RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive256

This is an archive page, last updated 1 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <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)

Archiving

The archive bot doesn't seem to like archive templates that are on one line (or that don't include the essentials). Please use:

{{Talkpage/Pibot
|algo=old(30d)
|archive={{subst:NAMESPACE}}:{{subst:PAGENAME}}/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize=100K
|search=yes
}}

Admittedly, search is not essential -- but damn handy for looking through archives. Thank you. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I had been wondering why Archivist wasn't doing much.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Brazil

I wish to make some contributions about Brazil.

Someone can help me in improving this new page?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ideological_patrolling ^{— Unsigned, by: Nicoliver / talk / contribs}

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 06:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I hate to say this after the last time a Brazilian started creating articles here, but I think you'd be better off writing in Portuguese. Your English isn't that great and that makes your writing difficult to understand. Spud (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Monthly stats

April 2016 Users: 886 (-118 (-11.75%) from May 2016 | -59 (-6.24%) from April 2015.) April 2016 Edits: 15151 (+1125 (+8.02%) from May 2016 | +29 (0.19%) from April 2015)

Overall, April 2016 represents 0.0555% of RW's total recorded 1,596,079 edits.

Users down, edits up.

Alexa numbers up, in viewers and site rank. Quantcast US numbers down, 142.9k to 131.5k views. Compete numbers down, 636423 to 469796 views. Notably, none of these are very precise.

There's a worrying downward trend in 1+ edit users and 3+ edit users. Any ideas what's up? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have an idea on why this could be happening. Perhaps blocking non destructive users for no reason could be contributing to this downward trend.--BellsofSorry (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

HTTPS

Could rationalwiki run over HTTPS? you can get certs for free (https://letsencrypt.org/) and i think it would be a good contribution to the site Threadnaught (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

another thing I need to get to (probably https at the LB) - David Gerard (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Votes on unresolved matters

The coop on Kugelschreiber was just closed as inconclusive. Hurrah! What the coop has exposed, however, was a sheer lack of clarity on several important matters. To avert ceaseless discussions on issues which apparently lack a previously established mob consensus (but should probably have one, see ceaseless discussions), let's vote! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Should sockpuppets inherit penalties?

Yes

1. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
2. --JorisEnter (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Yes. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Yes Petey Plane (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
5. This seems like a no-brainer to me. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Fuck it. Ban them all. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
7. --Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
8. With a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, yes. It should include the mod's ability to check IP addresses, but need not (and that can be evaded) since that idea seems to scare the bejeezus out of so many.---Mona- (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
9. Yes. It's pointless blocking otherwise. The exception would be if they're so completely changed that they don't get caught, but even then they'd be advised to keep quiet about it and the assumption should be block without substantial extenuation. Annquin (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
10. As long as it's an open-and-shut case of sockpuppety. As is often the case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
11. Blindingly obviously - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
12. Yes, but if time has passed and trolls have embraced resocialization after a punishment, we should give them a pass if their sockpuppet accounts will show remorse after being exposed and when they have been acting sane and rational since their return.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 13:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No

1. What if a returning editor behaved well, made contributions, etc, but was then discovered to be a sock? Not talking about Kugel, just presenting a hypothetical. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

   Then they should admit to their crimes and show remorse. Hopefully, the mob will then show forgiveness in return. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

   While this is theoretically possible, actually getting some sort of punishment at RationalWiki requires *significant* effort and some serious long-term problematic behaviour. Behaviour that's very unlikely to be fixed with just a new account. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

2. No. Sock hunting is a mug's game that creates far more drama than it prevents. If an editor's behaviour warrants sanctions, then act / block for that behaviour. If it doesn't, then STFU and leave them be. I know it's difficult for some of you idiots to countenance that you might not be able to permanently vanquish your "enemies", but frankly, that's a personality flaw to be addressed in your own time, and not inflicted on the wiki at large. Robledo (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• There needs to be reasonable cause for suspicion. We can't have sysops firing shots in all directions like Pbfreespace3 & JorisEnter did & nebulously citing "ban evasion" as a reason. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• What the Modstelid said. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Should ban/bin evasion be penalized?

Yes, with a nice long block

1. As I mentioned above, actually getting some sort of punishment at RationalWiki requires *significant* effort and some serious long-term problematic behaviour. Trying to get around said punishment means the user has not understood what exactly the problem is and means it's highly unlikely that they will learn. So fuck 'em. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Fuck it. Ban them all. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
3. If you have been banned/binned and you don't have the decency to accept your punishment and live with it, then fuck you.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
4. As long as it's an open-and-shut case of sockpuppety. As is often the case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Yes. Seems obvious. Ban them all & let goat sort them out. Bongolian (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes (unspecified)

1. Proportionate to the length of the block. Banned/binned for serious offence, crush them, short ban/bin, meh. Annquin (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No

1. I'm not going to vote yes until I understand what the penalty would be. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

   If the vote above this concludes with a yes consensus (which seems likely at this point), it'd mean an extra penalty (probably in block form) on top of the inherited penalty (which would probably also be applied to the original). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

   Well gee frickin yeah, I got that part. I want to know specifics. Is the person banned for a short period? Slapped on the wrist? I need to know before I can vote affirmatively. I support this in theory. But it's like saying "Should robbers be punished?" Well yeah, but I don't think they should all be burnt at the stake or drowned in the ocean. There's a huge difference that warrants further explanation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

   Added a few more specific options. Feel free to add more options/add more detailed specifications for block length as you see fit. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:19, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

2. How would you prove it? (I'm presuming admins here are not checking IP addresses - similar to Wikipedia) If someone wanted to avoid a block on a wiki, and they acted not obnoxiously, it's very easy to do and should not be discouraged. Objective (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• Again, there needs to be reasonable cause for suspicion. The arguments put forth in recent coop cases that "if I don't know who this B0N is I'll just assume it's a banned editor" and "it's on a dropdown menu so it's fine to do this" are stupid & irresponsible. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• What the Modstelid said. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the community need to approve of penalization when rules are clearly being violated?

No

1. We don't need a coop case for everything. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
2. no, many are obvious Petey Plane (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Less coop, more action. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Fuck it. Ban them all. FuzzyCatPotato of the Godforsaken Steak dinners (talk/stalk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
5. --Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Moderators need to step in more often and force people to the talk pages under penalty of catapult moderator protecting the page and/or binning and/or desysopping. After some blows have been dealt there for atleast a few days, it's time to coop. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Theres always a possibility of a brigade of a vote on these things Sandflapjack (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• Some consistency here would be nice. The same users who were outraged that JorisEnter could be stripped of blocking powers he was using irresponsibly (namely Mona & Joris) were pretty quick to strip another user of sysop tools s/he hadn't even used at all without seeking any community support. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• define 'clearly'. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Does Kugelschreiber walk, swim and quack like an Arisboch? (not a policy or penal vote)

Just curious what people think. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Haven't been around enough to say, but this can probably be checked quite easily by just checking the IPs/browser info/etc. End the speculation, and get some conclusive answer. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously Arisboch, but "they" have a sacred rule against anyone checking the IP address. Apparently, that would usher in the anti-Christ and the End Times.---Mona- (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

the on going drama in the coop would suggest to me it isnt obvious. Probable, but not obvious. The certainty with such flimsy evidence is troubling. As for check user, IPs can be used to find out all kinds of stuff, particularly when narrowed down to a university or place of work. Is this site set up to handle such information? No it is not. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

WTF? Why isn't this site "set up to handle such information?" Permitting a few techie to access the info to determine a sock is not an End to Privacy as We Know It. And yes, it is bleedingly obvious that Arisboch is the Kugel cretin. Only someone who doesn't want to see it will fail to. ---Mona- (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

yes of course, anyone disagreeing with your shrill assertions must be in denial. IPs taken with information gleaned from what is posted here on this site can be used to dox indivuals, or just as bad, enough to dox the wrong person. This on its own is an erosion privacy that is unacceptable to me. As far as i am aware, there are no systems in place that would prevent any person, be they tech or mod, from accessing said information for some friviolous reasons like your witch hunt, beyond super pinky swearing that they wont. It is certainly not something the Mods were voted in to doAMassiveGay (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me just point out how incredibly simple it also is to still stay anonymous despite CheckUser. Forcing CheckUser is a bit like the government claiming that they'll catch the terrorists if they get to read all the cleartext internet data. Meanwhile, terrorists can move to encryption for free, fast and easy, at the click of their mouse. It's not like CheckUser is this ultimate tool of justice. It's ridiculously easy to bypass it. Like always with these things - the people that WILL be identifiable with CheckUser are the ones that don't bother hiding. I.e. good and decent editors, who then risk getting doxed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course CheckUser isn't foolproof, but if you ban and/or severely ratelimit open proxies and other IP addresses that have no business being tied to a browser (e.g. Amazon EC2 and such) then it *does* make things quite a bit moer difficult. In the end, very little (if anything) if foolproof. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

what privacy policies do we have here? How robust are they? What kind of data protection agreements do mods or techs have to make? The effectiveness of check user at preventing trolls is neither here nor there if there is nothing in place to prevent abuse of check user. I certainly wouldnt trust it in the hands of some of the those loudly demanding its implementationAMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes

1. The quacking. So much quacking. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
2. --JorisEnter (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Quack Quack Quack. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Mister Punch may say, "O no I never!" as much as he likes, but everyone paying attention can see what's what. SmartFeller (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Fuck it. Ban them all. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Not that it matters. This site welcomes banned-user socks with open arms. Because this site is operating per insane "rules." Expel this sock? He'll be right back and we can have five more fun coop cases with that version, and tons of drama. It's how this wiki rolls.---Mona- (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Yes, and FCP's protection of him is ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No

1. Monopolies are boring Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• If the "Yes" on Kugel being Aris vote is the majority and the "Yes" vote on socks inheriting penalties is the majority will that result in his bannig or does he get grandfathered?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Only time will tell. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:13, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

  Broadly, I couldn't care less, and the only way all of this mutual bitching and moaning affects me in the slightest is the mental filtering I have to do with Recent Changes to find edits I actually give a crap about. I really am turning into a grumpy old man. Bah humbug. Worm (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ban everyone involved

So not content with cluttering up recent changes with Coop nonsense the usual suspects are now smearing their feces all over the Saloon Bar. Ban them all. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly though, do you realize what authoritarian floodgates you'd be opening if we made 'you were involved somehow in making RecentChanges/the Saloon Bar look not-nice' a legit ban reason? (Also, filtering out the RationalWiki-space from RC isn't complicated, you know.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ban everyone

1. David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Let's blow this fascist popsickle stand! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
3. After watching this, being banned would be a blessing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 15:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Leuchtende Liebe, lachender Tod!--JorisEnter (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
6. KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!11111--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 16:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Egalitarianism at its best! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
8. Do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 02:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

   ...I'm late to the party, but I've been asleep for several days. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 02:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

9. MAIM KILL BURN. MAIM KILL BURN. MAIM KILL BURN... Mata a todos Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What does a sock look like?

It has one hole and a kind of cul-de-sac. That's also what a sausage looks like before it's finished. Broadly speaking, my ear has similar features. I'd love to ban socks of nasty people, but when we say "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ..." do we ban platypi too? Penguins? Disney characters? MarmotHead (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Cannot add sources due to edit warring.

I am attempting to add several sources (see the edit history) for this page, however the local zealot wants the content to remain unsourced so as to push an agenda. I am not adding any content, only sourcing that which is there already. Any advice? Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And here we go again! Blitz (Complaints Box) 21:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

My advice would be to put the material on the talk page rather than continue edit warring. It's not a race. Chill out and leave it for a while. Then go on the dark web and hire a hit man. Annquin (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that one sources quotes "LordEmpyrean". Said user elsewhere on reddit identifies himself as Aeonian. He's literally using himself as a source. Typhoon (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Viruses and tumors are small; ergo, they are harmless

Prime "common sense" antiscience. ^{— Unsigned, by: FuzzyCatPotato / talk / contribs}

Protons, neutrons and electrons are all super duper small, so all observable matter can be safely ignored. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

What's the big deal with Larry Wilmore saying the N-Word in the context he did at the end of the WHCD?

It's not as if the white conservatives don't call Obama the N-word everyday regardless if a black American uses that word or not. Objective (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone looks up to white conservatives as a moral standard. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of Willmore's set probably read funny at the writers table but did not come off funny in front of the audience, e.g. the excruciatingly endless Zodiac Killer callbacks. I suspect the "Yo Barry" closing was intended to be taken as heartfelt, but given the disjointed trying-too-hard nature of the rest of Willmore's material, it just came off as kinda weird. Leuders (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought that it was a pretty good roast but the Zodiac killer joke went on way too long. I don't really care that he used the n-word but I know some people think that it should never be used in any context in any form because they don't want to normalize it. Oh if any is curious about his appearance at the dinner here is a link.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of his material was actually good but too uncomfortable for most of the audience. Some simply didn't land. And some was born bad. The overdrawn Zodiac killer lines are among the latter... Pizzameister (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why does Conservapedia have this article?

"Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity" Perhaps even worse, it links to exemplary articles such as "New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight" and "Overcoming obesity with the aid of Christian faith." I'm trying hard to take these guys seriously, but it can be very difficult. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

take these guys seriously

Conservapedia

Because Conservapedia:Conservative, that's why. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Conservapedia? what's that? Flannan Isle (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Norris doesn't get fat... he waits... or something. Petey Plane (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"I'm trying hard to take these guys seriously" Ummmm ... why?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So who's gonna do the side-by-side comparison of fat atheists vs fat Christians/conservatives. What's Trump weigh these days? Annquin (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Uuuh...

Although the New Atheist leaders claim to be pro-science, 3 out of 5 of these atheist men have had issues with being overweight as can be seen HERE and HERE and HERE

So... Reasoning 101. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Just needs to add the conclusion ... "Therefor GOD exists!"--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Curley Effect

So, there's this hypothesis written by some Harvard PhD students, about the "Curley Effect", named for Boston mayor Curley who chased out the non-Irish-American citizens from his city via high taxes in order to stay in power. I read the paper and got a bit intimidated by the weird math. I'm a mathematician IRL, and when I say you have too much mathamancy in your paper... Anyhoo, the basic gist goes like this. Politicians solidify power by, excusez mon Francois, fucking over their opponents' base until only their own remains, even if that means fucking over their own base. A devil's deal sort of thing for the voters. We already have an article on this sort of thing, Iron Law of Institutions. Nothing new here, politics as usual.

However.

This paper is getting heavy promotion by rightwing nutjobs, because it provides a scientiferric justimication for "HAH! Dem Demz iz alwayz razing taxez on us harred-werking folk! In der natchure!" So the question becomes, should it be a simple addition to the Iron Law article, or its own separate piece? CorruptUser (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Separate.

that's such ridiculous garbage. Just compare it to the forced deportation of immigrants to the US, which is surely an even more effective Curley effect.

Beyond that, this just repeats that stupid idea that Republicans are "hard-working" while Dems are lazy moochers. Worth debunking in its own right.

And it'd be worth discussing how one product of taxes, welfare, primarily goes to Red States, how welfare itself doesn't go to any political ideology more than others.

Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 11:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mathamancy, I love it, the perfect word for some of the crazy people that use a lot of math sounding things without really understanding how it works. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone is an [erfworld.com Erfworld] fan. :P. StickySock (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Corinthians 3711:12

The troll is strong with this one. LULZ.

[[1]]

B4Xiphos (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible sidebar addition and new project pages

When certain classes of people (libertarians+conservatives, theists, conspiracy theorists+antiscience pushers+pseudoscience believers) view RW, they each tend to have a certain reaction. Respectively: it's biased, it just hates [religion], it's a shill. Now, there are legitimate criticisms thrown at RW -- especially its bad pages. But meeting these criticisms head-on seems worthwhile. I thought that a sidebar addition might help:

*Common questions
**[[RW:WP|Is this Wikipedia?]]
**[[RW:SHILL|Are you a shill?]]
**[[RW:BIAS|Why are you so biased?]]
**[[RW:BIAS|Why are you so rude?]]
**[[RW:VIEW|What's your viewpoint?]]

RW:SHILL would discuss RW's volunteer funding, its tech details, the RMF, and mention the shill gambit; RW:BIAS would discuss RW's ScientificPOV and SnarkPOV biases; RW:VIEW would briefly express the common beliefs of most RWians (presumably pro-science, anti-religion, and broadly liberal) and that RW is open to comment and criticism; and RW:WP would be a page with the text "No", with "What is a RW article?" linked as "and here's why".

Thoughts? Are some good additions, and some not? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Wouldn't the addition of another five points to the RW sidebar make it rather long however?--JorisEnter (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't put all of those in the sidebar - we're talking about a near-negligible proportion of the readers. Perhaps a simple "What is RationalWiki?" link to RationalWiki - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I also think that elongating the sidebars would be a bad move. But the idea is good, very good indeed. How about an Intercom-style message displaying on all article and talk pages for users that aren't logged in? It could have a "Got it" button too that hides it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't have to be cluttered - it could just say "Welcome to RationalWiki." or "About RationalWiki." in huge, blue (cause link) font, which leads to the above info when clicked. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was also considering moving the Twitter/Blog/Facebook stuff down below the toolbox and culling the Intercom and Forum links, since they're very rarely used. Although it'd be bloated, the sections that most people use would be up top.

The intercom is an interesting idea. A permanent intercom message would be kind of gross, though -- it'd be right before people read the text. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Better a simple sidebar link to a customized FAQ that says Read Something Here That Upset You? Check out our FAQ (or something similar). Leuders (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of such a sidebar link because it strikes me as a fuckwit magnet - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you clarified that because my next suggestion was going to be a Hey Fuckwit Click Here link button. Leuders (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The "gay voice"

By "gay voice" I don't mean "the voice of the gay community", I literally mean the "gay voice". The stereotypical gay manner in which homosexual men speak. I realise this is probably a bit inflammatory, so I'll do my best to explain because I'm genuinely quite curious about this. There is a "gay voice" or a "gay accent", a voice used by gay men. Not all gay men, obviously, but when it is used, it's almost exclusively used by gay/camp men (in my experience anyway, in fact, this entire question is very much personal experience and not scientific in any way). You know the voice I mean; higher pitched than normal, more flamboyant than normal, that slight lisp etc... Now, this accent gets played up in tv shows and films to the point of comedy/offence, depending on the subject, but it does also exist in real life (I was prompted to finally ask this because a guy on the BBC Radio 4 morning show this morning being interviewed about the anti-aids drug Prep spoke like this). My question is two part, really:

1) Where did it originally come from?

