RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive254

This is an archive page, last updated 31 October 2021. 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>, <253>, <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>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

I thought we had agreed not to use electronic Intifada as sources

Why does it still pop up? Pizzameister (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you're a dickhead. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC) 12:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

When did we do this?--Owlman (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"We" didn't. Pizzaface & a couple of pals did. Nobody else took any notice. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah I remember now. CU posted it and everyone just ignored.--Owlman (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Some time ago here in the Saloon Bar. Pizzameister (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You surely are what Weaseloid said. Pippa (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the Saloon Bar thread in question.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC) 12:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hardly a conclusive result, and it did not involve a quorum of RW editors in good standing. Whether he knows it or not, Weaseloid has earned my trust. I cannot say the same about recent arrivals who are apparently grinding the same axe as Avenger did. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's encouraging to see reasonable people rejecting a prohibition on using EI as a source. I explained here why it's a perfectly acceptable journalistic outlet. As I peruse various actions/edits here in the last month I feel pretty good about the place. And no, I'm not saying I'm "back." So for those who'd welcome that, and the likely majority who would not, stay calm.---Mona- (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is so reassuring, that people here endorse online rags endorsing groups, that would've chucked the former from buildings given access.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 13:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Um, what?---Mona- (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you say, you left and won't eva come back? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 16:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No.I guess I did. That template says so -- but I didn't really read it. I didn't intend to do the "And I'm never coming back!" thing. Anyway, I'm not editing. And I still don't get your comment.---Mona- (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean you don't edit in mainspace?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 17:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean I find your comment incoherent.---Mona- (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove all commas but the first one and replace "access" with "the opportunity". He's, for some reason, asserting Palestinian groups want to throw RW editors off of buildings. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Huh. Well, I know a coupla Palestinians. They have some great garbanzo bean recipes I'm waiting on, so I won't tell them I've edited here until I get them. ---Mona- (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see a new account active here that evinces all the same style, interests and objections that a perma-banned fellow did. Arisboch hated citations to paywalled Haaretz (liberal Israeli paper) articles, and so does Kugelschreiber, in the same language! Imagine that.---Mona- (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Accusing people who disagree with of of being sock puppets again? Some things do not change, huh? Was this guy the only one to object to sources you can't read, unless you pay for them?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 17:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just letting you know I'm aware of who you are. No one else will care, so settle down. Besides, how do I know you disagree with me? Your comment makes no sense.---Mona- (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh, he even copied the links from Arisboch's sig. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Because I thought that these links are useful but the special characters look tacky? You think he'll sue me?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 19:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's happened before.---Mona- (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh please Mona... Go to the fork of RW... They have been remarkably drama free until now. If you are right and your being here had nothing to do with all the drama that happened contemporaneously, there won't be any problem... Pizzameister (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeating your post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument ad nauseam doesn't make it any less fallacious, you know. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Repeating your lies about Mona being innocent won't make 'em true, either.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 21:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A tu quoque, eh? Not sure where I said anything about Mona being innocent or not, though. I just find it entertaining to point out her detractors' apparent inability to stop spouting one fallacy after another. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:05, 28 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Oh, I'm "guilty" of disturbing the fanatically Zionist, pro-Israel status quo Avenger, Arisboch and a few others were imposing here last summer with their constant reverting and warring. No one seemed inclined to bring their shenanigans to heel. At one I-P article after another, I led an editing campaign to insert facts and documentation they find deeply unpleasant. I led it, but I was not alone in it (ChrisAmiss is especially good at much well-documented text). The results are: 1. Many I-P-related articles that are now in much better shape, with sound documentation, 2. Avenger and Arisboch are binned or banned. Well, you know: "binned" or "banned."---Mona- (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

More like inserting jihad propaganda and both of these users were binned/banned on trumped up charges, anyway.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, many RW editors are down with "jihad propaganda." I figured it was a 50/50 proposition after I took off a month ago that you and your pals would undo most of the work I did with Chris and some others. What I see, however, is that you have not been allowed to. A variety of editors have jumped on most of your attempts. Did I spread jihad germs and leave an outbreak here?!1!1!? ---Mona- (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pure megalomania.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh no. Few RW editors are megalomaniacs. So it really must be that they like jihad propaganda. Who'd a thought it?---Mona- (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant "who'd a thunkit?" Your momentary lapse is forgiven this time, but spring ice is notoriously thin. Stay strong, my friend. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, now CCP. I may have effed up that colloquialism but I've never mixed a metaphor a badly as a drum being stirred! ;) ---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

They were banned/binned a month before you showed up here. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been lurking for a good while before I signed up (you know the saying "lurk moar") and hesitated to sign up because of these and similar shitfests.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 14:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

For someone who apparently wants to avoid "shitfests" you seem to be eager to engage in one right now. Typhoon (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Claiming fallacies to divert attention of you lying.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There's those odd accusations again. It sure would be nice if you could also substantiate any of your claims. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:46, 29 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

By the way. Someone who frequents websites that hate us (I won't name names) has told us that the reason they started to go after us is Ryulong, not Mona... Pizzameister (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that was always obvious. Ryulong has his own page on ED because of his reputation.--Owlman (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

RW has has it's own page on ED long before Ryu joined here. Guess they went after us even before. So, what was your point, again? Typhoon (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

And here I was really hoping these flame wars would end. As much as I don't like EI there really wasn't any official 'ban' on it, just a vote that somebody brought up that didn't really matter. It just showed opinions. Of a whopping 5 or 6 people.Teurastaja (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should generally avoid citing biased sources on controversial topics. If what they say is true, others will say it with less possible bias. I f what they say is not true, it should not be regurgitated here... Pizzameister (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

For Michigan residents who don't know when the primaries are-

Remember to vote on March 8th!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Michigander here. And I certainly plan to vote for Bernie on the 8th.---Mona- (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Steve Sailor and Jayman entries were written by Mikemikev

Steve Sailer and JayMan are satire/parody entries made by Mikemikev on a sockpuppet: Mixie14. Mikemikev has impersonated an anti-racist on this site plenty of times before. How can anyone take this description serious (?):

"Steve Sailer (born 1958) is a hardcore racist, misogynist, white supremacist, anti-Semite, Islamophobe, homophobe, classist, ableist, transphobe, transmisogynist, xenophobe, pseudo-scientist and all-round champion dickhead"

Similar socks to Moxie14 appeared which were blocked as Mikemikev: CommunistScientist AntifaScientist

This was his latest tactic to vandalize/try to discredit Rationalwiki - create users pretending to be anti-racists but then post ridiculous statements, which appear as satire. He did the same on the Sailor and JayMan entries. Of course, the latter are both racist pseudo-scientists, but their pages should be written properly.OldSword (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you editing those pages if you know something about the article subjects & can improve them. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medical curriculum

What do you think of it? It does not seem to bad; this is the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine- http://www.scnm.edu/academics/doctor-of-naturopathic-medicine/5-year-curriculum/ Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

~The link doesn't seem to work.166.137.240.56 (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Pippa (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What a joke. The amount of time they spend is ridiculously low on most classes (MBA basic accounting is around 120 hours and nearly the total for their entire first semester), they aren't accredited by any sort of medical board, contact hours around about equal to a licensed tech at a medical facility, and there's no detail about what is in the class itself. -66.128.217.55 (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, naturopathic medical colleges should met similar requirements as regular medical schools, then I would not have a problem with them.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That is the entire problem! Did you just realize this? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Duh, I knew that! Just stating.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

'nuther round for Modern Science in the Bible

The cover nom is still out there. The previous post got a grand total of two responses (by FCP and 142.something if I recall correctly), so I thought I'd repost it.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: might as well transfer the discussion from there to here, so I've copied most of the text from the talk page.

According to ye olde golden criteria, the following is required for coverstory status:

• The topic is highly relevant to RW's mission.

Same as with silver; biblical scientific foreknowledge, creationism, and general bible woo are highly relevant to our mission.

• Article is essentially a "go to" resource for the topic at hand.

It's one of the best articles on biblical scientific foreknowledge on RW, and we're third in Google searches for "modern science in the bible".

• Article covers all aspects of the topic at hand in-depth.

Still busy. Could use some help when geology comes along, since I don't know shit about that. The main problem is of course that this is basically my pet article, leading to a somewhat unbalanced treatment (lots of debunking and references when physics and astronomy are mentioned, somewhat in-depth treatment of biology, while I carefully avoid any geology). Several more chapters also need work, but the bits that are currently in place (preface, chapters 1, 2, 5 and a large portion of chapter 6) are quite well done, IMO.

• It is fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.

• References: just have look in the relevant section.
• Internal links: in place, both in the article text and under "see also".
• External links: there's only three of them (in Dutch) four of them, three in Dutch plus a Google Books scan of the English version, but they're the only links I think are actually relevant.
• Categories: Also there.

• Where necessary and possible, the article is supported by others that are of a good quality.

Not sure. It of course mentions evidence against a recent creation and evolution, but there are no really good articles on biblical scientific foreknowledge or related subjects (Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge is a good page, but that does not really apply here).

• The cover status has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. This last criterion is the most important.

Go ahead and discuss.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So, water

It acts as both a particle and a wave. Woooooooah. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 21:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's also the primary constituent of human beings and cucumbers. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You need it to live but too much of it can kill you. Lightning Dust (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It was discovered that feral cats in the Western Australia desert do not need to drink water. They get all of their "hydration" by eating prey. Bongolian (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hamilton's Water Breaks: Water way to have a good time. Alan Partridge (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Monthly stats

Users with 1+ edit went from 919 to 958, or +39 (4.24%). Edits went from 20518 to 14592, or -5926 (-28.9%).

For reference, last month, Mona plus Carpetsmoker plus Carpetbot alone represented 3709 (18.1%) edits; this month, they represented 127 (0.870%) edits, so their -3582 edit change alone represents 60.4% of the drop in edits.

Given this relatively large fall in number of edits (yet relatively large increase of users), is RW doing something wrong? If so, what is it, and how would it be fixed? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Active users (CS, Mona etc) leaving + BoNs harassing the site.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I brought this up right after Mona left. No brought up a solution then and it's likely no one has a solution now.--Owlman (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

One word: drama. Pizzameister (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

But February had a helluva lotta Coop shite. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy you know what the RW is doing wrong.

• It has largely lost its target audience, reputation is bad, and it relies mostly on Google. Some time ago, Creationism was a novel and frequent problem. And many people discovered atheism for themselves and were interested in updating their views. A sizeable number was interested in debunking and counter-apologetics and liked the whole scene that sprung up around it. This and more was part of a larger secular or atheist-skeptics movement. However this broke apart and numerous specialized corners emerged. These corners serve their audiences better than the RW does.
• The RationalWiki was always close to the PZ Myers side of things, so much that he is practically the Saint of the RationalWiki. Well. Something happened there. What seemed like a happy family five years ago is now a large scale conflict that partially blends into the overall social media warfare around social justice, Regressive Leftists and New Atheists. To make matters simple: you could once reach every secularist, skeptic, atheist etc. You would find information on Ray Comfort or Answers and Genesis here.
• But post the Deep Rifts™, your audience has shrunk: you only appeal to the tiny group that likes PZ Myers et al. His whole faction is currently drifting into obscurity and this is your fate too (if you aren't there already). Who would recommend the RW now? Let's take a generic New Atheist. She finds smear piece after smear piece on fellow secularists that are patently untrue. It would perhaps be understandable when everyone gets their share of negative press here, but of course that's not the case. RW is a Regressive fansite that bashes people these individuals don't like: Dawkins, Harris and so forth, and where people this tribe loves are glorified and endorsed, e.g. Sarkeesian, Sarah Nyberg.
• The same kind of problem occurs on the science side. You picked a science-denialist corner filled to the brim with pseudoscience beliefs that don't have a solid foundation, whether it's privilege theory or intersectionality that appear even in Richard Dawkins' article (i.e. all over the place) — none of that is particularily attractive to (natural) science minded folk that used to combat creationists etc.

Well, I know I've written that before and you may disagree, but I've seen no alternative explanation that takes the actual situation into account. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I actually agree with most of your statement: point #1 is 100% right in my view; point #2 is somewhat agreeable in that the social justice articles are more dismissive and have become a political battleground whereas are our other articles haven't been edited as much; point #3 is probably more relevant now since those who have fetisized Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and loath the social sciences used to be our main readers.--Owlman (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aneris, @Owlman: If what you say is true, what's the solution? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Idk yet, Fuzzy, I am still trying to think on how to solve these issues. I doubt there are many users who would be willing to nuke the social justice articles and it would be problematic to sacrifice the criticism of Harris et al. in order to bring in more users; it may be best for us to try to engage people more often instead of being dismissive towards their views on the social justice and political articles like the MRA articles.--Owlman (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My argument was that we should cut down all SJ (and econ) articles to just what academic literature supports. On articles about people, 1st- and 2nd-hand sources could also be used, but instead of saying "X is a misogynist" we should just quote them saying misogynist things, etc. This lets us seem more neutral while getting the same (or stronger) point across. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And I agree entirely with that sentiment, but that is easier said then done.--Owlman (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RW could do another Project:Whitewash-esque campaign, though I don't know if it'd get support. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And that was?--Owlman (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki has become a social justice rag, and nothing more. Whereas it used to focus on general crankery and, indeed, science and pseudoscience, and it used to do these things well, it lost its way when it actually took sides in social justice conflicts such as Gamergate; conflicts where there are multiple perspectives that are valid, but we affirm that only one person's or one fringe group's perspective is the correct one, and that criticism to the contrary makes you "one of them." Aside from that,though, social justice dividing the rationalist and skeptical movements isn't unique to RationalWiki; every podcast and youtube program that deals with skepticism (Atheist Experience and Non-prophets being one) has said that social justice is an area where skepticism as a movement needs to tread lightly or it'll divide irreparably. RationalWiki has chosen the latter, with predictably disastrous results. Old guard (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Old guard: If what you say is true, what's the solution?

@Owlman: RationalWiki:Project Whitewash. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The solution doesn't matter. From what I've observed, this place won't accept that solution so proposing it again is 1) a Sisyphean task and 2) will lead to another wonderful HCM and insults hurled. Old guard (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dunno. Judging by Essay:RationalWiki and politics, maybe 50% of RWians seem to think it's a project worth pursuing. If there was a larger vote in the Bar, and the mob agreed to abide by its results, perhaps that would hold? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, except at this point, it's too little, too late. Especially with David Gerard as the Wiki's SJ-defending, all-powerful veto pen. Old guard (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nuking things or omission would not be a good idea anyway. I would be against it. The issue is about having a desired narrative and then adding/removing information to rationalize the views of the mobocracy. You know, random tweet gets added when the direction is liked. Entire schools of Islamic jurisprudence get removed, because this direction isn't liked (even if demonstrably true), etc. Sam Harris article is a good example and has it all, SJ codewords, extreme-one-sidedness (compare with his book list), fox-news-style "some people say", PZ Myers (who hates him) is the expert and so on. Of course try to cite the opinion of Pinker/Coyne on some of Myers views, and you raise hell and it gets removed quickly, even though they are more notable than he is. Just random examples. As Old Guard says, it's not fixable since the problem is not seen as such. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Eh? I have never seen DG veto anything. If the community voted to remove political content I feel that he would acquiesce. Admittedly DG exerts influence simply because he holds the keys to the server, but I don't feel he uses that influence inappropriately; after all you can't expect him to not say his opinion just because it might sway some people. Having said that, I agree with most of what Old Guard said above. Tielec01 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC

I have been reading RationalWiki for years for the apologetics. While I enjoy the other articles for humor, I only really care about apologetics.

Sadly, the skeptical community in the West lost interest in apologetics. They started to care about ephemeral, unimportant things like GamerGate, which most of the world does not care about. While RW's so called "target audience" has moved to the sites best catering to their respective religious denomiation regarding the SJWs/GamerGators, I continue to link to the apologetics articles, which I find both accessible to the general public and very thorough. I encourage others who care about religion to use these articles, or those at IronChariots, as well.

If the skeptical community could stop being Euro-centric and myopic, and remember that religion and superstition/woo are still problems for the majority of the global problem, said community could unite again. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps RW would be better suited to build a Unified Atheism if it avoided these apparently divisive topics? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That is the complaint I have seen the most. The other common complaint is how childish and dismissive the community is.--Owlman (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but from my experience the community isn't the problem, a few editors are. These editors - who represent many ideological viewpoints - are incapable of recognizing nuance, and cannot comprehend that others may genuinely argue opposing positions in good faith. As a result, they break down into childish zealotry. Sadly, due to the nature of fanaticism, these editors are often those who contribute most to the site in terms of sheer volume. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The community has always tolerated harassment from what I have read.--Owlman (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean harassment. I mean pushing a very firm PoV, especially regarding topics were both sides have legitimate positions, or in topics which cannot be decided either way, as opposed to, say, creationism. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Topics such as? Typhoon (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Unified Atheism" failed the moment some New Atheists decided that they can ignore harassment in the movement. It failed when the same New Atheists started using their fame to shout their views on Feminism, Muslims, and other political issues. Their views, which are increasingly indistinguishable from views that the Christian Right has (calling them "feminazis", advocating banning of mosques...). And now the people who dared to criticize them are the 'divisive' ones?

