RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive253

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 March 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>, <252>, <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)

Contents

Oregon again[edit]

This is just fucking choice. Looks like the FBI has rolled 5 MRAPs up on Malhuer. Calling for the remaining militia to surrender. Militia are screaming that the FBI is trying to kill them. They're trying to get Michele FioreWikipedia's W.svg to intervene. Sample quotes from the militia:

  • "There are snipers on the hill!"
  • "You FBI have NO AUTHORITY in this state!"
  • "They can't see us with their nightvision with the lights on, that's why they want them off, so they can just go ahead and kill us!"
  • "If they tear gas us, that's the same as firing on us! We'll fire back!" --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that backfired. Fiore is now telling them that they had best have their day in court. Even Free Republic ain't on their side. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
FBI is demanding hands up, weapons down, time to surrender. MRAPs rolling forward. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
All of the terrorists should be imprisoned and jailed for a long, long time. These people are criminals, and defiance of these federal laws should not be tolerated in this instance. I totally support the FBI in this situation. MRAPS, Abrams tanks, whatever it takes. I personally believe that the FBI's behavior at Waco was heroic given the circumstances. Hopefully that can be avoided be avoided here, but I am skeptical that this will end peacefully. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It ain't looking good. A helicopter just rocked up, they're now thinking they're going to be sniped to hell and gone. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If the terrorists open fire, they should be shot. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

More quotes.
  • "My weapon is within reach".
  • "I'm not going to court!"
This is just going to...not end well. Sandy Anderson says she is not leaving unless she goes with her weapon and with all charges dropped. She's...gone. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Man these sovereign citizens are so stupid; they just keep repeating pseudo-history and praying. People like them are lucky that white, right-wingers get away with so much in this country.--Owlman (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
My compassion is warring with my schadenfreude. They just said "Come in and kill us and get it over with!" I almost wish that one of them would shout "LEEEEEEEEEEEEROY JENKINS!" and let loose. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
They're. Quoting. Fucking. Braveheart. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Reading out of the Bible now. Goodness. I am dropping off live, and might be here again in 9 hours. Bye. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. Forgot to follow the "don't read the comments" rule. Feelin' queasy now. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 04:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
eeeek. If you need to read comments, read these instead. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, Cliven Bundy was just arrested in Portland. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that makes me not sad at all.
Word was that they were going to surrender this morning. Haven't checked yet to see what the skinny is. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I heard they're waiting for this nutcase to show up and do... something, i guess. Strange, because i thought they were hardline Mormons. Petey Plane (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And it starts up again. Now that they know Cliven Bundy was arrested when he touched down in Portland - did he really think those charges would go away? - the Malhuer 4 are really, really ticked off. Live feed, if anyone cares. Personally, I live for this stuff. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, Paul Ryan is a phony and fake. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
They just arrested Blaine Cooper, who was left the reservation a while ago. Guess they're doing a round-up of the usual suspects today. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Looking forward to seeing these idiots get frog marched right into the back of a ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT police van. Petey Plane (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
"We didn't damage the artifacts!" They did. It's on video. They taped it themselves. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It always amazes me how people try to lie their way out of things that are extremely clear on a video they taped themselves. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
What artifacts are they talking about?--Owlman (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Local native American artifacts. Apparently the sanctuary had a serious collection. "Holy shit", as they say. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Three have surrendered, only Angry Dave is holding out. Watch him blow it for everyone else. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And Angry Dave just said he feels suicidal. Dang it, Dave, don't do that now. Surrender! --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
David Fry has surrendered. The occupation is now over. FINIS. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
“We’re not surrendering. We’re turning ourselves in. It’s going against everything we believe in” He doesn't seem to understand the word "surrender". Petey Plane (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Many seem to not understand quite a number of words, but anger and guns don't really require poetry in order to ruin or end someone's life. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dave's not suicidal, he's just jonesing really hard. "Why wouldn't they let me have my marijuana?" Petey Plane (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap, listening to some of the recorded livestreams of the occupiers is like getting a reality based lesson in Newspeak. These people seem to lack the cognitive and emotional framework to even understand why they feel the way that they do. Almost shooting fish in a barrel for FUD. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Google search spam[edit]

Since I'm still a site owner according to google (and I cannot remove myself until you remove this file: http://rationalwiki.org/googlec3aa45e4c12cfb49.html), I got an email from google about this page being spam: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ipad_Tech_Support_Phone_number_1888_959_1458,//ipad_Tech_Support_Phone_number_1888_959_1458,

The email says they've applied a manual spam action to the page, whatever that means, and once we've fixed it (already happened, page has been deleted), we have to submit a reconsideration request (whatever that is). Trent is the only other site owner in google search console who can do this, but anyone with access to the server can make themselves one.

-- Nx / talk 08:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that means "reconsider the page." The page is spam. They don't need to reconsider it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but I don't know what the consequences of leaving it like that are. The page does have a 404 status code now, so Google should be smart enough to detect the deletion, but it's still listed on the manual actions page. -- Nx / talk 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this page cannot be vaporized? This appears to be standard practice for such spam. I'd do it, but the page appears to have some kind of protection applied to it. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It's already deleted. That's what a non-existent page looks like. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
This doesn't affect any of the other pages, does it? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Not yet, but it could if they detect too many spammy pages: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2721437. -- Nx / talk 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Would revdel help, or is it a case of "once google's bot has crawled there, thepage title is there FOREVER" ? 75.133.2.98 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It's already 404, so that should've been enough for google. Though maybe making the title disappear completely would help. But it would be best if someone were to request a review. -- Nx / talk 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The page ([[Ipad_Tech_Support_Phone_number_1888_959_1458,//ipad_Tech_Support_Phone_number_1888_959_1458,]]) was created at 23:08 UTC on 8 February 2016 and deleted at 23:09. Odd that this page, existing for only a minute, got us a spam flag with Google when the other spam pages we get on a near-daily basis haven't. I guess the "tech support phone number" is some kind of scam & either Apple, Google or authorities are taking action to get it erased from the net as completely as possible. Anyhoo, is the "manual spam action" affecting RW's overall Google ranking/visibility as a site or only that one non-existent page? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd. It's only affecting that page for now, but could lead to a site-wide action if google thinks there's too much spam. Read the link I posted above, that's all I know. They're probably purposefully vague about it, so that spammers have a harder time gaming the system. -- Nx / talk 22:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about editing your comment, Weaseloid, but it's probably not a good idea to have internal links to this right now. I have no idea what a site owner record is about, but the Foundation should remove Nx ASAP, since he's no longer involved. rpeh •TCE 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I cannot remove myself until that file is there. I asked for it to be deleted back in October 2015, but David Gerard ignored my request: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/Archive2#Things. And you really should have someone active set up as a site owner, so that they can get alerts such as these. -- Nx / talk 06:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Damn it's like Old Home Night here! Nx, where have you been, how are you?
On a more serious note, we do need to get that review requested. When Google disappears a site, it really disappears. All it requires is for someone with access to the Webmaster Tools page to spend like a minute on it. And then hope that there are no long term repercussions. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
By the way, they see spam pages like that as an overall indicator of reliability, trust, etc. Google doesn't want to send their "clients" to sites that may have problematic content (though what is wrong with that one I don't know!). To access the Webmaster Tools one has to have the ability to save a small file to the root directory. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that google file's zapped. There's another one, google335b790ae5e32aa2.html. I have no idea who was responsible for these - David Gerard (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The other one is Trent's. Add yourself and you'll see it in the search console. -- Nx / talk 15:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mississippi anti-evolution bill[edit]

Not sure how many of you heard about it but it would allow the out right teaching of creationism in their schools. So if they can do that can we teach evolutionary biology in their churches? If they refuse to respect separation of church and state then we can to. :)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck is this shit, that totally violates the 1st Amendment to the US constitution! Where these people drunk? On pills? Huffing glue? --Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Considering it's Mississippi, your guess can't be far off. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This? The person who introduced it was dumb enough to reveal his motivations to the press, so that will make challenging it in court easier.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You are right, I heard it from the National Center for Science Education FB page.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that Mona is gone...[edit]

Can we PLEASE agree on whether Electronic Intifada and 972mag and reliable sources or not? CorruptUser (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know either, but from the very name, I guess the former might be biased, especially when it comes to Israel and Judaism... Pizzameister (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
They may be pro-Palestinian websites, but that doesn't mean they are less reliable. The mainstream media is also biased. --Gh1900 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
And having decided that they are reliable or unreliable what then? We assume that everything they say is true or false? What do you want to achieve CU? Tielec01 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I looked at what you removed CU, due to the references being +972 and/or EI, in this edit. It turns out the claim is true according to the BBC. Perhaps spend more time worrying about the truth of claims, and less on your opinion about the trustworthiness of its sources. Tielec01 (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Any claim about either Israelis or the Palestinians should NOT come from someone who wants either destroyed. We criticize countries to improve them, not dismantle them. There is a fuckton that Israel does wrong, but when you stare into the craziness, the craziness stares back. CorruptUser (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should leave (some of) this to Wikipedia and only focus on the utter batshit insane people on either side? Like those who say Jews are apes and pigs and those that want to rebuild the temple. Pizzameister (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@CU - Nonsense; we regularly cite Richard Dawkins on Theology, Ken Miller on creationism and Anita Sarkeesian on Gamergate.
@Pizza could not agree more, to channel LW, politics is the mind-killer.Tielec01 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So you think we should destroy the Israelis or the Palestinians? Because I'm quite sure that Dawkins doesn't want to kill all religious people.CorruptUser (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well Dawkins does want to end theology and religion; regardless you should cite your claim about them wanting to end Israel.--Owlman (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Moldbuggian and LessWrong nonsense, Tielec. (I say that sentence purely in a mood of cheerful sporting.) Politics is the practice and study of influencing people. It isn't a mind-killer; it's how you get allies and implement policies. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Pizza, we should focus on cranks and loons. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Doing a cursory run-through of the sites and examining their sources/goals from Wikipedia, I would have to say they are not terribly reliable. They're not WorldNutDaily or the Stormer, but they're close. I would cut +972 right out, myself, and use EI only if what they say is also corroborated by another source. That's just my personal opinion. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not a bad policy in general, especially when using blogs/alternative news sources. Tielec01 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Israelis. And I go by the 3D definition of anti-semitism vs anti-zionism. 1) Is there demonization? Caricatures, exaggerations, etc, about Israel as being "evil". Well, remember that "Israel bans book" headline? It was a problem yes, but the headlines and newspapers in many places would have you believe that the book was banned from Israel, rather than disqualified from the curriculum. It's a problem, but exaggerated. 2) Is there delegitimization? Claims about the Khazars are an obvious one, but the whole denial about how nearly a million Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews had to flee for their lives from Islamic lands (lands that had once been non-Islamic prior to the conquests, of course), leaving behind property nearly FOUR times the size of Israel itself. The various muslim nations could have settled the Palestinian refugees on said property and still kept most for themselves, and the issue would've been solved with similar amounts of hostility much like post-Serbia and India-Pakistan; terrible situations to be sure, but far better than the I-P issue is now. Instead the Palestinians got screwed over by both the Israelis and the various Arab countries. 3) Is there a double standard? Focusing on Israel is not itself a double standard, but excusing the actions of the various Islamic countries with regards to their Jewish populations while not doing the same for Israel and the Palestinians is obviously a double standard. It's not "WHATABOUTERY!!!" when pointing the whole picture and why you have such hostilities on the Israeli side. Whataboutery is when you talk about unrelated issues, like we are talking about how to deal with, say, Guantanamo and someone pipes up about how we should be focusing on North Korea instead.
As for EI, you can read a few articles, and you'll see various amounts of all 3. CorruptUser (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Just corroborate what EI says from other sources if in doubt, and if you can't find any other sources, take it to the talk-page for discussion and removal if the consensus is that the claim is not true. Tielec01 (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
At that point, why not just use the other source? If a source requires frequent corroboration to be used safely, perhaps it isn't a very good source? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Being against Israel's existence is not antisemitic. It is not antisemitic to be against a state founded on invasion, colonialism and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people. --Gh1900 (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, not antisemitic. But if you're against a state founded on invasion, colonialism and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, you're against pretty much every nation that exists since pre-history. Also, no, I do not agree that Israelis have committed "ethnic cleansing of indigenous people". --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing is a rather evocative term for the forced relocation of certain groups of people. Israel has pretty unarguably engaged in such, though I'd say it's one of the lesser offences compared to other stuff they've done (e.g. war crimes in Gaza). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually came here to contest that, but you are correct, that does apparently fit the definition of ethnic cleansing. AyzmoCheers 16:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Tielec. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you should lookup what "colonialism" is. A colony implies a motherland of some sort. The WB settlements do kind of count as colonialism (hence I am against those in particular), but Israel was not founded on the WB settlements. CorruptUser (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Pedantic nitpickery much? There's plenty of instances where Western people went to colonize distant lands without intending to represent their nation of origin. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Israel is historically an extension of the British imperialism and today is an extension of the American imperialism. --Gh1900 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see that. Britain and France carved up the Mideast, yes, but Britain pretty much banned immigration to the region once they took over, and had been practically at war with the Jews there (as well as Muslims). Owning weapons was a Capitol offense, so you can imagine what the armed groups would do rather than be searched. Britain left and tried to wash its hands of the place, but in '56 they and France caused a war between Israel and Egypt, which is the most they've done in terms of using Israel as a pawn. Israel was close with France for a while; the nuclear program was most likely a French gift. Then Algeria happened, and France responded by trying to cozy up to the Arab world. Israel had some support from the US, but not much, until after '73. This is when Israel and Egypt both began receiving massive amounts of aid in exchange for an end to the suez disruptions. That's pretty much the extent of the imperialization; US convincing Egypt to keep the suez open. CorruptUser (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In a similar vein[edit]

Is http://ukmediawatch.org/ an at-all reliable source? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:46, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Never heard of them before and a cursory look at the website seems a bit biased. *shrug* I'd have to do some fact-checking to tell for sure. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Only found out about it a couple days ago. I'd say it's in the same vein as DrudgeReport; the site is very biased, but the links to real websites are reliable. Depending on link of course. CorruptUser (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So it's full of bullshit except for the stuff that's not? Christ, that's next to useless. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
What I've seen of it is pretty reactionary, sometimes outright hateful. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you please be a bit more specific? Pizzameister (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
that's why I wouldn't use it as a primary source. Anything that can be verified by checking back to a reputable source sure, but not the site itself. CorruptUser (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

On a related note[edit]

Maybe we should have an article on the three D's... It appears that not many people know about them and they seem to be quite helpful when debating the Stormfront crowd... Pizzameister (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Result?[edit]

So do we have some sort of agreement on EI and 972 or not? CorruptUser (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How about a vote, it's a mobocracy after all?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This is stupid. We are not Wikipedia. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the biased source where this hasn't already happened. Pizzameister (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We regard EI and 972 as too biased to be sources[edit]

  • --Kugelschreiber (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Have not heard a defense of them that does not admit "yes they're biased" Pizzameister (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not a matter of biased, just a matter of so much that is unverifiable, you need another source to determine if bullshit or not. CorruptUser (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Teurastaja (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We do not regard EI and 972 as too biased to be used as sources[edit]

  • Activist journalism should not be dismissed. --Gh1900 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jael[edit]

I saw this on EI today and think it might be a good indicator of what their bias is... https://electronicintifada.net/content/muhannad-halabi-terrorist-israel-hero-his-family/15316 Teurastaja (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Teurastaja

Is now celebrating a some punk stabbing people now activist journalism? Nice going there, Gh, nice going.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The site did not celebrate the stabbing, it just showed how there are 2 different visions of the conflict and how challenging is the exercise of alterity. Many Israeli soldiers who killed innocent Palestinians are considered heroes at their homes and their country, so it's natural to expect a similar reaction on the other side. As Zizek once wrote:
As for the ‘clash of civilizations’, let us recall the letter from the seven-year-old American girl whose father was a pilot fighting in Afghanistan: she wrote that — although she loved her father very much, she was ready to let him die, to sacrifice him for her country. When President Bush quoted these lines, they were perceived as a ‘normal’ outburst of American patriotism; let us conduct a simple mental experiment and imagine an Arab Muslim girl pathetically reciting into the camera the same words about her father fighting for the Taliban — we do not have to think for long about what our reaction would have been: morbid Muslim fundamentalism which does not stop even at the cruel manipulation and exploitation of children.

--Gh1900 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of Americans celebrating war crimes. Maybe celebrating soldiers that committed war crimes that we turn a blind eye to, but we turn a blind eye to it rather than celebrate it. You are assuming a moral equivalence that may not be there. StickySock (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
And it takes a special kind of retarded to equate the US Army and the Taliban.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The founding of USA itself was based on persecution and extermination of indigenous people, and it's always celebrated. Taliban is considered terrorist for its attacks against civilians, but what about the American drone attacks in the Middle East that have already killed hundreds of innocent people? --Gh1900 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Your narrative of the founding of the US is convenient but also simplifying. Many indigenous Americans died through disease which in most cases (though by no means all) was neither known nor intended on the part of white people. And 1776 involved fighting against the British. Yes both sides had Indian allies, but that is usually not the point. And especially on the left many Americans do regret what happened to the Plains Indians in the 19th century. The trail of tears is now universally regarded as an evil and the only defense I have heard is that somehow was a "necessary evil" (which I don't buy for a second). I have never heard anybody say that the trail of tears or Wounded Knee or any of those things should be celebrated. One of the best general the US ever head was named for a Native American leader who fought against the US. William Tecumseh Sherman. Pizzameister (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You imply, that drones are an especially messy kind of weapon. Say, have drones or normal bombers, smart bombs and so on a better accuracy record?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't so much that air strikes in general can be messy, but that the Obama administration has created kill lists without any oversight and that the entire drone program has very little oversight; we have used the drone program to kill 3 Americans (maybe 4, but I haven't heard much about that one) and the DOJ has said this is an acceptable policy even though it involves assassinating people without any due process. We also have the second strike policy which involves hitting the same area twice in order to create more casualties. Americans have always celebrated this overt patriotism and every politician, from Robert La Follette to Barbara Lee, has been condemned for voting against war. The military always shows off at American sports games and will most likely do this during the Super Bowl this year and everyone there will stand and recite the pledge of allegiance and many will see it as unpatriotic to do so. I remember how many people unquestionably supported the Iraq war and believed the 'terrorists' deserved to be kidnapped and tortured. Also, Pizzameister, your assertion that disease was the main killer of the Natives is a non-sequentier to whether a genocide occurred against the Native Americans. These events were celebrated when they originally occurred and they are unusual not talk about much today.--Owlman (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I remember having read a very angry letter to the President regarding the Indian Removal Act (doubtlessly an "act of genocide"; a death march). It was written at the time by a white person. Yes there were atrocities against Native Americans. But there was no "genocide master plan", the whole thing did not happen over months or mere years as any genocide in history has (be it the genocide of the Herero and Nama, the Armenian genocide, the alleged genocide of Charlemagne against the Saxons, the Rwandan genocide or the worst genocide of all, the Shoah against Jews, Soviet citizens and many others). As for your comments about patriotism. May I give the word to Keith Olbermann? He said something on the issue. Specifically about the NFL (about whose crimes an article might be on order). Pizzameister (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Though I am glad that the major participants on BOTH sides of the Israel-Palestine flame war are out.Teurastaja (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Totally. Now that the zealots are gone or where made to go, normal editing can resume.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Rwnav[edit]

I made {{rwnav}} for the purpose of replacing {{rmfbar}} and {{modbar}}.

