CEO that raised those drug prices[edit]

    He got arrested for fraud. Fake contracts and unauthorized use of funds. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 14:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Oh, and he's doing his usual prickish behaviour. "Haha, this $65 million won't even scratch me." He really *is* a movie's idea of what a rich asshole's like. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 14:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Jail the vile fucker.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Hey hey, why the hate-on for this guy? After all, he did say he regretted the price hike. :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    ha ha oh wow --Ymir (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think this probably only happened because he got a bunch of scrutiny for being an asshole. Other companies doing the same thing probably have similar levels of illegal shit going on, but won't attract the attention of investigators looking to make a name for themselves. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Or because either the bigger companies must have some amazing PR/damage control teams, or Shkreli is just so much of an asshole it sucks up everything that *was* good into his literal asshole. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 17:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Have some bloke you never sawed before in you'se life beat Shkreli up and show up in the middle offering your services to stop said bloke for the low low price of $10m, telling Shkreli that he should be happy getting such a deal since his life is worth more than $10m. CorruptUser (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think this probably only happened because he got a bunch of scrutiny for being an asshole. This is showing up a lot as a standard apologetic, aaand it's wrong - the SEC's been after him for a few years now, since well before the publicity for the price gouging - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    He was also pictured wearing a cheap hoodie like a common poor. The horror! Vulpius (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Santa Claus and Christians[edit]

    Would the idea of Santa's powers be "playing God"? Santa is supposed to have the ability to see what everyone is doing and has the ability to use magic. I though this would make an interesting topic considering it is the holidays and all.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    We've addressed that already here. Spud (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    Just asking a question (really)[edit]

    What kind of over sight is there for deleting/hiding comments by people whose judgment is, lets say, less than consistent? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    AFAIK, stuff can be hidden at a level where Sysops can still see it (meaning barely hidden at all), or at a level where only mods can see it (somewhat more hidden). I imagine someone with database access could purge something from the wiki, if need be. Ask Gerard, he would know. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    Stuff that shouldn't be up, can be zapped as AH describes. Needs to be a pretty strong reason. We've had to do this a lot since a couple of bloody idiots decided that going to Gamergate haunts and directly inviting stalker sociopaths over was a dandy idea - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    so i cant edit everyone comments to make it appear that I am more than just a mouth breather? Pisser AMassiveGay (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    You can, but they'll still be in the history ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    Exxon Mobil's latest media spin[edit]

    I'm sure you guys have seen by now the advertisements Exxon has been plastering all over the internet, trying to convince the public that they're totes Mcgrotes going green and all for this clean energy. How are they green? By burning all that "clean" natural gas of course! Sure, it's "cleaner" in the sense that it emits a less-diverse array of harmful emissions when it burns compared to coal and oil, BUT it still gives off just as much CO2 emissions. I can't quite tell for sure whether they've abandoned the "climate change is natural" angle, but they are trying to claim that natural gas is "reducing America's emissions" and is "clean energy."

    Normally, I wouldn't give a frak (pun intended) about what Exxon is up to, but the sheer scale of the ad's proliferation is getting annoying. The other night I was settling in for a nice long session of online sexytimes with my sexy twink BFF, and I find that stupid ad taking up a fifth of my Skype browser! Blitz (Complaints Box) 20:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    Uh, I'm like 95% sure that natural gas is somewhat less harmful in terms of global warming than oil and coal.
    On computer, you can kill Skype ads. First link. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Natural gas produces about 45% less carbon dioxide than coal for a given amount of energy. Oil is about halfway between the two. Carbon dioxide emissions per unit energy is a function of the carbon content of a fuel. Coal is mostly carbon. Oil has a good amount of hydrogen. Natural gas has a lot of hydrogen. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Dihydrogen monoxide is a potent greenhouse gas, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:18, 19 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
    True, but unlike carbon dioxide, it is capable of entering and leaving the atmosphere via phase change. Absent a persistent driver like solar cycles or carbon dioxide changes, burning hydrogen has no long-term greenhouse effects because the dihydrogen monoxide concentration quickly returns to the equilibrium level. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    There are advertisements on the Internet? --Ymir (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not quite as bizarre as the whining of the European lobby for coal which called the wahmbulance when the rather, eh, "elastic" Paris agreement suggested that the EU would basically cut deeply into its reliance on coal. Pulling a brilliant persecution complex the coal spin doctors seriously tried to claim that this amounted to a hate campaign against coal and that they were now in a kind of hell because investors dumped coal shares on the stock market following these announcements. The solution according to the coalies? Well, keep burning coal of course! ScepticWombat (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    I said I was Avenger (or Mona has gone nuts)[edit]

