RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive252

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 April 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, (new)(back)


Audience? Conservapedia, Schlafy zzzzzzZZzzZZ random featured article[edit]

Andrew Schlafy (schlafy, denglish for "sleepy") is featured half of the time on the front page. I got that the RationalWiki once (ironically) grew out of Conservapedia, but I wonder how relevant these ties are today and how many people care enough about Andrew Schlafly. He's listed as "HIGH priority" and "entry point". Such things suggest hat the RationalWiki serves an audience I have no clue about. Who are the typical readers, and are they really interested in these things? What am I missing? ~ Aneris 03:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. He's not important to us or anybody else anymore. The page should be taken out of rotation as a cover story. And the funny thing is that I first came across this site when I googled "Andy Schlafly is a tit". Spud (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
His article is featured because it's been awarded a gold brainstar (and if your criteria is 'importance' then we might as well delete half of all articles on this wiki). It would be a terrible precedent to remove quality articles from the rotation just because someone finds them 'uninteresting'. If you're tired of seeing the same article again and again, how about you try to work to make more articles apply for a gold brainstar? Typhoon (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
He's still an active crank. While Conservapedia is, for all purposes, on life support, Schlafly himself and his crankery extend beyond Conservapedia and, indeed, he's rooted depths of the grassroots conservative movement alongside his mother. As such, he's absolutely still important enough to keep as a cover story, though a bit less emphasis on Conservapedia and more on things like his ties to the biblically conservative home schooling movement might do a world of good. Old guard (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Should we not update our opening blurb on the article to emphasize that, then? Where're some good places to start? It's been quite some time since the article's last been touched thoroughly. Over two years, from the looks of it. Maybe we should give it some much needed lovin'. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically, Schlafly is the featured article 3.03% of the time. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Old Guard has a point when she says that Schlafly is missional not in terms of CP, but in terms of his role in/links to Bible-based homeschooling, and he has historically given us a first-hand account of what goes on in at least one classroom from that movement. She is not right enough about the need to de-emphasize CP on our wiki -- get rid of everything but the Schlafly page (for the reasons above) and WIGOCP (for fun for the 5 of us who still get a chuckle from it). No more articles on individual sysops/editors, no more CP space at all. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
CP is far more missional than GG, but agree with AH above, no need for multiple articles on CP editors (Andrew aside). Tielec01 (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tielec01: Feel free to add to RationalWiki:The Great Conservapedia Cull. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My perspective[edit]

Mona is so prolific that I'll just present a list. It should speak for itself.

I'm experienced in comparison with, for instance Mona, who is a few days older as a user than I am. But I know what awaits those — there are a variety of reasons, but one mostly covers it:
  • Everyone opposing Mona is an Unmensch.
  • Otherwise it's the same old story. Most people are not interested. That is one of the reasons she said: 2-1, you lose, without mentioning that only three persons were arguing, and Mona and the other were on opposite sites with me. So, you can strictly say 2-1, but that just means two against, one for. And since Mona implied I had been devious in that admission. I used a passive, but that was not an attempt to say that a change had been made. I was wrong in that instance.
  • Why is Greenwald figured in Chomksky, except in a footnote. She obviously runs a campaign getting her friends noticed.
  • A list of what Chomsky doesn't believe in. This is not necessary. I agree with Chomsky about the subjects mentioned.
  • Chomsky's UG, infinite sentences and other infinities, which are easily disproven, but linguists with no particular training apply their very schew asumptions.::* A long list of people who don't like Chomsky. When pointed out to Mona that the addition she deleted imediately is exactly in the spirit of RW, she goes on deleting, sight unseen.
  • Daniel Everett willed be mentioned.
  • The last two chapters in The Anti Chomsky Reader will be mentiond. Horowtiz didn't write those. Among the author of said chapters is Paul Postal, who is a bona fide linguist.
  • To sum up, Mona can write as much drivel as she likes, but then she will really have to be careful.Inbetween she whines about stalking with no shred of evidence and conveniently forgets that most everything can be found. That means that she can not hide history. Her favorite sentence: I don't know what you're talking about is so easily found out. She has in two cases edited my writing, cherry-picked a contribution without realizing that the origin was directly above her edit. Another habit of her's is to run to Moderators, trying to sway them. None of them seems to care.

The very best of Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte, if you see this, here's a rebuttal.
  • Your first complaint you don't cite any sources for, and I disagree.
  • "2-1 you lose" I don't see why this is important.
  • Greenwald is featured in Chomsky because they are very similar and are often grouped together. This is the equivalent of talking about Stalin in Putin's article.
  • A list of what Chomsky doesn't believe in is useful because it deobfuscates things, clearing up users' preconceived notions of what Chomsky supports. This is part of the purpose of this website: to cut through the bullshit and get down to facts and the truth.
  • Ok. Whatever. I don't understand your hatred of the universal grammar theory. It seems irrational. Are you a linguist? I'm not.
  • Whatever.
  • No source for Horowitz not writing those.
  • "she whines about stalking" She has been stalked online in the past, and your near-constant reverting of her edits and talking about her could constitute harrasment. It's not healthy to focus on one person that much. At this point you are spending a good bit of your waking life fighting someone else on the internet. It's not actually worht it as much as you might think. I had a dispute with CorruptUser once; it lasted a couple of days and I got over it. We haven't fought since.
The edit warring and unusual focus on Mona needs to stop. If it does, there is nothing else to talk about at that point. If it doesn't, OK, bring a coop if you are so eager, but otherwise stop bothering Mona, me, and the rest of the community. You are/were a net negative to this place as of 90 minutes ago. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Wait, when/over what did we have a dispute? CorruptUser (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the exact edit, but you had an argument with someone once about the Gaza War and the treatment of Palestinians. I was involved. I will see if I can find it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Next year for "Australia Day"....[edit]

....can we perhaps add an acknowledgement that for many in Australia, it's more like "Invasion Day." We could do the same for Canada and the USA, too. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock the talk page of Noam Chomsky[edit]

Someone has been deleting contributions and now it is impossible to edit this talk page as an anonymous contributor. I hope this will be rectified as talk pages are and should be public spaces where the community comes together and talks. (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination and Libertarianism[edit]

So, while browsing the internet I came across this. Basically, anti-discrimination laws force companies to hire inadequate workers from lazy (or violent, backwards, etc.) ethnic groups, therefore reducing businesses' efficiency. Some groups have done very well despite discrimination, so employers should just be allowed to do whatever they want, and The Markettm (PBUI) will eventually take care of things. Now, what seems weird to me is: okay, maybe some discriminated-against groups are/have been successful, but I fail to see how the presence of discrimination is more beneficial than its absence in terms of reducing these negative qualities he says these groups have.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mainly because "Big government is forcing me to interact with people I don't like." AyzmoCheers 15:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really understand it myself. I guess business owners are just people. And people fall back into tribalism if given half a chance. Hence why we need anti-discrimination laws. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

More undocumented crazy people. Please give them full pages.[edit]

This guy was sane when he first started his channel. http://www.paulbegleyprophecy.com The rest of them not so much. https://www.youtube.com/user/BPEarthWatch https://www.youtube.com/user/DAHBOO77 This guy is a big one. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUIwxA-CHccPAaVqrfggAiQ And this one https://www.youtube.com/user/FaceLikeTheSun

This guy is who make Paul go crazy. http://counciloftime.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgstZdCdlI This guy is trying to make planet x a Christian thing. https://www.youtube.com/user/Planet7X http://www.planet7x.com/ ANTHONY PATCH look at him he is crazy and hates CERN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK3hzYvwem4. And look at this pastor. https://www.youtube.com/user/zion4131/videos (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can write an article. Your fingers don't seem to be broken, so... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

PiBot/talk page archive bot[edit]

Apart from "sticky" not being supported, is it working properly? It archived my talk page today-ish, and there is nothing in my highest-numbered archive (31) since, oh, 2012.

I undid the archive/deletion at my talk page for now, and was going to clean things up, but obviously I can't find where it was archived to. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I ran standard archive.py, apologies. ZooGuard showed me how to have it respect sticky threads, & that works now. It appears to have archived to User_talk:Human/Archive10, for whatever reason. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
C'est ici. (talk) 20:35, 28 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

MummificationBot also decided to archive to Archive10. And the reason why is: "|counter = 10". Fix yer template! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Fix the bot. How did it get to 31 if "counter=10"? I'll clean it up; what do you suggest I change the counter to? Also, it might be handy if the bot template transcluded a link to the best page to ask questions like this? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm guessing that would be the mummybot link...? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sort of but not really.
This bot needs a clearer documentation page, I think. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MummificationBot is dead; it was run by now-gone Carpetsmoker. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok. We should turn it off, then. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I archive current version of articles at my user page?[edit]

I'd like to copy some articles in their current form and have them accessible through my User page. How do I do that? I don't know how to create a "tab" or whatever it is for pages separate from both the User page itself and it's talk page, but still anchored to my user page.---Mona- (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Easy peasy. Copy all the text from an edit window of the source article. In the search box up above, enter User:-Mona-/Categorical imperative. (Obviously, use the source article's title instead of that Kantian thing. The key item is the slash between your user name and the title.) When you try to go there, you will see "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or edit this page." Click on "edit this page" and paste your text into the edit window that appears. Save it and BAM! the deed is done. Lemon squeezy.
You might want to comment out any categories using markup <!-- like this. --> That preserves a record of the categories without making the wiki index them. Illegitimati non carborundum, Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You can also just bookmark/link to the specific version - like a difflink but not showing an edit. Hang on I'll dig up an example. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, here is an example: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cseministry&oldid=756488
To get this I compared two diffs and the "this version" links are at the top. There may be a faster way. This has the advantage of "preserving" the CCxSA rights of contributors to the article (copying its text to a new file doesn't). ħumanUser talk:Human
That doesn't make sense. It's still an article at RW. It's all copyrighted.---Mona- (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yah but linking to a previous rev of the article still carries the history with it.
Easiest way to do that is open the fossil record, click on the time stamp of the desired version, and copy the URL (I always have a navigation bar showing on me browser, so there it is.) It would make for a compact index in a user page such as User:Alec Sanderson/ossuary containing no more than a list of links. Ah well, Kipling already said it: "There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, And every single one of them is right!"
Mona, I notice some of your preservations still have the categories intact. You want I should fix that, or is it by your intent? Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead and remove those. Thanks Alec.---Mona- (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
(EC)A copy does not contain the edit history. The copyright allows reproduction as long as credit for all contributors is given (the copyrights are not owned by RW but by the individual editors). The edit history does that. By the way, you can probably transclude the oldid version so it is directly readable. I forget how to do it but it is pretty like the way templates work. Just look at the source(s) of the main page to see how. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone direct me to the "retired" template for my user page?---Mona- (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go as well. I've never moved out of my "let's see" phase and am I'm also still unsure what's the point. You made good edits, as said elsewhere too. You can grab the template from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Carpetsmoker site for example. Farewell ~ Aneris 01:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am so fucking sick of people who think computers are magic.[edit]

How is it that the level of discourse about artificial intelligence is so damn low. People who have no relevant background in machine learning run around talking about artificial intelligence based on what they read in fiction and see in movies. I don't mind people asking Stephen Hawking about what he thinks of things like artificial intelligence, but why hasn't anyone noticed that he's a PHYSICIST? His opinion of computers lacks any form of credentials or study as far as I know. and yet he gets mentioned in a news report about AI? The news report also said deep blue used brute force methods to play chess simulating each move to the end of the game... MY ASS! The chess move tree may expand much slower then the GO game tree but that doesn't mean it's not fucking huge. I respect the pbs news hour but their computer reporting is shit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sNC8pHTzEU --NonPerson (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that the Nobel Prize in PHYSICS includes people who invent stuff for computers, like the guy that invented transistors (he got TWO Nobel prizes), right? CorruptUser (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Now if only there was a place in the world where people who know about computers could get together... Maybe even by using a computer... Some kind of computer-network... Or something... Maybe there people could set the record straight on computers... Pizzameister (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Old Ivy League article[edit]

There was an article posted in WIGO or somewhere else in this site explaining why Harvard's debate team lost to prison inmates. Can someone link it to me please? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's cuz the inmates focused on a good, less predictable strategy rather than heaps of research. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I meant the actual article itself. I have to read it. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It was an AlterNet story.--Owlman (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

length of time for coop case consensus?[edit]

It seemed to be an issue in the recent coop where "consensus" was called a mere couple hours after the case was made. A search of the community standards archive came up with about 4 billion results for "coop" and "consensus" and I didn't feel like searching all of them to see if establishing a minimum time frame had ever been discussed. I'm not sure if it needs to be established since a user complaining about it was all that was needed, but it may be worth discussing. Also, this may be better suited for the community standards talk page, but there's more traffic here. AyzmoCheers 21:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus should be achieved in π hours. By 2π hours, the whole discussion is back where it started. MarmotHead (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
^ (talk) 21:53, 28 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
The standard traditional timeframe for a coop or informal vote around here tends to be about 48 hours, give or take. That's why those, ah, declarations were roundly ignored and voted down. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It's typically 48 hours, give or take. The issue has come up before. 24 hours might be ok when there's heavy, lopsided voting.---Mona- (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's an idea... How about we make the coop less "explosion" and more "slow moving lava". What I mean by that is, the coop stays open for (at the least) a week, but everybody gets to post only once every ten or twenty minutes or something... Makes people have enough time to think it over. It can't get worse than this last coop case, can it now? Pizzameister (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This one was pretty bad.
I wouldn't mind a vandalbin-coop. I think that having 24 hours of discussion and then having only voting for 48 hours could work. FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Question marks (talk/stalk) 03:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, is one or two days really enough? I think the first impulse is always to basically go all angry squid mode and rawrawra all over the place. Only after a bit of deliberation do people actually think... Pizzameister (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I made a funny: CU's shameless promotion[edit]

I propose that we create a new God. Coopiter; chief God at this site, who gives us divine revelations in the chicken coop. Or any other wiki gods we could think of. Coopiter has decided! Modonis commands it! CorruptUser (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Modonis? Pizzameister (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Anonis, whenever a Mod does something but you don't know which one. CorruptUser (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
But we already have Fun:Magic 8 Ball The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Coopiter and Modonis, our Rationalist muses. I like it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Free Republic Civil War[edit]

For those who don't keep up, Free Republic is becoming increasingly divided between Trump and Cruz supporters. Those familiar with Freeper history know that there will be a mass purge of users once JimRob comes down on a side closer to the election. Money is currently on JimRob plumping for Trump. So, some Cruzites have gone ahead and started their own forum, Consistent Conservatives. JimRob has found out about it and it's not sitting well. Highlights of the comments from that long thread can be found at Freeper Madness.
While political, Freeperville is a nested mass of crank, crazy, and conspiracy. It would probably behoove us to keep a watch on this as shenanigans escalate. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of time for Evolution[edit]

An article supporting this was previously posted, but I have found a peer-reviewed anti-evolution source challenging it http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/is_there_plenty081531.html TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. The Discotute is challenging it? That's hardly a surprise. Let's see, Margulis (an HIV denialist). Behe and Snoke. Coyne.
You did know the Discovery Institute runs EN&V, right? Or the people they're "citing"? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Just thought it was an interesting article, not a correct one. Reminds me of those Creationist "scientists" claiming there were no carnivore Dinosaurs, only ones that had sharper teeth to munch leaves. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, then I mistook your comment. Never mind! --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Flint, Michigan and why municipal democracy matters[edit]

So I don't know if you heard the news out of Flint, but apparently the whole lead water thing has a history going way back and it has a lot to do with democracy or the lack thereof... Apparently some time ago the (GOP dominated) state legislature of Michigan passed an "emergency manager" law that basically allows an unelected official to override the laws and decisions passed by certain municipalities, namely those that are in dire financial straits (usually those are inhabitant by poor people, black people or poor black people). There was a ballot measure against that law and it was struck down by that ballot measure. However, shortly thereafter, the state legislature passed basically the same law that was struck down by the ballot measure with a few cosmetic changes to make it (slightly) less obvious. So basically people were deprived of their right to decide about their own city government. And when they did something to change that, they were deprived of their right to do that. Revolutions have started about less. Now what did the emergency manager of Flint do? Exactly, he switched the water supply to water from the Flint River, that was nineteen times more corrosive than federal norms allow. And when the people of Flint (including the mayor and members of the city council) protested, they just said "Tough shit, drink the water, it's safe". That went on for two years until someone at the EPA got out of their asses and did a study on the water to find out that - surprise surprise - the water from the Flint River that stinks and gives people rashes was in fact not safe for human consumption. Now of course none of this has anything to do with the demographics of Flint or anything of the likes... Pizzameister (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, many of us follow the news. You may be interested to learn that Flint is the largest US city with a single-syllable name. Sparks, Nevada is a distant second, AFAIK. The atrocity of the Flint water supply is that the acidic water stripped out the protective coating of scale that had kept the flowing water somewhat separate from the lead in the pipes. That damage will take $1.5 US billion dollars to remedy (number PIDOOMA.) The many months of government stalling and coverup exacerbates the situation, perhaps to a criminal degree. It has less to do with the demographics of Flint, and more to do with the fact that politicians have no clue about the technical details of public infrastructure, and should keep their grubby mitts off it. That should come as news to nobody. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
In any case, many people want Rick Synder's head. Not that I blame them, politicians need to get off their lazy asses and do something.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope Snyder is toast. He should be fired.... Or recalled. Or lose reelection. And I hope the emergency manager BS gets repealed as well Pizzameister (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I started a petition to recall the governor- http://www.thepetitionsite.com/606/018/843/recall-governor-rick-synder/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Note from the resident part-time paranoid[edit]

Judged by the username and the contents of their user page, the freshly-registered User:Tekunojutsuka is either the return of a notorious user, a troll impersonating them, or a newbie with a really unfortunate timing. At least this time the name seems to be benign, unless it's some kind of pun with the original characters.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So I have tried to find some meaning in this taking his user name as a Finnish term, but quite frankly I came up empty handed... Pizzameister (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty obviously Japanese. A literal (and alliteral) translation would be "techno technique-ist". As to ZooGuard's concerns, I'm sure the newbie will be kind enough to reveal their true colours eventually. Who knows, perhaps it's hotpink and limegreen. ;) (talk) 18:09, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

On sockpuppetry[edit]

Multiple times recently, there have been IP blocks for "sockpuppetry" where the sole reason is that the IP shares interests with a banned user. Stop. And if bans will come, please restrict it to less than 24 hours. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Roger that, cat. Will do. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
FCP, then how are we to uphold the ban/bin? I mean, if a BoN shows up clearly knowing the editors involved and all the arguments, and head straight for reverting especially me, all they have to do is create BoN accounts to circumvent the ban/bin but never quite admit who they are. What then are we going to do to control that? Arisboch expressly told another editor, by eamil, he was gonna be socking it. And we know Avenger has been. One thing I think we should do is revisit Carpetsmoker's range bans. He argued the tech-reasoning is sound, and I think David Gerard agreed with him that only bad guys use those ranges.---Mona- (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mona: You can ban for sockpuppetry -- once it's demonstrable, or they have vandalized/harassed (which is banworthy on its own). Many IPs edit recent changes pages without malice (and without being socks), which would falsely show a "shared interest". And if you've got a feeling that someone is a sockpuppet, but not quite enough evidence, just keep it under a day. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Okey-dokey.---Mona- (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I think bans should never be suspicion based. Especially not if you block the ability of the banned person to edit their own talk page. Talk pages were made for users to justify themselves if they were blocked. In more cases than not, it was simply an innocent rookie mistake. (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there should be blocks at all, except in jest. That said, basing a block on "suspicion" is ridiculous. I understand this place is not as libertarian as it used to be, but that is far too far for the pendulum to swing.
Also, people don't "create IP accounts" - they edit without logging in (or without ever "joining"). We don't require membership to participate. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Up until about 10 years ago I strongly identified as a libertarian. I still am an ardent civil libertarain, but attitudes and behavior like yours turned me very sour. I'm certainly not a libertarian now. It's a simple fact of human nature: the lowest threshold you tolerate at your private venue will come and thrive; other people who can't tolerate unreasonable and abusive behavior in the quantities that no standards allow, such other people will either not join, or leave pretty quickly. It's already clear what you are left with and it's not going to improve.---Mona- (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand the nature of the experiment here. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
IPs should never be blocked for too long, it generates collateral damage (after pulling the plug of the router, the offending user gets a new IP, anyway and another user is blocked without having done anything wrong).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The state of this wiki[edit]

We've lost good mods, beginning with Paravant, who was driven to a sort of emotional collapse by Avenger and Arisboch; both of these were finally reined in, but not before they were allowed to inflect much damage here. Moreover, and even tho I agreed with 75% of Ryu's position on Gamergate, I strongly supported Carpetsmokers's coop case against Ryu. I'm not driven by partisanship. Objectively abusive and bad behavior is wrong, regardless of viewpoint. Or should be seen as such. Ryu also should have been dealt with far sooner than he was.