Comparison:

{{rwnav}} {{rmfbar}} {{modbar}}
I thought this
was supposed to be

RationalWiki
Wigorw.svg
About
Help
RationalMedia Foundation
Moderation
Future.gif
RationalMedia Foundation
FAQs
RationalMedia logo.png
What is the Foundation?
Who runs the Foundation?
Does this mean the Board is in charge of the RationalWiki community?
If you're not in charge of the community then why did you—
  • Read this page again. The Board has final say over any issues with clear legal or financial consequences for the Foundation.
I demand to see what you've been up to and where the money is going!
  • Our meeting minutes are here.
  • Here are the Foundation's financial reports.
Who put you in charge?!
The nicest bunch of assholes on RationalWiki

Moderators

Future.gif
Moderation
Shills & Whores

Thoughts? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

maybe find a girl/boyfriend? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif--JorisEnter (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I gotta ditto that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, triples on that. And it's a freakin' euphemism. Hot. Science. Is a critical statement. The boot is critical. RMF stuff is so boring it should get its own isolated corner. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
*screams of awe at someone getting rekt*
Thanks, but that job's already done. Anything else you'd like me to do? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Good job, Fuzz. Looks better, though I liked the animation on the mod one, and (personal taste) the churchy lila colour scheme is not my thing. I like overall. ~ Aneris 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice work. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Aneris: I can change color scheme of icon etc. Any preference? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The moderator gif is the second funniest thing on RW.
Banana.gifFuture.gifBanana.gif
Robledo (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
We all know what the funniest thing is!
Tumbleweed.gif
Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep the modbar for the mod stuff, replace the rmfbar with the rwnav. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

I still think they are three distinct topics, and as such deserve their own, separate navthings. What was the actual need for this change, by the way? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Gravitational Wave Announcement[edit]

So apparently there is going to be a big announcement about gravitational waves, Thursday morning at 10:30 EST. No real word yet on specifics, other than it relates to a binary black hole system, so i think one can imagine what the announcement will be. More info in link. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/liveblog-scientists-announce-major-gravitational-wave-finding/ Petey Plane (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I must say that I'm never keen on scientific revelation by announcement. Think cold fusion or the speed of light was wrong announcement. I'll believe it when it's been published and peer reviewed.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
True enough, and the last discovery of grav waves (even those were a different type) ended up being bunk. Petey Plane (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
My prediction for the announcement: "Wouldn't it be great if these observations had told us something unambiguous." Queexchthonic murmurings 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought gravity was already known to travel in "waves" due to it traveling at the speed of light? That is, if Jupiter moves, you are pulled towards where you see Jupiter than where it is. Now if we could figure out how to make a material that blocks gravitational waves, well, you just made space travel affordable for everyone... well the upper classes anyway. CorruptUser (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
They are predicted by General Relativity, but so far, no one has ever actually detected one.Petey Plane (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I like how they waited until the 100th anniversary to discover them. CU, what you stated is the hypothesis. We have never been able to observe the actual *waves* before. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

[NYT's writeup.] Obviously still needs to go through peer review, but it's looking pretty solid. Petey Plane (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There was a livestream of the conference at my university but I was in the middle of a biophysics class, sadly. I'm very curious as to what CP will do with this - it's probably another scam of teh evul librul evilutinist athiest muslim jewish illuminati satanic MSM.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Everyone paid attention to the news conference today, regarding the positive detection of gravitational waves? Just wondering, because the page does not yet exist here on RationalWiki. Andrew Schlafly, himself, edited Conservapedia today, dismissing the discovery, because he's still afraid of the Theory of General Relativity being proven correct. If anything, merely because it would be a blow to his ego, and the man is anti-humility.

His initial page creation, back in 2012, stated: "Gravity waves are predicted by the Theory of Relativity but, despite wasting millions of dollars looking for them, they have never been found." (Actually, Andrew, it was a billion. And now it has been worth it, so please shut your trap.)

He was later corrected by User:20percent, who revised it to: "Gravity waves are predicted by the Theory of Relativity. Recently observed by a team of astrophysicists, this discovery strikes a blow to the anti-relitivity argument" (The user was banned for "Inserting False Information"... if that were a legitimate standard, Schlafly should be banned from his own website, as should User:VargasMilan and User:Conservative)

And today, the dumbfuck himself felt compelled to comment, and maintain his position that the Theory of General Relativity is false. Because moral relativism and Barack Obama, therefore: Jesus, Conservativism, and I hate government and liberal people, so liberalism is now debunked foreva. Amen!

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, "Gravity" waves!

— Unsigned, by: Knowledgebattle / talk / contribs 05:52, 12 February 2016‎

Not sure why we'd have a page on the topic, we aren't a general science encyclopedia. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
[1] "She reassured us that gravitational waves weren’t going to hurt anyone and that – coincidence or not – there was definitely no conspiracy behind the discovery." THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT US TO THINK - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Conservapedia has added gravitational waves to its long list of denialism-s; documenting and refuting those claims are pretty on-mission for RW. Even if it isn't worth an entire page dedicated to the subject, at least some additions to existing Andrew Schlafly and/or Conservapedia articles are warranted.173.72.6.153 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, indeed, covering Schlafly's coverage of the fresh news on the topic certainly can be done in as much depth as anyone has the patience to do. But, wait, aren't the CP:space articles hidden behind a RW:DUSTY template now? Hmmmm. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Reply 173.72.6.153: Well, I've already added the info about it, to the RationalWiki page here on Andrew Schlafly. I switched Conservapedia's "gravity waves" page over to "gravitational waves", and posted a link at the top to Discovery.com, with the comment "Not to be confused with 'gravity waves'. Learn the difference." User:Conservapedia blocked me for no reason, but hasn't seem to revert the changes yet. I suppose he's going through cognitive dissonance, but after a while, they'll pretend they knew it all along, and then turn around and blame all liberals for calling them "gravity waves". :-\ Knowledgebattle (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you think Andy thinks about the recently detected gravitational waves? I wish it would be him having a fit but somehow I think he'll just manage a handwave. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 15:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Look at the last few edits of Andrew Schlafly - someone tried to cover it, but the text needs copy-editing badly.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bullshit[edit]

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Bullshit

Would anyone cry if I put it to sleep? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you want to do this?--Owlman (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
In aid of a kinder, gentler, fuzzier wiki? IDK. I would not cry. I would RAGE, and wake it right up again, cursing the whole time. Please don't do this, Fuzzy. SmartFeller (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
FCP is a wanker: discuss! Pippa (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah fuck. I can't believe you've done this. Petey Plane (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I always cry :'( :P QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 18:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I was going to propose it for deletion.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
So, if someone wants to vote: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Bullshit --ZooGuard (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thx ZG Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

FCP is not happy unless they propose a sweeping change on a daily basis. Can't we just give them a sandbox to radically redecorate? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Literally only brought this up because DG mentioned it. Would you prefer a slower rate, perhaps 1 sweeping change per 1.5 days, or 2.5? <_< Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
How about once a month? I'm more of a static individual. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat less annoying than the pointless bullshit article & hundreds of useless links to it. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

That article is funny the first time, and open with that lovely quote about orders of magnitude. No more or less pointless than RW in general. In the name of the BoNs I think it should be kept.

Removing Recipespace From Community Guidelines[edit]

I don't think anyone has used it in several months at least, and is completely unimportant to the wiki. It should be removed from the Community Guidelines page as a namespace. KOMF 01:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Have he no respect for the history of the thing?! C®ackeЯ
I vote against yet another erasure of the history of the wiki. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not just make more use of it? I guess there's too much competition from other recipe sites these days. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about removing all of recipiespace, just taking it off of the list of namespaces on the Community Guidelines page. KOMF 05:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but it's a slippery slope. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen this totally crazy Agenda 21 conspiracy theory?[edit]

http://www.srbijadanas.net/agenda-21-un-velika-seoba-cigana-u-srbiju/ The title translates as "Agenda 21 of the UN - Great migration of the Roma (Gypsies) into Serbia"
Trust me - this theory is even crazier than the Agenda 21 theories you usually find in the West!
Ako ne govorite srpskohrvatski, you can read the page through Google Translate.
--178.223.133.30 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome to edit the article on Agenda 21 here. And you're also very welcome to make an account at this site.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A question to ponder[edit]

When considering religion in terms of factual accuracy, it's rather apparent that pretty much all of it can be dismissed as blatant falsehoods and vague deepity of no practical relevance. But without an objective morality of the kind typically claimed to be dictated by a deity telling us that lying to others or ourselves is bad, why should whether something is truthful be of importance to us? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

There are utilitarian reasons why lying is usually (not always) best avoided. The more people catch you lying, the less they'll trust you. & If everybody did it all the time, nobody would trust each other & society just wouldn't hold together very well. As for whether the things we believe about the universe are true, there are obvious practical benefits from adopting an empirical approach and believing things that have been proven or can reasonably be assumed to be true rather than merely things we've been told. If everyone believed every word of Bible to be literal truth without questioning it, we wouldn't have had most of the advances in science & technology + their effect on society we've seen in the last several hundred years. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I would need some book to tell me what is good or bad. Murder is bad because I have no right to hurt another or take their life away. That is an infringement on their rights and their person. I don't need a book to tell me that. On the other hand, there are plenty of things that the Bible allows (slavery) which I believe are wrong based on my morality, and things which the Bible forbids (shrimp and equal marriage) which I believe are fine based on my morality. The problem for me is that many Christians do believe in the truthfulness/accuracy of much of the Bible. I have run into many who have a deep "knowing" that the Earth is ~6,000 years-old or that the flood is a fact. And because of this they hold viewpoints which are irreconcilable with reality (climate change can't be real because God controls the climate). This often carries over into politics. Showing the inaccuracies or falsehoods in the Bible can help to crack that worldview and allow some light in. It allows for a questioning of those tightly-held beliefs. AyzmoCheers 19:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
142, I believe that objective morality is important, but (even though I am a theist) I don't think a deity really helps us much there. In terms of objective morality, the main thing a deity gives us is divine command theory, which is unappealing even to many theists - "murder is wrong because God says so, and if he had said it was right it would have been right" - doesn't really sound much like objective morality. If "Murder is wrong only because I say so" is a case of subjective morality, then divine command theory is just replacing "I" with someone else (God), and so is just as subjective. On the contrary, I would say that objective morality is something which can be conceived of existing apart from God (even if I believe that it is ultimately part of the divine nature). I don't think the worldview of philosophical naturalism has room for objective morality in it. (People have tried to ground objective morality in a naturalist worldview, but I don't find any of their attempts convincing.) So I think, if you believe that objective morality is a must-have, that is a good reason to reject naturalism, but not necessarily a reason to accept theism, since there are non-theistic forms of non-naturalism (e.g. Buddhism). (((Zack Martin))) 22:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Weasel: But util is, too, a morality.
@142: I argue that, because there is a risk that some objective morality exists, it is worth it to seek the truth, on the off chance you stumble upon the true morality. (I think this is also the ultimate answer to Pascal's Wager.) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 05:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is any "risk" of an objective version of a subjective human construct existing. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the suggestion here that the bible can be considered a source of morality? Because that's a pretty weird idea.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it is if you are ISIS. Of course, they use the Quran instead, but all the stuff in the Torah about stoning and burning people to death agrees very well with their ethical system. (((Zack Martin))) 22:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
All or most of the stoning and burning shit in the Torah was heavily moderated (and occasionally simply deactivated) by the later tradition (Mishna, Gemara and later literature). In case of Islam, AFAIK the Hadiths did the same. The DAESH just chuck the moderation into the garbage bin.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
But without a divine-originated absolute morality, there can be NO absolute morality. We can talk about actions which are 'clearly' wrong (infanticide, necrophilia, whatever) but there are some among the human population who DON'T accept these things as wrong. As long as one person disagrees, then all morality is subjective.
(Even with utilitarianism the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people is subjective based on people's preferences. Building a mosque would make a lot of people happy if they were muslims who had nowhere to worship, and building a women's refuge would make a smaller number of people happy, if it was a community without a remarkable incidence of domestic abuse, so which is the better use of land? Depends on demographics.) ~— Unsigned, by: 81.145.153.190 / talk / contribs –Preceding undated comment was added at 08:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC).
@81: In hedon util, sure. "Life util" would only care about the # of living peeps. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Go forth and multiply, huh? gotta be honest, haven't heard that form of util. before. But the Hardin quote "The moral impulse of utilitarianism is constant, but our decisions under it are contingent on our knowledge and scientific understanding" sums up my general objection to the idea that mankind can create a stable absolute morality, even within a society which unanimously accepted utilitarianism. (really need to create an account at some point) ~— Unsigned, by: 81.145.153.190 / talk / contribs –Preceding undated comment was added at 09:58, 15 February 2016‎ (UTC).

RationalMedia Foundation Board of Trustees election[edit]

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:2016 board of trustees election

Elections proper (after finishing nominations) were apparently supposed to have started in February.

It's February.

Do we wanna do this? If so, what should the timeline be? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need to? I mean, Jesus, we should not be having an election every other fucking month. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. We do.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Why? What's wrong with the trustees currently present? Have they committed some sort of malfeasance that warrants their replacement? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Castaigne: B/C yearly elections? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
For what purpose? I mean that in all seriousness. The RMF is not RW; is there something the RMF is supposed to do that requires yearly elections? As far as I have known, they exist merely to safeguard the brand. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Where can we get some info about what the current board members have been up to since they were voted in in order to evaluate whether or not they are worth voting for again? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea. Minutes and stuff don't appear published. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think they've done much. Current trustees and officers are listed on the RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation page. Many of them are only sporadically active on RW these days and three of them have been gone from the site since about a year ago (trustee ListenerX, chairperson Sterile and secretary Nutty Roux). €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of talking about the editors of a wiki electing people to a board that seems to have no real working relationship with said wiki and its community, we should be re-evaluating the relationship between the editing community and the board. Let the board do their thing, whatever it may be without interference from a community that they don't really seem to have a working relationship with. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Any suggestions for change, AH? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It is hard to make suggestions for change when the status quo is unclear. Gotta know where we're at before we know where we're going. Tell me what the board is up to, and I can think about it. Until then, I got nothing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Gotta agree with the hippie. I assume they're doing a good job? But that's only because I know nothing of what they've been up to. Maybe they're shit stewards of this place and we don't know it. They could be spending all the donation money on hookers and blow (is that what people spend money on?) AyzmoCheers 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that makes a good first plank in the platform for change: they should actually publish minutes (if any) and financial reports (if any). The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that we're talking about the subject; it's nice that The RationalMedia Foundation, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity so donations are tax-deductible, but it'd be nice to know what that money is spent on and what the foundation is doing to earn its "public charity" title. If the answer to the latter is "Well, we have this one wiki set up and basically anyone is allowed to edit there and we let the community manage itself" I'd have to say that that sounds kind of like a scam. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
You could read about their role. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I been here long enough to know what their role is. The question at hand seems to be more along the lines of "Are they fulfilling it? If so, how? If not, why not?" EDIT: "and if not, is there anything we can do to help them fulfill that role, beyond voting once a year for a members of a body we don't hear a lot from?" Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I was referring to 142, since they seem not to know what the RMF role is. I know you know their role. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
142 probably knows their role, too, but wants to know if they're truly fulfilling it (by knowing where the money goes). FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
So, you assume corruption and/or malfeasance, I take it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is whether the foundation is fulfilling its stated role to any noteworthy extent, whether it truly fulfils the legal requirements for being labeled a public charity given its minimal engagement with its prime project and possible negligence in regards to fulfilling its stated role, whether its role shouldn't be revised or some parts of it more strongly stressed to reduce underachievery/neglect and, overall, whether we don't need to completely rethink and rehaul this thing. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
OK. And what personal ambition drives this? And what do you want changed in the RMF to suit it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
My personal ambitions are focused rather exclusively on real-life achievements, actually. Speaking of which, that's kind of what I find lacking about the RMF. What real-life achievements does it have to show for itself? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
An awesum wiki about science and politics with awesum outdated (almost two years) software?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Also gender, ponies and fallacies. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Oh yes, indeed. I lurked here for quite a time, but I didn't want to register an account before all these recent shitfests were not dealt with, lest I become involved in it and possible "collateral damage". Wonder, what the next one will be about.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The RMF has only kept RationalWiki from being wiped from the web by legal suits. And providing the infrastructure for maintenance of the hardware. I think that's plenty of IRL achievement. I'm not looking for them to be the Randian Saviors of Skepticism or some bullshit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
FFS, Just nominate the people you like. When it comes to the election, vote for them. Don't vote for the people you don't like. rpeh •TCE 22:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The cavalry[edit]

I would apparently be the first Board member to read this, judging by the lack of comments from my fellow Trustees. So I'll give it to ya straight (some of you may remember some of this). The reason for the RMF, and hence the Board, is to shield any individual from being the "owner" of the site. If such a person was the owner, and the site was sued by someone (likely a woomeister), that person would be personally liable for defending themselves, and any damages that might be found against the site. As it is, the Foundation is the owner, and the worst that can be done to it is dissolution. In the early years, we were more active, but nowt much came of that passion - skype meetings, extensive agendas, note-taking, and minutes-publishing. Ideas of expanding the "brand" into other media (YouTube videos, alliances with other skeptical organizations, etc.) fell short mostly due to apathy on the part of a userbase centered entirely around the wiki and its immediate feedback/rewards and sense of community. Trent did make one (poorly produced but well conceived) video. In later years the Board has gone years at a time with little more than a few sporadic CC:d emails.