It's hilariously ironic that we have here people like Aneris, who is on a warpath against what they imagine "SJWism" is, complaining about how divided the Atheist community is. As if their witchhunts and harassment campaigns aimed at anyone who criticizes Dawkins or Harris or who dares to like Myers wasn't contributing to the division. And then we have guys like Old Guard, who rants about this place being a "social justice rag" because this wiki dares to cover issues and problems that Old Guard will never experience in real life, and therefore they're unimportant to him. Typhoon (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line: This wiki is the mirror to the Atheist community. It won't change without the major players (Dawkins, etc...) changing too. Typhoon (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

^^^That, right there. That stars, circles, and underscores exactly my point. If I dare have a differing opinion on our coverage of SJ topics, insults and mudslinging ensue from somebody who knows very little about me personally, who'll scream "CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE" and other assorted nonsense on the assumption that I'm a straight, white, cisgendered male. Hint: I'm a male, but that's about all that's true in that assumption. Old guard (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

any kind of 'unified atheism' fails because you are trying to assign values and beliefs to something that little more than a disbelief in god. I am an atheist. That tells nothing about my values or beliefs beyond my disbelief in deity. Nothing more, and nor should it. Disagreements amongst new atheists, or atheist+s, or whatever are bound to occur because atheism has none of the meanings or values that they continually argue over. Take the atheist label out of the identifier to stop tarring us all with that shite AMassiveGay (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What a lot of ink spilled over a chart that doesn't tell us there's even a trend to discuss. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article on RationalWiki Doomsday Cults? Annquin (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the "Bush isn't President any more" syndrome... MSNBC has lost a lot of its relevance since January 2009, and so have many other institutions that got big by making fun of conservatives... Another problem is the provincialism of the userbase which comes from only having a single language version. This shows on some issues that are highly controversial in the US but basically settled elsewhere and it also shows on not questioning some assumptions that are basically the law of the land in the US but very much open to debate elsewhere. And of course there are the factional fights that plague atheism, liberalism, socialism and just about any ideology that may or may not be considered a target audience of RW... Pizzameister (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So (a) the Israel/Palestine flame warriors have been banned, binned or left in a huff, therefore if we purge RW of the damned SJWs we will see editors rapidly increasing!! I don't quite buy that the second follows from the first. Also, how's the month-on-month? - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The percents given are the change from Jan FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

yeah, I meant year-on-year. We went through this last time you panicked about the sky falling with no evidential basis - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait we have banned people due to their ideology? Pizzameister (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Mona & Carpetsmoker have given their opinions on what RW is doing wrong, & it wasn't covering socio-political issues like Gamergate, so let's not link the two things. If we're talking about how the site's popularity has fared in the aftermath of skeptic community schisms such as Elevatorgate & Gamergate, we should be looking at year-on-year rather than month-on-month. The chart suggests it's been fairly healthy. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:What is going on with the elections?

Can someone who understands computers fix RationalWiki:What is going on with the elections? so it appears with the other 'What is going on?' sections on the main page, here and elsewhere? Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This was debated before, RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive250#Add_WIGO_election_icon.3F, but not much was decided. There's other entries in WIGO that don't appear in these templates too. You'd have to edit Template:MainPageRedesign and/or Template:WIGO NAV. The former is locked for editing, though. Annquin (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Plus, you'll need someone to design an awesome icon. Or draw an X. Annquin (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Everyone loves a straw poll! - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Add WIGO:Elections to the WIGO bar

1. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Don't know why we shouldn't'Legion^{what do you want from me} 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
3. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't add WIGO:Elections to the WIGO bar

1. i have no interest in the elections to decide who you can vote for in another election. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Badsource

{{badsource}} or {{bs}}

RW has many articles on shitty sources (people or organizations that mostly spew wrong statements). Would this template be useful for pointing them out? (In action at GlobalResearch.) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it going to help? Won't it just be used for more squabbles over Electronic Intifada or whatever else people decide to squabble over? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If someone is cogent enough to put a bad source template on a source, they should be cogent enough to find a source that isn't shit. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Weasel: I don't think so, it's a template for pages. But they might squabble over, say, Armoured Skeptic is a Bad Source. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So if there was an article about a "Jim-Bob's Man in Black Blog" where Jim-Bob touts conspiracy theories as facts we would put this template on it? In theory the lead would already cover that aspect, I guess I would have to see how the template looks on an article. Lightning Dust (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what this is supposed to do. If it is yet more opinion, it will probably cause yet more drama... Pizzameister (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My thought is that, for sources which are like 90% BS, we can slap this on there. EG, NaturalNews, Globalresearch. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What is a "source"? Do we put this template, for example, on the articles on Michelle Malkin, the Gospel of John, the DPRK? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the threshold for a good source? New Scientist? The London Times? The Economist? Xinhua? Al Jazeera? HuffPo? Daily Mail? Pretty much every newspaper and news magazine has some political leaning, and most have commercial interests they can be reluctant to upset. Although of course there is significant variation. But even scientific and medical journals have been accused of showing various biases based on commercial interests (although the main sources I can find for this claim are scientific and medical journals). Annquin (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Weasel: It would go on people who are used as sources of information -- again, NaturalNews and Globalresearch are both good example, as is Alex Jones.

@Annquinn: There is no "good" source -- this would just be for sources which are almost entirely bullshit. So journals with controversial publications wouldn't qualify. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Feature Red Army Faction?

Should we fature this? And if so, what is the usual path to featuring? Pizzameister (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Red Army Faction. You might also want to have a look at RationalWiki:Article rating.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting....

What do you say about that? Pizzameister (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Election Thread (Super Tuesday)

Please post thoughts here. Overview: Bernie Sanders is winning Vermont and Oklahoma. Massachusetts is a very close race: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Sanders is winning the western rural counties and Hillary has Boston by a slim margin. I'm interested to see how Colorado turns out: Sanders is the only candidate who has endorsed fully legalizing marijuana. Minnesota will also be interesting.

Cruz actually won both Texas and Oklahoma, and Trump has basically everything else, even though the races in Arkansas and Vermont are close. Interestingly enough, Trump won in the majority-Hispanic counties along the Mexican border. I suspect paranoid Caucasian voters. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Vote Trump and make America great again !

Hello, random IP. Can someone here get me an alcoholic beverage? I think I'm going to need it after this evening. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks bad for Sanders. Tielec01 (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes it does. Current reports show Clinton has won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia and leading in Massachusetts while Sanders has won Oklahoma and Vermont and is leading Colorado. Minnesota has yet to declare anything. From this, Clinton has gained 335 delegates and Sanders only got 145 so far. The polls have not fully come in yet (Google says Texan has only reported 30% so far so I'm not sure how they've declared a winner) and there are still 2 states but Bernie likely won't be able to catch that large of a lead with those few states. Perhaps in the future states but this will certainly take much of the momentum that he was running on away so who knows.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Sanders will win Colorado and Minnesota. Massachusetts is close with Clinton leading, but it is slipping towards Sanders. If he wins five states then he is the favorite going into the midwest.--Owlman (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

He was never supposed to win those Southern states. --Ted25 (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And NH and CO are swing states in the general election while the Dems never win the South anyways so Sanders has the advantage.--Owlman (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah. :) --Ted25 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanders just won MA. That is five states total all of which are important states in a general election for a Dem.--Owlman (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is this being reported; from what I can see online he is still behind by 2 points or so? Tielec01 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it was misreported. He will probably tie with delegates.--Owlman (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I typed "Super Tuesday" into Google and it came up with the current election results. Their source is the Associated Press.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Update from earlier as more polls have come through. Clinton has won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Sanders has won Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Vermont. The delegate count is still being tallied but is currently at Clinton-441 Sanders-260. Since the last count Clinton has gone up by 106 and Sanders has gone up by 115. From the looks of some of the polls they seem to have counted Sanders' delegates after Hillery's(Texas for example still has her at 120 while Bernie has nearly doubled from 20ish to 42) so he is likely to see the highest increase in the current numbers when all of the polls are tallied.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If that is accurate I would say it is almost inevitable that the POTUS will be female. Sanders cannot recover from a 180 delegate shortfall. Tielec01 (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How so? We still have the midwest so I won't call it until March 15th. He can still win the black vote in the midwest as long as he appeals to the grassroots in black communities and people learn of Hillary's atrocious record on race; she still supports Rahm Emanuel in Chicago which is an upcoming vote. Also she still may get indicted over her foundation's scandal or some other curveball occurs. Lastly, Trump and Cruz crush her with independents so she will never be president.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 05:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about Hillary losing to Trump or Cruz. The polling I've seen for match ups in the General election show only Marco Rubio with a chance against Hillary. That's of course early polling but hopefully it stays accurate since Trump is most likely to get the Republican nomination so long as he doesn't do something that somehow pisses off his supporters and he seems to do the worst of the three Republican contenders in the General election.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

GOP has been waiting for a scandal to take down either one of the Clintons any moment now for well over two decades. I don't think it will happen. Vulpius (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Independents won't vote for her; she doesn't excite enough people to vote for her. Even Obama and Dodd knew she is unelectable; she has always been unelectable. I, again, reiterate that she can't be reelected in 2020 and that spells doom for the Dems.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

True, but 163 delegates still have yet to be reported and if what I said is accurate then he will get most of those.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillary running for (and winning) the Dixiecrat nomination

So here we go, Hillary Clinton, former first lady of Arkansas runs up the score in Southern states. Interestingly both white and black democrats go her way in the old Confederacy so accusations of a Barry Goldwater like campaign are probably unfounded. The interesting question will be whether winning Southern blacks translates into wins with northern blacks. And thus far Sanders' only "should have done better" states are Iowa (which was the very first, so it's kind of excused) and Massachusetts (which I have neither spin nor explanation for). Hillary's Latino firewall is a myth that died a quiet death on Super Tuesday. Her Southern firewall has mostly voted already. A big problem for Sanders may be the proportional allocation of delegates. The media will probably not care whether he loses Alabama by eighty points or by fifty, but the delegate math will. A lot. The question is: How will Sanders survive the barrage of "Clinton is the prohibitive nominee" media reports? Yes the next states in the schedule are more favorable to Sanders, but that also means he cannot commit a single oopsie in any of those states. That's what "must win" means. Pizzameister (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

why cant all the states vote at the same time so we can all be done with this shit? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Tradition maybe? Though on the other hand everybody voting at the same time would have gotten us Trump versus Clinton already... Pizzameister (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

then we wouldn't have to go through all this bullshit for the same result. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Who says there will be the same result? A brokered convention or Rubio, Kasich and Cruz doing some weird cross-endorsing to stop Trump are still possible. As is a come from behind upset for Sanders... The rest of the map is much more northern than what we have had thus far... Pizzameister (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If every state voted at once the would no very little room for a minor candidate to prove their electability or name recognition. They would also need a massive amount of money in order to be aggressive in all 50 states and territories.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC) 17:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

they seem to manage it for the presidential election, the one that actually matters. Plus it is just so undemocratic. With low polling candidates dropping out early, later states wont even have the opportunity to vote for all the candidates. Not to mention later voters are going be influenced by the varying success of the candidates and vote accordingly. Or not bother at all if there choice is doing poorly or already dropped out. If their votes matter at. It may be foregone conclusion by the time they get to have a say. And the amount of money floating is just obscene. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop banning people for supposedly being Arisboch/Avenger

Some people try to ban any [BON / new user] who posts ["in the same manner" / on the same topics] as [ Arisboch/Avengerofthe BoN ] did. Stop. If they're not breaking rules (RW:B), and if they aren't obviously Aris/Aven (this means more than circumstantial evidence), then they deserve no ban. This is essentially conspiracist logic and is comparable to the Mikemikev nonsense RW had going for years. Moreover, if people truly think that each of these BONs is Aris/Aven, then banning obviously isn't working -- they're still coming. The risk of banning innocent n00bs seems to outweigh that of banning Aris/Aven.

To Aris/Aven: If you're here, can you just stop or write an appeal? Thanks. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought they both had new usernames AMassiveGay (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Has any actual banning happened to any noteworthy degree? I know of maybe 1 mostly comical example. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Can both sides please provide evidence? I think there may well have been banned IPs that the user above me is not aware of, but I don't know... 95.90.213.16 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence is reliable

"this means more than circumstantial evidence" Circumstantial evidence is actually often very compelling and is used (properly), alone, in American courts every day to convict people of crimes. The Rules of Evidence are rooted in Western empiricism, and thus circumstantial evidence is deemed reliable. (So, to those who would retort: "RW isn't a courtroom," please deal with the reasons WHY courts allow circumstantial evidence.)

Circumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence. It is also important to note that direct evidence such as eyewitness identification and confessions given by suspects are fraught with potential problems as demonstrated by the investigations into 300-plus exonerations of wrongfully convicted individuals by the Innocence Project. The leading cause of wrongful convictions, especially in sexual assault cases is eyewitness misidentification, a prime example of direct evidence. Eyewitness identification has proven to be unreliable in approximately 75% of the 300 DNA exonerations, yet remains very persuasive as direct evidence for judges and juries.

It's utterly preposterous that the "perma-banned" Arisboch is brazenly operating under a new user name. Anyone with two IQ points to rub together realizes it's him. But I'm not attempting to persuade FCP or anyone else to be reasonable on this topic. It's clear that reasonableness and common sense are not going to direct policy here any time soon, if ever.---Mona- (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So, to those who would retort: "RW isn't a courtroom," please deal with the reasons WHY courts allow circumstantial evidence.- Mona

Why? Any reason why a court allows circumstantial evidence has no application outside the legal system in question, especially on a wiki. Unless you're under the illusion that wikis are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, your question is irrelevant. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

American courts are among those responsible for the incarceration epidemic, so maybe you should not take what happens in a court of law in the US as a shining example upon a hill for how things ought to work... I am not saying they willy-nilly lock up innocent people, but you don't get more people behind bars than China for nothing... Pizzameister (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No one is more loud in her condemnation of the penal state that the U.S. has become than I am. That has little to nothing to do with the Rules of Evidence, however. It has everything to do with the War on Drugs, a Crime Bull pushed by Bill and Hillary Clinton in the mid-90s, and the "law and order" fanaticism started by Richard Nixon and carried forward ever since in American politics. Circumstantial evidence is allowed in U.S. and other common law jurisdictions because it is reliable.---Mona- (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, when we we're in a "law jurisdiction", common or otherwise, we'll appoint you Supreme WikiLaw Autokrator or something. But we're not, so all your nattering about circumstantial evidence is just so much bloviating. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mona: When you're risking letting a criminal go, perhaps it's necessary to allow false positives. What's the worry here? That someone gets to speak (and such speech is not harassing others or dox or etc.)? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

FCP, my reply to you would be the same as my reply to Tielco below.---Mona- (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong about common law, but I thought the purpose of courts is to punish those clearly guilty, nothing more, nothing less. Where does it specify the numbers of "false positives" that are acceptable? Because that means in essence locking up or even killing an innocent person. I know for a fact that there are EU laws against that... Pizzameister (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If Avenger comes back to RW anonymously and doesn't repeat the behaviour that got them banned, then who gets hurt?

Mona, I'm happy for you to leave the wiki rather than ban anyone with a passing resemblance to an editor that has been banned. I'd rather you stay, but you seem be unable to handle arguments against your position without melting down. Tielec01 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes Tielco, I do understand you don't give a shit if the community expends much energy on coop cases to deal with a problem user only to have their decision repudiated; if the problem user comes back you think it's just fine. Who cares about the integrity of the wiki and it's communal decisions? Not you. If problem users actually harm editors via doxing and/or related actions, you don't care if they ignore a ban. You. Do. Not. Care. Additionally, for pointing out the illogic behind a rejection of circumstantial evidence, I am apparently having a "meltdown." Well, ok then. ---Mona- (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a question Mona, if for some reason you were banned, would you advocate a similar treatment of your alleged socks? Pizzameister (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You consistently ask dumb questions. It's irrelevant, but yes, had I been banned any attempts on my part to return should be thwarted. And if I assaulted my neighbor and broke her arm, I should be prosecuted. Imagine if after sentencing the judge said: "Just kidding! Have a nice day!" I rather imagine my neighbor would be pissed and the justice system regarded as a fucking joke.---Mona- (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're very adept at telling me what I think Mona. Tielec01 (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Tielco, YOU told everyone what you think. I simply restated it in a straightforward manner that doesn't look as flattering as your own presentation does.---Mona- (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You restated my argument to the best of your ability - that's true. Tielec01 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Tielco, you can be as prickly as you like. Spew insults at me if that's all you have. But you can't reasonably deny that what you advocate reduces to precisely what I set forth.---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Avenger is stirring shit at WP

IP comes from Dresden, and the topic is right in his comfort zone. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Not very successfully. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

95.90.213.16 is the B0N whining about "anti-Zionist bias" at RationalWiki over on Wikipedia.
95.90.213.32 is an acknowledged IP address of Pizzameister (the same Pizzameister who recently asked "what's a Zionist?").
Does this count as "more than circumstantial evidence"? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That they're trolls or that they're Arisboch/Avenger?

Trolls, sure, but I had figured that already. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pizzameister is a transparent sock of Avenger. Other ducks from the same flock have been quacking on RW for a while now. SmartFeller (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Idk, Avenger had an obession with infrastructure which I don't see with Pizzameister.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC) 18:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

He may realize that it is one of his distinguishing marks, and deliberately avoid it. The mask has slipped only a few times, with edits to High speed rail and Fun:Railroad woo. His forlorn AfD may be an attempt to distract from that. Aside from that, he is all over Steven Salaita, Israel, topics around Zionism, Electronic Intifada, and, of course, Mona-bashing. SmartFeller (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the IP address Avengerofthe BoN used before creating an account. Like the above IPs, it traces to Dresden, but to a university rather than a commercial ISP. Pretty obviously the same guy, unless this is just the way everybody is there. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering Carpetsmoker's attitude, I think it wise to assume all continental Europeans act that way. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey hey, no need to overly generalize continental Europeans the same way we generalize about Americans (justifiably in the latter case :P). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Superdelegates

Can someone explain to me why the hell the Democrats still have superdelegates'Legion^{what do you want from me} 01:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand the party wanted to keep populist momentum under control after Ted Kennedy rocked the boat.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC) 01:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It was George McGovern, not Ted Kennedy, who spooked the party into creating the superdelegate system, but otherwise, you're spot-on. After the infamous, riot-plagued 1968 Democratic National Convention, McGovern had been one of the driving forces behind the implementation of a system to give the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party more of a say in who gets nominated for President. The system he implemented led to his nomination — and landslide defeat — in 1972 when the radical New Left used their grassroots support to pretty much take over the party's nominating process, causing a backlash from the party leadership. KevinR1990 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

So you're telling me the upper political class controls the means of nomination?71.188.73.13 (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

...I'm starting to see the point behind it. Dammit, Trump is proving fascism right. CorruptUser (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well don't run on the Southern Strategy then.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC) 06:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Supposedly the main purpose is so that party bigwigs have an excuse to take a vacation to Philadelphia. They can tell people, "My vote could determine who gets nominated for President; I better go!" If the decision were left up to the people, then all these Democratic politicians and party hacks would have no compelling reason to convene. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Offline

RationalWiki was offline for most of the morning here in the UK. The site was also offline some time yesterday. What's happening? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We accepted the buyout offer from NaturalNews MySQL is being arsey. I'll delve deeper into its major malfunction after work - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You need a better error page. Preferably involving a sad polar bear.

Seriously, thanks for all the effort and I hope you can sort it soon/easily. Annquin (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Are there any arguments for god which haven't been thoroughly debunked?

I'm just wondering. I've been studying apologetics for a long time and haven't found anything more than grasping at straws or variants of the arguments we debunk here. Also, by "god" I'm referring the Abrahamic god. I am an agnostic as to the possibility of a higher intelligence or creator type entity, but I have yet to encounter a reason to even ponder the possibility of the interventionist Abrahamic god, outside of thought experiments. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

P1: You are god.