Carpetsmoker was driven out as well, because people "don't want to get involved," including our mods. I did step up to object to his mistreatment, even tho CS and I frequently disagreed. I did that because it was the right thing to do. People have been dropping out of this wiki, and good editors won't run for mod, because of the situation here. I want to see that stop.

The idea that BoN's who are either Arisboch or Avenger, or KF doxers and harassers, should be allowed to make beelines for the articles I edit -- I, who was harassed with publication of my adult childlren's and their neighbors' contact information so they could be called and told I'm an "antisemite" and "pedophile supporter" -- I apparently have no business objecting to letting these people promiscuously sign up as BoNs and hurl away where I edit and the talk pages where I edit. Arisboch told Carpetsmoker he was going to make sock accounts. But nevermind.

Why is it unreasonable for me to expect to be protected from further abuse here? I spent a good deal of time and energy showing that Avenger and Arisboch's best friend here is spewing endless abuse at me, and stalking the pages I edit to insert material he knows full well the majority does not accept. This user, who holds me responsible for Avenger's perma-binning and who repeatedly states that I am [fill in the blank with mental illnesses, malignant traits, intellectual impairment] and that a "liar" such as myself cannot be expected to have any of her documentation accepted, this user can't be told to knock it the fuck off. Apparently I'm supposed to deal with that and accept it.

Carpetsmoker -- with whom I frequently disagreed -- was a tech workhorse for this wiki, and just a good guy. Losing him is a damn shame. But I can't blame him. And I'm also close to the point of refusing to tolerate any more abuse and bullshit here as well. If having to tolerate it is a condition of participating here, especially in a controversial topics, then the site does not deserve the skill set I bring.

This wiki is and will be populated by the lowest threshold of obnoxious users it will tolerate. And it apparently will tolerate a great deal that will cost it reasonable people who will not -- and should not be expected to -- tolerate it. ---Mona- (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Drama Queen much? (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh sure thing. Here come the esteemed BoNs; the resort of banned/binned users, doxers and harassers. Protected by this wiki as a great asset.---Mona- (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Well apparently every last copy editing anonymous user without an account is out there to personally harm you, Mona. There a numerous reasons not to create an account or not to log in. Not least of those is if you are in a public network whose security you would not trust with your personal data... But sure, it's all one giant ancient conspiracy... (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's not remotely a conspiracy. It's all out in the open, as all the mods know. They're simply not willing to do a fucking thing about it. Indeed, one of these who won't do a fucking thing about it only yesterday told me I was being watched and discussed about all of this. Again. I don't read that cesspool, but I'm sure he's right.---Mona- (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I asked you at least twice in your last thread on this theme what specifically you wanted done & you came back with nothing. So I don't take kindly to the idea that "mods won't do a fucking thing". If you want to propose restrictions against specific users or propose specific policies, have at it; you know where the Chicken Coop & Community Standards pages are. If you want to keep stamping your foot & making passive-aggressive complaints about "nobody doing anything", it's not likely to result in any progress. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Um, I first sought community consensus as to whether there is a problem. Then one of the other mods said he'd act. But in the facer of push-back, he's caved. He's let his so-called authority be flipped of, and violated. With no comment or consequence. That is to say, that "help" was a joke.---Mona- (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Dunno who or what you're talking about. Still sounds a lot like you'd rather hint at things obliquely rather than make a specific suggestion. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me for also jumping in and responding here, but I also agree with you (In part, anyway. I understand our differences on the Ryulong matter are unresolvable, and I'm not about to get into that debate with you again, but he's more of a victim of this than anyone remaining on this site, and his only crime was putting up with it for too long and getting tired of it. If these protections had been in place a year ago, I wager he would still be around today, and getting along.)
If you're talking about Fuzzy, regarding the moderator thing, he doesn't make the best judgment calls. He's part of what stirred up the whole shitfest that started toward the end of last year, but I've eased off on him, as we've had discussions about it. I believe he's got good intentions, he just needs more experience as a mod. A lot of the time he seems to rush right in without thinking. This appears to be one of those times, as this matter, perhaps, needs mod consensus before it could be acted upon.
I also agree with Weaseloid, to put it bluntly. While I appreciate your efforts, I don't think this is the best way to go about them. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
"He's part of what stirred up the whole shitfest that started toward the end of last year," From which he appears to have learned nothing. I still believe he was simply naive in his invites, but Jesus Christ, it's time to wake up and smell the goddam coffee. There are bad people out here on the Internet. A self-respecting site doesn't host them and let them drive the also decent users crazy with harassment. FCP just told me he doesn't want the wiki to be political. Say what? It fucking is political, and always has been. GG, I-P, New Atheism, wingnuts, that is all entirely political. So is Noam Chomsky. All of that was here when I arrived. I certainly am not the one who introduced politics at this wiki; I'm merely among the major targets for harassment vis-a-vis politic topics. As a goddam human being I should be entitled not to have to put up with it. Last month was awful. It's time to protect all of us from any more of that sickness.---Mona- (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. "Good" mods/editors is a matter of perception and opinion.
  2. This is an anarchic mobocracy. We've always had BoNs here. BoNs have made up the majority of contributors. I cannot see my way to unilateral bannings based on nothing more than suspicion. I will do what is needed according to my opinion of the edits they make. Other editors/mods will do the same, I presume.
  3. You do what you need to do. Stay or go as you will. But please do not presume what the rest of us should think on the matter.
  4. I see you as much more hotheaded than I and much more egotistical as well. Really, "then the site does not deserve the skill set I bring" comes off as pure arrogance. I would expect such words from a rank tyro suffused with awe at his recently required paper degree, as he sneers at engineers who have 40 or more years experience on them. You are no better than I, Mona, and I no better than anyone else here. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not behave like you. Never have, and never will.---Mona- (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
True, you do not act like me. I've never acted as if I were superior to those whom I disagree with. I just disagree with them, not arrogate myself above them. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, I do not behave as you do. And that includes a very great deal.---Mona- (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Paravant was a terrible mod and all you seem to do is grieve and moan...Mona. Acei9 00:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
"grieve and moan...Mona" that's terribly clever Ace. When I'd get into it with the other kids they also thought calling me "Monaer" was hysterically funny. Of course, they were 7-years-old.---Mona- (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It was actually a coincidence. I had written "grieve and moan" and forgotten who I was addressing. A happy accident of the English language. Acei9 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Mona made many good edits and she is right. She isn't the only one who wonders what's the point when things are often more of a hassle, rather than expanding knowledge in a constructive and collaborative fashion. The conundrum is of course that everyone likes editors to clean up typos, or writing special interest articles only 5 people ever read, but as soon as it gets socio-politically relevant it becomes a war of attrition. I only have a different take than she does and see it more as a gambit. I'm not worried about bollocks and bullshit that is effectively uncorrectable. It only signalizes that an article, or whole range of subjects are worthless. Sure, over time this rubs off to the overall wiki, but its a self correcting mechanism. The more bollocks it tries to peddle, the less people find it useful and worthwhile. ~ Aneris 01:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For Weaseloid[edit]

You want specific requests for action? Here I go.

1. Above, and at great length, I set forth the evidence that Sorte Slyngel is creepily fixated on me, and holds me responsible for the departures of her good friends Avenger and Arisboch. He's recommenced flooding my talk page with bullshit, and calling me...well, I documented the endless litany of great abuse already. He came right out and said it doesn't matter what documentation I present -- I'm a "liar" and awful person whose evidence is not trustworthy. So he ignores it. And he stalks pages where I edit on Israel-Palestine-related articles, even tho he knows very little about that topic, especially vis-a-vis U.S. politics. I have repeatedly submitted that I should not be required to engage such an unreasonmable and abusive person.

FCP told Sorte last nite to stay out of the I-P articles for 2-3 weeks, including the Chomsky article. Within hours, he was right back reverting my copy-editing at that article. FCP did nothing. NOTHING. He won't even enforce respect for his own authority.

I want a mod(s) to tell that unreasonable person to stay out of my articles, or face the bin. I have not committed any misbehavior; he has committed plenty, only a fraction of which I documented, but document it I did. Above, here in the Saloon. He has forfeited the right to edit where he pleases by being abusive and grossly unreasonable in his behavior towards me, and teeming with bad faith.

2. We have invading BoNs, and a few of the new accounts do register. They, too, often make a beeline for the articles I am editing. The odds that these are either Arisboch, Avenger, or Kiwi Farm miscreants are very high. It cannot be an accident they are attacking me on the same things Ariboch and Avenger did, and at the same places. Recall, Arisboch got them all worked up about what an "antisemite" I am. Moeover, Arisboch TOLD Carpetsmoker he planned to rely on socks. We already know Avenger has been.

Carpetsmoker established that the range ban he sought impose was technically sound for keeping out ISPs used only by bad faith people. As recall, David Gerard agreed withthat. Well, someone removed that range block, and sure enough, those numbers are back and having a ball again. And almost nothing is done to stop them.

Why should I have to put up with socks and accounts from people who did what they and Arisboch did? Really? Why? These pricks are actually voting on article talk pages, and of course taking positions against me for which there is otherwise almost never sufficient community support.

To sum up, I want Sorte Slyngle made to stay out of the I-P articles I edit, justified by his own long-term bad faith harassing and abusive behavior, behavior in which I do not engage. There is no parity of misbehavior here. Second I want 3 months of page protection of sysop-only for all articles related to GG or I-P. If these accounts are signing up for either of those two, they are highly suspect, and the abuse that many of us have been subjected to by members of those cohorts more than justifies it. They won't be inclined to come if they cannot harm.---Mona- (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that Arisboch had been a problem long before he was banned. His repetitively aggressive and antagonizing behavior on this wiki should not have been tolerated by anyone. Personally, I'm shocked he hadn't been put away long before that, but I'm glad he is at least out of the picture now. He is a good example of what this issue is about. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
As was Avenger, and as is Sorte Slyngel now. Sorte has begun referring to me as "my dear," and "dear girl." I asked him to stop, which only caused him to do it more. Of course, that's the least of his abuse of me. He's an utter asshole who needs to be gone.---Mona- (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with everything stated above. Sorte has been a real trouble-maker, at the expense of the community and the wiki. He has been unusually fixated on Mona for WEEKS. His dozens of reverts and his constant badgering of Mona (and to a lesser extent myself) have done nothing but hurt the community, diverting attention away from more important things and towards a petty conflict over Noam Chomsky. I ask that the mods vandal-bin him or ban him temporarily if he reverts anything of Mona's on Israel/Palestine or Chomsky, or if he argues with Mona at all. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like it should belong in a coop case, and not the saloon bar. But otherwise, I agree. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
"He's an utter asshole who needs to be gone." - Mona about another user. I think there goes all credibility of her ever employing the tone argument ever again. And as for shutting down discussion on topics where people disagree with you preemptively... That has never worked and will never work. Either it will kill the wiki or it will entice people to try it even more.... (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Mona uses tone argument constantly. I'm frankly surprised she doesn't threaten to sue people for LIBELSLANDER or something. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte is a pain in the arse & I've no objection to him being vandal binned or whatever the Chicken Coop decides.

Regarding range blocks: AFAIK they've never been used on RW other than as a temporary measure during severe vandal attacks. This may well be something in need of change, but there ought to be some oversight to make sure the people issuing them know what they're doing. Maybe it should be limited to 'tech' users (if it's possible to limit range block ability).

Re locking talk pages of all articles related to Gamergate, Israel & Palestine: I really don't think so. I just had a look at the fossil record for a few of these pages & don't see many recent B0N or n00b edits. Pages can be protected individually if needed, as is already the case with the three main Gamergate talk pages (where doxxing was involved). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The doxers didn't merely dox, and not just for GG. I'm already totally out with my identity, so they went after my adult kids and the neighbors, advising the cretins "over there" to call all of them and tell them foul things about me. Then a bunch of new accounts, including BoNs and a registered new account, hit the Chomsky article, as well as that talk page. (AgingHippie placed the first protection on the article page.) I want to protect to at least autoconfirmed only, but where they've just registered, then to sysop-only. Weaseloid, I have no idea how else to make these maggots lose incentive to come to the articles I edit. Can I at least do it to the articles and talk pages on I-P/Muslim/Chomsky/Greenwald if I'm editing and one of these show up there? One at a time, as needed?---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You lost me at "my articles" ħumanUser talk:Human 02:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


I would direct all of the parties involved to the Coop. (Mona, Sorte, myself, FuzzyCatPotato, Weaseloid, and any mods or others who deeply care about this dispute) This way, we won't have to trash the Saloon Bar with pages upon pages of insults, complaints, and petty argument; and our readers won't have to see this dispute go on upfront anymore. This has gone on long enough. It's high time we finished it in the coop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Finish what by doing what? And I think that those not active on this wiki who you seem to be afraid of are able to follow the same link those who are active here can follow... Pizzameister (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We have socks of banned/binned user with multiple accounts[edit]

Pizzameister sought to vote in the coop but was deemed ineligible. He knows all about what is going on in that coop case, and the parties involved. But when his vote was stricken, he made the mistake of asking why "my vote" was stricken -- using a BoN account also participating here, http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1614945&oldid=1614943 A mistake he tried to quickly change.

Isn't it time for the mods to conclude that all these new accounts who head right for articles or coop cases where I am involved are obviously Arisboch, Avenger, or some of those Kiwi Farm derelicts whom Arisboch ranted with about my purported antisemtism? How likely is it that good faith new accounts are going to jump right into a coop case and/or articles pertaining to I-P where I am active? I've been a victim of extreme harassment form these people and should not have to endure them coming back after me here.

Please mods, get control of this situation. You can't possibly want this place to be inundated with all these bogus accounts, which in great likelihood are circumventing ban or perma-bin.---Mona- (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Aw. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to continue expressing your enormous contempt for me. I've received the message. Your repeated mockery of the stressful things of the last month was the final straw -- you are a moderator. It is not good for me to remain wehre even the authority figures are so abusive.
I'm leaving the wiki (and joining some very good people in doing so). However, I ask for some help with several things before I go. The first is: How do I copy articles as they are now so that that version is found at my User page? I don't know how to make separate pages that are rooted at my User page.---Mona- (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an authority figure per se. I belong to the original "extreme" libertarian camp on this wiki (as opposed to the "mild" libertarians who at the other "pole").
But anyway, I answered below how to link to a specific version of an article. Don't just copy the text, as it violates the "attribution" clause of the CCxSA (mildly, but still...)
What else did you need help with? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Massive subsections should be new sections[edit]

Aneris beating his usual drum[edit]

The RationalWiki is torn up in the same way as the secular movement is. It used to be centred somewhat around US skepticism and New Atheism. Nowadays, many people don't care much about this anymore, and have switched over to the Tumblr-style social justice movement of the 2010s. This causes the same problems everywhere. To quickly illustrate some fundamental differences...

Atheist-Skeptics Social Justice
Herd of cats Solidarity
Discussion culture Safe Spaces
Affinity: natural sciences Affinity: postmodernism, gender studies, etc.
Issue: Religion Issue: Patriarchy
Islam-Critical, "Islamophobic" Islam Accommodationism
How to think (structures, avoid fallacies etc.) What to think (content, be anti-racistic etc.)
Libertarian tendency Authoritarian tendency
Debunk unsound ideas Defame "problematic" people
... ...