As far as the money, the fundraisers that are run on the wiki basically pay for the site to stay up - everything is so automated (founders were real geeks!) that all that is required is for someone to put up the fundraising banner once or twice a year. To the best of my knowledge, the account has from two to four thousand dollars at any given time, which is about a one-year buffer of operating costs and little else.

The current Board has no officers, has never met, but has exchanged a few emails - mostly over the last idiot who was trying to sue the site's "owner", David Gerard (nice research work there), from jail. We are, however, poised to act the moment any crisis should befall the Foundation.

I'm sure I got a few details wrong, especially on the bank balance. I do know I have an email somewhere with "the keys to the kingdom" in case Trent got hit by a bus (three or four other people have that email too). ħumanUser talk:Human 05:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Good overview -- thanks, insider informant Human.
Two questions:
First, even with automation, wouldn't publishing some tiny Excel financial sheet still be possible?
Second, are there some minimum requirements for the board to exist as a 501c3 entity, like meetings etc.? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 08:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
First, what would we, the wiki users, need with a financial statement? I'm not asking why you would want one; I'm asking about the need for one, it's practical use for us.
Secondly, there are legal filing requirements for a 501c3 entity and that's it. We need to not violate any of the IRS rules on the subject. There is no requirement for meetings, get-togethers, or even regular emails. You can see what's required by the application process. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Castaigne: 1st, perhaps some idea of "accountability"?
2nd, thanks. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok. You want accountability. For what, exactly? The automated list of charges for what is spent on site maintenance? Or do you think someone is siphoning money out of the bank account? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a case where [a] there's nothing to hide (assuming RMF has used money well) and [b] RMF would look a little more respectable if it published stuff like that, which might entice donors. EG: If donors see that 100% of money goes back to RW, they might be a little more willing to give more of said money. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
OK. Do we need more money? And if so, what for?
IE, if it ain't broke, don't fix/change it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
As a New Mexico corporation, isn't THE RATIONALWIKI FOUNDATION, INC. (which I understand is still its legal name per records kept by the New Mexico Secretary of State) legally required to file certain annual financial statements with the New Mexico Secretary of State? I believe the answer is yes. Why then can't those same statements be published here? Well, I suspect it's actually failing to file those statements, since the New Mexico Corporations e-file says it is not in good standing as of today (and I remember looking years ago, and saw the same thing.) It's also interesting that the director list shown in the New Mexico Corporations e-file don't appear to match the current directors. Looks like they are failing at the basics of corporate governance. (((Zack Martin))) 21:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Justice Antonin Scalia has died[edit]

Will the Republican Party want to fight Obama over a Supreme Court vacancy during a presidential election?--Cms13ca 00:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Does the elephant shit in the savannah? Vulpius (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Where're we having the party, er, ah, I mean "wake"? 02:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Feel free to trash my place, it's overdue for a hoovering anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if there's gonna be a recess appointment in the next week or two. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

And Alex Jones thinks Scalia was murdered.--Cms13ca 15:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman beating the cranks at their own game: https://mobile.twitter.com/damnyouwillis/status/699329945781325824166.216.165.79 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well apparently I was not the only one to think this when I heard the news judging by the comments. I hope Obama appoints just about the most liberal and brilliant minority and/or woman he can find. That will give the Republicans a lot of explaining to do come November when they obstruct the appointment.... Pizzameister (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

They've lost the minority vote anyway. But what if they block a white female moderate? Flannan Isle (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Drama[edit]

Cover story nom for Modern Science in the Bible[edit]

Yeah I know I've nommed my own article. See at Talk:Modern Science in the Bible#Cover story (sticky) Anyone got suggestions/comments/improvements/criticism/whatever? --JorisEnter (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't so far picked up anything that needs to be improved about it. Looks like a nice article. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

I removed all uses of the word "rape" as a synonym for "abuse". Removal of any other similar word usage is good idea. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

RW needs to stop cooping/banning editors for content disagreements -- edit wars. It takes two (or more) to tango, and it's often not immediately obvious who the "correct" editor is until the dust (and the evidence!) has settled (EG). Take it to talk, discuss like adults, and when if that fails, then run around whacking each other for being idiots. In general, it's better to protect the mainspace page for a day than to ban the edit-warring editor for a day, because the editor then can still defend their edit on the talkpage. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Discuss like adults." Snort-laugh, move on to next item on my watchlist. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

New edit filter required.[edit]

Getting spam these days that uses US-American style toll-free phone numbers (1-888-XXX-XXXX, 1-800-XXX-XXXX). Can someone with the ability to do so head these guys off at the pass? Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked individual numbers and word groups hey use (tech support, eg) but can't figure out how to block all phone numbers. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Surely you just need to block a few likely variants on 888 and 800 for really new editors? Queexchthonic murmurings 14:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

David Icke[edit]

Claims that FB is kicking him off: "Facebook Shows Its REAL face – They Say They Are Banning David Icke And Deleting His Page With 700,000 Likes". If it's true as stated it sounds wrong (dunno the back story of course). No matter what you think of Icke. Pippa (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Smells fishy, that kinda news does only seem to be snowballed among conspiracy theorist websites. Could be a lie by Icke to style himself into a victim of teh evel lizards (if they're so fucking powerful, why didn't he have an accident already? And when he'll die of natural causes, all the conspiracy wackos gonna claim, it was an assassination).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently it's all over "the Savile-Heath picture", which I can't say much about because I don't wish a virus from one of these green ink shites, but after this it has been reveled that the Rothschild's own 6% of Facebook. Only after they did this, not a peep before, did they find out. So they bought $6 billion of Facebook to get him deleted years after he joined because...well, because he says so I guess :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
So we probably should add this to the article about him as an example of his latest craziness?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
British adult comic VizWikipedia's W.svg has been similarly treated in the last few days[2]. I guess it might be a new FB policy. Just because you're paranoid... --Annquin (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Nooooooo. Not Viz :( . Well played here, though, very well played.--202.169.244.231 (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus vs NASA[edit]

Christers at NASA are pissed because they can't do Christian "calls to prayer" if you will on the NASA speakers, a government agency. The Liberty Institute (Christian ACLU) is trying to legally get 'em, but I'm pretty sure they're good since they're following the Establishment Clause. Christians are oppressed in Murica. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get it, are fundies pissed, because the NASA as a governmental agency can't do "calls to prayer"?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Their Christian employees can't announce for their fellow Christians to (voluntarily) come pray with them, and use the name Jesus in the announcements. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide a link? It would be interesting to see the article you are referring to. I have seen a ton of freakouts about Muslim Calls to Prayer by fundies, including a hoax about Niel Armstrong hearing it on the moon, as well as Malkin flipping out that NASA's logo is a secret Muslim symbol...but this is fairly new. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@TAS, You may want to actually provide sources, because they weren't trying to do a call to prayer over the building loudspeakers, they wanted to include an announcement for a "prayer club" (or something like that) with the theme "Jesus in your life" in a company wide news letter. NASA believed the inclusion of "Jesus" in the announcement was sectarian and violated the establishment clause. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/11/did-nasa-ban-jesus.html Petey Plane (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Lol mate hahahha i'm dead. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The group would be allowed to post the announcement in the newsletter, only without the word "Jesus". This got their panties in a knot, so they hired one of those christian persecution law firms, the ACLJ. Petey Plane (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Haha! How uproarious! Indubitably a jocular response, I am cachinnating incessantly. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Tom Brady the Greatest Quarterback of All Times?[edit]

In case anybody cares, I, Spud, survived the earthquake in Taiwan[edit]

So. you've probably heard about the earthquake in Taiwan in which seven people died. Well, I'm all right. I live in the north of Taiwan but I'm in the central part of the island at the moment for my Chinese New Year holiday. So I'm not very far away from the southern city of Tainan which was worst hit by the quake. I've lived in Taiwan for more than thirteen years and I also lived in Japan for two and a half years. I've lived through a lot of earthquakes. But the one that took place at four o'clock this morning was the longest and most frightening of my life. It felt like the ground had turned to water. Still, I suppose a lot of you live in parts of the world that are prone to quakes. And, anyway, like I said, I'm all right and I'm looking forward to celebrating the Chinese New year with my Taiwanese friends tomorrow. Spud (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're okay. I've never experienced anything more than a strong-ish tremor -- I can't imagine what a serious quake feels like (though we're apparently well overdue for a "big one" 'round these parts.) Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Cool, congratulations! Make sure your Facebook friends are alerted to your survival as well. I definitely told all of my friends when I survived the Nepal earthquake (which wasn't too hard to do, from several continents away). Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Spud. You've lived thorough a lot of earthquakes? Wow! How often do you feel them in that part of the world?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations for remaining among the living despite the earthquake!--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope you have a nice New Year's celebration.173.72.6.153 (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are ok, and I hope it did not cause too much damage or disruption. Family and I are preparing for seollal (Korean ver.) festivities as well. 新年快乐!ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I posted a message on Facebook first, like I always do every time there's an earthquake or a typhoon in Taiwan. How often do we get earthquakes here? Well, there are about two or three small tremors a year. They usually happen when I'm in bed and they usually don't bother me. I know that the buildings here are supposed to be built to withstand them. Small tremors were even more frequent in Japan. I must have experienced about ten in the two and a half years I was there. They almost always happened when I was lying in my futon and I got to quite enjoy them. They were like very short rollercoaster rides. I hope that when I get home next weekend, I don't find any damage to my apartment. One surprising thing that the earthquake did was make my hotel room door come open. I hope the same thing didn't happen to my front door. Thanks for your messages of support and a happy Lunar New Year to everyone who's celebrating it. Spud (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm now back in my apartment in northern Taiwan. Everything is exactly as I left it. Even the dust wasn't moved by the earthquake. Spud (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I add earthquakes to the list of natural disasters the blighty seems to be immune too. With no extreme weather, no extremes of temperature, and the ground is solid beneath my feet, a bit of drizzle is the worst i can expect. Even the flooding we have experienced is more a financial burden rather than live threatening. And do i do like strolling about town with my brolly. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
But parts of Britain were hit by an earthquake not long ago. It was so strong that in some places it was noticed. Who knows how many dozens of objects fell off their shelves? 90.209.214.108 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I live in Singapore, an island state off the southern coast of peninsular Malaya that never experiences any fluctuations in weather or tectonics. As an equatorial climate we only have two monsoon seasons all year round that probably differ by a few millimeters of rainfall and we experience virtually no wind due to the surrounding land masses off our coast. This extremely hospitable condition made our harbour perfect for British colonisation and I suspect, has made our collective political will and imaginative ability rather tepid. Another point I would like to make is something I read in an environmental science book about how there is no such thing as a natural disaster. Disasters are man-made due to the lack of human preparation. We can see how Japan and California suffer major tectonic activity and yeet the destruction they experience is minimal compared to less developed areas like Pakistan or Afghanistan or Nepal.Vajrapani (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay?

Policy question[edit]

So, in general, what is the block policy for new accounts who may have been created in order to influence coop decisions on this wiki even if they make useful contributions to this wiki. The reason I say this is because there have been several new user accounts created after we had our massive coop case.--Owlman (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of an issue insofaras we cannot easily distinguish between legitimate accounts that happened to be created during or just after a coop case, and accounts created for the purpose of influencing the outcome of current or future cases. Until some sort of policy is propose for determining likely intent, I see any block policy as having a bit hurdle to overcome. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The Politburo must be PURGED of all counter-revolutionaries, Bourgeois, Suppression persons, and spies at ALL COSTS! DEATH IS TOO GOOD FOR THEM --Revolverman (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Considering my admiration of Dzerzhinsky, you really shouldn't go there. ;) --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Not the policy but should be: coop votes should be limited to those with an established history of quality mainspace edits. Bongolian (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
See RW:CS. Voting requires Eligible user status, which requires 75 edits and 3 months since account creation. That's a lot of dedication for a small amount of power. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 07:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Bongolian (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised at the effort someone goes to in order to create drama.--Owlman (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Owlman. It's well-known that our favorite trolling site has created sleeper accounts for later fun and games. While I'm not sure any action really needs to be taken, it would behoove us to keep an eye out. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I dont think a troll needs to make any effort to create drama here. I suspect the usual suspects actually want the drama, thrive on it. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
We generate our drama ourselves.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Well of course we create our own drama, but it would seem somewhat unfair to allow socks to vote against a user in a coop. Now I am not saying that these new accounts are socks, but it would seem likely that they are.--Owlman (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
That's one of many reasons that simple "voting" is a silly idea, reasoned arguments, discussion, and eventual consensus should hold sway, ideally. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Crazy Leftists attack a British Police Station[edit]

Really interesting, leftist anti-gentrification protestors in London assault a cop shop. Some leftists are less intelligent than others. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Old news old son. 86.27.65.218 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
"Crazy" leftists? Seems like your average protest to me.
And now I know what they're on about. Sounds like standard crap to me. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It is enlightening to read the comments on the video since half are along the lines of murdering people for having the audacity to be "leftists". I don't agree with the actions but if my community suffered the same issues for the last 35 years from the first riots on the same exact subject, and moving to new council housing was delayed till they were constructed "maybe in the next 4 years or so", I would be pretty fricken mad. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I just don't think this was very intelligent. I understand they police protests/riots and make arrests on some of the disorderly protestors and this may be infuriating, but what is attacking their station going to do? I doubt they would've been able to move freely even if they got in, due to the resistance the constables would give them. I doubt this encouraged the constables to be more lenient on the movement in the future when their protests get disorderly. Tell me why I'm wrong. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it's been more than 35 years since it was in the papers, I mean, the Clash lyrics... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but 1981 was the last major riot. I agree that it's not likely to do much, even be counter productive, but civilly protesting for 3 decades did nothing...what's the next step once you exhaust all those options? Keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results? When people run out of options to be heard they get desperate and I understand that. -15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Federal Funding[edit]

Obama removed federal funding for abstinence only programs. [3] 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Beautiful. I hope it sticks. 173.72.6.153 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Wait, this is Obama's budget proposal, not the actual budget. He's proposed cuts to abstinence-only sex education before and they never passed. 166.216.165.91 (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope it keeps going, abstinence only doesn't work and that conclusion has been around for awhile. Colorado's implementation of education and access to birth control on the other hand is a wild success. So why keep the funding for abstinence only? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Are totalitarian countries & ideologies (especially their ideologies) essentially cults[edit]

Just wondering if I should add stuff like nazism and Nazi Germany's to our cults category.--Jakester499 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The general answer is "no, you shouldn't" - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
They are cults of personality when it is focused on a single leader. However, not all dictatorships foster personality cults, while not all personality cults are practiced in dictatorships. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
"Cult of personality" isn't the same as "a cult" in the religious sense. If you equivocate these the category becomes meaningless, and we have more than enough meaningless categories already. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Similarly, 'Mystery cult' is a specific term distinct from the general 'cult'. Although, Scientology happens to be both. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Why I want the Democrats to disappear[edit]

After reading that article by the Nation I am now convinced that the Democrats must get out of the way. All of its members have become lobbyists from Dean, to Dodd, to Frank, to Reid, and soon to Obama. I didn't use to believe this, but it started after Smerdis submitted that Reason article about how the New Democrats were like the Republicans in the '90s; my faith had already been shaken after reading articles like our essay on Obama's supposed leftism which definitely needs to be updated. Now with all this BS about how debates, superdelegates, and how Sanders is not a True Democrat (fucking partyarchs) I am convinced that the Democrats are much worse compared to the Republicans because the pretend to be for change when they are really just for moneyed interests while the average voter most vote for them out of fear that the Republicans will do much worse; this cycle only makes more anger and resentment as the Republicans propaganda spews more rightwing vitriol that the Democrats are too weak to fight and will most likely just adopt while the left withers in apathy and callousness. I now wish Sanders ran as an independent for the first time in his campaign and I urge to do so if the Democrats continue to push him out. I am glad my state has an open primary because I plan on staying an independent for the entirety of my life. I would like to hear from the rest of the userbase on their opinion to the Democrats now; we have multiple perspectives here from center right and libertarian to liberal and leftist.--Owlman (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

