RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive257

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 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>, <256>, <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>, (new)(back)

Contents

Anyone know what this woo is called?[edit]

Salient quote: "There are essentially numerous different but extremely similar two-dimensional planet earths, folded into a single phase space and occupying the same four dimensional location, creating a holographic illusion of a single three dimensional planet. Which we then have to share. Because (short version) the Trichiliocosm does not use lube when it Fucks you either." I recognize the Buddhist cosmology reference, but is this combined with many worlds theorem and quantum woo? And is there a specific name for it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure that's not a quote from the Time Cube website? --Ymir (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Quite. The author of the quote is intelligent, but has some odd ideas - and they might be original. I think. Maybe. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
i believe the technical term is "word salad". Or, "taking theoretically valid science as fact and then applying teleology to the universe". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just pseudoscience, i.e. dressing bullshit up in the verbal trappings of science. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a hoot. Is there a link you can give us to more of their material? 98.110.112.251 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
No. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

GMO Answers[edit]

I found this interesting YouTube channel about GMOs but, unfortunately, it has very few videos and hasn't posted anything new for months. It lacks the graphs that I am used to on science-based YouTube channels but it does have a lot of Q&A videos on common anti-GMO arguments and "concerns". I was curious what y'all thought about it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 02:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It puts a person to a scientific response. Good channel. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh god[edit]

Apparently this is Fakesagan, and heres his newest terrible video where he rambles about how Suffragettes were terrorists. here'Legionwhat do you want from me 05:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy shit! I knew I remembered this guy from somewhere; he was one of TAA's friend. He I learned about him from the straightd0pe aand he was quite the violent nut. I am glad to see he has fallen from vulgar libertarianism into alt right conspiracies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 06:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't watched the video in question as this guy sounds nuts and I have no wish to give him views. That said, are we talking about American or British Suffragettes here? While he would be incorrect in either case, it would be the difference between out-right stupidity and vast oversimplification. Goven (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The Suffragettes were terrorists. The entire point of the suffragettes was that they were going to achieve their political goals though violence, whereas other movements had just done stuff like march with banners and write letters to (all male) MPs. Distance in time and the fact they weren't armed with machine guns mutes this, but if you were a Suffragist in early 1900s Britain the Suffragettes were doing the same thing for your cause that Donald Trump has done for any legitimate grievances of the Republican party in the 2016 US election. The other thing distance in time distorts is the perception of how important they were to the outcome. Not at all. Women's suffrage was inevitable by the turn of the century, it was just a matter of exactly when it would happen, and it didn't happen while the Suffragettes continued burning things down and causing mayhem. Is that worth deaths? To the Suffragettes, and to any other terrorist group, the answer is always "Yes", every cause is worth killing and dying for. Alas. The decision to whitewash them now suits a modern simplification in which there are "good guys" who believe good things and whose actions are thus always justified "bad guys" who believe bad things and whose actions are therefore always bad and no shades of grey. 81.2.89.118 (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
"Women's suffrage was inevitable by the turn of the century" Who says? This seems very ahistorical and it's completely ignoring the historical injustice perpetrated by a system that has treated women as property for centuries.
Really though, you're defending an authoritarian regime that has deprived half its population of the right to vote, and conveniently overlooking the inherent violence and suffering done in its name. When you compare it to whatever "violence" you see in the reaction of that latter half, they're not even on the same level. What does it say about you? Withoutaname (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he does, he just claims, that the suffragettes weren't the cause of women getting to vote.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 14:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Withoutaname Clearly, if the oppressed would have asked politely they would have gotten everything they wanted.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 15:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if you make it sound ridiculous it must be wrong mustn't it? Alas, the facts are what they are regardless of what seems like it "ought" to be true. Towards the end of the Nineteenth century politicians like John Stuart Mill start to argue intensely for women's suffrage as a necessary element of democracy. By the 1890s some countries (and in the US some states) have suffrage for women, but in the UK the status quo was still the Third Reform Act, voting was restricted to about two-thirds of adult men (the poorest were not eligible). There were proposals to widen the franchise further, particularly to older women who owned real property in their own right. Some movement in that direction was perceived as inevitable, as I said. But no such proposal made it through Parliament before the Great War broke out in 1914. Not to worry though, because if there's a war on, it's a good time to burn stuff down in protest at how unfairly you're being treated (mainstream Suffragists helped the war effort but not Pankhurst's Suffragettes of course).
After the war, Pankhurst had moved on from suffrage to embrace communism, voting was for chumps anyway, change will only come from a workers' revolution - her splinter group of Suffragettes formed one of numerous entities that considered itself to be "the" British Communist Party, and faded from importance. But the question of how and whether to expand the franchise came up again for fresh elections and the 1918 Representation of the People Act gave all men and most women (those aged 30 and over) the vote. In the Commons it passed with no serious opposition and in the Lords those who opposed this change were disarrayed and outnumbered. A further act gave women the opportunity to stand as MPs and the 1928 act equalises the age at which the franchise is granted. There is no record of anybody needing to blow anything up or burn anything down to achieve this further change either. Huh. 81.2.89.118 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I like how BON claim suffragettes were terrorists yet fails to point to even a single example. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

husbands got home from work, and their dinner wasnt ready. Or is it not terrorism when we agree with the cause, you inhuman monster? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
seriously though, i think some windows were broken and stuff AMassiveGay (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a bit like painting civili rights activists as terrorists because some of them were terrorists. Bleh. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
broken windows have feelings too :'( :'( Withoutaname (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually think the IP above is fakesagan. I have no actually proof, but alas. 'Tis simply a hunch. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Samoan constitutional amendment proposal[edit]

From the Samoa Observer, 21 May 2016: "Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Saʻilele Malielegaoi, has reaffirmed his government’s intention to amend the Constitution to make Christianity the official religion of Samoa. But he wouldn’t say whether the government would entertain a call by the National Council of Churches to ban other religions like Islam." —Peter Chastain [Speak!] 13:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My favorite Facebook comment about this came from a Dominic Liu Victor Pereira, who wrote (sic), "I for one am totally supportive of this move be our PM n his government.. Imho.. By actioning these changes now the government will be sparing Samoa from suffing the same unholy changes the US r going through right now.. It is well documented that the secularization movement is running rampant in the USA..." —Peter Chastain [Speak!] 13:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It's well documented! Wow, it must be true! Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
But I bring all this up by way of asking if we should have a Samoa article. I don't have time to write it. —Peter Chastain [Speak!] 13:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
If they're going the way of the modern theocracy, then they're certainly missional. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Racist" or "sexist" labeling[edit]

I don't get why out of the thousands of times I've criticized someone by pointing out or following the logical racist or sexist connotations behind the views they espouse, they react as badly as if I've directly attacked them and called them "racist" or "sexist". In reality, my application of such labels is very limited, and I suspect many others do the same. If so, I wonder why so many people on the right, and in particular a large subset of self-titled "gamers", try to dismiss their opponent as a mere "SJW" overusing such words or make themselves appear to be not racist or sexist. Withoutaname (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated spat about people's personalities[edit]

Actual discussion[edit]

Now, you made a point of saying that you were calling out the underpinnings of particular statements and not people racist and/or sexist, but it raises the important side note, racists tend to see things this way: "racism is bad, and I'm not bad, thus I'm not racist, and the person calling me one is a liar, which is bad, therefor they're the real racist". It's a monotolithically stupid thought process, but a very natural one. The idea of "firmly believe something originating from a bigotted assumption-> racist" is one that no one who is actually a colossal racist ass will ever accept. I have no solution. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that thought process is hardly unique to racism/sexism; I think everyone starts with the premise that they are "right" or, at least, right to the best of their ability and knowledge. And that in turn assumes that they are unbiased, rational people. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
i am not sure why one would be surprised that people would react angrily if you were to tell them their words or deeds are racist. How is possible to to do this and not by implication suggest they are racist? The mere suggestion of an accusation of racism shuts down dialogue and in my opinion should be avoided in many but the most clear and egregious arguments. For example, arguments concerning immigration, while rife with racism, has enough grey areas that to suggest to someone that their fears concerning the issues are no more than racism, its telling them their concerns do matter to you. We see this happen in uk, with the rise of ukip, in europe with the rise of far rignt parties, and i guess with trump in the US. Its easy to exploit when people who would normally support the parties of the left feel like they have been abandoned by them. If they gonna be seen as racist, well, fuck it might as well be racist. Anecdotally, ive seen it happen too often. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, Withoutaname conveniently didn't give any examples, so we have no idea how direct they were; if they said "that's racist!" or went about it in the more nuanced why they described. Honestly I've never encountered any such kneejerk reactions from pointing out the assumptions behind certain arguments, so I'd tend to believe Withoutaname was being too aggressive in labeling or ideas as "racist." Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"They're too weak to be men"
"Are you saying women are weak?"
"Why don't you stop calling me a sexist and learn to take a joke?"
Withoutaname (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that seems like a odd individual. In my experience, only the religious are so quick to snap at you. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
this is similarly out of context and i am loathe to come to a decision with such scant evidence. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Think about it this way, if it was only a single incident of this happening, then I wouldn't have bothered to make a thread about it. Withoutaname (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, people have been just as quick to blame political correctness and liberal censorship. Withoutaname (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
A lot would depend on the context in which the first statement was made. But yes, part of the problem is with defining racism and etcetera ever more broadly. It's one thing to persuade people to not accept chauvinistic ideas about racial superiority or use racial insults in a deliberately hostile manner. Then it was defined down again; you were racist for telling a Polish or Newfie joke, without any real anger or insult intended. Then you move to the present, to the world of 'microaggressions' and 'privilege'. When it becomes so easy to be labeled a racist, more and more people will simply stop caring; one corollary of the 'privilege' doctrine is that everybody harbors an unacceptable prejudice against somebody. The only way not to lose at this game is to quit playing. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You're derailing this conversation and doing the same things as the people this thread was talking about. This is not about a "doctrine" or about "winning" or "losing" a "game". This is about people who have their ideas criticized and in knee-jerk fashion make it as an attack on their person. I don't see the reason behind complaining that it's "too easy" to be labeled a racist, when no one has done that. Withoutaname (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
'derailing the conservation'? Are you not right? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Smerdis was trying to switch the conversation to be about it being somehow "too easy" (which it isn't) to label people as being racist rather than ideas, which is what this conversation was about. And then complaining that you can't escape being criticized because of some imagined doctrine that Smerdis pulled out of thin air. Withoutaname (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't help that the notion of 'derailing' is itself the same sort of nonsense on stilts. No, you don't get to define the parameters of every conversation. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 12:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
No, but I am the creator of this thread and I had a specific purpose in mind for it. Withoutaname (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
then that purpose changed to a more interesting discussion. Dont worry though - you've managed to bring it back to back to your initial whining. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@WAN: Let the thread go as it pleases. :) I think people don't like having their biases pointed out because it immediately puts them on their defensive, where they have to argue about their statement. It's a bit like saying, "you're wrong" -- most people will (a la backfire effect) defend whatever it is they said, rather than raising themselves out of the conversation and discussing it meta-level with you. Fighting is easier than changing viewpoints.

@AMG: Be nice! Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody likes to be told they're wrong. Another factor is that allegations of racism even if unfounded can be very damaging for somebody. I once witnessed a prominent academic on his professional blog make an unfortunate point involving an ethnic slur and get politely picked up it, then scream madly at everyone and block all comments for ever after. Even if you're a random internet person rather than being surrounded by hordes of nitpicking students, being called a racist not only damages your self-image as a tolerant person who's seen Selma and likes Kanye West and everything, it can also have real effects. Annquin (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
i believe there is a disconnect between what people think they are saying or what they think they are crtiquing and what the other person hears and how they interpret it. its not simply being told you are wrong. Its difficult to see how criticism of someones deeply held beliefs is much different from criticism of the person. Certainly, they are one and the same when discussing hot button issues like racism and sexism. I am yet to see a criticism of someones racist views that did not strongly imply that they were at a fundementally bad person.
Ofcourse, this all depends on said criticism as being justified in the first place. Which, sadly, is far from the case. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
What, exactly, is the difference between 'you hold racist ideas' and 'you are a racist?' I don't see how it's possible to have one and not the other. Racists, more or less by definition, are people who believe and say racist things. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
[1]. [2]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd say that by that definition, everyone's racist, because everyone has subconscious prejudicial ideas and biases based on their personal experiences and/or corroborating second- or third-hand accounts. The distinction lies in acknowledging those biases and trying to avoid or improve them, versus consciously letting them drive your views or decisions. One's part of human nature, the other's more explicitly hateful.
Unless you believe prejudice plus power, in which case I can't help you there. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Calling someone a racist is the worst available insult. If we define racism as noticing a certain set of traits or behavior in a certain group of people or things, then everyone who isn't blind and deaf is racist. So definitions matter here. It is entirely possible to not be a 'racist' and yet still cling on to some racist stereotypes about certain ethnic groups. It's helpful to think of racism as a kind of memetic disease in this instance: I hate cancer, but that doesn't mean I don't get cancer. I hate racism, but that doesn't mean I don't suffer from it. We must remain vigilant and try and keep the silly stereotypes at bay. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

PieOfInsanity is a 'crat for ru:rw[edit]

ru:rw has 0 active bureaucrats, so I just gave PieOfInsanity 'l33t p0w3rz for that wiki's maintenance. Do not be alarmed citizen. (The user table is shared. This is not ideal, but it appears to be how it is.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

God damn. Did he/she get bureaucrat rights with superdelegate backing or what. nobs#NeverHillary 23:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Suitcases full of money changed hanbds.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC) 00:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Do any Russians even read RU RationalWiki?'Legionwhat do you want from me 02:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

An outsider's suggestion[edit]

I asked someone critical of RW what they think RW does wrong. They wrote:

It's often trite and superficial when representing religious positions, beliefs, people, etc. It fails to observe Anatol Rapoport's rules for critical commentary, which even Daniel Dennett (to his credit) endorses in his book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.

2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

I have every interest in improving that site. For the sake of attribution, here's the blog post where I first learned of it: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/

The steps seem relatively fair, at least for someone attempting to appear neutral (which RW obv. isn't).

1 seems somewhat strong. The Side-by-Side articles are a good example of 1, though RW does tend to exaggerate stupid ideas, rather than attempt to make them saner. If RW's role is often to show how shitty someone is, that's fine -- but it might turn people who like "neutrality" away.

2 seems strong. RW usually mentions what people get right and what they get wrong -- as a way of better explaining how some pseudoscience deviates from science, for example. That said, it's usually not counted as "agreement", but rather just "things which aren't shit".