The wiki isn't really useful for either group in the current state, and the differences in attitude and even community organisation are too different. The RationalWiki should make a decision which direction it should go, and then walk the walk. I am fine either way. One version has utility, the other provides lulz. ~ Aneris 10:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This somehow manages to strawman both sides. Putting "solidarity" under "social justice", especially after mentioning Tumblr? Ha, have you never heard the phrase "circular firing squad"? :D --ZooGuard (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
SJ communities agree on all of their SJ related talking points, and tend to fracture over ideological differences when they emerge. Example, Ophelia Benson. Also see Atheism Plus, or Freethought Blogs in general (it seems there will be another exodus soon). We'll see. ~ Aneris 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
"[Political] communities agree on all of their related talking points, and tend to fracture over ideological differences when they emerge" is trivially true - in other words, people agree with each other until they don't. :) The same can be also applied to the skeptical and the atheist movements, e.g. the "accomodationism wars", the current split over feminism, or the fact that an an-cap atheist and a communist atheist will have little to agree with each other.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
People disagree on all sorts of things all of the time. The question is whether such disagreements are tolerated within a particular community; whether you can "agree to disagree". There have been schism-like disagreements on fundamental matters, such as anti-theism vs accommodationism (the accommodation wars), but generally the herd of cats or "dictionary atheism" was fairly broad for most of the time. This was even levelled as a criticism at the movement by the SJ faction who wanted it more narrow and specific, hence the Plus in Atheism Plus. The forum, to which it came down to was even more specific and as a consequence managed to scare most people away over one tiny disagreement or another, such as hugs. There was even a hard schism between them and the SkepChick faction over the use of the word "stupid". I'm not kidding. The A+ people thought this was horrible ableist language. Rebecca Watson however defended the usage. The sides then parted ways over this. Then you have another schism over what to make of trans people: this time half of the commentariat and several core members went away with Benson. The others accused her of being a TERF. Keep in mind that these people are already incredibly homogenous and in agreement on virtually everything, hence the standard in SJ comment section is piling on and "this. 1000x times this" style of comments. Everyone who's there already moved through hundreds of filters, religious people, republicans etc.. are the first who are sorted out (naturally, and so far so good), but it then goes on and on and on until even single issues on SJ related topics must be 100% party line, or else. See Wachs' Donglegate experience. There are countless of others. At this point you must even have the exact same attitude towards several people, from Dawkins to Harris to Hirsi Ali and so on. ~ Aneris 13:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So you've found an echo chamber on the internet that agrees with you on one thing but disagrees with you on a bunch of other things. The question is; why are you obsessed with it and intent on making broad generalizations from it? Find something more to your likings and move on. (talk) 13:28, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I don't think we're accommodationist towards Islam, we try to describe Islam as it is. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Now that you bring it up, Aneris' dichotomy of Islam-criticism vs uncritical Islam-acceptance is pretty silly. (talk) 13:53, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Then again, accommodationism is a thing, for real. The "Islamophobe" in question is secular humanist Maryam Namazie. And here's what happend. Your next turn would be moving the goal post then... as usual. ~ Aneris 14:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a thought-provoking in intervention Aneris. Thanks.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Moving the goalposts... You mean like you just did when you went from "these are the two options" to "accomodationism is a thing that exists"? And my "next turn"? This isn't a game of chess. (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. *goes through table* Nah, that table is full of shit, on both sides. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You mean my table above was generalizing and somewhat simplified? Who would have though! The postmodernist games are also somewhat tiresome. There are specific ideological reasons why the SJ movement is generally Islam accommodationistic, and it is well-known in practice. Currently, this attitude is also hotly debated under the "Regressive Left" headline, here's an example from WEIT. Whether it's Cologne or Charly Hebdo, you can find numerous examples of this attitude. "Dear Muslima", now reframed as a fallacy also falls under that general direction and was one ur-example in the US secular movement with the same general pattern: Dawkins New Atheist vs the emerging SJ faction. I know many more, including a prank from the Slymepit where someone posted original and genuine comments from PZ himself on Islam from his New Atheist days into a contemporary discussion his blog. They were ripped apart by a foaming comment section, who deemed this offensive and islamophobic. These "old PZ" comments were completely unaltered, mind you. The SJ convert "New PZ" deleted these (i.e. his own "old PZ") reposted comments. The Times They Are a-Changin' ~ Aneris 16:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I mean your table is full of bullshit, created from false premises. SJWs are not about solidarity. Postmodernism is really more of a thing of the 1990s, with little relevance in today's social justice issues. Safe spaces are mostly promoted only by Tumblrinas, who are a loud and insignificant portion of social justice, much like TERFs are a loud and insignificant part of feminism. Islam is severely criticized in social justice. "What to think" is actually "how to express". They're not terribly authoritarian - it's why I don't like SJWs and why I'm not one. And it's not "defaming", it's not hiding that people are assholes. And not tolerating assholes. I'm generally FOR that.
On, the other side, I find more groupthink and hivemind in the Atheist-Skeptic crowd you favor than I do in SJWs. Discussions tend to be limited to approved opinions, like at LessWrong. Natural sciences is right, because most of that bunch suffer from engineer fallacy. Sure, they are definitely more critical of Islam - very much of the "nuke 'em all" and "genocide rocks" variety. While I innately approve of killing one's enemies, I'm not interested in participating in any pogroms. Libertarian ideology is not attractive.
To be more succinct, the people you side with in atheism are all grognards and Cat Piss Men. Frankly, I'd have more fun hanging with the SJW crowd, even if I don't like them either. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
We're not that bad. #NotAllSJWs - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
SJWs are all a buncha hippies. Goddamn hippies. ;) --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Cataigne, of course what you say doesn't gel with reality. At all. It's not even wrong. For three years or more, the "safe space" is everywhere in the atheist-secular movement. Freethought Blogs comment sections were seen as such, you can "safe+space" dig around yourself. Atheism+ which they spawned have it on their main page, "Atheism+ is a safe space for people...". Other than that, I find my fellows at the Pit absolutely hilarious (real quote by Avicenna, then FTB blogger, plagiartist and big time fabulist, which we knew about for a long time, and eventually exposed). I mean, Godfrey Elfwick alone was genius, and he managed to dupe mainstream media twice. From our perspective, the embodiment of SJW humour was Bjarte, FTB inhouse master comic. Which we of course lampooned, too (and went somewhat overboard with this, but was fun then). ~ Aneris 17:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Everywhere on the Slymepit and some FTB bloggers and Tumblr, perhaps. But you REALLY need to get out of those forums and out into the real world, like I do. You're talking about...minor nobodies on the internet. You're so focused on minutiae you don't even know you've wandered out of the forest. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and of course the whole cammpus movement, and it's a recurring topic in blogs, too. It's really nothing new that SJ people play the denialist game. Every 5-man conspiracy theory is discussed and covered, but for some bizarre reason this thing, pretty much zeitgeist (Matt Taylor's wrong shirt, Tim Hunt's joke, GamerGate has to do with it...) is staunchly ignored and we play this petty "there is nothing" game. Always. And when you bring the facts, the reaction is "Wow. this is obsessive" and back to square one. You even deny postmodernism, when it's all over the place. E.g. Intersectionality, look up the people, e.g. Kimberle CrenshawWikipedia's W.svg (the clue is in the category). Or learn about such things as critical race theoryWikipedia's W.svg, which underpins the whole "privilege", and idenity politics aspect of the SJ movement. ~ Aneris 17:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Campus movements? Those are actually important? When I was in college, the hip thing was the environmental bullshit. You know, Earth Day, be totally green, wear hemp, sport white dreads. That was Serious Business. It was going to change the WORLD, dude.
As usual, when everyone graduates, they go on to real life for the most part and that becomes last decade's thing. So telling me "All the college kids! Look at their protests!" is not impressive. Tell me when the Fortune 500 as a whole does it, or when legislation is passed and upheld by SCOTUS.
As for the issues you mention, a) if Matt Taylor had showed up at my employment in that shirt he'd have been fired for violation of HR policies, b) Tim Hunt would have been fired for his comments in accordance with our HR policies, and c) the actions/statements of major Gators like Wreck'em Ralph, Master Milo, Based Cernovich, and Vox Day would have got them canned for - SURPRISE! - violations of HR policies. So yes, to me, there is nothing there.
As for intersectionality, that's a social science thing, and critical race theory is very late 1990s and has very little practical effect outside of academia. If you care to name some major legal or corporate applications of critical race theory, go ahead. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Moving the goal post again. First you deny the thing exists, now you moved to whether it has a negative impact. But as a matter of fact, intersectionality is a huge component of the SJ ideology, and critical race theory is, too (as is standpoint theory and a numerous other things). That's where the "cultural appropriation" and such things come from. Also, if you still deny the connection: it was formulated and popularized by the very same people, e.g. Kimberle Crenshaw. But you don't do your research,and you know obviously nothing. It's only the constant and lame attempt by people like you to play a postmodernist game of pissing everyone off with this bullshit, then when people start to formulate a response, you throw up the hands in the air and "hey! it's nothing!" and the next underhanded bullshit atttack comes, e.g. by smearing people and groups together who have only in common that SJW trolls have trolled both groups, and both groups started to react negatively. ~ Aneris 02:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
No, not moving the goal posts. You simply have different premises than I do. You seem to think all this shite is important. I say it has no relevance in the really real world. I think you've also confused me for an SJW. No one outside of social media land gives a damn about your so-called culture war. We're a little busy up here. :) --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I had not realised that it was an either/or situation between atheist and sjw. Nor had i realised we had to blindy support all that is done in the name of our chosen side. It is unsurprising that the internet is full of arseholes if this be the case where all is a war with our ideological foes with no quarter given. I bet these folk are fun at parties AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the atheist SJs have declared once that it's "with us or against us". But this was already (and still is) the main attitude. You can be an atheist and a sjw if you want. That's Atheism Plus. But New Atheism (the community, people involved etc) and social justice are totally incompatible at this point. The atheist SJ community hates Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, Harris and Hitchens, and are Islam accommodationists overall (see links above). That means that in an SJW community, you have share those attitudes, too, or you get accused of Islamophobia and booted out. And you won't like what remaining New Atheists have to say about the SJ movement, either, e.g. Coyne who describes them as "Leisure Fascists" (on the cultural appropriation thing on campus). So you can feel special and "above it all", but it's not a realistic option. ~ Aneris 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
most of rhe world is 'above it all' and have no interest in what goes on in your tiny patch of internet. Maybe get out of the house more?AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
DING! Tempest in a teapot. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's your problem: "the atheist SJs" is not a thing. Maybe "some," but not "the." There is no singular, monolithic atheist SJ group. And not all atheists who believe in social justice are part of Atheism+. I consider myself a social justice-minded atheist and belong to no such groups. My views are my own and are not represented by anyone. Frankly, I quite like Hitchens in many ways as I do Harris at times. I enjoy reading Dawkins even when he does make me facepalm with his utter dickishness and insensitivity to pretty much every group. I believe that Islam is bad (not much worse than Christianity) while also believing that we can accommodate it more as a society. You're pidgenholing us into specific views and it is, quite frankly, absurd. Just stop. AyzmoCheers 20:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The fun part is these people saying "RW was taken over by Atheism+", when there's still, a few years on, literally zero crossover I know of - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
F'fuck's sake. What's so fucking hard about admitting that SJ attracts zealots likes flies to shit? The sheer unpleasantness of the reactionary movement does not excuse turning a blind eye to this simple fact. Intersectionality is an interesting theoretical framework, but in crude, everyday practice, its primary rhetorical function is to allow middle class student wankers to frame debates within an ever-shifting shibboleth minefield of their own devising. As such, it's the perfect vehicle for middlebrow fucktards to engage in infinite doctrinaire disputes without ever producing anything of any tangible benefit to the oppressed group(s) they profess to be fighting for. Robledo (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Good thing the Slymepit/Gamergate axis doesn't show that effect at all then! - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Aye. Cheers for that, Dave. "But they're wankers, too!" is the perfect riposte. I surrender. Robledo (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, SJs do attract zealots. So do...whatever you want to call the other side. And any other organization/ideology/whatever. But frankly, I find the SJWs to be on the whole more open-minded and willing to discuss things then their opponents are. Better class of people, too. And before you object to that, look, I just ain't going to hang with people who's natural allies are Stormfront, incels, Paul Elam, the Oregon Bundy Militia Buffoons, Vox Day and his Eurofascist party, or shitcocks like Ethan Ralph. I'm not one, but I regard the SJWs as the lesser of evils. At least under them, you won't get Roosh legalizing rape on private property. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, as if New Atheists were allies to the people you listed, and as if everyone not subscribing to pomo SJ was some kind of "enemy team" (this is a recurring theme with SJWs). You just unwittingly demonstrated the "with us or against us" attitude. That is precisely the thing that generates the in-group and out-group (of course in a second step, people who are outgroup cluster together in diverse communities that only have in common that they dislike the fascistic SJ movement, and sure, terrible people and their communities also exist, but the "enemy of my enemy isn't a friend"). Many SJWs were or are racists, which is permitted in a political correct way via Critical Race Theory (dreamed up by the same people who also came up with Intersectionalty tp which it belongs, I remind again): You can look it upWikipedia's W.svg, e.g. "Essentialism philosophy —reducing the experience of a category (gender or race) to the experience of one sub-group (white women or African-Americans)"; or "Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism, Black nationalism — exploring more radical views arguing for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid". In practice you have then Sarkeesian' tweet things like this, approval of sex/race segregation, or you can also look at Bahar Mustafar, or the cultural appropriation theme (which is all about carving out separate nationalistic/ethnic cultures, and as a consequence, leaving a "white nation" too, since appropriation is not allowed. Yep, social justice looks pretty much like a fascist movement, all things considered, beginning with propaganda and brownshirt-style bullying on social media, and ending with racial segregration. ~ Aneris 02:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You could just as well say at least under Roosh, we wouldn't have concentration camps, therefore Roosh should be supported. It's not like the world is two kinds of people, social justice warriors and reactionaries. Just because SJWs are maybe more open-minded than white supremacists, that doesn't make them open-minded in general. If you see social justice warriors as people who you think go to far sometimes but are close enough to your views, fine. Just don't expect everyone to abstain from criticizing them just because they're "close enough" and "better than stormfront".TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so quick to say that "we wouldn't have concentration camps". There's a lot of overlap between MRA's and self proclaimed neo-nazis. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You don't need Nazis to get concentration camps; the Spanish, Americans and British all had them before the Nazis came along. You don't need racial divides either; the British were perfectly happy to starve interned Boer children until they became tiny walking skeletons. (talk) 01:55, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
You failed to actually address the point. Just because blank is worse than blank doesn't mean we should all praise blank (especially if they aren't the only two viewpoints in the world).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It is correct that Aneris points out there is accommodationism among atheists, but it is for the opposite reasons Aneris suggest. In actuality, and I realize I'm doing this with broad strokes considering we're talking about a sub-group of atheists, there are some atheists who accommodate Christianity or the Christian right in regards to policies towards the Middle East. See Hitchens supporting the Iraq War even when Blair and Bush proclaimed the war was done because "God" told them to. Or, see Harris' comments claiming that Christian refugees from Syria ought to be given greater priority than Muslim refugees (agreeing in part with what Cruz said). Or any atheist who argues in religious apologetics for Christianity by arguing that it's less violent than Islam (even if Jesus said he'd uphold the old laws). ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So is this going anywhere?[edit]

So what are the actual serious proposals around here and are any of them going anywhere? And maybe we could answer the question as to why people have left... Pizzameister (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. There aren't any actual serious proposals here. Or previously.
  2. N1curr why people left. People do that. This is nothing new. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Scroll up, I gave a bunch of proposals for reform. I don't see how Castaigne2 can deny them the label of "serious". Just because she/he disagrees with them all doesn't make them non-serious. (((Zack Martin))) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
He. No, I do not consider proposals that have less probability of happening than Earth being hit by a supernova in the next decade as being viable. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You are moving the goalposts from "serious" to "viable". And while I agree the probability of any of my proposals being implemented is unlikely, it is still a greater probability than the Earth being hit by a supernova in the next ten years. (I wonder, if a group like Scientology or the Unification Church or the LaRouche movement made a concerted effort to take over this website through entryism, how hard would that actually be for them?) (((Zack Martin))) 22:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, no goalpost moving for me. I don't know about you, but for me serious = viable. If it's not viable, it's not serious. If it's not serious, it's not viable.
I don't really care how hard it would be for whomever to try to take over. It's been tried before and the same thing always results. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Serious is a property of the intentions of the person making the proposal. Viable is a property of the decisions of others to accept or reject it. They cannot be equated. And I don't think any such group has ever seriously tried to take over this website, because let's face it, what would be the point, this website is pretty bloody irrelevant. But, I think if they did try hard, and try well, they would seriously succeed. What a delightful sight that would be. (((Zack Martin))) 22:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Intentions? Then we'll never know if anyone is serious or not. Intentions are just whatever jiggery-pokery you decided to wake up believing in this morning. Totally subjective, totally personal, and irrelevant to the results of your actions. I wouldn't be able to tell what your intentions are unless you stated them - and even then, you could be lying. So, I really can't accept your definition of "serious". "Sincere", certainly. But not serious. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This might be a wondrously innovative idea, but perhaps "serious" can have multiple meanings? Perhaps more importantly; is there any point to this little semantic debate? (talk) 23:02, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
There's not much point to anything at all, is there now? Or, point is whatever one chooses to make a point of? (((Zack Martin))) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. So is this something anyone'd seriously (heh) want to make a point of? (talk) 23:20, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Is this going anywhere? You do know this is RW, right?
And have really all that many people left? Mona and Ryu left because a number of users, including moderators, were being hostile to them. Carpetsmoker left because people (including 1 moderator?) talked behind their back about something bad they allegedly did instead of confronting him (I think?). Avenger seems to still be with us, in one form or other. Did I miss anyone? (talk) 22:14, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
TheroadtoWiganPier, Paravant, and Gooniepunk also left.--Owlman (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, correct. (talk) 22:32, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Well, it seems the main reason people left (except for Goonie, who left because of GG doxing) is because they experienced the RW community as lacking in supportiveness/friendliness. How do we stop people from being pricks? *shrugs* (talk) 22:36, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
And only the last will be truly missed. I'm not sorry about the Mona Cabal being gone. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Pfft, Mona cabal. The conspirationalism doesn't suit you, Castaigne. (talk) 22:36, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
No conspiracy intended. She just had her groupies, is all. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Heh, if that's how you want to look at it. (talk) 22:55, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Truth be told, I have not followed the whole Mona debate, but she did seem to give as good as she got. Unfortunately it got too intense for her, which is a sad thing really. I wish her all the best, but I hope if she comes back, she has resolved some of the things that made her appear nasty and suspicious of everything in the latest coop. Pizzameister (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely, apparently we've been taken over by Zionists. I note in that screed how she blames Fuzzy for bringing nasties here, and doesn't mention Carpetsmoker literally trying to recruit editors in a Kiwifarms doxing thread.
It may be worth noting that at no point whatsoever has Zack Martin been a productive editor at RW, and has in the past mostly been a hugely counterproductive one. He's past that now, but I take none of his proposals seriously - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
David, your claim that "at no point whatsoever has Zack Martin been a productive editor at RW" is simply false. For example, I started the article on Sheila Jeffreys, and while other editors have added text, my contributions have by and large survived unscathed. I am sure, if one spent the time to dig through my contribution history, you would find a number of other examples of the same phenomena. (((Zack Martin))) 00:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
She has been painfully oblivious to anything regarding Carpetsmoker's involvement in this. It was an uncomfortable trend. She likely still sees him as "one of the good editors driven away", when he was a major contributing factor to the problem. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Sad thing it had to end like this. Pizzameister (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Kitsunelaine, what exactly did Carpetsmoker do? I am inclined to believe Mona on that topic, but happy to consider evidence that she is wrong about him. (If you don't feel it is appropriate to share the evidence publicly, I'd be happy to receive it via email.) Otherwise, in the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty", I will assume he is innocent of all (vaguely specified) charges. (((Zack Martin))) 00:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not re-treading drama that has already been painfully elaborated on at length elsewhere. I've got better things to do with my time. It's not my fault you came late to the party. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome to go over to the thread at the Farms and read his involvement yourself. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Did he ever post anything on KWF? I've searched it, if he had an account there I cannot find it. All I can find, is a bunch of people quoting things Carpetsmoker said on RW, and discussing them, and another user claiming to be in private conversation with Carpetsmoker (but, even if that claim is true, without being privy to those private conversations, I can't know if Carpetsmoker said anything inappropriate in them; nor, even if this user posts any inappropriate information on KWF, whether that is Carpetsmoker's fault as opposed to something they've decided to do on their own initiative.) (((Zack Martin))) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
He does not use the same screen name, and admitted to that being him on his RW account when told about it. The account was found due to it fitting Carpetsmoker's M.O on other places where he has used the same screen name. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
So, what screen name did he use on KWF? (And, again, if you don't want to say it publicly, feel free to use the "Email this user" feature.) (((Zack Martin))) 00:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not masochistic enough to go back and check. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
CS = Dynastia (the annoying animated letter D)? (talk) 00:26, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Provide evidence of these accusations or otherwise you look like a liar. Your excuses ring a bit hollow when badmouthing someone in their absence. Tielec01 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you actually asking us to link to doxx on RW? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
What did CS do then Kitsu? Stop being vague and spit it out you mealy mouthed liar. We traded very poorly when CS left and you stayed. Tielec01 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
In a history of much hilarity, Carpetsmoker being Dynastia is the funniest fucking thing ever posted at Rational Wiki.-- (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying he isn't? Would the real Carpetsmoker please stand up, please stand up? Pizzameister (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, it seems he's WhoopieDoo. In other news, it seems Arisboch was actually hopeful of getting support from anyone here. O.o (talk) 02:15, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Okay, so now we've identified that WhoopieDoo is Carpetsmoker's account at KWF. Next question is, what exactly did he do there? I don't have time to read through his every post, but I read a handful. He posted to a doxxing thread about an RW editor, but none of his posts seem to by themselves contain any private information about that person - rather, he seems to be saying "I find this person as annoying as you do, but don't judge all of RW on the basis of one editor." So, is it the mere fact that he posted to KWF? Is it the mere fact that he posted to a doxxing thread (without actually adding any further doxx to the thread himself)? Or is there something worse that he did there? If this is all he did, then I think he maybe doesn't have the best judgement, but I don't think he has done anything majorly wrong. (((Zack Martin))) 04:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
In other news, David Gerard is really a sock of Vordrak. -- (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Tielec, Carpetsmoker admitted to contributing to KF. It's on his user page, linked to his posts there. It's not a lie, an accusation - just plain unvarnished truth. What's sad is that he was either willfully ignorant or woefully blind that interacting with WiA or KF just invites them in to do their trolling. He was told several times by people that this was the case, and he ignored it. *shrugs* Thus, he brought upon himself the shitstorm that resulted. It's really just that simple. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
So, he went to a troll/doxxing/harass/whatnot website, and he interacted with some people there, but from reading his (public) interactions with them, he wasn't encouraging them to do anything harmful to this site or to anyone who edits it. Is that it? Is that the sum grand total of his monstrous crimes? I don't see how merely talking to them makes him responsible for anything they've done to various people here, unless there is some reason to believe his interaction with them led them to doing things they would not have otherwise done. I don't think CS encouraged anyone to doxx/harass anyone here, since people at KWF were already doing that before CS turned up, and were going to continue to do it whether he turned up or not. (((Zack Martin))) 07:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a post later on in the thread where they thank CS for passing on information on users. It may be just false flagging. It may be the truth. I don't particularly care.
Here's what I do care about. CS goes "I'm gonna talk to the Gators and tell them to come here and contribute rationally! Sure they'll do it! HERPUM DERPUM!"
We tell him, "No, they're going to fuck shit up. Don't do it."
"No way! These Gators are absolutely reasonable people! They just have bad press! HERPUM DERPUM!"
Then CS goes and invites the Gators in. Then the Gators begin shitting all over the place.
And then CS goes "ERMAGERD! They're not acting rationally! HERPUM DERPUM! Well, it's not my fault they didn't do what I wanted them to do."
And then, he goes and repeats it with KF.
Once? That's just being a dumbass. Twice? He's either a fucking dolt with a severe case of naivety or it's enemy action. To be kind, I choose stupidity. And personally, I can absolutely see him doxing out his fellow editors, all in some misguided attempt to show how cool we really are or some shit. He's that kind of stupid idealistic fuckwad. The only good outcome is that he fucked over his buddy Mona in the process. Woops. Brilliant strategy, right there! --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