you appear to have a choice between one group of cunts and another. Such is democracy - the least egregious wins AMassiveGay (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Meh. If you're disgusted with national politics and moneybags (which I also think is doubtful, but hey), try working with your statewide Dems. Usually they really do care about change and don't have the moneyed backing of the national level. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 14:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Dems have always been the party of unbridled corruption. Just that the repubs are now the party of religiously ordained corruption. Want a real solution? Voter reform so that third party options are viable. None of this spoiler crap; if the front runner has between 1/X and 1/(X+1) votes, a second election takes place immediately with only the top X candidates, repeated until only one remains. Front runner has 30% of votes? Second election with only the top 3. Make it so that it's done with the vote itself, eg, your choice is Alice then Bob, but if Alice is eliminated it goes to Bob. StickySock (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I know the Dems have never been a labor party. I sorta regret posting this rant, but I personally know several people who will vote for Trump and I can't imagine how the Dems beat him. Also, Fuzzy, I live in a red state so most of the Dems here are quite conservative.--Owlman (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I vote for whoever the moneyed interests I work for favor. Kinda sorta how it goes when you work in private land. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
As Dick Armey said, "Republicans live in fear the American people will misunderstand their real intentions.....Democrats live in fear that the American people just may understand what their real intentions are..." nobsLewinsky 2020 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I have found that not to be the case, be it for Republicans or for Democrats. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I am not understanding this, but what it seems like to me is that the big underlying issue in there is the money in politics. If the traditional parties "disappear" and get created with new names the ability for big money interests to buy people with large donations hasn't been affected. Without getting rid of things like Citizens United that allow this purchasing it is like changing the name of the symptoms instead of curing the disease. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The choice still remains, Owlman. You could vote for the party that holds the right stances on gay rights, religion, abortion, environmental issues, and healthcare; our you could not. Sure Democrats are wimps on the economy. They've been that way since Nixon. But you still should support the lesser of 2 evils. Stalin vs Hitler. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stalin killed a damn sight more people than Hitler ever did. And he ruined socialism for everybody else. Definitely not the lesser of those two particular evils. (62 million vs 6 million - the shoah was one of the worst things humanity has done, yet comrade Stalin managed to be 10 times worse))
I do believe money in politics is a massive detriment to any potential for the reforms StickySock wants would be slowed in their tracks; both parties make enjoy gerrymandering, Super PACs, lobbying job guarantees, first past the post, the electoral college, etc. You can blame this all on moneyed interests, but none of that caused the Dems to swift right ward or exploit the flawed voting system the US has. Oh and Pb that is definitely an awful analogy since Stalin caused just as much genocide and democide as Hitler... so no kill them both. If I fear the consequences from both parties, but one supports my interests more then the other then that isn't much of a choice, at least not a rational one.--Owlman (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry to say it but: The US constitution just sucks. Many of the problems the US now experiences are inherent in the design of the constitution which will automatically lead to a two party system with all its negative consequences. Add money in politics to the equation and you get what we have. However, wimpy leftists who betray their principles at every chance are not limited to the US. Just look at Hollande, Zapatero, Papandreou, Blair and all the other alleged socialists and social democrats. Pizzameister (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the Dems were never leftists, but they tolerated them within the party for awhile; now they want to eject all of the progressives from Sanders to Grayson. Also Evo Morales has done a very good job AFAIK in Bolivia, but you could always be a left communist and do it simultaneously.--Owlman (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's quite the odd analogy to lump in the Democrats with the (originally) socialist/social democratic parties whose leaders Pizzameister just mentioned. The Dem.s are more analogous to the British Lib.Dem.s, German FDP, or some of the centrist/liberal parties in France (e.g. the former UDF or the current Centrist Alliance or Democratic Movement). In Spain, Ciudadanos is probably the closest equivalent among the major parties, whereas Greece has no obvious equivalent among its major parties (the Union of Centrists is probably the one that comes closest amongst its larger parties).
However, I agree that the left (a relative term referring to the progressive FDR'esque Dem.s in the US and the various socialist/social democratic parties in Europe) has shown a pitiful record since the late 1980s/early 1990s when it comes to basically standing up for their core idea(l)s as these parties have essentially bought into the neoclassical/-liberal dogma of market equilibrium and supremacy. This means that they have, in practice, assented to the right's basic view of the economy and the preeminence of the unfettered market as a guiding principle; even if they have different conceptions about how large the public sector's supporting function should be. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
What the US needs is a reform allowing 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on parties to have a real chance (and since the 2 parties would never do that, how should this kinda reform happen?) and especially no election thresholds in the parliament, that only leads to stagnation.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The only way I can see of that ever happening without significant political violence (which in the US has rarely ever lead to anything good) is a constitutional convention... Pizzameister (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If we were to reform the parties, I would have them look like this in order to better represent the views of the American populace:
Republican Party (far right on economic and social issues) - 30%
Libertarian Party (far right on economic and left on social issues) - 20%
Democratic Party (left on economic and social issues) - 30%
Socialist Party (far left on economic and social issues) - 20%
I think this would be the best actual break down of the American public on their views. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I dont think you can decide what parties there should be. They should arise naturally from the support they have. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I think organizing the political system into parties is completely pointless if they're just gonna devolve into capricious, opportunistic, self-centered interest groups. When the people are solely nominally represented, there is nothing democratic about a representative democracy. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
And how you'd propose to prevent that?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Simple: by not having any political parties. Which you could do by going full direct democracy (though that has some potential disadvantages to it as well) or through a tad more complicated system. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:07, 16 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Just to clarify I generally like liberal parties like the Dems where classical liberals and social liberals combine in order to promote economic liberalism; in the Dems case they have mostly driven out social liberals and leftists and appear to be more subversive towards changing the status quo which causes them to be a bigger problem, in the long term, than a solution.--Owlman (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There are reasons for what is wrong with politics in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_law as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law That's what's wrong lady's and gents... 79.194.12.19 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pretty good analysis/summary of my earlier point about "the left's" problematic adoption of neoclassical/-liberal economic outlooks: European Left face a Dystopia of their own making from the Australian economist Bill Mitchell's billy blog (Modern Monetary Theory … macroeconomic reality). The comments' section of that particular entry also includes an interesting early characterisation of the issues with converting what is really a political view of economics into what is presented as a technocratic (pseudo)scientific view in the guise of a December 1998 article by Pierre BourdieuWikipedia's W.svg in Le Monde diplomatiqueWikipedia's W.svg entitled Utopia of Endless Exploitation: The essence of neoliberalism. It's a bit "heavy" to read as well as being a bit on the long side (written by a French sociologist...), but well worth the slog nevertheless. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it is hard for me to imagine a way for the Democrats to reform; they are just a part of the problem at this point. I definitely breaks me to see people like Howard Dean and John Lewis shilling for various corporations. I hadn't realized how ingrained neoliberalism has become in Europe.--Owlman (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Name this ferret[edit]

New ferret.jpg

Help me name this ferret. I've had him over two weeks, which is far too long not to have a name. For whatever reason I didn't find a good name for him in the first few days & now that I've got used to him being around it's difficult to mentally associate a name with him. I've thought of various possibilities but none that I'm really happy with. It has to suit him & not be something kitsch or cheesy. For context: he's a young ferret, rather timid & not very active; sleeps a hell of a lot, even by ferret standards; very cuddly & docile; I can put him on my lap & stroke him like a cat & he just lies there & dozes, which is unusual for a ferret. Anyhoo, your name suggestions are welcome. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm partial to Spade Quidnunc. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Lap Parasite, of course. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_Van_Winkle Rip Van Winkle, alternatively Rip or Winkle Lightning Dust (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Sredni Vashtar.Spud (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Sid.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Large mouse-like object, obvs брэндэн (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ferret is 'Mustela putorius furo', so maybe 'Puto' or 'Furo'? Worm (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Puto is a Filipino ricecake or a male prostitute in Spanish, so no. Furo is a Japanese bath. I quite like Furio, but no for this guy; he's far too gentle. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I personally dislike how people sometimes seem obsessed with giving everything a name, and then often come up with the most mundane names you can imagine. Worst is when people name stuff after themselves. But since you're asking... "Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:13, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
I could name him after myself, but it would be a bit confusing. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Only to other people, unless you regularly refer to yourself by your given name. Ooh, how about "Somnus, the God of Slumber"? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
I do talk to myself by name quite a lot. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Lord Wesley Farthington of Exetershire, the most British name I could think of. Or just Wesley. StickySock (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Most British name? Depends what part of Britain. Wesley is an English name, but it's more popular in the states. Scotland has a lot of James/Jamies, Wales has some pretty unique names like Brin, as does Ireland (Proinsias). If I remember rightly the most common pan-british names are Harry and Mohammed.
Saki. Save Sredni Vashtar for times when he needs a good talking-to. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald. As in, The Donald. (((Zack Martin))) 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hell no. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You can name the mice it eats Donald. As for the ferret, Jonas, as in Jonas Salk? Norman Borlaug? Vasili Arkhipov, the guy that prevented nuclear Armageddon? Stanislaw Petrov, the other guy that prevented nuclear Armageddon? StickySock (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You can name him "Adolf Donald Stalin Al-Assad, The Great Furry Redeemer of Names". ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Judging by the user names folk found here have chosen for themselves, i wonder why would you think anyone here could up with a decent name for your pet when most cannot manage it for themselves. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, mine's a nickname others gave to me. Also, "Ferry," the ferret version of "Narky," ain't so bad. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 22:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hamlet. As in, "Methinks it is like a weasel." Act 3, scene 2. Nowhere Man (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Avalokitesvara (or the Tibetan name for him, Chenreizin) - mythology names for pets are best names. Plus if he's as gentle as you say, who better than the Bodhisattva of compassion? Also it can abbreviate to 'kitty' which is cute. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Humanoid. Flannan Isle (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Slitherfluff. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a part of Hogwarts that JK Rowling crossed out at an early stage. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Firtle. Verb. To appear busy but without actually achieving anything, to tinker, to do a task which is seen as a waste of time. E.g."He's been firtling in the shed all morning." Sphincter (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you decide on a name? We are agog. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The ferret's name is Smokey. Probably. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
As a Motown fan I heartily approve. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For those who frequent the Reactionary + Atheist subcultures[edit]

Pretty accurate/funny overall. RW seems like it's there 'cuz its sarcasm came off as snobby.

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Embed's broken. Source works, though. I'm shocked Apple isn't there as well as Android! Way to take sides, image maker, jeez. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 01:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
"Pretty accurate[...]" lmao thought you were serious at first. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

...Is that... Is that Airwolf? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 05:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the attack helicopter meme? ~ Aneris 06:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
An Ah-64D Longbow. Petey Plane (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, they also added GradeAunderA... What the hell is Pornhub doing here though?--JorisEnter (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that it's satire but it doesn't really make much sense to me. I mean even the title of the section... what is an atheist subculture? Neckbeards and shit? Reactionary + Atheist? Is FCP saying reactionary atheists or reactionaries AND atheists as separate groups? GradeaUnderA is somebody I liked before it was cool, and he doesn't really seem to be a reactionary from what I've seen nor somebody who claims to be this person of superior intellect like them fedora euphoric guys. I think h3h3 is some kind of reaction/prank/social experiment channel from my memories. Don't see what that has to do with atheism or reactionaries, please enlighten me. TheAmazingAtheist is self explanatory. I'm pretty sure Pornhub is there because they're trying to stay that most of these "superior intellect" people jerk off....to pornography, possibly in a derogatory sense. Not entirely sure. Capitalism, marvel, Mad Max, Swedish flag, an Astronaut (a movie?), "CUCK" (I assumed they were talking about typical reactionary views of Sweden "betas" until I decided it was too far away from the flag). Rationalwiki is usually quite Rational but is getting a certain reputation, in fact I just saw a semi-active subreddit of ex-editors trashing RW. Sargon of Akadd, like Tj Kirk is a reactionary and is against feminism. Not sure why RW would be on that list, RW is very much in line with some of the latest Social Justice. In fact RW is so left many would say it can't be right (get it?). I don't know who the good looking hair guy is, but he resembles Milo (a famous conservative, he actually got drunk with Sargon or the other British reactionary, pretty sure it was Sargon). He is opposed to feminists as well so I'm pretty sure it's him. Considering the views of many users here I wonder if we have an article on him. Not sure who the dark-haired beard guy is. Gamergate. An image of what appears to be part of the Constition. Mr Robot (not sure why it's there, it's about hacking and anarchy so maybe that's why, esp considering 4chan was the birth of anonymous?). /r/4chan I can understand, but I think the amount of 4chan users in the reactionary movements is exaggerated. Not sure what the STEM image is. TopGear, Al, MP, other seemingly random shit and "problematic" Richard Dawkins. Seems like they went through the browsing history of a random atheist with reactionary sympathies. Is there something I'm missing here? If so, it's probably pretty big 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a parody of Reddit's primary demographics instead. Not "Athiesm+Reactionary" just stuff that's frontpagable on /r/all for a while.Keter (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It's playing up to the asshole rationalist trope, that's all, nothing particularly obtuse. Of course, the joke is on those self-proclaimed 'superior intellects' who are just riding on the coattails of people they think are really clever (rightly or wrongly) but assume that mantle of rationality for their own badly-thought-out ideas. Hence why NdGT and Weird Al and Monty Python are mixed in with Pornhub and Top Gear and marijuana. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that macro sums up the modern 16-24 year-old 4chan intellectual. Needs a picture of Gaben though. Petey Plane (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I dont get this image, is it supposed to be satirical? Even so, some of the pictures included don't make any sense. For example, what does STEM, GradeAunderA, Jontron, or h3h3 have anything to do with it? Sierra Nav
Bleh. Are we supposed to mock everything in the image now because some people we don't like are sort of associated with them? Besides, I thought these people hated Mad Max for having women in it.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Update our block policy[edit]

We need to update our block policy ASAP. This whole coop case against Castaigne2 has become a gigantic shitshow. This user changed the proposal Pb put forth and deleted the more "moderate" proposal in order to only he could tip the voting in his favor. This shit should cause an immediate permaban.--Owlman (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur, the contemporary blocking guidelines are ever so passé. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
In the previous coop case yesterday (can't be arsed to find the diff) Castaigne impersonated me by trying to add my vote somewhere by "faking" my signature. The wiki software gives you the power, but with this power comes a certain level of responsibility, and personally, I feel that impersonating a user should at the very east constitute an immediate (temporarily) ban without a coop case. Then again, who cares what I think these days ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, no. It wasn't to tip the voting in my favor. It was to put it to what FCP actually wants and proposes, thanks. And if you want it to be more severe, you should immediately make it more severe and count all votes that have been made as applying to that severity. If a person is in favor of the one, there is NO reason why they shouldn't be in favor of the other. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The deletion was after the 2nd-section voters switched to the 1st section; no harm done. The section title change is gross, but probably not bannable. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

But shouldn't it be. I mean this whole wiki seems doomed to infighting since the rules are so hypocritically applied.--Owlman (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I am in qualified assent with Owlman's lasted statements. Great post comrade. коммунисты выносит этой вики 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

First to Castaigne2: You damn well were trying to tilt the vote. Just look at the comments of people there: "permaban!? No!" (Paraphrasimg). Also, how do you know what FuzzyCatPotato thinks? Is this a new psychic power you've gained as the result of a particle collider incident? You should not put words in people's mouths or claim you know what they "really want". That's bullshit, Castaigne. Cut it out. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If this user can get away with changing votes, impersonating users, and changing coop proposals then this wiki will be unmanageable. Either we will end up becoming unable to ban anyone again or our hypocrisy will be so evident that no one will trust our userbase; no matter which option occurs we end up losing any respect we still have on the internet. FCP, you are mod who is concerned about how we are viewed of site so I ask you, who will want to join a wiki who's rules are useless when a user can just violate them whenever; how do we protect our userbase when a user harasses them and edit wars constantly? I thought we were a mobocracy, but, apparently, one user or a bloc of users can easily manipulate whatever they want on this wiki and get away with it.--Owlman (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Owlman, can you further elaborate on what you mean by a small groups of users manipulating things? Not the ongoing problem, but any other examples of this happening? Thx товарищ 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Shit like this happened when Ryulong was still a user here, but even when he was finally banned that someone removed him from the vandalbin using a secret account only available to the mods; at that time we only had two mods because Paravant and Goonie resigned and we hadn't just yet elected new ones.--Owlman (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I remember. Just so you know I didn't mean to doubt the truthfulness of your claims I was just looking for a specific example. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it's fine. I just refuse to let more BS like this continue since we have already lost so many contributors over this infighting.--Owlman (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
FCP has wanted a permaban for me for about 9-10 months now. The problem is, you're rather new and so you don't know the history. You have to look back at when most of this stuff started, 4-5 years ago, and keep it all in mind, tracking the conversations, intentions, and so on. You can't operate from part of the whole cloth. Not that you might care to, that's your business certainly, but whys and wherefores and whathows are easy to discern when one tracks associations, conversations, actions, emails, and so on.
For instance, you can track the arguments, rivalries, and splits of all drama-tracking communities today back to factions on LJDrama back in the day. Even the chans. It's a good exercise in the continuity of things; I recommend trying it as a project some time. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondly, yes there should be a significant update to the block policy. It should probably be debated and delineated at the coop after this Castaigne shitshow is over. I would support temporary bans for impersonating other editors and attempting to sway a coop vote through subversive edits. Who's with me? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New thing on the bloc are also serious false allegations that are knowingly posted. It takes someone five seconds to poison the well, but others take a lot of time to clear up these misconceptions. By the time they made five new ones. ~ Aneris 03:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you offer an example of what you're saying? I'd like to know who has done this before. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand...[edit]

Do we need to update our block policy, or do users need to learn how to conduct themselves in a way that reflects the approach to community building and maintenance that the existing block policy was designed to encourage? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That was a potent jab Hippie, you owned them lmao. They're going to most likely require the immediate assistance of a whambulance I would recommend somebody contact the Mythbusters because it's obvious that AgingHippie is ADAM SAVAGE!!!!! Ohhh! 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Again I wanted to change the block policy to allow for immediate bans after user(s) meddle with coop cases in order to prevent themselves or others from being punished.--Owlman (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. You see, and I hate to sound like the "Hey-You-Kids-Get-Off-Of-My-Lawn" guy, here, but when we wrote up the guidelines covering things like the Coop and blocking, there was a basic underlying assumption that our user base consisted largely of actual grown-ups who didn't need rules to prevent obviously stupid and childish behaviour when it came to Relatively Serious Business. It didn't always work, butr when it didn't, we were often able to deal with it like the actual grown-ups we were, not by drafting new rules. Some of the new kids on our block might want to go deep, deep into the archives to see how a mobocracy, when comprised of something other than Drama Queens, actually functioned. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, grandpa, sorry, but this ain't your wiki anymore. Now jokes aside most of the Old Guard™ aren't here anymore. Now I absolutely believe that the mobocracy works, but with new mods and new users we are going to have to update our policies. When people refuse to have an "adult conversation" and instead decide to vandalize the coop then something should happen immediately and not later.--Owlman (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to draw a parallel between this situation and burglary. If you live in a high crime neighborhood, it would be a worthwhile investment to get a watchful dog and lock your doors, and possibly purchase a baton or pepper spray. Likewise, if we are living in a high-vandalism/misbehavior area, RationalWiki, then it would be worthwhile to implement policies that make it easier to weed out bad people to make more room for good, decent contributors. If someone is trying to impersonate another user in a malicious way, they should be banned for a period. Attempting to sway a coop case in any way other than simple comments and voting? Immediate short-term ban. Why aren't these policies already in place? Largely because these circumstances have only arisen within the past year. They should be implemented by community consensus. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

One thing's for sure: there seems to be a lot of misinformation around about who has actually been banned. The last few days I've seen users stating that Ryulong, Landmartian, Carpetsmoker & Avengerofthe BoN have been permabanned, all false & all left uncorrected by other editors. It seems like something is a bit wrong when the community has such a poor memory it can't distinguish between "was unpopular & stopped showing up here" and "got kicked out by us". ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that I said that Avenger got vandalbinned and that he was temporarily banned for antisemitism and edit warring.--Owlman (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Checking out that coop case, isn't it wonderful that it ran under 14 hours, and the same person was the accuser, the judge, and the executioner? We have become so efficient! ħumanUser talk:Human 06:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well Castaigne2 had screwed with the coop case which should have resulted in at least a temporary ban, but this coop case shouldn't have ended so early.--Owlman (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In case you care, after 48 hours an the result did not change, but the amount of shit spewed drastically fell. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I do care, and I don't know where those extra 35 hours you are counting came from - after the resolution and action was announced? I am glad you were able to reduce the shit spewing. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That is true I just don't like to create exceptions. I have full faith in your handling of that coop case btw, Fuzzy.--Owlman (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Nightly News[edit]