2) How is it learned/spread?

It's something I've been curious about for a while. The voice is fairly consistent wherever you hear it, even across different countries, but as far as I can tell it's an "artificial" accent, by which I mean it hasn't come from anywhere naturally. It's not like the people who use it are all raised in one town/region where it's the natural accent. So I'm assuming it's either a deliberate affectation for some reason, or it's spread within the gay community. I've worded this a bit piss poorly, but does anyone have any insight into this? I've always had an interest in accents because I have literally the worst one ever, and a "fake" accent that spreads through subcultures rather than being locked to a region is actually a pretty fascinating concept. X Stickman (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My vague understanding is that formerly, some urban gay subcultures cultivated a 'gay' or 'camp' voice. Most of it is in pitch and stress; the basic thing is a much wider range of pitch tones than stereotypical "straight" male sounds. And a part of it is a prescriptivist, overprecise delivery that causes fronting of /s/ sounds. (Compare the accent and quite clear diction used by Tituss Burgess as Titus Andromedon in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt[2] with, say, the monotonous, sloppy diction of a pickup truck or barbeque commercial.) It seems 'effeminate' because women typically use a greater range of tone in speaking. The usual pitch contour seems to be high at the beginning of a phrase, and switching to a lower pitch in conclusions or for emphasis. I have no notion why or how this came to be. My guess, which I'm pulling ojt of my own capacious arse right now, is that it might be a theatrical tradition. In the days before artificial amplification and the tiresome Stanislavski Method, acting was balletic and gestural, and actors had to enunciate and 'dramatize' their speech to convey their message to the people in the cheap seats. Consider the mannered acting you see recorded in silent movies. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

its interesting that you mention theatrics, because polari came out of theatre and was a way of identifying other gays in less tolerant times. I wonder if thats where it came from? i remember seeing this awhile back. It does seem seem to be an issue amongst the gays when you mix it with bullshit notions of masculinity. Some (usually arseholes) regard it as an affectation and not how 'real men' talk. I see it as tied in to identity. I have noticed that many people adopt a mode of speech that they see people who they want to identify with using. See working class people speaking posh, or my str8 friends from my youth using a lot of of slang and an accent picked up listening to hip hop, like tim westwood. It seems to be both a concious and subconcious effort, and becomes so ingrained that it is natural. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It persists as a subcultural identifier because one gets more cock that way - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotally, the opposite seems to be true. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No fats, no fems indeed. Ayzmo^Cheers 12:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I just found this amazingly titled Wikipedia article that may be relevant: Lavender linguistics. Annquin (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Annquin that is an epic title. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Basically, is this the type of voice we're discussing? (This is Canadian comedian Kenny Hotz who tries to win a kissing competition by pretending to be his gay persona called Maurice Del Taco). Excuse the Swedish subtitles. From the hilarious show Kenny vs Spenny. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

that would be a particularly egregrious example that probably result in a phyisical assault if he tried it this neck of the woods. I didnt watch the whole video - does he do the limp wrist thing too? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a particularly egregrious example - it's Kenny Hotz. He's a (brilliant) offensive humorist, so... As Maurice Del Taco puts it with a lisp, "Cheers to queers and muscle men's rears!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Managing anarchy

A medium arti le about ED and community management. Worth a read. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel like she hasn't seen enough wikis to know that "Hey here are some suggestions, er, rules" is normal. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you please delete a talk-page that is being used to discredit this website

Hello,

Wikipedia Admin Douglas Weller had a user page created by him a long time, it was deleted as it was a joke piece but the talk-page was never deleted. See here [3]. This talk-page comes up on Google, and has been used to smear Douglas Weller on various internet forums by pseudoscience advocates who have personal issues with Weller because he is a skeptic. For example the rationalwiki banned member Suarez [4] has a history of linking to this talk-page across the web, accusing innocent people of having created it. Every few months it appears enemies of Doug use the talk-page to vent out their problems with Doug. Is there any chance you can entirely flush this talk-page and remove it? It serves no purpose and is just being used to try and discredit Doug Weller. Thank you. PS2 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Usually talk-pages are not deleted. Unless the community approves, I'll leave it up. That said, I will set it up to be automatically archived, which well get most of its content off of the main page. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Imzy

I got 5 invites to Imzy. What do I do with them? ClickerClock (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So ... this is another social network?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Is Star Wars hopping on the "religious people are being persecuted in America" bandwagon or am I the paranoid one?

According to Wookiepedia, Lor San Tekka, the old guy Kylo Ren murders at the beginning of episode 7, is a member of the Church of the Force, an organization which believes the Jedi must exist in order for there to be balance in the force. The page says that in the time of the Empire, belief in the supernatural or religious was forbidden and that people like them were persecuted. (Rather hypocritical since the Emperor himself was a Sith Lord). I sensed an attempt at an allegory here, and was angered that this franchise is giving in to the fundy persecution complex. The original page presents it better than I do: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Church_of_the_Force. Tell me what you think. Am I just taking things too seriously here? ^{— Unsigned, by: TeslaK20 / talk / contribs} 09:39, 7 May 2016‎

Yeah, probably. Especially if it's an obscure piece of Star Wars lore that only Wookiepedia readers would know about. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that this is not a major part of Star Wars means that whoever invented it could have easily inserted his own political views into it. --TeslaK20 (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess, but what makes you think it's about the United States? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

i thought the whole persecution of the jedis thing was in it from the get go. Eliminating potential enemies and so forth. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The Jedi purge is about eliminating the "priests", "clergy", and "monks". But killing the religious leaders doesn't destroy faith. The prohibition of belief is about destroying the faith altogether. Even Rey thinks Luke Skywalker is a myth. And quite honestly America is rather unique when it comes to this "evangelical christian persecution complex". Also star wars is an american franchise, and there are many christian themes in it. --TeslaK20 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

its also been around since the 70s and religious persecution has been around since forever. Why could it not be about persecution of jews, since its a story about space nazis after all. Or if you are bent on another interpretation, why not persecution of muslims? It is a mistake to shoe horn meaning into something with all the depth of a puddle. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article on Philosophy and religion in Star Wars.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

a whole page of shoe horning. I particularly like 'the name of yoda itself is a play on a the word yoga, the ancient spiritual practise'. So much arse. Any themes present in star wars are at best superficial. You can read all kinds of things into it or into any work of fiction, it does not mean it is there or intended. The simpilicity of the story lends itself to this. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

of course, if we are adding a contemporary spin of persecuted christains, (though a less contemporary reading roman persecution of christians would be more apt), what spin co we apply to the suppression of the sith by an unelected, unaccountable military order of religious extremists? The jedi are isis AMassiveGay (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be prudent to point out that the part of history that it most resembles is when Hadrian made large scale restrictions to Judaism after putting down the Bar Kokhba Revolt.Teurastaja (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that some religions really do struggle to get properly recognized by society and the state. Consider this one for a moment. Its followers suffer mockery and isolation.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It could very much be taken from the supression of Christians in ancient Rome. Star Wars has stolen enough elements from Isaac Asimov. Why not the Rome allegory too? --TeslaK20 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I never got this impression at all from Star Wars. Notably, the Jedis are not a religion (this "Church of the Force" apparently notwithstanding). The Jedi Order that was destroyed during the Great Jedi Purge was in no way a religious body, they were not followed by believers, they did not act as religious leaders in any way. They were basically a well respected order of diplomats and special forces police types who had supernatural powers. Also, the "had supernational powers" thing is important, the core premise of the religions we know is *faith* in the supernatural, but the denizens of Star Wars don't need any faith to believe in the force, since, you know, a Jedi could lift stuff with their mind and such. The Empire suppressed knowledge of the Force and the Jedi, but not because it was religious, Sideous just didn't want force-weilding usurpers showing up left and right. The persecution was entirely political. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

its referred to as a religion in the first movie, and there was much talk about belief in the force. Luke is always being told to use the force in a similar vein as being told have faith, particularly in the trench run. The jedi are very much the priests. Acting as diplomats didnt appear until the later unpleasantness, though their actions and motivations are very much religious in nature. Anakin was meant be some kind of chosen one, the sith were heretics. Sure there is a lot of political manoeuvring, but so there is in real religions. I believe the catholics were none too keen on prostestants taking their power either. It does not matter that it not exactly like real world religions, because its a movie. The fact they have access to magic powers is irrelevant - its a work of sci-fi/fantasy. Religions with actual working magic and real gods and spirits are the norm. There are no followers in the first movies as its a dead religion. You dont see any in the later movies, well you dont really see anything of what the proles are upto, but jedi are still seen as a moral authority, much like priests of real religions often are. I will say again - you should not read to much into star wars. Its themes are at best superficial, its full of plot holes, questionable ethics, and hokey dialogue. It should enjoyed as simple good vs evil story. It does not bare close scrutiny. This is the problem with the later films. Convoluted plots and angst does not equal depth nor compelling story telling, but it does suck all the fun out of it. This is what comes of playing to obsessive fans and the yod awful extended universe. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Star wars isnt really about religion, its about powerful forces beyond our control that can easily destroy us from within, much like the cthulu mythos. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

its not about any of that either, since the whole point of luke's arch is him mastering control of the force. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

While there are certain references to history in our world, like the stormtroopers, I think for the most part it's just a series of space action movies that were popular enough to expand into a whole fictional universe with tons of books, two more trilogies, and a tabletop role-playing game where I blew myself up along with my fellow players and an enemy with a thermal detonator. It's just lore for a fictional world, like Lord of Rings D&D, and Warhammer/Warhammer40,000 (granted the the first example was built around the Catholic beliefs of J.R.R. Tolkein).Teurastaja (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"Ghost" Spotted at EDM festival

A "Ghost" was seen in a photograph of the Good Life Festival. Hereis the article. Feel free to tear it apart/Occam's Razor the crap out of it. TGW 20:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the commenters says that the ghost shape reminds them of the ghost shape used in a ghost-adding app. Not sure if true, but hell. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Just the existence of so many Add-A-Ghost apps is Occam enough. Leuders (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you guys think Trump can win?

Reading through this discussion, as well as others around the site, I've seen quite a few people who strongly assert that Trump has a strong chance of winning the U.S. election. However, my understanding is that everyone pretty much despises him across the isle, the exceptions being his supporters themselves. I don't see any way he could appeal to democrats and independents if he can't even appeal to a substantial amount of his own party. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Because all too many users of this site have substituted paranoia for polling. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Romney was a rather miserable failure and he only antagonized 47% of the electorate. Make of that what you will. Vulpius (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

All that's certain is that voter turnout is gonna increase massively compared to previous years. There'll be plenty of people voting just to keep Trump out (unless they stay home because they think Trump's defeat is a done deal), but besides faithful Trump supporters there'll probably be a bunch of joke, troll, protest and apocalyptic dare votes for Trump too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think it'll be down. More people fall into "don't want to vote for EITHER" than "want to vote against Hillary" and "against Donald" combined, as I understand it. That said, the "against Donald" group is bigger than the "against Hillary" group. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

(a) Low turnout on the Democratic side (Hillary represents status quo, Sanders supporters demoralized; (b) pissed off crossover voters; 14% of Repubs (which are fewer in number to Dems anyway) vow to vote for Hillary vs 20% of Dems vowing to vote for Trump; net gain for Trump: 6%+; (c) as estimates of the of the Elector College stand now, Hillary needs 33, Trump 46; (d) general responsive chord struck among a broad swath of the public - Democrats, Republicans, & unaffiliated - to Trumps 'anti-political correctness' message. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 00:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Nobs. How do you explain current polls, using that methodology? Is Trump just so unlikeable that even this supposed competitive advantage isn't enough to push him to above 50%? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, (1) you have to look at the polls in the specific battleground states that are key to an Electoral win (national popular vote polls are meaningless); (2) after last Tuesday's events (Trump's NY win & Cruz & Kasich out), polling data coming out now and the next few days will give some idea where we're at. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's source on the 33-46 Electoral count, an interesting read. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 02:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your source doesn't support your statement ("Trump need 46 more electoral college votes to win.") It supports the statement "Trump is 46 behind Hillary, who needs 33 more to win," which implies trump need 79 more to win. Do you find yourself regularly making things up? Hipocrite (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I misread it, the "Third Way, the leading centrist Democratic group". I was wondering why they skipped the much more respected Larry Sabato's count that has Hillary winning with 347. We'll just have to wait for Sabato's revisions after the momentous events of the past week. But I won't make that mistake again of using the Third Way. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 03:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the key states, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. Hillary will be the inevitable nominee "barring the unlikely event that we still live in a country governed by the rule of law". Further analysis of the Quinnipac poll shows not having Sanders on the ticket automatically costs Hillary two points. [5] nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 21:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"doesn't like either", sure. But most people, I think, would still vote for the lesser of evils in favour of risking the 'big bad' getting elected. Third party candidates will probably see a significant increase in votes too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think "joke, troll, protest and apocalyptic dare votes" will be anywhere near numerous enough to even dent Trump's utter lack of support from minorities :/ Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're free to think so, but I wouldn't underestimate the American potential for political wackiness. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, assuming her server had nothing that there is nothing within her private server that the Republicans can fearmonger on (or worse result in an indictment) it wouldn't be guaranteed he wins. I realize that this is anecdotal but every Republican I have met who won't vote for Trump would rather vote for him against Hillary or Bernie or they would rather vote for Bernie but will vote Trump over Clinton. I haven't seen a lot of support from independents and I don't think there is a reliable voting block outside of older Americans. I think Trump could adopt some of Bernie's platform like he has with the minimum wage which may help entice minorities to vote for him; he has been pro-universal health care in the past. Both have a lot of name recognition but I think that if you took the most ignorant Americans and asked them about Trump and Clinton they would remember something "criminal" about Clinton and not Trump; most of his supporters I know think his mouth is the worst part of him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Already has. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

try not to listen to the minority of bernie cultists. Trump will be crushed under hillary's boot like a fine ballsack in that porn i accidentally stumbled apon. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. What are you basing that on? I think the electoral map will end up looking something like this, give or take a few states. You really do overestimate this country. I feel like its May 2000, and people are saying that Bush is too dumb for the American people to elect him. Just you wait. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that one.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to, Owlman? With regards to me, my state doesn't allow me to vote, but if I could I would most likely vote for Bernie Sanders in a write-in ballot, or perhaps the Green Party candidate if Bernie Sanders insists people don't vote for him. Sandflapjack, if you're calling me a Bernie cultist, count me in. I can't imagine a likely scenario in which I would vote for Hillary Clinton. This isn't a choice between 2 bad things. This is the choice not to do bad things. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Pb, that was for SFJ. It was meant to show how close Clinton was to losing the only successful, elected ofice she ever held.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And then he got reelected 4 years later. How did that even happen? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

What the fuck is this shit? The GOP establishment know they can't win the presidency with Trump. He'll be annihilated exactly as Goldwater was in 64. Robledo (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And the GOP establishment knew they would win with Romney, Walker, Jeb Bush, et al.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

They've been wrong. Doesn't mean they can't be right. And they certainly are here. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no guarentee he will win but he has so easily molded himself that he may be abe to win over Latino voters which could help him win. Wither way, though, the House will fall to the Dems.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Trump would have to campaign through Mexico speaking Spanish in order to win over Latinos at this point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And Clinton is so much more popular. If Trump promises to keep the undocumented immigrants already here and help them get on Social Security and Medicare along with adopting various parts of Sanders platform then he may change their mind.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Promise to keep the undocumented immigrants he's promised to deport? What the fuck are you smoking? Robledo (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

While I don't think he'd go there (or that it'd matter much at this point), he has made a bunch of contradictory statements throughout his campaign. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

He has flip flopped on every one of his promises so he can "clarify" that he meant "new" immigrants like the Syrians and Central Americans and not those who have been here for a decade.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 02:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

For reference, Lott-Stossel's Election Betting Odds have a 72.2% and rising chance Hillary wins, and 23.0% and falling chance Trump wins. The Chart shows Hillary's chances up and up. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I want you all to mark my words and remember what I said: Trump will be the next president of the United States. If I'm right, well I predicted it all along. If I'm wrong, well that's great alright. I think the polls will do a massive turnaround from what they are right now as the loyal Republican electorate warms to Trump and realizes how much they don't want a third term of Barack Obama (Hillary Clinton). Romney lost by a far lesser margin in 2012 than McCain did in 2008. Only a few percentage points. This entire election has been a case study of the result being the opposite of what was predicted. People said a socialist stood no chance and couldn't get lasting support. Sanders did, and he almost won the nomination (who knows, maybe he will?). People said no way Trump could win the nomination. He did. And now Trump, the maverick outsider who promises to transform Washington, is running against the quintessential Washington sellout politician. Who do you honestly think the American people are going to pick. Be honest. Look in your heart. The polls today may show Hillary with a 7-point lead over Trump, but that will all change between now and November. It's going to be him. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you any fucking idea quite how tiny a percentage of the total US electorate has actually voted for Trump thus far in the primaries? Robledo (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

a shit load can happen before november. I wouldnt rule anything out till the votes have all been counted. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

In response to Robledo: It is true that Hillary leads by a few points over Trump in total votes so far. But that can turn around. Liberal and Democratic voters (Bernie voters) are a lot more principled than the average Republican voter. Most (>75%) of the voters who voted against Trump in the primary will fall into line and vote for him in the general just like they did with Romney, McCain, etc. On the other hand, we have polls showing at least one-third of Bernie voters (including myself) do not intend to vote for Hillary in November. That kind of disloyalty among base voters can kill a campaign (Goldwater, Bush 41), and it's not something Hillary is going to like. The difference between Bernie voters and Cruz/Rubio supporters is that Bernie supporters are principled and care about issues. That's why they won't go for Clinton nearly as much. It's the kind of thing that, when combined with other factors (opponent is very popular among certain groups, you are blatantly corrupt and have more baggage than the fucking airlines), can cause a campaign like Hillary's to flop in November. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Liberal and Democratic voters (Bernie voters) are a lot more principled than the average Republican voter.