3 seems the weakest. This might be a structural problem: To say that one has "learned" is to say that there was something of value in what was said, yet RW often opposes everything that was said. However, this could also be because RW has to adopt a snarky tone -- and so cannot admit any failure of its criticism.

And no, I'm not trying to change the site; I just thought this was an interesting criticism. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think observing a set of rules for commentary, or even trying to observe said set, is something desirable for us. We point out stupid shit and criticize it, doing so from a rational and scientific point-of-view. That's it. Nothing more.
If you want me to get to the fine detail, I think the idea that we should criticize something after we've pointed out where we agree, such as in the intro or first paragraphs, is rather stupid. So take the Fox News article as an example. I don't think it would have the same quality if we said "Fox news is xyz. It thinks x. We agree with it on points a, b, and c. It is wrong on everything else". Just too dry and emotionless.
I think we will do better at our job if we don't try to confine ourselves to a structure or set of rules for criticism. It's limiting and will result in less and lower quality content than if we just wrote freely and came up with some brilliant writing. See what I mean? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Whatever you'd like. You're a mod, so go ahead and institute them. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Some problems:

  1. This would mean abandoning SPOV
  2. This assumes the opponent acts in good faith. For example, William Lane Craig loves to claim his opponents straw man his arguments, which is why they must be presented and explained exactly as he makes them. It would seem nice to go easier on certain topics, but many of the groups we target are...sore losers, so to speak.

A much stronger improvement would be to only focus on topics which are more or less indisputable. In others, focus on religion and woo and drop the political articles which try to establish a PoV instead of just saying "X says Y because A, but Z disagrees because B. We all know that the main reason people attack RW is because of the political nonsense, not religion/pseduoscience. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Most shitty arguments about politics boil down to just biological determinism anyway, which is just appeal to nature. Withoutaname (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The gender topics yeah, but I was referring to things which have no clear "right," such as the Israel-Palestine issue, which has been a steady source of edit wars. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's one of the reasons I'm not as invested in the Israel-Palestine divide as others are, as I'm not as familiar on the issue. Those mainly boil down to questions of imperialism and arguments to history than they do to science. Which brings up the question of whether we ought to criticize bad history or pseudohistory as crank ideas, like Holocaust denialism or popular conspiracy theories. Withoutaname (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
There is quite a difference between Holocaust denialism and other forms of pseudohistory, and something like the Israel-Palestine issue.Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Israel/Palestine includes pseudohistory but focuses on modern politics. Ancient aliens might include politics, somehow, but is almost entirely about pseudohistory. There's a gray area -- eg, "War of Northern Aggression" -- but grayxamples are rarer than their binary brethren. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Pbfreespace on the idea that starting with agreements isn't very conducive to the 'mood' that we're going for. The way that RW articles tend to go isn't "Yes, but have you considered...", it's "No, and here's why you're wrong...", and frankly the only real difference is whether it gets a rise out of other people. And, let’s be honest; the sort of people we’re dealing with would get pissed anyway from just the criticism alone. Acquiesce /ˌakwɪˈɛs/ 01:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Have to say, that's a fair assessment. Only skeptics seem to enjoy the humor; even on neutral pages, RW is immediately dismissed as "biased". FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Dennett doesn't actually follow these rules though, particularly when writing about religion. As an academic philosopher, he has a requirement to be respectful of his colleagues, and these rules are sensible if working within the tradition of Anglo-Saxon philosophy alongside similarly-educated and similarly-behaved people working towards a common intellectual goal. But they don't apply in the wider world where many people have stupid beliefs and many other people want to read entertaining writing. Annquin (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's actually his partial following of these rules that makes Dennett's Breaking the Spell a better atheist tract than The God Delusion or God is Not Great, which come across as much more ranty. Dennett at least keeps up the facade that he is seeking understanding. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I am all for more empathy but sometimes you just need to hack down your opponent's arguments. Anyways, isn't the suggestion that we point out areas were we agree with someone basically what we call "stop clock" moments? If so maybe we should nuke the list we have on that page and flesh out the actual pages those points of agreement belong to.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC) 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Greatest Story Never Told[edit]

Is anybody planning to watch this piece of neo-Nazi propaganda floating around the internet and critique it in the same way as Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Withoutaname (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

From the sound of that, you're not ;-) Though a timelined side-by-side takedown would definitely be on-mission - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Should work...[edit]

I found this gem while perusing kickstarter. Seems legit eh? ECM Prototype Dustandshadow13 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me far more of the Turbo Encabulator than any legit product. FuzzyCatPotato of the Naked Ropes (talk/stalk) 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Choose your dictator![edit]

You must choose a person who will be the totalitarian dictator of a country which you will have to live in. The three candidates are:


Adolf Hitler

Platform: War, Tyranny, Genocide!


Mike Adams

Platform: Complete and total ban on all medicine that actually works. 99 percent of scientific research outlawed.


Gary North

Platform: Establishment of an absolute biblical Old-Testament theocracy, where Why Can't I Own A Canadian? is not a joke, but law. Anyone who is not a fundamentalist Christian is STONED!


Who do you pick?

TeslaK20 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't we have enough no-win elections in real life? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Adams. At least he's kinda libertarian, he probs wouldn't genocide anyone. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll go with Hitler. Because maybe he's going to surround himself with really good people. But even if he's a bad president, it'll only be 4 years. Jokes aside, I'm assuming the question proposes a totalitarian country circa 2016, so Hitler from 1945 will have problems orienting himself to fundamental changes in society and technology. And he's got advanced Parkinson's and Syphilis, so he may not be able to function well at all. Plus, once word got out that 1945 Hitler was operating again, it would be a race between the Mossad and the KGB to see who could kill him first. So yeah, Hitler would be the most logical choice of the three candidates. Leuders (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
My bet is, that either the Germans or the American would ice him first.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 19:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
My money's on Israel. At any rate, he's a dead man within 30 days. Whereas Gary North and Mike Adams would probably be tolerated for years. Leuders (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Speaking of which, this movie was remarkably entertaining. Look Who's Back (film)Wikipedia's W.svg Zero (talk - contributions) 21:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring assassination attempts, I think Mike Adams is the obvious choice. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, probably Mike. We could do OK until his death with our current scientific knowledge, and while millions would die due to the lack of medicine, Gary and Adolf would ultimately want to exterminate a whole lot more. Adolf for all the non-Arynans, and Gary, at least 80% of the US population. Petey Plane (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Germans or the American would ice Hitler? you mean it's true, they really did kidnap Hitler from Argentina and have him cryogenically frozen beside Walt Disney at Area 51? nobs#NeverHillary 02:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Language Project: Arabic[edit]

I'd like to start an Arabic RW site a la the Russian one, as I feel that it's imperative to share many of these ideas with Arab World (provided said wiki isn't blocked over there). Translation is a big part of my job, so I'd like to make some use of my expertise. Over on the help page, it said that I'd have to create a template, though, and I'm not sure how arduous of a job it would be to make one in Arabic. How do I go about it?--Nay1989 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian starts with RU, so what would be an appropriate Arabic prefix? Should we knock off the other wiki and call it AR? As for a template, give me some time and I'll make you one to use. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually we already got it. Go figure. To use, put the following text at the end of an English page: {{Ar|Arabic Name goes here}}. Feel free to reach out if you need more assistance. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Sweet! There will be some growing pains, but I'll try to translate a page and test it out. And yes, the prefix for Arabic is AR, which is used by all other wiki sites. And which other wiki are you referring to? Is there an Arabic one already? And thanks!--Nay1989 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
(EC) That one, I guess?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC) 16:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's the one. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I see what you meant by knocking it off. I also just started translating a page, and there's an issue that I figured I'd run into eventually. I searched through the formatting and help pages, but I can't see to find a code that would allow the text to be displayed from right to left. So I wrote the text, but the preview shows it from left to write. Is there a formatting code to use for that? It'll also need to be that way for any potential, fully Arabic site.--Nay1989 (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
[3] [4] --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC) 17:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you.--Nay1989 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I just used Google.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC) 17:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess I could've used that, too. I created a Saudi Arabia page in Arabic, and it'll be quite the chore doing everything without on automated RTL code. As you can see, even the title of the page is on the left instead of the right. I'll just wait for the site to turn up, whenever Zero (talk - contributions) is done with it. I appreciate the help, guys.--Nay1989 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This looks like it will require a CSS mod. I can whip it together for you but its basically all or nothing solutions. So ar.rationalwiki.org will have to be made to make it generally available. I'll send a message to see if we can roll that ball. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, it might be useful if someone created an English language page about the MEMRI TV (The Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project) website.[5] Quite a lot of incendiary quotations can be found there, but there have been criticisms of their translations and as well as allegations of bias. Wikipedia has a rather lengthy page on them.Wikipedia's W.svg Bongolian (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The rough consensus on alternate language versions is that we start off doing them here on rationalwiki.org with a category of articles in that language (e.g. Category:Français and maybe a whole wiki can come later. Also we really want at least two people working on a given language, after that Portuguese-language guy turned out to be a spamming antisemite. MediaWiki does full Unicode and should support Arabic as a language out the box, dunno if that does the complete right-to-left swap as seen on https://ar.wikipedia.org . Zero has the tech right, so can fiddle with CSS (being both sane and unlikely to trash the site) - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe Aeonian also knows Arabic. And indeed, most smaller language projects are simply pages on the English RW; ru.rw has some 800 pages I believe, which is probably enough to merit its own site.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
yeeup. Not sure how the CSS can be made to work, I guess we'll find out! - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A category will need to be created for Arabic-language articles, the same as the categories Français, Español etc. It should be a sub-category of the Babel category. Spud (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has this languages appearing in the sidebar thing. Could this be done here? Might attract new contributors... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This only works when the "other language" has its own domain, which is currently only the case with ru.rw - the French &c languages are simply pages on the English wiki.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Why is that? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Languages that are on another website (i.e. ru.rw) are linked to using [[ru:PAGENAME]], which is some sort of built-in MediaWiki feature; smaller languages are simply pages on the "main" RW site, and are therefore linked in the same way you'd link to any other "normal" page.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Minority religion navigation[edit]

I was concerned by (my) confusion over the various articles about forms of paganism/polytheism, revival religions, and other minority faiths. Basically because it took me a long time to find some articles. I put together a template: Template:Miscreligionnav but I'm not sure if this is the best way to organise things. Or exactly what should be there, but as a minimum things like Slavic religion and Asatru. Annquin (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to go directly to the Bon religion because of the umlaut over the o.Teurastaja (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know this guy?[edit]

This man [6] seems to be right up our alley. Even on [7] vaccination. You know him? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
You like 'im? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Joke time[edit]

Too much serious discussion. Time for some jokes.

Juan comes across the border from Mexico and gets a job at the country club as a parking valet. A rich white lady takes a liking to him but can't get him to notice. She asks a friend, "I like Juan, but can't get his attention." The lady friend says, "Well, you're just going to have to tell him directly."
So she goes out into the lot and says, "Juan, I have an itchy pussy." Juan says, "Lady, you're gonna have to tell me which one. All those Japanese cars look the same." nobs#NeverHillary 03:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Um... Petey Plane (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
A Muslim, a Marxist, and a Kenyan walk into a bar. The bartender says "Hello Mr. President". Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I heard a different version of this one. It went:
"A Muslim, an anti-white Christian, and an Atheist walk into a bar. The bartender says "Hello Mr. President"--MyNameIsMike (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Bill Clinton is out jogging with the Secret Service one morning. A hooker is standing in front of a downtown hotel. Clinton runs up, jogging in place and says, "How much?" hooker says "$50 bucks". Clinton says, "Hey, I'm President. How about $25?" hooker says "no way." Next morning same thing happens. Third morning Hillary says, "I'm going with you."
So they're running down the other side of the street across form the hotel, and the hooker shouts after them, "See, that's what you get for $25 bucks." nobs#NeverHillary 03:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not allowed to say that the Turkish President has small balls, so I make a poem about it. Ha Ha Ha. It's funny for Germans. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your joke was actually funnier than the lame poem itself. NameThatNobodyTakes () 19:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

[8]. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

[9] Petey Plane (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion and Insanity[edit]

Hemant Mehta has some interesting thoughts on the subject and would like more information. See A Former Preacher Who Killed His Wife and His Lover’s Husband Feels Beset By Demons and God. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone got an idea...[edit]

...how to do this?

\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( \sum (x_i y_i)^2 \right)^2 - \sum x_i^4 \sum y_i^4 }{ \sum y_i^4 \sum (x_i y_i)^2 - \sum x_i^2 \sum y_i^4 } }

\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i} \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( \sum (x_i y_i)^2 \right)^2 - \sum x_i^4 \sum y_i^4 }{ \sum y_i^4 \sum (x_i y_i)^2 - \sum x_i^2 \sum y_i^4 } }

Followed by \sqrt{ \left( \frac{\partial a}{\partial x_i} \sigma_{x_i} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial a}{\partial y_i} \sigma_{y_i} \right)^2 }

As well as

\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \sqrt{ \frac{ \sum y_i^4 \sum x_i^4 - \left( \sum (x_i y_i)^2 \right)^2 }{ \sum x_i^2 \sum y_i^4 - \sum y_i^2 \sum (x_i y_i)^2 } }

\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i} \sqrt{ \frac{ \sum y_i^4 \sum x_i^4 - \left( \sum (x_i y_i)^2 \right)^2 }{ \sum x_i^2 \sum y_i^4 - \sum y_i^2 \sum (x_i y_i)^2 } }

With of course \sqrt{ \left( \frac{\partial b}{\partial x_i} \sigma_{x_i} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial b}{\partial y_i} \sigma_{y_i} \right)^2 }

Wolfram Alpha has no clue.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I... think it would help if you let us know what you're ultimately trying to do/solve for. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to minimise the error on a and b, which are the semi-major and -minor axes of an ellipse.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This is witchcraft straight from the pit of Hell. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
"trying to minimize..." It looks like you want to calculate the error from inputs like a table of x and y values. You can do that manually if you want. Some calculators have stats functions that might help, but I'd just fire up Excel. If you want to minimize the error as the x and y values vary according to some parameter, you can approximate that by finding the error for several values of that parameter, then fitting a curve to that and finding the minimum on the domain of that parameter. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I just stopped having nightmares about calculus; now they'll start up again. Anyway I'm no help here. The Wikipedia Math refdesk or Stack Exchange Math are probably better places to ask. --Ymir (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Review my frikkin' articles![edit]

I've been writing some commentaries and refutations in news articles to try and expose media bias: 1 2 3 I'd love to hear constructive criticism and debate if you have it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Media has always had a liberal bias. That's no news for the left. Withoutaname (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the articles? The media I'm talking about has a conservative bias, that is, in favor of the current political establishment of the United States. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, all bourgeois politics are the same. Did you read the commentary I provided on the articles? Withoutaname (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
If you say so :)Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI, liberals are also in favor of the current political establishment, they just want the government to tweak it for them a little to make it more "fair" for everyone. Withoutaname (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting statements from both of you.-Di@m0ndD15C1(talk 05:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

So, do you think that the mainstream media have a generally liberal bias? I, for one, do. Chromanebula (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It's difficult to say for sure because of the mass of other factors involved.
The lean of the country overall shifts the relative position that the news media holds. For example, Fox news has a conservative bias while CNN (supposedly) is neutral or only slightly left. However in a much more liberal country than the US, CNN might be viewed as also having a conservative bias albeit less than Fox.
Also reality itself can shift the relative position of objectivity and fairness. Conservapedia for example claims everything has a liberal bias and they are just voicing the rest of the opinions fairly (or some crap like that) but the evidence says that (for example) Young-Earth, creationism and the flood as literally described are bullshit. So if a group says that those are in fact bullshit, it's not a true liberal bias, it's objective reporting of the facts of reality
These factors and personal bias (think the country issue but just with one's self) as well as others not mentioned make it hard to really determine if there is really bias in the media and what side it might be coming from. But that's just my two cents.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Fox News has a Republican and conservative bias. CNN has a neutrality bias, constantly painting both sides as equal (evolutionism/creationism, global warming/climate skeptics). MSNBC has a pro-Democrat and pro-centrist bias, with a liberal bias when it comes to social issues. Generally, almost all of TV and print media has a pro-establishment pro-capitalist/corporatist bias. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Would it be a government conspiracy to add plagiarist to the Alex Jones page?[edit]

Some time ago I heard something about bone fragments being found around the 9/11 site. So recently I was board and decided to look it up since I never heard anything about it after and thought it might have been covered up as part of the conspiracy.