Wow, apparently Larry Wilmore's show is doing poorly. I haven't watched his show much, but apparently he has an anti-intellectual and anti science feel to it; he allowed a woman push anti-vaccination conspiracy theories on his show, allowed a comedian to make rape jokes and berated a woman about her views against the death penalty, and has been shoehorning racial issues, mostly African American, on the show w/o context (an accusation I am uncomfortable with since I have only seen it on Reddit). His AMA was particularly angry about his dismissal of NASA's discovery of water in Mars. Apparently, Trevor Noah' The Daily Show has also underperformed, but the only complaints I could find were that he is too calm and doesn't have a lot of panels (I haven't watched a lot of his show either). I was curious if anyone here has watched or still watches either show since it disappoints me since I grew up watching Colbert and Stewart.--Owlman (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think my problem with him is that his sketches lack wit. Colbert was perfect since he was an absurd character of a right wing pundit/caster, but whenever a sketch character shows up, it goes too far to the point of being uncanny. The panel segment, as interesting as that sounds, is two nightly show contributors and some celebrity, which is BORING. Talking about the subject is trying too hard to be laced with comedy and as much as Bill Maher has problems, the extended format is much easier to listen to. The most interesting thing that has happened on the show was Neil deGrasse Tyson rapping in a tee-shirt (damn does that man have some guns!).
As for the Daily Show, I like Trevor and think he's fine. While he's not as much an everyman as Jon was, he's still rather pleasant to hear him joke up the show. He does feel like he has less...I dunno, energy? than Stewart, but I still like him. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I watched some of his episodes at the start of Black History Month and I found them thoughtful, but generally unfunny. Mike Yard is probably the best part of the show and I really like his persona. I am curious how well Samantha Bee's show is going to be, but I will probably stick with John Oliver because he has that angry appeal over several topics and his show is on YouTube.--Owlman (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't like or watch Noah or Wilmore. Colbert used to be pretty funny, and I still chuckle at him sometimes, but his new off-character is not any good, too tame and network-y. He was edgy in the past, and that's what made him great. Maher used to be a giant, but now he's an aging giant. I still watch his show. Kimmel and Fallon just aren't funny to me at all. Letterman was funny because of how lame his entire show was. Ferguson's ok. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Kind of agreed. I find Wilmore and Noah to be very hit more miss on individual stories, where they are either a rare gem of humor or a flop. Colbert had much better jokes, and set ups, instead of just presenting it to audiences now. Oliver tries a bit hard but the humor helps the subject matter that can sometimes be horrifying, and doesn't take himself seriously at all. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't you dare say anything bad about Noah.Keter (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I have only watched one episode of Noah's TDS, but I tend to only watch Olver at this point mostly because I almost never watch TV anymore.--Owlman (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There are a few important factors they don't take into account. Larry is a relative newcommer to hosting his show, and has only just been on for a year. It takes a while to build up credibility and popularity. Colbert, on the other hand, is a known name brand with a lot of history and weight behind it. I don't think it's particularly fair to judge the Nightly show against the Colbert report. Shows usually take a year or so to get on their feet, it's a constant effort of refinement. And then once a show gets good, it's a matter of getting people to watch out. The Nightly Show has had a few prolific guests, so it hasn't been doing too terribly on that front, it's just an incredible uphill struggle. I imagine Trevor Noah is going to face similar issues, but he at least has the brand of the Daily Show behind him. I personally watched him for a few weeks before getting bored-- it doesn't have any bite to it. I decided to stick with the Nightly show, which has gotten pretty good, in my opinion, despite a few snags here and there. Trevor's got at least another year to give his show a solid foundation. It just takes time. Plus it seems a little dubious to retread months old controversy for article fodder. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 00:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, looks like Nye's going to be on the show again tonight and they're making fun of themselves over his other appearance. Slick move. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 02:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Harper Lee and Umberto Eco[edit]

Getting tired of this year already. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Umberto Eco too! That means I have to update more pages on some literature-themed wikis on which I'm an admin. I feel a bit like a ghoul but it has to be done. And, of course, although both Signior Eco and Ms. Lee are gone their writings live on. Spud (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

RIP. Typhoon (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Today, with the Trump-mania in the US, and the rise of far-right views and political parties in Europe, Eco's writing about "Ur-Fascism" is more relevant than ever before. Typhoon (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Silver Ring Thing affected by European data protection law[edit]

(So apparently I still have to remove myself manually as a webmaster, and I neglected to do that, and no-one else removed me - so I'll be doing that now) I got another email from Google. Silver Ring Thing has been removed from search results for certain queries because of the stupid new European data protection law. I don't know which queries, but it's not Denny Pattyn (rationalwiki's page appears on the 7th page, and google shows a notice that some results may have been removed due to the law), and it's probably Lydia Playfoot, because "Lydia Playfoot site:rationalwiki.org" returns no results for me (someone outside Europe can check if this returns a result for them to confirm). Here's the full email: File:Silver ring theory capture.PNG. -- Nx / talk 06:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The search works for me here in North America. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Does this have to do with the right to privacy laws?--Owlman (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's the link in the email with more info: https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch -- Nx / talk 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, it's probably Lydia Playfoot. I get no results on google.ie, but Silver Ring Thing is the first (and only) result on google.com. 37.228.230.113 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
In addition, a lot of news articles are missing from Google.ie, that are available on Google.com for Lydia Playfoot. Here's a screenshot of Google.ie vs Google.com 37.228.230.113 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-English Sources[edit]

I think this has been discussed but there is nothing I found on the referencing help. Can you use Non-English-speaking sources? I want to use a statement made by the Swedish Revolutionary Front's website about their principles. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if it's all that's available. I would be reticent if it were a newbie editor editing controversial topics (trying to sneak in racist/sexist/hate speech sort of stuff...) but if it's a primary source that quotes what a subject actually says, it should be cool. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd say yes, if there's literally nothing in English and it's essential to the article. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain something to me? (Not trying to be stupid here)[edit]

Why do they say Iowa is a key state to win when it has so few electoral votes? Michigan or Florida would seem more like key states due to higher amounts of electoral votes.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

First impression. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it is a pretty terrible indicator for the Republicans and it isn't at all representative in just about any US demographic; the caucus system is always just plain shit and the Democrats have an extremely outdated system with superdelegates. Mainly, people want to see how viable a candidate is within their respective party and almost no one has won without Iowa or New Hampshire.--Owlman (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't like me then don't reply. It is not that hard.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, I think Fuzzy meant that Iowa represents a first impression for any candidate.--Owlman (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Owlman is right about Fuzzy addressing your question and not your person, Rationalzombie94.
To elaborate a bit and adding my 2 cents' worth, Iowa isn't as much about who wins, but about which candidates end up doing so terribly in the caucus that they are no longer seen as viable, or, conversely, doing so well that they become viable.
This year, for instance, it confirmed that the donkey race would be between Hillary and Bernie, cutting out O'Malley. In the elephant clown car, it illustrated that Trump really could get votes (not just poll numbers) and that neither Bush nor Fiorina were able to, as well as cementing Cruz as the evangelical candidate to the detriment of Huckabee and Santorum.
So, Iowa (and New Hampshire, for that matter) is more of a rough sorting mechanism that helps kill off the lame horses, not one for picking the eventual winners. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
don't overlook the extent to which these things matter more than they did a generation ago, now that the 24-hour news cycle and online news sources need content to fill their outlets and thus give more coverage to events that were previously granted less of a share of the public eye -- thereby making those events more "important." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the case, AH, since the early primaries are (relatively) spread out, e.g. with about a week between Iowa and New Hampshire, and Nevada/South Carolina a further two/three weeks later. Even in the "age of of print" that would have left plenty of time for pundits to weigh in.
I think that the 24-hour news cycle's importance is more indirect: Given the endless speculation, hype, polling, and interpretation of the preliminary primary debates, the early primaries gain an added focus as they function as a sort of cathartic relief where "real" voting finally begins to reduce the field.
Still, I'll happily admit that this is pure speculation on my part, as I haven't done the historical groundwork (reading old newspaper coverage etc.) to back up this notion, so, take it for what it's worth. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
If I had time, I'd go to the archives of the WaPo and the NYT or some of the broadcast news archives and see how intensely they covered the primaries up to the 80s or so as compared to now (seeing as we can't compare how intensely CNN or HuffPo did back then...) to see if my idea is worth anything; but I bet the 2016 primaries got more column inches in both those papers than the 1976 ones did, and probably starting weeks earlier. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I think more people are paying attention to the primaries this year than back in 2012 because of Trump and Sanders, but I could be wrong.--Owlman (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
My bad, I misread. Thanks for the info--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
They've been a pretty big deal in the news for quite a while. The NH schtick is the retail politicking - small state, plenty of time, etc. Anyone who puts a little effort into it in this state has shaken the hand of every President during their lifetime, if not literally eaten breakfast with them. As far as 2012, the D primary was irrelevant, killing at least half the news. Back to why they "matter", I'm guessing IA is similar, but at least in NH the candidates have to appeal to voters "in person" (not so much the breakfasts, but endless rallies, meetings, speeches, etc.) rather than just run TV ads. None of the later, larger states can tell if someone is a creep/cretin/charmer in person. Also our weather is supposed to kill off the weak ones. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Limeys and Euros[edit]

As many of you already know David Cameron is calling for his promised EU referendum to be on the June 23 according to RT UK, the Telegraph, BBC, CBS, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNFOP, The Star Online, RuplyTV, Press Association, Euronews, etc. Figured I put this out here to spread the info. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the UK should be entirely a part of the EU without any reservations. I'm glad people are getting a vote though. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Being part of the continental EU, I'm getting kinda annoyed by the special treatment the Brits get. I mean, opting out on one issue or two is ok if there really is a need for that... after all, we're talking about a continental union with different culures and quite a colorful history between its constituents, but the UK is overusing that and is still dissatisfied. No hard personal feelings against the UK, but we'll see what they get from all this. --Imaginative username (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I know you mean specifically the UK but let's not forget there are Brits on the Iberian Peninsula. :) 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and it's pretty irritating that many of us don't get to vote!--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Who? Are you a Brit on the Iberian Peninsula? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a long term expat on the northern coast. Are you in a similar position?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, but best of luck to you mate. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
A Dutch columnist from The Guardian pulls off the gloves and writes that It’s time for Europe to turn the tables on bullying Britain. I can't say I'm entirely unsympathetic to his stance or impervious to the logic behind it. Must say I'm a bit fed up with the populist moaning from the UK about how eveything is the EU's fault, replete with, in my opinion, completely unrealistic views of the UK's international "muscle" if it was to go it alone. Fine, then leave, but don't expect to be able to free ride and enjoy the open market access with none of the responsibilities. At most, the U.K. should get a "Norwegian solution" where it would have to adopt a ton of EU regulations without having any say in their design in exchange for access to the EEA.Wikipedia's W.svg Oh, and did I mention that this also involves having to contribute financially to the EEA/EU "common pot"? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Good to know that they'd have to pay and accept regulations with a "Norwegian solution" too. I'm not that into economics in general, I was worried that they'd get free access without significant obligations. Well, all I know is that most, if not all economists say that it would be a really bad idea, economy-wise, to leave the EU, and that there's more populism ("I can't buy a pint in a pub anymore! I have to ask for half a litre!") than everything else behind the discussion. Does somebody know how Scotland sees the issue? Maybe an EU exit will give new wind for the scottish independence movement... --Imaginative username (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Brits, I know you guys want to be the 51st state, but President Trump is going to build a wall to keep you furrniers out! --Ymir (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I would vote to remain, but I wouldn't terribly miss EU membership. It'd just be one less election day. Free User licensed under the GPL 23:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
For lefty Limeys needing arguments in favour of a Brexit, my earlier link from the thread on the disappearance of the Democrats applies here as well: European Left face a Dystopia of their own making. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Clinton[edit]

Honestly, I feel like Hillary is a significant decrease in quality from Bill (before his scandals). I am going to start a campaign to Make Clinton Great AgainTM, who's with me? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

also, George is indeed best Clinton
George is the best Clinton. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Clin-ton... The name can be hypnotic. Nowhere Man (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wha..? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In which Emily tests battlebot Bubbles's thoracic armour with the banana smoothie mallet Emily's involvement with Clinton may have subsided in the intervening time. Time in-universe has an iffy correlation with human calendar time, anyway. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
So what should happen, is that Hillary should make Bill her running mate, and promise that immediately after being sworn in, she will resign and let him become President. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Amusingly, that is one way to serve extra terms in the office. But, no thanks, we've had it up to here with those centrists. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Also I don't think he would be allowed to be her VP.--Owlman (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If they have the same state of residence yes, the 12th Amendment would bar that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If it were to come down to Clinton and Trump, or possibly Clinton and Cruz, and Michael Bloomberg isn't a serious candidate (I highly doubt he will be), I'm going to write in Jason Giambi (it's a spin on a WFAN joke). Seriously, I will not vote for either one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It may be for the best if the GOP wins this one.--Owlman (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
That article was written before Scalia kicked the bucket pillow. Also, look up "accelerationism".--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Chelsea's old enough to run now. Annquin (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Social media[edit]

Who runs our social media accounts? I ask because our Twitter and Facebook accounts are still running, but our Reddit account hasn't been updated for the past 2 months and our Google account hasn't been updated since 2013.--Owlman (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Probs David. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I checked out the rationalwiki blog and all the most recent post are made by him. Do you know if our social media presence is still effective in attracting new users or spreading our articles across the net?--Owlman (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I grabbed the subreddit 'cos it was dead, but can't think of anything to actually do with it. Fuzzy has modship, bug him. The blog, I post very occasionally. Armondikov posted a bit. Anyone feeling a burning desire to write skeptical outreach bloggy stuff? - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I can write at length about the problems I see in the site, but it will attract the wrong kind of crowd, and you have enough of them already.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do people think Reagan Shits Rainbows?[edit]

I know a lot of it is answered by the Ronald Reagan page, but I just don't understand it. It makes no sense to me, how could he have been THAT popular that even today people still think he shits rainbows? QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Plain spoken god fearing cowboy who talked tough to the Russkies in a time when you could still get a good job with a high school diploma. A lot of people want to go back to that world (see Trump). Leuders (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
That was certainly the perception, which he was an expert at managing, while the reality was much different. Reagan gave hope, and pride, while making policies that often disenfranchised to blue collar workers that were seeing their good paying jobs leave the US. That government was the problem while his opposing candidate was looking to use government in order to correct these problems. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
EC Good marketing. The decade before he came to power was pretty crap -- Iran hostage crisis, political corruption at the highest level, stagflation, the loss in Vietnam, etc. etc. The decade before that was sheer revolution, oftentimes more violent than the "Age of Aquarius" is remembered as-- Watts, Chicago 1968, the war against the Panthers, etc. etc. Reagan's "morning in America" message really resonated with white working- and middle-class Americans who spent 15 or so years seeing their country make less and less sense to them, as compared to how it was "supposed" to work. The history and culture businesses have done a good job of reproducing that resonance in the decades that followed. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much what AH said. Too many people took a dim view of the Carter years, while not enough had taken a jaundiced enough view of the Johnson and Nixon shenanigans while they were happening. A bumbling, avuncular "great communicator" said what the lumpenvolk wanted to hear, and Star Wars allegedly brought an evil empire to glasnost and ruin. The rest, as they say, is history. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reagan is the best example for how dangerous someone good at the getting power business can be bad at the using power business... In a democracy getting power means getting votes. In other systems it means outmanoeuvring or killing your rivals. Reagan was good at getting votes, but he was disastrous at nearly everything else. As is ironically his erstwhile opponent Daniel Ortega. Great in the getting power business, horrible at everything else. Just imagine we would have gotten a second term of Jimmy Carter... No Contra War, no El Salvadoran Civil War, no shady deals with Iran, no humiliating defeat in Lebanon... Reagan is nothing but propaganda. A political soufflé if you want. Poke it and all you get is air and platitudes. And not only was he the oldest President, he was also either very good at playing a tattering fool or he was one during his last months in office... Oh and don't forget that poppy Bush is instrumental in understanding Reagan. Where he failed, it was seen as his failure even though it was Reagan's policies that failed. And where he succeeded (Iraq, the end of the cold war) it was seen as Reagan successes... 79.194.4.134 (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Health Scams Exposed[edit]

(first time posting in here!)
Just found out a... hem... great website, which goes by the name of (oh! irony) Health Scams Exposed.
Contains about everything you might expect, except, well, REAL scams. Fear mongering, vaccine denialism, fear mongering, quack cancer cures, fear mongering, food woo, plus the double-daily dose of autism-related bullshit.
Seems to have stopped updating since 2014, but since it is still online I think it deserves an RW entry!
FrankNoWar 03:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, what are you waiting for? Add it to our To do list! CorruptUser (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

White Pride in Action[edit]

𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This needs to be here why? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
it is good to note, in the ones where the union jack is displayed, that they seem very thin on the ground AMassiveGay (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
oh its all uk. A caption kept flashing up suggesting ukraine far right. Still, low turn out throughout. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC);;;;
Because it's an example of one of the many white pride/marches/whatever that are in reality just a cover for racism. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
So... white nationalist really are shit heads? Wow, who knew? I'm not sure what the story is here. Plus it's from RT, run by a government whose leader openly associates with white nationalists.Petey Plane (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I personally like it because the guy behind the march said "If you're not a self-hating White, then you must be a Neo-Nazi Klansman?". 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, people often make up stories about why their "in" group is better than the "out" groups. Ones like that are a classic play to emotions with a false dichotomy (if you aren't with us you are {insert insult/disparaging term}). I find the most humorous part is how many are champions of freedom of speech, and association, until people criticize them and their friends/family no longer want to associate with them. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If I understand correctly you're saying many people rely on absolutes, so the guy is correct? I could see his point if his demonstration wasn't doing Nazi salutes and yelling Hitler was right in the streets of England, or tolerating members who do. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not, and I am not sure how you even got to that. You do understand people can feel they are correct (subjective) without regard to the actual truth (objective)? It has nothing to do with absolutes. Like people who believe the Earth is flat, or taken over by shapeshifting lizard people, or the Earth is 6,000 years old.
It is disconcerting that you see his point as being right just if he, and his group, weren't assholes about it. The ideas they have are wrong no matter where stating it is done. There is no requirement that people hold correct views though. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying I would agree with his movement if they weren't giving Nazi Salutes. I'm saying I could see this as not being Neo-Nazi if they weren't openly showing that they were. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It would be hilarious if there was one guy trying to explain that they weren't racist, while that chav was chanting "Hitler was right!". "No, we mean he was right about animal abuse! Guys, stop being racist for a second!"Keter (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Man arrested for Twitter "harassment"?[edit]