P2: You exist.

C1: God exist.

Thank you, thank you. FuzzyCatPotato of the Raging Lisps (talk/stalk) 03:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

P1 is grammatically false: You can be "a god" (common noun) or "God" (proper noun), but not "god".

C1 is also grammatically false: "God" is a third-person singular, yet the associated verb fails to reflect this.

Therefore your argument is grammatically invalid. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

More seriously, 'you', i.e. your identity, only exist(s) within the confines of the human mind. Cogito ergo sum is actually fallacious, as it simply assumes its own conclusion from the start through the use of a first person singular. And since atheists posit that deities only exist within the minds of their believers, equating those deities with another product of the mind won't help you if you're trying to imply they exist as physical entities. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Pretty much everything thus far that isn't immediately laughed at, and quite a number that are. The great thing about debunking idiots is that it's like playing chess with a pigeon. Even if they have no idea what they are doing they strut around shitting on everything thinking they are the best. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Still looking for serious arguments, if anyone has any :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a matter of faith, it is something that cannot be proven or disproved.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, faith is rendered absurd by the existence of multiple religions, all of which spread exactly like any other cultural idea, as opposed to a divinely inspired idea backed by a deity. And this, of course, is if we take faith as valid. Many point out that the idea of faith is irrational by definition and leave it at that. The believer needs more than faith. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Antipsychotic Fearmongering?

Hey RationalWiki, wondering if you can help shake a rational light on something for me. Background context: I've struggled with bipolar disorder for quite a while, and at the end of last year after a fluoxetine-induced manic episode drove me into psychiatric care, I consented to treatment with 300mg Seroquel XR to stabilize my mood and treat acute psychosis associated with severe depression. It's been a huge help to me in terms of the manic depression, and I never got any of the weight gain associated with it. Anyways, I'm generally surrounded by antipsychiatric folk (including my boyfriend, who's a clinical psychologist working in psychosis services), and though they're usually rational on a whole host of issues, there's also some... less rational stuff they believe; in question and in particular here, people keep warning me that using Seroquel will make me more broken long-term and make me irreversibly less intelligent and such. I know of the risks of tardive dyskinesia with years of use, as the psychiatrist warned me and the leaflet says, but I don't know if the rest of this is just needless additional fearmongering or whatever. Anyone here know any better? --DarkFire (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with your psychiatrist? Seems like a better idea than asking strangers on the internet. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been discharged from the crisis service since January, so I can't really do that :|. --DarkFire (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've read some pretty bad stuff about Seroquel, and antipsychotics in general are known for having some bad permanent side effects (such as the tardive dyskinesia you mention), but if the alternative is to get locked up in a mental hospital, you might not have much of an option. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; Seroquel makes me undoubtably more rational and less reactive, so I'm taking it regardless. I was just wondering if these claims have substance or are just antipsychiatric fearmongering, y'know? Claims that I'd be zombified or blow up like a balloon have thus far proved entirely insubstantial for me, so... --DarkFire (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia tells me these are rare. But as weaseloid said - talk to your dr. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So, like your boyfriend, I'm only a psychology person, not an MD, so I'm not really qualified to talk about medications in a "professional" way. However, the risks of becoming a zombie are pretty low. Antipsychotic meds can be intense things and can cause a lot of shitty side effects. Seroquel is certainly one of the better ones. TD is certainly a valid concern and I would be watching out for any signs that they're developing it. If you're worried about that risk you could try and transfer to a more traditional mood stabilizer, many of which have less intense side-effect profiles. Of course, all medications have side-effects. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ayzmo / talk / contribs} 14:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, your primary care doctor might be able to find you a psychiatrist. Community mental health refused to see me because of my insurance so I went to my doctor and he referred me to a shirk who took my insurance. I don't really know your situation but I hope this helps? Believe me I understand the pain of mental illness. :)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As a European who believes in game theory who would make the best candidate to be US president for European interests?

I don't have an answer for this I would like your opinion on this. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎Godhelpusall / talk / contribs}

It depends on what you mean by European interests. I'd like you to elaborate more. I'd say Clinton or any Republican is pretty much guaranteed to be a strong supporter of the Ukrainian and Baltic governments, ensuring future Russian expansion is unlikely. But I need more information before I can give you a complete answer.

It's hard to say. If you mean maintaining and expanding the EU, then Hillary on the Dem side, who has consistently supported a strong EU. It's harder to say on the Republicans. Some, i imagine, would be sympathetic to the anti-EU groups BREXIT, and the like, as smaller, less centralized government is their raison d'etre. Anti-EU guys like Nigel Farage have a long history of courting the American Right, and therefor Republicans. Some, like Trump, have even sympathized with Putin style authoritarianism.Petey Plane (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well if you are more concerned about NATO aligned, European countries being dragged into another war by the US, are concerned about the Greek financial crisis and European neoliberalism, or the refugee crisis I would say Sanders would be the best candidate. He is the least likely to go to war against ISIS and has actually invited economists to a discussion on how to solve the Greek financial crisis.--Owlman (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Owlman is right. It really depends on what you believe is "best" for EU and NATO. For less US involvement, then probably Bernie (in either party). For expanded US involvement in NATO and the EU, then probably Hillary or Rubio. Petey Plane (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be interesting to hear the opinions of Europeans who don't "believe in game theory" as well.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As a European I'd be happy to see the U.S. adopt the same "socialist" measures Europeans (most notably Scandinavians) enjoy, so I'm all in favour of Bernie. --Ted25 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Racist would say since all the candidates support a European occupation of the America continent, they are all for European interests. However, there is no such thing as "race". Therefore, no candidates are for European interests.--Scientist (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal on Resident Nutjobs

We've had certain... guests with crank ideas churn out worthless essays that are just crank screeds and usually very many but tiny essays which say basically the same thing. My proposal is that while these guests can continue their textual diarrhea, they should be required to keep it to a few large essays rather than creating new essay after new essay with no new content whatsoever. StickySock (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I never thought I'd pine for the days of LogicMaster. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Pining for the fjords? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

They should move the essays into mainspace and fill them with links to their own websites. Anyone who tries to stop them should be banned. 2.126.236.228 (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem with StickySock's proposal. The essay titles can be replaced with headings that can be linked to using the #. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I fundamentally oppose ideology based bans. Pizzameister (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Good job that's not been proposed, then. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

My only question is how do we decide which essays are "crank" essays. Those with poor reasoning or quality? Those which disagree with us? Would my essay which no one reads get the boot? I agree that certain users produce crappy essays, but you'd need to be much more detailed with a proposal like this. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

MRE will fix his shit, then we're all good again. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

After it's all consolidated, then what happens with the talk page comments? Do they get centralized too? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your choice. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If certain contributors keep banging on on the same topics in essay after essay, I see no real problem in rolling them all into a single essay with subtitles. We would not really be deleting anything which is why I'd suggest any talk page stuff be merged as well. I don't think that essay space should turn into some sort of blogroll for the kind of person that can't change their mind and won't change the subject (apocryphally claimed to be Churchill's definition of a fanatic). I can't recall if we did the same with LogicMaster, but I do remember to have personally done something similar with the ranter who posted Forum:Cult of Satorn: A Conspiracy Theory, if anyone is looking for some sort of precedence, though I'd point out that my cut 'n paste job was mainly from talk pages. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fanaticism could be considered just a dysphemism for positive qualities like persistence, backbone, etc. Apparently these days, refusing to change either your mind or the subject is a winning strategy, because Donald Trump has been harping on the same few issues since debate #1, and it's working pretty well. I thought from the very first debate that he didn't seem to have a lot of material to work with; it was mostly just "let's build a wall because we don't win anymore" repeated over and over. But hey, as people have pointed out, running a single-issue campaign on the free-pizza platform is often a winning strategy in student council elections. Now we're merely seeing its application to the highest office in the land. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Today's outage

So you know the database errors we've been getting? I sat down and went "right, it's the weekend, I have time to think about this now" and looked them up and looked through MySQL's error.log and went "OH SHIT". Basically what I should have done was reverted to the last snapshot on Thursday the moment that error showed up, and only lost a few hours' editing. Sooooo instead I've just spent five hours desperately trying to get a backup of the rw_text database table, which is otherwise known as "literally all the actual text content of the wiki back to 2007". Five hours later, I managed to (a) get a probably-mostly-good copy of rw_text (b) restore it. Stuff should be well behaved. I detailed some spitting and cursing on my facebook. A dizzying new array of backup options will be put into place ... tomorrow.

Also, there aren't enough or large enough chainsaws in the world to sodomise MySQL appropriately.

Some stuff is misbehaving. e.g. the content of RationalWiki:Technical support was not visible until I just edited it, for example. If a page's content is not showing, hit "edit" then "save". If the text isn't there even on edit, let me know. If any other weird glitches happen, let me know. Over on RationalWiki:Technical support. - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this. Here's an odd glitch (not a concern, but in case it's useful in identifying further problems): I drafted a new unfinished article during the outage & posted it my userspace when the site was (intermittently) back up; I then made a couple of minor copyedits to it ([1][2]) - the first diff shows correctly but the second shows as if I'd replaced a forum thread with my article text. It also shows up this way in recent changes (-9,894) but not in the page's fossil record where it shows correctly (-14)‎. Pretty weird. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, edits before I made the first post in this section may have been blatted by the database reimport. (What I did: 1. export rw_text 2. rename rw_text out the way. 3. reimport rw_text.) You will probably need to recover it by hand, anything between 1700 and 2200 I make no promises as to the state of. (Also we may have lost a WIGO archive page from 2008, which I think was the actual corrupted database entry. Oh no!!) - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, here's another page whose recent history is muddled. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a madman who needs a article.

Here he is. https://www.youtube.com/user/SwordofBlueFire/about https://www.youtube.com/user/Phairaodoxiseonix/about http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Wheel.asp http://deoxy.org/ http://cube-it.webs.com/ http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf http://wordatthenet.com/2015/03/20/jesus-is-the-biblical-son-of-perdition/ http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/acover_page.htm http://www.godelectric.org/ He is not a poe. Here is one more from one of his sources. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ0PCNPm2aDbWuaFt9W8qxQ/videos

68.148.188.199 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's got like 100k views on YouTube. It might be worth our time to write on other people. :/

You're certainly free to centralize the citations into an article, though! Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This video makes me mad

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XrLzYw6ULYw

Do we have an article for "Forgiveness" yet? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Our social media presence

So David is the only one running our blog and social media accounts; since he is the only one running them only our Twitter and Facebook accounts are regularly updated while the Google+ account hasn't been updated since 2013 and the Reddit account hasn't been updated for several months. I presume most of us use Twitter and Facebook regularly so most of us will know how to run those accounts so I think we ought to assemble a team who can take over the accounts. When we advertise our articles we should concentrate on articles that are obscure, but repeated like Cultural Marxism, and articles that have a lot of info, like our GMO article, in order to help offsite Internet users combat fear mongering.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody reads G+ (if someone here is that elusive last remaining regular G+ user, speak up). If anyone wants to blog on a regular basis (in the voice of RW itself), speak up. Fuzzy also has mod on the subreddit, anyone else who is not a feckwit and would like it please ask. There's a pile of people with "editor" access to the official Facebook page; I'd add more, but I'm only an "editor" not an "administrator" (the admins are Trent and Justin Bramah, whichever old-timer that actually is) - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well that is what I am asking. I think we should assemble several dedicated editors to run the Facebook and Twitter accounts. I would outright abandon the G+ account and I don't think the subreddit account is useful.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 22:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's the best season of the year: Campaign season. Plus, useless poll

Well the best season of every once in four years anyway... To make this easier, I will focus on the Democratic race for now. Please give reasons for your votes. Unless someone tells me explicitly not to and has a policy to back this up, I will remove votes that don't provide any reason. Please be civil and Hillary supporters, please abstain from ageism.

So I will split the question in two. First the easy one:

Whom do you personally support and why?

Hillary Rodham Clinton

I am for Hillary as she is the only one who has any chance to get the nomination and make compromises with the Republicans. Also all Sanders voters are misogynistic and racist. In Nevada they even shut down the translation into Spanish, yelling "English only". Sanders is basically literally Trump. 79.194.2.66 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Trolling? --Ted25 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump

1. I support this patriot because he is going to make America great. I know, I know that was the past- but he plans on doing it once more: making America great again. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   The 50's had terrible wifi reception; will voting for Trump destroy wifi? CorruptUser (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, and that's not the only thing it'll destroy. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

2. Not that I'm an American, but if I was, I'd be supporting Trump. He's the only candidate who guarantees another 4 years of Democrats in the White House. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If he stands against Hillary in the general election, he could possibly win. IMO, the only way to guarantee another 4 years of Democrats is to make Bernie Sanders get the nomination. --Ted25 (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

How can you people support him as he is a racist?--Scientist (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fairly sure all the responses are sarcasm.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

1. I'm not American, and "support" is a meaningless word (unless people really support, as in campaign help etc.), though I'd hope Bernie wins. He's a progressive candidate, a bit of an old leftist who still cares about poverty and class, and he's anti-establishment. He also tends to be anti-authoritarian. It would be best for most people and probably for the world, too, as someone who is not keen on invading other countries and who seems to follow scientific consensus (AFAIK). Hillary Clinton comes off as a Wall Street shill, a pretender and a has a bit of a neo-con air around her and thus represents what's ugly about the US. Her dirty campaign tactics also speak against her. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
2. I'm an American (who cannot vote) and I support him because he has a long history of being in elected office, and he supports policies closest to my views. He supported gay marriage when his opponent was against it, he was against both Iraq Wars while his opponent was for them, he supports government-run healthcare while his opponent opposes it, and his campaign is funded entirely by individuals and not corporations or Super PACs, meaning he is most likely not beholden to special interests. He has remained ideologically consistent over several decades, and has not changed his views based on political expediency. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
3. If I had to pick, but honestly, I could go either way. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

   I would like to have a discussion about this, Kitsunelaine. What is it that makes this a split choice for you? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

   Well, firstly, it's mostly superfluous: It doesn't matter, as I live in New Zealand, and can't vote, though I do pay attention to the election. Honestly, I find both Sanders and Clinton pretty reasonable, and the sides against both parties haven't made any convincing arguments, not the least because Clinton has mostly been subject to BHENGAZI and EMAILS and YOU'RE ONLY POPULAR BECAUSE YOU'RE A WOMAN, and... Well. Yeah. Lots of bullshit, basically. I kind of err on either side, because they both seem like reasonable people. It's no surprise to me that they're in a dead tie. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Good enough. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 03:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Mostly because I remember the first Clinton presidency. Even then, it was generally understood that Hillary was the brains behind the outfit. She might even be the most attractive candidate in the race - if she were running as a Republican. Back when the Republican party was still plausible as a party in government, she would have made a good one. And if the Republicans somehow manage to form a government, she'd probably switch back in a heartbeat if that's where the power was. She was a Republican before. And when she was First Lady, the Democratic party embraced mass incarceration, anti-immigration xenophobia, copyright extension, financial deregulation, bankruptcy "reform", massive welfare cuts, "school choice", "don't ask, don't tell", the Defense of Marriage Act, and other right wing ideas that their focus groups approved of. She was handed a special portfolio to produce a health care reform plan; she failed where Obama sort of succeeded. And that's the problem. Sanders, for all his flaws, seems to have a working moral compass. And I get annoyed when I recall all this, and then get told that if you're against Hillary you're a sexist. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
6. Because of cleaner record, appears likelier to get over the massive "Hillary is a walking scandal" hump. Because of moderateness on guns and appeals to the impoverished, stands better chance at winning "Reagan" Republicans. Outstanding records on race and civil liberties, is thus more likely to appeal to minority voters who (if Rubio runs) could possibly switch than Clinton. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 05:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
7. Smerdis pretty much took it all away for me, but I wouldn't ever vote from HRC because I will never vote for an Iraq war supporter. Sanders may not be a democratic socialist in policy and his foreign policy history has me raise my eyebrow, but only he is strong enough to defeat the Republicans.--Owlman (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
8. My support goes with Sanders because he has a great track record as a Senator, he's never really flopped on any issue for votes, and he is really big on free education and health-care. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Mierda, shit, mierda, shit, mierda, shit... ^Look! 07:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
9. Feel the Bern bitch'Legion^{what do you want from me} 16:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
10. And voted my support today. I was planning on voting for tRump in the GOP primary (we have open primaries here in NH) if Hillary was unopposed, just for the entertainment value, but then Senator Sanders announced. I've been following this guy for about three decades and he is the real thing. Feeling the Bern in NH! ħuman 04:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
11. I will vote for Hillary if she wins the primaries, (because I will vote for ANYONE who keeps the Republicans out,) but I plan on voting for Sanders in the primary. --Gulik (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

    Kasich isn't that terrible. Honestly my choice this election has been Pataki, Sanders, Christie, Kasich, O'Malley, Rubio, Graham, Jindal/Cruz/Carson/other, Hillary, Trump. CorruptUser (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

    Why's Christie so high? And Cruz over Clinton? Psh. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

12. Like I said above, I support Sanders over any other currently running candidate. I don't agree with all of his policies, but even I am fed up with all the financial hanky panky in NYC. CorruptUser (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
13. I can't vote for a woman with hair as short as Hillary's. It indicates a lack of desire to aesthetically please men. If she would grow her hair at least halfway down to her butt (see, I'm a reasonable guy who's willing to compromise), then I might vote for her. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Good trolling kind sir. I really like short hair on women; YMMV but I find it emphasises the feminine facial features (of course it doesn't suit everyone). Tielec01 (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There was one girl I loved who had short hair. I'm about as close to getting over her as QuantumDude is to getting over his depression. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Given Hillary's hawkish record and rhetoric, I believe Bernie is better for ensuring international peace. ChrisAmiss (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Hillary is bought and paid for. Follow the money. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Sanders all the way. [3] --84.237.132.69 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat/undecided