false flagging Yep, in the extreme. They're trying to see how much we'll believe if they just post it.
We tell him, "No, they're going to fuck shit up. Don't do it." Actually, nobody ever did this, until after the fact.
repeats it with KF This would be true if CS invited anyone from KF; he solely told them how dumb they are.
32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
A least one voice of sane reason remains here... well done Fuzzy. Castaigne just makes up history to suit his own deranged views.-- (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Read his userpage (Carpetsmoker) first, then pontificate. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What? Care, attention and consideration for other editors at Rational Wiki? You must be joking.-- (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If You Had A Curiosity About The Bundy Takedown...[edit]

...you can satisfy them with video footage of the whole thing.
Here's the unedited footage.
Here's a shorter edited version.
Victoria Sharp's claims that hundreds of shots were fired into the vehicle seems to be false. So do her claims that Finicum was on his knees, hands on his head, surrendering, and that Finicum was executed with three shots to the face. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

People are already saying that he wasn't reaching for a gun, but was steadying himself on the snow/grasping a bullet wound to the chest/coughing/etc. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This fairly reasonable blow-by-blow just got posted. I like it. It states the "don't knows" very evenly and avoids making conclusions. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, that is very even. I mean, it makes it very clear how even it's going to be, when it writes "This was an ambush where the Bundys were lured out of the refuge and ewas set up to capture them. It speaks to betrayal, by the Sheriff, by the FBI, and probably by someone within the Bundy group." Hipocrite (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to the blow-by-blow and the assessment that Lavoy made some very, very bad decisions that resulted in him getting shot. Which is true. I'm ignoring all the conclusion hyperbole. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I got a kick out of "federal lawn enforcement". Also, "the Bundys and those with them had occupied a Wildlife Refuge that was closed for the Winter" - it was closed for the holidays only. Oh, and thanks for the links! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
When he left the legal stop he was risking his life. When he attempted to ram/dodge/veer the roadblock and almost killed that officer, he forfeited it. End of story. Hipocrite (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, if he had surrendered after trying to run the road-block he shouldn't have been shot. Clearly he had not surrendered and was reaching inside his jacket for something; he was also a man that stated he would rather die than go back to prison. From what I've seen the shooting looks justified. Tielec01 (talk)
I also agree with you. To me, he seems as if he was reaching inside his jacket, he had made those statements about death before prison, if he surrendered he wouldn't have been shot, and when he decided to drive off and play Rambo, I think he totally forfeited his life. *shrug* He was an idiot, all told. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As jeffhead points out in two succinct statements - Lavoy was speeding away from already being stopped by LEOs, and that the only safe thing to do when you are known to be armed and dangerous is spread eagle on the ground. Was he tased? Was he just reaching for a Freedom Snack? Probably not. We'll know more as time goes by. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


A while ago and in a fit, I made a quick modernized RationalWiki logo, based off the current one which looks somewhat dated. There's also a variant. I don't plan to sink much more time into it, hence why not present it as it is.

And here you see how it looks like in place, side by side. It looks like an improvement to me, but could need some finishing touches (maybe), if the direction is liked at all. The dash of blue is taken from the link colour and toned down a bit to not make it too heavy. I believe the whitespace above it looks fine, since the tabs also begin about that height. But it is also somewhat of a compromise, of mixing the current logo with the iconography used elsewhere (e.g. sidebars), and the link colour. If renewing the logo is “opening a can of worms”, it's probably possible for someone to make a nicer one fresh from scratch instead of staying close to the current design, as I did. But the benefit of the compromise is that things look a bit more unified and rounded. I guess it would be in the spirit of the wiki if there was a skin (dublicate of vector), where the logo graphic is replaceable by anyone (maybe that's already set up that way), via image upload, so that anyone who wishes can simply tinker and improve and it's reverted and accepted like text. If people are happy with some version, it could be applied to the default-vector style. I'm not mad, however, if this goes nowhere. ~ Aneris 12:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Although in a bit of bikeshed painting I must admit that I don't really care for the italic typeface...
I've been intending to look into do some subtle modifications to RW's layout; it's not that I dislike the current one, but it's pretty much the same as Wikipedia, which can actually be quite confusing. Even some fairly small changes can help a lot (like having a logo with different colours from Wikipedia's). Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw Aneris' idea a while back and made these:
It felt odd to have text and brackets be so far apart & different sizes. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with the existing logo? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Wot they↑ sed. Pippa (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I also prefer the existing logo. It has the advantage of looking like a brain rather than a walnut. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the existing logo is pretty good, but a redesign might be cool. I think square brackets>curvy brackets. I made my own that I think looks the best: here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't care much for the brackets. I think it'd look better if we just got rid of those altogether. Also, Pbf's version looks pretty cool. 01:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Here are all of my versions. Please note some of them have transparent backgrounds, so you may want to on the image in a new tab to see it with a white background.
Large, Brackets
Large, No Brackets
Small, Text and Brackets
Large "Fun" Version Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No matter what it is it will look "dated" after you have seen it a few hundred/thousand times. I've done this, where I have completely overhauled the look of my website for various reasons over the years, and the shiny newness ceases to look like a virgin within a week or two. If anything, the idea of putting a wiki logo in brackets of any kind may probably someday be a cliche, except that I don't know of many (or any?) others that do it. Keep in mind that it is also our "trademark" and serves to tell people where they are, even if it has been years since the last time. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What Human said. This bike shed is not in need of a trendy new coat of paint. MaillardFillmore (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Co-sign Human. I like the current logo and don't see it as "outdated." Not that I don't appreciate artists offering alternatives, but I just think what we have is sleek and right. And yeah, no walnuts!---Mona- (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
If I were a newcomer to this wiki, I wouldn't recognize any of those modern, non-dated logos as a brain. Or a walnut. I'd see a hairy monster or a smiling hippy with a blue/pink beard. Spud (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Damn! I thought I would get away with it. No hairy smiling monster then. :( ~ Aneris 14:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
-1 to the new logo idea. The only thing wrong with the present logo is it isn't an SVG - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is an svg version of at least the brain part around here somewhere. I think Linus uploaded it when we were developing it, for people to play with. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I made another version, which can be used also individually.

It's really easy to add this for yourself, just see here. And then drop this line into it:

#p-logo a, #p-logo a, #p-logo a,  #p-logo a {
    background-image: url("http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/d/d1/Wikicrystalgrey.png") !important;

This is for the grey version. For the blue one drop "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Rationalcrystal.png" into the background-image line instead. ~ Aneris 07:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

With all this talk of replacing the logo I think people have forgotten that the current logo (if I remember correctly) is in fact a scan of the brain of our glorious benefactor Trent. Acei9 08:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Heh. Unfortunately, Trent's brain isn't trendy. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, if I were a newcomer to this wiki, I wouldn't realize that was meant to be a brain. In fact, I can quite clearly see the smiling face of a scaly Reptoid. Spud (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Perfect 5/7 then! Missional including pareidolia with reptilians! No worries, nobody is taking your gnarly brain away, I made it anyway and just thought I share it in case someone likes it. ~ Aneris 11:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks nice, but it doesn't look like a brain. Rather, it looks like an Anorith after being ice-beamed. (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they suck compared to the current logo, which is simple and iconic. Why is this thread a sticky? Is there really an urgent need to replace a perfectly good logo with this abstract mess? Typhoon (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Logo Update (SVG)[edit]

Could you upload the SVG versions of these images? It would make the resizing of them rather unproblematic.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the SVG version. ~ Aneris 11:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

How to Use this?[edit]

This is easy and easily undone if you don't like it.

  1. Go to the top right corner, preferences > appearance, and click on custom CSS of the style you use. Default is "vector". I made this for that style. It may or may not work for other styles. This will create a page in your userspace like this Anonymous user/vector.css (you may also directly create it, I guess).
  2. Edit that page to your liking. You can also steal my entire CSS if you want (though it's WIP).
  3. Drop the code you find below there. Save. Done.
  4. You may need to do CTRL+F5 once to force the browser to reload the logo.
  5. To undo this, just remove the code block again.
 /* Changes the logo. If you want the blue logo permanently, just swap _grey.svg and _blue.svg */
 #p-logo a,#p-logo a,#p-logo a,#p-logo a {
	background-image:url("http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/5/5f/Rwlogo_crystalbrain_grey.svg") !important
 #p-logo:hover a,#p-logo a:hover,#p-logo a:hover,#p-logo a:hover {
	background-image:url("http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/8/8a/Rwlogo_crystalbrain_blue.svg") !important 

— Unsigned, by: Aneris / talk / contribs

Our userbase[edit]

I know, I know someone always brings up the whole "OMG everyone is leaving" or "the sacred Old Guard™ has abandoned the site" when ever someone leaves, but we have lost a lot of significant users who contributed to this wiki. There has also been a constant stream of harassment from offsite users and from users within this community. The paranoia has largely died down, but it appears the regular contributors have as well. I know that there is no guarantee that these users won't come back either, but what do we plan on doing to attract more users. There seems to be a push to make us a more general wiki source, but idk if we have enough regular contributors for this task (I know that I don't contribute much myself). We also have RationalWiki:Project Social Justice, but most of those users appear inactive. Also there are several pages Mona and CS were working on before they left which may now never be made; generally I am curious about the direction our new mods, mostly Fuzzy, are taking us.--Owlman (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

On the userbase: see Forum:RationalWiki viewership. So far, January's projections look much the same (slightly better than) December, in terms of raw edits. That said, an increasing portion of the edits are coop-related.
On direction: Mostly I'd like RW to focus less on politics and more on stuff like creationism and altmed (see Essay:RationalWiki and politics), which I think opens it to a wider crowd. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So basically less like Liberapedia, since we tend to be left-wing, and more like scholarpedia.--Owlman (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That'd be the idea. That's not to say that we don't call out conspiracy theories and bigots -- just that, when we do, the articles should be very heavily cited and focus on insane-quotations+citations rather than assertions+citations. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well what about the social justice articles; are we abandoning that project?--Owlman (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should stick to where science has gone. See Asexual (except the Acephobia section) for what I think the base level of a SJ article must look like: heavily citation'd, and going no further than the citations. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So will we not be documenting reactionary movements like GG anymore? Also how abrasive are we going to be towards religion since we have generally been more atheistic?--Owlman (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The main reason I am curious about our SJ articles happens to be because our GG page has always been controversially and SJWiki appears to be mostly dead so we will most likely be the main source on such issues.--Owlman (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The GG article (and reactionary articles in general) could work -- if we stuck to scientific publications (eg, the studies showing an anomalously high rate of harassment coming from GG) and first-hand quotations (eg, Twitter). When we go further, that's both what gets people angry at RW and gives them legit ground to criticize. For example, I quite like the Manosphere glossary article, for all its flaws, because it shows that the Manosphere is nuts not through asserting it and then linking some blog, but by showcasing the beliefs of the group itself. That's pretty much the best way to take down a conspiracy theorist, too -- just show how nutty most of their ideas are. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Could also frame them in terms of fallacious arguments, conspiratorial thinking, and so forth. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Some words from a ghost. You are probably asking the wrong question Owlman. Until RW grows up and has a set of standards to which reasonable adults can relate, the subject matter will not make any difference to either stopping the exodus or attracting quality new editors. The site lurches from one shit-fest to another and that will not change merely by trying to create an emphasis on crankery and leaving “politics” alone.-- (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I am, but I would at least feel comfort in knowing how this site shall, optimistically speaking, evolve. I know that this community may have become to fractured to actually keep going, but I hope that some kind of missional direction can be created even if it won't be strictly followed.--Owlman (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@50: What standards would make a difference? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have some suggestions. Drop the whole "we don't have policies only guidelines" thing, because that just turns into a shitfest whenever anyone tries to apply a guideline, and those who disagree with any individual application will always say "it's not a policy just a guideline". Give the mods a bigger role and more power, but expect a higher standard of behaviour and involvement from them in turn. Tone down the snark (or even drop SPOV entirely), because when you encourage people to ridicule those they disagree with off-wiki, that isn't the best thing for encouraging civil interactions on wiki. End mobocracy and move towards a somewhat more formal governance style. (I'm not saying "become Wikipedia", because a massive site like Wikipedia needs a much more involved bureaucracy compared to a much smaller one like this one.) Ban anonymous editing (bye bye BONs), because it only takes seconds to create an account and it should tone down some of the more egregious BON outbursts. Require email confirmation for account creation to reduce the incidence of accounts created solely for trolling, socks, etc. Anyway, these are a bunch of ideas, I doubt they'll all be implemented (more likely none of them will) but they are all worth thinking about. (((Zack Martin))) 08:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In other words, turn RW into a cross between Wikipedia and Citizendium? No thanks. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So, you like drowning in shit? Go ahead, be my guest, drown away! (((Zack Martin))) 21:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one drowning. If you are, I advise you to learn to swim or get out of the cesspool. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Changing the site missions, focus & style will have nothing to do with the reasons some editors left recently & will result in further discontent from users who are still here. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

^^^What he said. Typhoon (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, " the direction our new mods ... are taking us" struck me as odd. Nothing I have read about the moderator role indicates anything about leading in terms of content. I thought they existed as a sop to authoritarian desires to have people around who could stop fights when the other guy is down. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
As a long term reader and very occasional contributor, the thing that strikes me repeatedly is how often the site seems to go all nerdy and obsess over some obscure social or political subject. With lots of heat but little light. And I don't mean obscure in a derogatory sense - I'm sure to the people involved it is very important. I mean obscure in the sense of appeal to the wide world out there. RW can appear cliquey and geeky, even the language used, and I'm sure that would put off lots of people. And the arguments. Man, the arguments! People who might visit the site because they want to read a sceptical view on homoeopathy or climate change or conspiracy theories or creationism or whatever. And at first glance I think the site does a pretty good job at that. But those visitors who think they might want to contribute and then take a peek under the bonnet? Jesus H Pogoing Christ! WTF is this place? ABORT! ABORT! That is probably also true of Wikipedia to some extent. But they have more rigorously enforced policies that help keep a lid on it and a much larger audience to draw contributors from. The answer? No idea. But some rational (right?) mechanisms in place and followed that can somehow control the excesses. Or something. I think. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
So, RW should become a little bit more like Wikipedia, in the sense of having a tad bit more structured processes and a tad bit more defined policies (without anywhere as far down that path as Wikipedia is)? What abominable heresy! (((Zack Martin))) 09:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Could we focus on important stuff for once?[edit]

Looking at recent changes, I fear that something is happening right under our noses and I am the only one to notice it. Please have a look at the last edits to genetically modified food and its talk page. Apparently there is a "new" agenda pushing group of "scientists" we had not heard of. It is conceivable they have a point, though a cursory glance at the evidence available online indicates otherwise. What should we do? And no, I don't think permabanning the anonymous editor is the solution... Pizzameister (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is it you want done here? Are there edits that need to be reverted or what? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Either that or engage the IP editor. The IP seems to be convinced that the group in question is the shit and I doubt it. But I am not an expert on biology. So please have a look at this and do a smell check. To me it stunk, but I am not the only nose in town. Pizzameister (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in biology and I'm only drive-bying before a party. How about you do what an editor does and learn/source-check this shit? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Since they are listed under "anti-GMF" it seems reasonable....? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well the way it is formulated it might appear they make legitimate points.. Pizzameister (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The WP article on the group is pretty weird; the stuff that is being injected into ours, albeit in sort of the right place, has been removed by sane people and reinserted by the insane. It's pretty obvious, also, that the group's fans or representatives have had a heavy hand in writing it. I'd let them tread here with a light step; we really should reword the copypasta that is being added, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we please...[edit]

Have some sort of talkpage seperate from the saloon bar, where everyone can bitch about wiki shit, so we can get rid of the 10 paragraph long discussions on the saloon bar? Please? 'Legionwhat do you want from me 10:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

But that's what the bar is for! (talk) 10:08, 31 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I don't care either way, but you are now going with the words, instead of the spirit of what he's asking for "a talkpage seperated from bitching about wiki shit". ~ Aneris 10:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't being all too serious, as I hope was apparent. If people want to split off the RW-discussions or the non-RW-discussions to its own place I personally don't have any major objections. (talk) 11:01, 31 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
RationalWiki:Forum. The standard procedure was, when threads in the Saloon Bar grew too long, to move them into forum threads, leaving links behind. (If you do this, don't forget to leave a signature in the emptied Saloon Bar section to allow the bot to archive it.)--ZooGuard (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Was it? I deal with it by never looking at the forum ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And attitudes like that is why the practice is in the past tense.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
What forum? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you might want to try out the Back Alley, also I hear that Hot l Baltimore is open for business again. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz campaign runs "voter violation" scam in Iowa[edit]

Is this WIGO-worthy? (Warning: auto-play video on the other end of the link) http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/30/politics/ted-cruz-mailer-iowa-caucuses-voter-violation/ (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but it may fit better in WIGO elections. Also CNN appears to have invited the Media Research Campaign to defend Cruz in that autoplay video; I won't hold it against the story, but I would, personally, prefer another source.--Owlman (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably because nobody actually cares except Trump and Rubio. It is worth noting that the Iowa GOP used similar flyers about two years ago to get out the vote. AyzmoCheers 15:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My Town's High School Closed Due to Police Investigation[edit]

Last night, a school administrator received a threat to my town's high school and the school was closed for today as the police investigate.--Cms13ca 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:The Great Conservapedia Cull[edit]

To quote the great Spud:

I think the time is ripe to discuss the future of Conservapedia space pages again precisely because the last time we did it was back in 2012. (Sod me! Was it really that long ago?) It's true that little or nothing has been added to Conservapedia space since then but this wiki has continued to develop in its own way in that time. And we've still got some rubbish that needs chucking out.