    .... and vandal binned me and removed sysop privileges as she really thinks I am a sock of Avenger. I can only post once per 30 mins right now due to that. Can anyone sensible who reads this please unbin me and restore my sysop privileges. Thank you.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Thank you very much 142. Please restore my sysop privs as well.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    The AgingHippie beat me to it. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
    You said you are Avenger. After posting a very Avenger WIGO. ---Mona- (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Then bring it to the Coop or a mod. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Nobody feels the need to do that for a sock of a binned user. Mere sysops do that. FFS, you're telling me that if Ryo made 5 accounts and began posting Ryu shit, you, me, and other sysops couldn't decommission them? pffft---Mona- (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    I would imagine he might check a bit first. I certainly would.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    I did "check." You. Said. You. Were. Avenger. After: 1. Avenger has gone oddly quiet, and 2. Your account posted a very Avenger WIGO, unlike anything "you" have posted before.---Mona- (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    ....AND, he said it was a joke, and we tend to err on the side of assuming good faith, so there's nothing to talk about here anymore and we can all just move along. Awesome. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Fine. But claiming it was a joke was after everything I described above. Then, he posts here in the Saloon as if I had just gone "crazy" and decided to de-mop someone because reasons. Leaving out several salient facts. That's not "good faith."---Mona- (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Actually I'm Avenger. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm an Avenger. Important distinction, I know. They don't acknowledge me or call, and try to pretend I don't exist. But there's always a foxgirl there who resolves all the dangling threads in the background. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    I am also a sock of Avenger's, but he lost my twin in the laundry a long time ago. :C The Arctic Vixen [Get foxy with me ♥] 14:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    I see that Mona is still playing internet cop by taking people's sysop without any discussion or coop case. Typhoon (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Indeed. Mona, please cool it with the internet copping, ask if your internet cop actions are actually a good idea first - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, so two people who cannot stand me want me to consider my "Internet cop" actions, when many others would do the same thing about a sock account of a binned user. This person SAID he was Avenger. I wasn't hallucinating it. He said that after posting a very uncharacteristic WIGO that is VERY Avenger. So, all this lampooning about all the other Avengers is bullshit. Those other accounts have not directly told me they are Avenger after posting Avenger material. ---Mona- (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    If "others would do the same thing" those others are setting a poor example. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Goddamnit, Mona, it was a joke.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Arisboch, is there something you don't understand about the events that occurred before TRWP announced he meant it as a joke? The events that looked very much like Avenger? (Who uses the first person at the WIGO to accuse an airline of antisemitism? Heretofore I'd have said only Avenger.) And Weaseloid, this is an adult wiki and not an elementary school: we are not charged with being "role models" who give "good example." pffft.---Mona- (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Then perhaps you shouldn't blame unidentified "others" for your own shitty behaviour. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've never done any such thing. And, again, this isn't a school, we are not minders of the kids. We are peers. The whole idea of "setting a good example" is demeaning and inane. Moreover, my behavior wasn't "shitty." It was merely a (very understandable) mistake.---Mona- (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    No, it wasn't. Listen to what other people are saying & stop acting like an internet cop. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it was a mere mistake. Had he really been Avenger it would have been the right thing to do. That's not "shitty behavior"; that's an understandable mistake. At any rate, TRWP and I are both over it now, so why aren't you?---Mona- (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    I was never involved it. I'm just taking issue with your insistence that it was the right thing to do. Notice how nobody in the thread has agreed with you on that. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    Does RW have an article on biblical canon?[edit]

    I've been looking over the subject here and found it mentioned and alluded to in various articles, but I haven't managed to find an article going into any detail over the fights on what's considered canon and what isn't, just over different translations. If RW doesn't have an article on this topic, I think it should, as I think what the religious have sought to leave out of the collection is a very interesting topic, to me, at least. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Start here, maybe? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, this is just my ignorance then. I was searching for the wrong word. Maybe we could do a "Biblical canon" redirect here? :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    there is currently a section in Biblical literalism--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    If our article on Apocrypha goes into further detail and is better constructed, it seems redundant. That being said, it should stay in the article, with perhaps a "main article Apocrypha" link above it, as well as a redirect to apocrypha. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Reading the page-- it's interesting, but a non-insignificant amount of it is written in an almost impenetrable and dry way, and there could be some new sections that go into summaries over the contents of the texts described. Perhaps this could be a target for creative editors to refine. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Have at it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    The Apocrypha article is pretty good, but there's more to be said about the Jesus stuff that didn't make it into the canon. Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas and a bunch of others. I've been going around to various Jesus and Bible articles as they pop up in recent changes to edit and tweak, and am glad to see another editor with interest and knowledge in this area.---Mona- (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Count me in among the "editors with interest and (some) knowledge in this area"! Which reminds me, I just picked up the Oxford Introduction to the Apocrypha as I was browsing in a bookstore the other day. Adding it to the pile I guess. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    We should start up a communal sandbox then and give the article a good roughing up. Looking at the history of it, it looks like it's remained mostly untouched for many years, so we've probably got a big job ahead of us. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 21:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Cover story: Ray Comfort[edit]

    I want this to be a cover story. What does it need? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Aren't there some formal requirements for those ranks? I'd say the article is easily front page material already. But hey, what do I know? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Editted post. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Um, announce it on the article talk page, announce it here, give people a week to beat the crap out of it, see how it goes? - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Moderator needed[edit]

    A new user going by "Worried" posted bullshit in the coop as a quintessential concern troll, claiming that Gamergaters are talking about RW and planning to dox some editors here, especially Queex who was specifically named. This was pretty obviously a threat merely posing as friendly concern. Hipocrite blocked Worried for 3 days but Weaseloid unblocked and said it was unjustified.