HAHAHA. Good joke there, mate. Remember how every conservative failure is blamed on them "not being a true conservative"? Yeah. Same shit doesn't happen with the Dems. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and for reference: early polls tend to show an anti-establishment bias. If Trump is the anti, then Clinton is the establishment. George Wallace did very well in early polls and got absolutely crushed for the same reason. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, Wallace never became a presidential nominee to the one the oldest US political parties.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 03:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The Reagan coalition is dead. Trump is re-making the GOP in his own image. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity Nobs. I believe you are an American Conservative - are you going to vote for Trump? Will you encourage others to do so?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 post above nails the issues solidly. The choice is status quo vs change, not personalities or parties. Look at the Right track/Wrong track polls, or Obama approval, etc. Who represents change, and who represents status quo and the establishment? As a true blue progressive Republican conservative in the Wisconsin tradition (as Ryan, RNC Chairman Priebus, and Scott Walker are), I am content being part of the conservative minority in the "big tent" coalition Trump is building. The situation reminds me very much of the conservative movement spawned by Bill Buckley in the Eisenhower era. Somebody has to stay behind in the party (I now Bill Kristol is ready to bolt) to advise all these misguided idiot moderate, non-party affiliated, and Democratic defectors Trump is assembling. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 20:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobs - So does that mean, yes, you are going to vote for Donald Trump as president of the USA?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not so much a vote for Trump as a vote against Hillary. Trump maybe accused of ethical lapses, but none that have spilled over into criminal investigations. Sure, maybe he screwed someone out of $35,000 in Trump University, but Trump never pretended to be an advocate of women's rights while taking millions of dollars from Saudia Arabia which regularly flogs rape victims. The biggest criticism of Trump's ethics and judgment is advancing the career of Hillary Clinton with donations. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The only thing Trump is building is the great big clown car in which he'll happily drive the GOP over the cliff come November. It's going to be immensely funny to watch. Robledo (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

such complacency does not bode well tor the democrats. Folk were saying the same thing when trump first threw his hat in. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Demographics called. Said quit worrying and enjoy the show. Seriously, though, the GOP leadership conducted a forensic analysis of Romney's defeat in 2012 and concluded they had to (massively) improve their standing with female and non-white voters if they were to have any chance of recapturing the White House in 2016. No-one - as far as I'm aware - has seriously contested these findings.

Almost everything Trump has done to date flies in the face of this analysis. He's alienated the very sections of society the GOP most needs to overturn the Democrats' current advantage in the electoral college. He might have played a great tactical game to secure the nomination in a crowded field of pretty bland, uninspiring Republican candidates, but it's strategic suicide for the upcoming national campaign against Clinton.

Hillary wins simply by not being Trump. As well as repelling moderates across the board, Trump is such an obviously insincere opportunist that large swathes of the intelligent, educated conservative / evangelical vote will stay at home despite their visceral loathing of Clinton. Whether or not we agree with them, these people have principles and are not about to elect an utterly unprincipled clown to the highest office in the land in favour of someone they (merely) loathe.

Clinton might lose the support of a few die-hard and irredeemably butthurt Bernie fanboys and -girls, but not in sufficient numbers to keep her strategists up at night. The overwhelming majority of liberal voters will swing behind her, even if she represents an unsatisfyingly centre / centre-right presidency, solely on the grounds of "Dear-God-not-Trump!"

Trump is essentially left with the same relatively small bunch of dumb, angry, white assholes he managed to fire up in the primaries. And happily, there's not nearly enough of them anymore to carry the presidency. So, aye, relax and enjoy the show. Robledo (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So, using that analysis, a Trump victory would all depend on how many white racist crossover voters Trump can lure away from the Democrats to offset the women & minorities he's alienated. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 22:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No, on that analysis, Trump is utterly fucked whichever way he decides to jump. He loses if he continues to play to his base, and thus continues to alienate the majority of the electorate; and he loses if he tacks to the centre because he'll both alienate his base, and further repel moderates, by coming across as an opportunistic, flip-flopping charlatan. Robledo (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well put, but here's the problem: you're coming at it as if Trump represents some polar extreme, when in fact both candidates, Hillary & Trump, very much represent centrist attitudes, only Trump as a demonstrated ability to put together a cross-coalition of left-right, liberal-moderate-conservative, Republican-Democrat-unaligned that Hillary only dreams of. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 00:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Which might be fantastic for Trump if that "cross-coalition" amounted to anything more than ten million or so angry assholes dumb enough to vote for him in the primaries. But it doesn't, and he's got precious little chance of convincing the rest of the US that he'd be anything other than a complete fucking disaster as president. Robledo (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump Rising: America's political future

While Trump becoming president isn't (all that) likely, despite locking up the Republican nomination, it's hard to deny the American political climate is on the eve of significant changes. Will the Republican Party disintegrate? Would that turn the US into a one-party state or would it open the way for an effective multi-party system? What are your speculations? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:43, 8 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

I would be surprised if Clinton tolerated the progressive wing of the Democratic party especially if the Republicans implode. So maybe the Green Party or Libertarian Party becomes mainstream.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 03:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

An end of the two-party system in the US? Oh my, this sounds too nice to be true!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 11:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

A two party system is more or less inevitable given first past the post voting and a presidential rather than a parliamentary system. Ideally, the result will be the marginalization of 'movement' conservatives, the Democrats become the center-right party they will become if they elect Clinton and the few sane Republicans join them. While all the left of center current Democrats will be pushed away by the Clintons and reform as a new party on the left. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I dare only dream of such an outcome. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Pfft. Nah, the Dems will just get bigger for the next decade, then shift left. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the economy,stupid. Progressives just might be able to get jobs sometime in the near future, God willing. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 20:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the coalition of racists and white supremacists Trump has built will likely create a populist party. The electoral college pretty much cements a two party system.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Owlman, seriously, what percentage in hard numbers do you feel are racists & white supremacists among the American electorate who participate in the political process? Give a number in percentages of registered voters, public opinion poll respondents, or hard numbers in millions, please. I won't even ask for evidence or data -- feel free to pull a number off the top of your head or out of your asshole, then we can discuss your opinions & observations further. Thank you. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 00:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that isn't his only appeal. He already has half the fucking GOP behind him, and he'll get at least half of the other half by election day. That's a pretty big coalition if you ask me. The majority of Trump voters aren't racists or white supremacists. If they were, he wouldn't be news cuz he wouldn't've won anything. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

At the core of Trumps program & appeal is anti-political correctness (which seems an almost out-dated term already). So there is some talking in code, and just as importantly, what goes unstated. Long before Trump rose to 3% in the polls (May 2015), there was this gagging, suffocating political correctness that stifled voters 1st Amendment rights -- you could not dare criticize Obama, Hillary or other establishment Democrats (basically almost all Superdelegates) because that made you a racist. No fucking way are Americans going to suffer another 8 years of that crap under "the first woman president". If we ever are to elect a woman, I guarantee it will be a Republican where people do not have to walk on egg shells fearing they will called a bigot every 10 minutes. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that all of his supporters are racists but he has a strong following among far right groups. I think that he has inspired enough racists to participate in the political process that they are now a base. If I had to pull a number I would say that at most 12% of his base is far right.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 18:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I would accept that at least 12% (probably more) are "anti-immigrant". "Far right" and "conservative" do not equate anymore than "anti-immigrant" and "conservative" equate. "Anti-immigrant" & "racist" do not singularly belong to one side or the other of the spectrum. Racism and anti-immigrant sentiment can be mainstream and centrist, too. It's the simple No True Scotsman arguments- "no true liberal would be a racist".nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 18:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, obviously racism (or any other form of discrimination) knows no ideology. When I say racist I mean those who dislike specific people because of their race. I think more generally his supporters are anti-establishment conservatives with a hint of authoritarianism when it comes to criminal justice and immigration; they seem to fear Muslims and think Latinos are taking over America but they still think there are good people who are Muslim or Latino. These people reject the evangelicals and dislike US foreign policy in some areas; they hate welfare but they support unions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 18:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll confide in you & hope you take this to heart. I talk w/people daily, and it amazes me who some of the people for Trump are. Most people don't like talking politics, but I can drag it out of, strangers & friends. And it really does amaze me among friends & people I just met who feel strongly about Trump. There is really no common thread I see, other than many were not political people before. One 68 year old retired Vietnam Vet told me he never voted in his life, be he feels adamantly about doing this time. I've heard the same thing from blacks, not many of them of course, but older black men & younger black women. Yes, Hispanics, immigrant Hispanics & native born both tend to hate Trump, but that's what they've been programed to do from Spanish media; very few have a "wait and see" attitude common to other groups. Another common thread is, many who are pro-Trump, and feel strongly about it, are also tight-lipped; they will not discuss openly or get in arguments with the loud-mouthed Democrats who are always everywhere. They quietly state their case to me, and back away when the Trump-haters start reciting their talking points. But I can not discern a common thread between men-women, income, age, religious views, previous party allegiance (loyal conservatives seem outspoken & fearful of Trump) or region of the country they hail from. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 18:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• You guys are going to be really shocked when Trump wins. How is that going to change American politics? Sodexo Employee (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The Republican Party will not disentigrate. They will basically unite around Trump, and win. Even if they don't I don't believe oh, this is the death knell of the GOP! bullshit. The GOP will be just fine. It's a remarkably authoritarian institution compared to the Democrats, and is guaranteed to last for several decades (barring there aren't catastrophic events). I'd be surprised if the Democrats split too, as Bernie voters tend to be pessimistic and depressed anyway. I don't think they're angry enough to split off or vote Green or Libertarian or shit like that. We just aren't that moonbatty. I wish we were, but whatever. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The GOP, in my lifetime, has been simply an alternative party apparatus with organizations in 50 states that can be used to simply fill a void in the US two party system. Often what unites Republicans in several states, and at the national level, is simply that they are not Democrats (to a certain extent, you have this s a m e t h i n g among some Democrats in some states & at the national level. And in both cases, the party apparatus & voters loyal-to-name-brand are available to somebody, anybody (say, Ike, Goldwater, Reagan, now Trump) to make of it whatever they please to fill the alternative void left by the dissatisfaction with the leadership & governance of the other party. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a remarkably authoritarian institution compared to the Democrats- Pbfreespace3 Who has the means called superdelegates to override the primaries, if the party bigwigs don't like the results?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 10:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Both parties have superdelegates. It's just that the Republicans call them "unbound delegates" instead. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't they have less of them?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

He's not gonna win, so I suppose that won't change politics? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I beg to differ. You're wrong on this one, FCP. America doesn't like Hillary. I don't like Hillary. You don't like Hillary. Most of the people here don't like Hillary, and this is a liberal/progressive website. Can't you see the signs? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And even more people like Trump -- in what appears to be a rising figure. Fully 70% of women don't like him. There's been several national polls that account for state variations and thus calculate expected electoral returns -- Hillary crushes Trump, along the lines of 350 to 200. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As a life long Republican, I can see the appeal of Trump. His innovation is to make his racist and bigoted messages explicit, rather than dog-whistled in code. But these same messages have been steadily produced by large segments of the GOP since Nixon's 1968 campaign at least. There is at least a breath of fresh air about that. And when he's not harping on those subjects, he's talking sense about raising taxes, raising the minimum wage, ending free trade deals, and other messages that currently have wide bi-partisan appeal. People across the political spectrum are tired of a stagnant or declining standard of living which is explained as if it were the result of some kind of global weather pattern and justified with pointy-haired boss talk. I certainly don't think Hillary's a shoo-in, especially since she represents something that many people in both parties, and more independent voters, are rejecting. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Raising taxes? Trump? Holy fuck, he'd make a 10trn dent in revenue from cutting them. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Smerdis is referring to Trump's support for taxing hedge funds. A Clinton v Trump election would run on "negative politics" (voting for candidate B because you don't want candidate A to win) so it all comes down to turnout and looking at what happened during the 2014 midterms tells me where doomed; you need charisma to get people to vote and Clinton has none. We all know that a low turnout helps Republicans and the poor (the Democrats core) aren't turning out to vote; the Dems have also stood by and watch the Republicans enact voter ID laws and gut the Voting Rights Act.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump doesn't care about cutting taxes for anyone but himself. Anyone he can paint as an enemy, he'll tax the hell out of 'em and call it justice. Just look at all his proposals on trade and his constant wall-rants. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

Owlman's got it right: negative politics leads to low turnout which works to Republicans advantage. The likeability of a candidate doesn't matter. Richard Nixon remains the "most popular" president in American history behind George Washington after his 1972 win. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 19:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And you think immigrants and Muslims won't turn out, given what he's said? Literally 100% of my first- and second- generation friends are voting for Hillary.

And that's ignoring blacks, women, and liberals who are fucking terrified of a Trump presidency.

Who needs charisma when the opponent is so easily compared to Hitler? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't guarantee anything but there I have seen enough hatred for Hillary, again anecdotal, that it would be close. I know people who are black and latino who will vote for Trump because they dislike her, though, the seem to be fringe. I know members of my family who hate him that will vote Trump over Clinton; they voted for him over Cruz. I think he would be able to convince people to vote for him by promising limited amnesty and a larger welfare state. Every conservative I know misses their union or fears that their child will have nothing when they get out of college; they all despise paying for "school choice" and they want to improve life for the poor by creating a stronger middle class. Trump hasn't bashed unions or the poor whereas Clinton has advocated for "school choice", offshoring, cut welfare, and worked for Walmart.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

How will a Trump presidency change RW? Will there be an explosion of cover articles dissecting the Authoritarian poster boy's administration or will it continue to concentrate on the latest MRA vlogger and what Andy said on CP? Never mind, I just answered my own question. Leuders (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Given Trumps pettiness and hatred towards any sort of criticism (and the first amendment itself) we'd likely all be in jail. Just a little slower than personalities like John Oliver and without the twitter mocking of our loved ones. Then we can watch everything go to shit while the private prison contractors starve us and withhold medical care. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's extreme paranoia on par with the wingnuts claiming that Obama's gonna declare martial law or moonbats having claimed, that Dubya's would declare martial law.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

a) That's extreme pessimism.

b) He has been repeatedly openly and directly hostile to critics in this fashion.

c) I wasn't being serious you yogurt. It's really nice not being able to be a human being around you /sarcasm (so you actually get that's sarcasm). -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you ayran :D :D :D (tasty salted Turkish yogurt drink).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not again! Drinking that is like having a party in my mouth where everyone is getting sick! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This bullshit is amazing. You guys are like theists conjuring ontological BS to defend a God which just doesn't want to exist. You're talking about abstract "negative votes" and such to avoid the simple fact that *everyone and their dog hates Donald Trump.* There's just no possible way he can win, regardless of who he runs against. Feel free to concoct a page long wall of text to explain how democrat voters who are "tired of political correctness" will ally with Conservative Mexicans and poor whites to enact Voter ID laws that only target Hillary supporters and finally summon aliens to come and vote Trump in. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you have enough faith in humanity to do the right thing in the end, but it's still uphill. After you're proven correct, maybe we won't need Superdelegates. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally think what is likely to happen after this election is, maybe, that the baby-boomers, who have to an extent pretty much controlled both parties for some time, might become less prominent in both of them. To an extent, I look forward to that, because so far as I can tell a lot of the positions of the democratic further left resemble those of the "new age" people, and most of that stuff is perhaps at best based on dubious thinking. Exactly how things shake out regarding which parties hold which positions, though, at this point, I wouldn't try to guess. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey John. Why would you be glad that the "new age" people will gain more prominence? This is assuming they even constitute a significant portion of the left in America, which I would argue is not the case. I personally think the left could get a new resurgence like the conservatives did in the 80s and '94, but maybe that's just my hopeful side talking. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Republican party, and to a certain extent the Dems, are being re-defined right now. Just at the point everyone is screaming the demise of the GOP, voter registration is way up. Shooting from the hip, I'd say the GOP is becoming less-conservative and more mainstream, and the Dems are becoming less-centrist and more leftist. I'd guess there's a mass exodus of traditional Democrat voters, from all regions particularly the South & Midwest, but New England too, that voted for Obama but have finally given up on the Democratic party. What is happening in California now may take longer to play; the primary & general election won't tell us much. California will have to be looked at over the next few years, but odds are, if the Trump revolution is for real (and not just crossovers who will return to fold in the general election), California will probably mirror the rest of the nation in time. Bottomline, all the "America is now a center-left nation" we heard in 2009 was overrated. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 03:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I was saying that I would be glad if the "new agers" became less prominent, with the decline of the boomers. I actually, recently, went through a book published by an (admittedly conservative) Christian source which identified most of the main characteristics of the broad "new age movement." More or less, Hillary supports them, almost all of them. My personal objections to the new age in general is something that was pointed out in some studies in J. Gordon Melton's The Vampire Book, that both the upswing in interest in vampirism and the development of a lot of the new religious movements, which more or less includes most of the New Age, is rather closely tied to the increased narcissism of the people involved. I just don't like narcissism as a primary driving force in politics. And, yes, that makes me an opponent of Trump too. Given that the boomers have been said by several academics to be unusually narcissistic, the decline of the boomers might lead to a decline of narcissism, or, at least, the kind of narcissism favored by boomers. What sort of overriding concerns might replace it, if the younger Americans became the driving force in politics, I honestly don't know, but it is hard for me to imagine that they would be worse. Regarding what RobSmith said, I more or less am what I would describe as being a pragmatic centrist, and whichever party most closely approximates my own views is probably the one I would support, depending on other issues that might arise as well of course. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Should we remember Victory Day?

Most Westerners, Americans included, don't celebrate defeating the Nazis but it is of immense importance in Eastern Europe, especially in Russia. Our wiki doesn't mention it either so I was curious what you all thought about this holiday. I know that Putin has turned made this holiday more militaristic but it seems odd to mark Cinco de Mayo and not Victory Day.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 21:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

America's war was primarily with Japan. Hence they celebrate Victory Day (to the extent that they celebrate it all) on VJ Day in August rather than VE Day in May. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So why doesn't the UK celebrate Victory Day?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 21:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Same reason the US largely doesn't celebrate it any more: it's increasingly irrelevant. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Good points. As a kid VE Day, D-Day, VJ Day, and Dec. 7 were marked almost annually in the US in between Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Armistice Day. It died out sometime in the 1980s with that generation. Hell, Armistice Day has been changed to "Veterans Day" cause the US Congress feared it was becoming a pacifist holiday. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 00:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid got it tho; VJ Day was the end of the war for America, but by the 1980s Americans celebrating nuking 80,000 Japs started to be overshadowed by the worldwide commemorations of the victims of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, so it quietly was forgotten. 01:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Only some states celebrate VJ day. Maybe RI, and, umm, I don't know where else.