Many CP articles also use infantile humor and (entirely unnecessarily and possibly doxx-ily) refer to their subject by name (incl Conservapedia:JessicaT, Conservapedia:TK, Conservapedia:Jpatt, potentially Conservapedia:Sysops, and Conservapedia:Conservative unnecessarily). It'd be a good idea to, as it were, wipe down the goat. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jessica T never existed, she was an alter ego of Psygremlin. Way to know what you're on about. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There is too much infantile humor here. I like snark. I do snark. But it shouldn't be juvenile and clumsy.---Mona- (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Trying to kill off Conservapedia space to please your Kiwifarms friends again, eh Fuzzy? Old guard (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh boy, another attempt at wiping out Rationalwiki's history. Typhoon (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Typhoon. I see no reason to get rid of them. I still find your reasons spurious. There is nothing to be gained from erasing history. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it should be a case-by-case basis? If some of them are vapid and adolescent, those should go.---Mona- (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

case-by-case basis | wiping out Rationalwiki's history | kill off Conservapedia space | erasing history

1: Maybe actually click on the link and note that it is case-by-case? Erasing history would be more easily done by wiping Conservapedia-space, but I'd like to preserve the good articles. 2: Jesus, the hyperbole. Did the people who deleted articles back in 2012 also want to erase history? Is every AFD a blow at preserving informational immortality? <_< 3: Is the purpose of RW to maintain history or to be a fucking skeptical resource?

please your Kiwifarms friends

1: I've wanted this long before that. 2: "Friends". Hah. 3: Good to know we're above ad hominem. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not going to go through each fucking one and say no unless I'm forced to. Literally, you and Mona (because she's got a stick up her ass and is quite the fuddy-duddy) want things like this. I know, I know - you're with the crowd that wants to turn RW into the staid, sober, totally serious, really official source for atheism/Randi group/whatthefuckever debunking. But I'm still not on that side. Sorry, bro. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I went through all the pages of CP editors a few weeks ago. They were mostly fine. There are some CP pages which are meh (like Conservapedia:First anniversary party), but the truly horrible should have been deleted long ago. As long as it's in Conservapedia namespace, I don't see why we should remove it?

Maybe we can do something more subtle? Like adding a small one or two-line notice above pages on CP space which informs readers that it's mostly just a historic artefact and not really what RW is today? (just thinking out loud here) Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Carpetsmoker on this. KOMF 00:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. It reminds me a bit of Bicycle Wheel's proposal for an "atticspace", where we shove the genuinely uninformative and unfunny articles. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the sound of "Attic Space." That suggests a good idea. And FCP, I don't know why you had to be so terse with me. I thought you were starting a culling of all the Conservapedia articles. And I suggest ignoring Castaigne. He pollutes every discussion he enters with nastiness and name-calling. ---Mona- (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
98% of them are already in the "CP space". The isolation this creates is two-fold. Mainly, they won't turn up on "random page" calls. Secondarily, they tend not to be linked from the mainspace. So the casual visitor will never encounter them. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh sorry, you got wrapped up with the others. No offense meant. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"The Great Spud". Wow! I'll have to put that on my CV. (That's "resumé", in case any of you Yank-speakers don't understand.) When I talked about chucking about the rubbish, I was specifically thinking about Fun:Andrew Schlafly, unnecessary because the truth about the man is ridiculous enough. Other articles on Conservapedia sysops could probably stand some trimming. And, yeah, I'd support a new template on Conservapedia space pages that says this is not really what RW is about anymore. Maybe it could include a randomly generated category which it suggests readers take a look at instead. Spud (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Would the template {{Mothball}} work well enough on its own? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd say not. We can hardly expect those pages to turn into something not embarassing and non-puerile if we slap a notice on them that says, "Don't edit this." Spud (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


Would this work?

Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest, and not necessarily the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of religious fundamentalism and creationist claims.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the cover story articles or a random article.

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

*cough* Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
You ought to see someone about that cough FCP. Pippa (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Endorsed. The text is not exactly what I would have written, but the only issue I have with the current version is the wording in the last sentence. A random article may not be a good* example of what RW is about. (*= clear, or unambiguous, or flattering, etc.)--ZooGuard (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Any better? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, much better.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's great! Spud (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a way to edit MediaWiki:Common.css such that {{cpmothball}} would be transcluded at the top of each body section for pages in the Conservapedia namespace? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it can't be done with MW's core features, as there are a few MW extensions for that, for example this one.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that CP is dead and that the disagreement between CP and RW was over fundamentalism and creationism. Hclodge (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What would you say instead? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's done[edit]

All of the CP-space pages now have {{cpmothball}} (and Category:Conservapedia). The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

CPmothball is entirely redundant as CP space is effectively mothballed anyway. Yet another pointless template by FCP the template genius. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You know, when 4 people support something and 2 oppose, sometimes the 2 don't get their way.
Further, the mothballed-ness of CP-space isn't immediately obvious to newcomers. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Because of course, there are only six people in this community. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
You should have started with the second argument. As for the "nyah-nyah-nyah, we won", I find the total number of votes indicative of RW's decaying state.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
As FCP pointed out, the template is for the benefit of newcomers, random visitors and other people unfamiliar with RW's history. The function of the "Conservapedia" prefix and the status of the articles is not immediately obvious.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Show me these purported newcomers who read Conservapedia pages, which are linked neither from the Main Page nor Random Page. this template is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. also, adding "mothballed" to archives is evidence of someone not really thinking about what they're doing. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue Fuzzy's template 'solves' may arguably be a non-issue. Given the harmlessness of Fuzzy's template, however, the matter of Fuzzy's template being a thing is even more of a non-issue. (talk) 21:17, 28 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
(edit conflict) The articles are still indexed by Google and easily linkable off-site. Also, the template would be a nice guard against someone using them to mischaracterize RW and its current relationship with Conservapedia. And if the pages are really that irrelevant and unused, I don't understand why you object to the template. At worst, adding it would be wasted work, but it's not you who's doing it.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
At which point it's useful to note that he mothballed the current WIGO CP page. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I mothballed CP-space as a whole. I could certainly have fixed that, but hey -- why not just remove the template from every single page? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
How convenient. Does this now mean if something new happens and an article is created there, it will have your baby on it? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- As a user from outside of the regular players (I come here to laugh at snark - I don't make any edits) I am a fan of the cpmothball, especially the fact that it links anyone who has stumbled into ancient history by accident back to the more newb-orientated pages. ~sryidonthaveausername~


Does anyone ever update any of the software here? MediaWiki looks like its a few years old. The PHP and MySQL versions are probably way out of date too.

Also if What is going on with the elections is going to be a new thing, should it not be added to the list of WIGO nav icons and to the front page, especially with the US election going on this year. (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably full of unpatched vulnerabilities. Sooner or later gonna get hacked. (((Zack Martin))) 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Technical_support#If_you_feel_like_playing_with_upgrades if you want to have a go. Note that everything involved is fucking huge and takes forever - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Is there a confirmed winner of the Iowa primarys? Are has it not been officially announced.'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

? Wait, you can edit on RW, but you can't open any possible news website? Not trying to be a dick, but it seems like an odd question to ask.Petey Plane (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There's already a thread at RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world? #Iowa Caucus Thread.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

discovery of sabiazoth.com[edit]

this user has discovered today this site whose quick readout (http://sabiazoth.com/unconditioning-conditions/) appears to border on a mixture of definitions of various phenomenon combined with new-age/danikenist viewpoint. the saloon bar might be wrong place to post it, but need a central place for rationalwikians to check it and if worthy, write an article about it, so posted in here. if wrong place to post, notify this user.FAMAS (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What did Queex say again about you referring to yourself as "this user"?--JorisEnter (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Faced with an article like that, I feel it would be helpful if its chief conclusions could be listed in point form, along with some indication of why those conclusions are relevant/significant. (In other words, TLDR.) (((Zack Martin))) 08:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Falklands War question[edit]

Okay so bear with me here because this question comes from nowhere and may potentially piss some people off, but that's not the intent. I've noticed this thing happen a few times in the past, but something Jeremy Corbyn did lately (I can't even remember what it was) brought it back into moderately popular conversation; there are a lot of people in the UK who think the Falklands War was not only a mistake, but an actively stupid thing to do, and I don't understand that at all. I'm British myself, but I was born in 1988, so I missed living through it and absorbing the general attitudes of the time, but a lot of the British anti-war people seem to regard it as a really stupid Thatcher thing to do and the Falklands were far away so they should've just ignored it and saved British troops. But the way I see it, a dangerously militaristic dictatorship invaded a British territory without cause and refused to leave when requested. I mean, it's probably the most clear cut, morally unquestionable military action the UK has been involved in for the past 70 years; a British island was invaded for no reason other than expansion via military force, the British population of the island requested aid, and the British military moved to repel invaders. I don't see how any argument can really be made against doing what was done. One thing I see come up again and again with people against the war is related to how far away the Falklands are from the UK and that this somehow renders it a pointless war, but that's basically saying "it's inconvenient to defend those particular citizens against foreign invasion, so we won't", which is an absolutely terrifying position to take in my mind. So am I missing something here? I genuinely don't understand how anyone (any Brit anyway) can take a stance against Britain responding the way it did, other than general anti-war sentiment. X Stickman (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Falklands Island War was fought over a couple of islands containing literally a few thousand people in a far-off backwater area that held no strategic significance whatsoever. Few people died in the Argentine invasion, whereas hundreds died needlessly in the British invasion of the islands. It was regarded as a stupid war because it was totally unnecessary; if you support the war, you should fully admit that the war could have been easily avoided and served no purpose except boosting Thatcher's support at home (resulting in her reelection) and dickwagging Britain's military. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, there's nothing wrong with general anti-war sentiment. Opposing people being killed en masse is generally a good idea, as it furthers the survival of humanity and improves our morals.
So your answer to it is "it was far away and not strategically important, therefore abandon our citizens to their fate"? The war was avoidable if Britain was willing to just write off a territory to a foreign invader. This is where I get confused with the other side of this argument, I just can't wrap my head around it; the Falklands were a British territory. Argentina had no claim to them beyond "they're close, so we want them". The UK has had a claim on those islands since before Argentina was even a country. They militarily invade the islands and capture the British garrison there, and then refuse to leave. That's a hostile military invasion of a British territory; I don't see how the fact that it's far away makes it any more justifiable to just ignore it with a shrug of the shoulders. The British government has a responsibility to protect all of its citizens, the people of the Falklands were British citizens, and they'd just been invaded by an openly militaristic dictatorship. If there was ever a case for a military response, that has to be one of the most clear cut in history.
Also I'm not disparaging anti-war sentiment in general since I'd consider myself generally anti-war anyway, I just can't see how it applies to this specific case. X Stickman (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In response to your first question: yes, but with a caveat. Those people were not British citizens. See: Falklands WarWikipedia's W.svgBritish Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983Wikipedia's W.svg It was far away, so considering the war an act of self-defense is an impossible stretch. The British nation was not under threat at all. "Abandoning them to their fate", you make it seem like they were about to be massacred by the Argentinians (which was not the case). They literally would have had to learn Spanish and that's it; that's if they didn't decide to leave and head for Britain. Plus, Britain invaded and occupied the island first anyway. The British Empire used to own 1/4 of the world's land area. Sure, the Argentine action is not easily defensible, but neither is the British action. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone needs to re-read "if you give a mouse a cookie". While I'd imagine the British viewed the Falklands the way the US views one of the Northern Mariana Islands, but the way the world works is that just abandoning the Falklands to the Argentinians is effectively saying to the rest of the world that you are either too weak to defend yourself or you just don't give a crap, whether that's true or not. It'd only get worse. CorruptUser (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Domino Effect argument is nonsense, CorruptUser. Just because Argentina seizes some islands out in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean that China will invade Vietnam, or others. Besides, these islands were retaken, but that didn't stop Saddam from taking Kuwait or Putin from taking Crimea/Donbass/South Ossetia/Abkhazia/Transnistria/Latakia Airbase. Your argument really isn't airtight and essentially rests on the Sudetenland/Austria argument, which breaks Godwin's Law and doesn't apply, because Hitler was a raving lunatic who was going to do what he did whether he was handed the Sudetenland or not. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Kuwait was a British colony, nor was Vietnam. You learn something every day /snark. It's not about China in Vietnam, but Turkey and Dhekelia, or Cuba and the Cayman Islands, or the US and Canuckistan (the War of 1812 can still be won!). CorruptUser (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I maintain my opposition to that war. Heh, for all I care, Cuba can have the Cayman Islands, and all of the money on it. It would do quite a bit to help the economy. Agree about Dkhelia, but the Canada example is bad, as it is a massive country with tens of millions of people and a distinct history. It is the nation also. If Argentina attacked Britain and invaded Cornwall, then I'd support military action. Same as if USA invades Canada. But let's ot start a bloody war over a couple of fucking sparsely-populated islands. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Canada thing was a joke; but Bermuda belongs to the US! As soon as we locate it on a map...
As for the Cayman's, mostly I think those bastards deserve to be invaded by commies, considering that them being burnt to the ground would probably be a benefit to the rest of the world, the thieves. But the issue is that Britain has a lot of territory is strange places throughout the world, and if Argentina takes Falkland, it effectively signals to everyone else that more may be up for grabs. CorruptUser (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Falkland had no indigenous population of any kind. The people living on them have every right to stay there and every right to self-defense including asking Britain to aid them in their defense. The Falkland war is very close to innocent victims being deliberately attacked by a hostile, fascist power. Now I don't like Thatcher, but every British leader would have done the same or rightfully gotten trounced in the upcoming election. If the Kelpers have no right to the Falkland Islands, the fifth generation Italians have no right to Argentina (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
^ This, so much. I'll also add that I find Pb's argument about the number of deaths to be kinda iffy: now, every death is bad and should be avoided, of course, but the fact is that it's part of a soldier's job to put their life on the line. It's part of the job (and something they've accepted when they signed up, hopefully) that they might have to die to protect civilian interests and/or lives. Soldier lives should of course be considered in the equation, but I won't blame any government for deciding to take this kind of military action - and this is coming from someone who is rather anti-war.

Another thing to consider is this (I'm using the Wikipedia article on the Falkland War): By opting for military action, the Galtieri government hoped to mobilise the long-standing patriotic feelings of Argentines towards the islands, and thus divert public attention from the country's chronic economic problems and the regime's ongoing human rights violations. Letting this kind of militaristic and fascistic endeavour bear fruit is the best way to ensure that these dictatorial regimes will do the same thing in the future. Again, I'm anti-war (or more accurately, anti-aggressive international policy), but I believe you need to show defensive strenght against some people. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's funny that those who object to Britain's retaking of the Falkland Islands rarely object to the Argentinian invasion. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It is difficult to imagine that any British government would have sat on its hands and walked away after such a hostile takeover. If I remember correctly, ( which it seems I do ) the Labour party - under Micheal Foot no less - supported the sending of the task force. Did the positive result help Thatcher? Sure. Would it have helped any government which had been in power? Sure.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The islanders were living in British territory (the Falkland Islands) and the islanders contacted the UK informing them of the invasion. Most don't want to be Argentinians, so even if it wasn't a massacre it was a completely undemocratic invasion of British territory. Cry some more. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The Falklands War from a US perspective was probably a disaster. When Reagan backed Thatcher, the US picked up the slack in UK's NATO responsibility of patrolling the Mediterranean. On the heals of the victory, Reagan again allowed a US ally, in this case Menachim Begin, to draw the US again into a conflict, this time the Siege of BeirutWikipedia's W.svg (Begin famously said, "If Great Britain can go 6000 miles to defend its interests, we can 600 miles to Beirut to defend our interests"). US troops went ashore supposedly temporarily to separate warring factions, and after they withdrew the famous Sabra and Shatila massacreWikipedia's W.svgs occurred; US troops disembarked on a moreless indefinite basis, but were removed only after the successful 1983 Beirut barracks bombingWikipedia's W.svg, the birth of the modern shaheed movement. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 18:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you have taken your timeline back far enough. It was the American War of Independence which obliged the British to temporarily leave the colony in 1776 which later allowed a Spanish presence.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection (sticky)[edit]

What should RW's approach to this be?

RW:CS currently states, for mainspace:

RationalWiki generally does not protect pages, except for short periods (up to one day) to stop an edit war. The community feels that, given the ease with which vandalism can be reverted, protection is unnecessary. An exception is that some sysops do protect their own userpage and signatures for peace of mind.

On rare occasions, the titles of deleted pages that have been repeatedly recreated by vandals are protected to avoid them being created again.

And for talkspace:

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically.