First I came across this site. All was as I figured it would have been so I moved on, checking the Info Wars link that came next. Then my tin foil hat fell off and the government beamed a mind control ray into my head and made me look at the two pages. Lo and behold, their evil scheme worked and I saw that they were the exact same article, word for word, even the title, with the Info Wars article being posted two days later.

Would this be enough to add plagiarist to his page like the reptilian god Obama wants me to or do I need to give in to the mind control again and find a few more?

--MyNameIsMike (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the question would be, how do you know Alex Jones isn't behind the original article, and then just posted it on the infowars site? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for a possible connection but couldn't find any. Their about page doesn't show any affiliation and says the site is (was, they moved to a new URL) run and was founded by Richard Gage. Nothing I could find shows a connection between him and Jones other than having the same ideologies. Besides, wouldn't Jones post to the main site before any others?
I also tried emailing the owner of the first site when I first noticed this but they never responded.
However when I went back to the Info Wars site I did notice something I didn't see before. There is actually a link at the top above the date to the first site indicating he is sourcing that site for the information on his page (permission unknown). This tells me they are very likely two separate sites.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but wouldn't that mean he sourced the material? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Who cares? Given the depths of lunacy that Jones inhabits, a little plagiarism is hardly the most compelling thing to discuss. Plus it's likely whoever wrote it doesn't mind Jones lifting it since he's helping get The Truth out to the sheeple. Maybe mention it if the author actually takes umbrage and there's some dust-up (presumably with Jones blaming the Illuminati lizard machine elves for putting it on his site), but otherwise, meh. --Ymir (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

New Brazilian Member.[edit]

I need help with my articles:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Aleksander_Dugin http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ideological_patrolling

How could I make them better?— Unsigned, by: Nicoliver / talk / contribs

Let's start with: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't go on about Olavo de Carvalho. Your article about him got deleted before, as did another previous one about him.. And articles, especially ones about living people, should have some reliable sources, preferably in English. The Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikiquote are not considered reliable sources. Spud (talk)
Who is Olavo de Carvalho and was he done to merit an article here? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Olavo is a Brazilian crazo, the spiritual leader of the Brazilian right wing. He´s a former communist that become an ultra-conservative, of the kind that talks about Obamamunism and thinks Reagan and Thatcher were in fact social-democrats because they did´n nuked the commies out of existence having the weapons for doing so.
He leads a kind of claqueur of like-minded conservative thinkers, who talk about meritocracy and competence without never having suceeded to enter or complete a course of anything in any college or barely high school, and get high spots in media for offending people that, even if being a little dishonest and factional, are more qualified than them both in formal qualification and contributions to society.
They are divided in basically two factions: Olavo leads the christian-traditionalist Brazilian neocons along quasi-fascist MP Jair Bolsonaro, and nowadays, a group of youngsters led by Kim Kataguiri and Fernando Holliday lead a Liberal strictly non-partisan movement directly financed by industry and media moguls and the parties which impeached Brazilian president Dilma Roussef.
All these people were employed by the magazine Veja, from Abril Publishing Group, one time or the other, and Olavo got anathematized by them cause he did ranted against the Liberals on Internet because they hadn´t arrested or killed any communists yet, despite having toppled down the communist puppet regime of Dilma Roussef.--Nicoliver (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I will make a direct case for an article about Olavo: He is an astrologer and anti-science crank that influences 200 million people on the pt-br world. He proudly proclaims having only a fourth grade education and having disproved Newton's Gravitation Theory, the Heliocentric Model and any physics developed after those. Without ever reading a single book on physics (I witnessed a conversation between a physicist that eschews standard mathematical physics and and Olavo once - it ended with a statement of Not Even Wrong by the physicist).
Despite living in Virginia to escape the Brazilian commies (which were in cahoots with that Tatcher commie and that Reagan commie) for years now, allmost all of his texts are in pt-br. He knows his positions wont survive a more motivated audience (Brazilian scientists won't react unless called out by full name, and even then they will answer timidly - Olavo commands the Brazilian 4chan).
Gimme 24 hours to collect evidence!
PS.: I have no clue about who that Dugin fellow is, but Olavo cites him a lot when cornered. Lgallindo (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the Ark Encounter...[edit]

A few weeks back I was joking around with another RWikian about how long it would take before Ken Ham would add zip line platforms to the top deck of his Ark replica when the ticket sales started to taper off. Then I saw this post on the Ark Encounter Facebook page today.
At least when they built the Creation Museum, they expected the YEC exhibits to be enough of a draw on their own and only added a zip line attraction a few years later, when paid attendance at the museum was clearly not going to keep them in business. For all the hype about the Ark replica, the fact that they're building a zip attraction from day one means that they have a much more pessimistic views about how many people will pay $40 a pop plus $10 for parking to walk through Ham's stage set and petting zoo.
This also makes the idea that Ham's company can insist on a signed statement of faith as a condition of employment even more insulting to the taxpayers subsidizing this venture. It's one thing to say that faith matters when running a YEC Ark exhibit, but there's no way you can apply that to the operation of a zip line adventure attraction. DinsdaleP (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

They're still billing it as primarily edu-tainment. Don't forget the "live performances," the replica Tower of Babel, the replica 1st century village! Maybe they'll have It's a Young World After All playing on a loop in the background. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
My favorite part is how pictures of their ark in-progress feature fleets of gasoline- and electrically-powered construction vehicles and span months of work, meanwhile they're arguing that an old man from the -2nd century built the same exact thing by hand in seven days. (I know, I know, "GodDidIt".) 173.71.121.36 (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you mean to say minus second millennium Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Does the bible even say, how fast he built the ark? Not as far as I remember.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 18:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)\
God gave Noah a seven day deadline: http://biblehub.com/genesis/7-4.htm I may or may not be wrong about the 2000 BC thing, though. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
It says that at some point he said that the flood will come in 7 days, but it doesn't say about the ark being built in 7 days.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Jesus on a zip-wire would be awesome. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 11:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
As awesome as Boris? 85.234.92.172 (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yelzin?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 16:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That's good enough. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Persistence vs. disappearances of pseudosciences[edit]

Does anyone have any ideas or sources for why some pseudosciences continue endlessly despite all reason (e.g. homeopathy and astrology) whereas others have almost disappeared without a trace? The persistence of pseudoscience is discussed in the history of pseudoscience, but not why some live and some die. The naturopathy page has a list of early 20th-century naturopathic treatments, most of which you probably haven't heard of. Bongolian (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like memetics could be used to explain it.. Then again, memetics can be applied to a lot of things, so that might not be specific enough. (Why don't we have a separate article on memetics? it's different from a meme.) ChikinRamen (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I suspect some go in and out of fashion - David Gerard (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
PS that survives seems to be: 1: Highly profitable (eg, homeopathy), or 2: Common sensical / grain-of-truth-y (eg, most conspiracies), or 3: Where conventional science is weak/fringe (eg, quantum woo), or 4: Politically motivated (eg, Lysenkoism), and necessarily 5: Difficult to refute in casual, nonconfrontational conversation. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking of colloidal silver, which had fallen into mostly-disuse as actual medicine, and was then rediscovered and became fashionable after a few decades of obscurity. Can't think of any pseudosciences that were popular woo, fell into obscurity then came back, but I wouldn't be surprised to know of any - David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm old enough to remember puyramid power in the seventies - various odd things were attributed to leaving things under any pyramid-shaped thing - razor blades re-sharpening themselves overnight, for example. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It probably helps that homeopathy is a placebo, whereas "alternative" treatments with actual ingredients can have adverse effects. Also there's the regulatory quirks surrounding homeopathy. Homeopathy is "licensed" in countries including the U.S. and UK, which gives it an air of legitimacy. And in turn that means that some companies sell things as "homeopathic" that actually aren't—that is, actually containing active ingredients—to exploit the loopholes. This means people who don't know what homeopathy is buy something like ZicamWikipedia's W.svg, maybe notice an effect (there's some evidence that zinc supplementation may help with colds), and then become convinced that homeopathy works. --Ymir (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that FCP is close to correct on this. Simplicity and/or cheapness are important. What happened to "sanatology"? Treating the two causes of all disease acidosis and toxicosis is one cause too many, why not just one: alkaline diet? It's easier to market a simple idea than a complicated idea. Relying on the placebo effect is helpful but I don't think crucial. Look how long it took to find out the dangers of tobacco and birthwort. Bongolian (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know the uptake of such treatments in countries with decent universal healthcare in comparison to places that do not. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternative medicine usage is rather high in Germany, I think. Alternative medicine is semi-officially supported there, "On the premise of pluralism in pharmacotherapy, the German Medicines Act explicitly postulates that the characteristics of the 'particular therapeutic systems' are to be respected." See The Germany section in Herbal Medicine for a synopsis. Taiwan has one of the highest rates of exposure to birthwort and has probably near-universal traditional Chinese medicine usage. Based on this map [10], both Germany and Taiwan have universal health care; I don't know whether they meet the criteria for "decent". Bongolian (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone here going to reason rally this weekend?[edit]

I've gotta miss it, but I have a friend going, and it sounds like it's gonna be pretty great. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Banana will be there handing out $25,000 in Subway giftcards. Petey Plane (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
A $5 footlong fits perfectly in your hand, comes in it's own packaging, and fits right in your mouth. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is it?'Legionwhat do you want from me 17:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Washington, DC Mall. Petey Plane (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Lincoln Memorial, 1000-1900 specifically. There're also a lot of tickets still available for both the DC and Arlington afterparties starting at 2000. I'm within short driving/Metro distance, so I might be going up. We'll see. watch out for supermutants ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Busy, unfortunately. The SCA has been damn nice in my state, though. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 05:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not an American and don't have the money to travel, like, at all. *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have work this weekend. Also the train to DC is way overpriced... CorruptUser (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not going, but used to live in DC. I can recommend some good restaurants for anyone going. Petey Plane (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Media Research Center Cruise[edit]

The Media Research Center has their own cruise! With MRC's own L. Brent Bozell III and special guest Allen West. What could be more fun than a Caribbean cruise dedicated to the liberal media's persecution of conservatives?

Petey Plane (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Question:[edit]

During the to 2 years (seriously, 2 fucking years?) this us election circus drags on, do any of your politicians do any actual work? Beyond stirring shit up so 1 half of your country is at the throats of the other half for the whole two years?AMassiveGay (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Answer: No 'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Nope.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 11:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
What they said. Plus, once it's over they start talking about the next one. It never ends. Dustandshadow13 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, the republicans in the country have been overwhelming opposed to achieving any sort of progress. On anything. Ever. It's literally an important principle to them. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Implying that they do work outside of the election cycle.Petey Plane (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You just used the words "work" and "cycle" in a single phrase. It's difficult not to - CARNOT ENGINES! THERMODYNAMICS! ENTROPY! WAAAAAAGH!--JorisEnter (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Answering otherwise is typical antipolitician cynicism. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Counter-point: we could assert a measure of "doing things" and actually compare. There has to be a observational experiment that would give meaningful results. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You say that as if antipolitician cynicism somehow wasn't an exceedingly justified position. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:17, 12 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

I think what i am really getting at is that a two year election process is ridiculous. Elections are divisive at the best of times, it can't be healthy to maintain it for so long. And the financial cost - so much money, wasted. You are not voting for a president yet, just voting on who you get to vote for to fuck you over. Its not as if this are just minuses outweighed by postitives because the whole system is appears broken to me. And because of the US's position in th e world, i cant roll my eyes and sigh 'ftt Americans', you drag us all along for the ride. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