But why have only one victory day? Why not for every war? We could have like 50 holidays...CorruptUser (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hence why they're generally covered by generic ones like Remembrance Day, Memorial Day or Veterans Day. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

50 days of no school! WOOOOOOOO! --86.30.10.44 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I have experienced, there isn't any major celebration for either Victory day in the U.S. There might be minor celebrations in some towns and cities, but I haven't looked into it so I wouldn't know. Mostly they are both celebrated by the history channel, possibly the latter one more so, but only because it is also the complete end of the war. Though I haven't watched the history channel in at least five years due to the *ahem* downturn in programming, so who knows what it does now?Teurastaja (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The people whose surrender we'd be cheering over would be mostly the Italians, Germans, and Japanese. In the USA those are some of our best friends in terms of international relations; we even provide most of Japan's military defense capabilities. There is no real reason here to celebrate their downfall, and many reasons not to. Russia doesn't have those issues with the victory. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's how VJ Day is celebrated today. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 03:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not just in eastern Europe. VE Day is a public holiday in France, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

VE Day is not a public holiday here in the Netherlands. Liberation Day (5 May) is a public holiday once in every five years (2010, 2015 etc), although this year 5 May coincided with Ascension Day which is a public holiday every year.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

ahem. Template:Holydaze/0509 Schtroumpf (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Whut? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we should remember Victory Day. Winning against fascism is worthy of commemoration and celebration.

Yes, 86.30.10.44

Two things: V-J day happened later and was more or less the definite conclusion of the war; and no country in Europe got nuked.
Talk to Civic Cat 19:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Weed in 2016 (US Thread)

So from my best research, it looks like full cannabis legalization will be on the ballot in 2 (or 3) states: Maine, Nevada, and probably California too. Medical cannabis will be on the ballot in Florida as well. How do you think the states will vote? How does this change things going forward? I think Nevada will legalize it most likely, and I'm not sure about Maine. I think the idiots in Florida will vote no. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It will be a success in every state. Marijuana would be a big revenue source for Big Tobacco.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 23:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

These guys need marijuana. It can be used for legitimate medical purposes and would be very popular.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 00:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Medical marijuana was on the ballot here in Florida a couple of years ago, and it failed by a pretty wide margin (58-42). I'd say it's likely to fail again, unfortunately. KevinR1990 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see all the concern. Colorado's been legal for years and nothing terrible has happened. Well, except for some really bizarre advertising and terrible weed puns. Lots of money for the state too. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Also weed commercials are just as bad for "medicinal" marijuana here in CA. Choice items include the "420md.org" billboards featuring large breasted porno-esque nurses, and "flowkana" which is "Canabis, grown the natural way" apprently.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 18:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess there needs to be warning labels - Beware: do not pun while high. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Here in CA it will probably be legal, as everyone in the urban areas will probably vote for it, and people in the hick areas can be convinced if they are told how much money they could probably make growing it.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 07:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Big Tobacco is, quite sensibly, staying far, far away from cannabis. You see, Big Tobacco is indisputably engaged in interstate commerce; since cannabis is still illegal under federal law, getting involved would paint a huge bullseye on them for any federal prosecutor who cared to take a shot. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's likely to pass here in California. It's already effectively legal for recreational use, as medical cannabis cards are really easy to get. Counties and cities will probably still be able to ban sales of the Devil's lettuce if they want. A city near me sued all the way up to the state Supreme Court to keep their dispensary ban. Of course you can still buy booze on just about every street block. In longer-term, it's pretty obvious by now that it's just a matter of time before things are changed at the federal level. No one except the far right has any desire to go to war to try to force prohibition back on the states legalizing it, and we godless millennials support legalization overwhelmingly, which means politicians are already shifting towards supporting it to try to get our votes. --Ymir (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And here we now have Ohio's House voting for legal medical marijuana. Shocking news, I know, Ohio's government doing something good! But sadly this bill has to get by the Senate and John Kasich's hand (who is poorly educated on the issue and a bit wishy-washy). You won't be able to smoke it, only vape and eat it. This is actually probably better for your health though, to be honest, as burning a plant and inhaling the fumes hundreds of times probably isn't good for you. The fact that the bill passed the House 70-25 tells me the Senate will probably approve it too, so Kasich is the big wild-card for me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Can people stop the whole "Clinton = centrist" bullshit

• 538: Clinton is liberal. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
• GovTrack: Clinton is liberal. http://imgur.com/a/Y0NEm
• DW-NOMINATE: Clinton is liberal. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

Clinton and Sanders don't always vote the same ways -- though they do 93% of the time, including on big issues http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html -- but that does not mean that she is centrist or even center-right in US politics -- unless you're willing to claim that 90% of politicians are centrist or rightist. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh pundit measurements.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 23:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

These measurements are all relative within a party. Blair was seen as significantly to the right of most of the parliamentary Labour party and it arguably worked to his advantage in 97 and 01. I'd be far more concerned about Clinton's chances if she was perceived as "liberal" as the Democrats in general. Robledo (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No offense, Fuzzy, but ideology isn't quantifiable. The capital punishment, war, welfare, worker rights, reproductive rights, et al. are moral issues. I, personally, don't mind balanced budgets but my support for a stronger welfare state wouldn't make me conservative. I also hate offshoring jobs but my support for uplifting the global poor with free trade wouldn't make me a protectionist. I don't expect politicians to know every consequence to a certain policy but they should support something because they believe it is right; if Sanders had a think tank behind him I am sure that NYDN interview wouldn't have been as bad but I would still expect him to support breaking up banks and enacting universal healthcare because he believes they are the right policies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If HRC is elected, what this means to me is that the urgently needed solutions to the problems of inequality, decent lives for people outside the professional class, and replacing 'disruption' and 'agility' with stability will be postponed for at least four years. This transcends ideology; I'm not much of a liberal myself, but I also see it as a problem. Sanders gets it, and Trump at least sometimes acts as if he recognizes the problem. Hillary does not strike me as getting it. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• they should support something because they believe it is right

No, they support something because they believe it is the line of bullshit people want to hear. That is where there is no difference between Hillary & Trump. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 03:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know which is why politicians are called "inauthentic".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 03:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Clinton is clearly a leftist. *cough* see image to the left *cough*--JorisEnter (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't buy that Jeb! and Hillary are that far apart. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am going to put the 2012 political compass for comparison. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 14:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If the vast majority of people fall on one side of your left-right spectrum, your spectrum needs recalibration. Most people in the US are to Obama's right. That makes him left wing. StickySock (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The Political Compass tries to be nation-neutral; recalibrating it to fit the current US political spectrum would be contrary to what the PS tries to accomplish.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Then I'm calling bullshit on it considering that the vast majority of the world is NOT Western and thinks that homosexuals should be shot on sight, women belong in the kitchen or the bedroom, believes atheism should be a death sentence, and a whole host of things that would make all but the most extreme evangelical look like MLK. StickySock (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless a political gradient includes "exterminate all outsiders" and "panhuman hegemonic hivemind" as options, it doesn't count αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton is totally left wing. Sure, she is a total hawk and would “obliterate” Iran (children, old people, everyone included) if the leadership were to nuclear-strike at Israel, as she said, when she were president. That's how left wingers, generally, sound like, don't they? Make war, not peace or what was that again? She's an admirer of Henry Kissinger, who had made similar hawkish statements, in a diffetent era, and who was of course idolized by the Left counterculture. Clinton is so progressive, she was even ahead of Occupy Wall Street! While the others of Occupy still worked on their tents outside, Clinton was already inside, occupying the beds of Goldman Sachs and similar institutes. Clinton was against gay marriage, until fairly recently. To some misguided people this may not sound very leftist, but all those people need to keep in mind, she hasn't tweeted at #GanerGate, therefore she must be left wing — here in Bizarro Universe. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The average American is only barely in favor of gay marriage. Most Americans hate the OWS movement, or at least their members. And the average American thinks more highly of North Korea than of Iran. Just because she's to the right of the echochambers you hang around doesn't mean she is right wing. CorruptUser (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't stated she was right wing, the motion was whether she's left or centrist (whatever that means). She's a right-side US Democrat, which is usually the case in two party systems (the right wing counterpart will be to their left side, usually). But Americans use “Democrat” synonymously with left, making it meaningless in an international context. Here, it's also used arbitrarily: people that are disliked are usually called reactionary and right wing, regardless of their views. New Atheists, for example, count as right wing Neo-Cons around here, even when the movement has been open and supportive of everything from pro-choice to LGBT. So, by your own standards, which are known to be upside down backwards, Clinton would be a hardcore reactionary who outruns Sam Harris from the right. But I'm not saying this, it's only a reminder that you need to keep your story consistent. ~ Aneris ✻ 12:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Look who's back.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

My 2 cents (I as a lifelong Republican & observer) and I seriously believe this: Hillary is in the Center, and Donald Trump stands to the left of Hillary between her & Sanders. That is why and how Trump of the three remaining has built more of a cross-coalition of Democrats-unaffiliated-Republicans than the other two. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll say it again: if Clinton is a conservative Democrat, then the vast majority of Dems are apparently conservative relative to their own party. An absurdity. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I would call the entire Democratic party center-right but the problem, it seems, is that the political spectrum is useless. So let's establish what Clinton is a neoliberal and, arguably, a neocon. Everyone has convictions and they are held accountable for those convictions in a democracy; Clinton has no convictions and people get upset that it doesn't appear she can be held accountable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would you say that Clinton is unnaccountable? And, for reference, who should be considered 'accountable'? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton initiated a bombing campaign in Libya that ended up killing their leaders extrajudicially and overthrowing the government without significant warrant or trial. She armed thousands of bandits and mercenaries who today run that country, and destabilized that region, making it impassible for all but Western smugglers and journalists brave enough to venture in there. Many of the mercenary relationships developed during the Libyan War helped create the arms black markets that made the Tuareg rebellion in Mali possible (this also resulted in an al-Qaeda takeover that had to be stopped by France). She pushed for gangsters to be armed with anti-tank missiles and machine guns in Syria to overthrow their government. Some of these criminals turned out to be al-Qaeda and ISIS. Good going, Hillary! You're the best! She has not been held accountable for any of these crimes. At least the media actually reported on Blair and Bush, but Hillary has not had her feet held to the fire solely because she is good friends with the CEOs of the news corporations. That's ridiculous, and I could never vote for such a lying, conniving little bastard. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fuzzy Clinton has held many unelected, executive positions which in the US receives more scrutiny than legislative or judicial positions. The point of a democracy is to hold politicians accountable; I may disagree with the removal of a president who legalizes gay marriage, for example, but the people of that country would have every right to remove him. Clinton, on the other hand, is the perfect technocrat who has never been elected outside of her Senate race 2000. People feel that she ought to be held accountable for something whether that something is reasonable or not. Now, I am not saying that every government position needs to be an elected position so some technocratic offices ought to exist but I think it would be reasonable for someone to want to remove Rumsfeld, Bush's Secretary of Defense, for disliking his positions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 01:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Centrist or not, Clinton is certainly an extreme, fanatical, unwavering supporter of the terrorist state of Israel. People are always accusing me of supporting the Nazi solution to the Jewish question, but that couldn't be further from the truth. What did the Malagasy ever do to deserve that? (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Stellaris.

Well i picked up the new paradox grand strategy Stellaris last night, and subsequently played it for 24 4 hours. I was wondering if any of you other nerds rationalwikians had the game, if a large enough group does, i suppose we might be able to start a multiplayer game. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 13:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have Stellaris, how good is it? I have Europa Euniversallis IV from Paradox, and Sins of a Solar Empire:Rebellion for space strategy. I have a ton of mods for Sins, especially Star Wars and Star Trek mods, so I mainly play those. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you could pick 3 mods for Sins, which ones should i look for? I used to play it a lot a few years ago, but never modded. I was honestly just thinking about redownloading it the other day. The Trek mod would be sweet. I hope there would be something even more esoteric, like The Culture (just saying, a Culture mod would be ffing awesome). Petey Plane (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It is very good, less micro than europa, i could never get a grasp on europa, but i am loving stellaris. I would put it somewhere in between Europa Universalis and Galactic Civilizations. It has the wonderful depth of Europa Universalis, but much easier to pick up. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 23:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The only Paradox thing I have is Anno 1404, which is pretty good. Unfortunately my laptop notebook doesn't have a disk-drive of any kind so I can't use the CD-ROM. Bugger.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you can use a machine with a drive to image the disk, you can then transfer the image file onto your notebook and it should work. Or just rebuy it on Steam for 10 USD, although it does have Ubisoft's dumb DRM. --Ymir (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks really, really good, but I probably won't get it. Alas. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd get it, but I'm currently already saving up for 5 games, and I don't want to add anymore to that.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 01:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I might save it for when the Summer Sale rolls around. Currently waiting on the opinion of someone I know who loves these things. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. Added it to my wishlist. I'll grab it when it comes on sale. CorruptUser (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Upload meme?

I've found a image macro originally from facebook (http://i.imgur.com/9BY458f.jpg) that I want to use in an article, and I can't track down the original author or licensing or anything, can I still upload it to rationalwiki? Threadnaught (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, probably, but why would you want to? It doesn't look witty or informative. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it illustrates marijuana woo pretty damn well (I would know, I used to have friends who post this shit) Threadnaught (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a meme -- it's fine. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

its a meme - it should be killed with fire. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

oi u wut m8 --Ymir (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Dont try to stil mah dank memes m9'Legion^{what do you want from me} 06:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea as idjits will promptly try to decorate every article with bad memes - David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

^This. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Shitty slipper slope argument. There's plenty of memes onwiki already -- yet the floodgates haven't opened. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

therecare plenty of memes on the wiki already, and they are all shite. Its the modern equivalent quoting tv catchphrases. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Viktor Schauberger

So yesterday I was at a small seminar sort of deal for class (college). It was supposed to be about the Flint water crisis, but the speaker spoke more about different forms of plumbing. He dedicated a pretty decent amount of the roughly hour and a half he was speaking to Viktor Schauberger. Apparently, Schauberger did some amazing experiments that either defied the laws of physics as they are known or simply more ingenious than what mainstream scientists were capable of. The most important of these was a machine that utilized unknown and/or little known properties of water to create vast amounts of power. A perpetual motion machine. The speaker put in such a way that it seemed he knew very well why people would be skeptical but it was worth looking into. As such, I believe that an article about Viktor Schauberger would be missional due to his crankery. However, I have neither the time nor the will to make an article about him. If somebody else would like to look into the matter and create a page, well that would be just dandy. Also, according to what might be the official website dedicated to Schauberger, he made flying saucers for the Nazis, albeit against his will.Teurastaja (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

See this.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I was just looking at the man's website. This is an example from here.

Exciting new research has found that extracellular water in the body is structured in a liquid crystalline matrix, which makes instant communication possible across the whole organism. Some of the new quantum biologists have come to the conclusion that water must be the servant of cosmic purpose, acting with a degree of consciousness to organise water, which in turn brings consciousness and order to organisms.

Fantastic stuff!--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Have at it Bob. Sorry Joris.Teurastaja (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes

Well if you've ever looked at my steam profile, it would be rather apparent to you that I'm a big fan of the Civilization franchise, so it would be no surprise to you that I am incredibly excited for this'Legion^{what do you want from me} 01:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually just got my first Civ game(V) last week. I like firaxis' latest makings quite a bit, so let's do multiplayer when it's out. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What about an Israeli solution?