I was really curious to see what you all thought of this case. Basically some Canadian feminists tried to direct outrage towards the person who made the "beating up Anita Sarkeesian" game, and some guy argued against it on Twitter. Anyway now he has been arrested and charged with harassment and is currently (I think) on trial. I tried to find out what he actually said but the most extreme I could find was "#fascistsfeminists" or something. Anywho I thought it was a pretty big infringement of human rights but if I put it in WIGO world I figured it would just get a bunch of downvotes from people who didn't read it, so I thought discussing it here would be better. Here's a link.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If it happened, that's dumb. Whoever sued has no harms on which to sue. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It was a criminal charge too, not just being sued.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Your link is from two years ago. Here's one from this year when the defendant was acquitted of all charges. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Dammit not again.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I was about to say -- this story sounded incredibly familiar. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
They published the Precedings of the Gregory Allen case, actually. Lots of fun stuff, a lot of it which doesn't paint the accuser that did show up (Everyone but Mrs Guthrie bailed out, IIRC) in a good light at all.Keter (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Brexit[edit]

Should we have a Brexit article or just stick updates in WIGO Elections? Brexit, for you lucky non-Brits, is the upcoming UK referendum on leaving the European Union. (I say lucky because we won't be hearing about much else for the next four months) Flannan Isle (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As we are on Brexit I'd like to hijack the thread to mention a pet peeve of mine. I'm a British citizen who has lived outside the UK but in the EU for the past 20 years. However, once you have lived outside the UK for 15 years you lose the right to vote. Even in this referendum which affects expats like me. If you feel this is unjust you might wish to engage in a little slactivism and sign this petition if you are British.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I am British but I take slactivism too far - I'm too slack to get worked up about things. A good old chinwag down the pub is a activist as I get. Flannan Isle (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
sorry, but i kind of think if you arent living in the UK you shouldn't bave a say in UK votes. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Even though this policy directly affects them?--Owlman (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
it will affect people still actually living in the uk more. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I also doubt expats are going to be affected in any real way. I am sue the EU will be more than accomadting. After all, lots of Europeans living in the uk. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, British immigrants in EU countries are likely to be affected far more by Brexit than the average British resident in the UK. The right of British citizens to live and work in the EU will suddenly disappear, and it is to be hoped that something sensible will be put in its place.
As for those in the UK, what difference will it make? The EU has little or no influence on health, education, law and order, social security, industry, defence, foreign policy, culture and sport. Those are the most important things in most people's lives, the ones they care about. The EU does have a more important say in fields such as trade, agriculture, transport and energy, but few will notice any difference. In fact, the UK government will probably go on implementing EU directives in those areas, whether the UK is part of the EU or not. Gomer (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
it will have a huge effect on all those things if locks us out of our biggest trading partner, or just simply adds tosts for export and import. It has often been said that much business is here because of our position in europe. Its difficult to see how that wont be affected. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, trade affects the economy & the economy affects everybody. Also, the EU does have a lot of influence on law within the UK, such as work regulations which protect employees' rights (and which some right-wing Eurosceptics would like to be loosened). WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sure, the knock-on effects have the potential to be huge and generally bad. But I really don't see how education policy (as a single example) would be affected if the UK was in or out of the EU. My point is that the EU does not directly affect the issues that excite most people. But there's still going to be a referendum about a set of intangibles and second-order effects. And Weaseloid, you're right - the first change in the event of Brexit would be rolling back worker's rights. All this because of a weird obsession by Tory right-wingers. Gomer (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I would argue these are more than just 'knock on' effects. They are intrinsic to the issues that excite most people. As to what excites most people, well with regards to europe, what excite most people is the perceived influence on law and regulation, and of course immigration. Expect massive changes on these if we leave. As for for effects on expats, it is likely to be minimal. There is a treaty in place that protects their rights from any changes in other treaties. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
though i am generally suspicious of any argument framed by 'most people' AMassiveGay (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Just because a policy affects someone more doesn't mean they should be the only ones to vote on it. They are still British citizens after all.--Owlman (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I can't vote in Spain as I'm a UK citizen and I can't vote in the UK because they disenfranchise me after 15 years. Which is kind of frustrating. Especially as both countries are quite happy to take tax money off me under differing circumstances. And, if the UK leaves the EU it may or may not change my status. It's certainly unlikely to remain exactly the same. The only countries whose citizens have this disfranchising problem are the UK and Ireland. But obviously only people who think it's an issue will sign the petition.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a UK citizen, but I think the referendum should get a WIGO post for now. Write an article if a Brexit does happen. Trying to write something about the alternative and we get a paragraph-long article that closes with "...and then nothing happened. The end."173.72.6.153 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
We have an article on Eurosceptics which is largely (but not exclusively) UK-focused, so that would be a useful place to start building Brexit content. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Witch[edit]

So a new horror film called The Witch came out recently. It's set in Puritan-era New England, with a focus on historical accuracy in both the time and setting and in what the Puritans believed about witchcraft and how it worked. It's been generally acclaimed by critics and at film festivals, and it made a pretty penny in its wide release (for an indie horror film with next to zero promotion, at any rate), though it also seems to have riled up the more reactionary segments of the horror fandom, the sorts who think that you can't call something a horror movie unless it's got jump scares and/or viscera out the wazoo. (Can't wait to see what they think of Stephen King or H. P. Lovecraft.)

But that's not why I'm bringing this movie up. No, the most important part is that it's got goat. Lots and lots of goat. An awesome devil goat, too. HAIL BLACK PHILLIP! KevinR1990 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't try to make RW a battleground for some silly Internet fight of fans of movie/genre/style/whatever X and movie/genre/style/whatever Y. The reactionaries gonna get their panties in a twist, because the movie is about religious persecution of some innocent folks, not some pissing contests about horror movie styles.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC) 20:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"religious persecution of some innocent folks" Did you see the movie? They (well the goat, initially) weren't actually innocent. The premise of the movie is a "historically accurate" what-if the persecution of perceived witches by the Puritans was actually justified. It was a good movie and a cool perspective on the horror genre. Petey Plane (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to start anything. Just trying to share some goat. And yeah, I enjoyed it too. KevinR1990 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Race[edit]

Do you guys think race is a good biological/anthropological/etc category? Remember, I'm not talking socially but I mean scientifically do you think it's an accurate way to categorize Humans? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Race is nothing but a vague and arbitary grouping of similar ethnicities under a continent/subcontinental model.Keter (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I need these vague and arbitrary groupings so I know whose culture it is okay to appropriate. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Racialism. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

FCP, I've saw that. I am a fan of Krom's work specifically. I asked because It's obvious that not all users agree with all/most of the information in certain RW articles. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I linked it because it explains many of my views. "Race" is almost meaningless biologically. Medically, it's useful for some traits which are very common in some populations and very rare in others; this will become decreasingly useful with globalization. Socially is its only remaining meaning, and there it's just a border some humen use to make themselves feel special. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I am curious, unscharfe Katze Kartoffel, what do you think of people trying to "preserve" their "race"? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends on circumstances, I (not FCP) think. Give some examples and I can offer my specific opinion. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Less racially-motivated violence and ethnic cleansing, but I mean more like people who believe the primary racial group of Europe, America, most pre-dominantly Caucasian Anglosphere nations will imminently change (although pretty peacefully) and think this is a serious cause for concern. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It would only be a cause for concern if you believe one "race" is inherently superior to another. Since we aren't talking about culture, and only perceived biological differences, that's pretty basic racism.Petey Plane (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


I think that's pretty silly. The people who think Europe's existing white-Arab-African balance should remain the same through governmental policy? They're misguided. I do think there are legitimate concerns regarding the dislike of building of Salafi mosques in Europe with money from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. That should be stopped by European governments, methinks. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There are some cases where concern over the "racial integrity" and "demographic preservation" of certain areas. Take the Anfal Campaign in Iraq, the Arab belt in Syria, and the Turkification of areas in Turkey. In the first, hundreds of Kurdish villages were destroyed and tens of thousands of Kurds were intentionally killed to create areas where Arabs could live in prefabricated model villages. That's wrong. In the second, Arab migrants were intentionally shipped to new villages along the Syria-Turkey border for the explicit purpose of preventing a united Kurdish state from existing. These are bad cases, and the racial concerns are legitimate. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Care to explain why it should be stopped? Do they fuel terrorism or something? (sorry, probably sounds stupid) Why are they different from normal mosques? I await your reply comrade. социалисты правило

PS: I am not surprised to learn Turkey would do something like that. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Read this first. I'm serious, read it. OK, now that you've read it. The mosques preach an ultra-conservative radical ideology that is directly against the European Union Charter and the UN Declarstion of Human Rights. I don't think wahhabi mosques should be built in Europe. The governments shouldn't grant the permits to do so. The France attackers were radicalized in a wahhabi mosque. This is an issue, and it needs to be stopped. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Odd, is the French Republic allied with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Do you know if this is actually a specific plot by Saudi Arabia, or just an unfortunate situation where many preachers happen to be Islamists? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
France is not allied with Saudi Arabia. Is it a plot? Eh. I mean, there have been millions of refugees to Europe, and Saudi Arabia has offered billions of dollars to build dozens of mosques in Europe "for the Muslim refugees". Of course the mosques are guaranteed to be a lot more radical than Joe Schmoe Muhammed's Islamic Community Center of Nashville. Also, a lot (5-10%) of the preachers are Islamists, unlike in America where almost none are. See Ajnam Choadry and his cohort. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia should take in a hell of a lot more refugees than it is. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh of course. Hell, Saudi Arabia is half responsible for the war in Syria. It, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates should take in refugees. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yea, well have a good one my fellow moonbat. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pbfreespace3: The Al-Anfal CampaignWikipedia's W.svg (wpl not for you but for the "interested reader") isn't as cut and dry "Lebensraum" as you present it, although I completely agree that it was genocide. The background wasn't simply to create Lebensraum for Arabs, but rather what in colonial times would've been known as a "pacification" scheme in which the settlement of more pliant subjects was one part. As with the claims of Stalin's supposed racism, I see repression carried out by Saddam (a huge fan of Stalin by all accords) and his regime more as a product of "pre-emptive terror" against anything having even a whiff of opposition than a racially/ethnically motivated campaign to "Arabify" Iraq. Going into counter factual mode, I can't help but wonder what would've happened if the Kurds had managed to get a state of their own when the victorious powers of WWI carved up the Middle East and whether it would have made things just a little less complicated in the region. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It would have been immediately attacked by all neighbors (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran) in a sudden and brutal war marked by cleansing in both sides, just like in 1947 Palestine. A Kurdish state would have emerged, likely backed by the British; Kurdistan is a critical strategic point in the Middle East, with quick access to the Mediterranean, Caucasus, and Levant. WWII would've been interesting, but assuming Kurdistan survived, it would have almost certainly become an ally of Israel; both hate the Arabs, Iranians, and Turks. Kurdistan would have had massive American support and as such would have opposed the USSR. Turkey would likely align with the USSR over this, which would have hugely disrupted the Middle East strategic balance. On the flipside, there wouldn't be much of a Syrian Civil War. In short, things would still be shit in the Middle East, only with less oppression. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what the logic is for that. Syria and Iraq, at least, wouldn't exist in their current form (if at all) under a different post WWI carve-up, and there wasn't much US involvement in the Middle East in 1918: aside from some oil deals, they weren't really players until World War Two. It's also possible that Turkey would have been far smaller, with its more ethnically diverse eastern side chopped off, reducing its ability to do anything. Annquin (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Annquin, I understand that a post-WWI carve-up would have been different, but I'm assuming it would have been roughly the same with the exception of Kurdistan. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurdistan was not created in 1919, in my understanding, for the same reason that the Polish Corridor was created, -- it was believed by the Great Power brokers that a viable state needed access to the sea to survive, even if that meant putting non-Polish or non-Kurdish subjects within the borders of the new state. nobsLewinsky 2020 19:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, they had no problem creating Czechoslovakia without giving it a corridor. Typhoon (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Kurdistan was not created for several reasons. First: they were regarded as simple mountain dwellers who were not important enough to deserve a nation-state. Second: the Turks, Persians, and Arabs (both Sunni and Shia) all lobbied against it. Kurdistan is being created now only because it serves American interests in the region (oil, fighting terrorism, base against Iran, Israeli ally). Simple as that. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If we did not categorise people by race, how will i know which barbers to use? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Not all people are going to get that one, AMassiveGay, but I got it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

1 in 6 Trump supporters think whites are superior to blacks[edit]

Also, 38% of them wish the South had won the Civil War, 44% support banning Islam in the U.S., 60% are in favour of a 'national database of Muslims'.[4]--JorisEnter (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't aware that Trump's base was that progressive. StickySock (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, that was a survey of South Carolina trump supporters, so questions concerning the civil war may be a bit skewed, to say the least, but as a native South Carolinian (who currently lives in the capitol, Columbia) i can't say it's too surprising. Petey Plane (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The key word may indeed be South Carolina. (I know it's two words. Shut up.) Vulpius (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Since South Carolina is an open primary, the analysis seems to be Trump is appealing to Democratic voters and running against the Republican Party in South Carolina. nobsLewinsky 2020 19:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
At least anecdotally, since i live here, i don't think he's trying to appeal to democrats (it's here in SC were Trump finally started talking about defending PP and overturning the gay marriage ruling) so much as the "independent" voters, i.e. dumb rednecks who hate the government but can't be too bothered to go out an vote (a huge block here in SC). Mobilizing that demographic appears to be his primary strategy. Petey Plane (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
He's only running against the Republican establishment (who are all viewed as RINO's), not the party itself or its now fully-revealed core values. To try to pretend that his supporters are actually Democrats is silly. Trump voters were created by decades of Republican fear-mongering, dog-whistles and constant screaming about "taking back America". Typhoon (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Only one in six? Good grief, he's not being obvious enough about it. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 21:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
So 84% presumably believe they are equal. I think you picked the wrong shock statistic.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
More like 1 in 6 Trump SC supporters openly state they believe whites are superior to blacks. I'm going to assume this counts all supporters including nonwhites (it's not stated otherwise). A large percentage support banning Islam and the majority want to monitor all Muslims in America. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It'd be interesting to compare this to a baseline: asking potential voters of all races if they think their race is superior. It may turn out the % of racists among Trump supporters is lower than among the general population. Nothing to brag about (and credit to Jeb for having the lowest % of racist supports besides Carson, please clap) but as Bob_M suggest maybe not as bad as it sounds. – Sarah (HH) 22:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Personally I'm not sure why Trump is widely labeled racist or what racism has to do with his campaign. Sure, maybe white supremacists see this as a golden opportunity but that's all I can think of. Islamophobic? Maybe. Some may bring up his plans on illegal immigration. His proposed policies on immigration don't seem to be very racist (regardless of them being right or wrong), it just so happens that many of the illegals are Mexicans. Can anyone explain why he is so widely called racist? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it either. He's clearly nationalistic but equating the two because one sounds worse is intellectually dishonest. I suspect that's the motive though. Thinking about it more, criticizing nationalism would present a problem for the American media which (minimally with regard to foreign policy) consistently espouses "American exceptionalism" - what is that if not nationalism? – Sarah (HH) 23:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he is intentionally racist, but more a lack of empathy, as the product of being a sheltered north-eastern millionaire his entire life who's only interactions with minorities has been in boss/employee relationships (at best) Combined that with his, shall we say, limited rhetorical skills. More self-identified racists support Donald Trump than any other candidate, by far. He possesses something, regardless of whether it's intentional or not, that appeals to racists. So it kind of doesn't matter that you don't think he's done or said anything racists. The experts on the subject found him to be their best representative.Petey Plane (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey now, be fair; he's a father in law to a minority. StickySock (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
He's an a-hole and racists like him but that doesn't make him racist. Racists support eugenics - pro legalized abortion, pro birth control. That doesn't make candidates who support birth control and legalized abortion racists. – Sarah (HH) 01:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
And... you didn't read what i wrote, apparently. I said that i dont think he is intentionally racist, only that explicit racist clearly like him more than any other candidate. So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if he himself is racist or not, only that some combination of what Trump says an does appeals to self-identified racists, more than any other candidate. If you trust the judgement of committed racist, then by all means, support Trump. Petey Plane (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
So that would be guilt by association.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC) 13:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Which doesnt actually change the fact that more racist have explicitly enforced Trump's presidency than any other candidate. That observation isn't in itself "guilt by association", merely a statement of reality. Like i said, i don't believe Trump in intentionally racist, only that his rhetoric appeals to racists, more than any other leading presidential candidate. It would only be guilt by association for trump supporters, not him. Petey Plane (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Which in turn sounds more like a dog-whistle ("I'm not calling him racist, but he's supported by racists, please connect the dots").--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That's fucking inane. He promotes blatant racism and doesn't care. It really doesn't matter what the fuck his inner thoughts and feelings are, he keeps fucking doing it. He literally called for more violence at his rallies. He retweets literal neo-Nazi propaganda. He knows who his fans are and doesn't give a shit and encourages them - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
We go from "racists support him therefore he's racist" to "he promotes blatant racism" with no proof whatsoever? And somehow "promoting violence" is the same as racism? Was this violence directed at a specific race or is it just more dog whistle virtue signaling? Racists supported Margaret Sanger therefore Margaret Sanger was racist - sorry, not buying it. – Sarah (HH) 20:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