To be completely honest, let's just get rid of the Senate entirely. The idea of non-proportional, undemocratic representation is patently ridiculous. Let's remove the Senate and change the House terms to 4 years and enact a 2-term limit. That way you get voted out if you do a bad job, but you only have 8 years to get things done, so you need to focus on your goals in a short period. It would be far better than the current system, does everyone agree? PBfreespacePBfreespace (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think term limits are actually a good idea. The argument, which I find persuasive, is that they just shift power to lobbyists, aides, and other unelected people. It takes time to learn how to be effective at politicking. Term limits keep elected officials inexperienced, and to learn how to get things done, they turn to lobbyists and others who know how to work the levers of power, and who don't have term limits. --Ymir (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
(EC) I find it a bit odd that you both 1) think Trump is going to be democratically elected President of the US of A, and 2) want to make things more democratic. Democracy is great when politicians and voters are committed to making informed, responsible choices and the parties don't constantly vilify each other. When that's not the case however...
Also, non-proportional, undemocratic representation can in fact be a tool to protect minorities and other vulnerable groups from the excesses of populism and elected oligarchies. Granted, that's not how it's currently used. But it's not actually patently ridiculous. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:08, 12 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
I'm 'Murican and I agree. We should just have a national primary. Good luck getting it anytime soon though. Another thing worth criticizing is how all the media attention is devoted to the presidential contest. The majority of voters ignore Congressional elections, which is why it's currently controlled by right-wing nutjobs. The angry far right turns out in every election to vote against that damn Kenyan Muslim, while most other people forget midterms even exist. --Ymir (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's why elections are perpetual: it's direct citizen involvement in decision making. Most states have two election seasons annually, the Spring elections (primary) and Fall elections (general). Sowing and harvest. Elections are not about entrusting decisions to others and walking away. Public policy demands constant vigilance, and that's why it goes on forever. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
2 years for one election does not look like direct citizen involvement in decision making to me.AMassiveGay (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
not to mention its 2 years of he said she said rhetoric and polemics, thousands of different polls each spun a thousand different ways, with virually all your media parisan to a ridiculous degree, if i were trying keep the electorate uninformed but with the illusion of engagement, thats how i'd do it. You talk like the US is the only democracy in the world, but do you realise how insane it all looks to the rest of democratic world? People talk of american exceptionalism, but its frighteningly like american delusion. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It's all true, and it is very expensive as well. Two year terms for Congress date from the days it took probably two years to mail a letter via pony express from D.C. to California. But the foreplay up to an election (i.e., primaries) are all about, "Is my congressman doing good for me, and who can we get to replace him if not). So, what you guys outside the country are focused on is inter-party rivalries, not general election candidates. These issues discussed are basically twofold: (1) does the candidate represent us as a party? and (2) electibility. General election issues are yet to be discussed. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel as if it's all an act set up for some malignant purpose. Like they're preparing us for undemocratic dictatorship without silly elections anymore. The American people appear to have grown tired of politics, and that can pave the way for fascists like Trump, and worse. PBfreespace3 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
That's actually pretty funny. Here's the sad thing: only about 14% of voters are engaged right now. After the conventions media & pundits will say, "the American people really aren't paying attention right now" until after the Olympics and after the World Series. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Rather than term limits, we have primaries, to keep the people involved and it just goes on forever. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

US-UK contrasted[edit]

Another question, perhaps further displaying my ignorance, in the UK, the majority of the government, from the prime minister through to secretaries of state to junior minister are mostly, not exclusively but mostly, is comprised of elected MPs. In the US, aside from the president, the vp and secretaries of state do not seem to be have or need any kind of electoral accountability. Is that correct? How does that work? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The Veep and the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Labor, Commerce, etc. etc. are not directly elected by the people, and they aren't members of any legislative body. They are chosen by the president and confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. Instead, voters usually indirectly pick who they want to fill these positions by supporting one presidential candidate or the other. The presidential candidates don't say who they will put in these positions until after they are elected, so voters have no idea who will fill these roles until after the election, and there aren't shadow cabinets or anything like that. Pretty shitty, now that I think about it. Yet another thing about my government that could use tweaking. PBfreespace3 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the system. While no law would prohibit a sitting Congressman from serving in a Cabinet post, it has never been done AFAIK (there was discussion of that among Republicans when Dick Cheney gave up his Congressional seat to be Papa Bush's Defense Secretary; likewise Les Aspin quit his seat to be Clinton's Defense Secretary as well, and Democrats (if I remember) briefly thought about, what if a Congressman doubles on the President's White House Staff as National Security Adviser. But nobody's ever forced the issue, and both parties agree under the separation of powers doctrine, legislative & executive should remain the way it is (although the VP has a dual role). A Committee Chairman in the House, say Armed Service or Foreign Affairs, is considered something of a co-equal or analogous to the British Foreign Ministry of Defense Minister; these really are very powerful positions, and at least they think they are co-equal. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 04:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
PbFreespace, I think Cabinet posts need a 2/3 majority, like Supreme Court Justices, appoints to the Federal Reserve, or impeachment, or treaty ratification, etc. "A bi-artisan consensus" is generally how the "advise and consent" clause is understood. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 10:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
In the states, however, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, etc are are elected statewide. So it is possible to have say a Republican Governor and a Democratic Secretary of State or Attorney General or vice versa (which usually results in high-profile, ongoing fueds and bitterness). The Gov. & Lt. Gov. run as a ticket (in most staes, I think). nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 10:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Cabinet roles are still appointed not elected in the UK system (and similar). Ministers are elected MPs but their responsibilities to their constituency are the same as other MPs' (though obviously their actions in cabinet have an impact on their re-election prospects). WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
yes ofcourse. I should have made that clearer. I just meant that prior to their appointments, they have stood for an election. Unless they are lords. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Started reading Walter Bagehot's 1867 The English Constitution two days ago, beginning with the part on the Cabinet. I'm sure the book needs updating, but he makes the British Cabinet sound like the Chicago City Council. The US is anything but a cabinet form of government (like in Israel, where Prime Minister is more like the Press Spokesman for the Cabinet). In the US, cabinet posts are just big honorary overpaid bureaucratic positions and titles for professional administrators. People from the legislative branch tend to make lousy executive adminisrators in these slots. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Also here in UK we have the entirely unelected second house who don't hold positions in the cabinet, and it is rare (but not entirely unheard of) for hereditary peers to renounce their title in order to run for the house of commons. (Tony Benn) Traditionally, ministers are appointed 'safe seats' - electoral zones where their chance of being kicked out of parliament is slim-to-none. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The House of Lords? What the hell?! Another reason to dislike British government too, then. I disagree with any unelected legislative body. That's so backwards and uncivilized. PBfreespace3 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly what Bagehot said 150 years ago, its only function is "a reservoir of Cabinet Ministers" when Commons is too burnt out or corrupt to find somebody. House of Lords kinda reminds me of Superdelegates; nobody elected them to nothinga and they think their shit don't stink. It's the very definition of politics: poly, meaning many + tics bloodsuckers. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
"the very definition of politics: poly, meaning many + tics bloodsuckers. " You may very well be my new favourite Rationalwikian. To be fair to the lords though, those old men rebuff some of the worse excesses of the commons. And Benn was a great guy. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
heritary peers have not been able to sit in the lords since 1999, unless they are also a life peer, ie. Been appointed to sit. The lords has always been an unacceptable anachronism when they vote the wrong way, and a vital part of democracy when they do. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
there is also talk by some quarters of making lords electable, but with diminishing numbers of people going out to vote, i doubt there is much stomach for further elections. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, now in the Pinochet case, as I understand, the UK does not have a Supreme Court, so four old cronies from the Lords heard the extradition case and rendered a judgment. As a yank, this looks like a process they pulled out of their ass, would be totally illegal in the US, and appears they were trying to give some "cover of law" because it was a high profile International case & they just wanted to create the impression British jurisprudence is fair. Am I missing something? nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 21:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're missing quite a lot. Until 2009, the House of Lords was the final appeal court (since replaced by the UK Supreme Court). It had twelve Law Lords that acted similarly in many ways to a supreme court and out of those were formed committees that heard cases. The judicial functions of the Law Lords were separate to the legislative ones of the House of Lords. It worked well in practice but was superseded by the supreme court as an attempt to fully separate the judiciary from the legislature. Remember, separation of powers in a parliamentary system is not a principle in the same way as it is the US. Even the executive Prime Minister is a member of the legislature.
In the Pinochet case, there were three rulings. The first ruled that Pinochet was not immune from prosecution, the second ruled that one of the 5 judges in a 3-2 case was possibly biased and therefore set aside the first ruling, and the third upheld the first but only for alleged crimes committed after 1988.
It was controversial more because of the implications of the principle of universal jurisdiction rather than any perceived political bias by the Law Lords.
You may adhere to the idea of American Exceptionalism and that the US Constitution and separation of powers is the best. But there are plenty of other systems in the world including the Westminster one that work well in practice and can perhaps be more easily changed as shortcomings become evident. Whether the House itself should be replaced by an elected second chamber is another matter. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
It's seems the two systems borrow quite a bit from each other - we copied Homeland Security from the British model & you guys copied an independent Supreme Court from us. In looking at our bizarre election laws, an outsider could learn something how our state system works, too. 50 states & territories have 50 different sets of election/primary/caucus/convention/delegate selection laws; each state has two parties with two different sets of rules. So literally there are over 100 different methods or systems practiced in the 50 states & territories to select a national party candidate. Now, there are two states that have absolutely now state laws whatsover on primaries - Alaska & Hawaii - the youngest states in the Union. Someday, the people of Alaska & Hawaii will say, "ya know, we should really have some kinda of government mandate as to where & when these caucuses and conventions are going to be held, etc etc; then those two state legislatures will start looking around at the other 50 states for one state to serve as a model for their needs. Whether its DWI laws, domestic violence, concealed carry, transgender bathrooms, etc etc this is always how this system works. nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 04:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather have a 'house of jurors' than a second elected house, as I don't want a CC of the commons (let's be honest, the commons is not representative of the populace). A sort of national service where you help run the country. The electorate are pretty stupid, but FPTP leads to exaggerated stupidity which a jury-duty style second house could mitigate as effectively as peers could. Probably. Okay maybe.
As for nations borrowing from each other, I wish we could hurry up and have separation of church and state over here, but the fucking queen is the anglican pope so that is not happening any time soon. One more reason for republic...— Unsigned, by: 81.145.153.190 / talk / contribs
But ain't the role of religion in UK politics neverless less than in the US?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 13:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Rob, there are other supreme courts - the UK one wasn't copied from the US one. Besides, it's very different.
BoN, the CoE has virtually no say in the running of the UK. It is an historical leftover just as much as the Monarchy. Separation of church and state would make little or no difference to people's lives and so is not seen as a priority even if it would be a nice-to-have. As Kugel points out, religion plays very little part in politics compared in the US. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thats' odd. You'd think having a female pope lead a major Christian Church would trumpeted as a big victory for women's rights. In the U.S., facing an partisan elected official in the Judiciary is very troubling. While lower court judges sometimes do have party affiliation, the process of nominating candidates for open seats is quite different from the open caucus and convention system for legislative and executive positions. Elected officials are supposed to be flunkies you hire & fire when their not doing their jobs right. This is why permanent superdelegates at the DNC convention is so troubling to many. nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 20:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

hahaha the queen does not lead the church in the same way she does not lead the country. She is there solely to glad hand foreign dignitaries and give daily mail readers something more to read about that doesnt involve gay romanian gypsies trying to instigate sharia law. Any comparisons to tbe pope are at best hyperbole. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Massive gay is quite right, the monarch is more of an idea than a person or position. We could quite literally replace her with a cardboard cutout of Michael Jackson and the running of both church and state would be unaffected. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In Canadian/en Canadianne[edit]

So, I started out as a proto-MRA neo-con bert. Once I got past the third year level of economics, my bert leanings vanished and my MRA attitudes fled after watching misogyny meltdowns on Something Awful and eventually getting a girlfriend (which I married, too). It was about this time that I gained an interest in science and a fondness for evidence after watching AronRa and other YouTubers and discovering RW. My antidisestablishmentarianist beliefs vanished after I tried to get a job out of grad school. The weirdest thing is that I cleaved to all my former beliefs asking for evidence of the their counter before changing my mind; little did I know then how dramatic it would be. The most remarkable part was after voting for Legohead at least twice, come 2011 I put my ballot towards a gay socialist of a Dipper candidate in my riding. I like to think I've been quite successfully reformed from my former ways. BORT (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"a girlfriend (which I married, too)" Which? Don't you mean 'who' I married? She IS a human, right?81.145.153.190 (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you mean "whom I married", dammit! Kids these days! --Ymir (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone who thinks Conservapedia VANDALISM!!!!!! is still a thing[edit]

What's your position on vandalizing our archenemies over at Conservapedia? If you have an opinion other than "it's totally fine", what is it and why?ChikinRamen (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You're like, six years late lol Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe for you, but i'm just now discovering the magic of going on Andy's talk page and asking if he's a troll.ChikinRamen (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not totally fine. We don't condone vandalizing Conservapedia or any other wiki. And if you've got anything to say about Conservapedia, don't post it in the Bar, post it here. And another thing, far from being our archnemesis, Andy Schlafly has been largely irrelevant to most of us for a long time now. Spud (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It's best to fight idiocy with fact, reason and logic. Going over to troll them not only proves their negative stereotypes about people who oppose them but also goes against what Rational.wiki and any rational person is (or at least should be) for. If you want to "beat" Conservapedia, find the information that debunks the crap they post and use that to educate the masses so they stop getting supporters. It takes more effort but pays off far better than going over to their site just to piss everyone off.--MyNameIsMike (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
One needs to differentiate between debate and rhetoric. Debate is easier. In a debate with Andrew Schlafly, you are not trying to change his mind, but to show everyone else he is wrong. Meanwhile, rhetoric involves trying to convince him. This is much harder, since you cannot simply show him he is wrong, but show him that he actually agrees with the point you are trying to bring across. To do this you need to start with a few basic ideas which both of you can agree on. Some people are immune to this, since they have zero common sense. Therefore, you must pretend to share their base values and build your point on that. Meanwhile, I though of a genius plan to get full tech rights on CP instantly (in order to better implement the diabolical and fiendish plot to block everyone using some kind of script), a plan which uses a healthy dose of liberal deceit. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You're too late.Rtaionalwiki moved beyond being an anti-Conservapedia trolling platform, at least officially.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 13:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like they don't take kindly to constructive criticism. I'll try again in 2018, when my ban ends. ChikinRamen (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

That's optimistic, you think CP will be around in 2018... B4Xiphos (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Implying Jesus won't be back by then. I'll happen any day now, folks. Petey Plane (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Also see here: "Doesn't RationalWiki just exist to promote vandalism at Conservapedia?"

"Although analysing Conservapedia falls well within our mission statements, we refer to it much less than we used to. We do not condone vandalism of other wikis, and most of us feel quite strongly on that point. Conservapedia is not really relevant to RationalWiki's current mission although there is nostalgia for it from some of our longer term editors."

Monthly stats: May 2016[edit]

Click to enlarge.

May 2016 Users: 813

-73 or -8.24% from April 2016
-215 or -20.91% from May 2015

May 2016 Edits: 12606

-2545 or -16.80% from April 2016
-1444 or -10.28% from May 2015

Excel file here.

Overall: Users down, edits down. May 2016 represents 0.0131% of RW's total recorded 1,608,685 edits.

Alexa numbers up, in viewers and site rank. Quantcast US numbers down, 125k to 102k views. Compete numbers up, 468k to 510k views. Note: these are all imprecise.