Yet several pages violate these rules:

So my question is: Do we change the policy or the protection levels? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't believe in protecting talk pages. I just don't see the need for it.
As for pages themselves, I would set for 3 day expirations on protection, to be renewed only if trolls start attacking the page. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Rather obviously when the site is trolled by malicious users, especially BoNs, the wiki has protected itself and the editors who are often abused by these users. Anyone who understands what happened last December and does not see why this is necessary cannot be reasoned with. Indeed, these BoNs should be banned. Carpetsmoker put a very helpful range ban in place, but I believe someone removed it. As I recall, David Gerard, a mod, endorsed the soundness of that range ban. But, here we are. Letting them romp around freely. So, all those lovely Kiwi Farm cretins who shriek that I'm an antisemite can just come in, vote, carry on, and do as they please. That's just great!---Mona- (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You forgot to mention Arisbach and Icewedge. Or whoever it is that is stalking you. The idea of the poor wiki "protecting itself" from the nasty trolls is so sad. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Since you seem to consider every BON who disagrees with you a sock or a troll, I'll take what you say with a grain of salt. :::Historically BoNs are free to post and vote on this wiki. I see no reason to deviate from practices that existed previous to your arrival on the wiki. I'm not thinking of past December alone - I'm thinking of the past three years. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't you think that's a bit hyperbolic? This wiki has weathered worse storms. I had not even heard about this famr thing before now... (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
We change the policy. Excessive concern trolling and attempts to turn talk pages into ""reasoned debates"" over clear attempts at turning them into hitpieces (especially about living people) were clearly not considered when that policy was made. There need to be special exemptions when the debate has turned too toxic and too reliant on bad faith to continue, especially when the article subjects have mobs after them, determined to gaslight and slander at every opportunity.
The long and short of it is, we shouldn't expect our editors time to be consumed dealing with the same disingenuous bullshit over and over and over again, especially when these trolls bring nothing new to the table whatsoever, which is ridiculously common in the cases of many of your examples. It's bullshit prevention, not debate prevention. The wiki needs tools to stem the tide of the raging, unending internet mob, or it's users will be drowned off of the site. Much like what happened to Ryulong. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please forgive me for speaking up to agree with most of that. I'd just add, the problem applies significnatly also to editors like me who post a lot on the Israel-Palestine matter. The assholes at "that place" accepted Arisboch and they went into a wild frenzy about what an "antisemite" I am. But sure, let them all come and continue to victimize me, you, and all the other anti-GG people they doxed and harassed. Why, these are the loveliest of people, a true asset to this wiki, to be protected at all costs! "Because this wiki has always welcomed BoNS!!!!" Indeed, between all those super friendly and reasonable GGers and the hardcore Zionist contingent, this wiki is going to be a place of great intellectual productively where everyone works together amicably. Because we know they are all about that. Why, Avenger and Arisboch made that so very clear. pffft. ---Mona- (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the following changes to the text:

RationalWiki generally does not protect pages, but temporary page protection is sometimes needed to deal with vandal attacks or edit wars. Longer protection may be necessary for pages which are a recurring target of vandalism or edit warring, but should be avoided wherever possible.


Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They should not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically.

€₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe we should also include an exemption for off-site mobs targeting users, regarding user talk pages (as well as user pages). But otherwise, it looks really good. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
How does this look? May likely need some grammar edits to make the points clearer.
RationalWiki generally does not protect pages, but temporary page protection is sometimes needed to deal with vandal attacks or edit wars. Longer protection may be necessary for pages which are a recurring target of vandalism or edit warring, but should be avoided wherever possible.


Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They should not be deleted, although they can be archived periodically. They may be protected if a user or subject has become the target of recurring vandalism or concern-trolling, or if a user has supplied the mods with enough evidence of off-site harassment. Protection may be longer if said harassment is recurring.
- Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You can pretty much call anything "concern trolling" if you want to, including people being earnest. I don't think talk pages need any protection, seeing as they aren't meant to give readers information and are solely there for discussion.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
We need protections from off-site interests attempting to drive people from this wiki, as well as when on-site "debate" gets far, far too toxic and slimy. As I said, what I proposed could do with a rewrite, but the point gets across. We need protections, we can't let randos just walk over people in swarms, as has been happening to others. These need to be in place regardless of what anyone thinks of Mona, as they are just common sense. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Protecting talk pages (especially for a long time) gives of the impression "we don't want debate". Which is not an impression I would want to give off... Pizzameister (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
My personal opinion, talk pages shouldn't be protected except in extreme circumstances, such as a sudden increase of vandalism, and only for short periods of time (day or two). An indefinite protection of a block page seems antithetical to the idea of a talk page to me. AyzmoCheers 18:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the GG articles are protected because they get a lot of traffic from folks who really shouldn't be here. Hussein, Chomsky and BXP are protected due to edit wars and/or vandalism. I'm not entirely sure why the GG talk pages have a higher protection level than the corresponding articles, though. Our article about ourselves is probably protected because it's our article about ourselves. I have no fucking clue why the three collections of Andy's shit are protected, to be honest. --JorisEnter (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the Gamergate talk pages were protected because of how often Gamergaters were posting comments or links that referenced personal information about Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu & other figures that was obtained through doxxing. There isn't really anything comparable to this going on with other talk pages. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Look, those same doxers were all about calling me an anstisemite and FCP says they were following all the Sorte brouhaha. (They think Sorte's cool and I'm the one who needs to be punished.) The sensible among us were taking a vote on an edit and one of these new accounts -- AgingHippie had already protected the article page -- showed up on the talk pge to vote! Well, geez, if they can just have their pals put everything to a vote, and then vote on a talk page, hordes of them can win every time.---Mona- (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, they aren't the first ones to call you an antisemite. CorruptUser (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, that's an Israeli-run, fanatically Zionist site. The same author has called Glenn Greenwald an antisemite for telling some uncomfortable truths. Adam Levick, who runs that site, considers almost any criticism of the Holy State to constitute antisemitism. Glenn and I, and many others -- a lot of them Jews -- get this all the time. It used to silence people like us; it doesn't any more because they've over-played that card. It now generally elicits yawns, which is dangerous. Becasue there is actual antisemitism, and these Zionist fanatics -- with their promiscuous and inappropriate use of the term -- have all but robbed it of sting. Some of us having been darkly joking "We're all antisemites now."---Mona- (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems to happen quite often to the, ah, more vociferous pro-Palestinian people. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Howard Zinn was very pro Palestinian but he was also Zionist in the sense that he supported the 2 state solution. When I went to see him speak I saw a Palestinian exchange student flip out because Zinn said "I believe the Palestinians have the right to exist. I believe that the Israelis have the right to exist". I basically agree with Zinn on that, even if he is a moonbat on other things. At least his battery is forgivable, in that he was mentally scarred by having killed civilians in WWII. So no, not all "vociferously pro Palestinians" are antisemites.CorruptUser (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
"Of course not all. That's why I said "seems to happen often". And I was trying to be polite and diplomatic about it in order to avoid further...fracas? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The 2-state solution is dead. Even the NYT has all but said so, and has also all but admitted that Israel is an apartheid state. What the NYT says significantly understated the horrific proto-fascism over-taking Israel. (Which is embedded in Zionism itself. More and more Jewish Americans, especially younger ones, are therefore coming to reject it.) ---Mona- (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Something else[edit]

Would it be a good idea to do as WP and get some protection templates, which show that a page has been protected and gives the reason for it? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this might be a good idea for pages where long(er) term protection has become necessary. But I don't know whether such pages exist on this wiki and if they exist whether they should be kept... Debunking pseudo-science should not be all that controversial, should it? Pizzameister (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Our protected pages tend to be [a] site pages, like the Main Page, [b] legal pages, like the stuff on Kent Hovind, and [c] controversial social articles. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Kent who? Pizzameister (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
What FCP said. See my comment above this section's title as well.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
With the exception of the main page, etc, I think a template should be provided. Hovind's page should have a template explaining why his page is protected. If nothing else, it will (hopefully) encourage caution by editors wanting to edit it. AyzmoCheers 18:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kent E. Hovind v. RationalMedia Foundation Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Or better yet, we should minimize page protection as much as humanly possible. That is, to the main page and legal issue pages. Controversial articles should be wide open to discussion. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
That only works when discussion is the intention of people coming to those pages. In the case of the pages that have long-standing protection right now; It's not. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
If they've had "long-standing protection", how can we tell? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Another thing[edit]

If the article Corrupt User linked to in the above discussion is right, there seem to be several right wing websites that post misleading "quotes" from the Talmud (which, if I understand it correctly is basically a huge, very slow moving dispute with several sides to it rather than a "so be it, no discussion"). If that is indeed the case, we might wish to have a page on this and refute the more egregious examples of this at the very least. Pizzameister (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


A few months ago, the decision was made to merge four articles (Eye, Darwin on evolution of the eye, What use is half an eye? and The eye is too complex to have evolved) into one, as there is great overlap between their content. Carpetsmoker made a draft in his userspace, but this got deleted when he left. I salvaged the article and put it in my own space User:JorisEnter/Eye but I haven't really had the time (or interest or expertise or whatever) to do anything about it. Would somebody mind turning it into a proper RW article so that we can (finally) delete the four previous ones and have a nice article on the eye and what creationists don't understand about it?--JorisEnter (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


One dead, Bundy arrested. Pippa (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And thus the tragic tale of Y'allQaeda comes to an end. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Dunno - could spark something - they've got a martyr now. Pippa (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how much more it would take for them to be called terrorists by mass media. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
They would have to gun down federal agents without provocation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Good riddance. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not happy someone had to die. I'm not convinced an armed takeover could necessarily be disarmed without it. But I'm still unhappy with it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, the guy that is believed to have died, LaVoy Finicum, said he'd rather die than go to jail. AyzmoCheers 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
One shuffling off this mortal coil, one being wounded, as well as the leader himself being arrested with several of his goons is the result of a small confrontation - but they're going to force the feds to relinquish territory? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't have wanted anyone to die during this siege, but even during the 1977 Hanafi SiegeWikipedia's W.svg within Washington DC, where we used diplomacy and religious leaders, someone ended up dying albeit in the hospital. I was surprised that the police were allowing them to receive donations of food though. Hopefully the survivors will be heavily charged unlike Cliven Bundy and his goons.--Owlman (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And now the remaining terrorists at Malheur are asking for backup and to kill anyone who tries to stop them from getting there. Not that I expected anything else from this bunch. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What I can't believe is that new details shows that these guys were allowed to go into town and buy groceries and one of the brothers was captured in Arizona while recruiting people; these guys weren't even contained even after saying they would kill any cops who tried to take back the BLM building, a federal building, which is theft of federal property. They let that 18 year old and her family to just walk into that occupied building and join them and the militia members were able to talk to FBI agents face to face w/o being arrested. Some of the people who have been arrested have yet to be charged; they could be easily charged with insurrection, theft of federal property, resisting arrest, and felony murder. WTF is going on. We set up a parameter when AIM and WARN took over Wounded Knee in 1973 and we fucking bombed Philedelphia when MOVE took over some row houses. Hell, we actually besieged the Branch Davidians at Waco and the Weaver's at Ruby Ridge.--Owlman (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, pretty much all of those heavy-response incidents were failures in terms of bringing about an acceptable end to the situation. As I understand it, 'softly, softly' is considered best practice these days. Think about the arrest in Arizona - by taking him in that far away, there's no chance of any of his buddies being able to interfere with the arrest. The main group only learning about it second-hand makes it less of a potential rallying point for further escalation. And lastly, being as far away as possible means that even if they do harbour dreams of springing him out of the hoosegow they'd have to give up their seized territory to attempt it. Arresting the perpetrators in small groups when they head out for supplies is much more effective than laying siege to them. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not asking them to go in violently or to begin a siege (not that that is a bad idea), but one of the brothers was caught in Arkansas and they were still receiving food donations. These guys were also allowed to go into town repeatedly so I call BS that they had to wait three weeks before they could capture these guys.--Owlman (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Edits (20518) up 1.038% (from 19760 in December), though that's attributable to The Fuzz (1844). Without The Fuzz, edits down 5.496%. Editors (919) up 1.772% (from 903).

As meaningless as these numbers are:

  • Alexa has RW going from from 26,579th to 27,766th rank, down 4.275%.
  • Quantcast has RW going from 61.1K to 166.4K monthly visitors, up 63.3%.
  • Compete has RW going from from 468,340 to 370,363 monthly visitors, down 20.920%.

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The chart isn't showing up, FCP. I actually noticed the file didn't show up either when you uploaded it. Perhaps it's a temporary issue? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Blame RW's bad cache. (And then yell at DG to upgrade the fucking wiki.) I'll post a dbox link in a second. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the Fuzz a bot? Bot's should be excluded from stats... Anyway, looking at the big picture, it looks like after several years in the doldrums, the site is picking up again. I wonder why? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
What else should be excluded from this: edits to the Coop, edits to Saloon bar threads that are about Drama and not content, edits to talk pages and user talk pages that are about inter-personal beefs and not content. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Re-running the numbers to exclude the Coop shouldn't be hard. But it is impossible to distinguish "drama" from "content" saloon bar threads without manually categorising each one, which would be a helluva lot of work (and in some cases would be rather subjective, especially when on controversial topics such as GG the content-vs-drama boundary gets blurred very fast). Likewise, while excluding User Talk altogether would be easy, distinguish "drama" from "non-drama" within it would be an arduous manual task. (((Zack Martin))) 06:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it worthwhile to break it down by sysop, auto confirmed, etc?StickySock (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Or just reduce it to mainspace, non-bot edits. Anonymous IP editors are our best resource! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Clinton vs Sanders[edit]

Who would be more likely to win in the general US election? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point I don't think Trump or Cruz could beat either in a general election so it probably doesn't matter, but polls seem to show Sanders with a wider margin over all Republican candidates.--Owlman (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sanders, due to the polls and the fact that he is genuine and authentic, and he represents a fresh new change from the status quo. Disillusioned Trump voters could join up. He would be endorsed by all Democrats. He just feels different. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You hold a higher opinion of my countrymen than I do. Clinton has a better shot at winning, but if anyone other than Kasich or Christie gets the nomnom, it's Dems again. CorruptUser (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Clinton is more likely to win. Sanders is openly socialist (at least he has been in the past), and to very many Americans "socialist" is a dirty word. (Which is stupid, because while we can have legitimate arguments about which economic system is best, many Americans have this visceral hatred for socialism which is rooted in emotions rather than reason.) There are plenty of moderates who will vote for Clinton but who would never vote for Sanders. I think, Clinton vs. Trump/Cruz, Clinton wins; Clinton vs. Rubio, too close to call; Sanders vs. Rubio, Rubio wins; Sanders vs. Trump/Cruz, I think Trump/Cruz will probably win (but not as easily as Rubio would). (((Zack Martin))) 08:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think the GOP would suddenly stop hating Hillary Clinton with the heat of billion trillion suns? Bernie has crossover appeal, as evidenced by people saying "My first choice is Trump, my second choice is Sanders". Nobody has to like those Sanders supporters, but if they turn out in November and vote Sanders, that's fine with me. Pizzameister (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the "Trump1,Sanders2" viewpoint is really the position of outsiders who feel on the edge of the political system, not of moderates who see themselves as being in the mainstream. I think the moderates outnumber the outsiders overall. Heck, the neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin (editor of Daily Stormer) basically endorsed the "Trump1,Sanders2" position a couple of days ago. (Of course I'm not saying that everyone who endorses that view is a neo-Nazi, but the fact that a neo-Nazi is attracted to it supports my position that its appeal is to the disaffected outsiders rather than those who identify as moderates.) (((Zack Martin))) 22:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How high is turnout? How high do you think the amount of people who vote no matter what yet can be persuaded to vote for some candidate more towards their position really is? I think most of the potential votes are ignored by conventional wisdom because polls don't measure "unlikely voters". Look at Obama who changed all our assumptions on African American turnout... Pizzameister (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A new article I started[edit]

I called it Naturopathic medicine laws by state and I could use a little help. I tried finding scope of practice by state and I am coming up dry. If anyone knows of any good links to get info from please reply. The article does not look very good right now.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please finally learn how capitalization works in English, and how to properly format an article on a wiki you've been editing for years? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it honestly possible to complete something without making a general plea for others to do it after you just barely start it? You can't just do a few diddies and abandon things. Including being asked to stop posting these in the bar and do so in the article talk page itself. What exactly is the verbiage that should be used so this repetition stops? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's all be superhostile over minor non-issues. Woohoo. (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's like a random kid dumping a large Lego kit in the middle of a crowded store, doing the first few steps, and then demanding that someone does the rest (or clean it up). That's rude for a kid...it astonishingly baffling and openly hostile for an adult to do so dozens of times over the course of a year while being constantly asked to stop, saying they understand, and doing it again a week later. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Dude, I have invested literally hours cleaning up after the same sorts of mistakes from this user for years now. Eventually, there comes a point where that becomes a problem. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Going by the fossil records, apparently the last time anyone had to clean up any of Rationalzombie's doings was in October 2015. So yes, if something minorly disruptive happens once or twice in a span of several months, that's a non-issue. (talk) 22:23, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Given that there are 50 states and you've only covered 3 of them, I've taken the liberty of moving it to your sandbox. Bring it to main space when it's closer to complete. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It was immediately recreated by the BoN above (141.something) and Immediately vaporised by me.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that it's a missional article, there was nothing wrong with the content currently in it, and we have no policy for or against pages-in-construction in mainspace, I put it back where it was. Stop being hostile over someone daring to try to expand this wiki with missional content. Christ. (talk) 22:01, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Such a small article really doesn't deserve to be in mainspace. Better have RZ (and others) work on it for a bit and then move it.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia, we have plenty of small articles here. Moreover, the page is being worked on and is likely to be expanded in the future. Moving it all over the place and implicitly limiting contribution to the page to just Rationalzombie (by moving it to his userspace) is not helpful at all. (talk) 22:07, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
At first glance, there appears to be no need for an article on this topic. See here, which I discovered doing a simple google search. If the source is trustworthy it tells us which states have licensing requirements and which do not. Perhaps the page can be used to document nefarious goings-on and abuse in the states where, as RZ said in the original draft, "anyone can call themselves a naturopath." --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"no need for an article on this topic" is blatantly contradicted by your linked source prominently featuring the slogan "Naturopathic Physicians: Natural Medicine. Real Solutions." (talk) 23:04, 3 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

While I empathise with AH, I agree with 142. As long as RZ - or anyone - keeps chipping away at it, others will see it and pitch in. It's what is called a "stub". Tiny stubs grow into mighty articles! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone want a good laugh?[edit]

Read this article- https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-please-clap-205248419.html --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We have WIGO pages for posting news stories. You know that already. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I was not aware of that--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Well look what I found on the Internet about them. What do you say with regards to that? Pizzameister (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie himself appears to disagree: [1] Queexchthonic murmurings 11:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

WIGO: Science?[edit]

I just posted a story over in Clogs about a quack claiming that goat's milk cures HIV. Made me wonder why we don't have a centralized location for science news and critiques thereof. Pages titled something like WIGO: Science and WIGO: Bad Science might encourage readers/editors who are less interested in the social justice/politics dimensions of RW (yes, of course science is inherently political and has social justice dimensions, but let's leave that aside for now....)[EDIT: missed a few words here --- by giving them] a place to talk about the only-growing flow of science and pseudoscience news. Thoughts? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea. Pizzameister (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently doing some work on the WIGO extension, so I'll see what I can do with this. Hold on to your butt. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting to see that WIGO "Bad Science" would be abbreviated to "WIGO:BS" or something along those lines.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I would only oppose it because I'm not in favor of such tightly defined categories. But I would be in favor of it if all the WIGOs were concentrated on a single page, where one could flip down to what they want to read. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, mostly. I like the variety appearing in the existing WIGOs and would hate to see it break down into WIGO:FurnitureDesign or, worse yet, WIGO:BadSlipperySlopeArguments. MarmotHead (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thankfully the days in which WIGO:Israel/Palestine or WIGO:DebatesaboutIsrael/Palestine or WIGO:PeopleshoutingateachotherbecauseofdebatesaboutIsrael/Palestine would have had to be spun off are over... Pizzameister (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I dunno. Those are fine for the existing categories: news reports about actual science, blog posts with opinions on science, clog posts of or about pseudoscience - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. This is going to create problems without resolving any. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If we're gonna remake WIGOW[edit]

We should redo the whole thing.