I know this is probably too late coming (plus some people here hate Israel on general principle) but what about a Clinton Sanders ticket (with Sanders on the top of the ticket) where it is understood that the top of the ticket resigns halfway through the term. That was done at least once in Israel (with a Likud-Labor coalition) and it worked out quite well (in fact a major peace treaty was signed by the resulting government). It would pacify all the main problems: Bernie or Bust don't bust. There'll be downballot excitement in November due to Bernie at the top of the ticket. Hillary gets to be President. The ticket is nearly unbeatable. Bernie (who'll be close to eighty in 2020) won't be ancient in office (which seems to be a major crime nowadays) and Hillary has all the time in the world to prepare her 2020 run and can run on a record as well as Bernie's achievements (if there are any). What do you think about that? ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.90.213.140 / talk / contribs} 20:16, 12 May 2016‎ (UTC)

I think the Constitution would prevent the President from just abdicating power to the vice president halfway through their term.Petey Plane (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? The constitution does not say that anywhere. The President can renounce his office at any time and both precedent (the death of several Presidents and the resignation of Richard Nixon) show that there is nothing keeping the VP from taking over after a presidential vacancy through death or resignation. Of course Congress could impeach the new President or deny confirmation of a new Vice President, but there is no law forbidding the President from stepping down at any point in time. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all I don't think a joint ticket of any kind will happen: Hillary is too grudge-holding to appoint an opponent she disagrees with so fiercely. Second, I would not vote for such a ticket. I want Bernie goddamnit, not some compromise. I'm not gonna compromise with wrong. Technically, Hillary could appoint Obama as her running mate, and it would still be constitutional due to the 22nd Amendment only prohibiting presidents running for office more than twice. Hillary could legitimately run and win with Obama, and on the day after her inauguration resign and hand the reigns over to Obama. The outrage and chaos it would cause among Republicans would be a joy to behold, enough so for me to vote for Hillary for the hell of it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Obama could be Veep, but legally he could not become President. Similarly, a foreign born American could be Veep, but would be skipped over in the line of succession. StickySock (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually Obama could not become Vice President. There is language to the effect that a person not eligible to be President cannot be Vice President. Everything else would be utterly absurd, given that there is no way to stop the transition from President to Vice. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

even if it were possible to do, i'm sure that the electorate would just love such shenanigans AMassiveGay (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if were possible to do so, a Clinton-Sanders ticket would likely cost Clinton a dangerously high number of moderates and sane Republicans. Robledo (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Implying that Republicans are going to vote for Clinton.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 23:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Robledo, beg to differ; analyzing yesterday's (Tuesday May 10) RCP national polls shows without Sanders on the ticket, Hillary automatically looses 2% off the top. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 00:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the simple truth Republicans, Democrats, and pundits do not want to admit openly: Trump won nomination with people who voted for Obama, and in some cases, voted for Obama twice. Add to that, of the 41% Trump is polling now, that figure does not include at least 1/3 of the people who voted for Romney (and other GOP candidates earlier). Hillary must win back those crossover voters (probably at least 10-12% of Trump's 41% now), plus the Sanders people. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed. Vulpius (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's a recent news item, but this could be the subject of an Essay:Analyzing polling data (or some such), but I'd have to do it as a joint project with other editors. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 16:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll get you the hard data (in millions, not %) but that will take awhile. If you want a snapshot right now, look at the screaming headlines about Trump surging and look at President Obama's Approval polls at RCP today, as well. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 05:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Congress cannot just impeach someone for no reason. Impeachment must be for malfeance or nonfeance which are defined in the Constitution as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." They can't just impeach someone for becoming president. Nor does Congress have any role in "confirming" a new VP. The line of succession is abundantly clear and settled law. Congress doesn't have to consent to anything. I'd imagine they could file suit in SCOTUS, but as they passed the law, that would be silly. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you really call something "shenanigans" if it happens in several advanced countries around the world? After all, I think people from the US would be rightly offended if some gal from Denmark came along and said the latest budget was full of "shenanigans" that no sane Dane would ever accept. You may say that the political cultures are different, but you may not say that workable compromises that are well tested in democracies around the world are somehow bad because they have not yet happened in the US. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not say "put Obama in the Veep spot". I said put Sanders on top of the ticket and have him resign in favor of VP Clinton. Reading comprehension 101. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"...you may not say that workable compromises that are well tested in democracies around the world are somehow bad because they have not yet happened in the US." Haha, you're really not familiar with the U.S., are you? This is the country where presidential candidates say with a straight face that just because universal healthcare works in every other developed country doesn't mean it'll work in the U.S. --Ymir (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

i do call something 'shenanigans' if, as in the above hypothetical of clinton and obama, a situation is engineered with the express purpose to get someone who would normally be barred from taking office to take office. Where in the world does this happen and is not widely scorned? The only vaguely similar situation i can think of is in that bastion of free and fair elections, russia, where putin was prime minister for a stretch to get around term limits. And for the record, i am not an american. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

and why would should americans be offended if a dane said their budget was nonsense if it was true? I would not be offended if an american said british poltics was nonsense. There is alot that is. If they were wrong i could always try to explain why in the bounds of friendly debate. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

it is also not correct to say that because something works for one place in the world that it would work elsewhere. A solution a political problem in the uk would probably not work in the US because the political systems are very different and the cultures are very different (at least, different enough). American exceptionalism, or exceptionalism of any state, in this case would be true. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Extremely doubtful Dems would put Sanders at the top of the party ticket even though Hillary won the primary. But as Hillary's VP, he could certainly bring out passionate voters and help make sure Trump doesn't get elected. Leuders (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's an entirely legal and more plausible solution: Kasich runs as a 3rd party candidate in one state only - Ohio - and wins, denying both Hillary & Trump 270 Electors. The 12th Amendment kicks in and the House, sitting as state delegations, must choose among the 3 top Electoral vote getters. Only 26 Electoral votes (i.e., 26 state congressional delegations) needed to win. In this scenario, Hillary is out, and the choice is between Kasich & Trump. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you say about this?

Do you think this has any merit? Is it true, true to some extent or utter hogwash? 95.90.213.140 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

How about a quick summary of what it is, and what YOU think of it? I, for one, am reluctant to click on a random YouTube link posted by a BON. Nowhere Man (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a video of Christopher Hitchens claiming that "fascism = Catholic right wing".--JorisEnter (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's at least historically true, but not really the case any more. When you leave the somewhat unique Nazis out, it's easy to see pre-WWII Fascism as simply the political arm of the Roman church. Rome attempted to compete with socialist movements by supporting traditionalist ethnic nationalism, with strongman leaders as secularized versions of the absolute monarchs whose time had passed. When the old Fascism was discredited after WWII and the Cold War was the major geopolitical and ideological breakline, Rome buried the political ideology it had formerly championed and became the best friend of Western democracies. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Smerdis, I mean wow. That's brilliant. That should be cut and pasted into some article somewhere verbatim. As Andy would say, good insight. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 20:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a page about Catholic fascism? 95.90.213.140 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

How about "The Catholic Church and fascism" (at least as a section in either the Fascism or Catholic Church article)?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 16:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. And it might make certain corner cry Godwin, which is an added bonus... 95.90.213.140 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think, that it'd be warranted, since fascists and Nazis ain't the same (the latter being much worse than the former), but it will trigger that reaction in the, that is most likely true.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 20:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The point here, and Hitchens makes well is, what the word "fascism" c. pre-1940, and what the word ism historically remembered today, are two different things. To create a article "Catholic fascism" would be blatant dishonesty and propagandizing. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 20:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Our Roman Catholic Church article already talks about this a bit in the "Politics" section. --Ymir (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do, whereas the Catholic Church, uhh, ... Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has funny hats and likes children a bit too much... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Creation Museum 2: Electric Boogaloo

(First time creating a topic here, I apologize in advance if I mess something up.) It's happening: Answers in Genesis' Ark Encounter opens this July.

https://arkencounter.com/

I just wanted to pop in and make RW aware of it; the Creation Museum page will be able to get some new content. Their ark replica looks almost complete. Ignoring its roots in overzealous Christian fundamentalism, I'm actually somewhat impressed.98.110.112.251 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You might be impressed, but then you realize that it was actually funded by a 60 fucking million dollar loan from a local government with massive tax incentives from the state government. And they got that while engaging in blatant religious discrimination of employees. Isn't that nice? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I like my discrimination served with a side of good architecture. Anything else doesn't count. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't surprised by the employee discrimination. But I thought they were turned down on the government loan and had to get private ones?98.110.112.251 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't think so. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

They most certainly took $62 million, and the financing was for redevelopment of blighted areas. I don't know what makes open land a blighted urban area but their reps did their best to make sure it qualified. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I found that article just now. Now I feel bad. 98.110.112.251 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and they are slashing human services like Medicaid and mental health care to keep those breaks in place. As Jesus preached "Fuck the poor, build more public idols to me". -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Where does this "electric boogaloo" thing come from anyway? 95.90.213.140 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A name they tack on names to indicate a shitty sequel (comes probably from "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo").--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 20:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just a meme-title trend, man...Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 20:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

What's already interesting is that for all of Ham's promotion, he hasn't even managed to sell out attendance for the Ark Park's opening day, let alone any other day. The parking lot only holds 4,000 cars, and they're selling "guaranteed admission" tickets by date so you know you'll get in instead of finding the park sold out when you arrive. These guaranteed windows are for an entire day or an entire evening session, so if there's availability it's because he hasn't gotten 4,000 families, groups or individuals to sign up in advance on a given day yet. For a sense of comparison, Jones Beach on Long Island, NY, has over 23,000 parking spaces and usually fills up by 11:00 am on a summer weekend. I'm sure Ham's attendance will include a lot of people who don't buy in advance, but after all the promotion & buildup, if he can't sell out 4,000 cars worth of tickets on his opening day, how fast will this dry up to a trickle? DinsdaleP (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not so fast. In Saudi Arabia, passes similar to "guaranteed tickets" are sold to pilgrims making the Hajj, so that they can visit important areas without having to beat the crowds. Every year, the Saudis mess it up. The passes are pretty much guaranteed to sell out, but they always sell either too few or many - by wide margins. The Saudis don't want to risk losing out on a profit, so they error to the side of selling too many. As a result, every year there are at least several thousand pilgrims - often much more - who basically wasted their money. So it's dangerous to just say "well, Ken Ham is still selling these tickets, so that means he has spaces left." You never now if you're dealing with incompetence. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Data-Mining the Paleoanthropology Revolution: A Golden Opportunity for Young- Age Creationism

Is it just me, or does this seem dangerously close to advocating for cherry-picking science while it's in a period of transition? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed the sidebar

I changed the sidebar, since nobody had any major objections back here. Too ugly? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good (almost nobody used the forums anyway) but the new version doesn't show yet.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll see to what extent these are dickhead magnets - David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy shuffled the "Donate" button down - I've moved it up particularly as we're in a fundraiser. Personally I don't mind it up-there and in people's faces, how do others feel? - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be fine if there wasnt that huge whitespace above it. Any way to remove? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You could put it above the navigation menu so it's the top item under the logo. Then the space won't look so strange. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

On my browser, at least (Pale Moon) the Donate button is partially obscured by the user bar. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What skin are you using? FuzzyCatPotato of the Rhyming Xbox Ones (talk/stalk) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Modern". Don't think I've ever changed it from the default. Pale Moon is set to display all buttons with text and no icons, but is otherwise default. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Community standards change from last month

This vote regarding the wording of the voting policy, and especially the time limits on policy/coop votes, is still out there. Now that we're not busy killing each other over whether some user is a sock or if Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders/Noam Chomsky/whoever else is Goat/the devil/whatever, I thought it might be worth having a look at this without instantly entering HCM(i²).--JorisEnter (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not "still out there". It's dead in the water. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep. This is how initiatives like this die: by being ignored - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for resources analyzing/refuting/poking fun at the alt-right

I greatly enjoyed HBomberguy's "Measured Response" series poking fun at Davis Aurini and the MRA backlash against Star Wars VII (I thought that I was going to suffocate from laughing so hard at the "The little white cuck ball" part). Honestly, I'm just fascinated by the non-stop comedy from the neoreactionary camp. So I'm looking for more authors or vloggers who address those kinds of subjects. Suggestions? ^{— Unsigned, by: Eigenbasis819 / talk / contribs}

I don't know of any other vloggers, but:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/
• http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 12:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You can find more on other gender-race war warrior sites, e.g. http://freethoughtblogs.com/ or http://the-orbit.net/. Kevin Logan has one series, too. Maybe Steve Shives? However, the problem is that this whole corner, including all of Fuzzy's examples tend to be as accurate as a blindfolded and drunken marksman, shooting from the hip, in the darkness. It seems that a subject as easy as boiling water attracts people even incapable of this feat. ~ Aneris ✻ 12:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it was that easy maybe you could have done a better job as a champion of that viewpoint, which you failed miserably at, that says more about you than Fuzzy. Weren't you "distancing yourself" and now your back posting? :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Big surprise, but the "left-leaning, anti-authoritarian... feminist" Aneris leaps at the chance to come out of self-imposed exile and defend the right-wing, authoritarian, anti-feminist movement he is totally, absolutely not a part of. Petey Plane (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Aneris' ideology is wrong, but don't be mean about it.

All of the sources I gave are maybe 80% accurate, while the content they ridicule is maybe 10% accurate. Hbomb is probs the best on this, tho. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

1) How is it “defending” to provide sources that go against that corner? They are the foremost RW-style critics of the people mentioned above. Weak, but what this audience here likes, e.g. polemical, ranty, social justice gender-race war style. I don't have to like that. Intelligent criticism of the right would be e.g. Noam Chomsky. At other times I'm accused of that. 2) As I explained before, I wrote my distance comment due to the now commonplace guilty-by-association, where one is somehow responsible for certain things other people do. I found that unacceptable. I did not join a cult, but came here because things are wrong and unjust. You're still smearing the irish atheists, and human rights activists, you're still associated with former nazi and paedophiles, so of course I have nothing to do with this. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend the reddit board Stromfront or SJW. Lots of laughs. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Camp of the Saints

I recently came across a chilling, haunting, yet beautiful book called The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail. Don't take my word for it, check out every other review of it that's out there, they basically repeat those words exactly.

I'm thinking of starting an article on it and I'm not sure which one of the dozens of glowing reviews should be used as citations.

Google for the pdf of the book, the whole thing is available for reading online. I'd also like to see other RW users' thoughts on the book.99.244.178.171 (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I read this somewhere in the 1985-1990 period. Are you trolling or are you fucking serious? It is nasty xenophobic fear-mongering and at various stages since its first publication in the 1970s, this book has been a darling of the extreme racist right. For those who do not know of the book, this ought to be enough. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with including claims of being racist if it can be proven. As it stands, there's plenty of reason to believe otherwise. This interview more or less counts Raspail out as being a racist. Many reviews also say that calling the book racist is an unfair characterization. I'll link those when I can.

Do you have any evidence other than a cherrypicked SPLC thing which ignores the greater themes of the book. The whole book is available as a PDF, perhaps you can produce some quotes that are racist? Why not get other users' opinions too? 99.244.178.171 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is our latest trolling nazi IP - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is about the book The Camp of the Saints, about which the wikipedia article on it says "In 2001 the Southern Poverty Law Center described it as 'widely revered by American white supremacists and is a sort of anti-immigration analog to The Turner Diaries,' and as recently as October of 2015 condemned the novel as 'the favorite racist fantasy of the anti-immigrant movement in the US,' yeah, I think that the most chilling thing is that anyone wants to use it here. The book did become a best seller again in 2011, unfortunately, and, given Trump's recent comments, might become popular again soon. I hope that don't happen, though. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

France has an "interesting" tradition of racist and Nazi-sympathetic literature, and Louis-Ferdinand Céline is a somewhat respected writer there. Then again, he could write; I wasn't able to finish the first chapter of The Turner Diaries. I find myself wondering where this falls. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

We could make an article on this book or its author since it is prominent among white supremacists.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 03:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Where can this go?

I found this very wrong quote. Where can it go? I was thinking NOMA, anti-science, or on Pope John Paul II's article.TGW 16:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen "idolatry" in science and I don't think, that there's much "false absolutes", whatever the fuck this is, either. Who expects good science from a bigwig cleric of any religion, anyway?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Pulling uncited contextless quotes off BrainyQuote & looking for places for them to "go" doesn't seem like a great service to the site missions of analysing, refuting & documenting. JP2's views on science are worth adding/expanding in the JP2 article, but not as a quote-mine. And this is nothing to do with NOMA. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. I didn't really think it had anything to do with NOMA, either. That's why I held off before placing it into an article. TGW 17:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The political goings on in Brazil

So apparently the President of Brazil was bad at picking a Vice President and given her impeachment, Brazil is now governed by a pretty right wing, pretty corrupt, pretty white, pretty male and pretty old clique of shady people. Do you think that was just people using a situation that presented itself (Rousseff being unpopular) or something that took a bit of nudging or even engineering (say, a smear campaign in the media, for instance)? I don't speak Portuguese, so my judgment is probably of little value, but it'd be nice to have some discussion on this here... 95.90.213.140 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Media outlets, most notably Globo, helped to sow the seeds against Dilma, who was corrupt, but didn't do anything impeachable and was suspended by a congress that was equally corrupt. Temer was close to Goldman Sachs and other financial industries and he was also a US informant, though, I doubt that the US government helped push for Dilma's removal.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If anyone has a spare hour or so, the London Review of Books published a lengthy and very good article by Perry Anderson on the crisis. Annquin (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

this video was made before Temer took over... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Review my frikkin article!

I wrote a point-by-point refutation of a Washington Post article that criticizes Bernie Sanders. Can you please read it and review? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious that you're a Bernie Bro. Everyone who isn't sexist is voting for Clinton:

1. Clinton has excellent ties to Wall Street, which means she knows how to make the economy strong
2. Clinton knows how to lie and flip flop as needed, a valuable skill for a diplomat
3. Clinton comes from a political dynasty and knows who's strings to pull
4. Clinton is barely a leftist, in every other country she would be a conservative
5. Clinton is a woman, are you sexist?

As you can see Clinton is the best choice. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh...?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 04:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There's this story with the rape victim, and where Clinton helped the rapist and laughs about it later. Guess what the RW article has to say about this? Keep in mind how every “problematic” tweet by Dawkins is documented here. The PR team of Clinton here of course consists of the same usual suspects as always, who are known to be soft with such people. Can you guess what the article says? Correct: nothing! Here you go, source, and more. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This subject was already brought up. She wasn't laughing about helping a rapist. She did her job defending someone. I am curious, though, who you accuse of being Clinton's PR team?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 05:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki Merchandise

The donation drive is up again and with the Reason Rally being a thing in a couple of weeks, I am reminded of that idea I had kicking around so long that I couldn't work up the courage (if you will) to just spit it out.

Why do we not have merchandise? I'm not asking for anything crazy, maybe a tee with the brain on the front and on the back could be some catch phrases (Like: "But I thought this was RationalWiki? DRINK!" or "Slightly more credible than Conservapedia"). I mean, I know the guy from EvolveFish (no seriously, he lives in Colorado and we are members of the same community group), so let me open the floor. What do you guys think? All profits to the upkeep, of course. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds kewl. A RationalWiki mug (with "DRINK!" on it, obviously) would be nice too.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, the board might have to actually decide something! Sounds like it'd be a nice thing to do, though this sorta thing tends to be short on cash and long on nuisance value ... there can be difficulties in a charity actually selling stuff too, so this has to be done properly - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Which is where the Evolve Fish suggestion came from since it would be technically outsourcing all the work beyond designing. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe RW could find some other skeptic merchandise maker to collaborate with (in long term)? They've all been nice about allowing hosting of skeptic images on RW, maybe that translates into selling brain mugs. FuzzyCatPotato of the Fucked-up Homotopys (talk/stalk) 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions? I mean, is there really another maker out there? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Fan of the Drink! mug idea too.Petey Plane (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated, but: isn't there a thing where you can provide an Amazon.com link and if people buy stuff through said link, it benefits the site? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Referral links tend not to work very well as it often gets lost in the session data and the foundation isn't listed on Amazon Smile. So not really. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone working on an article about Nazi Experimentation?