    This kind of threat is clearly grounds for a ban. We need a moderator to weigh in.---Mona- (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    We need more moderators in general. I'm not sure if I can trust Fuzzy, but I have faith in Gooniepunk and David, though I don't think they can keep up with the tide of the spread of doxxing which is sure to follow. I don't think we should bring Paravant back because I think he's too trigger happy and needs/deserves some time off, but we NEED someone who is capable of dealing with this to fill in the gaps where Goonie and David aren't active. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    What makes you think anyone could "bring Paravant back"? I wish that were the case. Can someone post link to the offsite activity that is mentioned by user Worried?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    [EC] Banned, binned, revdelled (on top of the current revdels). They said they were a burner; it shouldn't matter anyway. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    We do need more and active moderators. With FCP having invited these asshats in, there is going to be trouble from them. Poking that hive was stupid, but it's done. One of those idiots has been writing about others of us as Rev posted on my talk page today, and mentioned that even tho I am out with my full real name, my "neighbors and friends" might learn from them [the Gamergaters] that I support pedophiles & etc. ad bullshitum -- I archived it all because I don't want to give the jackass oxygen/attention. We can't have these cretins posting here, with their doxing threats.---Mona- (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not quite as sure they had outright malicious intentions. Since it was clearly a throwaway account, banning it does no real harm either way (which makes banning it pretty pointless, but eh). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
    It's only not clear if you go well out of your way to ignore all possible context and history - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    There were more than a few tells that whoever was behind the account was not, in fact, a RW editor in good standing. Using 'burner account' rather than some variation on 'sock', and not knowing how to use the coop properly (or indeed, what the coop is used for). Nothing about it read as sincere. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    When there are few dissidents, does the quality of dissident posts decrease?[edit]

    Let's suppose there's, say, a cold fusion debate on RationalWiki, with 10 people supporting the view that cold fusion is bunk, and 1 person supporting the view that it's a legit phenomenon. Will these lopsided numbers tend to increase the quality of the "cold fusion is bunk" posts and decrease the quality of the "cold fusion is legit" posts?

    I'm thinking it would. When you have 10 people as part of a debate team, the people who are less sure of what to say can stay quiet and wait for others to make remarks that will stimulate their thinking and prepare them to speak. They can then say, "I agree with what so-and-so said, and I would also add..." In that group of 10, there will be some who are knowledgeable about different aspects of cold fusion, and therefore the group as a whole can operate as a team in which those who are strong on a given sub-topic can make up for those who are weak on it.

    The guy who is the sole dissident will be in a position of having to counter every opposing argument on his own, even those that he's ill-prepared to address. He will have to be a well-rounded expert on all aspects of the subject matter, or he'll fail to adequately rebut his opponents, even if his overall conclusion is correct. He may in some cases have to choose between speaking-off-the-cuff (which often leads to making bad arguments, or at least poorly-presented arguments, as one gropes experimentally for a good argument and tries to figure out how best to express it) or saying, "Uh, I don't know, I'll have to think about that and get back to you" which can seem like a dodge.

    The failure of the dissident then could make the cold-fusion-is-bunk crowd say, "See how we're able to demolish the arguments of our opponents? They come here and every time we're able to make points that they can't refute. They don't even know how to present a very eloquent argument. It's almost like they're just making it up as they go along. We're so smart and these guys are such fools."

    Yet, if a lone "cold-fusion-is-bunk" person were to venture into a stronghold of "cold-fusion-is-legit" people somewhere on the Internet, they might run into some of the same problems because then they'd be the sole dissident having to defend their views singlehandedly. Luciferous (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    If there wasn't Conformity, maybe. But there is conformity.
    I'm the one person on some matters, and psychologically, contrarians tend to break the conformity effect (one reason I stick around). It's otherwise false that the 9 people get more powerful. There is a monitorial citizen effect with communities (something like swarm intelligence), but it only works when people come together and collect and analyze large data. It does not help to make a case per se. A few people can also easily rationalize together and convince each other that they got it correctly, when they don't, and they can then use sheer numbers to silence their dissenter with a Gish Gallop or on this wiki, by reverting the one person away. In short, a bunch of people can form an echo chamber. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 17:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    The Captcha[edit]