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 07:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

April had three coop cases, which were probably responsible for many of the excess edits. Do BoNs and banned users count as users too? Because DMorris's socks may have caused quite some extra "users".--JorisEnter (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
BONs and banned users are counted. All non-deleted edits are counted.
Eh, the graph seems to clearly show a genuine drop in users and in edits. Even if 100% of the edits of Mona (551) + Pizzameister (71) + Pbfreespace3 (475) + Sandflapjack (143) + Kugelschreiber (313) were coop-edits, that would only explain 1553 or 61.02% of the drop in edits. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 07:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, dips like this occasionally happen, so maybe it's just a fluke.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The sustained drop in number of 3+ and 30+ editors is somewhat unprecedented, but maybe. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
No it isn't. It looks like the exact same thing happened at the same time of year in 2012 and 2013. AyzmoCheers 14:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I should convince Mona to start editing here again; that would help out with our numbers. PBfreespace3 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Idk if there is any reason for Mona to come back. I mean she changed the viewpoint on Zionism and added more info on the I/P conflict. She also updated info on Greenwald and Chomsky and added BDS info to BLM. When she first left she regretted not finishing the targetted individuals article but she did finish it when she returned.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 17:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah those went from being fairly neutral but lean articles to being incredibly detailed hit jobs with loads of sources from webshites like electronic intifada, and any attempts to fix end up with an edit war. StickySock (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know enough about EI to have an opinion. For the other pages (specifically Zionism) more than one editor helped her to expand them so I can't say that it was a unilateral decision.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 20:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Active users hasn't been updated for a year. Can anybody do anything about that? Spud (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone can bother LArron to tell us how he made it, then someone probably will. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

One thing to factor in is that April was my most productive month on RW so far (with something like 1200 edits), while I barely edited in May. That alone certainly ought to have impacted the numbers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Altright glossary[edit]

We already have several pages/sections that cover alt-right terms/slurs: Social justice warrior, Regressive left, Illiberal left, White Knight, Feminazi, Cultural Marxism and quite a bit of the manosphere glossary (eg, cuck). There are terms which aren't covered in depth: Cultural libertarianism, virtue signalling, apparently "Spengler". I see three reasons to [1] merge the small pages and [2] add text from the large pages into one article:

  1. The criticism of each team is roughly the same: [1] The term describes only a subset of all liberals, [2] the term conflates an authoritarian/extremist idea (often a straw man) with a more sane liberal idea, and [3] the term has become a quasi-meaningless slur against all liberals. Might as well centralize the [1] and [3] criticisms, to separate out the [2] criticism.
  2. The pages aren't extremely good. At best, bronze-level.
  3. Glossary pages make it damn easy to see how multiple ideological ideas work together. Currently, the ideas are largely treated as separate, when they're all significantly interchangeable and part of a worldview that sees liberalism as a successful extremist/authoritarian conspiracy.

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

SJW and Regressive left are "alt-right terms/slurs" in the same category as "feminzai" and...*cultural marxism?* Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
They're essentially used interchangeably. If you don't like a liberal source, just call it one of the terms above and you're good. Moreover, it's not that all of the terms are just as bad as each other -- rather that they're used for the same reason. (Also, I know you might not think these are slurs, but work with me here.) Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Kind of like "alt-right". ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Aye, and some of them are far broader than this suggests. ChristianeseWikipedia's W.svg is a familiar form of 'virtue signalling' or 'moral performance' in these parts, for instance. Spend too much time in any echo chamber, and something just like this becomes an issue. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

somebody here likes hbomberguy videos. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, he's basically RW personified. ;) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Do we have an article on hbomberguy? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No, but I added him to the list. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's recent speech[edit]

Anyone watched it? It reminded me again why the GOP is terrified of her and why she's the best candidate to defeat Trump. I've also enjoyed seeing an actual discussion of foreign policy. Trump's gonna be receiving the Goldwater treatment until November. Typhoon (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The neocons are getting on board. I'm waiting for Bill Kristol to endorse her. Maybe he can do for her what he did for Dan Quayle. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agreed with most policy points, but I think if she runs her campaign the way she made that speech, Hillary will lose. The American people couldn't give two shits and a fuck about policy proposals in a general election. If Hillary keeps calling Trump a loose cannon with terrible foreign policy positions, she will lose. The people don't want to hear that. Hillary should be saying this: "Trump is a pussy! He's afraid of China! Some judge rules against him, and he attacks him on his race! What a little punk bitch!" If Hillary did this (which she won't) she would win. But no, she's being the stereotypical rehearsed politician, which is what America hates right now. PBfreespace (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
They do care about temperament, though. Most Americans think she's better on foreign policy -- looking presidential matters. And so she gets back at Trump's Mexican judge comments another way. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 05:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The only thing American's think about Hillary is she's not as good at sucking cock as Bill's girlfriends. Nobody believes a fucking word she says, and to take anything serious she says only proves you are a total idiot. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 13:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
And she's still more popular than Trump! Flannan Isle (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Not true; latest polls have Hillary 43.8% to Trump 42.3% or Hillary up 1.5%, but you have to offset the negatives which has Hillary at 61% and Trump at 56%, so Trump is actually up 3.5%. More importantly, you have to look at what's trending: He's up 5% she's down 7% in the past 5 weeks, whereas his negatives are down 9% in two months and hers up 3%. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 19:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Rob, how hard are you going to cry when Trump gets demolished in November? --Ymir (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I never thought I would say this, but RobSmith is right. Rob, feel free to stamp that on your userpage for posterity. Trump is going to win. Ymir, look into your heart. Ignore your brain: most American voters don't use theirs when picking a candidate. Look deep down into yourself. Who do you think the American people are going to choose? Really. Really think. Do you really believe they'll pick the most career politician ever instead of a rich businessman showman? Really? This is important. Search your heart. PBfreespace (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I really sincerely think Trump has no chance. Outside of the angry subset of the population that wants to burn D.C. to the ground, people view Trump as a living joke. He was a reality game show host for crying out loud! He puts his name on buildings in giant gold letters! Like Colbert said on his show, he's basically a child's idea of what being a rich person is like. A lot of people aren't ecstatic about Hillary, but when they think about who they would rather give the nuclear codes to they don't have a hard time deciding. What's funny is I can lean cynical at times, but I apparently have more faith in the American people than a lot of others. If I'm wrong, well, I'll be in my bunker, but you can come on down and make me eat my words. --Ymir (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Like Robin Williams, Trump has no filter between is brain and his mouth. His blurted comments that the wealthy and big business will probably end up paying a bit more likely came from his personal experience of (and amazement at) being able to work the system to get away with paying zero taxes. Ensuring the system is rigged to favor the rich (kudos to Bernie) is a giant plank in the Republican party platform, and I'd give anything to be a fly on the wall during Trump's meetings with Paul Ryan. Sure, Hillary's business dealings and corporate shilling are equally onerous. But assuming that both party's nominees are corrupt, the essential choice is a menu option: do you want your president with xenophobia or without? Leuders (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Trump's not wrong here, actually. To what exact extent the judge is or isn't being impartial we don't know, of course, but that there's potential for a conflict of interest is true enough. Though with Trump it's not just people's heritage that could be cause for a conflict of interest; just being a decent human being is sufficient. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

This is what it has come to, then:
"President Camacho: Shit. I know shit's bad right now, with all that starving bullshit, and the dust storms, and we are running out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.
South Carolina Representative # 1: That's what you said last time, dipshit!
South Carolina Representative # 2: Yeah, I got a solution, you're a dick! South Carolina, what's up!"
from Idiocracy (2016) (2006) [11] Bongolian (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

True that America is sick of the stereotypical rehearsed politician, but you can't fake the opposite. Just copying Trump's style would not guarantee a win for Hillary. The mob can tell the difference between someone who is just delivering cocky, wiseass remarks and someone who is a genuinely cocky wiseass. Someone like Bill Maher could pull it off, but not Hillary. Leuders (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
That's my point: she's terrible and will lose to Trump. Oh believe me, everyone's going to be shocked when Trump wins. All the liberals will wpbe astounded that the American people could vote for such a bad person. PBfreespace (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering that Hillary has now a two-digit lead in some polls, I can't decide what will be more funny: the shock from the Trumpvoters, or the hissy fit from the #NeverHillary morons. Typhoon (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I think her recent speech was very good. Simply citing Trump's actual quotes is damning enough. Placing them in the context of foreign policy was quite effective. Compare her reasoned, intelligent analysis with Trump's petulant adolescent blustering ("Crooked Hillary! She doesn't look presidential!") and you've got a powerful contrast that won't be lost on voters. Leuders (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've been saying it for some while now, the primary is over and Trump won't fare good outside of it. The other Republican candidates were afraid to call-out Trump properly without alienating the racist crazies that make up the GOP primary voters. The General Election is a completely different beast. Trump will get the Goldwater treatment. And there's still plenty of months left for Trump to make it worse for himself with his crazy ramblings. Paul Ryan had to distance himself from Trump due to his racist comments literally one day after endorsing him. Typhoon (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Listen, you keep saying this "Goldwater treatment"; hey, I was there. I was there in 1964, and let me tell you what happened. It was an experience en-grained on me I shall never forget. To my 8 year old mind, it seemed there was this dense fog hanging over the country after the assassination for John F. Kennedy. It was an experience I could only compare to the mass-psychosis that lingered for at least two years after 9/11. The country was in mourning, and lingering shock, and adrift. Had Adolf Hitler been Kennedy's Vice President, Adolf Hitler would have beat Goldwater with a 62% landslide. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 06:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Har. I was there in 1964, too, and saw evidence of the Goldwater Treatment. My father voted for Goldwater. My mother voted for Johnson. When I asked her why she didn't vote for Goldwater, she said "because he'd get us into a nuclear war". Leuders (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
In your heart you know he's right, and Hillary does too but won't admit it. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 00:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone observed that Trump's worst enemy is his own huge ego. I think it'll be his general election downfall. Leuders (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
If Trump does lose, then that might force the Republicans more to the center. If they notice their extreme candidate failed then they might run someone a little different, more appealing. That would be a ... positive outcome? PBfreespace (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's another way you know Hillary's in trouble: Remember two months ago when Trump made that stupid statement about pregnant women should be executed or whatever and the headlines were the election had been canceled cause Hillary had 330 Electoral votes to 14 for Trump with ZERO toss ups? Well now, very quietly, 180 Electoral votes have been moved back into the toss up column, or approximately one/third of the nation. And we've seen no headlines about this. So obviously, the Democratic-commie-liberal-progressive media are shitting their draws right now, deathly afraid to report Hillary's momentum is dead in the water and people are jumping ship. It's the same old formula: any election news that is not pro-Hillary is racist, so in the absence of being able to say anything good about Hillary, there's this deathly silence. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 05:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey Rob, remember when Romney was totes gonna win and all the polls were LIEberal propaganda? How'd that work out? --Ymir (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
What happened to Hillary's 'secret weapon', that drooling syphalitic who's been on a 16 year non-stop crack binge with crack whores? nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 00:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
<BillClintonVoice> Ehhh! Give me somemore of that there crack, Tiffany.. yeah..a little..little lower..<BillClintonVoice>
I don't like Bill Clinton because of NAFTA, welfare cuts, repealing Glass-Steagall, and failure to get healthcare reform. I honestly couldn't give less of a shit if the guy was fucking Columbian transsexual prostitutes whilst snorting bath salts and fantasizing about killing his wife. What matters is what the guy did in office, not outside. PBfreespace (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of officesWikipedia's W.svg and what he did in them... ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Substance over style! Nerd (talk)

Muhammad Ali[edit]

A great man. I do think Mike Tyson in his prime would have beaten him in his prime though. Opinions of other boxing fans?--Mercian (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And how would they to have fared against Joe Louis in his prime? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
G.O.A.T. = Greatest of All Time. R.I.P. Bongolian (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm only casually interested in boxing but Tyson was lethal before he got knocked down by one buster. As for Ali, his statements on the Vietnam War are pure gold to this day. NameThatNobodyTakes () 14:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

He's already being whitewashed by conservatives. Shamefull, but not surprising of them. Just look at what they did to MLK, after calling him a radical commie-terrorist while he was alive. Typhoon (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't "whitewashing" either calling someone white who isn't or portraying someone better than he is?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 16:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No. Do your own google search for more examples. (Also, I find it funny that this was asked by Arisboch, who created his current persona to whitewash his banned one) Typhoon (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Criticizing people you don't like (for a good reason) for liking (or at least publicly praising) people you like?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't ignoring his radical past effectively make him playable to white racists therefore making him "white"?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 16:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that just ignoring (whether this accusation holds any water in a given case is a separate issue) him being black makes him more palatable to white racists.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No, but making him less radical does IMO. That is why white racists will claim that Martin Luther King "didn't fight for blacks to act this way."--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 04:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
If white racists wanna twist a prominent black of the past around to beat the blacks of the modern day over the head with, they're gonna do it no matter who else what says. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 11:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, which is what I would call "whitewashing" but if there is another word for that then I would use it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 16:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandal scripts defense[edit]

First, I have almost no knowledge of the inner workings of mediawiki, or of bots or wiki scripts, or the API. This is not my field. Hopefully you can enlighten me.

I thought of a situation in which a vandal who had worked up until he was had the rights could write a script or a bot that would block everyone on RW. What prevents a vandal from doing this? Surely there is something. If such a thing were to occur, what could be done? Also, not to be nefarious, but could a vandal do this to conservapedia? :) TeslaK20 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be impressed if you found a way to vandalise Conservapedia more catastrophically than its own admins already have. 94.1.147.255 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Almost no action in MediaWiki is irreversible. Some would be more work than others to unfuck, of course.
In the scenario you describe, someone with direct access to the database (Trent or me, so probably me) could do a mass-unblock (probably an unsubtle one that would unblock many of the deservedly-blocked), and personally I would actually be sufficiently motivated in such a case as to grovel through the logs, find their IP and block them from RW in every possible quantum branch until the end of time. For operational reasons, of course.
On Conservapedia, there is literally nothing anyone could do to them that would be worse for them than just leaving them to be them - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
That said though, to block everyone (and also take away their ability to unblock themselves) a user would have to be either a moderator, a tech, or both - it's unlikely that a vandal/troll would wait that long before unfolding their master plan. (getting sysop status, though, does not seem that difficult) And even then, as DG said, there's always some backup options.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
By default admins in MediaWiki can unblock themselves. I just tested it on myself, and RW hasn't changed that. It would be more disruptive to just barrage the site with spam edits, though I think there are some countermeasures in place to try to mitigate that. --Ymir (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It would be theoretically possible to write a script that uses a sysop account, takes a list of all other sysop accounts and just removes the sysop right from them. It's possible to do that as a sysop, but I have no idea if and how this wiki is protected against malicious automated user rights changing.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Legal bullshit[edit]

Take a look at this crazy story about lawsuit abuse: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/06/06/he-sold-40-printer-then-he-sued-indiana-30000/85219140/

What do you think about it?— Unsigned, by: 173.90.157.201 / talk / contribs

Hella dumb. I wish that more courts had the "loser must pay legal fees" for stuff like this. (Even if it ate up the guy's life, it won't eat up $12,000 of his money.) FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Reminds me of the douchbag in Washington, DC who sued a dry cleaners for $67 million after he claims they lost his pants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Petey Plane (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

New thing for improvement[edit]

Template:Improve and its category, Category:Articles for improvement. Created in response to a conversation at TERF. Have a look and keep eyes on if you're interested. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We already have a longstanding set of "articles requiring attention" categories and several related templates. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

VICE: Trolling the Elections with Canadian Kenny Hotz[edit]

Dunno if you guys know the Canadian comedian Kenny Hotz (one of my favourite comedians currently operating), from shows like Kenny vs SpennyWikipedia's W.svg, Triumph of the Will (the name of that show is a pun on Hitler's film - Kenny is jewish) and so on...