And how many atheists think they're superior to religions people? I would wager it's more than 1 in 6. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of planes hijacked in the name of no gods? 81.145.153.190 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Atheism is logically superior. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a difference between ideas being superior and races being superior. It's a stupid question anyway, like asking "which car is the best car" - superior in what respect? Resistance to sunburn? If my Irish friends are representative that's clearly false. – Sarah (HH) 05:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
If we are talking about master races, I should remind people that since Jews have the natural ability to control absolutely everything in spite of being fairly uncommon, by default the master race is... CorruptUser (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That's sarcasm. Good. I don't think Jews are in any way superior to anyone else. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
i'm going to quote mine that statement and throw it in your face at a later date. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you should find another hobby than picking fights on the internet. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
If the criteria is Nobel Prizes per capita, then the case for Jews being the master race is straightforward. (((Zack Martin))) 19:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

How many holders of "belief X" feel they are superior to people who do not hold "belief X"? No matter what "belief X" happens to be, the answer is going to be "the majority".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Who would hold a belief they think is inferior to not holding it? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Religious people seem more content than atheists; I think I'd be happier if I were stupid enough to have faith. I can't be the only one who holds beliefs they feel are not the best to hold. "Ignorance is bliss"
I am a theist, but I don't think theists are necessarily superior to atheists. Indeed, consider some thoughtful intelligent atheist philosophy professor, compared to some fire and brimstone fundamentalist preacher who believes in KJV Only and also belongs to the John Birch Society. I think the former is likely to be more intelligent and thoughtful and reasonable and rational and educated and even moral than the later, even though the former disagrees with me on this one issue and the later agrees with me. (((Zack Martin))) 20:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have confused belief with a very general category of religion. Religion is a belief, but a belief doesn't have to be a religion. A system of beliefs is also more nuanced that Christian, Muslim, Atheist, and so on...or else things like Catholicism, Protestantism, Calvinism, Eastern Orthodox, and up to 30,000 estimated different variations of just Christianity would not exist. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this point is specifically religious, the same observation applies to politics too. There are thoughtful progressives, and there are thoughtful conservatives, and there is a vast mob of crass idiots of both left and right. I don't assume that people whose politics are different from mine are necessarily inferior to me in any particular way. There are many people on the other side of the political aisle who are just as thoughtful and educated and intelligent as me (in many cases they better me on one or more of those dimensions), just approaching life from different starting points than I do. (((Zack Martin))) 22:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker's RW fork is up[edit]

http://skepticpages.org/Special:RecentChanges - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Biting the bullet early; If anyone shows up there claiming to be me or claiming to be in cahoots, it's not. Figured it was important to say because we've had trolls try to impersonate me on this very wiki before and I would not be surprised. I've no interest in interfering with anything Carpetsmoker's trying to do here. Ban 'em with prejudice if they show up, I say. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 00:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I see a fake Ryulong account has already been created. Just imagine the wiki resulting when the kiwifarmers, slymepitters and gators get their wishes - David Gerard (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that just ED? - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, insinuating that I somehow agree with "gators" or "slymepitters". Great way to poison the well, proving once more that this was the correct thing to do and that you truly do not give a single damn about the truth of things. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You've observably attracted the sort of people who will very first thing create a fake "Ryulong" account - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
And this is somehow my fault? Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It's somehow "the incredibly obvious happened, how amazing". But y'know god forbid you be associated with the Slymepit or Gamergate, just fine upstanding people like in the kiwifarms doxxing thread, where you are still actively posting - David Gerard (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You say it like it's a bad thing, but what's wrong with actively posting on kiwifarms? TruthTellah (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Insulating? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops >_< Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Considering who You have attracted, it's a step up.Keter (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Moving goalposts much? And "doxing thread" is still not really true, no matter how often you repeat it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How did you figure this out? It's not as if I advertised it to anyone...

I also have some fine-tuning to do, but should be mostly finished from a technical pov.

Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh, Carpet. A crucial flaw: the logo is "SW", as if it stood for "Sceptic Wiki". Even more crucial flaw: the logo is too close to "SJW". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this is one of the fine-tunings that needs to be done (the working name was SkepWiki for a long time) before someone decided to be something of a dick and just post an "announcement" here... Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It showed up in Google Alerts on "rationalwiki" - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm, strange... Google scares me sometimes. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
"Don't be evil" isn't a promise or a motto, it's an ominous warning/threat. "We are always watching. We keep records of everything. Don't. Be. Evil." 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

I see three (or five) ways this turns out:

  1. (Most likely.) Extremely few users show up, ScepticPages dies, CS either:
    1. returns to RW, or
    2. leaves wikis entirely.
  2. (Middling) Users who like atheism but dislike liberalism/SJWs/etc. (possibly from KIA) show up, and:
    1. CS keeps the wiki politics-neutral, and they leave, or
    2. CS lets the wiki get political, and it becomes smaller, right-wing RW.
  3. (Least likely) Users who like atheism and aren't political show up, and it becomes a hub of pure skeptical activity unto the ages.

Agree/disagree, CS? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk)

You forgot #4. 'SJWs' overtake the wiki and it becomes a glorious hub of social slacktivism (moreso than RW). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Yeah, it could fail. *Shrug* I see enough people dissatisfied with some elements of RW to at least stand a chance, and they are not all "gators" and it's more than just fights over GG. There is indeed a very real chance it won't work out for whatever reason. There is little to be gained by always playing safe so I took a chance (if I had been allowed to do so, I would have addressed that in a proper announcement)... You also forgot option 1.3, namely that it turns into a sort of cms/weblog platform for one or very few people (nothing wrong with that, imho; it's basically what CP is these days for example). Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well best of luck to ya, but most wiki's that split tend to die.--Owlman (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Btw, I am not trying to be an ass. I just am skeptical of a high enough turnout for your wiki to rival us. Take SJWiki, for example, not much happens there. The same can be said of Liberapedia which started as a parody to Conservapedia.--Owlman (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Good for you, doing not just talking. Good luck!
FCP, your KIA hypothetical (#2 above) seems unlikely. These are gamers saying "keep your politics out of our game reviews" and atheists saying "keep your politics out of our atheism" and you think they'll flock to a skeptic wiki to... inject politics? :/ Carpetsmoker, I think you should invite them. I don't know how big the intersection is of passionate gamers and passionate skeptics but I don't think it'll do any harm. Well, I guess it could attract the wrong attention. – Sarah (HH) 06:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no interest in being "that other wiki just for the GG narrative". In fact, as far as I'm concerned it's a verboten topic for the foreseeable future. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think GG belongs on any serious wiki (and I'm pro-GG.) It's better suited to sites like know-ur-meme, ED. What I meant was there may be a bunch of skeptics on KiA turned off by RW's politics, looking for a politics-free alternative. Do they already have one (besides yours?) I don't know anything about the skeptic scene – Sarah (HH) 21:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
LOL at GGers pretending to not being political. Typhoon (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'M GOING TO MAKE MY OWN WIKI WITH BLACKJACK, AND HOOKERS. IN FACT, SCREW THE BLACKJACK! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If you're going to fork something, at least make it look half-decent. Unless the intended message is "this page was made by an absolute sket", in which case congratulations, the page looks like it was made by an absolute sket. Bloody hell, it looks like some git threw up on the MediaWiki default theme. Free User licensed under the GPL 02:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, its an on-going process. I distinctly dislike the default Vector theme for being too small and difficult to read (but you can still set that in your preferences). Everything is open source (or Free Software, if you prefer), so feel free to improve. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI I can't create an account as my IP is on some blacklist apparently. Tielec01 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh noez! A fork! What's next? Nefarious lawsuits? Literally doxxing Hitler? Kiwifarmswiki? And btw, RW's fork could do with a lot less drama if it steered clear of Hamas apologism and GG opinionating altogether... Thus avoiding to draw folks like Mona, as they are drawn like moths to rotting cadavers.... Or was it vultures to light? 79.194.18.205 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Holy horseshit, how do I choose Monobook instead of the greater abomination of the default style or the minor abomination of the Vector style?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I enabled Monobook. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Bickering about selectively unwanted injections of politics/ideology (also female Thor)[edit]

To address the elephant in the room (well, one of them), "keep politics out of it" is a political position in its own right. All the more so when it takes the form of "dismiss all issues we don't like as 'irrelevant politics' so as to preserve our preferred bubble of norms". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Sure... "keep politics out of video game reviews" is a political position in the same way "keep Jesus out of science" is a religious position. – Sarah (HH) 21:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes that is a religious position in the sense that you don't think science and religion are compatible. (See NOMA)--Owlman (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Incompatibility isn't the issue, it's unrelated-ness. Science is an evidenced-based way of knowing, religion is faith-based. Saying "I only care about evidence-based knowledge" is not a faith-based (i.e. religious) position. Similarly with video games if I say "I only care about video game mechanics, gameplay, etc." that's not a political position, they're unrelated. You could water down the meaning "politics" (or "faith") sufficiently that they become related but at that point everything is everything (as Lauren Hill says.) – Sarah (HH) 23:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If they actually didn't care about anything other then mechanics, they wouldn't be kicking up a whinestorm whenever anything remotely progressive appeared in video games. "I don't care" is code for "I think this shouldn't be here, and I don't care about others who might enjoy it". It's trying to push their politics on game makers who are trying to appeal to a wider audience. It's purely reactionary. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 23:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That has never happened. If the game's good they don't care about the message. They get pissed when the game's bad and reviewers are telling them "oh its the best game evar" because it has the right politics, or is made by people with the right politics.
GG-ers aren't crapping on Modern Family because there's a gay couple. It makes the show better, more power to them. But you take Thor and make him a gay woman (or whatever the hell) and kill the story line just to send the right political message, screw you, don't ruin our hobby to push your politics. – Sarah (HH) 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Hobbies are now ruined by having gay women be characters. Message received loud and clear. No gay women allowed. How very non-political. (Also, new thor isn't gay. And also hasn't overwritten the other character, just taken up the mantle. But I guess knowing the specifics isn't a requirement of a hobby/talking shit about it online.) Plus, you know. Making a huge fucking point about a character being a woman, gay, or black, and not, y'know, the actual story being garbage (New thor is kind of middling), kind of shows where your priorities actually are. Good stories can be told about characters with any of those qualities. A blanket "TAKE THEM OUT" accomplishes nothing, and only further alienates potential new fans and further insulates the community that is already a majority of white males. Diversity in the characters you tell stories about is nothing but a good thing. It's the stories that matter, and media in general has been ignoring stories about these kinds of characters for a long time. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 00:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Lol, whining about female Thor. That's minus a thousand Internet points for you. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
You miss the point entirely.
"Does this change make the story better?" -> GOOD
"Does this change make the story worse?" -> BAD
"Does this change make the story worse just to push an ideology?" -> SJW GO HOME
Sarah (HH) 01:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
How exactly does the act of having a female main character "make a story worse just to push an ideology?" Can you explain this to me? - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 02:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't be dense. Making it worse makes it worse. Making it worse because you had to squeeze in your ideology also makes it worse. e.g. apparently this is a real comic LOL – Sarah (HH) 03:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oops, fake comic guy detected - that's not from Thor! Do you know why the comic is written like that? People who read the comic do. But please, continue with your outrage culture demonstration about how you're mad about a hobby you obviously don't participate in. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not being dense, I'm trying to get you to justify your position. "Making it worse makes it worse" is not an answer. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 03:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Either you're asking me to list absolute rules for what improves a piece of art and what harms it, which is silly. Or you're asking me to address the case where changing the main character's gender improves it, which I've already classified as "GOOD" (above.) Or you're trying to derail. Click the comic link above, perfect example of the kind of ideological silliness they're against. – Sarah (HH) 03:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Except the outrage existed before the first issue was even released. The comic's content seems to be in response to that, not the other way around. And again, none of what's being said on the page has to do with "making thor a gay woman", as you put it. Why did you even bring that up if this was supposedly your real gripe? - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 03:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Derail, de-rail, DErail :) – Sarah (HH) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
How is responding to things you're talking about derailing, exactly? - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 03:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
How is focusing on a minor point which from the the first mention I said I wasn't clear on (and I quote: "or whatever the hell") derailing? Ooooh I dunno :) – Sarah (HH) 03:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I hardly see how we can have a conversation about this issue if you handwave the examples you brought up as being irrelevant. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 03:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
You saw the comic I linked yeah? That's a great example, no handwaving here. Is the dialogue idiotic? check. Does it go out of its way to push an ideology? check. See bin (3): SJW go home. – Sarah (HH) 03:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it going "out of its way". I see it poking fun at the people who got all foamy mouthed at the idea of a female thor even existing. Again, this is a response to the outrage we're talking about, not the source of it. A response to people trying to force their politics down it's mouth, not the other way around. How exactly are they in the wrong here? - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 03:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It's doing it but it's not going out of its way to do it. Right, right, solid point. It's a response to something that's happened a bunch of times before that (becaue they're not doofuses) maybe they expected to happen again? Whoa, unbelievable. Listen it's all circular, like a carousel - you pay the quarter get on the horse, it goes up and down AND around, circular, circle with the music. – Sarah (HH) 03:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"Going out of it's way" to do it implies it's unprompted and there for no reason. I've already explained why this is not the case. It's not forcing anything down anyone's throat, but more making the point that it will continue to exist despite people who would wish it didn't. And, again: None of this is in anyway "Ruining your hobby" (a ridiculous notion), and nobody is forcing you to read Thor so I don't understand how this is somehow classified as "forcing politics down your throat". Again, there are plenty of straight, white male superheroes out there for you to project yourself onto. I don't understand why this one not being that is some great crime against hobbydom. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 03:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The difference between Female Thor and the other Major Marvel racebends is that Thor acts like she's written by the author of Mani Pixie Nightmare Girls or Sinfest. She's not a Superhero like the new Batgirl run, or Miles Morales, or even Khamela Khan. She's a walking joke; a shallow parody of of the "Superhero with a cause". Honestly, I thought it was written by some redpill douche trying to smear feminist movements at first.Keter (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you confusing femthor with another comic book, fake comic book guy? Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (EC) "Does it go out of its way to push an ideology?" This is basically the same objection as "oh noes why are you bringing your politics into this" and the objection is all the sillier in this case because all narratives exist to present ideas/ideologies. If you don't like the ideology it's pushing that's fair, but don't go making impossible demands or strangely redefining reality so only ideologies you don't like count as ideologies. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:02, 24 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Sorry about the rapid fire editing there. There were important points I felt necessary to convey. In any case, you are absolutely right. So many things in stories are political, to the point where no stories could exist if you wanted something that was truly apolitical, and again, there are plenty of options out there for you if you wanted stories that catered to you and you alone. Which is partly why new Thor is so important, even if it is really really middling. It's giving a crowd that doesn't have that luxury more time in the sun. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 04:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR: If there are stories you don't like and have no interest in, look for other stories. You gain nothing by trying to deprive other people of their freedom to tell the stories they want to. Other people are allowed to have their fun as well. A ridiculous notion, I know, but one worth considering. It's a free country. You don't have to own every aspect of your hobby, and if you did, it'd be an incredibly weak hobby, with very few people who could enjoy it. Sure, certain, harmless "ideologies" might not be for you. But you aren't the only person in the world. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 04:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
If you believed that you wouldn't try to censor titties though...
142 makes a reasonable point, thank you. Youre basically saying that because ideology is always present whether it's present a lot or a little is irrelevant. So story with a kid and a married mom and a dad you say: nuclear family pushes an ideology, sure, true. But same story and the mom says "unmarried and same sex couples are an affront to God, ours is the one true family" - I see a difference there, maybe you don't. More of the first, less of the second, that's what GG's saying. As a game reviewer, your primary job is to let me know whether I'll have fun playing this game, 'cause I'm dishing out $60 to have fun not to be indoctrinated. I won't say which but a very popular recent game has "Donald Trump will save us" whispered repeatedly in the background. No good.
Lets take the Thor example and assume she's transgendered now, or again, what the hell ever, I don't follow comics. You say it's important we appeal to this new audience. Yes! Great! But your new audience is always too small to be relevant. If it weren't you could come out with a new comic to fill that niche and it'd sell like gangbusters. But you and we all know it wouldn't. The majority of Thor readers (I'm assuming 12 year olds) want to see good guys shooting bad guys with lasers - or hammers. They're not interested in Thor's struggles with her gender identity. Take Leigh Alexander, perfect example. Starts at Gamasutra, big audience, pushes her ideological BS, nerds all "uh, what happened to the video game stuff", she's all "gamers have grown up they want ideology!" so she goes off and makes a site all about ideology. No traffic, none, zippo. But I thought the audience wanted it? Nah. Nah. – Sarah (HH) 04:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Huge citation needed on "censor titties". All examples are studio execs who don't want to look too skeevy. Which is a perfectly fine thing for people to consider. Something they do of their own volition. Nothing to do with fabled "SJW's". I also like how you tried to directly imply that I somehow have tried to censor titties.
"Too small to be relevant" Not as small as you may think, but smallness is a factor in what makes every story featuring them so important. Also Thor isn't trans. Or gay. Women make up 50% of the population. Your argument is bunk. Also, Gamasutra isn't focused on gamers. It's focused on developers. The fucking tagline is "The art & business of making games". It's audience is not you. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 04:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, irrelevant point, I don't even play videogames. Was she booted or no? Booted. Did her new ideology site fail or no? Uuuuge failure. The relevant point is this: the enemies of GG are parasites. They don't create or contribute, they only suck from the host. Whether it's the games press, comics, open-sourced projects. In the best case they don't suck enough to kill the host but sometimes they do, which is unfortunate. My advice to all creators walking through SJW territory: thoroughly check your crevices, that's where they hide. – Sarah (HH) 04:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't play videogames. You don't read comics. You constantly rail about SJW's destroying your hobby. You try to de-rail my points with some irrelevant unsourced BS about Leigh Alexander, a target of constant slander and gaslighting from GG. You present yourself as the ultimate authority and a huge expert on all of these issues, yet your only interest seems to be in fighting some sort of culture war, and you fight relentlessly against these people creating products with ideologies yet somehow all they do is leech and don't create or contribute. You are a walking contradiction. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 04:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Now you're just taking Hitler speeches and replacing "Jew" with "SJW"... I know, I know, Godwin's Law. But still. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
It honestly reads more like Trump to me. The pauses, the prose, I can't read it without imagining his inflections. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 04:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe. I don't bother listening to Trump speeches, so I wouldn't know. ;)
But really, doesn't "the enemies are parasites. They don't create or contribute, they only suck from the host" and "beware, they hide in the darkest of crevices" sound like antisemitic Nazi propaganda to you? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:13, 24 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
And if you replace it with "ticks" it sounds like plain old good advice. Nothing wrong with criticizing an ideology. Criticizing a race, or ethnicity or gender, that's the problem. If you swap "white" with "black" or "male" with "female" in some of these SJW rants they're genuinely worrying. But swap it those with Gamergaters or liberals, as long as you're not advocating something criminal, you're fine. – Sarah (HH) 05:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I am a great negotiator. No, where have I fought against someone creating something new? Depression quest - I fully support it! That's exactly what you all should be doing, creating games. Maybe less of the BJs for coverage stuff. Look, right and wrong should matter, you should care about it independent of (and sometimes contrary to) self interest. That's why I'm here, to protect the most vulnerable among us from the cancer of post-modernism. I'm basically the Bernadette Sanders of RW and we're going on weeks now that Gerard won't release his transcripts. Why has Goldman Sachs contributed so much $$ to RW? These questions need answers. – Sarah (HH) 05:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I am literally writing a professional VN as we speak. Try harder. (Also do we really need to go over why "BJ's for coverage" is more BS? Like that's the most basic debunked claim GG's thrown out. Like, you'd find it in "GG bullshit 101". I don't have to go over this, do I?) - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 05:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
No idea what a VN is but good luck with that, sincerely! – Sarah (HH) 05:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice deflection attempt but it's blatantly obvious you're trying to change the topic after being called out on your bullshit w/r/t BJ's for coverage. --Mr. Democritus (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
look man this is my honest advice to you: maybe you should stop arguing about things you've admitted you have no interest in, know nothing about, and will never partake of? There are better uses of your time. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 05:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
But I've been so successful - no more Ryulong, see? Success! You've got the wrong idea: it's not about video games or comic books, it's ideological and I know that very well. You started this war without realizing how many people you were taking on. Big mistake, but what's done is done, there's no going back. Good luck! – Sarah (HH) 05:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a difference between Trump and Hitler at this point? Just replace "Jews" with "Muslims". We're both right! - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 05:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
In the image they present to the public, hardly. Though Trump seems more of an opportunistic capitalist than a devout racial/national supremacist to me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
With Trump, you just have to read between the lines a little. And look at the people supporting him. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 05:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Or Maybe[edit]