    Hey there,

    I have in recent times had opportunity to observe the Captcha. First of all, it has decreased in quality and diversity (usually just varying between less thaen a half dozen options). Second of all, the Captcha is now accompanied by incredibly spammy and very un-RW advertising. And third of all, I have more thaen once put something wrong in (like hitting "#" while hitting enter) yet it was still accepted... What is the reason for that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    Maybe the CAPTCHA provider RW uses does at one hand use ads to finance the free CAPTCHA service (I assume, that RW is using the free option) and on the other hand, the CAPTCHA is smart enough to guess and ignore typical human-made typos?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    I just joined a few days ago and I always have a WTF moment each time I see the CAPTCHA questions. Some are traditional CAPTCHA questions like "Type the words you see" but some are completely ridiculous ads/surveys that require picking an answer from a dropbox for questions like "What is the best gaming console?", "XBox One boasts one of the following?", "What is Degree deodorant known for?". As far as I know, there are no wrong answers for those disguised ads/surveys so any bot could pick a random choice and defeat the CAPTCHA easily. TiGa (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    Why not use the "struck jury" system for electing moderators?[edit]

    That is, start with a venire consisting of all the active RationalWikians, and then have the users vote in successive rounds on whom to vote off the island, until you have only three people left. Then appoint those three as moderators. Then it can be like a reality show, which would be less boring than a typical election.

    (The reason the struck jury system is controversial in the U.S. is that it can easily be used to eliminate all the minorities from a jury pool, but that probably wouldn't be a problem here, except with regard to ideological minorities, which RationalWikians probably want to eliminate from the moderator bench anyway.) Luciferous (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    Why would ideological differences disqualify a user from being a moderator? I make a point in RW elections of choosing someone who's not part of the hivemind, because they're not part of the hivemind. You always need someone around to go, "hey wait a minute, something's not right here." BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 23:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm down for SURVIVOR: RATIONALWIKI - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Cuz it would take ages and ages? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly! That's how you get repeat visitors, pumping up ratings by increasingly hyping the suspense factor as the process draws near its conclusion. Every day, you have a new episode in which at the end, someone gets told, "You're fired." People can place bets on how long they think someone will survive before getting canned.
    Actually, what's supposed to happen is that you have a two-stage process, in which first, you whittle down the 474 active users to a more manageable number, and THEN start voting people off the island. What the first stage would consist of, I'm not sure. The Steps of Knowledge, perhaps? Luciferous (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    We think this is an execrable idea. By "we" I mean me, my personal gentleman's gentleman, and the entire contents of my sock drawer. Tuppy Glossop (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

    New World Order: The Next Phase[edit]

    I just had to make a "New World Order" joke after seeing the newest World Order. Time to add it to that one section of the NWO page. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 15:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    Can users add polls or is it up to moderators?[edit]

    I ask because I have an idea for a poll but I am not sure if I can add one--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

    You can. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    They really aren't all that important, it seems like something that regular users should be allowed to edit. Samstr (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

    Well[edit]