This wanted article on the to do list caught my attention. I was surprised there wasn't an article already on the matter considering the subject is a hotbed for Nazi Apologists, unfounded claims for scientific advancement, and just general bullshit. I'd love to help contribute in any way.--Demosn (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And don't forget people pulling a Godwin's on science, animal experiments and so on using them.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 02:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

In that vein, would it be worth having an article about the mensch himself, Joseph Mengele? Or would that be contained within the article on experimentation? Acquiesce ^{/ˌakwɪˈɛs/} 02:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the article on experimentation and then maybe name drop him at whatever point feels appropriate. Nazi experimentation was covers a wider range of bullshit than an article covering just one man's bullshit. --Demosn (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

How about starting to write an article about Nazi Experimentation and when there's enough about the mensch Unmensch Mengele, it could fork be into a separate article?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

How has your political views changed over the years, RW? (If it has)

My views have changed so much over the years that it could probably fill a decent sized rw-essay. Sierra Nav (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I used to be somewhat of a fiscally conservative and a neocon and now I am a democratic socialist and an anti-militarist. When I was younger, I could have easily become an MRA but then I read some of the feminist articles here, on Cracked, and elsewhere.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 03:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I used to be pro-War on Terror, now I see what the terrorists do to gays & women and say, "Oh well, that's democracy. That's what the American people voted for." nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 03:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume that that is snark against me. I don't think war is going to "correct" the cultures of the US. I think that concentrating on social programs and humanitarian aid can better improve societies. I see no reason for why we need to give military aid to repressive regimes but forcing regime change is extraordinarily dangerous.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 05:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? Because those "terrorists" have the full textual support of their religion. Unless this is a round-a-bout way of saying the West needs to promote anti-theism more. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

How can something mired with contradictions lend its full support to anything? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:25, 12 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

Taken to the logical extreme, scripture is unable to support its own reasoning, never mind allow for any other conclusions to be drawn from the same reasoning. But really, the atrocity isn't that the books themselves kill people (they don't), or even that crazy people seek and find support for their killing in the books. The real atrocity is that the vast billions of allegedly sane religious people don't put two and two together and actually distance themselves more overtly from these, as you say, contradiction-mired bronze age books. I expect crazy people to be crazy, that's a no-brainer. But I also expect allegedly sane people to actually think instead of complacently bask in the wish-fulfilling, solipsistic drivel of the desert dogmas. And I'm not seeing near enough of that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I basically went from a fervent liberal progressive to a cultural relativist, moral subjectivist, political pluralist regressive. Hear hear. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

I've never really seen much point in nailing my colours the mast AMassiveGay (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

+1--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 11:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I went from a ranty self-assured liberal technocrat to a ranty self-assured liberal technocrat. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Unusually for a Brit I grew up in a fundamentalist religious cult (seriously). Beliefs included: People of other races were inferior, Homosexuals should go to jail until they were cured, Earth probably 6,000 years old and loads of other similar stuff. I had to put in quite a bit of intellectual effort to get over all that.

Short answer - my views have changed a lot.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

i am curious to know what that cult might be AMassiveGay (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The one this guy created.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

interesting. I am always surprised when i hear people still go to church, let alone a fundamentalist one. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Still"?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

When I was in college, I studied economics, and for a while I was an economanic pseudo-libertarian. I then started doing more reading in anthropology, and no longer am. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I used to be more center-right, as well as an MRA, but over time I became more liberal.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, my atheism actually caused me to almost become an MRA. I was exposed to TAA by watching DarkMatter's videos but ended up here which showed me how deplorable his views are.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

How does atheism make you hate women? O.o 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, like I said YouTube suggested I watch The Amazing Atheist's videos and I started to slowly agree with him about feminism. Luckily, I found his video on rape culture which led me here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 23:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I used to be a pretty convinced anarchist a few years ago, but now I've swung to the political big-government hard left because I think humans are too stupid to live together without the need for government. I have now labelled my self a socialist (I really can't shake the belief that the people who work the shop should run the shop), but in America I'd simply be labelled an extreme liberal, as I wouldn't implement things Soviet-style by just nationalizing everything immediately. It has to be gradual for America to swallow the medicine. I still do cling to some anarchist ideals though, namely that people should treat other people fairly and not coerce or exploit one another; a belief that is tied inextricably with political leftism. So a bit of a swervy road for me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that everyone thinks that their political view is all about treating others fairly, right? Even the Klan thinks they are about treating people fairly. StickySock (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. One of my basic premises is that people need an out-group, people that they will treat unfairly. Somebody will always be It; someone will always be 'marginalized'. The real question is, how do we blunt or misdirect this basic need to minimize the damage it does? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

While I disagree on the necessity of the Other, I will point out that it perfectly explains why SJWs seem to need to find enemies where few would logically exist. Damn cisheteronormative christopatriarchal blancogeriatrics! StickySock (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you want me to reword my response? "namely that people should let each other do what they want and not coerce one another". Is that good enough for you, StickySock? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really necessary, since. I think we all know what anarchism means. Just that I find it funny that all ideologies think they have a monopoly on "more goodness less wrongness" and often use the same terminology. Your new rewording fits with some Republicans, who want business owners to do what they want and to be free from coercion by government in whom they hire and fire...StickySock (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hence why I no longer godddamn believe in it, at least in the economic realm. Until people get good enough to not screw over their workers and customers, then we need governmental regulation. Also, modern business is deeply rooted in the existence of a hierarchy involving coercion, so your likening of my statement to the GOP platform is bullshit, as I don't want any coercion. Also, I don't claim a monopoly on "more goodness, less wrongness". It was just a way of wording things. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• basic premises is that people need an out-group, people that they will treat unfairly

Yes, no, and maybe. Scapegoatism is as old as the hills ("the Jews", "the Mexicans", "the corporations", "the greedy rich", etc.), but it takes a certain amount of a feeling of victimization on the part of adherents to provoke a response. 51% of electorate doesn't vote on which dog they feel they can kick to make them feel better or make them think their lives will improve. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 00:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"I used to be a pretty convinced anarchist a few years ago, but now I've swung to the political big-government hard left" What the fuck? Do you realize anarchism is on the left? Withoutaname (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"in America I'd simply be labelled an extreme liberal" Truth be told, if it was the case you supported big government because you "think humans are too stupid to live together without the need for" some sort of social control, with worker control over the means of production a secondary matter, many socialists and other leftists would call you a liberal as well. Withoutaname (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you would classify me as in the West. I suppose an Enlightenment liberal? But that implies a very libertarian view, but I am more of a statist because the masses are not that smart. I affirm the reality of universal truths, as opposed to the relativism which currently plagues the West. I am actually influenced quite a bit by the Golden Age and classical philosophers. I think an autocratic state like al-Farabi's Virtuous City would be 'ideal,' and for the same reasons he did, with the exception that religious theocracy would be replaced with anti-theism. However I also agree with Plato that such a state would be almost impossible to implement, because of the problem in finding a suitable group of leaders. So, I support a democratic solution, with the caveat that the state exists to support the economy and educate the citizens to better their lives, and does not allow those masses to circumvent this (i.e., voting away anti-theism or something).

The thing is, I was always this way because I always recognized people who can't see their best interests don't vote for them. When I was a theist I recognized the logic of a caliphate, because how else could you ensure everyone has a good chance of going to heaven? Even among Muslims, they are many hypocrites and fringe sects. While majority rule is nice, the state must account for the fact that the majority is inept in many areas. I should note that I don't mean a state mandate immune to change, only one immune to change by simple merit of popular opinion. For instance, if an anti-theist state was created, and then it turned out that some Abrahamic religion was true, the state has to be willing to accept this new reality and become a theocracy. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but think of two Rush songs from Snakes & Arrows, The Way the Wind Blows and Good News First. Both have had an influence over my leanings, in a lot of ways. I'm somewhat the right of most people here (I figure others can better pinpoint where I fall on the spectrum than I) and I definitely see that, as Neil Peart put it, "the best we can agree on is it could have been worse". The fact that we can agree on that means a lot, a lot of times it's hard to find even that. The Way the Wind Blows relates to the RW experience in a far less oblique way, if you listen (and rock out!) to it you'll immediately get it; Neil Peart was a good part of why I renounced Catholicism and became an agnostic at the age of 16 (oddly enough it was in early 2006, before Snakes & Arrows; there's no one moment I remember it happening, the month before that conversion was actually the closest I ever felt to religion because of some life events that affected someone I cared a lot about). And I've also gotten a lot harder on people who resort to violence and general nastiness to exclude people who they think are violent and nasty; working in a place with open Louis Farrakhan supporters (I'm white and have a lot of Jewish relatives) has taught me that absolutely no one is immune to irrationality, and it reminds me that all of humanity is in it together. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I used to be a Pacifist just like you, but then I took an Arab Spring to the knee. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

In most ways i've become more progressive/liberal from my 20s to my current early 30s. My education and work as a social worker in marginalized communities, as well as a stint as a hospice social worker, has definitely contributed to that, as well as general life experience. My family has always been on the progressive side (we may as well be socialist at my home here in the Deep South), but i've become much less of an absolutist over time, and better able to appreciate ambiguity. I've become much less religiously inclined over the years, to my current atheism, and going to a doctrinally conservative, if not practically conservative, Calvinist liberal arts college actually contributed to that, but it was also a very good school. You learn a lot more about your own lack of faith (and how better to justify it) when you have to interact with , and count amongst your best friends, very intelligent people who are also very committed to their faith. In a few ways, like gun control, i've become more conservative, but i still believe in a strong regulatory system. Petey Plane (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to admit that when I was younger and dumber I was a big right-winger. I was a fairly strong believer in Christianity, so not too surprisingly I got pulled into the American right. I was a big rah-rah Bush supporter and drunk all the Flavor Aid on Iraq, tax cuts, etc. From there I got attracted to hardcore libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism from reading Rand and Rothbard. It all seemed so clear! Of course government is the cause of all problems in the world! The poor are poor because they're lazy! Inherently superior people like myself are being kept down by the moronic masses! Fortunately I didn't retreat into an echo chamber and kept reading things that disagreed with my views. It eventually got hard to keep from asking myself, "Hey, me, if the solution to all problems is to just get rid of government, why haven't there been any successful anarchist societies? And why do countries with a strong social safety net and higher taxes do better than the U.S. on so many benchmarks?" Finally I came to accept that religions, political or otherwise, are a bunch of incoherent bullshit. It probably helped that I developed severe mental illness that pretty much messed up my life. Fortunately my wonderful parents supported me and helped me with medical care, but I was quite aware that without them I would be on the streets or dead, because of the travesty that is the U.S.'s lack of universal health care. --Ymir (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

My political views haven't shifted so much as they've solidified and focused. I've always been liberal/progressive/what have you, but in recent years I've become an ardent urbanist. I view all issues and policies from the perspective of an old-school urbanist (New Urbanism is a step in the right direction, but it's still very cargo-cultish and not particularly effective at promoting healthy cities), and will prioritize this even before my leftist inclinations.

One major area I've changed is that I've way softened on religion. I was never a hardcore antitheist, but I was definitely sympathetic to it in principle if not in practice. Nowadays I'm way hard in the accommodationist camp. I'm still personally an adamant philosophical naturalist, but I consider that part of my identity secondary to understanding, in a way that isn't condescending or hostile, how immensely important religion is to society's history, identity, and politics. And as with the urbanism > leftism hierarchy I follow, I consider religious views secondary to other politics—I'd rather be friends with a leftist devout Christian than a libertarian atheist. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Having grown up mostly in 70s and 80s Britain in public (private to non-UKers) school from a military officer background, I was pretty right wing and conservative until, I suppose, my late teens. The three day week, 25% inflation, humiliating IMF bailout, the winter of discontent, work to rule, CND and Labour wanting to hand our country over to the Soviets, flying pickets, and so on. My parents and other officers were often asked by civilians, in all seriousness, when the Army was going to step in. It was blindingly obvious from my little social corner that the left was dragging us down into oblivion. Thatcher was the saviour of our downtrodden strike-ridden dysfunctional country (even though she wasn't really "one of us") and it all suddenly went swimmingly once the pesky Argies had been dealt with and we could all go to wine bars and the Kensington Roof Gardens and buy BT shares and Dom Perignon.

Then I grew up. My slow shift to the left is still, I think, ongoing. I've become more and more socially tolerant and less fiscally conservative. I've experienced living in a "socialist" country (France) and had children early so I have perhaps a closer view on how the young look at things. I sometimes catch myself wistfully looking back at how much better something or other used to be but that doesn't worry me because I know some things were. But most things are, I believe, better today notwithstanding the various atrocities and difficulties we face across the world. 'Twas ever thus.

I recognise this is the opposite to the general shift to the right most people experience as they get older. But I'm happy with it. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I look at political ideology the way an atheist looks at religion - as a skeptic. There's a deluded mass out there who think they are in possession of the truth, call them liberal or conservative, Catholic or Protestant, Christian or Muslim. They feel they are right and others are wrong. They, and many of their adversaries see each other the same way.

For many years I sorted through the wheat & chaff, trying to figure if the right was 58% correct and the left only 42%; but by the next election cycle we'd be faced with a new set of facts to analyze and public opinion (call it peer pressure) would weigh in and distort objective reasoning. So I remain a skeptic; I don't think anybody who adheres to a political ideology and views others and the world through that prism is a sane person I'd trust to walk my daughter across the street. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 03:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's very healthy to be a sceptic in general and to be sceptical of ideology even more so. Ideology is an intellectual straight-jacket. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Ideology is an intellectual straight-jacket" I don't think you realize how much you owe your so-called skepticism to ideology. No one can escape ideology; to even try to do so is ideological and nonsensical. Withoutaname (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

While the vernacular term "ideology" correctly highlights the underbelly of the meaning, the fact is that a lot more underlies that term, not all of it bad. I read Oxford University Press' Ideology - A Very Short Introduction, and it clearly had a few points to make. Among its points, however, was recognition of the bad in the term "ideology". A mixed bag, simply. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite right although somewhat pedantic. I was being lazy in my use of the word by only using it in the sense of prescriptive doctrine or dogma - a common enough if perhaps inaccurate definition. But don't forget I was following on from Rob's post and his use of the term. I assumed it would be fairly obvious based on context that the use of the word ideology in these posts was fairly prerogative. It was a commentary on the inability of some people to be able to view the world from a perspective other than their strict political ideologies. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, I have a test for you. Why don't you turn your skepticism towards Popperian falsificationism and tell me why that would come to define a particular field of inquiry as valid "science" over any number of other similarly useful criteria, like verificationism or postpositivism? If you live in the United States, why don't you also turn it against the Constitution and whether it really can ensure your happiness and well-being (or the happiness and well-being of others) by granting people certain "human rights"? Withoutaname (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Er.....can I have one on sport? Ajkgordon (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's very easy to simply passively live your life reacting to your social conditions and smugly looking down on all the ideologues, but critiquing the foundations of the social system you live in, requires a very creative mind. Withoutaname (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Was it Manchester United, Beckham with a free kick in injury time? Ajkgordon (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've never been involved in politics, organized or done anything like that... but I used to consider myself a libertarian. I barely knew what that entailed, other than "something something freedom, something something complete". I never wrapped my head around it properly but I had also been exposed to some anarcho-libertarian arguments and they sounded simple enough. The typical libertarian/objectivist oversimplification; you own your time, your work takes time, taxes are slavery, thus if we have paved roads we clearly live in hell... I must credit RationalWiki with having given me the thus-far best perspective I've yet encountered on the absurdity of the Austrian school, the anarcho-capitalists, and related "respectable freeman-on-the-land alternatives". (I am aware that "respectable free-man-on-the-land" is an oxymoron). All the while, to the eternal credit of RW, not shirking away from how utterly insane Communism is.

A little off topic from the question of politics, I never was big on "woo" in my personal beliefs, but - speaking of "politics" - I actually had a period in high school when I read Infowars as my primary news outlet... I'm clenching back a laugh when I say this now, but it's actually true. I'd also been interested in the Zeitgeist movies and the Venus project around that same time, which have a significant (pseudo-)political element. I was perhaps most notably a global warming denier, too. I had no idea what I was talking about, of course. But I got sucked in by the crank debate strategies - so I know first hand that they need to be fought, not just left ignored by the mainstream. They fool people. Anyhow, all of this slowly fell away on its own around the time I turned 19 (because, come on), but RW was certainly a catalyst for making that a lasting change and helping me understand why these beliefs were garbage. I found RW when I was 23, and by that time, I was already out on the other side on those topics (the other side from the cranks, that is). But even if those beliefs and interests had largely died on their own by the time I came here, RW deserves big credit for promptly driving stakes through their hearts, tying the corpses with leaden chains and burying them under slabs of concrete. To quote Thomas Paine, "The mind, once enlightened, cannot go dark again.". Good riddance, I say. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"All the while, to the eternal credit of RW, not shirking away from how utterly insane Communism is" I haven't seen RW actually debunk any communist ideas besides take the usual liberal route of citing how many numbers of people were "killed" in its "name", as if somehow 1) none of the other ideologies suffered similar problems 2) that was even relevant to the truth-value of the ideology and 3) that the people rallying beneath it were a single monolithic entity whose singular ideas could be swept away with citing a few statistics. Withoutaname (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Mission survey

FCP has analysed the results of the mission survey. Anyone got comments? (no replies have been made on the MS page yet, so I thought I'd post this in the Bar)--JorisEnter (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

A bogus survey that nobody bought into deceptively made to look official, and anyone's supposed to care? I believe we run articles about people who bring that quality of statistical evidence to a discussion - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed it was official, but the results are interesting.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I do think the survey provides some interesting information. What should we do with it? Any conclusions from the survey in terms of policy should be debated of course, but some seem to present themselves... 95.90.213.140 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What I find especially interesting is that people seem to prefer the topics RW's mission most clearly applies to - pseudoscience, creationism, conspiracies etc. - over Gamergate, the social justice movement, Israel/Palestine stuff, and "mainstream" politics - which happen to be the subject of most edit wars.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, I thought the survey showed remarkably high support for SJW and alt-right/MRA topics. And that RW's core subjects from the beginning are considered more missional than other stuff shouldn't be any sort of surprise. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I was somewhat surprised by the support for SJW stuff and the like. They are, however, still way behind the topics people appear to actually care about (creationism, pseudoscience). Meanwhile, the discussion mostly concerns the SJ-and-related articles. To quote Aeonian

“”The majority of the world's population believes in some form of creationism. Millions of people every year are swindled by pseudoscience crystal energy type woo. Everyone in a democratic state cares about the differences between liberalism and conservatism. Those topics are important. The things you [Aneris], Typhoon, Castainge2, Kitsunelaine, etc. spend your time edit warring about? They don't even register on the scale.