Regardless, he's done a new thing with VICE a while back, and before the race is completely over, I just wanted to give you guys the chance to watch it and get some laughs out of it. It's relevant, I think - fun (it has butthurt Marc Rubio supporters and people claiming Hillary practices actual witchcraft... among a hundred things). Poking fun at Trump, Bernie, the whole gang, and everyone's supporters. Just 18 minutes of nonsense and fun, nothing substantial, featuring the possibly greatest country in the world to nutpick from - the US.

I think we could use the levity for just a bit. Enjoy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience on travel guide[edit]

I found travel guide that have article like https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Paranormal_tourism and https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Cryptozoology that. This no good! You do what against?— Unsigned, by: ‎146.185.158.123 / talk / contribs

(Please sign your talkpage posts with four tildes ~~~~), and these articles don't seem to be endorsing the claims of pseudoscience, just pointing out locations that those who are interested might want to go. Heck, I could see organizing a skeptical tourgroup of haunted houses. Might be fun. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Language Project: Spanish[edit]

I'm a spanish guy who misses a spanish section in this website.

I volunteer as native spanish-speaker to translate, manage and create an spanish section for this wiki.

RiottenPotato (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)RiottenPotato

It's an interesting idea you got there, but I'm sure you'll need more support than just me.-DiamondDisc1 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's at least one more Spanish speaker interested, go for it - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
We do have a Spanish section, made up of four articles. I'd be happy to see more and I'd be happy to help in any way I can. Spud (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I know some Spanish, although not well enough to write articles in it.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Same here Krej.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk)22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What are some possible points of agreement between feminists and MRAs?[edit]

Some of the debates between feminists and MRAs will be hard to resolve, because there isn't enough data. Often, arguments about the proper balance between due process for the accused and justice for the accusers come down to, for example, "Well, you say that false accusations of domestic abuse are a major problem, but I think that it's a much bigger problem that so much domestic abuse goes unpunished." It's hard to get accurate statistics on how many false accusations are made and how many are sustained, and how much domestic abuse occurs and how much goes unpunished, because what goes unreported goes unmeasured, and there's no way for a researcher to know what is the truth in a he-said, she-said situation. There's a lot of "dark matter" there -- events that occur but are hard to measure with much certainty.

However, some possible points of agreement: (1) both feminists and MRAs would like to see the rate of actual domestic abuse go down. (2) Both feminists and MRAs would like to see the rate of false reports of domestic abuse go down.

Adjusting the balance between due process and the need to bring offenders to justice is not likely to be an area of agreement, because the two goals conflict. So what is the way forward?

Self-help for potential victims may be the ticket. Already, we see domestic violence shelters handing out materials warning women of the "red flags" of abusive men. In other words, they've learned what qualities abusive men have that signal that a relationship with them is likely to be abusive. (Although some more hardcare feminists might say, "Don't teach women to avoid abusers; teach men not to abuse," the more pragmatic feminists don't mind trying to equip women with some useful knowledge for avoiding victimization.)

What about false accusers? It's been noted in the manosphere that a lot of false accusers have characteristics in common, too. While men tend to have higher rates of psychopathy (which can lead to abusive behavior), women have higher rates of borderline personality disorder (which can lead to false accusations). Therefore, in the manosphere, writers have been warning men to stay away from women who, for example, (1) tell everyone within the first five minutes of meeting them about how their exes beat and raped them; (2) tell everyone within the first five minutes of meeting them about their chronic illnesses and pain; (3) have bodies that are covered in scars from self-mutilation; and so on. While before, men might have viewed crazy women as an opportunity to take a damaged, hurt (but possibly sexy and interesting) person under their wing and help improve her life through a relationship, a lot of men are now realizing that these women are simply too dangerous, especially given how certain parts of the legal system favor accusers over the accused.

Just like our world would be better if women would learn how to avoid abusive men, our world will be better if men learn how to avoid crazy women who will destroy their families and their men's lives with false accusations. But in order for there to be an alliance between feminists and MRAs on this point, feminists will need to acknowledge that (1) there's a link between female craziness and false accusations, (2) there are often some telltale signs of the kinds of female craziness that leads to false accusations, and (3) false accusations are common enough (or damaging enough) that it's worthwhile to warn men about the kinds of women who are likely to falsely accuse them.

I suspect that feminists are not going to want to deal with the topic of false accusations except to say that they're not very common, because they're going to be afraid that opening a discussion and inviting stories of false accusations (in order to determine the commonalities among false accusers) is going to hurt their agenda to shift the balance in the courts away from due process and toward giving accusers the benefit of the doubt. They're probably going to view it as an attempt to change the subject from what they consider more important. They're going to fear that warnings about how craziness can induce women to make false accusations will encourage abusers to try to get legitimate accusations dismissed by claiming the woman is crazy.

Concil (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) (By the way, in looking for lists of red flags of abusive men, I wonder how many are actually useful in sorting out the bad men from the good, and how many are just based more on political correctness intended to shame men for behaviors that feminists don't like. For example, this list's item #10 warns of playful use of force in sex. A lot of women are very much into having their guy hold them down during sex or pretend he's raping them, and a lot of men have taken note and added that to their sexual repertoire. I wonder what is the basis for concluding there's a link between playful use of force and actual violence?)

In my experience a lot of MRA men don't actually care about the rates of domestic violence other than to say it happens to men too. I've never had a conversation where a self-described MRA talked about lowering any rates, they just want to show that women abuse too and that men can be raped without giving any input about decreasing rates. As for false reports of rape, there's a valid reason for not wanting to talk about false reports. Mainly, that it discourages people from coming forward even further if they're automatically assumed to be lying (frequently are anyway). And given that we don't talk about the false reports for murder, etc, it doesn't make much sense.

As for what MRAs and feminists have in common, I can think of one big right now is working to get women involved with the draft. Both groups are invested in equality in that area. AyzmoCheers 13:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Never liked the "false reports of other crimes" comparison. Things like murder accusations involve large evidence that the crime occurred even if the suspect is innocent, such as a corpse, while rape accusations often involves he said she said. It'd be more like an accusation of, I don't know, what other crimes generate little physical evidence and rely mostly on testimony?StickySock (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Never identified with either group, always preferred to aim for egalitarianism without focusing on only half the population, but the idea of red-flag advice seems sound for both parties. That said, OP's notion that the criminal justice system favours the accuser over the accused does not tally with the low conviction rates for sex crime. Following the numbers, the inverse seems true, so it's understandable that anyone interested in reducing violence against women (i.e anyone sane) would be wary of making it harder to report abuse (burden of proof means that even if false allegations are easier to report, they are no easier to prove in court) and therefore would be reluctant to exaggerate, or go into any great depth with, false allegations.81.145.153.190 (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In America MRAs and a good portion of feminists probably would both agree on outlawing routine infant circumcision.— Unsigned, by: Triplejam / talk / contribs

How about rape is wrong? Could they agree on that? Would we end up with both sides arguing over what the definition is? PBfreespace (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Bit rattled[edit]

I've always been a proud Jew, but I also like to think I'm a good person. Recently I stumbled upon the theories of Kevin Macdonald and his ilk. He is the rock on which modern antisemitism is built, and he thinks those two items are mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, he can be very persuasive, and now I'm somewhat rattled. I haven't been able to find a good, proper critique of his work and theories (and goodness knows there's a lot to critique) would any one of you guys be able to help? It would certainly set my mind at ease.

ConcernedCitizen (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"and he thinks those two items are mutually exclusive" sorry, a little unclear by what two things you're referring to. Do you mean he thinks being a Jew and being a good person are mutually exclusive? Anyway, i think these two pages have pretty good critiques of the thrust of most of Macdonald's arguments.

Petey Plane (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he does think being a good person and a Jew are mutually exclusive. His website and "journal" are full of veiled calls for Jewish extinction, and he seems to believe Jews did every bad thing ever and then presented themselves as poor victims so they weren't all killed. He also denies that any massacres of Jews took place during the Crusades, or that pogroms happened at all. It's all a little ridiculous, but it still has me kinda rattled.

Thanks for the links! ConcernedCitizen (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What exactly has you "rattled"? "Anti-Semite shithead says anti-Semitic things" is not really something new or unique. Anyway here are our Kevin MacDonald and Antisemite articles. MacDonald's article could use some expanding, if you're up to it. --Ymir (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The Kevin MacDonald page is currently a stub. It's worth expanding. Bongolian (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Suppose all his historical statements are correct. Whether or not you are a good person depends on what you yourself do and have done, not on what others who share a demographic category do or have done. With the usual caveats about the mutability of morality and language. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are legitimate criticisms of the agenda of radical Jewish groups; namely Israel. PBfreespace (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so what does that have to do with the topic of the thread? --Ymir (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ymir: Goodpost.gif αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 05:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much the validity of his historical statements as his idea that Jews are essentially genetically determined to be parasitic rapacious monsters, and that our capacity for self-deception blinds us to how horrible we are. Now I have no doubt that this theory is deeply flawed and probably wrong, but it's the self-assuredness he has and the sheer amount of sources he and his supporters cite (even though I believe many have been misrepresented). He entertains no possibility that he might be wrong, in fact anyone who criticizes him is either unintelligent or a self-deluded Jew.

I think what his hypothesis needs is a good thorough fisking, but I appreciate the support! It kinda got my anxiety working, because my Jewish identity is strong (for good or for ill) and the idea that I'm genetically determined to be evil, along with every single other one of my co-religionists, is frightening if you're already as tired and stressed as I am (this is ConcernedCitizen, on a device I'm not logged in on). 209.202.5.64 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think being "a proud x" is probably not a good idea when it comes to ethnic matters. PBfreespace (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
How can anyone be 'proud' of something that's an accident of birth? I'm not 'proud' to be British or English or Yorkshire born or (nominally) C of E. Although there have been, and still are,some pretty terrible people in all three groups, I'm thankful and glad that I'm all three on account of most of the alternatives are pretty effin' awful. But 'proud'? No! Pippa (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
its an important tool of self empowerment. 'Say it loud, im black and im proud' or similar versions of gay pride. Particularly when there are many saying and treating you like a second class citizen or that you should be ashamed of who you are. Asking 'proud of what exactly?' and quibbling over semantics misses the point by a long distance AMassiveGay (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
White pride!
But back on topic. "the self-assuredness he has... He entertains no possibility that he might be wrong, in fact anyone who criticizes him is either unintelligent or a self-deluded Jew." These are actually red flags for crankery rather than evidence-based truth. If you haven't actually found something in "the sheer amount of sources he and his supporters cite" that actually rattles you, the number shouldn't.
Let's suppose that Jews all have a genetic factor (somehow transmitted through religion) that confers an "evil" tendency as strong as psychopathy. The real world is complex, and "evil" isn't even a thing as such, so even something seemingly clear-cut as psychopathy can have complex results, not all of which are generally classified as "evil". For example, psychopaths can make effective leaders, especially in situations where empathy-derived concerns would interfere with achieving organizational goals. Such a situation would leave individual Jews with options for living "good" lives even while fully expressing the "evil" trait. So as I said before, whether or not you are a good person depends on what you yourself do and have done. Are you in fact a parasitic rapacious monster? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not his sources I have a problem with at all, it's what he does with them. The leaps of logic he displays are pretty intense, and his presuppositions and biases could probably fill a small book. Now I don't think I'm a parasitic rapacious monster, and I've never known a single person, Jew or not, who I would blatantly characterize as such. And yet-- I keep coming back to the self-deception thing. Others have informed me it probably qualifies as a form of gaslighting, and I believe that they're correct.

So there remains two possibilities here: the only people in the world who see the truth about the Jews are a scholar almost completely unknown outside of right-wing circles, and everyone else who has written or studied anything about the Jews is wrongedy-wrong-wrong. Or, the huge amounts of stress in my life is manifesting in the form of terrible obsessive anxiety, and this is the thing it has decided to fix itself on. I think Occam's Razor here applies. ConcernedCitizen (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the US still a great country?[edit]

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2016/06/05/Watch-the-Swiss-An-extraordinary-rail-tunnel-puts-U-S-to-shame/stories/201606040022# Has America lost its edge? Is America still the country the world looks up to? If yes, when did this happen? If no, how is America still great? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Remind me what was supposed to be so great about it to begin with, aside from the military and the GDP. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Apollo 11? Typhoon (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
...i.e. nazi German engineering? ~ Aneris 21:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice reductionist straw-man there Aneris. I wouldn't expect anything more from you. Von Braun and other nazi rocket engineers ≠ entire Apollo program. That tech that allowed you to post those views from your cell phone is pretty nice though. Petey Plane (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the man on the moon thing. It's mostly just symbolic though. Now an actual space colony, that'd be neato. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
The blues, jazz and rock & roll? Robledo (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, space colonies would be nice, just hope they don't find alien technology to wage war against Earth with.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 20:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. When a nation makes up 25% of world GDP and has done so for half a century, it has considerable weight. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Created the liberal democracy? CorruptUser (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not American but I think it is getting better. I don't like the Baby Boomer generation, in general that is, they have not lost their Cold War mentality IMO. My generation, X, are a more mixed bunch and are split quite evenly between conservative and progressive. The Millennials however are a overwhelmingly progressive bunch and with the older Millennials hitting 30, who will be coming into political and economic power in the next 10 years, things will only get more progressive. If only under 35s were allowed to vote in the upcoming US Election Bernie Sanders would win with a huge landslise. I have high hopes for Millennials.--Mercian (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Americans can vote at 18 I thought. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
We can, but, like wine, voting consistency grows better with age. Also, participation in government will also start to happen. And yes, Baby Boomers can eat it. America has indisputably become a more progressive country over the last half-century, and that will only accelerate. Donald Trump represents the death throws of far right conservatism in the US. Seeing their inevitable defeat and ultimate weakness, the American right has resorted to their most extreme impulses as a last resort, and it will ultimately fail. Petey Plane (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Aeonian misinterpreted Mercian's comment as "if people under 35 were allowed to vote". What Mercian meant was, "If the election was only 18-to-35-year-olds, Sanders would win by a landslide". --Ymir (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Did they? Arguably the US fought their revolution to get the same rights mainland British citizens already enjoyed and the early US had no voting rights for women, people without property, slaves (....) The first constitution to propose universal male suffrage was a product of the French Revolution. And the first country to give the vote to all women wasn't the US either... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Jesus. Substitute "federal republic" for liberal democracy and he's there. Even with a severely circumscribed franchise, it's a significant and progessive step forwards from a hereditary monarchy. Robledo (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
1776 was an important step forward for democracy. As was 1789. But neither of them did it alone. All those French and British philosophers did a lot of work as well. As did that one woman in France who was executed for suggesting women should get the vote... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What has any of this got to do with a rail tunnel in Switzerland? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Who knows... But for that matter, what do you think of that rail tunnel in Switzerland and why does the US not do something like it any more? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Shrug. It's alright I guess. But trains aren't really a big deal in the US. & The idea that they should do something similar for the sake of it is a little silly. It's not exactly the space race. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we're great. Of course, it's subjective, as you haven't really set parameters for what 'great' is. Is great having good healthcare outcomes? If it is, we're mediocre. Is great having the best education and knowledge? Because we're terrible there too. If great means having the most badass military, then sure, were the best in that metric. It's all subjective. Based on my criteria, we're not great compared to Europe. PBfreespace (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