Current WIGOs:
  • Active:
  • WIGO World: big events, politics, science, religion, miscellaneous (good and bad)
  • WIGO Blogs: politics, religion (good)
  • WIGO Clogs: politics, religion (bad)
  • WIGO Elections: politics (good and bad)
  • Semi-active:
  • WIGO Conservapedia
  • WIGO Citizendium
  • Active:
  • WIGO World: big events, miscellaneous (good and bad)
  • WIGO Politics: politics (good and bad)
  • WIGO Science: science (good and bad)
  • WIGO Religion: religion (good and bad)
  • Semi-active:
  • WIGO Conservapedia
  • WIGO Citizendium

This has the truly massive upside of getting rid of the confusion at WIGOClogs: am I upvoting because it's absolutely batshit, or downvoting because it's insane? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This proposal makes a great deal of sense to me. And a WIGO for science stories would be enjoyable, I think. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What would the new WIGO World be about?--Owlman (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean would we start using it for pop culture then?--Owlman (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I would not like to be the one sorting out all items in the wrong wigo. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
you are also going to get so much cross over between politics, religion and world events AMassiveGay (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It would seem to me to just merge clogs/blogs and be done with it. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This suggestion stinks. The point of WIGO:Clogosphere is that entries are supposed to be cranky. Once you put those alongside WIGO:Blogosphere entries in the same WIGO they'll just get voted down because people will think they've been put there sincerely, & sooner or later people will probably just stop posting Clogosphere type entries at all. Please stop trying to fix what ain't broke. There is nothing wrong with the current World/Blogosphere/Clogosphere split. The only bum note is WIGO:Elections which is an arbitrary subject area & gets only a fraction of the views & votes which the same items would get if posted at WIGO:World. We need less of that, not more. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that if WIGO:Elections is going to be kept then it should be promoted alongside the other WIGOs, or maybe replace the bar link which isn't actually a WIGO page. (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Clogs and Blogs should continue to be two separate things. But science (and possibly "bad science) should get "new" wigo places... Or a dedicated "please put this here" Pizzameister (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I never called for a whole-sale revamping of the WIGO system, just a dedicated place for science stuff -- along the lines of the dedicated elections WIGO that sprang up recently. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So my idea is bad[edit]

But I wouldn't mind a WIGO:Science. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Mediawiki upgrade?[edit]

Aren't we a bit overdue for one? MW now includes by default what we worked so hard to make, and then lost - the "edit section zero" button. And a few other tasty improovmints. Should I just send a note to David? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

See here (and earlier). Pippa (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, see RationalWiki:Technical_support#If_you_feel_like_playing_with_upgrades. I have been flat fucking out for ... months, and Trent apparently similarly ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't someone who's willing to keep the site updated be given root access? It's been a while since I used MediaWiki, but my understanding is that you need to copy over the new version of MediaWiki and run the install script again, which should update everything.
Also, the PHP and MySQL versions are out of date also. Someone with root access will need to update them. And maybe even the OS. (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How does someone with Asperger's get over depression?[edit]

So, this is related, if anyone here remembers (probably don't but that's ok it was quite a while ago) to me and my trouble getting over a girl. I really am getting pretty mad at myself that I still think about her sometimes, even after 3 years. :/ QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What you need is a mental health professional, not the advice of a bunch of strangers on the internet. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I did and it really didn't help. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm the kind of person who is prone to infatuation. I've been through multiple periods of infatuation with various women who lacked the interest in reciprocation. But, I'm mostly over it. I mean, I still like some of these women (one of whom I remain friends with, the rest of whom I've lost contact with), and when I think of them I feel a warm tingly feeling mixed with a little bit of sadness, but I don't think of them much, other things preoccupy my mind. I'm still prone to depression, but I no longer get depressed about this topic, my depression has moved on to other things. What killed my infatuation tendency? Well, I found a partner who liked me back, ended up having a kid with her. Also, my religious views helped me get over it too, to "process" it (to use that awful psychobabble terminology). (((Zack Martin))) 21:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are you encouraging this? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne, speaking from personal experience, I went to see a few psychologists/psychiatrists/counsellors/etc, and none of them were ever any great help to me. In the end, the only person who could help me, was not a professional, but myself. That's my experience. I think many other people have the same experience. I think, in at least some cases of severe mental illness, psychiatrists can really help; if you are hearing voices all day long, antipsychotics work pretty well at making the voices shut up; but I think in cases of mild to moderate mental illness, professionals have a very mixed track record. (((Zack Martin))) 22:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Your choices are therapy, psychopharmacology, living with it, or offing yourself. Choose one or several or all as you need. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes health issues resolve themselves without further intervention, especially when one starts taking a multi-year perspective. Sometimes people basically act as "self-psychotherapists". Both these are facts (not entirely uncommon), and you omitted them as possible outcomes. (((Zack Martin))) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I file those under "live with it". --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It's exactly that kind of attitude that keeps depressed people from seeking the help they need. Vulpius (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not keeping anyone from doing anything. I'm just sharing the fact that in my opinion, "the help they need" doesn't always exist, or even when it does, it doesn't always take the form of a professional psychologist/psychotherapist/psychiatrist. Your experiences are different from mine, hence we draw different conclusions from our different experiences. QuantumDude will make up his mind for himself. (((Zack Martin))) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Then find a different therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist/medication. I was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder two years ago and suffering from depression for six; AgingHippie's advice is the best anyone can give you.

I started playing Ingress. Admittedly it's led to all sorts of other stuff, but it gets me out of the house and keeps me active. YMMV. Just join the Resistance, please? rpeh •TCE 23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not like I have never tried a mental health professional, I have a psychiatrist and formerly a therapist, who I had for 2 of those 3 years. I made it to a point where I no longer need depression medication to function, but also wont improve any further. And it's not like I can just find someone who I like who likes me back, I honestly don't think I can, no one has ever liked me and I'm almost 21 years old. It's freaking frustrating, like supposedly "you have to like yourself before you like someone else", yet I CAN'T like myself when I know no one likes me that way, especially no one I also like. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 01:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
What made this girl so special? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not entirely sure. But She was cute, kind, smart, loved art, science, physics, we were in FIRST robotics together. :( QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 02:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So what happened? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
She was a friend I fell in love with, she didn't feel the same way, stopped speaking to me, blocked me on facebook, and accused me of being a stalker. — Unsigned, by: QuantumDude / talk / contribs

QuantumDude, you say you are almost 21 and no one has ever liked you. I was in the same situation at your age. My first relationship didn't happen until I was about 23 or so. I'm sure I'm not unique in that. If you take a longer term view - things probably won't get that much better next week (such good luck certainly could happen, but it's at the lower end of the probability scale) - but the odds are quite high that in 5 or 10 years from now you'll be in a much better place than you are right now. Certainly I'm in a much better place now than I was 10 years ago, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who can say that. (((Zack Martin))) 05:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So basically, you either ARE a stalker, or she's a bitch who doesn't mind falsely accusing you or a crazy chick who can't tell the difference between stalking and what you were doing. And you're going to pine over her?

If you weren't in a romantic relationship with her, you may not even know what she would've been like in that capacity. You may have dodged a bullet, for all you know.

Anyway, if you have your shit together (steady job at someplace other than Burger King, etc.) and you have a decent personality, you can find a "cute, kind, smart" chick who will want you, and then you'll be able to more easily forget about the chick who got away. Maybe the new chick won't love art, science, physics, and robotics, but she'll be able to do stuff for you that'll make you forget about those deficiencies. Anyway, you can find people on the Internet to talk to about those interests. You don't need all those characteristics in one person; you can have a mix of bros AND hos who together fulfill your intellectual, emotional, and sexual needs. I'm trying to think if I know of any nerdy chicks who aren't too fucked up in the head to be able to sustain a healthy relationship, and I'm coming up empty.

My (unsolicited) advice? Go Asian, bro. You sound kinda nerdy, and Asian chicks are usually the best match for nerdy guys. Besides, they tend to age better than white chicks. Look at those girls on The Big Bang Theory; they're already not as hot as they were a few years ago. White chicks' shelf life is VERY short. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

To QuantumDude: Dude, if she's called you a stalker that's about as concrete as it gets that you need to move on. Find something/someone else to preoccupy your mind with.
To everyone else: shrinks/therapists are no panacea.
I think that about covers everything. (talk) 16:02, 7 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
He's he going to find someone else if he thinks that she was THE ONE? By definition, THE ONE is irreplaceable. Also, "something" else usually doesn't take the place of the one you loved. At best, you might think, "If I improve myself by getting into these other activities, maybe she'll fall in love with me." Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Contrary to popular superstition, there is no such thing as "THE ONE" and there are other things that can make life enjoyable/worthwhile besides long-term relationships. (talk) 02:07, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Spoken like someone who has not yet loved and lost THE ONE and only man/woman in the universe for him/her. Don't worry, it's only a matter of time before serendipity brings you TWOGETHER at last — and when it does, don't let him/her slip away. Show them that your love is stronger than any restraining order. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest pop music. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Regular RW browsing came in handy today[edit]

My parents decided to pick up a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Soap a little while ago, to my great amusement. Apparently, they'd heard good things about the soap, but never learned about all the stuff on the label. I, on the other hand, could explain the soap's reputation to my dad when we got home, and we had some fun reading the religious ranting for a while. Thanks, RationalWiki! Tortoise (flip me) 04:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Keeping discourse squeaky clean. Or trying. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Do, or do not. There is no try.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Suppression on RationalWiki[edit]

It's ED, but it's also statistics (source, with analysis):

Thoughts? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, you're talking about suppressed revisions/logs, right? (talk) 18:44, 7 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Yep, it's all from the Suppression Log. IE, when a page or an edit is hidden from non-sysops or non-mods. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
They do a lot of revision suppression on ED too. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not particularly relevant to anything. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I only notice that it seems to jump up when Elevatorgate got traction, and another time around GamerGate. Pure coincidence? But I don't really know what suppression log means. ~ Aneris 19:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolute figures rather than ones relative to edits/users/whatever say a whole pile of fuck all. Besides, the embedded implication that suppression is always and everywhere a bad thing overlooks that any fluctuation could be driven by external factors (eg doxxing attempts) Queexchthonic murmurings 19:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Is that it? I'm genuinely surprised there hasn't been more stuff suppressed given the level of trolling to which this site has been subjected. To me, the graph says that RW doesn't suppress anything except when there's a trolling peak. And I don't see anything wrong with that. rpeh •TCE 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a reason that statistics is a major mathematical field; teasing knowledge out of numbers in a reliable way is rarely simple. Even if we had some relative numbers to work with, all we could talk about without additional context was trend and step changes, which would say cack all about what caused any change. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm. There have been 3,185 days since RW 2.0 was set up and 322 total suppressions, which gives a rate of 0.101 suppressions per day. There have also been 1,643,011 edits since RW 2.0 was set up, which gives a rate of 0.000196 (0.0196%) suppressions per edit (or, there is 1 suppression per 5103 edits). oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if the graph extended to back then. Can you replace it? It would be good to have 90-day rolling average rates included... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
's not my graph, I can ask the ED guy for the source. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Revision suppression hasn't been available since the start of RW 2.0. I can't be arsed to find out when it was introduced to MW or when that version was introduced here, but from memory, that graph is probably about right. rpeh •TCE 22:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I know. Just look at the data. The first three, in 2009, are Nx testing it in his sandbox. For the next six months, or even longer, the only use it is put to is testing and pranking (do people still come up with interesting pranks on RW?). The simple fact is that the site operated for three years without even having access to the tool. I think we may have implemented it to deal with some idiot who posted TK's address or something on the site. Even since then, abhorrent as the tool is, it has been used sparingly for a place overrun with authoritarian Chicken Little types from time to time.
Also, who can see deleted revisions? I thought mods could, but apparently not. Unless I picked one that was hard-deleted from the database. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolling and sysoping[edit]

Do we want to autopatrol and eventually sysop those who disagree with RW's views, so long as they fulfill the usual requirements (Autoconfirmed and Eligible user, respectively)? Asking b/c Men's Rights EXTREMIST qualifies for autopatrolled, but I removed his rights (on request from another user) and Weaseloid re-removed them, and CaptainCaptain qualifies for Sysop and Weaseloid removed them. Although Men's Rights EXTREMIST did make a sketchy edit, CaptainCaptain hasn't vandalized anything. If these were normal users, they would surely be autopatrolled and sysopped. Should they be, or not? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly I removed those rights, not Weaseloid. Secondly I struggle to see how CaptainCaptain qualifies for sysop, he has no mainspace edits. Finally Men's Rights EXTREMIST mainspace edits are fairly sketchy in general with about half being reverted almost instantly. WatcherIntheDark (Codeword:Iconoclast) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Adding that I also dispute that CaptainCaptain never vandalised anything, he once tried blanking the unwelcome template but that is largely irrelevant. WatcherIntheDark (Codeword:Onomatophobia) 02:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Having main space edits is not a prerequisite for sysop, as far as I am aware. It seems that people who disagree with the RW consensus are in a hard spot; if they make main space edits they are rolled back and this is used as evidence they shouldn't be sysop, and if they don't make main-space edits, this is used as evidence that they shouldn't be a sysop. Sysop rights should only be removed or withheld from people who abuse them (eg. blocking people, removing user-rights for no reason etc...) as far as I'm concerned.
On the other hand, sometimes leaving people without autopatrolled can be useful for new editors who make alot of errors (whether in content or style) as it leaves those nice red exclamation marks everywhere. IMO Once we know that an editor has problems you tend to check out all their edits anyway, which means that they can be given autopatrolled but I can understand why some may disagree and wouldn't choose that hill to die on. Tielec01 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Looked at that way, the red exclamation point could almost be considered a badge of honor for dissidents. It shows they're always trying to push the envelope to the limits of what the mainstream is comfortable with (or even beyond). Even if they get slapped down, it doesn't mean that they totally failed to influence; the radical ideas of today could be the mainstream ideas of tomorrow. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Aim for the stars mate. Tielec01 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If you set a course for the moon and merely follow the stars, then you will miss that which you have set forth. Hm? Hm? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I support tielac01. брэндэн (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"...so long as they fulfill the usual requirements (Autoconfirmed and Eligible user, respectively)". <-- You're making up rules here, Fuzzy. "Eligible user" means able to vote in RMF board elections & nothing more than that. I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone link it to eligibility for sysophood. Most editors who stick around long enough end up as sysop sooner or later but there's nothing that automatically qualifies them for it or entitles them to it. & I think we can reasonably draw the line at users who promote rape & domestic violence the same as we would for somebody promoting race hate or anything similarly objectionable. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole patrolling mechanism exists to provide a way to scan down RecentChanges and sweep up any bad edits efficiently. If a significant proportion of a user's edits end up having to be reverted, it's silly to give them autopatrolled. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Plus, removal of the captcha for people that aren't excessively insane. StickySock (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought autoconfirmed was a separate category, but apparently not. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
According to that page, it is.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed is something that happens automatically after a few edits. Autopatrolled is something that happens manually if somebody bothers to do it. Personally I've never seen the point; it seems like a meaningless box-ticking exercise. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there should be two different kinds of unpatrolled edits (designated by two different symbols): those that are likely to be vandalism, and those that likely to be dissident opinions. Either gets reverted, but dissident opinions can sometimes be more interesting than, say, putting the word "FUCK" 500 times in a row, so they might interest different sets of patrollers. I'm thinking the core would probably have to be hacked to implement this, though. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The only reason that seems to make sense for promotion is abuse of the mop and bucket. There is a reason that doesn't make sense, of course, and that is that "outside groups" seem to have no understanding at all of how little sysopship means on RW, and think anyone wearing the janitor's cap is some kind of uber-user who deeply represents the site's philosophy and goals. Hell, even Board members and Moderators don't have that standing. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Falling from a building[edit]

I was going to ask this at the WP refernce desk, but they have it locked... If someone fell from the fifth story of a building, would they die or just be badly hurt? (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably dead. I've heard humans die at over 20ft falls, and 1 story is ca. 11 ft. FuzzyCatPotato of the Expensive Pool tables (talk/stalk) 04:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
People die falling from ridiculously low heights, including less than a metre, although it is rare. The probability of surviving a five story fall onto flat, hard ground without a device to slow your descent would be very low. Tielec01 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you ask? (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
A 15m fall (based on 5 x 3m storeys counting from ground = 0) would take 1.8 seconds and an impact speed of 60kph. Almost certainly brown bread on concrete. More survivable from an American 5th 'story' at 40ft (ground = 1), 1.5 seconds and 34mph. Calculator. I read somewhere that the rule of thumb for an average weight adult (70kg?) is that you have a 50% chance of surviving a fall from three times your height on to a hard surface. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't do it 172. Other people made it through a divorce, too. Or lure her onto a higher building, if you want to be sure. ~ Aneris 12:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Would it be a quick death or long and agonizing? (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The possible outcomes are affected by too many variables to predict reliably. A person could emerge with a bad scrape; or break a limb, or limbs; or end up para- or quadriplegic; or suffer brain damage or coma. All of these are possibilities in addition to the risk of death. If this is mere morbid curiosity, have yourself a good week. If this is something you are personally considering, however, I would advise you to call 1 (800) 273-8255. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Depends on what and how you hit, but unless you are a trained acrobat you might tumble and hit something you didn't intend to. Hitting feet first on concrete probably won't be instant death, but will cause permanent damage if you survive or a slow agonizing death if you remain conscious. It's far easier just to call the suicide hotline.StickySock (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Since there are people who've survived impacting the ground at terminal velocity, you can basically drop from any height and live. It's just very very unlikely. (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
But if it was terminal velocity it must have been fatal. Wait! You meant ...--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Friend of a friend fell or jumped from the roof of a building (three or four storeys; I can't remember the details) & landed on a parked car. Had to have both legs amputated. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves, the only stats I've ever seen stated a fall had to be something like 150ft to reach 90% instant mortality rate for an adult human (250ft onto water).
Also, don't kill yourself and stuff...