    We seem to be doing a superb job at driving people away. --Revolverman (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    The old guard'll be totally gone soon. Sic transit … Pippa (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    What are we doing exactly? Also the old guard is already gone. It's left twice in the time I've been here and thrice before that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Allowing Ryulong to fester as long as he did was very harmful. In so many ways. Had he been reined in much sooner the GG-pages would have calmed down, and all kinds of coop-case and other drama avoided. The latest horror of attracting vicious doxxers and harassers wouldn't have happened. Now, several good people do not want to remain as, or run for, mod. Very unfortunate.---Mona- (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    This is entirely incorrect in terms of the timeline. The Gators were thoroughly pissed off well before Ryulong even edited here. Please review the history of Gamergate and stop perpetuating factually incorrect claims about another editor just because you think you can get away with them - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    EC) Mona has the right of it. EC) I assume Revolverman is talking about Goonie. Old Guard: Human, bicycle wheel, Ghengis - all definitely old guard & still here(ish). Pippa (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it's definitely Ryulong that's riling up all the Gators to come over here and dox everyone they can find. Totally! Was he wearing a short skirt? That would explain everything! Don't Dox Me Bro (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    The riling was done by the sincere but haven't-worked-out-so-well recent outreach efforts. Whose outcome was completely predictable, but it seems GG are a hive of rabid hornets on PCP that people can't work out are a problem without sticking their dick into personally - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    You are wrong, Mona. Very wrong. It wouldn't matter what Ryulong or anyone else did - GGers will not stop until the RW pages say exactly what they want it to say and RW members kneel to their every whim in abject obedience. This would have happened regardless; similar attempts have been made by Creationists, Scientologists, and others in the past. I recommend that you fortify yourself, instead of giving in. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think I'm wrong Castaigne. It's clear to me that everything I already wrote about the effect Ryu, and the protection he received, has lead to immensely increased internal disruption and drama, and outside attention. My argument is not that there would have been none of that in his absence, but that with it it has been much worse.---Mona- (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    No, you are indeed entirely wrong. It's the same crowd that's been pissed off at Men's rights movement, Thunderf00t, Slymepit et al, all of which pissed-offness has nothing to do with Ryulong and has been going on since well before your editing here. It's the same crowd, and there is no reason whatsoever to think they will stop at Gamergate articles - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    1) David Gerard is completely correct.
    2) Mona, could you PLEASE learn to indent correctly and stop outdenting every other sentence? It makes readability and continuity of conversation a pain. And I hate re-editing it so the conversation can be followed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    No, David is completely wrong in thinking reining in Ryu would not have had all the results I stated. And you, Castaigne, have a histroy here of totally lacking judgment and being a hothead. I will not be conforming anything to suit you, including my edit formatting. You may entirely leave that alone. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    And your evidence that David is wrong is...what, exactly?
    And no, I'm not a Hothead Paisan. I just have low tolerance for bullshit - whether that be yours or anyone else's - and I lack fear of violence or death. So, if the Kiwis decide to dox the fuck out of me, I give no shits, unlike you. Now, when they start shooting at me, I'll start shooting back, but I frankly think they don't have the stones to assassinate people.
    Frankly, I'm surprised that when you got doxxed that you didn't get some of your Hamas bros to go allahu-akbar on 'em. I would have. But to each their own... --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    God, Castaigne, you are a freak: "and I lack fear of violence or death." You say crazy things like that all the time. You hate idealists, you hate everyone, and you think all humans should die because we are all awful. You hate everybody. And, something I prevailed here on pissed you off a few months ago and you huffed off in snit, erasing your account and doing a LANCB. I take it as a good sign that you detest me and everything I state. It increases the odds that I'm spot on. Now, except to retain my formatting, I really am out of this section.---Mona- (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I just tell you what is true about me. :) And I don't hate everybody. Just most people I don't know. Nor do I detest you and everything you state. First, it's disdain, not detestation. Two very different emotions. Secondly, you've got a bug up your ass about Palestinians, you can't format a wiki edit for shit, and you are frequently wrongity wrong wrong and refuse to admit it. But that's not everything and frankly I attribute most of your crap to just being old and recalcitrant. Mais ne t'en fais pas; Je vous aime , même si vous êtes un crétin fini. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Also, you didn't say why David is wrong. Just that you think so. I doubt you will now. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think that in every community that's more than a few years old that I've ever been involved in, there's always complaining about "the old guard" being annoyed by "the new kids" (I've been in both camps). Such is the way of things. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I will say that if David Gerard got hit by a bus, I'm not sure who else would have the tools to do actual server and database maintenance, which is maybe a bit thinner a layer of protection than it seemed to have in the past. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Never mind the fact that this site could be penetrated with relative ease. I work in corporate IT security; trust me on this. Anyone here who truly fears a doxxing should probably start visiting it from a proper VPN (for starters...). Just saying, friends. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Could I just ask why we're seeing this influx of horseshit on the site recently? If you or anyone know? I've been christmasing, you see. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Long story short, FCP and Carpetsmoker went over to GamerGate Central on Reddit and asked GamerGaters to contribute. When the GGers didn't get their way, they farmed it out to their chan/kiwi allies for doxxing/trolling RW into submission. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the answer. Assuming that what you say is correct; why? Again, as someone completely out of the GG/anti GG loop, I'm really just curious. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    GGers hate anything that doesn't cast their "crusade for ethics in game journalism" or their MRA/Nrx allies in good light. Whle they'll deny it in public fronts like KiA, they use their allies in the chans/kiwi/whatever (or themselves, if they can do it anonymously) to manufacture and/or brigade their targets until submission is achieved. There's no real reason other than "GamerGate cannot be wrong; it can only BE WRONGED!", just like Conservapedia or the Discotute or any of the other cranks. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Adding onto it, Fuzzy at least thought they had the idea that they could try and reconcile the site with it's critics. Misguided, and anyone with any experience in GG could see this result coming from a mile away, but admirable. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I have never been able to find idealism admirable. An idealist is either a fanatic or a fool; both should be eliminated on sight. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I should also go ahead and note that these so-called trolls and doxxers are pretty fucking weak. No mailbombs, no hacking bank accounts, no SWATting; for a bunch of edgelords, they're absolutely nothing compared to the masters of 20 years ago. To quote Immortan Joe, "Mediocre." --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    RW did get a few reasonable posters, for a few days. Then it all went to shit. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Because they didn't get what they wanted. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Echoing Kitsunelaine, the "reasonable" posters didn't get their way, so they went fucking shithouse rat crazy. Did you really expect that they would do otherwise? If so, I have to question that level of naivety. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    What FCP says describes the whole of Gamergate perfectly. —Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    [EC] If they didn't get their way, I figured they'd do what they did the last four or five times KIA got mad at the GG article -- spam a bunch, then retreat back to their subreddit. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's because they blamed it all on Ryulong and directed their attention, threats and doxxing attempts towards him (Which, conversely, is why he had such a short fuse. Y'all need to learn empathy.) You had a scapegoat you foolishly got rid of. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not entirely sure "having a scapegoat" is exactly a positive thing... ℕoir LeSable (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm more bringing attention to the fact that Ryulong dealt with this bullshit on behalf of the site for so long, and several users just gave him shit for it. And now that he's inactive, their attention has spread to other users who have had to pick up the slack. This was a predictable outcome to those who have had dealings with GG before, or witness GG's dealings with others. It's not exactly flattering language, but a scapegoat is an accurate term for what was happening. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    FFS, Carpetsmoker cooped Ryu well before this Xmas bullshit went on. And he (righteously) did so for reasons pertaining to this wiki. Had it been done successfully much earlier, we would not be where we are, including me, who was targeted by the freaks. So, as a "victim" myself, I am entitled to opine on the cause, and I have. Finally, if I was going to have anyone disagree with me, it would be Castaigne -- he's got all the sensible judgment of many GGers. (And I thought he'd done a LANCB.) ---Mona- (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    You forget that Shaker's Law forbids a successful LANCB. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    A reasonable assumption - except you directly went there with Carpetsmoker and gave invitations. In GGer-think, that means you totes agree with them and were inviting them in to erase everything Ryulong did and replace it with their own narrative. And then you reneged because you found the edits unreasonable, thus they "unleashed their wrath" or whatever the fuck they call it. You made it pe::sonal to them with your invitation. You should have known that this would happen - if you had paid attention to what they did over at Wikipedia, which was pretty much the same thing.
    Do a different action, get a different response. You didn't do the same thing that happened the last 4-5 times. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    For reference: if RW continues current rates of use for the next two days, it will have had 2.04% more users with 1+ edits than last month, 3.99% more users with 3+ edits, 5.54% more users with 30+ edits, 18.3% less users with 300+ edits, and 0.472% less edits. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    So, what do those numbers really mean? That we're swapping old beans for tons of accounts that get banned after their first vandalous edits? I can't read numbers so you tell me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    How's it compare year-on-year though, i.e. previous Decembers? - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    [EC] @RBP: They mostly mean that nothing macro-scale has changed, yet. 300+ users fluctuates like a drunken driver (+/-20% is normal), edits hasn't changed, and there's marginally more users (possibly attributable to our recent influx of master trollz0rs). FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    @DG: Compared to 14-December, 15-December had 5.31% more users with 1+ edits, 21.5% more users with 3+ edits, 15.8% more users with 30+ edits, 98.5% more users with 300+ edits, and 59.5% more edits. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Editted 23:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    I've said all I have to say in this section. All we are doing is providing fodder for assholes. We should stop and this section should be archived.---Mona- (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    I've been called on my lying BS and apparent inability to understand that time progresses in a forward direction. This section should be archived to hide this. Probably not - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree. I'm in favor of open or frank discussion. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Holy shit. People, GG/SJW, whatever aren't some fucking timeless, unyielding force. Why on earth are we using such dire terms for this? We aren't fighting monsters. These are bored people on the Internet. Can we cool it with the fucking biblical talk?! --Revolverman (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Okay, so inviting was a mistake, but...[edit]