Couldn't agree more.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I "edit warred" for correcting smears against Atheist Ireland, who do vital improvements and petition to the UN and such things, or when people here lied about me (with a neat trick of inventing stuff in an article, then putting my name into it, great fun). You just don't get it. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

JorisEnter, why are you reading through long tirades in my talk page archive? :D Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Big Joris is watching you!--JorisEnter (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No, this is bullshit. The survey was bogus to start with, it was falsely painted as official, it's the sort of ludicrous rubbish RW routinely pillories people for, a pile of people (e.g. me) didn't participate because of its ludicrous bogosity and you're trying to draw conclusions from it. There are literally no conclusions to be drawn from it that you didn't bring with you - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup, this. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy Cat Potato has his finger on RW's pulse. You noobs don't know anything about consensus or how this site should be run. Conscience (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

...says the guy that apparently never bothered to even make a fucking edit to anything other than his user page/user talk page.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you. Also, I've been here since 2009 in various incarnations. I thought you looked at my user page. Conscience (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Lemme see if I got this right...the argument is being made the SJW's are backed by science and are fighting pseudoscience, as well. Is this the conclusion? nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 18:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh, what? Can't find that in the survey.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I find it weird how upset you are about the survey. It allowed a fair number of us to express our thoughts in an easily presentable manner. It seems pretty clear what topics *most* of us would prefer to see and not. I don't think that means the I-P conflict gets dropped, but it probably chould be pared down. It certainly isn't needing to be such a major source of conflict here and have so much time spent policing it. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should we cover the Israel-Palestine conflict? It does not have much to do with pseudoscience, nobody of us is a particular expert and there are hundreds upon hundreds of websites that cater to any potential viewpoint out there and some of them do a better job in terms of expertise than we could ever hope to achieve. In short, what do we lose by dropping it and what do we gain by having it? 95.90.213.140 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am mildly disconcerted by the lack of support for 'language' and pseudolinguistics. Rest assured that I will be happy to ignore this factoid. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm mostly pissed off at the bullshit games to try to get a spurious claim of consensus to do something stupid that's ill-specified. This is part of a series of such - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a wasted opportunity. A possible survey of RW editors is something which has been discussed a few times over the years. With some proper planning & community imput, it could have been a useful exercise in finding out about our reader/editor demographics, their other online/offline activities, what other sites they use or read, what they like & dislike about RW, etc. etc. Instead of which it was a single-purpose exercise promoting a manufactroversy over the site missions. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So then let's have a survey and do it "right" this time. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

But... but.. that would mean actually doing something!--JorisEnter (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

What's so bad about that? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw this out there

But currently the main source of drama isn't SJWs, Israel-Palestine or even Democratic factional infighting; it's the bickering about this survey. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Meta-drama!--JorisEnter (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Where's RationalWikiWiki when you need it? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 20:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone seen this list of Biblical contradictions before?

A long time ago, I found a website that had a list of contradictions in the Bible sorted by importance. I've seen lots of other lists, but this one in particular had them grouped so that you could see which contradictions were critical errors, which contradictions only matter to Biblical inerrantists, and which ones depend on interpretation/doctrine. Has anyone else seen this website, and if so, what website is it? I can't find it again, unfortunately. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 22:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

We have a Biblical contradictions page, which also has links to some other lists. Maybe one of those is it. --Ymir (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

and TOW also kinda has one:w:Internal consistency of the Bible.Talk to Civic Cat 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the list I'm looking for doesn't seem to be on either of those pages. Oh well. For all I know, the site might not even exist anymore. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 01:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

[6] 73.22.173.161 (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Republican anti-Trump movement dead?

Rachel Maddow says the anti-Trump movement is getting desperate trying the equivalent of an impossible billiard trick shot. I am not quite sure. After all, the only thing it usually takes to flip an election is taking five or so percent away from one candidate. And an anti-Trump effort with any coordination could still do that. Even if it means Johnson 2016... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump isn't going to win anyway so it's not like they need to bother. The anti-Trump Republicans are basically projecting their Clinton hatred onto the American public as a whole and assuming everyone hates the Clintons as much as they do and would pick Trump over her. --Ymir (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The establishment holdout is Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard; the Romney-Kasich shenanigans is more an effort to sabotage Hillary & guarantee a Trump win ("billiard trick shot"). So, Trump has time to meet Kristol's demands, sometime about the sametime Ryan comes out in support. If I'm wrong, under Rule 14 of the RNC, Romney & Kristol are essentially resigning from the GOP and have no future anywhere with the party. Romney & Kristol might be stupid, but they are not as stupid as Nadar or Jesse Ventura, essentially making themselves permanently irrelevant outsiders to the process and discussion . nobs ^{Pat Nixon for President} 00:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to Rachel Madcow: read the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution § Text. Only the top three with Electoral vote getters would qualify. Kasich is the only viable candidate. Ryan, who took the job to unite the GOP, would be doubtful he'd be the one to divide the GOP by taking the job over Trump who more Republican voters would have voted for. In fact, only an total idiot would think this is a viable scenario, but being it's Rachel Maddow talking about that, it makes perfect sense now. nobs ^{Pat Nixon for President} 01:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's dead. Gone. Trump will be the nominee and next President of the United States for eight years. Face it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Current spread on Clinton is 1/3 to 4/9. Don't know if you're much of a gambler, but those are pretty short odds, and they've barely budged for the past month. Are you just one of those chronically gloomy, superstitious types who's afraid to state obvious positive outcomes in case you jinx them? Robledo (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The stronger candidate with a positive aim wins. Trump is for change, Hillary is status quo who can't dispose of a 74 year old socialist. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 18:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, Rob, change that you can believe in repels a significant majority of the US electorate. Trump is toast come November. Robledo (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This election appears eerily similar to 1980. A radical non-politician at the head of the Republican ticket, an unpopular Democrat from the South and serious threat of a Republican Third Party effort... We know how 1980 ended. What can we do to keep President Trump from happening? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If by "eerily similar", you mean "scant fucking resemblance", then aye, +1. I'll let you get back to winning at talking about politics on the internet now. Carry on. Robledo (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Robledo, Trump bests Hillary by 3 points in some polls and other polls show her vote against Trump declining linearly with time. Those are pretty good betting odds. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Polls fluctuate day by day, week by week ... and yet the odds haven't shifted for a month. Think about that for a bit. You worry too much. Robledo (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Laurogeita Hamabost is on to something. There are similiarities to 1980 which even Trump tries to evoke. Succinctly

• Reagan was an actor, an outsider, whom even some Republicans had trouble taking seriously right up to the convention;
• a stagnant economic situation in which people were ready to try anything including throwing the baby (New Deal & Great Society safety nets) out with the bathwater;
• a dangerous international situation with an immediate crisis with Iran, and a deeper underlying problem with Russia, which, like the economic situation, the old hands seemed incapable of resolving.

So it wasn't just Reagan, a GOP Senate was elected as well. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 05:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reagan's critics in 1980 did not stop at the convention. There was a Republican running third party in that year. John Anderson. He gained 6.6% of the vote nationally... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It was Democrats that mocked the idea of a "B movie actor" up to election and beyond. Republicans united behind the candidate at the convention and beyond (but there were those with doubts right up to the convention, as you see now with Trump). Anderson did more to hurt Carter than Reagan. He basically ran on the Equal Rights Amendment which Reagan opposed, and siphoned off votes from Carter. Still didn't win any Electors however.

One big difference, however. Reagan was pretty specific in his economic proposals which frightened many establishment Republicans ("economic Voodoo" or why he lost to Ford in '76), but was vague on foreign policy. Trump has been vague on both. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 20:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Amazing. Not a word on Anderson's support of ERA in his Wikipedia bio, and that was the only issue he had. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 20:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's my RationalWiki cake day!

I signed up for this beautiful mess of an internet project precisely one year ago, today - on the 19th of May 2015. Like Buzz Aldrin never said; "One small gigant, leap for kind man". And not to toot my own horn here, but to top things off in a celebratory style, setting Month 04 and Year 2016 here reveals that I was the 2nd most active editor on the entire site for April this year! (And with roughly 60% of those edits in actual mainspace). Perhaps a bit silly for me to point that out, I know - this site's been around for a long, long time, and a lot of fine people do a lot more than me... but still. I want to savor my tiny moment. It is my RW cake day, after all. Beaten only by a thin margin by the lovely JorisEnter, well deserving of the "win". (And then I'd like to stress that I wasn't "racing for most edits"; that would ruin the whole statistic, as a single edit could just as well be a minor spellcheck as a major article contributions. Besides, I wasn't even made aware of the statistic until the 27th of April).

Regardless of that boring statistic, however... there you have it. I hope my better contributions have been of any significance to the mission, and to you fine people. I've learned a lot since I started here, and although I've never had any specific axe to grind here, today I look back on how I was a year ago and can say with pride that I've grown to value diplomacy, compromise, editorial soundness and general positivity as the highest aspirations I have here (aside from snark and goat). Now, I'm still learning a lot, but I consistently try my best to help the site and the editors on it. I hope these efforts have generally been well recieved on your ends, comrades. It's been an eventful year for me too, personally. I was finally diagnosed, as an adult (of sorts), with a rather severe form of ADHD-C. (So, it's never personal if I'm slow to react/come or go a little/fail to reply to things/seem oblivious to various drama). Thankfully, I'm on better meds now than I was when I joined, which also plays into helping me to be marginally less derpy today... Regardless. Before I get completely off topic here. Let's raise our tankards to one more year of this wonderful nonsense, shall we? "So come take a drink, and drown your sorrows, and all of our fears will be gone til' tomorrow. Have no regrets, and live for the day, in Nancy's Harbor Café.". Huzzah! Thank you for everything, RationalWiki. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations Percy!--JorisEnter (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope to see many more "sourced, relevant quotes" popping up around RW over the years. ;) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 12:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

♫♬ Happy anniversary to you! Bongolian (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! Keeping at it for a year practically makes you one of the Old Guard these days. Spud (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

BernieBros vs $hillsters

Formerly known as "List of bought-and-paid-for neoliberal corporate piece of shit one-percenters shilling for a mass murderer who will be arrested for "emails" any day now."

The New Republic’s Dana Houle: “It is Sanders’s prerogative to remain in the race. But exercising that prerogative makes it easier for mega-wealthy conservatives to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to lethally bludgeon both Clinton’s candidacy and the progressive agenda to which Sanders has devoted his career. This is not solely about combating the grave threat of a Trump presidency. It is also about the potential of a Democratic landslide and the progressive achievements that could follow, which is an opportunity too rare and precious to squander.… The best way for Sanders to advance the progressive cause is to end his campaign and unabashedly ask his supporters to join him in helping to elect Clinton.”

Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall: “Sanders is telling his supporters that he can still win, which he can't. He's suggesting that the win is being stolen by a corrupt establishment, an impression which will be validated when his phony prediction turns out not to be true. Lying like this sets you up for stuff like happened over the weekend in Nevada.”

Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum: “Before this campaign, Sanders was a gadfly, he was a critic of the system, and he was a man of strong principles. He still is, but he's also obviously very, very bitter…. By all objective measures he did way better than anyone expected and had far more influence than anyone thought he would, and he should feel good about that. Instead, he seems more angry and resentful with every passing day.”

The Atlantic’s Clare Foran: “As the Sanders campaign presses forward, it must carefully consider whether the senator’s ambition for a political revolution is a goal best achieved by actively stoking the anger of his supporters — and, in a sense, encouraging them to tear it all down.”

Vox’s Jeff Stein: “Sanders needed to win Kentucky to maintain an increasingly far-fetched path to the Democratic nomination. The fact that he lost — albeit by what appears to have been a very small margin — will only dramatically increase the calls for him to exit the race.”

Bloomberg's Sahil Kapur: “Real-keeping: Sanders is grossly misleading his supporters about his prospects for winning the nomination.”

MSNBC's Benjy Sarlin: “There's no rule requiring losing candidates to delude their supporters. He could just say "This is about a message."”

The Atlantic's James Fallows: “1) At this point in 2008, HRC was in closer race w Obama than Sanders is w her now. She stayed in but stopped attacking him as “callow” etc”

This traitorous superdelegate: A Sanders superdelegate flipped his allegiance to Clinton, per Bloomberg. Emmett Hansen II, Democratic National Committee member for the U.S. Virgin Islands, shifted his support. “There are no more windmills to joust against and no more mountains to climb,” he said.

New York Times’ John Harwood.: “Sanders doesn't seem very interested just now in preserving goodwill he's built up within Democratic Party after losing nomination,"

Nevada press corps.'s Jon Ralston: He lost, and the reaction to the vanquishing was akin to the petulant mewling of a baby who had been pampered until the moment he first was told no, wailing with no purpose other than to be loud. And just like an infant, the Sanders folks wanted it to be all about them.… I seriously doubt he can put out the fire he has set.

Washington Post's Dave Weigel: “This is truly the millennials’ campaign. Second place gets a trophy!”

That corrupt Hillary Shill called Barney Frank: "The way Bernie's been acting now is a demonstration of why he’s had no support from his colleagues."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: “I’m feeling the respect I had for Sanders ebb out of me”

And now, last but not least, Wonkette's Rebecca Schoenkopf:if your “revolution” includes disinformation, aimed to rile up your supporters, that would make Pravda and Ronald Reagan blush, you can make like your healthcare, and keep it! (Also, if you consider Barbara Boxer, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Dolores Huerta, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and John Lewis to be Enemies of your State, you probably need to sit down with a mug of Ovaltine and give your animal farm and Four Legs Bad Two Legs Better a super double plus good unthink.) Before you tell us to WATCH THE VIDEOS — we have. They don’t show the blinding righteousness of your side that you think they do. What they show to most of us is the kind of screaming, violent temper tantrum for not getting your way — which happens sometimes in a democracy, or even a republic! — that is turning you into nihilist shitbirds.

If anyone has more examples of Shillary KKKlinton's shills undermining Saint Bernie post it here, please. Typhoon (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sensing a lot of straw man here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. All criticism is made of straw men. Bernie is not responsible for anything, which is why he's now calling for a debate to be hosted on Fox News between him and $hillary. It's the only logical move, after all, it's not like he's mathematically unable to win the primary. Typhoon (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

When actual or purported fanatical followers of Sanders are called BernieBros, what are fanatical followers of Hillary called?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 13:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

$hillsters. Typhoon (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I get only 4 hits on Google.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I blame Correct the Record™ for that. Typhoon (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you only speak in straw men? O.o And it's been mathematically impossible for him to win the right amount of delegates for months now, that's obviously not why he's continuing the campaign so why do people keep bringing it up? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is he then continuing his campaign when it's now obvious more than ever that no more good can come from it for anyone? Typhoon (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did Clinton?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 14:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I asked first, but OK. Clinton is winning the popular vote by millions. And unlike Sanders she isn't launching conspiracy theories about states she lost. Now you answer my question. Typhoon (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool. A candidate dislikes the process. She said in '08 that she wanted everyone to vote in the primaries but now she doesn't. You don't care about Sanders; you are here regurgitating blog posts. Go to put this shit on a Tumblr or Reddit post.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you even talking about in that rant of your? And when will you answer my question? All you do is cry about Hillary, but god help us if anyone dares to criticize Sanders. Typhoon (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have posted discussion about Sanders problems here and I have added to his criticism section on his page. All of this is criticism of staying in. He can stay in as long as he wants and I don't need to answer for that. It is nit his fault if Clinton loses to Trump because people will have chosen to not vote for her; you are the one posting bullshit about how Sanders shouldn't criticize her because they may hurt her in the general.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 15:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton will not lose, whereas Sanders would end up like McGovern after the RNC airs attack ads with all the Communist stuff he did. Typhoon (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The Democrats thought Kerry couldn't lose.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 16:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's some heavy shit you're smoking for you to compare Teflon Hillary to Swiftboated Kerry. Typhoon (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't he? He's an old geezer, why wouldn't he want to make the most of it and make as much of a mark as he can? It's not like he still has a whole life ahead of him. And you never know if Clinton's campaign might suffer some unforeseen circumstances. As the latter said herself in 2008, “we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California”. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Who the fuck cares if Sanders stays in? In a sense I've always known he would lose, probably from the moment he joined the DNC anyway, but I'd hoped he'd go down fighting the continuously right-shifting DNC and RNC establishment. Withoutaname (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, the entire DNC cares, since they want to avoid another huge fist-fight? Sanders is becoming increasingly bitter and is clearly unable to control his supporters. Typhoon (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Good, I hope the DNC implodes on itself so we can go back to having an actual multi-party democracy. Withoutaname (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Because Typhoon thinks he has a point when talking about "Bernie Bros".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 15:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Case in point. Owlman. Typhoon (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah bro lets go talk about increasing women's rights, criminal justice reform, and income inequality. That is real sexists and racists but we all know that Typhoon isn't some privileged white guy. It is real contrarian of us to not vote for Clinton who is a warmonger whi supports the death penalty and the war on drugs; how regressive of us not to see the true liberal candidate.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 16:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

BernieBros at Nevada voted out of the party platform to oppose voter ID laws and voted to also take out support for overturning Citizens United. That is when they weren't busy booing progressive and liberal Democrats. Typhoon (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool now Twitter is a respected source. They weren't booing them for being progressive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 16:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of the conspiracy-mongering from BernieBros that liberal pundits are now finally pointing out. Everyone who attended the Convention can confirm that this happened. Typhoon (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have shortened the title of this section a bit. My RC was a big mess with all these long titles.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made it better Typhoon (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What the hell conspiracy theories are you talking about? The United States mainstream political process will naturally prevent a heavily left-leaning candidate from attaining office, especially when their source of funding is entirely dependent on independent financial contributors rather than corporate bigwigs and they have to continuously compromise their political principles to get anywhere in the DNC. This sort of outcome was inevitable so I don't see the reason why they're getting all mad about it. Nor do I see how this impacts Clinton in any way.