The Right for Other People to Not be Offended[edit]

Everyone has heard people jokingly talk about the "right not to be offended" but lately I've been hearing this bizarre insinuation from people (usually reactionaries) that expressing disapproval is the same as censorship. For instance, I watched a Sargon of Akkad video wherein he basically says that being denied a platform in the private arena is having your freedom of speech violated. I'm forced to wonder when exactly these rough-and-tumble badasses who always speak their minds became such whiners. Sargon wasn't the only one. The entire cast of the "persecuted white guy" block of Youtube programming made videos decrying the whole Richard Dawkins debacle.
Worst of all was a video by TJ Kirk where he says a Twitter user (Atheism is Unstoppable) shouldn't have been banned for doxxing someone. He tried to frame it as a freedom of speech issue. It's funny, because these people who are supposedly farther right wing than us complain when a private business expects people to follow it's rules.
It's fascinating that they consider such things to be censorship but something like a death threat or getting doxxed is just something everyone should learn to live with.
So to recap: Talking publicly about the fact that you've been harassed = professional victim. Making a career out of pretending to be a persecuted white man =/= professional victim.
And full disclosure, I don't like it when progressives shut people down, either. But I'm not going to sit here and fucking act like I have a right for everyone to refrain from criticizing me. I thought people reacted badly to the NASA shirt guy but I'm not going to act like he should't have worn something else. Part of being an adult is understanding the social climate and not expecting the world to revolve around you. — Unsigned, by: / talk

"Part of being an adult is understanding the social climate and not expecting the world to revolve around you." That, in a nutshell, describes what is wrong with reddit libertarians and their ilk. Every day in every way I'm astounded that so many people can be that self-absorbed and yet have no sense of introspection at all. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
^^This. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that what bullies do though? They act tough happily being a jackass to others. Do it to them and suddenly they scream how it's so terrible. Like bigots who like to tout the "right to choose who to be around" until their friends decide to not be around them; or the right to be obnoxious and "be real" until that spotlight of nastiness gets pointed at them. They want the right to free speech, without the responsibility to accept the consequences of that speech. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Around Dawkins and other no-platforming incidents, the argument was made that first inviting someone and then disinviting them is a form of creating a chilling effect only authoritarians can love (and do love, in fact). This is often shortend to a free speech issue, which also is an umbrella term for a political climate, and not just a legal term. Once invited speakers meant to appear somewhere in months have to be careful what they do and avoid anything controversial. The social justice movement also wants to leverage employers as the parental control that will fire someone when say things in their own time, or perhaps show up with an outrageous sombrero costume, appropriating the mexican culture (what an outrage!) Of course the trouble continues at Campus, hence plenty of comedians have spoken out against the social justice movement, recently John Cleese. And of course, nobody argues that speech shall have no consequences, or that people must absolutely hear what some disagreeable person wants to say. It was never a demand that people were forced to hear Richard Dawkins. I attribute such corrupted understanding of fairly easy concept to Myers' Law, which holds that a "safe spacer" can never recieve or transmit information without corrupting that information. The argument goes the other way around: when people want to attend a talk by Richard Dawkins, they should be allowed to do so, for they have a right to hear, if they so choose. To sum up, everyone laughs at social justice authoritarians and their silly distortions. ~ Aneris 19:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Except it doesn't create a "chilling effect" at all. That's only determined by the court in free speech issues. Also, "free speech" is not an umbrella term in the USA. It's a legal issue only, determined by the Constitution, its Amendments, and relevant statutes and caselaw. There is no moral right to free speech. There is no "natural right" to free speech. There is only the law and its legalities. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That sounds rather like Argumentum ad dictionarium.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Even though there are unreasonable ways how people bend words and concepts, this is not one of those case, since everyone knows very well that the NECSS is not the government and Dawkins is not facing prosecution for his retweet. Obviously, this is not what people argue about. It seems Castaigne2 is this simply unwilling or unable to understand where other people are coming from. ~ Aneris 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No, not unwilling or unable. I understand exactly where they are coming from. It's just that such concerns are irrelevant. Is it legal to do this? Yes? Then it's all good. Don't want people to do it? Make it so they can't. I again repeat my mantra - if it's legal, it's legit. I didn't say ethical, moral, or any other type of subjective bullcrap. I'm just dealing with the objective reality here, as that's all I care about. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
To help Castaigne2 better understand where Aneris is coming from, these two guys seem to share much of his perspective (aka, "those mean leftist control all the discourse. whose the real nazi here?!?!"): Ben Shapiro and L. Brent Bozell III Petey Plane (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And that looks too much like straw manning (Aneris didn't claim any kind of leftist conspiracies).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"Aneris didn't claim any kind of leftist conspiracies" The fact that he uses "SJW" in every other sentence could make one think that he does. Petey Plane (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean obviously the postmodernist social justice movement, which is all over the (mainstream) news for a while now. I don't know what you understand under "SJW" otherwise, but it's entirely possible that some people refer to a conspiracy theory somehow. ~ Aneris 21:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's more an appeal to law (a variation of the appeal to tradition), except I avoid the fallacy by not claiming it's better/more moral/more ethical because it's the law. It's just the law - and good or bad, if it's legal, it's legit. If Aneris wants it different, he should have his views made into law. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And 'the law' is just a human societal construct. So why, exactly, should we consider something legit just because it's legal? (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If we're defining legitimate as "There is no obstacle to me performing this action/thing.", legality is a wonderful benchmark. And that's how I'm using it. Now, if you have another objective standard that can be used, please let me know. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, 'the law' often does rather little to effectively obstruct people from committing crimes. The major thing limiting people's behaviour are social mores, and you don't need an officialized legality for that. (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. People give lip service to "social mores" (when they can even bother to define them or agree what they are), but what limits people's behavior is fear of punishment. Jail time, fines, death penalties, getting your ass beat, etc. Why do you not do the bad/illegal/wrong thing, even when it clearly benefits you? Because the punishment is worse than the benefit.
Or at least, that's my point of view. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Because we share a common baseline of human well-being that helps define our moral sensibilities. And getting along with others benefits us all. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I've seen people say similar for years. I have never seen any evidence of this "common baseline" in practice. I think it's a very nice belief, but not borne out by historical evidence. And yes, this even applies to supposedly taboo things like murder, cannibalism, etc. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I won't argue against there being some people who will be deterred by the threat of penal justice (though fear of being labeled a criminal and resultingly being shunned by your social circle can also play a significant part), but I wouldn't count myself among that group. The role of deterrence is also pretty negligible in cases of impulsive crimes. (talk) 23:27, 8 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Then let's go with the thought experiment. Since we know a) that morality/ethics is a purely subjective construct and thus not relevant to the objective world and b) we are surmising that fear of punishment is not a significant deterrent, then let's consider the following scenario. A person's objective is best logically achieved by murdering someone. Discarding all subjective issues and since fear of punishment is not a factor, why logically should the person not murder the victim to best achieve their goal? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
a) Sure, morality/ethics is purely subjective, but all human experiences are subjective. Subjective doesn't mean people won't act according to it. Hell, without knowledge of differing perspectives we wouldn't even be able to tell subjective and objective apart.
b) But, assuming the person in question doesn't care about all that fancy morality stuff, killing another human being is still blatantly wasteful. With almost all objectives involving the cooperation of living human beings in some way and with the value of humans as a commodity in today's economy, I very much doubt summarily eliminating a human life would constitute the most efficient use of the latter. (talk) 23:48, 8 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Do you mean to say that you are a moral relativist? How do you derive the objective from subjectives? What do you consider objective? ~ Aneris 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The same way everyone else does it; by arbitrarily deciding that my subjective is the correct, objective one and everyone else is wrong. ;) Honestly though, Aneris, surely as an atheist you must acknowledge that there is nothing inherent in the physical structure of the universe mandating one code of ethics over another to human beings. Morality is whatever we make of it. (talk) 00:50, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Probably should know the definition of the term before really spouting off like that Legit - legal; conforming to the rules. Yay, learning! Also, having people decide whenever they feel like what laws they (and others) should conform to can get as bad as any unjust law. Maybe worse if everyone gets to decide legality, punishment and enforce those rules rather than a law enforcement system due to the size of each population. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, legit and legal are both adjectival forms originating from the same Latin word. But it would be odd if Castaigne's whole point revolved around a tautology, wouldn't it? Luckily, words can have multiple meanings. (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There's way more issues forcing an individual (person or business) to play host to a speaker at their own expense of resources over the objections of the individuals there without any choice. What are you going to do...take the money to fund the event, press people into forced labor, and take over the venue for the night? What's next, go out and get an audience at gunpoint? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Aneris' argument essentially seems to be that sometimes private individuals and groups acquiesce to the demands of other private groups and individuals he does not agree with, and that is bad.Petey Plane (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. For example nobody has a problem when Richard Dawkins is not invited to the Sunday dinosaur breakfast at the Creationist museum. This isn't difficult at all. Your past actions decide whether you will be invited to fun activities in the future, based on whether people like what you do. The head of National Sozial Justiz Conferenz thought about inviting Dawkins, but then saw a tweet that offended his national-socialist-justice sensibilities and decided to invite Stephoknee Zwan and Marie Le Pen to speak about racial identities instead. Again, not difficult to grasp. People can change their mind, and as a consequence invite or avoid people. It doesn't strike me as a totally new and eccentric concept, either. Quite obviously, consequences in this sense is not the issue at all. ~ Aneris 20:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And that is a case of godwinning.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. :D ~ Aneris 22:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Just another case of reactionaries trying the same thing people use against them and hoping it'll have the same effect. Yawn. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
So are you willing to admit that social media harassment of people you deem "SJWs" might also create a chilling effect? I fail to see how any of this is a social justice issue in particular rather than hecklers simply being hecklers. One would think that you would be much more appalled by Gamergate sending a SWAT team to someone's house but this is seemingly not the case. — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs
You sure do have me pegged down, person who's never interacted with me before and has made no prior edits on RW, unless this was aimed at Aneris and not me. (Indentations are a powerful thing). In any case, the Venn Diagram of "just hecklers" and "reactionary anti-feminists" in this case is a single circle. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
What is it with this mammoth site all the time? I see this for the second time today, and realize now that dudebro Queex shoehorned a recent post from mammoth into an article. Gosh, I hate this gender warrior nonsense. It seems all like team douche vs team neckbeards with brony and cat piss men in the mix and everyone else has to endure this bullshit (because for gender identitarian zealots you can either be on their team or the other team. Then again, these people are evidently complete twits and massive berks, so what would anyone expect). ~ Aneris 00:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bunch of bullcrap. There is absolutely no requirement for any private arena to provide someone with a platform for their speech. Private arenas can do whatever the hell they want, so long as it doesn't violate a law on free speech. So, fuck a bunch of that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Things like boycotting a product or pressuring someone to resign have always been around but can now be achieved much more easily & quickly thanks to social media, blogging, hashtag movements, etc. This happens across the political spectrum & how we feel about it tends to depend a lot on who's doing it & why. There is a (not unreasonable) argument that this kind of public pressure presents a threat to freedom of speech (as a form of soft censorship) but ultimately it originates from the increased access to free speech platforms available to all in the digital age, so it's a bit of a Catch 22. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

OP here. As a follow up, I was more railing against the hypocrisy of anti-feminists rather than saying that I love shutting people down and creating a chilling effect. What I'm saying is that if you're going to act like a woman getting slandered and harassed for having an opinion about video games is no big deal, then I expect you won't turn around and cry about it when progressives do much less than that.

And if those kids really want to know what Richard Dawkins thinks, there are dozens of other outlets for them to hear his opinions. They don't have a right to see him live at their university.

As for comedy, the line of acceptability is always shifting. Minstrel shows used to be knee-slapping hilarious. Should Jerry Seinfeld be allowed to do that on a campus? I tell racist jokes to me friends all the time and we have a good laugh, but I don't expect society to accommodate me. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

The main problem with any sort of rules and mores is that people are morons and assholes. Every last one of us. Ever talk about something you aren't an expert in? You're a moron. Ever just keep walking when someone needs a dollar? Asshole. You could be the offspring of Richard Feynman and Ghandi but you would still be a moron at something and an asshole at times. So you are going to be on record at some point being an asshole or being an idiot, but because the world is also filled with morons they won't cut you any slack. The best example is the old guy who owns the LA clippers. He was recorded IN PRIVATE being an asshole and it "ruined" him (quotes because he's still friggen rich). That's not fair, we are all assholes behind closed doors. But that's the way of the world. StickySock (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And that's something else - there hasn't been a "behind closed doors" since the late 1990s. Welcome to technology. There is no private anymore. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Spanish law doesn't have much of a sense of humor in respect of giant plastic vaginas Shame really.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
StickySock, please take this in a spirit of collaboration: it is "Gandhi" with a hard G and an aspirate D (which few non-Indian English speakers can even hear, so there is that.) Slurm und Drang (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Puppy Monkey Baby[edit]

Anyone else think this commercial was more than a little freaky? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Good old-fashioned nightmare fuel. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's going to keep the tank topped off for a good while. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty fucking weird. I could go along with the puppy/monkey combo in some other context, but not for a table dance/lap dance, especially with baby legs & a diaper. Gross. & Where's the connection to the product? Is one element of the puppymonkeybaby supposed to represent the juice & one the caffeine & one the "dew"? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Lol, that was weird. &Weaseloid: I guess that was the idea behind it. (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinion of arxiv went down a notch[edit]

Gisin, Nicolas. "Time Really Passes, Science Can’t Deny That." Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva. February 5, 2016:

Today’s science provides quite a lean picture of time as a mere geometric evolution parameter. I argue that time is much richer. In particular, I argue that besides the geometric time, there is creative time, when objective chance events happen. The existence of the latter follows straight from the existence of free-will. Following the french philosopher Lequyer, I argue that free-will is a prerequisite for the possibility to have rational argumentations, hence can’t be denied. Consequently, science can’t deny the existence of creative time and thus that time really passes.

<_< Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember kids, just because someone says something you can't understand doesn't mean they are being profound. EG, Deep Pack Chupacabra.
The idiocy of that quote makes my brain hurt. Petey Plane (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a preprint archive, not a peer-reviewed journal. From RW's own article: Anyone can upload a paper to arXiv, leading to the expected seas of green ink. Fortunately, papers for most topic categories require at least one other person to endorse them and the moderators are quite experienced in dealing with cranks. The unfiltered topic categories ("general physics", "general mathematics") are pretty much "abandon brain all ye who enter here."--ZooGuard (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
good point.Petey Plane (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
[EC] Ah, ye, forgot. Then my opinion of U of Geneva's applied physics has gone down a notch ;P Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC
"Acknowledgment: This work profited from numerous discussions, mostly with myself over many decades during long and pleasant walks." Lol. (talk) 17:04, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Nicolas Gisin seems to be involved in a spat with arxiv after it rejected papers by his students in 2015[2], so this paper may be Gisin trolling. Annquin (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, HuffPo...[edit]

I know they've done the "huge title in all-caps 48pt Arial" thing before, but this time the Huffington Post just went all TimeCube on their homepage after Trump's victory (archive for good measure). Apparently, it was a tone-down from earlier today.

I mean, Jesus tapdancin' Christ HuffPo. I don't like Trump either, but it's just a 35% plurality among voters. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

35% among Republican voters, no less, which is a constituency not exactly known for its intellect. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, the dem voters are just as dumb. For every idiot redneck stereotype on welfare voting for the republicans, there's an idiot from a city on welfare voting for the dems. Trump just has the asshole vote locked in.

/r/skeptic: "What "skeptic" websites have a bad track record for being properly skeptical?"[edit]

Relevant, sane-ish quotes:

I like rationalwiki because I generally find it funny, but it does tend to be pretty heavy-handed with editorializing and name calling. In my experience it's generally factually accurate but presented with a clear bias which I could see not sitting well with some.

Rationalwiki seems more like a soapbox than anything else. This article from LessWrong explains it pretty well. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/)

RationalWiki also have an article explaining why many rationalists dislike LessWrong (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong). Overall, I think this discussion is a bit pointless. Everyone's gonna have sites they disagree with for whatever reason, especially seeing as a lot of skeptic sites are now forwarding different sociopolitical views. Personally, I like RationalWiki a lot more than LessWrong, which I find to be an echo chamber, but at the end of the day it's a lot better than the majority of stuff out there.

Rationalwiki has a lot of administrator bias on some subjects (e.g. anything political), but if you stick to pages on things like religion, quackery, or conspiracies, it's generally manageable.

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

So what? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do we give a fuck about what others think of us? Are we trying to score brownie points? Suck someone's cock for approval? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, why do you give a crap about what Redditors think so much? You're always posting what Redditors think about us. It's fucking annoying. It's like caring what 4Chan or Stormfront think of us. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
B/C they mention RW pretty often and often reflect broader Internet sentiment towards RW. Outside perspective, Castaigne. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I repeat from our own article, "Reddit is best treated as a form of internet television." And what do you do with television? You watch it for entertainment and then turn it the fuck off and ignore it when serious thinking or real opinions is required.
Now, tell me the opinion of the forms of internet LIBRARIES, and I'll give a damn. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And what would you call "internet LIBRARIES"?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
JSTOR? (talk) 00:32, 11 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
There's only one hit, when you enter "rationalwiki" into the JSTOR search box and no idea, how to access it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The paper, "BYU and Religious Universities in a Secular Academic World", is available (in the form of a very fragmented scan) on the BYU website (surprise surprise), and the reference is just a link to the Bumblebee argument, where the authors compare Brigham Young University to said bumblebee that people claim "can't fly" (but still does) in the modern academic world. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Kind of seconding what Kugelschreiber said. State of our rep on social media is pretty important, for better or worse. Reddit just happens to provide a relatively simpler way to publicize a question to the largest proportion of relevant users and compile opinions, compared to, say, Twitter, Tumblr, or ResearchGate. I'd be interested in seeing how opinions have changed in other communities as well. (And frankly, having the goal of RW to get cited in literal libraries? That's... bold and honorable, but kinda misguided for an online wiki). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
See, this is why I asked why you do this last time you did it. I get the feeling you didn't give me an honest answer. >_> - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Seriously though, it sounds like you're just searching material to passive aggressively bolster your "Remove all politics from RationalWiki!" crusade. "I think this is shit and these are the people who agree with me", but you're too chickenshit to actually make your point upfront again because you know the reaction you'll get. It's not happening. Move the fuck on. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to agree with this. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It's telling only the people who edit the political articles think the political articles is fine. It's like an arsonist insisting the building isn't on fire.Keter (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's rich coming from you. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Kitsu, I post whenever there's a significant amount of Reddit activity about RW or a RW article; sorry if sometimes that overlaps with my "crusade". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I uess I agree with Kitsune somewhat in so far as I don't see the point being made here besides you wanting a more non-political wiki. Usually when you post outsider's thoughts about RW it happens to be them generally enjoying RW and using it as a source, but disliking its users' political bent and in group bias. Now I am not accusing you of purposely doing this as I am aware you use google alerts, but I don't know how you plan on changing the site in order to remedy this problem.--Owlman (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
You post "These people think RW sucks". I don't understand why you think that's particularly relevant, especially when Reddit is wannabe knockoff-brand 4chan. Way to increase the morale of the community, I guess. I'm pretty used to bad passive aggression on the internet, so apologies if I misread you, but you have done tiresome things before, and this didn't fit with the reasons you gave me when I politely asked last time. The pill would be easier to swallow if "These people think RW sucks and that political articles are bad" weren't the only comments you spread to here. If it were criticism with substance, it might be different, and I might appreciate you posting it here. Otherwise it's just "Hey some people on the internet don't like what we do here". Which can pretty much be said of anything. It just feels like a rather tiresome addition when the only thing it seems to amount to is "I hate it when people talk about politics and I don't agree with them", and it fit pretty neatly into your previous attempt at getting people to cull the political articles of this website, so I smelled bullshit, even if it wasn't the bullshit I thought it was. Regardless, I shall bow away, now that I've said my piece, and refrain from bothering you about this further. We've both got better things to do than bicker at each other online about our true intentions, and I'd rather not have any needless drama if it can be avoided. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So, why don't you go find people saying what you wish they were saying? Perhaps FCP, for all his (?) lapses of judgement and irritating eagerness to change everything here every day is reporting honestly. I for one do find some of the political stuff on this site to be far, far, away from rational skepticism and little more than narrow-bandwidth axe-grinding. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Always interesting to hear what people think outside the echo chamber, cheers for posting FCP. I don't think our articles on political ideology are that bad, but of course I share the general left consensus here, so that might be my bias. Tielec01 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, valid points all around, but also appreciated on the update. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)