In terms of research? The US has 3x as many Nobel prizes as the next country (suck it, Britain! Suck it good!). Per Capita, eh, still better than the European average.
Though I don't know what the ratio becomes when you eliminate the bullshit prizes of Literature and Peace. CorruptUser (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Literature prize has been captured by virtue-signalling, and as such underrepresents literature in English compared to the world's publishing output. Since 2005 there have been three English language laureates, none from the United States: Harold Pinter (UK), Doris Lessing (UK), and Alice Munro (Canada). But American Democrat politicians are well represented on the Peace prize (Carter, Gore, Obama). - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Ahh... "Virtue-signalling". The "sequel insult to “champagne socialist”", the:"person X holds views less compromised and more ambitious than mine, ergo, person X is a narcissist who uses other people’s misery as grist to their own self-fashioning.". The "putdown that has passed its sell-by date". Typhoon (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Still, it sounds more forgiving than to accuse the committee of outright bias against Americans; a desire to appear multicultural makes them favor writers in Turkish, Chinese, or Russian, and justifies the apparent snubs against Anglo writers like Thos. Pynchon and David Foster Wallace. The last American to win the prize was Toni Morrison in 1993. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
What would you expect from a committee deciding on something inherently subjective, staffed mostly by Nordic people? Well, they'd have a bias towards Nordic people. If you take the aggregate of all Nobel prizes for literature, that's exactly what happened. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Some food for thought. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/8/america-no-longer-ranked-top-100-most-peaceful-nat/ Nerd (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

But what about (civil) engineering?[edit]

Why has the US lost its edge in that field? Or has it? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think so. They certainly have more than enough money to make American infrastructure great again rejuvenate public infrastructure if they choose to. I have read some time ago that both China and Japan are buying American nuclear reactors. About this time last year, the world's largest solar power farm entered operation in California; it is (poorly) named the Solar Star. In addition, it is my understanding that NASA has a lot of great projects planned, such as the James Webb Telescope, but has suffered from unstable funding, leading to various delays. It is all a matter of priorities. Nerd (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The US still leads the world in military technology and engineering, and even disasters like the F-35 program have produced real usable products, unlike competing Russian and Chinese programs. The necessity of these programs and the spending that goes along with it (about $2 trillion in the case of the F-35 program) is a different debate, but the US is still the best at building and designing things with which to kill other humans with. And, as stated above, the US is still at the forefront of space exploration. Petey Plane (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Interesting point. Strictly speaking though, the F-35 is a multinational project. Simply look at the tiny flags on the side of the fuselage and you will see. Also, I would not be that certain about competing Chinese and Russian products, their lack of publicity notwithstanding. Nerd (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but while the F-35 is a multinational product, in that we are selling to other countries (unlike the F-22) and some of the electronics were designed overseas, it is still 95% an American product (and not a particularly good one at that). The Chinese and Russian "5th generation fighters" (the Chengdu J-20Wikipedia's W.svg and the PAK FAWikipedia's W.svg) are still in prototype stages, with only 1 or 2 flight-worthy examples of either. Of the 2, the J-20 is the only one likely to see mass production, as the PAK FA has had so many production problems and reportedly poor performance, that Russia's primary partner for its production, India, has all but pulled out of the program. This, along with the collapse of the Russian economy, means that if the PAK FA goes into production, it will only be in small numbers, i.e. 20-30 planes. The US has 180 F-22s and plans on building F-35s in the thousands. The other big area is the US aircraft carrier fleet. The US nuclear aircraft carrier still represents the most powerful single piece of military equipment ever built, in history, and we currently have 10, and will be building 10 more over the next 20 years. No other country has anything remotely close. The single Russian aircraft carrier lacks a catapult (larger planes cant be launched, and no drones), and the Chinese have a single Russian surplus model of roughly the same design. China is building at least 2 new carriers though. I'm no fan of US military budgets, but it has let us build the indisputably most technically advanced and powerful military in the world. Petey Plane (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
PAK FA is something VulcansWikipedia's W.svg go through every seven years, isn't it? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Haha. Also, the Avro Vulcan is a beautiful plane. Petey Plane (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Petey Plane, I am not a fan of the annual US military budget either, thinking of the associated opportunity cost. That kind of money could be used to fund mathematical and scientific research, and an public infrastructure. This brings us back to the discussion at hand. Nerd (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree, i can't even imagine what we could have done with the 2 trillion that has been dumped into the F-35 program. Probably at least a permanent moon base, not to mention a public school system that's actually globally competitive. Hopefully the upcoming B-2 replacement, the B-21, won't be such a huge debacle, but i'm not counting on it. Petey Plane (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of civil and space engineering, NASA would love to have ever more efficient solar panels for their research satellites and for their launch rockets to be able to fly using landfill gas. Yet, in the words of Niel deGrasse Tyson, only half a penny of each dollar Americans pay in taxes actually go to NASA. Nerd (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This lack of progress in space technology is really hard to bear --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 16:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I think a lack of high-speed rail going up and down the East and West Coasts would get my vote for biggest failure of US civil engineering. Petey Plane (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. But I would not call it a "failure of US civil engineering." That would imply they tried but failed. In reality, the lack of political support is to blame. Nerd (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
True. It still sticks in my craw that i cant get a $20 train ticket to NYC or DC, and be there in 4 hours (i live in SC) whenever i want. Petey Plane (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice dream, there. The image of a bullet train flanked by solar panels or wind turbines comes to my mind. Nerd (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

How long is it going to be until there is a firearm fight in this election cycle?[edit]

If there was a George Zimmerman type individual at the San Jose protests at the Trump rally who used a firearm, I feel that use could be legally considered self defense as it was in Florida. Trump supporters are already using pepper spray at several rallies, and it's only a matter of time before somebody (on either side) brings a gun. If they use a gun if assaulted, it may be justifiable. I hope that doesn't happen, but it seems like it very well could this year. Objective (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

He's vowed to get rid of gun-free-zones if elected [12] so there should be plenty of guns in the audience at his inauguration. Leuders (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Ohio allows open carry; 35,000 people signed the petition to allow open carry at the GOP convention, but the Secret Service nixed it. But that geriatric bimbo wants to take everybody's gun away and leave innocent people at the mercy of criminals like that fucking bitch. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 21:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
wot? Petey Plane (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
"wot?" is what I was thinking after reading that. Who is this geriatric bimbo he is referring to? Demosn (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Lol... "who is he referring to". Uncle SamWikipedia's W.svg, obviously. That's the whole point of the national personification? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I loved that their petition included a helpful image example of the type of weapon they envisioned people being allowed to carry around the convention. Leuders (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Geez, are you guys slow. The "geriatric bimbo & drooling syphilitic" are Mr. & Mrs. Bill Clinton, our next first family. Get used to their names, you'll be hearing that for a long time. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 21:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Political Items[edit]

Hey guys! It seems that the political items on RationalWiki has gotten rather toxic lately. Some things are best not said or written. Maybe we should let the people who read it judge for themselves? Just a thought. Nerd (talk)

What do you mean by that? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably talking about the discussion here, and on WIGO:Elections. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Bernie's appeal is that he's a terrible politician while Hillary is unappealing because she's a brilliant politician. Bernie is all stubborn idealism but has done effectively jack shit in his career, while Hillary is the slimiest backstabber in Washington which has let her accomplish a metric fuckton. Their supporters will pretend the problems don't exist, and will convince themselves that their opponents' supporters are terrible monsters for not supporting the "right" candidate.
Politics is unfixable, is what I'm saying.CorruptUser (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Wait, wasn't Hillary's signature political moment not achieving healthcare, which Barack Obama famously did? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
She wasn't in politics then; her husband was. And IIRC, he didn't get that done because he was saving his political capital for other ventures. In other words, smart politician.
As far as Obama goes, he had such a fight with the ACA that it's pretty much all he was able to do. Don't give some obscure example like Pell Grants or whatever, the ACA was his only big success.CorruptUser (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, here are the facts as I understand them: Bill Clinton won the 1992 election and had democratic majorities in both chambers. He started to set out his legislative agenda and one of the top priorities was healthcare, for which Hillary lobbied to the extent that it even became known as Hillarycare. After this failed, the Democratic Party got shellacked in 1994. On the other hand Obama did a very similar thing with the majority he had in 2008 trying to push through signature legislative accomplishments like healthcare. He succeeded at least in that but got shellacked in the 2010 midterms. Unfortunately 2010 was a census year and thus even elections the Democrats won have not resulted in them regaining control of state houses and the House of Representatives. If there is one thing we can draw from this than that the Dems are unlikely to enjoy control of the White House, the Senate and the House for more than two years at a time and that they should make that count. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the Democrats are pussies when they get elected, and they don't even live up to their own center-left platform. Obama hasn't lived up to his promises, and Clinton broke many of his. Granted Republicans do the same, but Democrats should try to live up to what they say they will do in office. I won't vote for Democrats for president until they do that. PBfreespace (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The nation is in need of some serious institutional reforms. Taking legislative districts away from the state legislators and putting them into the hands of the Census Bureau's computers is one obviously needed thing. Unfortunately no one in the safe seats the legislatures draw has any incentive to do that, regardless of which party they're from, so it won't happen. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A number of states have instituted redistricting commissionsWikipedia's W.svg, including the great state of Kaleefohrnya. Granted it's still a minority. Republicans generally oppose them because they don't want non-whites voting small government!. --Ymir (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Aren't districts a rather quaint way of determining political representation at any rate? Of the countries that drew their constitution up in the last fifty years, which went with districts and which went with an at large system? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
As an old fuck getting ready to live off you kids and gamble my Social Security check away at the casino while you guys and gals struggle to raise a family, let me just say Sanders supporters have renewed my faith in the younger generation. Please, please, please, don't let go of the rage you feel having been scammed and tossed aside by a corrupt party and political machine. Don't let go of the anger. Now you gotta decide, to join the corrupt bosses by wanting to become a Superdelegate and fuck over the 99%, or can you reform such a party afer 30+ years of this institutionalized corruption from within, or what are the alternatives other than marginalizing yourself among some 3rd party movement? nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 22:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Sanders supporters are being scammed because the candidate with the most votes won? --Ymir (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, here's the problem: supposedly the standing committees to the Democratic convention, rules, platform and credentials committees, are to be proportionally allocated to the presidential campaigns. Why then did Sanders, who got 42.7% of the vote nationally, recieve only 3 appoints out of the 75 available, Hillary getting 72 of 75 seats? nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 19:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No, why do you think that? Most countries use districtsWikipedia's W.svg, although some have some at-large members as well, or some non-geographic "districts". Many political scientists dislike at-large representation, because it generally disenfranchises minorities, "minorities" being used here in the broad sense, not referring simply to ethnic minorities. Hypothetical illustration: if you have two groups in a country, both of whom vote for members of their group, in an at-large system the smaller group will get no representatives. With districts, there's a good chance that members of the smaller group will have majorities in some districts. In the U.S., federal courts have struck down some at-large systems for local elections on the basis of the Voting Rights Act (see WikipediaWikipedia's W.svg). --Ymir (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you start at the left again? Actually the problem with districts is that they unduly favor regionally concentrated groups over widely dispersed groups. Let's say generic European nation A has a minority of 3% of the population that is highly concentrated in one area and a minority of 5% of the population that can be found more or less homogeneously wherever you go. An at large system would mean a party that is attractive to one of the respective minorities would get roughly three and five percent of the seats respectively. A district based system would most likely give the three percent minority more than three percent of the seats and the five percent minority nothing at all. For an example of this in action, compare the number of Northern Irish Unionists (or Nationalists) currently elected to Westminster with the number of Greens currently elected to Westminster. Even though there are probably much more people generally sympathetic of the greens than people sympathetic of any side in the stupid dispute in Northern Ireland. But the former are dispersed whereas the latter are concentrated... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

How I wasted my life on the internet[edit]

Talk page templates[edit]

In general you should substitute templates like {{welcome}} on talk pages. Instead of {{welcome}} use {{subst:welcome}}. This makes MediaWiki copy the contents of the template into the page. This prevents the message from changing years later when someone edits the template. --Ymir (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I use this pretty much everywhere except with {{welcome}}, I think.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Good to know! Thanks, Ymir. I'll try to write it like that next time. Though keep in mind that I have relatively severe ADHD; I can't be expected to remember. Or to chew with my mouth closed. Or to wear pants. Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the info Ymir!-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Drama[edit]

This discussion was moved to RW:CC.

Drama status: centralized, Soviet-style. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: pleas or hopes that I return/stay[edit]

On my talk page Rev and Pb3 have posted nice comments and inquiries regarding my participation at RW. The latter pointed me to the Saloon discussion of a drop in edits here. It is, however, unlikely I will return here to significant editing and the reasons remain the same as those I articulated here.

This site revels in it's "mobocracy" culture. No policies exist that in any way protect better editors from the depredations of the abusive and/or inane editors. Any who tackle controversial topics are at huge risk of constant, draining cooping and other bullshit that simply rewards the bad behavior of others and disincentivizes good editors to stay. Quality and sourced edits are not privileged over mob preference; the mob can be and often is comprised of morons and abusive asshats of the sort who inhabit Youtube comments. Collegiality, excellence in editing, are not priorities here.