    Re: Castaigne2: "Long story short, FCP and Carpetsmoker went over to GamerGate Central on Reddit and asked GamerGaters to contribute." -> This is true and, in hindsight, was a mistake. However, given the information that I had at the time, I thought it was a good idea because many of the most active anti-GG folk here seem completely unable to concede on even the most simplest of factual errors and make blanket statements like "all GGers are sociopaths", leaving me with conclusion that their opinions on this subject are not to be trusted. Basically and bluntly, many of them come of as crank on this subject. In this case, the cranks seem to be in the right ballpark, but a lot of fallacious reasoning is being used. Had ya'll been more reasonable (and, dare I say, rational), I would have seen no reason to go to GG-camp to let them say their piece. After I had (and in fact, continue to have) reasonable conversations with some GGers, I figured "what's the harm, lets see what happens?". I have since had a better appreciation of the problems in the GG community; and regret making an explicit invitation to edit here as it has obviously caused more problems than it solved. So let me be clear in apologizing for that :-/ That being said, it still seems to me that many statements that are being made on GG are greatly exaggerated, and that a lot of fallacious arguments are being used... Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's possibly the lamest reply anyone could come up with, posted a minute and a half after my post. It's physically impossible to read, comprehend, and think about the contents on my post in that time. Introspection is lacking—yet again—which is what I believe they call a "case in point". Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Reading is not a physical act (unless you count brail, but even then, interpreting the symbols is still a mental act, it just has more of a physical component). Do you have studies and sources to back up your scientific statement, that nobody can read a two paragraph post in under a minute and understand it (Granting thirty seconds leeway to write the template and for the page to load)?- Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not to question your no-doubt incredible speed-reading skills, but I think your response speaks for itself. The whole "someone accuses someone of not being right → I'll just link to 'I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki', QED!!!" thing really is getting old, and I know you're trying to fit in by using some commonplace appeals to ridicule, but try to make valid criticisms.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Right but he's blaming the site for warning him that he was inviting fucking sociopaths here, and getting mad that they turned out to be sociopaths, all while pretending to apologize for it. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    He didn't even mention RationalWiki not being rational in his post so you're missing the point of that joke by seven country miles and you're just looking stupid and puerile
    0/10 kill urself my man |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 04:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    *cough* "Had ya'll been more reasonable (and, dare I say, rational)" *cough* - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    You caught him. He used a word that kind of seems like another word that happened to be in the title of some old essay that is now a joke.
    "I", or dare I say "my" as in "My Struggle" *cough* Looks like you're a Nazi.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Classy. But I think it's pretty clear what context he was using the word in. It was a part of a call-out post poorly masked as an apology, where he lays the blame on everyone but himself for his actions. And this is the point where I stop responding as to avoid fanning the flames any more. Heil Gerard! - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. Backing up the truth with fallacious reasoning leaves a big opening for dismissal, even when it's not a breeding ground for the fallacy fallacy. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 05:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    In this case, the cranks seem to be in the right ballpark,- Carpetsmoker
    I'll just note that if you had done your research outside of RW on the GGers, you would have seen why the so-called "cranks" had their opinions and you wouldn't have thought of them as cranks.
    So let me be clear in apologizing for that- Carpetsmoker
    Apologies are functionally useless. If you were sorry for what you did, you would have never done it in the first place. Being sorry after the fact does not correct, fix, or ameliorate the problem. So never bother apologizing; no one appreciates it.
    It's physically impossible to read, comprehend, and think about the contents on my post in that time.- Carpetsmoker
    Perhaps for you. Some of us have quicker reading/comprehension rates. Bit of a requirement in my work. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    He would never have done it in the first place knowing what he does now, right? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 05:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    If he didn't mean to do it, he wouldn't have done it. Why apologize for what you meant to do? --Castaigne2 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    "wouldn't have thought of them as cranks" -> Not "thought", "think". The incredibly fallacious reasoning and factual errors are still there, as evidenced by this entire conversation. At any rate, I did do some reading on GG, and much of it didn't seem like the subhuman trolls that RW makes them out to be. Still doesn't really, although I do appreciate that the GG community has problems and a rather large number of dubious "members" (it's a free-for-all, so "member" is wrong, but I can't think of a better word). Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, because prominent GGers like Master Milo, Cernovich, Vox Day, Vordrak, Ethan Ralph, and so on just seem like reasonable people. Surely their followers will be just as reasonable. --Castaigne2 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Okay, so inviting was a mistake, but..." While inviting a bunch of people with a reputation of being toxic troublemakers of various kinds is kind of obviously a bad idea, the way it happened was notably problematic too. Fuzzy basically said "Hey, we finally chased Ryu away, so it's open season on the Gamergate article. Come and feed us your bullshit." >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Lots to like in Revolverman's post. Whilst I would not wish to belittle ANY of the infringements of privacy that are very evident, these are bored people whose only weapon is a computer. The omnipotent forces of Satan are not pursuing anyone here. What is VERY clear to me is the more we talk about this, the worse it becomes. And the issue which served as a catalyst is Gamergate - something the vast majority of the world have never even heard of, and if they had, would just laugh. So how about the return of some perspective and let's stop endlessly feeding the offsite drama-fests.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    these are bored people whose only weapon is a computer- TheroadtoWiganPier
    Ah, if only that were so. The MRA/Nrx/white nationalist alliance has a deeper agenda than you know, no matter who they're currently using for cannon fodder. The culture war has only just begun.
    What is VERY clear to me is the more we talk about this, the worse it becomes.- TheroadtoWiganPier
    I have never been fond of silencing myself to appease others. Remember, silence is agreement, consent, submission, and obedience. When you are silenced, you kneel as a slave to those who silence you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh my goodness, not the culture war... run for the hills! And what is a NRX?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Neoreactionary movement. Vox Day and the like. --Castaigne2 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, who is this SpeakEasy person who kept getting reverted and blocked? Sorry for going a bit off topic.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Just check his contribs, few as this brand new account have.---Mona- (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Speaking as a target myself, I'm not so sanguine, and must raise an eyebrow at you being so sanguine on my behalf - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well understood David and I prefaced everything I said by not wishing to belittle any infringements of privacy to date. I will not say too much else as I firmly believe that the more that is posted here on this subject, the more we feed the drama.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Taking action against the harassers[edit]