1. Neither. I truly do not care which of them wins the Democratic nomination. Or if anyone does.--Castaigne2 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of either. I'm not a huge supporter of Hillary and feel that most are behind her because they believe her win is "inevitable," as do I. I have a really big problem with Bernie's age. I like a lot of his policies, but I can't get past his age. Maybe it is ageism, or maybe legit concerns, but I honestly believe in a maximum age for election to the presidency. He's only 4 years below the life expectancy and that scares me. Not only that, but there's too much risk for dementia. We don't need another president forgetting their cabinet members' names. I'll vote for the eventual nominee, but I'm not thrilled with either for those reasons. And I can't vote in my state's primary since they're closed and I'm an independent. Ayzmo^Cheers 15:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You can always change registration. And you seem to not know how live expectancy works. The number cited is life expectancy at birth. That includes all children who get shot by a cop for playing with a squirt gun at age eight. In this case the interesting figure is live expectancy at age 74, which is higher, naturally as people in that age are already past many early childhood health risks. You could also argue against voting for Obama as he is a smoker and male smokers have a rather elevated risk for lung cancer, which has a five year survival rate lower than 20% once symptoms are detectable. Furthermore the youngest President ever elected died in office. JFK (Teddy Roosevelt was younger, but he was not elected in his own right, instead he took over for William McKinley after he was shot). And HRC is not much younger than Bernie, so on the Dem side that argument really is a wash. Sure, she looks a lot younger than she is, but that does not mean she is at less risk of dying in the next four years. Often that means quite the opposite. Several places have had leaders way older than Sanders. None of them have lead to dinosaurs ridden by Nazi Zombies burning the President's mansion even if they died in office... Pizzameister (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of changing my registration. I'm a registered independent because that is how I feel. I'm one of those weird people who googles every person/measure on the ballot and votes on them individually, so I've never voted down party lines or even close to it. Yes, I know that, in theory, he has 11.5 years left to live, statistically. However, 6 years (HRC is 68 to his 74) does make a difference. I don't think we need a president elected in over 70. I know you can do math so I won't do it for you, but assuming he runs again (which generally is how it works), he'd be over 80 leaving office and that's not the age I want of someone making these decisions. Maybe that's ageist of me. If so, I'm totally ok with my biases. As for your assertion, we had one president elected at 69 and he spent the last several years of his presidency going through Alzheimer's. I'd say that's a pretty bad situation to be in. Ayzmo^Cheers 21:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And remember, what jokes Soviet citizens were making about Brezhnev's senility, when (they thought) the KGB wasn't listening.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The biggest prevention measures one can exercise against dementia/senility are exercising one's mind (chess is #1, crosswords (the real ones) are #2, etc.). Reagan was not known for his joy in abstract reasoning as a hobby. Sanders is pretty sharp, and keep his wits well-honed. Carter is 82ish now, by the way. ħuman 04:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Reagan used a not-so-subtle senility defense with regards to Iran Contra. There is even an SNL sketch making fun of his obfuscating stupidity. Whether or not he actually was deteriorating mentally in the last months in the White House is anybody's guess. But it does not really matter. A healthy G.W. Bush also managed to not drop the nukes. I do not know about Trump in that regard. Also back in those days people had more risk factors. I am quite sure Reagan smoked and stuff. But anyway, maybe this US obsession with "Oh my god no president can ever die in office". Sure it's not ideal. But ultimately that's what you have the Veep for, right? Or are they only there to balance the ticket and for ideological considerations. Which explains how Teddy Roosevelt (who was good) and Andrew Johnson (who was terrible) ever got to be President... Maybe there should be a change to the constitution to avoid stuff like this. In a parliamentary system getting rid of a senile buffoon or getting a new head of stuff after the old one dies is rather easy... But yeah, the Sanders VP could potentially be a more important pick than the Bush sr. VP. But if you look at the last three, they were all rather important in their own right (Gore, Cheney and Biden) Pizzameister (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Not that this will make me especially popular, but John Kasich seems just fine to me. Certainly a lot less baggage than Hillary (not thrilled about the Planned Parenthood cuts, but setting aside the fact that reproduction of activities related to it are unlikely to ever be a part of my life I'd find the complaints more convincing if any were able to point to a single other point of the budget), and is Not Donald Trump. Sanders would hardly be the worst thing to happen to this country, but I'm not sure if someone that polarizing (rightly or wrongly) would actually accomplish more or would only lead to even more pointless dick waving from everyone on both sides. And though nothing political, it would be nice If just once the state of Ohio wasn't holding the elections hostage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

   I know this is getting old, but... Ronald Reagan was also considered a dangerous radical who could never get elected and if he could would not get his agenda through... Pizzameister (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Who will win the primary?

This is the harder question but also an interesting one

Bernie Sanders

1. His message is clearer, more powerful, and resonates with a larger crowd. His ideas are more popular than Hillary's, he creates more of an ideological contrast with the Republicans, and he represents change rather than continuity; all things Democrats prefer. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
2. The machine(s) may not be backing him, but that is exactly why we have primaries - they are messy, but they replaced a bunch of old men horse-trading behind closed doors picking the nominees. Bernie has been saying the same thing for literally four decades, and what he is saying is really coming to a crux for the US government - corporate power and malfeasance, universal health care, money corrupting politics, global warming... ħuman 05:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

1. Only one candidate in this race is capable of literally anything. And it isn't Donald Trump. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
2. I don't think Sanders has much chance attracting moderates. Hillary at least has some bipartisan appeal for the non #Benghazi! crowd. Ayzmo^Cheers 15:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Hillary will do much better with women, older demos, more moderate demos and non-white demos, who represent a much larger portion of the Democatric voting population than the die-hard, primarily young, white male bernie supporters. She'll lose New Hampshire, but will eventually amass more delegates and super delegates, and will win the primary. Petey Plane (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

   Bernie is already winning with millennial women. Remember Obama was down in many demos as well before Iowa and New Hampshire showed he's for real. But it could conceivably happen that Bernie wins the popular vote and Hillary does some weird tricks with Hyperdelegates to steal it... Pizzameister (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

   I know people all over the demographic map who are for Bernie. What they tend to have in common is a certain idealism - youth at heart. The next three weeks will be very interesting. ħuman 04:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Never underestimate the power of the public's stupidity. CorruptUser (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Black people love her, and merely being moderately popular among young white people is not enough for Bern. Why do black people love her? Her husband increased the number of them in prison more than any other president! No seriously, why do black people love the Clintons so much? StickySock (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

GOAT

1. Also do not care. My method of voting is perpetually the same. I don't participate in primaries. Once decisions have been made as to who gets the eventual nomination, I compare and contrast with the other candidates for office. I immediately discard as a possible vote any candidate who has suffered bankruptcy, is a YECer, or supports a major woo. With the remaining candidates, I then assign +1 for every part of their platform I like and -1 for when I don't. I then vote for the one with the most points. It's very apolitical. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Have fun voting! Pizzameister (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Why mention ageism? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Because I guess he figures a big reason people support Hillary over Bernie is that Bernie's an old guy? Certainly an attitude I've never seen. What gets me is that he sees fit to mention ageism against Bernie, but doesn't make a note of the rampant sexist attacks directed at Clinton all the time. Bias showing, I guess? w/e. I don't really care either way. They both seem like viable options to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It was a humorous dig at the "Bernie-Bro" accusations. And while I am more in favor of Bernie than of Hillary, I think both would be vastly preferable over any alternative and good candidates in their own rights. I just don't buy the "Hillary is attacked because she is a woman" narrative any more than I bought it in 2008... Pizzameister (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie-Bros exist, and not in an insignificant ammount. And Hillary is most definitely attacked because she is a woman, but that is not the sole reason, and I don't think anyone's really implied that. But there are definitely those out there who attack because of prejudices. You might as well argue that sexism doesn't exist. It happens to any woman who's visible enough, and Clinton is perhaps the most visible woman in the US right now because she's running for president. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is how significant they are. Sure there is sexism against Hillary due to her being a woman and on the stage, but don't you deny her or her team playing with dirty tricks like any other politician and the accusations of "Berniebros" is, to a significant amount, one of these dirty tricks (which is again no claim, that they do not exist. If a crowd is big enough, there'll be always wackos among this crowd and due to Sanders being trendy and anti-establishment, this crowd is bound to attract some wackos from the far reaches of the net).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Except it's not Hillary proponents who are singing the cries of "Berniebros". It's people who have experienced them when they've given Bernie even the mildest criticism. It's not a false flag. Shit, I've seen tonnes of Bernie supporters bemoan that part of his fanbase. That's some "If you're not 100% with us you're 100% against us" stuff right there. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have read my fair share of MSNBC posts on FB and under them a fair amount of trolls, Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters dish it out. Really their tone is indistinguishable from one another. If anything the Hillary crowd is worse as they accuse Bernie of being some secret Republican plot to undermine the only true President, Hillary Rodham Clinton... Pizzameister (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In regards to conspiracy theories, who has the burden of proof and why?

Someone is making the argument that the person believing the official story of say a mass shooting has to prove the story to be true. Their claim is that The negative position is that the official story is untrue until proven so. I don't believe this is accurate but I would like to ask the people of Rational for some help. Who would have the burden of proof in this case and for what reason exactly? --MyNameIsMike (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much Occams Razor. The least plausible explanation (or the one that requires to most qualifications) also has the heaviest burden of proof. Most conspiracy theories require extraordinary circumstances (by definition). For mass shootings, it's much simpler (and therefor more plausible) that some people just go fucking nuts one day (as people clearly do on occasion), rather than a global conspiracy required to perpetrate the so called "false flags" in events like Newton or San Bernadina massacres.Petey Plane (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I considered this but the counter to it would be that their side has the fewest assumptions because I'm claiming the event happened so I have to assume it did happen, that the evidence is accurate and that those presenting it are telling the truth.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, generally the burden of proof is on the claimant. It would be required of any story that looks to explain the events until the official story is shown to be supported by the investigation, evidence gathered, and timeline leading up to it already done. Getting those items is what makes it an official story instead of unofficial speculation. Without the proof to support the conclusion then there is no actual support for the position.

Right but what their saying is that the evidence presented from the official story is fabricated. They have yet to show how it's fabricated because their claim is that the onus is on me to prove its validity.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Before the investigation, evidence, or anything else it's generally considered the default position that we don't know all the facts yet. Debunking the official story and offering a contrary story would have the burden of proof to show their version is true. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

But their claim is that by default the evidence presented is false and that it is on me to prove it true.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if they think it has been fabricated or false then they should have proof of that or else how would they know? If they know it's false they need to prove it instead of you proving it's true. The official investigation should have the evidence showing it is true as any good counter investigation should have. Without that it's just an assertion.

If they don't like you relying on others investigations, did they do their own investigations into why it's fabricated? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, their claim is that fabricated is the default position so they don't need to prove it, I need to prove the official story. They of course don't accept the evidence presented as a backing for the official story because they say the media is a bunch of liars, again by default so I would have to prove otherwise.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Then they are wrong. The default claim is not knowing the cause until proof is found to support a claim. Fabrication is a positive claim about cause that requires proof to substantiate and is not the default position for normal people. This sounds like pretty standard conspiracy theorist (read this linked article for further explanation) nonsense involving paranoia, grand control schemes without proof, and denialism of anything any "faceless" authority figure could ever tell them. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

'Burden of proof' is not necessarily a helpful idea; largely because in this case any evidence you would present for the official story would likely be rejected for spurious reasons. A better way to think about it is with Bayes. What are the priors? They'll reveal their biases when they say whatever their favoured conspiracy is, and how they try to justify it as being likely. You can then break down their mistakes. The other thing to watch for is to make sure they don't present a false dichotomy, with only 'official story' and 'ass-pull CT' as the only options. There's a huge field of possible conspiracy theories, and something that might favour one will probably shoot a whole load of others out of the water. So, for each piece of evidence, it's not enough to assess how well it agrees with the official story and CT whatever, but to force consistency between the different CTs and point out that, actually, with the totality of evidence, the official story comes out better than any given conspiracy theory. But, then again, it's probably wasted because you can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into. Ultimately, your best bet might be to get them to attack not the official story, but CTs they don't agree with. Eventually, they might spot the pattern. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

So, how would you present this exactly?--MyNameIsMike (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It would need to be tailored to their details, which might be more effort than its worth. You could demand an explanation for why the background for their pet theory is a priori more probable than the 'naive' background - asking why it's sensible to assume a huge, pre-existing conspiracy that controls everything to the point it could pull something off when Ockham's razor scoffs at it. At the very least, you could work on them until they concede that they're coming form a different set of starting assumptions, and that your starting assumptions are no less valid than theirs. If that works, you could then demand that both of you adopt a different, least complicated prior, because that's a perfectly adequate start to find the truth. If they refuse that, then they're being fundamentally irrational and you might as well walk away. After that, you can iterate through specific pieces of evidence and apply Bayes theorem informally, saying 'how likely is this specific piece evidence given CT A, CT B or the official story?'. But it's probably a thankless task, because if they misunderstand positive claims to that extent, and don't appreciate the importance of the minimal assumption starting prior, they're not operating according to sense anyway.

Actually, hammering home the concept of minimal assumptions for the starting point is probably the strongest tack in general.Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, I've been trying but I'm also trying to avoid a situation where they can come back at me and claim that their position has the fewest assertions which would bring it back to a stalemate again.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to indenting your posts, guys?

Anyhoo, burden of proof is generally on whatever challenges the status quo. If you don't know anything about a mass shooting, but then somebody tells you there's been one & you're unsure whether to believe them - then the burden of proof is on them to corroborate the claim (that there's been a shooting) & not on you to prove that there hasn't been one. If, on the other hand, a large body of evidence exists about an incident & somebody tells you that it's all false, the burden of proof is on them to falsify that evidence. Conspiracy theories generally don't deal well with the burden of proof as they thrive on mysteries, gaps in the evidence, & fragments of evidence which (appear to) support their theory, and they use a lot of speculation & assumption to fill in the gaps. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, they've claimed that the evidence presented is inherently false and that I have to prove it true. He's also used the lack of photos of the children as "evidence" that this didn't happen.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you why that's stupid. Going by their own logic, they can claim 'any' evidence you show is fabricated and never have to substantiate their claims. Any evidence that proves the previous evidence is true must ALSO be assumed to be fabricated, leading to a rabbit hole with no end. Besides, not even live video footage of murder is sufficient to convince conspiracy theorists that a murder actually happened. If these bozos were in the middle of a shooting, they'd be calling the victims falling around them crisis actors up until the shooter points the gun at them - after that, they're dead and whether they can still be convinced is irrelevant to the living.177.193.222.90 (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been debating with them and believe me, their logic has been so ridiculously inconsistent. He called me a corporate shill then when I told him to prove it since his hang up is with proof and the positive claim he said he can't possible prove I'm a shill only to assert that I'm being paid in the very next sentence.

Let's try a real world case (though this may be stretching the concept of "real-World"). I believe Kennedy was murdered by the Martians who later doctored all the the evidence using secret undetectable Martian technology in order to frame Oswald. Why is the burden of proof on me? --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say it's because you're making the positive claim of martians killing Kennedy. The issue here though is that their claim is that they don't believe the official story based on conjecture and that because the official story has not been proven to his satisfaction that means it's not true and that the only other explanation is conspiracy for things to make sense.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the positive claim is "the official story is true". There is a mountain of evidence in the Warren report which one would present to fulfill the burden of proof. If you then wish to dispute that you need to both destroy all the basic arguments and then propose an explanation which which fits all the known facts better. I'd say good luck with that.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that it is incumbent upon those proclaiming the official story to present the evidence. But the evidence comes from the investigation done by, in this case the Warren Commission, which backs the official story so to prove the official story, I would present the evidence as such and thus shift the burden of proof to disprove said evidence, correct?

I guess it would also go to what Queex quoted ("You can't reason someone out of what they didn't reason themselves into") when they claim that the media is flat out lying and this evidence is inherently false, correct?--MyNameIsMike (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Alliances between feminists and evangelical Christians

I was wondering, what are some alliances between feminists and evangelical Christians? An example that comes to my mind is opposition to pornography that features women. Feminists hate this porn for objectifying women, and evangelical Christians hate it (when they're not secretly jacking off to it and then asking God's forgiveness) because it provokes men to lust after women in their hearts.

Another example is that feminists often become Child Protective Services caseworkers, and end up removing kids and putting them in the custody of evangelical Christians, who make up a disproportionate percentage of the population of foster and adoptive parents. Feminists get into this field because it gives them an opportunity to take away kids from men who have been accused of domestic abuse (even if no court has found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). Once taken away, the kids have to be placed somewhere, and evangelical Christians tend to be clean-cut, law-abiding, pillar-of-the-community types who seem like plausible choices for the role of superior parents. Sure, they may persecute any kids in their custody who are gay or who don't feel like going to church, but that doesn't count as child abuse under our laws; that's just the exercise of their religion. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The 1st paragraph may be true sometime, the 2nd is descending in deep tin foil hat county.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 00:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s the then common types of feminism did in fact have (tactical) alliances with the then emerging political movement of radical religion. But that is mostly a thing of the past, not least because feminism has changed... Pizzameister (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, an odd coalition of Victorian feminists, Socialists, religious groups, and Progressives successfully mobilized to raise the age of consent in the 19th century. It makes sense. Feminists love to encourage young women to spend their time studying for a future career rather than having sex with men, and religious people love to penalize premarital sex. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're making a hilarious strawman here. What is your perspective of sex positive feminists, such as Laci Green? There are only two groups of "feminists" which behave the way you describe:

• Radical Andrea Dworkin types who feel that all sex is more less misgonsytic, and
• Religious women who discovered that women are objectified/oversexualized in the media, and try to use this to push their puritan values. Most common among Christians and Western Muslims.

You should also note that their views overlap greatly, for instance, the religious types preach Dworkin's opinion that pornography is the exploitation of women almost word for word. The similarities end there however, the radicals tend to advocate lesbianism, abolition of marriage, and similar views. The first group are about as rare as TERFs, and the second are more under the religious category than the feminist category, since equality ends where religion begins for them. By contrast, most modern feminists recognize that puritan attitudes towards sex are patriarchal, as they prize female virginity and inevitably objectify women as sex objects to be conquered. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

However, Dworkin & MacKinnon style views are mainstream in the current wave including Laci Green, under the umbrella of “objectification”. It tends to be incoherent, and includes even “objectification” of actual objects (such as a pixel and polygon Lara Croft). The opposite camp of feminists advocated for empowerment and emancipation and they are out of fashion. ~ Aneris ✻ 08:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Dworkin and McKinnon are 2nd wave and their views are considered to be as dead as original Marx. The only 2nd wave feminists left are the TERFs. Current 3rd-wave repudiates them. Laci Green's views on objectification have no relation to Dworkin and MacKinnon's work. You've clearly never read either.