Why have none of you voted for Jill Stein? Withoutaname (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt Typhoon reads anything from FairVote or the many other organizations that have criticized US campaign finaces.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 16:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of campaign finances, Sanders has a consistent problem with excessive, illegal donations. But I'm sure you know that because you read FairVote when not peddling conspiracy theories about Hillary "stealing" the primary. Typhoon (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that problem but the FEC can't really do anything about any of the possible problems like CorrecttheRecord hiring astroturfers because they are split between 3 Republicans ansd 3 Democrats. I never said she stole the primary only that it was stacked in her favor; she accepted massive amounts of campaign finances, created the Hillary Victory Fund to subvert campaign finance laws, and had the party on her side. But idk why I would say any of this since you don't actually care about this. It is ironic that you complained about "purity tests" and now you link to op-eds that criticize Sanders for daring to criticize Clinton. You just want to be right about "BernieBros" I mean why else would you ask me to justify him still running.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So a few people are a little overenthusiastic about Sanders. It just so happens that elections are based on the principle of one dollar == one vote. The real question though, Typhoon, is why haven't you voted for Jill Stein? Withoutaname (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I know why I won't be. It's easy to say you support them for the feel-good environmental stuff, but that's a very very shallow view of the party. They're strongly anti-GMO. Strongly anti-nuclear. They're pro-altmed, particularly with chronic conditions. I'm sorry, but I can't see myself standing with them. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Come on, you should support her because her platform is based on workplace democracy. And who wouldn't like a little more control over their place of work? Withoutaname (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Pass the butter and salt, my popcorn is little dry. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The fun thing is: first corporate America ignores Sanders, then they say he should step down, or make a mountain out of everything (remember when Clinton interrupted him several times and he said she should let him speak now, how OMG he was downright silencing her, Sanders Silencing Woman! ! An outrage!). Then he gains a lot of ground and they say he can't win anyway and should give up, and now the same people feel “disappointed” about him, as if anything ever changed. You can observe the same creepy manipulative techniques with the Dawkins-critics, a similar bunch (you can tell, since people who like Dawkins are “DawkBros”. How they complain and whine and wail yet every time, mere minutes before they see the latest Outrage! they claim they became greatest fans again, just to be sooo disappointed yet again. How deep Dawkins has fallen! etc This crowd are famous for the histrionic spectacle, and it can be quite entertaining. ~ Aneris ✻ 00:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you have against Dawkins' critics? Dawkins himself has become famous and rather predictable for his political gaffes. Dawkins fans still close their eyes whenever someone brings up Dear Muslima as a prime example of fallacy of relative privation. Withoutaname (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not even wrong. For one, the discussion was about entirely different things (does "laughing down rape victims" sound familiar, if not, you know nothing); for another we know now for a fact that his critics are full into "islamophobia" and this whole fallacy is nothing more than rationalisation. And as a bonus, he wrote that as a snarky comment into a blog. What a sad state of affairs that some people can't get over it, and only added over the years (his critics have upped the stakes and now believe he literally unleashed the hatred against women). ~ Aneris ✻ 03:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"does "laughing down rape victims" sound familiar, if not" It does, but what does that have to do with your knee-jerk defense of Dawkins whenever he's criticized?

"his critics are full into "islamophobia"" So Islamophobia isn't real now?

"this whole fallacy is nothing more than rationalisation" You're complaining about a prime example of the application of a logical fallacy to an argument being nothing more than "rationalization", on a wiki called "RationalWiki"?

"What a sad state of affairs that some people can't get over it, and only added over the years" People have pointed out his pattern of making stupid mistakes, not simply act surprised whenever he makes one. On the other hand, it seems you are the one who cannot get over the fact that he's criticized. Withoutaname (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"So Islamophobia isn't real now?" Nope. Never was. Every instance of "Islamophobia" you see is actually just racism. Why else would Sikhs, Hindus, etc be targeted? Oh wait, they're brown. Nothing to do with Islam. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't disprove Islamophobia, that just makes it a subset of racism, similar to antisemitism. And in reality, that's what it is. Withoutaname (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the umpteenth Hillie Sandton catfight

And it has changed nothing and made people more antagonistic. Political topics make great RW topics! Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if we didn't cover any politicians people would want to talk about candidates here and that would result in antagonism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 19:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's just hope we all get our focus back in time for the third term of President Trump... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not as much antagonism as there is now. At least we wouldn't be getting edit wars on pages. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you not remember the MLP or Gamergate edit wars?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 20:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That Ryulong editor seemed to be a complete nut Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

He did no edits this year here. Maybe he's gone for good from here, seeing that he's was vandal-binned.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 20:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I read up on him when I joined, it seems there's even a cult dedicated to justifying everything he did, like Marxist-Leninists talking about how the revolution needs a strong leader and Stalin was the best man for the job. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What cult? You can't just call everyone who looks up to someone with similar politics a "cult". Withoutaname (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

? You have no idea what we're talking about, do you? Ryulong was a highly controversial editor and there a few other editors who insist everything he did was the fault of others. Look through the coop case archives, it's a long story. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh, not so much a cult as just David Gerard and Kitsunelaine. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

A few other editors supported him, yes, and he had a rather provocative editing style, but nowhere did I see an active shifting of blame. All it was, as all wikidrama goes, was a disagreement over politics. Withoutaname (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There have been several other insane edit wars like Avenger's crusade against British English, his whitwashing of Israel, and his justification for the Dresden firebombing by stating they deserved it for voting for the Nazis. There was also Arisboch's constant edit warring with Mona. I wasn't here when this occured but there were several users who left and created SJWiki and the person who made it was quite unhinged from what I have read.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 00:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah, pretty sure that wiki already existed a while before all that happened. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I read that it was a fork from a bunch of splitters.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 03:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The funny thing is

As someone not invested either way, I have seen far more criticism of Bernie and Bernie supporters (much of it from a single zealot) then I have seen attacks on Hillary, or the belief that Bernie can still win which certain users say is some sort of sacred tradition. The only person I've seen with anywhere near the level of fanaticism for Bernie certain people are complaining about is Mona...and her zealotry pales in comparison to that of the Clinton supporters, who spend much more time attacking Bernie than supporting Clinton. Why don't they just drop the Hillary stuff, and call themselves anti-Bernie instead of pro-Clinton? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You must not be around Facebook, Reddit, or other parts of the non-RW internet much. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Small sample size bias, dearie. Vulpius (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the drama in question is supposed to be about RW, and second of all, I am on reddit and such, and do not see the Bernie mania certain people are talking about. Unless you guys spend your time in echo chambers. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

$hillary is a dead meme. It's dead. Done. We're done criticizing $hillary. Okay? We're done. This is the billionth time someone called her a neocon and the trillionth time someone called her a neoliberal. No one's interested in the next "BENGHAZI" or "LEAKED EMAILS" meme about her.

But criticism of Bernie Sanders is rare. It's called for. It's needed. It's sorely lacking across the internet. It's why I came here. To learn how much different Bernie's platform is from $hillary. And how much similar. And he's had a lot of problems that his prophet millenials have yet to come to terms with. Withoutaname (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems like this is resting on the balance fallacy. Just because Hillary has a lot of faults and Bernie has less, doesn't mean we have to campaign against Bernie to make up for it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I was astonished by his support for Obama's foreign policy; he went as far as saying it was constitutional.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 20:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Fallacies are concerned with the truth-values of statements not levels of criticism against people.
2. That's not what balance fallacy says. Clearly you need to review the wiki page for balance fallacy again, because I'm not even presenting two extreme positions.
3. I'm not even campaigning against Bernie to "make up" for anything. I'm just asking to find some criticism of Bernie amidst all the "$hillary is evil" platitudes you can find in abundance on the internet.

Holy shit, you managed to be not even wrong on at least 3 levels. Withoutaname (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, who are you addressing? Nevermind, I didn't see Aeonian's post.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think the "levels of criticism" of people should be at least somewhat related to the "truth-values" of their positions? It may not be the exact definintion of the balance fallacy, but when two people are being criticized equally, for the same reasons, but one person has done far more to earn that criticism...seems like a balance problem to me. Besides, we have criticisms of Bernie, and there is no "abundance" of pro-Bernie platitudes on the internet, unless you're also willing to count Hillary supporters and pro-Hillary echo chambers as an "abundance" of pro-Hillary platitudes. If you want more criticisms, find some sources and add them to the Bernie Sanders page. If there are problems and people point them out, find better sources. If there are no problems and people still edit war, than you're dealing with zealots and you're in the right. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of pro-Hillary echo chambers, but personally speaking Reddit and even the working Dems group in my community is full of pro-Sanders echo chambers. Also there will always be some problems with our articles, they're not perfect. So when people edit war, it's not zealotry, it's democracy at work. Withoutaname (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the "abundance" of pro-Bernie echo chambers is evidenced by...your personal experience? Shall we accept woo testimonials as well? Why don't you look at communities for Hillary supporters - there are a few on Reddit, for instance. You will find they, to, are echo chambers. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well technically speaking, all the subreddits on Reddit are echo chambers. But most of the mainstream subs are either pro-Bernie or pro-Trump, including: /r/politics, /r/news, /r/worldnews, /r/TiA, /r/KiA, /r/funny, /r/gaming... Not to mention a large number of them grew out of the old Rand Paul demographic. And /r/sandersforpresident has had more subscribers and been around longer than the /r/hillaryclinton subreddit. Withoutaname (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, Aeonian, his page and Clinton's are locked atm.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 21:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump is to the left of both Hillary and Bernie on globalism and trade

Once being the party that opposed offshoring, lowering of wages through work permits given to foreigners (H1-Bs), and making it less palatable for American companies to takes profits and jobs overseas, the motto of the Democratic Party now is who cares anymore about free trade, Obama and Bernie will compensate us with nominal free stuff. So Democrats now walk in lock step whenever the left now says opposing immigration and free trade is racist.

The above is hyperbole and I'm taking some liberties with my interpretation of the current political dialogue, but I mean to be to drive a point here. Free trade and immigration, as has been implemented over the past 30 years, hurts the poor. Obamacare is unaffordable, has high deductibles, and creates an implicit 90%+ marginal tax for the poor working class through phase outs. Student loan tax deductions phase out at 60,000 annual income (or close to that), while having H1-Bs come to America willing to work for cheap just for the potential of getting a green card in 15 years drives down employment and wages for college graduates (including STEM) who have to pay back student loans. Giving guest worker permits to illegal aliens drives down the unskilled wage, making it more difficult to raise the minimum wage without raising unemployment.

Donald Trump is poised to sweep the white working class vote, including in the Rust Belt, Appalachia, and the South. Blacks and Hispanics may not vote for Trump, but that's because America legitimately was never great for the blacks and some Hispanics here just want to band with their own kind for political power. Objective (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

90%? I saw that kinda anti-Sanders propaganda floating on the net before.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 22:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Copy-pasta from before: Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Why does immigration hurt poor people? Why does free trade hurt poor people? Just for reference, keep in mind that the global number of persons in poverty is decreasing, that the average and median incomes are increasing, and that the world as a whole has its highest levels of immigration and free trade, ever.

[EC] And here's the charts to prove it:

Free trade: exports are up and trade agreements are up

Migration: foreign-born residents are up

Average income: income is up

Povery: is down, by multiple measures

Inequality: guess what? also down

And, in case you need final proof: free trade demonstrably helps the poor the most

Ffffs. Damn closed-marketeers. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Average income is up. Wow, it was trending that way even before the invention of the steam powered locomotive and electricity. Solid evidence compared to your poverty figures. 20:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, I get that people lose their jobs when they are offshored and that companies have exploited H-1B visas by forcing their workers to train them to replace them in order to get their benefits; some free trade may have been unnecessary but more often than not the US suppliers sell their products w/o tariffs while US consumers have to pay more for foreign goods. If anything NAFTA hurt Mexican farm workers more than US manufacturing jobs. Sweatshops are horrendous and poor countries have been exploited but that doesn't mean globalization should be abandoned. The idea that free trade drives down wages or that immigration threaten the welfare state is ridiculous; even when jobs are offshored the government can mitigate the damage by creating public sector jobs and retraining workers.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 00:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem with free trade is that it overwhelmingly benefits large, multinational corporations who are big enough already, rather than small people. Consumers get goods, which employs workers in poorer countries, but the downside is you are entrenching a terrible capitalist system even further. FCP, you're a free-trader? What other neoliberal ideas do you support? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and tell people that they can "retrain" and abandon their homes because their jobs have been offshored. Or because some bozo made a smart-phone 'app' that means your skills are no longer needed. If people get a chance to vote against that sort of thing, they'll probably vote 'no'. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pbfreespace: even if what you say is true (which again ignores the massive progress of the poor), why isn't it possible to easily fix those problems? I can't tell whether you're ad at capitalism or mad at "modern" capitalism, so I can't answer that question. And that kind of broadstroke "neoliberal" painting is exactly the kind of guilt by association RW calls out.

@Smerdis: They can retrain. The Luddites, too, were pissed about laborsaving tech -- but what better way to reduce poverty than to end menial labor and retrain people (which the US doesn't REALLY do) in more engaging (and profitable) professions? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 05:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of causalation, Fuzzy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What I presented is, sure. But the graphs should point you in the right direction: cheaper goods and services means better lives.

What alternate explanation can so easily explain poverty reduction after WWII? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The era after World War II was the golden age of organized labor and the Golden Age of the Welfare state... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Now, explain everywhere that isn't Europe or North America. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

perhaps cold war politics flooding former colonies with cash and support? Has the world gotten gradually more stable post war? Has the UN contributed? Reptillian overlords? Bono? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy, the answer is twofold: (1) expanded trade; (2) expanded charitable giving through agencies such as UNICEF, WHO, etc. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 17:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What, exactly, are we going to "retrain" all these workers to do? Anything routine will be automated, anything else will be outsourced. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, automation will replace a lot of workers but that has nothing to do with free trade. Presumably, you could retrain them in more service based jobs or you can concentrate on increasing the public sector by instituting more public works or research projects.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Service jobs. This is an old old argument, and by now everyone knows first hand "automated customer service" on the phone is bullshit. Nothing like having a good 'ol human being to talk to when you need customer service at the Wal-Mart exchange counter or on the phone to straighten out your utility bill. Yes, service sector jobs do require a cultural adjustment, this is where Bernie Sanders & the Occupy Wall Street movement come into criticism, harboring and stressing resentment. The haves -- consumers with cash -- versus the have nots -- service sector employees who have to kiss consumers asses for the minimum wage. So it does require a cultural adjustment to make this "new economy" work. nobs^{User talk:RobSmith #NeverHillary} 20:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you may disagree with this but unionizing would help increase wages and workplace protection.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 20:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Service sector jobs are being automated as well. The rise of wealthfront and betterment are excellent examples of the financial sector - once considered impervious to automation - being automated. At the bottom, Wealthfront already offers enough services for someone with little financial expertise to forgo any investment or financial advisers, and tax software is putting an end to the tax assistance/preparing industry. At the top, automated trading and "algo" hedge funds outperform human fund managers regularly, and automated trading confers additional advantages unrelated to stock picking skill, notable high frequency trading (HFT). The fact of the matter is, the financial sector will not employ nearly as many people as it does today in 20 years. Any other service sector industry which is similarly susceptible to software will suffer the same fate. As for low wage service industries, what about online shopping? I can buy an item from Amazon, an automated sorting device gets my item from a warehouse and loads it onto an automated truck, which drives to a central location near me and then dispatches a drone to deliver my item. No humans required. Also, I'd like to respond to @RobSmith because what they are discussing involves an important fact people often overlook - automation doesn't need to be just as good as, or better than, humans. It just needs to be substantially cheaper for the loss of quality. So, look at the automated call centers. They are certainly lower quality, but at the same time they are *much* cheaper. So companies don't care about the loss of quality, because the profitability of automation makes up for it by far. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeas. I do realise that automation is increasing in service jobs and agriculture businesses; what I was saying is that manufacturing, as we know it, is dead and the US has moved towards a service based economy. Now, unions can try to revolt against the increasing automation of the service industry but w/o consumers boycotting them, either directly or indirectly, they cannot avoid this; unfortunately, consumers appear to tolerate, if not welcome, this change since most companies use a hybrid system of automation: robotic call centers, self checkouts, robotic baristas and servers, etc. A creative-based economy is worthless to the majority of people so we would have to rely on a knowledge-based economy which would be helped by the increase in complicated technology; this may still have problems, though, since white-collar jobs, such as surgery and accounting, can be partial replaced by automation. The biggest problem here maybe overpopulation since there will be fewer jobs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 01:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The existence of the technology isn't the determinitive factor, consumer demand is. If the haves want live human beings to clean their toilet or wait on them in restaurants versus having a robot do it, that will decide the future. Automation only can compete with living humans to the extent it can be more efficient. Most people I know or speak with are extremely frustrated with push button voice menus when they make a simple phone call trying to get some service or action. nobs^{#NeverHillary} 01:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well sure but I haven't seen any company in the US completely abandon robotic call centers, though, self-checkouts never overtook humans.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 01:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'll quote what I said above: "automation doesn't need to be just as good as, or better than, humans. It just needs to be substantially cheaper for the loss of quality. So, look at the automated call centers. They are certainly lower quality, but at the same time they are much cheaper. So companies don't care about the loss of quality, because the profitability of automation makes up for it by far." Second of all, luddite solutions such as consumer boycotts of automating companies are improbable and useless even if realized. Smashing the machines won't stop them. Also, bringing up "overpopulation" hinges on the lump of labor fallacy, as more people translates into more demand for goods and services. Less people would only make the problem worse. I'd say Marx's later works will soon be realized - capitalism has developed the means of production to the level where humans no longer need to work. At that point, society will transition into a post-scarity economic system. However, I am assured that the transition period will be...very unfortunate. I doubt many will survive the political and economic turmoil required. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You've set a classic supply-demand scenario. Technology & automation lead to crappy service and a demand for better, more personalized service, at a premium. Shark Tank, the TV show, is full of exactly such ideas. In fact virtually all services (vs inventions, manufactured commodities, etc.) sector ideas on that show are nothing new, other than re-personalizing service sector jobs at a premium. nobs^{#NeverHillary} 18:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Accelerationism is a thing, you know? Withoutaname (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)