The owners of the comic have the right to reboot Thor as Thora or as a villain with goat legs if they feel like it, or if they think it will sell more comic books, and that absolutely no one is "owed" a comic at all? The old comics do not get erased in order to print the new ones, and you could still read Thor set in 1970's America if you so choose. Some reboots are utter failures in spite of a cool concept (Spider-Man Reign, where it turns out Peter literally fucked Mary Jane to death with his radioactive semen), others are incredible successes in spite of initial backlash (Batman Beyond, anyone?). If we never reboot series, the world would be denied The Dark Knight. StickySock (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the time, nor much of the inclination, to try to sort through the mess above, so I'm just going to leave an "I agree" here, while simultaneously reserving the right to criticize and/or complain about them (seriously battleworld wtf). And to be fair, they may not get erased, but they may end up being retconned or ended terribly unsatisfyingly (like the Sonic the Hedgehog comics, which decided to do an unpopular near-universe reboot after a lawsuit from a former writer, cutting off or cliff-hanging a large number of minor plots). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Frank Miller ruined Batman, maybe even more thoroughly than Brian Azzarello tried to ruin Wonder Woman. Reboots per se may not be a problem, so long as the writers recognize that established characters are established brands as well, and that readers expect that supporting casts, themes, and tone are preserved. And some characters like Superman or Captain America are part of the national patrimony as well, landmarks of American culture that ought to be preserved like other national monuments. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do they need to be preserved as is? Should X Men not be allowed to get with the times, for example if we finally figure out this whole gay rights thing? (FYI, X Men is mostly about minorities, but especially gay people) CorruptUser (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
ive never really liked x men as a metaphor or analogy or whatever the correct term is, for racism or homophobia or what have you. Unless i wake up tomorrow shooting lazers from my eyes, its not even remotely similar. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah... a lot of those "monsters as gays" metaphors can end up backfiring horribly. True Blood is about vampires as a metaphor for homosexuality, but the whole fucking premise is that vampires have spent millenia murdering the hell out of people for shits and giggles, but only now have a means to live alongside the people they used to butcher. Oh sure, now they have synthetic blood, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they are bloodsucking monsters who have all murdered people in the past. Are homosexuals supposed to be sociopathic mass-murderers that are only barely kept under control thanks to medication? Yeah, I'm grabbing my shotgun; if any old wood through the heart does the trick, lead will too. CorruptUser (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You do know that political correctness in entertainment goes way, way back?[edit]

For example the early Westerns had hardly any black people in it. Which is outrageously inaccurate for e.g. a story set in 1870s Nevada. Where do you think the freedmen went? Cuba? And don't even get me started on white people playing roles that they have no business playing... Genghis Khan, various Native American roles, you name it... So if there is a gay Thor or a black Loki (who are fictional characters to begin with and thus by definition can e anything you want them to be) I say to white straight males: Cry a bit less. 79.194.23.48 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing over black history & casting white actors in ethnic roles was "political correctness"? Erm, OK... WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
And don't even get me started on white people playing roles that they have no business playing... Genghis Khan, various Native American roles, you name it...- 79.194.23.48 I wonder, whether you would kick up dust about a "black" character playing a "white" historical figure.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC) 15:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Methinks the BoN knoweth not what Political Correctness be. He(?) seems to have it inverted. How about this - actors playing Othello. Pippa (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've a feeling you might have to explain Othello to our new visitor. He doesn't seem the cultured sort. Flannan Isle (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
John Wayne's performance as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror is absolutely delightful when approached in the right state of mind. Any political dogma that would deprive us of that toe-curling pleasure deserves only the back of your hand. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course it is political correctness. Maybe "conservative correctness" if you want to engage in this dreadful type of newspeak. PC is basically just a way of expressing that a certain way of framing things is not politically desirable. And back in the day black folks or Asian folks or Native American folks had to be subservient or comic relief at best and evil or subhuman at worst. And thus we get the fake race historical domain character... If you count all the major roles that were played by a white guy or gal despite not being, yaknow.... white in reality, you get such an absurd number that political correct liberal atheist Jew Niggers (or whatever you like to call your opponents) could probably make movies with no white people in them (but telling stories of 13th century France) for the next half century. Oh and by the way.... Roman Britain? - Had more blacks in it than Anglo Saxons. So a black viking here or an Asian looking Roman there is not all that absurd. And of course I know who Othello is (Who btw is never described as anything but a "Moor", which does not necessarily always mean "black"), you ignorant twats. Do you know who "Nathan der Weise" is? 79.194.23.48 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No one uses Political Correctness to mean Conservative Correctness in real life. It's generally used by people who want to defend the use of gendered slurs like twat.--Mr. Democritus (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"Gendered insult"? Nah, depends on the context (e.g. calling a man a cunt or twat is not misogynist, but a generic insult).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC) 17:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It's only gendered in the same way calling someone a prick is gendered. Flannan Isle (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Yup - you can tell Mr Democritus ain't a brit 'cause here twat's just an insult. but is more widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English, referring to a person considered obnoxious or stupid.Wikipedia's W.svg Pippa (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Westboro's at it again[edit]

So apparently they decided to picket my school. It's even on the Kansas chapter's home page. godhatesfags.com.

I need some help on this. I don't know where else to go, and I'm drifting between not causing a scene and going there and confronting them (which is not the brightest idea.). Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 19:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest trying to ignore them. They will want you to make a scene in order to get media attention.--Owlman (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
(EC) They want confrontations that they can sue or prosecute people for, so don't do anything foolish. If there's an organised protest, especially by people experienced with counterprotesting the WBC, I suggest joining that. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Ignore them. Protesting them is exactly what they want. Any attention they get is a win for them. You protesting them doesn't achieve anything, since virtually everyone is already against them, even stanch conservatives (protesting soldier funerals wills do that). Since they aren't ever going to change, they should be marginalized as much as possible, and ignoring them is the best way to do that.Petey Plane (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Also I presume you are a student of Lennox Academy which, according to WP, is a highschool so as much as I would want to confront them you shouldn't since it may get you in trouble with your school. These people are just lawyers who want attention; just remember most of their young members have left so they are slowly dying off.--Owlman (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I would show up in a cargo plane and airdrop flyers with lgbt flags on them saying spread the love, it would not only spite them, it would overshadow them, a double win. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 20:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
In fact, Westboro's only goal at this point is just trying to get banned from places, so they can sue. Their "church" appears to consist of about 5 people at this point. They actually want protest, because they will be more likely to be banned when municipalities enact unconstitutional ordinances to "keep the peace". Once that income stream dries up, they'll likely no longer be able hold their demonstrations at all (outside of the Topeka area, anyway).Petey Plane (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
As much as I would love to scream obscenities at them, I know it's just a replay of that situation with the protesters in Las Vegas. I'd have suggested something along the lines of doing what those students ni Redondo Beach did when they got a 'visit.' And I'm already locked out of my email anyways. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 20:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
they thrive on the attention. Ignoring them really is the best advice. Any kind of counter protest is validating for them. If everyone ignored them they would eventually disappear. Dont feed the trolls. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The best counter-protest I've seen was a comedy counter-protest. Signs like "I haz a sign" (with lolcat) and messages like "God hates cotton/poly blend!". Drew so much attention that almost nobody even glanced at the WBC protest. If you can get a dozen class clowns together, do it. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget to be a good "Christian" and include the Bible verse for cotton/poly: Leviticus 19:19. Another good one was "God Hates Shrimp" (Leviticus 11:10). As stated above, don't directly confront them: they're litigious. Bongolian (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Even better if there are a few guys who can carry off the "dick is yummy" T-shirt. Especially if they get plenty of camera time with the hot tonsil-tonguing action. SmartFeller (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
all just playing into their hands. Ignore them. Live your lives. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Had to share this somewhere[edit]

State rep. tries to diss a bill but tweets: "I would confuse tax law & reduce jobs." Hehe. http://coloradopols.com/diary/80988/this-is-not-the-year-of-the-priola#sthash.siWDLgqQ.dpbs Read-Write (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh my God, you're TK![edit]

RW nostalgia time! Where's the "Oh my God, you're TK!" image? I can never find it when I need it ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

File:You're TK.jpg WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Science fiction, specifically Harlan Ellison[edit]

So I'm finally getting around to reading all of the "New Wave" and other science fiction of the 60s and 70s that I should have read decades ago. I know Harlan Ellison is a key figure of the times, so I picked up a bunch of his stuff. Reading him, I'm pretty shocked at the violent misogyny that seems to permeate some of his work, notably "A Boy and His Dog" and "The Prowler in the City." Is this something Ellison was known for? Was he criticized at all by his peers? Given that my mind-set coming into this reading project was framed by writers like Octavia Butler and Samuel Delaney -- writers who have interesting things to say about gender and sexuality -- Ellison's love of violent rape and dismemberment scenes (he really gives the impression that he enjoys writing this stuff) was not at all what I was expecting.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ellison famously wrote the Star Trek episode The City Beyond the Edge of Forever, which features a strong female lead. It's been well over a decade since I read through my copy of The Essential Ellison and only remember the vague plot outlines of most stories... Ellison also isn't a particularly friendly person to just about anyone... Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It's "City on the Edge of Forever". And it's a strong female lead who must die!!! ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I misremembered! And yeah, she dies, but not in a misogynistic or sexist or even violent manner (at least not violence in the sense of being purposely inflicted by other people). Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
And her death is for a reason, rather than being gratuitous. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, to be fair, Ellison's weren't the only hands in that particular pot. His original script got a couple rewrites and I believe Gene himself added his own two cents as well. And we all know how "progressive" he was with his female characters. *cough*Turnabout Intruder*cough*--Tygrehart
I only know A Boy and His Dog from the 1976 film, but it's certainly as brutal as any post-apocalyptic tale, which is a genre where you don't really expect anyone to do anything except pursue their basest drives; I don't think it attracted criticism at the time for misogyny, maybe just for general creepiness[5]. I haven't read much science fiction for a while, but the stuff from the 60s and 70s was often just as sexist as earlier work; Ursula le Guin was definitely an outlier. The 60s and 70s likes of Ballard or Dick were certainly not into gender equality, and even someone like Michael Moorcock who later was active as an anti-porn campaigner and populariser of Andrea Dworkin (!) had some fairly odd and extreme content - he seemed to have a bit of an incest fixation. Brian Aldiss wrote some very fucked-up stuff too, there's one novel about a very prepubescent girl having sex with dolphins. I think the 1960s definitely opened up a space for writers like Le Guin who wouldn't even have got published before, but it was a long time before the mainstream shifted even slightly (and there's still plenty of misogyny in speculative fiction, and not just the nutty Terry Goodkind type). Annquin (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes and yes. Ellison's reputation as science fiction's cranky old uncle goes back quite a while. Money quote from his English Wikipedia article: "...as part of a dispute about fulfillment of a contract, he once sent 213 bricks to a publisher postage due, followed by a dead gopher via fourth-class mail." --Ymir (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Having read quite a lot of Philip K. Dick, I wouldn't call him especially sexists, especially not for his time, considering that his work began in the 1950s and little was written (as opposed to published) after 1970. If anything, Dick can be criticised more for getting repetitive due to his insane volume of output, as well as being self-obsessed, meaning that his angsty male protagonists (clearly based on himself) get a wee bit tiresome in the long run. Still, considering how many of his short stories were written in the 1950s, he was way ahead of his time in considering such topics as the line between humans and robot, defining characteristics of humanity etc.
I think that the gender stuff looking "dated" in such 1960s/'70s speculative fiction is a reflection of two things; the greater focus on "soft" sci-fi, compared to the earlier decades emphasised social interaction; and, being writers of their time, we actually get a notion of how much and how much society has changed and perspectives on gender have expanded since the 1970s. I'm not saying things are perfect today, but simply pointing out that, especially in "The West", things have clearly moved quite a lot since then. For instance, scenes such as a wife having to list her husband's social security number when making an enquiry at a social services office would probably seem bizarre today. Yet that was standard practice in quite progressive Denmark into the 1970s.
I really don't care too much about my fiction having a focus on gender equality or other political stances I sympathise with (*cough* H. P. Lovecraft *cough*), but I outright loathe when such fiction becomes merely a bad excuse to preach some kind of specific politics, because it usually entails terrible cardboard characters going into long rambling sermons à la Goodkind or when Dan Simmons,Wikipedia's W.svg who wrote the excellent Hyperion CantosWikipedia's W.svg tetralogy 1989-'97, later produced the awful Flashback (2011) which reads like a GOP manifesto, even including global warming denialism (just check out the goodreads reviews...). The problem with the ham fisted writing in Flashback or by Goodkind is that it destroys my "willing suspension of disbelief" (I've seen an equally terrible "left" version in the guise of a historical TV drama where most upper class characters were either assholes, clueless, cowards, or all three with the lower class character being uniformly "good guys") at which point my enthusiasm for reading/listening/viewing any further quickly evaporates.
I experienced a similar notion when embarking on Dick Morris' (supposedly non-fiction) Screwed! (2012) as it started out with such a BS barrage from the very outset that I simply stopped reading due to the sheer amount of idiocy on every page, setting the tone with the claim that the ICC would take over the US justice system (yet another variant on the United Nations/world government conspiracy theory/fear mongering). ScepticWombat (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to read something from that era that is sort of a counter to Ellison, i recommend the 1979 Gaea trilogy by John Varley, TitanWikipedia's W.svg, Wizard and Demon. It's could be described a psychedelic (but not magical) adventure sci-fi (think Métal hurlantWikipedia's W.svg) with very progressive views on sex, gender politics and and gender roles (Varley was part of the wholeHaight-Ashbury scene), plus they are fun and quick reads. Definitely different than most other sci-fi, but still very much rooted in the "New Wave" tradition. Strong female protagonist (and antagonist) are one of Verley's consistent themes.Petey Plane (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put Varney on the list. Got a lot to get through, but, yeah, Ellison has some problems. It's interesting to go through the Dangerous Visions series of short-story anthologies he edited to see how his work fits in with that of his contemporaries. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Related-- has anyone written anything that puts the "Sad Puppies" into a longer history of misogyny in science fiction, or have people who write about that sort of thing limited their analyses to the immediate context of their emergence last year? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, that was at least the third year that they had been a thing. The year before that, the Rabid ticket succeeded in getting Beale onto a shortlist, where he finished behind No Award. Before that, there were only Sad Puppies, not Rabid ones, but with much the same grumbling and absence of evidence and next to no success in nominations. There was a decent history of the phenomenon I read, although alas I can't remember where. It basically boils down to some authors not realising that their sub-genre has never been the only (or even dominant) part of speculative fiction. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sad to see what happened with Dan Simmons. I truly love the Hyperion Cantos. It's my favorite series. As for Harlan Ellison, his description of the main character's sexism in I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream probably more accurately his views on such. People accused him of sexism for the views the character espoused about the sole female character, to which Ellison responded that the character thought that way because the computer turned him from a probably very nice human being into a paranoid fuck who viewed his fellow last human beings as disingenuous and plotting. The sexism was supposed to be a bad thing, though he does regret not making more of the black female character in a book that was published in 1965, a critical point in America's history.Teurastaja (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The sexism in IHNMAIMS as an intentional choice to show the computer's profoundly cynical view of humanity, and that it has altered the humans bring forth their basest instincts and push them to their logical conclusions. Now, does the computer represent Ellison's own worldview? Possibly, but like Teurastaja said, it's an indictment of sexism, rather than a promotion.Petey Plane (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Personally, my take on Ellison has always been that while I don't think he's quiiiite as cranky as he gets a rep for (he was long time and fiercely loyal friends with many of his contemporaries like Asimov and even after the City on the Edge of Forever mess with Gene was obviously willing to at least discuss doing a treatment for Star Trek the Motion Picture), he does come off as someone with very strong opinions and very little filter when expressing them. That and he seems to have very little love for the "sacred cows" of literature (sci/fi or otherwise) and isn't shy about deconstructing, decrying, or mocking them mercilessly. In some ways he's kind of the Alan Moore before there was an Alan Moore. Does that make him a bad person? Meh, never met the guy and I only know him through his work and while one could read personal misogyny into some of work (as well as homophobia and racism) one could also see it him holding up the mirror to society and not letting it look away. Not saying that excuses some of his more...crotchety moments but I don't think that should diminish his accomplishments or enjoyment and appreciation of his work. That's just my take on things though. -- Tygrehart