    Are we going to take IRL (possibly legal) action against the people who are harassing User:Gooniepunk? How does gooniepunk feel about this possibility? We should do all we can to protect our community and its members, but do so in a way that they consent to. Death threats are unacceptable and so is the potential for doxxing. Rand0 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    I don't think we have the resources to pursue legal action. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 09:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    As much as I would like to I think that may risk leaking Gooniepunk's identity even further since he would have to use his real name which would prebnt him from making a new account in the future e.g. what keeps happened with Zoe Quinn after she sued her ex-boyfriend.--Owlman (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    1) No. 2) Doxxing is not illegal. There is no legal action to take against doxxing. 3) Death threats are rarely actionable in any real way. --Castaigne2 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Castaigne's #3 is wrong. But this is all up to Goonie and the group doesn't need to take any action.---Mona- (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Don't panic, stay calm, and try to not mention the war. GGers will be motivated to do more of this if they see it has effect, and the kiwis will be motivated to do more of this as they see it results in lulz. Should anyone receive threats, I would highly recommend to not advertise it publicly. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Why bother having the site open to the public[edit]

    If we are just going to slash and burn everything now? The paranoia here has reach Stalin levels here. --Revolverman (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    That's my general opinion, yes. Specifically, that paranoia has only been evinced by Mona. And the way she's acting, they'll never leave her alone, so she brings it on herself.
    As for archiving, if we're going to archive things, we need to follow the site rules on it. Oldest to newest. So if we archive the newest, the old has to go too.
    The "protection" on the Saloon Bar was fucking egregious, though. Yes, let's ban anyone from posting on the open discussion page for the entire site due to Oberstgruppenführer Mona's paranoia. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've just deopped Mona for this. Her permissions record (opping and deopping) is extensive for reasons that are due to absolutely no other person than herself. I suggest ascertaining community consensus before reopping - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you kindly. Also, when did we change things so that user's talk pages are protected? --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Probably when GG started having a good old go - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's total Conserveapeda tier shit. GG had been snaping at its related pages for years, why the hell is it DEFCOM 1 NOW of all times? --Revolverman (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Makes sense. Keeps the spam out. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    You win David. I'm crying, just trashed emotionally. I got email this morning telling me "those people" are back at it with shit about me and harassing my kids and neighbors. Publishing addresses and phone numbers. They're sending death threats to Goonie. I despetrately wante dot end the public discussion to dry them up, but Castainge wouldn't let me. He isn't mopped last I looked, so I gove one day protection to the Saloon so he'd stop reinserting the harasser-fodder. FCP upheld the aarchiving, and now that he's back the page doesn't need protection. But you, you are so awful you have to punish me for tryuing to handle an awful situation in whihc I'm a central victim. Do you know an editor is considering dropping out of the mod election because he doesn't think he can work with you? You have made this place intolerable. And now we have YET ANOTHER FUCKING THREAD about all of it. Becasue you, David, won't cooperate in keeping this all as private and back channel as possible.---Mona- (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Mona, I mean this seriously. If some simple trolling is causing you this much emotional stress, it may be best for you to turn off your computer for a while and do something else. While you may have good intentions, your methods actually spur the trolls rather than "drying them up". The more you try to make it private and backchannel, the more they will dig.
    I'm sorry, but that's how it goes. You might want to take a break, have some tea, whatever you do to destress. Blaming David for it is just deflection. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Mona, nothing on this site is worth your mental health. If it's causing you emotional distrss, take a break. I'm sure if you're gone for a week, these idiots will forget about and move on to the next mine of jollies. --Revolverman (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Would anyone like to debate or discuss my article about Jonathan Mitchell?[edit]

    Basically, he's a controversial figure in the Autism community. Yuvle (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

    Autism Speaks is a detestable organization that focuses on Autism only through the lens of the people who have to put up with the autistic population, and not actually one that seeks to empathize with autistic people themselves (instead, literally trying to demonize them). In this light, is opposing Autism Speaks a bad thing, as the wording of your article seems to imply? If that was not your intent, it should be rewritten as to avoid making that rather unfortunate implication. Also, generally, you do this in sandboxes before pushing your articles to the site, from what I understand (Especially if you're a new editor trying to write an article on a controversial subject or person. Though as the article's remained up for about a month at this point, I don't think that's an issue here, as if it were, people would have already done something about it.) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC

    Good work but needs a bit of tweaking. I see it's partially copied from WP:Jonathan Mitchell, so these parts should really be rewritten so they no longer appear as a copy, even if (as I'm guessing) you authored the Wikipedia article. Also there shouldn't generally be external links within the article body; they should be in footnotes. Finally, the last three sections (from WrongPlanet down) don't really seem to be about Jonathan Mitchell & only mention him in passing. I think the stuff about WrongPlanet, ASAN & Steve Silberman would be better within the autism rights movement article. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

    As Weasleloid says - hyperlinked text is not really how we do things here. Those need changing to refs. If you do not do it, no worries as someone else will get around to it.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)