And that's really the problem with you guys. Y'all are all stuck with Dworkin and MacKinnon back in 1983 and think that feminism never went past 2nd wave. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted and discarded. Jessica Udischas and Ophilia Benson say hi.Keter (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's not so much that feminists are sex-negative, as it is that they're marriage-negative. They have the same attitude toward marriage that the U.S. has toward international organizations; they don't want to surrender any sovereignty to it unless they get to control it. The age of consent doesn't stop teenage girls from having sex altogether, but it does prevent them from having sex with older guys who might otherwise marry them and enter into the traditional kind of relationship with the man as breadwinner and the wife as homemaker. A girl who has a baby by a teenage boy is going to end up on on welfare or supported by parents; she won't have the kind of relatively cushy life she could have led as a housewife, so this deters this type of relationship.

Plus, what the law doesn't regulate, culture can; sex between teenagers that doesn't lead to marriage can be more easily stigmatized by evangelical Christians as unwholesome and decadent. The two individuals involved are considered too immature to make responsible decisions (such as getting married). If there's an older male involved, on the other hand, that is someone that argument can't be made against, and therefore he poses a greater threat to the feminist agenda.

The fate of young women is the main battleground in the fight between neomasculinism and feminism. It is imperative for the success of the feminist agenda that they steer young women in the direction of education and careers rather than early marriage and childbearing. This depends very much on keeping them away from men with resources who could serve as providers and subsidize a homemaker lifestyle. I'm actually rather surprised feminists haven't fought harder to eliminate the ability of minors to marry adults with parental consent. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Back in the bad old days before paternity tests no man who impregnated a teenager would marry her. Regardless of whether said man was a teenager as well or sixty. Nowadays, there are some men who own up to their child and some who don't. But regardless the law guarantees that mother and child are taken care of in some form. Either by the dad or by the state. In some cases by both... Of course as the law is gender-blind, a woman might also end up having to pay alimony for the father and her child, but due to several factors this rarely ever happens... Pizzameister (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In MRE's world, a well paying career is much less desirable than "a relatively cushy life" as a babyhomemaker. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in reading MRE's latest rant (so forgive me for not doing so and probably missing out on some context), but I do have to note that the whole point of having a well-paying job in a capitalist society is to ensure "a relatively cushy life". People often forget this, but money only has value/meaning as a means to an end. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

I don't see the point of a wife's having a career, if her husband is able-bodied. It's going to take the pressure off of the husband to earn a big enough income to satisfy her wants, since he knows she can pick up the slack if he falls short. It's also going to take away some of his reward for being a good provider, which is that he can come home to a wife who is well-rested (as opposed to tired out from the work day) and ready to enthusiastically greet him and fulfill his desires for food and sex. As a fellow full-time breadwinner, she's instead going to have an entitled attitude and be like, "Hon, can you cook, or at least help with the dishes?"

Fuck that. If I'm going to be someone's wage slave 8 hours a day, and sit in traffic for another 3 hours, I expect to be king of my domain when I get home and be waited on hand and foot. Also, it's important that the wife be kept in reserve as a backup breadwinner (in case something happens to the husband) and as a caregiver for not only kids but anyone in the family who may become disabled. If both spouses are breadwinners, they will tend to build their financial situation (including mortgage) around the assumption that they'll both be earning an income, and then there's no room for error; if anything happens to either of them, they go bankrupt. The kids also get put in day care (which is expensive) and the elderly get sent to nursing homes.

The master/slave dynamic between husband and wife tends to be sexually appealing to both. Women love to be dominated, and men love to dominate (unless/until guilt trips by feminists, and/or a lifestyle that tends to reduce their testosterone, interferes with this natural tendency). Look at the kinds of guys attractive young women tend to flock to, if you don't believe me. It tends to be guys who take a proprietary attitude toward them. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Does your wife agree with you about all this? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

MY GOD! MRE, you truly are a misogynist, and that's a word I pledged never to use because of the negative stigma associated with the extreme wing of the 3rd-wave feminist movement. But I guess I'll break my pledge, because it's actually appropriate in this instance. "I expect to be king of my domain when I get home and be waited on hand and foot." What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you insane? You get money for your work, not a slavegirl!

"Women love to be dominated". This is blind generalization, and it has no truth at all. It's like saying "Blacks love to be enslaved". Don't you realize that you are saying the same thing? If you were around in the 1800s, you would be a supporter of slavery and the South. Let's actually address your point though. You claim that men dominating women is natural. In many species, it is the exact opposite: men are subservient to women. Humans have evolved more in the past 2,000 years than any other non-viral species on Earth in all of history. Social roles have changed rapidly according to economic circumstances: as women could perform jobs that involve intellectual capacity rather than upper body strength when the Industrial Revolution occurred. Nowadays, in first world societies, intellectual jobs are considered to be more important, and women are equally intellectually capable as men. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's a troll. For instance, "she's instead going to have an entitled attitude and be like, "Hon, can you cook, or at least help with the dishes?" He thinks helping with the dishes is "entitled." Gotta be a troll. Also, "Men's Rights EXTREMIST" kinda gives it away. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's just a kid. For someone of such heroic verbosity re. the battle of the sexes, there's remarkably little in his writing to suggest it's informed by any adult, real world experience. Robledo (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

really, i've always figured an embittered divorcee AMassiveGay (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My wife has never asked me for help with the housework, and the one time I offered to help, she asked me if I thought she wasn't doing it properly. I told her that she was doing it fine, but I just wondered if she wanted me to share in the work. She replied that it was her responsibility to do it. So I haven't offered since then. She basically claimed it as her domain. But she has also in the past said that if she were the breadwinner of the family, she would expect me to do housework. It's one of the reasons why I like to be the breadwinner.

Oh yeah, I'm also a bitter frivorcee, that's true. I would like to put the past behind me, but unfortunately my ex set some stuff in motion that continues to affect my life, and therefore serves as an ongoing reminder and inspiration to fight against feminism. If it were just her behavior that I found objectionable, I would probably have mostly let it go and said, "Well, that's just one crazy bitch; who cares about her" but the way people reacted to her behavior made me realize how much support there is in our culture and legal system for women's treating men badly. And it definitely does impact the kids. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That explains so much... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If I'm going to be someone's wage slave 8 hours a day, and sit in traffic for another 3 hours, I expect to be king of my domain when I get home and be waited on hand and foot.- Men's Rights EXTREMIST

Well, I see a lot of your problems right there. You're not looking for a partnership; you're looking for a Master/Slave BDSM relationship. (FetLife might help you with that one.) You also expect that you'll actually make enough money not to require a two-income household and have her be a SAHM, and frankly, you don't seem executive level to me. Add a couple of kids in and you'll need to be clearing $150K/year net just on your ownsome.

If both spouses are breadwinners, they will tend to build their financial situation (including mortgage) around the assumption that they'll both be earning an income, and then there's no room for error; if anything happens to either of them, they go bankrupt.- Men's Rights EXTREMIST

That's a lie. I don't know of any dual-income couples that do that.

The master/slave dynamic between husband and wife tends to be sexually appealing to both.- Men's Rights EXTREMIST

Only if they're into that sort of thing.

Women love to be dominated, and men love to dominate- Men's Rights EXTREMIST

Some. Very much not all.

Oh yeah, I'm also a bitter frivorcee, that's true...If it were just her behavior that I found objectionable, I would probably have mostly let it go and said, "Well, that's just one crazy bitch; who cares about her" but the way people reacted to her behavior made me realize how much support there is in our culture and legal system for women's treating men badly. And it definitely does impact the kids.- Men's Rights EXTREMIST

Let me guess. She actually expects you to pay child support, since she has primary custody, and adhere to visitation rights. Oh, and she divorced you because she said "FUCK THAT." to your BDSM fantasies. Somewhere in the right area? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who doesn't understand this whole heated debate over trans-people and restrooms?

I don't get why having someone who's changed genders in the restroom of their changed(?) (I don't know what they'd prefer me to call it, happy to change it if need be,) sex is a problem. We're all in there for the same business... Furthermore, as far as I can tell (I am pretty ignorant though), anybody who's trans-gender is going to be using a stall anyway, and those are pretty much sectioned off from everywhere else in the restroom. People who are offended by trans-people (Correct term?), would maybe have to acknowledge them while washing up at the sink at the most. And on the issue of children. In my opinion, children should have separate bathrooms than adults period. Would solve a decent amount of problems. I guess I just feel like most of these issues are overblown. I know very few people who would take hormones, and/or dress differently to their gender's norm just to get a peek at the opposite sex on the can. That's what the internet's for. Bad @ splleing... (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

For some, it is a deliberate attempt to create a fuss out of nothing in order to demonise transfolk and prevent sociey in general treating them as human beings on an even footing with everyone else (c.f. the GOP and other bigots). For others, it's abject gullibility in the face of scare stories generated by the former, with a healthy dollop of internalised transphobia (as a result of the 'evil tranny' trope that persisted for decades in film and TV). Individual unisex stalls seem to be the way forward for everyone; but it'd be a very long time indeed before all facilities are retrofitted that way. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The above is correct. I'd just like to add that sometimes children going to a restroom need assistance from a parent, which may be a parent of either sex. So I don't know if LAN Megalodon would ban parents from children-only restrooms or just stop them using the facilities there. Annquin (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure it is that clear cut. At what point are ladies toilets to be open to trans? After full sex change?, after hormone therapy has commenced? Or simply living as a woman? I can see the last two heing problematic AMassiveGay (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How? It's not as if anyone will see anything. There are no recorded cases of an attacker dressing as a woman in order to 'infiltrate' a women's bathroom. In fact, a little thought would suggest that it would be a very silly thing for a wannabe attacker to do - potentially drawing more attention to themselves when merely picking a seldom-used public bathroom is much easier and much more foolproof. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Also there is this thing call the internet where you can find videos of people doing this sort of thing for free if it floats your boat without spending years in jail and being labeled as a sex offender. Secondly, where people have spied on others they use those small cameras which are much easier to hide, and try to walk away from if they are found, than a full grown human being trying to peek. I would be for it if it made people put in those full stalls in response...which would be an upgrade from work that's a bit larger than a censor bar and if someone coughs too loud the door opens. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It bears mentioning that the fear of attacks in toilets still factors into things; even if ungrounded it's a consideration that should properly be considered. It just doesn't weigh very heavily against effectively denying a marginalised and vulnerable group access to any public toilets. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

regardless of how you or i view trans women or how they view themselves, it will be and is seen by a great many people as physically male individuals intruding on what is essentially the ultimate 'safe space' for women. This is not my view, but this is not going to change overnight, and no amount of dogmatic assertions is going to allay those fears. Trans people are only just becoming visible. These things take time. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A women's bathroom is the ultimate safe space? Wouldn't a single-occupancy bathroom be even safer? But I guess then you can't gossip with the other ladies.. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The idea of a "Children's Only" restroom being that children capable can use it themselves, not that small children could never be taken into an adult's restroom by their parents due to needed assistance, just to clarify. Bad @ splleing... (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

So instead of two bathrooms (male and female), there would be four (men, women, boys, girls)? I think what we should focus on is creating more privacy WITHIN bathrooms. Put the urinals inside stalls for privacy, and also have floor-to-ceiling partitions and Sound Princesses to cover up embarrassing noises. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did Mr Extreme just make a sensible suggestion? Ok maybe the soundproofing is a little unnecessary. 94.7.181.144 (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, seems like a sensible suggestion. In fact, I don't think the whole toilet debate is largely due to religious zealotry or intent bigotry/hatred, but due to people desperately holding on to gender norms (and the cultural relic of sex-segregated restrooms is apparently where quite some people draw the line) in the face of these norms being increasingly revealed for the arbitrary constructs they are. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Not so fast. Unless you're in a progressive area in the west (don't try this in Bangladesh kids!), everyone still has some catching up to do regarding realizing gender roles aren't determined by genes and/or the local deity of choice. "Increaseingly revealed" is a bit too optimistic. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "whole heated debate over trans-people and restrooms" is a mostly West-exclusive thing to begin with. Outside the West, trans issues are either treated in a notably different cultural/ideological framework (e.g. in the form of traditional acceptance of a 'third gender' (with its own associated gender norms) or Iran's acceptance of transsexualism within a strict heteronormative, gender-binary framework) or not at all. Also, though much of the more progressive West might be increasingly less inclined to claim gender roles come from God or are a genetic feature (some MRAs though...), we still have a long way to go in regards to awareness of arbitrary double standards that stil exist within our own gender norms. What I primarily meant to do with the "these norms being increasingly revealed" bit was to describe the opposing worldview that's feared. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

We need a article on the Saturn Cube conspiracy.

It's a big one that is not on this site yet. Here is some info on it. http://www.whale.to/c/saturn.html http://illuminatiwatcher.com/decoding-illuminati-symbolism-saturn-black-cube/ 68.148.188.199 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall a conspiracy video mentioning this in part in the forums that I analyzed the first 10 minutes or so of. Pretty sure the Saturn-pole-hexagon-cube thing was mentioned somewhere on the wiki. I'll give it a look-see. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Check user

so I am proposing we give our mods the ability to check a user's IP. I know we like to give our mods the least amount of power and our userbase the most most amount of privacy, but I think this is a reasonable proposal after the accusations that Kugelschreiber and Pizzameister were socks of banned/binned users. This should prevent witchhunts in the future.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 18:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean they can't check IP addresses already? I was under the impression that a number of people could determine the IP addresses.---Mona- (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No, apparently RW got rid of that ability very early on so no one can do that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 21:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

FFS. Of course the mods should be able to determine that. That would greatly increase the ability to enforce a ban/binning.---Mona- (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the greatest friction points in your time on RW is that you seem to expect it to be run much more top-down than it is: that someone is responsible, that the hierarchy is firm, that interactions are policed. You seem to have greatly misperceived how authority here works. We are deeply uninterested in enforcing things without really good reason. If someone comes back and isn't obviously being a dickhead, then job done pretty much. Also, regulars change account names all the time just 'cos they feel like it. This is frequently infuriating and fucked-up, but it's a different infuriating and fucked-up to the one you seem to assume is right and natural - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"You seem to have greatly misperceived how authority here works." Not in the least. My reason for resigning as an editor in mainspace is entirely due to the lack of responsible authority; I, and several others, raised this problem multiple times. The lack of it is why the site attracts the sort of people who turn Youtube-comments into the cesspool that they are. This is the Internet. For the same reason so many sites have either closed comments, or had to start some level of moderation, this site should exert a minimal amount of quality control. Abusive and unreasonable people can edit here endlessly. Allowing this drives out quality editors (as unmoderated comments sections tend to repel decent, intelligent people) who either won't join to begin with, or who leave when they see how it is here. This site attracts trouble-makers who do little or nothing to write articles, or if they do edit, it sucks. No person who values their dignity and the ability to work in reasonable intellectual collaboration will put up with it. I won't.

Moreover, it's an insult to the community that time and energy is taken with coop cases, when few care in the least that the binned or banned may simply come back with new accounts. Cooping anyone is thus made a charade.

But I fully realize my view is not the majority one. Hence, I dropped out. For you could not be more wrong than in asserting that I "misperceive" the dynamics here. I perceive and reject them.---Mona- (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that giving the six mods the ability to check user IPs would lead to a more top-down administration. I don't expect the mods to use unless there is ample evidence that a user is a sock.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 22:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"I don't expect ..." - I'm in danger of going Godwin here but isn't that how tyrannies begin? How to check that someone wasn't being 'checkused' for unreasonable purposes. I wouldn't trust FCP for a moment! Pippa (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I thought that giving the mods checkuser would've helped avoid witch hunts and enforce bans. I know we haven't had a massive witch hunt AFAIK, but this would prevent a paranoid user from doing so; I admit that that idea may be uniformed an naive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 13:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I predict it's really not a happener without an overwhelming consensus from the editor population that this is a good idea, and I consider this unlikely (but you can try to gather such if you like) - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So assuming this discussion doesn't go anywhere I am curious why people are against checkuser. I know WP uses it so is it abused there?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 05:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Put "checkuser" into the Saloon search bar for a sample of past discussion - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You've kind of shot yourself in the foot there by titling this section "More mod power". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Well I was trying to be as transparent as possible.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You're Kent Hovind! OhHellNo (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Owlman is, like FCP, a wanker. Pippa (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition of moderator (OED): An arbitrator or mediator. Moderators should NOT have any rights beyond those of any normal member. They should intervene only between individuals or factions and use such minimal powers to broker an agreement. Even such powers as sysoprevoke should be removed IMnsHO. Pippa (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

So if a user accuses me of being a sock of a permabanned user then how does a mod arbitrate that dispute?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 15:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

laugh it off like everyone else. If you are a sock of a permabanned user, then dont repeat the behaviour that got you banned, and dont act exactly like said user. See pizzamaster for examples. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright. If that is how everything stays then this proposal is shot.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 16:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ecological Command System

So February was extremely warm in my state this year and I have never felt it this warm in March; the globe is getting hotter faster than we thought so with this existential crisis should the US government institute a temporary command system of economics like we did during WWII?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 04:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Careful. Do you want Trump to have absolute control over the economy? CorruptUser (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well he is a bankruptcy expert.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 04:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's funny, Trump at one point was worth -$900m, meaning he was technically the poorest man in America, meaning him winning the Presidency is technically the ultimate rags to riches success story. CorruptUser (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Clickbait tales

What is the cringiest clickbait you have ever seen, the worst i have seen was something i cant exactly find but it was something like this. "Top 10 things that actually happened in history" accompanied by a an image of a beach with a DEATH STAR in the sky, why anyone would click on this is beyond me who approved this is probably teh stupidest most genius person aliveBubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 20:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the ones that are along the lines of "You Won't Believe this Ugly Bastard Sleeps with a Different Woman Every Night! Find Out How!" Petey Plane (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

ha. Jeremy kyle is always featuring some guy with no teeth and dressed in a track suit with multiple kids from different women. Its oddly something ive never wished to emulate. Particularly the part where the guy is lectured on ethics by a man whose wife left him when he fucked a school girl. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They're all very cringe-inducing; I'm having a hard time singling one out as the worst. I will say, I'm always amused by the "This secret phrase will let you date/**** any woman you want!," as I imagine them all linking to this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cmjrTcYMqBM 166.137.240.18 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sleep with sexy woman simply by asking her 3 wierd questions"'Legion^{what do you want from me} 00:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Clickbait Robot is the best. It takes clickbait headlines to their logical (dadaesque) conclusion. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"You won't believe how old these people from 1970s TV shows look now." Annquin (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

WND always runs ones that say something like "You Won't Believe How She Looked When He Got Back From Iraq" with a stock picture of a very large woman (sometimes a picture of the actress Gabourey Sidibe, or "Mama June" from the Honey Boo Boo show), along side a stock image of a grieving soldier. Petey Plane (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also see our own clickbait generator. Feel free to make improvements or additions. Bongolian (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Rafael Cruz

I watched a video with Ted Cruz in which he described his atheist's father conversion to Christianity. Rafael Cruz was asking a pastor some questions about religion, one of which was, "What about a man in Tibet who's never heard of Jesus?" To which the pastor replied, "I don't know about the Tibetan, but what's your excuse?" Rafael, flabbergasted, then dropped on his knees and started singing praises to Jesus (or something like that). I mean, what? That makes no sense to me. It's as if someone told me, "You know about Zeus, what's your excuse?" and I immediately started bowing to Mount Olympus and sacrificing goats to the gods. It's completely bizarre.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll give you a hint - this is like C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel's "conversions," where the atheist knew God existed all along, and just wanted to sin/look cool/whatever. I don't know enough about Rafael Cruz to say the story is false or Cruz was never really an atheist, but if we assume the story you presented is true, it seems likely that Cruz was a very weak atheist or an 'atheist' in that he just wasn't raised religiously. The pastor's argument may sound impressive to sheeple believers but is logically flawed beyond belief (pun intended), and an objective person could tear it apart several ways. Just off the top of my head: it's circular reasoning because it assumes Christianity is the One True Religion(tm), it's assuming that Christianity is so obvious that a non-believer who has been exposed to it "has no excuse," (related to assuming Christianity), the argument could be used just as poorly well by a Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc, it's an appeal to emotion, the list goes on and on. The only way I could see the story being legitimate is if Rafael was a person who either

• Really wanted to believe, to the extant they'd accept any "argument," or;
• Had never contemplated philosophy, metaphysics, or apologetics in any meaningful way, and thus actually thought the pastor's argument was convincing.

But, by Occam's razor, I'm gonna say the story is fake, just like Ted Cruz. Lord Aeonian (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Source.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I'm not saying Cruz didn't say it, I'm saying it probably isn't true - or as true as he made it out to be. Lee Strobel wrote a whole book on the premise that he was an atheist who found Christianity, yet his definition of "atheism" was so laughable as to be clearly false. It's highly unlikely this story ever happened - Cruz is just lying for Jesus. Lord Aeonian (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I am a strong atheist and the pastor response seems somewhat rational, but Rafael Cruz's reaction is so exaggerated, at best, that I can't understand how anyone would believe it. I know that it is an atheist stereotype, but that story is just so dumb.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 14:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, Lying for Jesus is the most plausible reason for his "conversion". That, or the same type of conversion the 14 year old "atheist" Kirk Cameron had. Petey Plane (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How dare you sir! Anything a Christian^{(note cap letter!)} says is , by definition, true. Pippa (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

hes not lying for jesus, hes lying for christian votes. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Aeonian. No, I know that's not what you were saying. I just provided the link so others could see the original story.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 01:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Krej, 'cause holy moly how that story just trots out one cliche after another. It sounds extremely like Strobel's conversion story, just kicked up a notch (e.g. replete with alcoholism and a saintly mother of a violent drug addict) and cue the straw man atheist caricatures. Yep, that story sounds totally plausible, Cruz... ScepticWombat (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

it doesn't have to be plausible. Its to reinforce and rationalise the beliefs of the already faithful, a group that will readily believe without looking to closely because it fits their world view. But manly to get their votes. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Weird, my comment from earlier was removed by another user... I'll repeat it. The story isn't meant to be taken literally. Conversion stories are supposed to be exaggerated and absurd. I read a really interesting piece a while back that looked at Carson's lies in the same context. The point isn't about whether or not it is true, but that the person found salvation when they needed it the most. Ayzmo^Cheers 19:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

[EC] If people want to lead Christ by example, especially of virtuous action, then lying about conversions is the last thing I believe people would actively desire to do. Firstly, why should anyone believe lies from a follower of a faith that extols the virtue of honesty and integrity? If it was powerful enough to convert them why would they make up another story when the honest one worked? Why are they lying about the most important personal statement of faith they could possibly give to believe? Did they lie to themselves to believe, are they doing it so other people will accept them, does anyone even care? It also actively goes against the narrative that Christians are more virtuous then non-Christians and provides counter examples that show how hypocritical Christians are...and Christ spoke disparagingly against hypocrites, liars, and those who drive humanity from the lord.

There is so many things wrong with it that it seems laughably counterproductive to trying to convince other people, live their life in the grace of the lord that considers lying a sin, and changing conversion stories that worked to absurdist fictional parodies because...reasons? It's nonsensical! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Next you'll be saying that Ben Carson's autobiography is exaggerated. Vulpius (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Ayzmo, I get your argument about this being in the "preaching to the choir" genre. However, I don't get why, especially in mass communication and during a primary which is about getting as man people on board as possible, Cruz couldn't be bothered to construct either a more fantastic and entertaining story or a more plausible scenario of personal satori (e.g. Dubya playing up how religion helped him get on the water wagon)? But perhaps it just illustrates that Cruz is a quite boring person who provides the story teller with little narrative material from which to weave the tale? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

its simplicity gives it more credence than a more grandiose, less humble, story AMassiveGay (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a mad lady who needs a article.

http://www.whoneedslight.org/ Look at this site and see the crazy!

68.148.188.199 (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

So contrary to popular belief, this is not a Bernie-Fansite, as evidenced by these edits to the two relevant pages. They quite clearly show a slant and may be inaccurate or even inflammatory. What should we do with them? I think there should be some kind of compromise between $Hillary hags who are bought by Wall-Street and racist misogynist Bernie-Bros who are not actually real democrats, as the two groups like to call one another... Pizzameister (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh, as long as what's posted on either page can be backed up by legitimate sources (or at least better than Alternet or Salon) then i say let them evolve. Petey Plane (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this site should take a pro-Bernie Sanders view. Any kind of pro-Hillary propaganda that is not put into context should be deleted. As should pro-Bernie propaganda that is baseless. The end result will be Bernie Sanders looking better. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

there shouldnt be any bias either way in this case. Just what is true and can be sourced. If pizzamaster has an issue with the stated facts, they should check them. Shouldnt be too difficult AMassiveGay (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

he should also check the latest edits, as i have already amended the hilary edit of clear partisanship. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Aslong as we all support Donald Trump to Make America Great Again. Ghost (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I support Trump to Make America Democratic again. Bongolian (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I support Trump to Make America Orcish Again - the Age of Men is over! ScepticWombat (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So... bringing up those edits on their respective talk pages was not enough for you as you also had to drag your outrage in here? That's some hilarious overreaction from you! What happened? Did I strike a nerve? Typhoon (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not even "slanted" towards Hillary. What with 'It takes a Village' being randomly quote-mined all over the article, and me adding mentions that her policies were disastrous for black communities. If anything, my edits only added some context to it. I guess anything that isn't 100% an attack on her is now "slanted" towards her. Typhoon (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This guy is a big one. Give him a article

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5EtLmidKchvadyrEotfENg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIsYlLpgMOFfixJ0y1vR2UQ

Lot's of conspiracy people use him as a source for the saturn cube conspiracy. Oh and he REALLY hates CERN.

This is one of his finest examples of madness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgjY7qxSIEc

He also has a website... and it's fancy looking. http://roundsaturnseye.com/

68.148.188.199 (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The guy's got 12 million views. Starting work on RoundSaturnsEye. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is one of his friends... I think? He has two movies and lot's of viewers so give him a article. And he is just as crazy. https://www.youtube.com/user/FaceLikeTheSun 68.148.188.199 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WND cover nom

Petey Plane's nominated WND for gold: Talk:WND#Cover_story_.28sticky.29. Please discuss there - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Abrahamic God has no compassion

Punishing someone for suicide or assisted suicide if someone is terminally ill. If someone commits suicide because they are mentally ill and cannot take the pain, they get to go to hell or if someone has cancer and they want to end their pain they go to hell according to fundies. I thought their God was supposed to be loving, not a compassion-less douche bag.Now the kicker, he was the ass who gave these illnesses then turns around and punishes them for wanting to end their pain.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say the abrahamic god does that? Pizzameister (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've heard people say this BS before, that if you kill yourself, you automatically go to Hell because you don't have time to ask for forgiveness. Uh, what if you take the killing dose and say "Oh God, forgive me for doing that" right before you die? Or jump off the Golden Gate Bridge and say a quick prayer as you're falling? I'm sure there's a way to win this game of freeze tag. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically if you ask for forgiveness you will receive it no matter the crime, so you can get around the "no suicides" rule with a bit of creativity...CorruptUser (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that's what I like to call "gaming the system" брэндэн (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Catechism says "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide. We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives." (2282-3)[4] So there's the usual "mysterious ways" get-out and you don't necessarily end up in hell. Yay. Annquin (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK in Modern Judaism (including the Orthodox branch), most or even all suicides are today handled under the "psychological problems and thus not responsible for his/her actions handle".--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 23:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never bought that. I've made contingency plans for ending my own life if the need be. I have no plans to use them, but in case of need (medical diagnosis of some kind of dementia, positive paternity test, &c.) it's there if I need to use it. I don't see this as particularly irrational; it's just that there are some circumstances where I'd prefer not to go on living. And, because the law of the land is far crueler than God, it's something you have to do yourself. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course the Abrahamic God has no compassion. He doesn't exist, so he has nothing of anything.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

God told me to kill you for saying that! --Ymir (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The madness here is so deep it's in the center of the planet. Please give them articles.

Here is one https://www.youtube.com/user/FaceLikeTheSun

And here is another https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMQgRqqyR5xGI_PeiZRVr9A Quick note this guy is the fire that fuels the CERN hate.

One more in the mix http://www.nicholson1968.com/nicholson1968s-post/saturn-worshipthe-black-cube This guy has been on lot's of radio shows Just like the guy above.

Does the madness ever end? https://www.youtube.com/user/BPEarthWatch This one sees doom in all things.

Deep deep down into the darkest pit's of madness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgjY7qxSIEc

Still going deeper? Where does the madness end? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUIwxA-CHccPAaVqrfggAiQ This one is one of the biggest ones on this list.

Digging into the deepest pit's of madness once more. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmLJ1lhe9G_2gWwo_rRtLRg That is conspiracy addiction not Christianity.

The MADNESS the MADNESS HAHAHA. https://www.youtube.com/user/NoLife127 This one IS the biggest one on the list.

And many more crazys are part of it. Look at what youtube shows on the right of the page to see them.

68.148.188.199 (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm very very good at finding the crazy ones on the net. You website is missing many of them. 68.148.188.199 (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There certainly is a lot of nuttiness on youtube. Unfortunately I'm not sure the we have the time or the inclination to work through all of it. I'm afraid that my personal inclination is simply to not click youtube links.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that anyone with a digital camera or Windows Movie Maker can post whatever they want on Youtube (as long as it doesn't violate terms of conditions, and isn't by Viacom, Studio Ghibli, or Nintendo), which is wonderful in terms of personal freedoms and gathering an audience of like-minded people, but crazy overwhelming when one is cataloguing all of these and what they've got that's right/wrong/misleading/somewhere-in-between.

I've been considering writing up a draft PRATT-like article providing a cliffs notes version of what's most commonly brought up in sitting-at-a-desk-talking-into-a-camera vidblogs, but I've been busy with other non-RW things to start. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

template:rebuttal

a navbox containing links to every rebuttal pages within rationalwiki is necessary. the need was felt during search for a specific rebuttal page which contained 50+ word paragraphs refuting points thrown by the creationist collectives against evolution, abiogenesis, which was not foundFAMAS (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that nobody gives a shit about what you say anymore?--JorisEnter (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't a category be more useful? Why do you need a navbox? I don't see that every rebuttal page needs a box linking directly to every other rebuttal.

On the other hand, if you want to create a template, go for it - it's not hard if you copy an existing one. Just think carefully which articles you put it on. Annquin (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be looking for Category:Side-by-side articles - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This user expresses gratitude to User:David Gerard for the notification of the category and expresses disgust at the responses by User:JorisEnter in this post and other places where forms of verbal abuse via caps and emotionally negatory expressions were utilized, which can be viewed in the respective user's contrib logFAMAS (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Vincent Fleury

Does Vincent Fleury merit a page? See Swirling, twirling, birling, and going around and around again. Proxima Centauri (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, though as that notes it'd be lawsuit bait unless it's nailed down to the finest of standards (and probably even then) - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's nail it down. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Altmedbox

{{Altmedbox}}

I spent some time trying to classify (most of, but not all) the treatments listed in Category:Alternative medicine, partly so that this (huge) navbox could be constructed. Any suggestions? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please make more templates like that. I think it could really help site navigation a lot.--Jakester499 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We could make a few articles about alternative medical colleges and then add a section on the box about them, so far we have four articles on alternative med schools (Georgia Christian University, Bastyr University, College of Metaphysical Studies and the American University of Complementary Medicine)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a portal page, not something to shove on every article, even collapsed. (Good Lord, it's three and a half goddamn screens on my laptop.) You could probably auto-populate it with DPL - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted the bot-forcing of this huge and obnoxious template onto about 300 articles, and have blanked the template itself pending discussion. This template is too large to of be any actual use. What you've written here is a portal page, not a piece of navigation that could actually be used by people - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It is autopopulated.

These templates are already in wide use -- see Template:Navbox Portal -- and when previously mentioned in the Bar, they received positive support.

This template is particularly huge because the altmed section of the site is particularly huge. It's simple enough to cut it down -- just remove sections from it.

And if it's collapsed, why does it matter how large it is? <_< ^{— Unsigned, by: FuzzyCatPotato / talk / contribs}

Page load times. Flashing a huge swathe of yellow across the screen before the collapse completes. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The huge yellow glory is a feature, not a bug. But additionally, I think using indentation within this kind of template just looks weird and fails to achieve the assumably aimed for organization effect. 194.78.87.50 (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Is EFFIN revolting, but then what else would you expect from FCP? Pippa (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If anyone cares (and nobody ever seems to), Wikipedia has loads of similar templates: eg, Template:Communism. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh noes, you made an argument suggesting RW should copy Wikipedia! Way to shoot yourself in the foot there, Fuzzy. A bit more seriously, you'll note that on Wikipedia these templates are typically not autofilled with every single page that pops up in a related category, but instead manually filled with the most relevant pages. Perhaps the latter is not such a bad idea. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Wikipedia has some disastrous shitpiles, it's true. However, the relevant guideline (which is a non-binding "essay", but strikes me as sensible) suggests keeping it to 50-100 links tops, and "If a navbox grows to be so large that it cannot be seen in full on a standard sized computer screen, it should be split into two or more navboxes with links to one another within." The ones I've seen that are larger than this are e.g. a popular band with a long career, e.g. template:The Beach Boys - even template:The Beatles is carefully kept to size. Note that your example template Template:Communism is of comparable size and link count to these two, and not to the horror of altmedbox.

We have to think about actual usefulness. This thing was not, in point of fact, useful - David Gerard (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Updated and cut down. On my screen, it's slightly over one page, but still lists essentially every alternative medicine method that RW covers. Feel free to criticize the awful colors, but know that they are copied from {{altmed}} and not of my making. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What would be better than this atrocity would be a sensibly categorised Category:AltMed page, if such a thing doesn't mess with the autopopulation of the category. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've worked on that. Before, maybe 75% of altmed articles were uncategorized; perhaps 30% now. How would that be better, though? Both can exist at the same time. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, working on the Cat page avoids shitting all over all the individual category pages, and getting the Cat page up to snuff renders the navbox utterly redundant. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I think DG is right. That is far, far too large to be an infobox. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Term Limits

Yes or no on term limits for congressmen? I think yes. Look how long congressmen have been in office and nothing has been accomplished. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Idk, I could support it for Senators, but the Representatives serve very few years and I prefer some seniority.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 20:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally would love termlimits, it drives change and prevents the same old farts from making stupid laws, it makes change happen. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 20:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I kinda agree with OwlMan. The problem with term limits is that we don't get that seniority. With any other profession we see those who have been there for a while in glowing terms like "seasoned" or "experienced." It gives us people like Biden who has a personal relationship with dozens of heads of state, former and current. You need people who have experience with writing bills and knowledge about foreign policy in each chamber. If everyone were limited to 2(?) terms in the House I'm not sure if things would be better or worse. Ayzmo^Cheers 20:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The words you may have been seeking are "institutional memory." (RationalWiki has lost a fair bit of that in recent years.) Institutional memory helps keep the newcomers from trying to re-invent the wheel, among other things. SmartFeller (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes. There's apparently a word for it. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How about meritocratic appointments and recall elections instead?

Header says it all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The term limits argument is one that cannot really be agreed upon unless we analyze meritocracy and whether or not is really works. In China, for example, officials are supposed to succeed based on their contributions and work. That's how the system was set up. In theory, this would work beautifully, but in practice, this is far from perfect, resulting in massive corruption and nepotism on the same level as America. I would support a meritocratic system if it was proven to actually work.

My personal opinion is that once campaign finance reform is implemented (no more PACs, ban on donations from unions and corporations), then term limits should not exist. Officials would be elected directly by the people, and would be directly responsible to the voters, or they would be voted out. Therefore corrupt officials would be severely cut down and democratic government would be a reality. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

'corrupt officials would be severely cut and down and democratic government would be a reality' and we can ride unicorns and shit rainbows AMassiveGay (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Change voting

I think a switch even from first-past-the-post (current US voting, where the person with the most votes wins) to single-transferable-vote (how RW does its mod elections) would get (some of) the benefits of both term limits and seniority. Term limits are only proposed because incumbents almost always win, yet politicians have very low favorability rankings. STV reduces incumbency advantage by making voting for the non-incumbent (who might be less corrupt and/or more politically in-line with the electorate's views) less risky. And it's certainly less arbitrary than a term limit. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

the media would love that. Hours and hours and statistical analysis to make the proles head spin. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As if they didn't already do that. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

oh this would take it a whole new level. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It'd give them an extra hour of coverage as some computers somewhere sort out the votes. Given that they've already got a whole year of coverage from The Donald, I'll live. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Another hour of coverage giving an opportunity for a pseudo-mathematician to crawl out of the woodwork and talk about the implications of the latest polls and results and back them up with his new bitcoin miner machine. Yeah, that's going to be very interesting. Perhaps even entertaining. As long as they can sell ads to cover the cost, what do the broadcasters care? --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One solution to the 'incumbents almost always win' problem would be to take legislative districts out of the hands of partisan legislatures and have them drawn up by the Census Bureau's computers by parameters to keep them as regular as possible. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeh. But even if you fix gerrymandering, partisanship is still an issue. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Then create proportional districts and have open primaries in every state.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 02:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Voters are ignorant

Maybe voters are just ignorant; after the media was deregulated in the US everyone went for media that confirmed their bias and then corporations bought each other out to such an extent that pundits became neutral and not objectionable. This bias has caused people to distrust the mainstream media and turn to alternative media which can be dubious at the best of times; w/o a strong public media outlet their claims can't be spread or dispelled. The country's main parties have also moved away from the state elections which has caused voters to ignore local elections, at least until the Tea Party was spawned, and Super PACs have funded the airwaves with partisan disinformation. Lastly, many people are not educated enough to understand national political concepts like VATs and zero sum accounting.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 02:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Democracy doesn't work - case in point, the Religious Right. The people are not smart enough to rule themselves. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose your view. One should push for the most political activism as possible. We should have recall elections for all governors, voter initiatives and referendums in all states and on a federal scale, we should have 16 year olds voting, a voting rights amendment to the constitution, mandatory civic classes, prisoner and immigrant enfranchisement, and territories voting.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 03:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You need one hell of an educational system to pull that off. Maybe Japan or South Korea could try it, their politics are too muddled with business interests at the moment. But in Jesusland or Quranland? Utah and Texas will secede to become theocracies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will try to compete with ISIS, etc. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Aw man, I was looking forward to voting :('Legion^{what do you want from me} 19:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

ASMR

So, ASMR, or Autonomous sensory meridian response, for those who don't know it is a purported thing where if certain things happen you get all tingley. The claims seem kind of like bullshit, so im just here to get the rationalwiki consesus on the matter, i do not belive there have been any scientific studies on this, and for all i can tell this is a glorified placebo. All i can find are a shit ton of random bloggers commenting on how great it is. I decided to put it here before i put it on the to do list, just to figure out if this is some kind of woo or not. There is the wikipedia link, for some more information, all of the sources are random bloggers. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 04:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well we do have a ASMR article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 04:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The concept by itself isn't necessarily bullshit, just difficult to quantify and study scientifically. However I can definitely see its poorly-understood status being used by cranks too push various pseudoscience and woo (similar to quantum mechanics). If you can find particularly outrageous claims revolving around ASMR then you can add them to the article Owlman linked.166.137.244.59 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(Same BoN as above, just posting from a different device) For what it's worth I'll testify that I personally experience ASMR. But all I'd describe it as is "Arbitrarily specific sounds and tactile sensations are very subtly pleasing to me for reasons I can't quite articulate." Going out and actively seeking media to trigger ASMR, as well as the existence of entire online industries and cultures dedicated to the subject weirds me out a bit.

Seconded. I have also personally experienced ASMR before. I think it's a simple benign form of seizure. I just felt tingling in my prefrontal cortex. I don't really think it's woo. I'd say some of the claims surrounding it are probably exaggerated or false, so we should sort out the fact from fiction in our article. That would be great. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Should Naturopathic Medicine be legal?

I have no real problem with naturopathic medicine like I used to. I feel people should be able to choose for themselves, so yes. I know I will get negative replies but I don't really care.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine should only be allowed if a prescription has already been tried and failed to treat the illness. Additionally, the industry should be heavily regulated, and the products should only be allowed to be licensed to be sold if they have been shown to have effectiveness.

Ok, so bam, 70% of the industry is gone, just like that. Now that's we've cleared up the market, the remaining products are far more likely to be successful and good for people. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally think we should bring back witch hunts. Oh you have mystical and or supernatural healing powers? BURN HERETIC! StickySock (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

People ought to be able to use whatever quack medicines they want to on their own fine selves. That's an important part of human autonomy. The fact that many of them may choose poorly (and suffer the predictable consequences) is not compelling enough to deprive them of this freedom. A muc harder question is whether children or parents ought to have this right, but that's another issue entirely. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with it; if the government wants to promote their general welfare then they ought to educate people about how ineffective these "drugs" are.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC) 06:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Should people be allowed to ingest substances at will? If it's not a serious threat to their or others' health, sure. Should stuff that has no proven beneficial effects be allowed to be advertised as 'medicine'? Probably not. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

As long as they are not toxic and they are not sold as medicines there is no problem. There are people who believe that you should drink N glasses of water a day whether you are thirsty or not - the belief is wrong but water is not toxic, at lest in the quantities anyone is likely to drink. People have a right to be wrong - but government has a duty to inform and ensure that substances are nor harmful. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to clear and honest labelling and giving people information to make sensible choices. Particularly with traditional Chinese medicine there are issues with all sorts of strange and toxic things included that aren't mentioned on the label being included in the product.[5] If you unwittingly buy a TCM product containing paracetamol you could overdose and die. If you buy a parcel containing only herbs listed on the packet, you can make a slightly more informed decision - though even then if the herbs have health risks or interactions with pharmaceuticals you should be informed. Should you be able to buy potentially toxic herbs? Maybe; you can buy lots of other toxic products. Should you be able to prescribe them or give them to your children? No. Annquin (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Why should you be able to give your children toxic pharmaceuticals, but not toxic herbs?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything is toxic given the right dose in the right configuration. The difference is that pharmaceuticals have been through trials with educated/experienced researchers, the ingredients of the formulary are known, they have been tested to find the toxicity, they know what the effects are of toxicities, they have proven what the active ingredients do in what the therapeutic doses are, and they record those effects so in case something was missed they can change it later. Alternative medicine practitioners have not done in any remotely plausible way and actively fight when toxic effects of their patent bullshit are known/found. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a big part of my view is that labeling something as a 'cure' or 'treatment' is false advertising, which is illegal. So if you want the law to be upheld, a good deal of the naturopathic medicine industry is going to have to go. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94: Do you have any purpose for being at RW other than to start debates in here and then not participate in them? It's generally expected that if you ask questions, you're interested in what the respondents have to say. And if you do want to actually engage in debates, there are probably better websites. --Ymir (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ymir: No, which is why this is a baffling topic since I feel like we discussed the nearly same thing with him that was dumped in the most recent archive about an alternative medicine college. In fact, I constantly call him out for starting things, abandoning it, and then asking pretty much the same thing. It's not a huge deal, but like someone whistling out of tune all the time...it's frustrating and not saying something hasn't stopped it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

you could just ignore. If people respond and debate, well, what difference does it make if they do not add anymore? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Troll Charity for Women

Dear Spinmeisters, the Amazing Atheist has raised nearly 60k for "Extraordinary People: Daring To Actually Help Women", with support from your gallery of evil, GamerGator Total Biscuit is officially listed, Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad each have promoted it. At least you cannot pretend you haven't seen it. Following your tradition, I'm sure you find a reddit or tweet of someone to "counter" these efforts. The beneficiary is this organisation. Looking forward to see what you make with this (or how you ignore it). Cheers. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Good for him. It's possible to advance to help women in one instance and simultaneously both have absolutely terrible rhetoric towards women and oppose feminism, which he should theoretically be aligned with. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, they are horrible. I recall there was an argument with Greta Christina, where he apologized for some stuff. But I am not even subscribed to TAA. But of course rape insults were a meme on Freethought Blogs until fairly recently (that's your side, literally, and of course you have nary a thing nada zilch documented on that). I told you before, this out of your league and the deck is heavily stacked against you. Do you know about the pharyngula death wishes, for example? Lots of nice stuff. And GamerGhazi, that are the nazi paedophiles, aren't they? ~ Aneris ✻ 21:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Both sides in this nonsense are complete jokes, and you know it. More concerned with Youtube videos on video games than the fact that a very large percentage of the world believes the Abrahamic God might send them to hell. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There is only one side, the Regressives. Everyone else reacts to this one side in various ways, the reactions triggered a fairly complicated cascade. Part of the imaginary "opponent team" within atheism largely consists of "dictionary atheists" as they are called with sneering contempt. They usually would like to get on with that. Only few people actually crossed over to combat SJWs. Even Prime Evil Ring Leader of Team Darkness, like Thunderf00t, does not dedicate all of his energies on this stuff. It mostly activated various thirds, opponent gender warriors, MRA, trolls and the likes (which is then used by Regressives as their Reichtags Fire that affects everyone, which then leads to... and so on). Thus, you're mistaken. ~ Aneris ✻ 14:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, half of your message wasn't even coherent. Because that slog of improper grammar requires the reader to have presumptions that are locked away inside your head, it makes you look like a nut. Of course, it is nice to have that plainly visible. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 11:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, I'm not a native speaker. Other than that, it's more like friendly banter, since I know what will happen and it's visible in comments already: A bunch of people who apparently don't know what they are doing. Even if TAA and Co. were comparable to Gacy, you would still include into the article that he entertained sick children. This however lays bare the problems that sink your ship. Instead of documenting what is true (including clown costume and entertainment), you are highly selective and that's why the world-views of the inmates have basically lost touch with reality — even if we probably agree on most issues. ~ Aneris ✻ 14:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually Aneris, you seem to be the only one here with the Manichean belief that people can only exclusively act good or bad. Petey Plane (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

War is Peace, Petey. When you include a charity into an article of a person that is intensely hated here, then it's more balanced (and true) afterwards, rather than Manichean -- i.e. I suggest the exact opposite of what you claim. ~ Aneris ✻ 22:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitler hated smoking and liked dogs. --Ymir (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy dressed up as a clown to entertain sick children in hospital. Annquin (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't do charities. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So why not add this do the article?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 04:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be wasting an opportunity for zealotry. Lord Aeonian (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Pi is not 1.4316 you imbecilic skets

Fuck you and your imbecilic date format Free User ^{licensed under the GPL} 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day. :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. Petey Plane (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Pi is 3. Also, happy tau day. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 05:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So does that mean the whole of March is Pi Month? Annquin (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well we just had National Pie Week in the UK :D Flannan Isle (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be 14.316? Vulpius (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Vaccine nutters claim a victory - because some people have reported side effects

Here's what is claimed to be an insert from a vaccine that lists Autism as being 'reported'.

https://prof77.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/autism-is-now-acknowledged-and-disclosed-as-a-side-effect-of-dtap-vaccine/ ^{— Unsigned, by: Fustbariclation / talk / contribs} 15:10, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC)

I seem to recall someone mentioning this somewhere on this site. They even say a few sentences later that a causal relationship can't be drawn because of the level of uncertainty, and that they're simply listed due to the severity. Hell, get enough people and we could probably get "lycanthropy" or "zombie infection" listed as contraindications. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"goat breath" --Ymir (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Template problem

I would like to have a template which looks like this: text^(link)[1], so that direct links can be provided to some sources for ease of click, such as YT videos, while still having footnotes. The problem is that, using {{web}}:

{{{1}}}<sup>([{{{2}}} link])</sup>{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<ref>{{{2}}}</ref>|}}

Results in:

test^(link)

The footnote just has "{{{2}}}", rather than the content of {{{2}}}. Any suggestions? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be overcomplicating it. What is {{{3}}} for? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have a slightly more on the nose question. What are you trying to use this for? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of why you're doing it, can you call ref with the syntax {{#ref:{{{2}}}}} or the old ref template {{ref|{{{2}}}}}? I'm not totally sure if either is available/works. Annquin (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If a fundie school's advertising was accurate

An honest advertisement of Pensacola Christian College: What a Brochure would look like (This is meant to be fun)

• Believe in the bible?
• Hate having civil rights?
• Want a cult-like atmosphere?
• Hate Facts?
• Believe the Earth is six thousand years old?
• Believe in a talking snake?

Then enroll in Pensacola Christian College today! Where facts and liberty are nonexistent!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You forgot "do you enjoy only listening to shitty christian rock?" Seriously at some schools i heard they won't even let you listen to classical music'Legion^{what do you want from me} 00:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I heard there is no contemporary Christian music allowed at PCC--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, do they listen to choral music all day?'Legion^{what do you want from me} 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Certain types of music that are typically not associated with sensual or inappropriate themes and are generally acceptable include classical and semi-classical, traditional and patriotic, concert and marching band, and hymns and choruses. Any music that promotes worldly values or associations in its lyrics or style should be avoided. Whether or not the lyrics are Christian, music in the style of jazz, rock, rap, R&B, pop, country, or contemporary Christian is prohibited and may not be in a student’s possession or use on or off campus." [6]

I don't know if "traditional and patriotic" means specifically American tradition and patriotism or you could have middle eastern folk music and the North Korean national anthem. Annquin (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob Jones University, probably the standard bearer for fundy clown colleges, bans most, if not all contemporary music (i.e. any genre developed over the last 100 years) on campus.Petey Plane (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

cant help but think that is a good thing AMassiveGay (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, those darn darkies and their sensual jungle rhythms corrupting the white man's music!Petey Plane (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to contemporary christian music, though anyone shielded from one direction or the many many sound/look alikes is true,y blessed. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Public service announcement

If someone is ban evading by changing IP addresses within a range, use rangeblocks instead of playing whack-a-mole. See here for help. Be sure you know what you're doing though, as large rangeblocks can impact lots of people. Choosing your block options carefully can help mitigate this somewhat. --Ymir (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that this is extremely ill-thought-of by many, so should not be used without an excellent reason (e.g. the one in this case, the IP-hopper spamming the Saloon Bar with edits that need hiding) - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of that: their edits would be prevented by the edit filter, but they spammed so much that it triggered the >5.00% safety shutoff. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 14:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, rangeblocking 172.32.0.0/11 would get rid of most of their alternative IP addresses, but WP only allows /16. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way we can prevent this guy from constantly creating new accounts? It's getting kind of boring now, having revert-block-delete everything he does.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This has probably reached the point where we should contact the abuse address for T-Mobile USA (the 172.etc owner, as far as a brief search could tell). Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this the same T-Mobile guy we had to ban a few days ago?--JorisEnter (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If taking action via T-Mobile is the only option, that'll have to be done.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(Jesus effing Christ this is the fifth edit conflict I've gotten trying to post this) Considering they appear to be IP hopping, probably not easily. The nuclear option would be to disable account creation and put up a notice saying that new account creation has been temporarily disabled due to vandals, but considering it seems to be just one person, I'd say it's not gone to that extreme yet. Contacting T-Mobile might be a good idea if it doesn't stop. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocking all account creation seems rather extreme indeed, especially considering it's only one guy.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope this guy realises it takes like 30 seconds to remove his edits, and all we have to do is call t-mobile, or i belive it was metro pcs (i dont know if they run off the same network, you can check my talk page for the confession) from his information, so calling then would be preferable. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 18:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he gives a shit that we can undo his stuff almost immediately. That's how trolls work.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be better if one of the site admins/board members contacted them and not us. More clout and whatevs. I'm just wondering what precipitated all this. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of is that humans are horrible creatures.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of coincidence aside, I believe this all traces back to Fat Aardvark, as was. Hope they've got an appreciative audience for their performance, otherwise is would unutterably tragic. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If someone (crat or mod or what-have-you) with teh skillz could rename those "Rachel" usernames... that would be grand. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That indeed. They don't show up in the page histories (the advantage of deleting edits) but the name is still visible in recent changes, user creation logs, and also in other people's reverts.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, I think he does not even have an audience. GG trolls actually appear to have some folks watching them, but appears to be just another guy with no life.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You could have re-blocked the ranges I blocked with account creation disabled. This would affect only those ranges, not everyone. Existing accounts could still edit from those ranges (shutting that off is a different block option). I intentionally didn't to see if he would get tired and go away. Well okay apparently he did, but only after creating a bunch of accounts. I would have re-blocked but I went to sleep before he discovered the create account link. Abuse reports are generally pointless; most ISPs don't pay any attention to them. --Ymir (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Some ISPs ignore them, some of them contact the subscriber to let them know an abuse report was filed against their account. It takes some really vile abuse and disregard for prior warnings for someone's account to actually be terminated. This is why trolls will always have the upper hand here; administration doesn't know what it's talking about. Rachel's Revenge (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he just "it was just a joke bro"-ed out, so eh. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's hope he did. The account creation spam appears to have stopped, so that's something.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

....and he's back at it. I could have placed money on the LANCB being total BS. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So, my family is a bunch of cranks...

...and I made a link to a nonexistent sandbox page in which I plan to discuss some of their beliefs. I don't intend on someone making it into a legit article, but I do plan on adding a few categories to the sandbox page (Namely "Authoritarian Wingnuttery", "Conservative Wingnuttery", "Racists", "Fundamentalists", "Denialism", etc.). I'm curious. Am I allowed to do this? TheMyon (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think adding categories to user-space articles is a good idea. The categories you mention are a way of gathering mainspace articles into virtual baskets whose contents have something in common. With that said, it would not hurt to mention those categories on your sandbox page, without putting double square brackets around them. I am not making any kind of authoritative pronouncement on behalf of the mob, but only voicing one user's opinion. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with those opinions and suggest you follow that advice. Spud (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Good luck documenting the cranks in your family, however! Important work for yourself to get their nonsense into writing, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no knowledge TheMon's home life but i cannot imagine documenting the faults of ones family is either helpful or healthy for anyone involved. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean "general faults" or anything of the kind. I just mean that it's probably a useful exercise to act notary if you have family members that spew vitriol with pleasure. It'll help you get a grip on things, to structure the opinions of said people, and indeed to consult the web about these views. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

probably not on a website where anyone can view your musings though AMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Why, what would happen? Anonymize the story and stay anonymous as a user and you're set. We certainly don't know your dox, nor could or would we "out you" even if we had the choice. I think it's important to see that there is respite to be found away from a family of cranks. We don't shun you. Now go, and write. And be smart about it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I can only say that sense of betrayal and violation of my privacy, if a family member ever did such thing, if ever discovered and no matter how anonymized it maybe, would be unforgivable. You can achieve this respite via a diary or personal log, rather than sharing with a bunch of internet strangers. Plus it is only really anonymous if you stick to generalities. The more specific it gets, the less anonymous it is, even ẃith names removed. That said, i find a facebook page is an unwarrented assault ones privacy that far too many people are all too keen to give up AMassiveGay (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I share your views on Facebook. And by that, I don't mean I link to your views on my Facebook account - I don't have one. I mean that I share the views... damnit. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You can add categories, but you need to put a colon right before the word, like this [[:category:fundamentalist]] to link to a category without including your pages to this (mainspace) category. However, stick to the ideas and leave the people (names etc) out of it, when they aren't somewhat notable. ~ Aneris ✻ 10:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Way to slow down trolls?

If we make a userspace that all accounts are entered in to when they are created, but automatically leave then they are more than 30 minutes old or have made more than three edits, and made it so that they couldn't edit the most-often trolled pages while in that group, would it reduce trolling. I have no idea how it would work, and I know that it might be annoying for new users, but if it stopped enough of the trolls then it might be worth it. KOMF 02:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (sorry for the grammar)

It would have help if I had sysop rights, would have been able to stop the ass who I had to revert today. Ghost (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not possible to specify "most trolled pages", and all users have to do the CAPTCHA before they get autoconfirmed. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Account deletion

Is it possible to request that one's account is deleted? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. You should ask a mod though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 06:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Eh? No it can't. It can be renamed though, though alternately if you don't want the account there's no reason you can't just stop using it. What precisely do you envisage "deletion" entailing? - David Gerard (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If it's not linked to your real life identity it's probably not a problem. You could simply stop using this account and start again with a new one. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent BoN spam and edit statistics

It just crossed my mind; the question of whether or not the recent wave of pointless BoN spam would in fact increase our edit statistics? Does anyone know if this is the case, and if so, does that mean the BoN spammer is by extension improving the site's statistics? (note: I realize, of course, that having BoN spam and other editors revert it is a 100% loss of productive edits, but - just as a technichality to maybe spite the spammer in question?) *shrugs* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted edits do not add to edit count, so no. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Burnback

Would it be possible to make an "undo" which would (1) undo an edit, (2) suppress the edit text&summary&username, and (3) block the user who? (This should of course require you to confirm, unlike rollback, which is a one-button action.) I'm not sure how rollback is implemented. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dunno if it would be possible, but it would be awesome. An option to mass-revert a number of edits made by the same user on different pages would also be very useful.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an awesome idea (as is Joris' idea for mass reverting a user). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A bit of a related request: is it possible, and more importantly would it be considered appropriate by the mob, to ban all IPs from editing for a period of time (such as 48 hours) to deter vandals? Maybe this could be facilitated by getting a bot to auto-protect all pages? I think we should deter Arisboch from his malignant activity, and a simple IP ban, although reducing good-faith IP edits, would pose a serious obstacle for Arisboch to continue his evil behavior. He would most likely get tired and leave. If that doesn't stop this behavior, we could always organize the infrastructure to lodge a criminal complaint against Arisboch, leading to a criminal prosecution of him by the government for harassment/doxxing. Harsh, I know, but it would do the job. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So, we know its Arisboch? If so, why would he be wasting his time doing this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Who else would it be? (half rhetorical question) Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So I was away from RW for a while, and I come back to this. What exactly is happening and why does this person keep posting the same link over and over again, if no one minds catching me up? --Maxus (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Just an insolent child who dislikes the wiki.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 05:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone with the rights check Johnnyfog to see if this was an innocent user that hit the filter? It says his account was made in October 2014, this is a dedicated troll if the Johnnyfog account was the BoN. Lightning Dust (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You can just create a Gadget which calls a bunch of these URLs with jQuery.ajax. It's not that difficult, but AFAIK gadgets still don't work half of the time so it's pretty pointless to actually spend time on this... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

bs template and Plutoniumboss

So the obvious problem with template:bs has happened, which is an idiot taking a template intended for the most egregious of Scopie's Law violating publications and applying it to hundreds of articles about individuals. I've been reverting as I spot them, but good Lord.

So. Do we (a) blank the template (b) block or bin Plutoniumboss (yet again) (c) both (d) neither? - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I gotta tell ya, as much as I like the intention behind the template and indeed the icon of the squatting bull... I find the template confusing and superflous. I think the navs, the categories and indeed the article contents are all we need to determine bullshit or not. Smacking the bs sticker on an article doesn't help one bit. I say blank. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very useful template. But, to clarity this issue, I did ask when Fuzzy first shared the template what kinds of "sources" it's supposed to be used on, and his reply confirmed he intended it for individuals as well as publications (see RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive254#Template:Badsource). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

Again, without questioning the motive behind the template - my doubts regarding this template are bad enough by Gerard's definition of it, never mind by the one just described by Weasel. I renew my protests to this template. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

[EC] I don't think the problem is persons vs organizations, but of marginal cases. Does Alex Jones fit Scopie's Law? Yep. Does NaturalNews? Yep. Does GlobalResearch? Yep. But does Fox News? How high must the bullshit/content ratio be for a source to be BS? I'm not sure. The goal was mostly just to provide a funny, noticeable way for readers to quickly see that a source is bad. Mostly, I'd vastly prefer this template over the unfunny&overused linkings to the bullshit article. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing the latter works for me.

The Plutoniumboss idiocy comes from stuff like applying it to Tony Abbott. At that level it's not so much the template as hazard, as Plutoniumboss as bad editor - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What are some of the reasonable conspiracy theories (y'know, besides one's that have been confirmed, such as mass surveillance or MKULTRA)?

I've been looking 'round the wiki and haven't found a list of plausible conspiracy theories, so I was wondering if you guys could name any. I can't name any off the top of my head, but I've read there's a few.--Palaeonictis (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I have always found the October Surprise conspiracy theory to be somewhat plausible, but I doubt that it happened since there hasn't been anything substantial in years.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 04:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have a conspiracy theory that organic farmers are just trying to jack up the price of food. Simple economics... okay intermediate economics, so only if you at least minored in it like I did... will show that in the case where demand is inelastic (you are consuming 2500 calories with little change based on price), reducing the food supply increases total revenue. So by convincing people to switch to otherwise obviously inefficient methods, the farmers make more money, even it's otherwise the exact same shit with a fancier label. CorruptUser (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The same logic can be applied to pharmaceutical companies tolerating anti-vaccination hysteria; I know we have an essay on that, but I am too lazy to look it up right now.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 05:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect there's more to come from the Cold War. Dirty tricks by the security services, which could involve a small group of people with little politician involvement.

1. State-sponsored terrorism. We know of some East German links to the Red Army Faction, and Gaddafi gave arms to the IRA. Was there more?
2. Something bad was happening in Italy in the 1970s. Freemasons, Popes, mafia, Cold Warriors. Take your pick.
3. I love Harold Wilson conspiracy theories. I'm sure people were planning coups against him, but mostly brandy-sozzled whiskery old brigadiers home from Kenya or Malaya. And obviously some people spread lies. The Colin Wallace story is more serious and more plausible.
4. Who was a communist agent? Walesa seems to have just been exposed, which was a long-running conspiracy theory. There will be more (probably not Wilson).
5. Lockerbie. Some things don't add up in the prosecution case. The most likely explanation is that the West manufactured evidence, regardless of who did it.
6. Did Reagan know about Iran-Contra? Was he stupid, or well-protected? Annquin (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Have any "conspiracy theories" really been confirmed in the sense that the situation, objectives, entities involved etc exactly matched up to something in the real world? I'm sure that occasionally some real world things have, by chance, matched some conspiracy theory elements. But that would be on the same level as fortune tellers occasionally getting something right. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Leonard Peltier case prosecution might have withheld evidence, either that or they manufactured evidence to convict the guy as part of political repression, I mean, the other two guys were acquitted, yet they decided not to acquit Peltier, possibly to make an example out of him, given the COINTELPRO operations of the late 60's, early 70's, I wouldn't be surprised.--Palaeonictis (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As controversially as it is I still think Mumia Abu-Jamal was covering for someone; for the most part I believe he is guilty even though the judge and jury were probably racist. He has also been treated poorly while he has been imprisoned probably because of his race, him being a black panther, and probable cop killer; prison guards hate that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 06:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to believe that tales of Area 51 aliens and UFOs were either passively supported or deliberate attempts by the Department of Defense to obscure the reality of programs like the Lockheed Have Blue and the development of the B-2 Spirit which were being flown out of the Air Force's Groom Lake facility. Considering triangles are one of the more common shapes ascribed to UFOs, and the triangular shapes of actual stealth aircraft, that connection makes sense. Stealth aircraft also have significatnly lower noise signatures than traditional jets. The the new Long Range Strike Bomber, aka the B-21 (it looks very similar to the B-2), will be tested extensively in the near future, i'd expect an uptick in UFO sightings over the next few years. Petey Plane (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

All conspiracy theories are plausible if they fit your world view. I suspect they can used as a kind of barometer to how you see the world by looking at which ones you you believe or find plausible. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I recall watching a UFO documentary, and most of the homemade "UFO" videos were just poorly shot films of B2 Stealth Bombers'Legion^{what do you want from me} 15:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the more recent examples, from a couple years ago, and was almost certainly a prototype for the Long Range Strike Bomber program, http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/so-what-were-those-secret-flying-wing-aircraft-spotted-1555124270

http://news.usni.org/2014/04/23/analysis-mystery-plane-seen-kansas-likely-u-s-military-aircraft

The dual chemtrails contrails point to it being larger than a stealth drone like the X-47.

and this was the winning design, Northrop Grumman B-21. A public reveal of an actual plane should happen in the next year. Petey Plane (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Something to notice in how secretive all this stuff is: see how Northrop Grumman did not render the exhaust in the picture on B-21's the Wiki page. Similarly, no photos of the rear end of the B-2 were allowed until years after it had been in service. Managing the IR signatures of stealth planes is just as important, if not more so, as reducing their radar cross sections.Petey Plane (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Big Pharma is behind the antivaxxer movement. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 14:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a RW list of "warranted" conspiracy theories, which are either proven or plausible. A more complete list, including the "wacko bird" ones is here. Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What a useless pointless list. In what sense can Watergate, the Sicilian Mafia or the Gunpowder Plot be described as "warranted conspiracy theories"? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sing it, sister. I don't mean to rain on y'alls parade here, but Weasel makes a good point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

if its proven, is it still a conspiracy theory? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, plus these can't properly described as conspiracy theories in the first place. Tenuously, Watergate may have been a "conspiracy theory" for a while in 1973 when corruption was widely suspected but before it was fully exposed. The Gunpowder Plot was exposed when somebody who was vaguely connected with in or had been approached by the conspirators tipped off the authorities; there was no conspiracy theory stage. The Mafia has been known about for ages; nothing theoretical about it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it was found out that the CIA is still conducting MKRULTRA-like experiments, but that's just me.--Palaeonictis (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(Adjusts sunglasses, earpiece) That's just you. Please do not spread baseless rumors. It's bad for your health. CorruptUser (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have heard people express the opinion that the East German Stasi exposed prisoners to high amounts of ionizing radiation in order to off them through cancer... Pizzameister (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The "missing cosmonauts" conspiracy, wherein the Soviets covered up some number of failed manned space missions, usually said to have occurred before Gagarin's flight, but not exclusively pre-Gagarin. Not to say there's any good evidence for it, but it's one of the few conspiracy theories that in my opinion aren't completely implausible. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "besides one's that have been confirmed" in the title. Can somebody - perhaps the original poster - link to some conspiracy theory which was later found to be true? I don't mean a conspiracy which came to light at some point. I mean something which was a full-blown conspiracy theory which was latter found out to be true and in which all, or the majority of the details in the conspiracy theory were confirmed.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The most obvious theory that has been proven right several times is that the starters of the theory are using it to conceal that they are actually up to something either different or worse. You will have to work them out for yourselves, but it shouldn't take much thought. Sphincter (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So can you mention a full-blown conspiracy which existed in the past which was later found to be true. I don't mean something vague and simple like "the government is listening to our communications". But a proper conspiracy theory with multiple secret entities and objectives. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Chomsky, Snowden & Greenwald speak on security & privacy

It streams live here at 8 p.m. EDT. Snowden will participate by videoconference.---Mona- (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Snowden is guilty of treason and deserves to be executed. Ghost (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are serious or joking.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 23:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Wigo voting

I recently sent a link to the wigo Clogs page to someone who had never visited the site before. He was shocked by the apparent support for Alex Jones and Andrew Wakefield. When you know how the system works it is obvious, when you see all that green against those two headlines as a casual visitor you may well think the place is even more irrational than it is. Perhaps a simple explanation of exactly what is being voted on would be less shocking for anyone unfamiliar with the place? Sphincter (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the text of the intro, it's not clear how to make it more obvious to someone who didn't bother reading that - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

UK news outlets

So I haven't always heard great things about the media in the UK, but I do tend to use the Guardian, the Economist, and the Independent (even though it has red baited Jezzy) as reliable news. I was curious what other news networks are worth a look.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC) 02:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the BBC, of course. The Times is a reliable source, in spite of being owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Telegraph is too, in spite of its unflinching support for the Conservative party. The Guardian has always been my newspaper of choice. Spud (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh I can't believe I didn't mention the BBC. Anyways how is the Financial Times?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the ft to be solid also. Pretty much all of the established british media is good if you ignore the tabloids and take into account the natural bias of each of the broadsheets. And stay away from the mail. I am curious as to what bad things you have heard about the uk media though AMassiveGay (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

From what I have heard there tends to be a lot of euroscepticism and immigrant bashing, especially towards Muslims, in UK media. I haven't ever read the FT and I avoided the Times because it is owned by Murdoch. I don't tend to read the Telegraph much either. Oh and the only tabloid I hear that is good is the Mirror, but I don't read tabloids so all this info is probably biased.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The overt immigrant bashing comes from tabloids like the Mail, the Star, the Sun, the Express, although some of the broadsheets like the Times and the Telegraph also have a right-leaning stance. The Mirror is the only left-leaning red top tabloid, which tends to make it a bit better than the others, but it's still pretty trashy & sensationalist as tabloids tend to be. The Independent is a left-leaning middle brow tabloid, having downgraded from broadsheet to tabloid a few years ago. Local newspapers are tabloidy & best avoided. TV news is somewhat dumbed down, as it is everywhere; BBC news is about as good as it gets. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Culturally, the Indie is totally broadsheet (the "i" offshoot notwithstanding), whatever the print size. The Guardian prints on small pages too these days - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not from the UK, but i've heard the sun is good, for entertainment, soft-core pornography. 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 06:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Pornhub is better.--Palaeonictis (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a common complaint that the UK media is all owned by a few powerful people and that opinion pieces reflect their views. In practice I don't really find that. At least it's very easy to be aware of biases and compensate for them. The BBC tries, almost too earnestly, to be as neutral as possible. It still falls down every now and again and is attacked relentlessly by all sides but particularly by the party of government. Sky News is completely different to Fox News even though it's the same owner. It's right-of-centre with fairly neutral reporting roughly equivalent to the Times. The broadsheets (left to right: Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph) have a good spread of neutral reporting and a variety of opinion - although the Telegraph is probably the most obviously biased. The Express and Mail are shrill and sensationalist and best avoided unless you like reading about the coming coldest/hottest winter/summer, Diana, the Kardashians, immigrants, house prices and new royal babies. The red tops are mostly entertainment although they do have the highest readerships and can form opinion. The FT and Economist are generally pro-capitalist (as you'd expect) but reporting is of high quality and neutral. You've also got some more niche outlets geographically (e.g. Scottish) and political (e.g. Spectator).

I would say that the tradition of having opposing opinion in even the most biased outlets is still fairly healthy. Even the Spectator, almost the Tories' in-house magazine, has regular contributions from Labour MPs and other lefties. Again the Telegraph is probably the least good at this while the Guardian has too many click-bait and self-contradictory opinion pieces without enough genuine detailed opposing view.

A problem is that the more right-leaning outlets tend to be behind hard or soft paywalls. So quality internet-only news is on average left of centre. I find a get a good spread from the BBC and Sky News, the printed Telegraph and on-line Guardian, with occasional dips into the Economist, HuffPo's UK edition and the Daily Mash. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

From "A Conflict of Interest", episode 4, series 2 of Yes, Prime Minister, a description of who reads which British newspapers. And you don't have to feel guilty about watching ripped off copyrighted material because this video is from an official BBC YouTube channel. Spud (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant. I nearly passed out laughing when I watched that episode when it first aired. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to group tabloid newspapers into two broad caegories here. There are the redtops, which tend to be populist tabloids that relish in barrel scraping human interest stories and overt rabblerousing. Then are the blacktops, which are full of the same stuff but emulate the fonts and presentation styles of the broadsheets to give their barrel scraping an air of legitimacy. It is also a nice reminder of who their owners tended to support until WWII made it poltically uncomfortable to do so. Araucaria (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Landmartian articles

Landmartian was recently banned globally by the WMF Office.

Landmartian created the following articles, please check them to make sure they're not absolute shit / pro-pedophilia:

• Biblical Gender Roles
• Catharine MacKinnon
• Adoption
• Foreign women
• Moral hazard
• Obscenity
• Super-uncles theory
• Mail-order bride
• Pedophilia
• Child pornography
• Sex offender registry

Several appear non-missional:

1. Mail-order bride
2. Obscenity
3. Moral hazard
4. potentially Adoption.

Several are stubs:

1. Adoption
2. Catharine MacKinnon
3. Moral hazard
4. Obscenity
5. Adoption

Thanks. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is he and why was he banned? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. Believe it's related to pedophilia somehow. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK he was previously advocating pedophilia as Tisane.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 19:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Landmartian was Tisane? This explains quite a lot. Yeah, assume every edit is bad until verified otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I just edited "scarlett letter" under sex offender registry since he had a... concerning personal tone to it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 19:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

*shudder* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For those wondering, Tisane is the first person who ever got hellbanned from RationalWiki for his essay setting out the libertarian case for pedophilia. Most of the above are deletionworthy. I feel a startling inclination to just fucking delete Child pornography (almost all his) and Pedophilia (almost entirely his) - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hold it the pedophilia article we have isn't pro child abuse and I just added information about pedophiles who aren't pro child abuse. ClickerClock (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Also this is disgusting.ClickerClock (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not like someone didn't try to attract attention to that user's contributions in the past... Anyway, I'm not convinced that Landmartian is actually Tisane. Unfortunately, Tisane's not the only pedo apologist on the Internet. The user's identity is moot, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they're the same person, but they both liked to JAQ off & sealion over the same creepy issues. FYI, Landmartian isn't currently banned here & most of his edits on RW date from after his Wikimedia ban. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Banned Template?

Should we use the Banned Template on User:Landmartian's page? ClickerClock (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

He isn't banned. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Well shouldn't we ban him?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 08:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Why now? This seems like a pointless repeat of the Shouniaisha incident, i.e. freaking out retrospectively about people who were active here in the past. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ban anyway for the pleasure. Also only been syposp here for a while so what Shouniaisha incident? ClickerClock (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Policy?

Okay how about we heard over to the chicken coop and talk about getting Child protection policy like Wikipedia? ClickerClock (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Why the Chicken Coop? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

??? No real reason.ClickerClock (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't proposals for policy changes to that page?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 17:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)