Coop cases are way too many, and suck far, far too much energy and time. Few constraints control who or why a case may be initiated. Mods do nearly nothing when needed; they can and do decline to intervene for reasons such as, e.g., they have no interest in the topic -- as if that is a good reasons to allow bad faith editors to run amok.

You reap what you sow. The majority wish for things to remain as they are. Because I cannot collaboratively function -- not with pleasure and satisfaction -- under the terms and conditions this site imposes I won't subject myself to the stress of trying to.---Mona- (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Just shrink down to a couple edits a week and don't ban anyone for longer than an hour (which is usually long enough to deter lazy trolls). Then no one notices you anymore ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I always regarded your presence here as a kind of wiki herpes. You were always inexplicably proud of your "skill set". In truth, I never saw anything other than an obnoxious, one-eyed zealotry coupled with decidedly mediocre prose. The Intercept is welcome to you. Robledo (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
You, Robledo, are an insufferable boor, and your declaring a low opinion of me is only encouraging.---Mona- (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Boorish? I'm just applying some wiki Zovirax to that first little tingle. All my love, Robledo (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm genuinely puzzled why you would link to the comment of mine that you did. Not only does it fail to show me in a bad light, I appreciate your directing people to it, and affirm all I state therein.---Mona- (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Honestly I think you have made some good points. Nerd (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
You are one of the worst bullies on this site, Mona, and have expressed multiple times your utter inability to even respect as human beings those who disagree politically with you, so seeing you complain about "mobocracy" is very, very funny. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I have announced that I do not respect several people because of their odious positions. I've been like that pretty much always with a variety of people, from Nazis, to Stalinists, to warmongers, to well-rewarded shills for corporate America. Yup, guilty as charged. But what that has to do with my objection to mobocracy and bad faith/abusive editing behavior is, at best, difficult to discern. ---Mona- (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Targeted Individuals article[edit]

Above in the section about May's stats, Owlman said I had completed what I wished to finish in the TI article. That's not actually the case. As time and my inclination permit, I will be editing further in that piece. For one thing, and as several said on the article's talk page, there's nothing else like it on the Internet, and this is a topic that needed addressing. Indeed, I have cited to the RW TI article many times, and so have others in my circle. (One can sometimes tell when this happens, because new accounts show up here to "correct" the "falsehoods.")---Mona- (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

...and I'll continue to be doing my part as "co-author" on it in the future as well! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. It's a great start on something that was needed. But it's still a work in progress.---Mona- (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
That's great. I'm glad to see you are still willing to contribute, Mona. PBfreespace (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Glad to see you are coming back as well. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Pb3 and Aeonian. But to reaffirm: I won't be here that much or often. I'm invested in the TI article, but otherwise have limited interest in trying to uphold quality here for reasons several times stated.---Mona- (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This site is oddly capable of generating some crazy drama. It too is too much about arguing on the Internet, and that generates paranoia. The only reason I stay around is because I don't take myself too seriously. And the kinds of woo I know best -- mostly about historical linguistics and American folklore -- don't generate that much heat. (Krej is the only one with similar interests who's active at all.) Find a niche and relax. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
SoT, this site is "oddly capable of generating some crazy drama" because of what it tolerates, indeed, what it embraces. In any event, I do have some interest in woo and the bizarre TI phenomenon, but at the end of the day I am a very political person. I didn't introduce here the political topics that interest me -- they were present when I arrived. Because they are here, to the extent I also am, I am not psychologically capable of blocking them out. But this site is a hostile working environment for anyone with expertise and interest in controversial topics. It's one thing to insist -- as I often do -- that the Internet is not for fragile snowflakes, and quite another to attempt to function where any asshat can sign up and abuse and spew whatever as they like -- and is deemed every bit the equal of all others.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Re: TIs, apologies if you've already seen this, but wow, just wow. Leuders (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I had not seen that, so thanks. In comments at The Intercept one of these unfortunate souls vowed to do a "show" about the awful RW article and to "expose" us & etc. I think it was an account going by "Wake Up America," which is a Youtube thingie by and for TIs.---Mona- (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Haha. "Wake Up America". God bless that show! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

More on Satannic Abuse Conspiracy Theories etc.[edit]

The Satanic Temple sent observers to a ‘Ritual Abuse’ survivors’ conference. This is what they found… Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ohio Governor's Priorities[edit]

Before ten o'clock in the morning on May 26, the Ohio legislature passed a medical marijuana bill. It went to John Kasich's desk for signature. Later that day, he signed... a transportation bill. Did he not see the weed bill on his desk? Did he ignore it? Was it not there? Alas, we will never know.

The next day, he signed an order for Ohio flags to be lowered to half staff in honor of fallen soldiers. Good and all, but still helping less people than passing a marijuana bill. That was Friday. The bill was passed Thursday. What did he do on Tuesday?

On Tuesday he signed bills that allowed first responders to treat pets at accident scenes, as well as designating a day in honor of Annie Glenn, whoever that is. He signed a bill allowing people to break into hot cars to save children and pets. Oh and he thought it appropriate to sign a bill eliminating limits on alcohol content in craft beer. What the FUCK?! What's your problem John Kasich? I have a relative living in Ohio who is suffering from spreading cancer, whose appetite is less than one meal per day, and cannot go outside due to chronic pain. And his state's governor is more worried about making sure people can get hammered off of beer than receive possibly life-saving medical treatment? I can say that I personally hate John Kasich now. He's sitting on his ASS while people are dying. The bill, if left unsigned or unvetoed, will become law this Sunday (that's how Ohio law works), but that does almost nothing to assuage my rage. PBfreespace3 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And here he is again having videotaped to show off his beard, all the while delaying the implementation of legislation that will save the lives of many people. He can take the hours of time to watch a basketball game, but not spend just a few minutes to sign a life-saving bill. That's moral priorities for you. PBfreespace (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Smoking Satan's lettuce will doom your immortal soul to eternal torment. What's a little cancer pain now versus the eternal fires of Hell? Smoking or selling pot should result in execution, to prevent the Mexican drug dealers from corrupting our precious children. --Ymir (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Does this include the same nonsense provision that locked the industry to very specific companies by law? Zero (talk - contributions) 06:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Marijuana kills. Or at least is makes you a brain dead fuck who can't hold a job and becomes a burden to other people, taxpayers, and an embarrassment to the family. And no, you cannot hold a job. The shit stays in your system for 30 days. So if you're a train engineer who kills people, or a Wal-Mart forklift driver who drops a pallet, either way you get piss-tested and fired for a joint you smoked 3 weeks ago. The Supreme Court already heard the case. Sure, go smoke a fucking joint cause it's "legal"; but a goddamn employer still does not have to hire you cause you are doing something "legal". Oh, you think that's bullshit, huh? Ask the motherfucking insurance companies then if they will insure a business with a bunch of pot heads operating machinery and equipment. Oh, you think state legislatures ought to ban insurance companies from requiring piss-tests of employees after accidents, huh? Good luck with that one. That'll be the day legislators stop taking contributions from insurance companies and lawyers, yah right. Go fuck yourself with your fucking pot bullshit. This is the real goddamn world. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 04:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rob Are you always this aggressive?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 05:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Call it tuff love. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Fucking cancer patients! If they weren't such lazy subhuman garbage, God wouldn't have punished them with cancer! --Ymir (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
RobSmith is an ignorant, whiny little bitch who hasn't tried weed and has utterly no idea how it works. He thinks the high lasts for a month. What a dumbass!!! No wonder he's a centrist Hillary-supporter. He is literally anti-medicine, and I doubt wants or he has the balls to call for the ban of alcohol and tobacco, both of which raise healthcare and insurance costs. Hypocritical asshole. PBfreespace (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
We created the Robrail for a reason. Also, the Template:Fish was created because of the numerous times he changed thread topics to his pet subjects. 85.234.92.172 (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
"Marijuana kills"? "Makes you a brain dead fuck"? What drugs are you on, Rob, cause MJ sure ain't gonna people spout that kinda bilgewater.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 16:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
(1) Please address the salutary points I raised. Also, (2) the claim marijuana is "life-saving" is non-missional pseudoscience. And (3) I was a pot dealer in 1969 when dope was $12 an once, Hillary Clinton was seeking something more "immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating" and Bill Clinton was raping women at Oxford, so I know whereof I speak. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 17:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't agree with any of the mj woo, I understand, that companies being able to force employees to take drug tests and fire them, if they don't like the result is awefull but the politicians are too deep in the the pockets of the lobbyists to give a fuck about employers rights and what has that whole shit to do with Billy Boy being accused of rape? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 18:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
In the case of the Conrail accident, and others, I think we can safely say "marijuana kills"; secondly, the court has shown that marijuana can be legal, but you wind up being unemployed or unemployable. Hence legislators in the interests of public policy (like taxing tobacco and liquor) feel they need to protect people from themselves. Thirdly, the problem here is liability & insurers, and personal injury lawyers. If insurers refuse coverage because of legal limitations on the use of piss-tests, the net result would be self-insurance for employers. That means higher cost to consumers and lower wages for workers. So again, legalized marijuana can be considered a "job killer" and lower living standards. Fourth, I cite the Clintons back in the day that Bill "didn't inhale", cause I sure as fuck did. And it was the Clintons that started this "medical marijuana" bullshit that has led to people becoming unemployable. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Damn all those worthless pot-smoking leeches on society like Carl Sagan and Steve Jobs! Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to get drunk and beat my girlfriend. --Ymir (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Sagan dead at the age of 62, Jobs at 56 - both before their time stamped expiration date. Case closed. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 22:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Dude, you're seriously either really stupid or just trolling at this point. Can you tell me which it is? Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer because he only ever ate fruit, never showered, and thought his diet would mean he would never get sick. He was a genius when it came to marketing, but a dumbo when it came to his health. I can't speak for Sagan, but you're point there is shit. Marijuana's excise tax revenue far exceeds its costs in healthcare and insurance: look at Colorado and Washington as 2 examples. So your point there is shit. Alcohol and tobacco already do what you claim marijuana does, so why not ban them too? Plus, what if I don't care about healthcare and insurance costs? What if I think freedom matters more? Are you saying that lawyer costs are more important than freedom? PBfreespace (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Didn't you just above argue marijuana was a "life saving medical treatment" for cancer. Now you say Jobs died an early death from cancer despite using the miracle cure of marijuana. And rather than address the salient points I've raised about science and law, you spew your hatred of John Kasich. Who is trolling who now? nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 13:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Clue: If you want to build a national consensus on an issue you feel strongly about, you do not begin by expressing a personal hatred of a candidate who garnered a significant amount of respect among a cross-section of media pundits and voters in national polls. Remember, despite Kasich poor showing in Republican primaries, he still dominated national polls as the only candidate who could beat Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and Cruz over an extended period. All you've done is demonstrate the mind-destroying effects of marijuana use. And reading between the lines in some of your posings, it's obvious you are not concerned about the so-called "medical" uses of marijuana, you just wanna party and get high in addition to spewing uninformed, unscientific, partisan hatred of national political figures. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think your position on this issue is utterly, almost inexplicably inane. Marijuana has saved cancer patients before, just go Google it. Peer-reviewed studies aren't in full swing yet due to the federal ban on research, but you can read government reports about how THC helps with cancer in the colon and liver. Jobs also didn't smoke weed when he had cancer, and weed isn't a cure-all, just like chemotherapy. I think most people here reading this thread agree with me, and you're only making yourself look worse the more you argue for your position. PBfreespace (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the bottomline: it is science that is keeping it illegal. And your position lacks science. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 06:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Prohibition was never based on science, not for alcohol, not for ganja and not for any other recreational drug.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 12:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? Medical science trumps economic science? or political science? Interesting debate. But I think you may loose that debate based upon historical realities. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 19:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? Science is keeping marijuana illegal? Robsmith, show me one medical study conducted in the past 15 years that shows marijuana is physically addictive. Show me one study that shows there have been THC overdose deaths. Show me one study that shows marijuana causes lung cancer. I can show you a study that shows the only bad side effect of long-term marijuana use is gum disease. If science really is what's keeping marijuana illegal (which, by the way, it FUCKING ISN'T!), then something other than science is keeping alcohol and tobacco legal. Can you explain this in a way that agrees with facts, Rob? PBfreespace (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) And it's signed, finally. 2 years for my relative. Take that, Rob! PBfreespace (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

oooww I gittit, state legislatures are run by superstitious dumfucks who reflect the will of the superstituous voters. OK, point made, point taken. Now, Will you publicly appologize to John Kasich since you can now go buy some of that medical marijuana on the blackmarket and fry your brain in peace? nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 02:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
State legislators are often superstitious dumbfucks. Cases in point: the North Carolina bathroom law, the Oklahoma abortion ban, the Georgia guns in schools bill. I will not apologize to John Kasich, as he did not take this measure seriously, and he is still terrible on drug policy (hates the heroin epidemic yet doesn't allow emergency responders to carry naloxone, doesn't want legal recreational marijuana). I can't buy marijuana (legally) yet, for several reasons, the most prominent of which is that you won't be able to buy it for 2 years. Also, I don't want to "fry my brain", and I'd rather get marijuana when it is fully legal. Furthermore, I don't live in Ohio, and my state of residence doesn't allow medical cannabis for any conditions I have. Is that good, Rob? PBfreespace (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
In all all honesty, sounds like you fried ur brain already. No apology to Kasich, how about a thank you then. Or a, "I was wrong, in the end he did the right thing." Remember, you started this thread/rant. Now when you're proven wrong for your "hatred" of Kasich, you try to justify your bullshit with more bulshit. And I didn't know Ohio was a dictatorship, where the Gov makes law like deciding who caries nalaxone. You'd think it would be the State Pharmacuetical Board or Health Dept or legislature, but I'll take your word the Gov/God/King/Messiah/Dictator makes all the decisions. You seem to be in the know. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 20:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
"In all all honesty, sounds like you fried ur brain already" No I didn't you imbecile. You are strawmanning me as a marijuana user. I'm not. Stop assuming I'm a weed-smoker because I disagree with you.
I don't like Kasich, what don't you get about that?!?! I'm not forced to like someone just because they changed their mind and did something right! We don't have to thank our governors and pat them on the back because they did their job! What kind of dystopia do we live in that a governor doing the right thing warrants our songs and praises?
"I didn't know Ohio was a dictatorship, where the Gov makes law" I never said this, dipshit. You are strawmanning my position and making a fool of yourself.
Do you have any earthly idea how stupid you look to everyone here? These people mock you, they're laughing at you right now! Do you not realize that? You oppose marijuana legalization because you have a reefer-madness-style view of marijuana. You think that marijuana kills people! You think that it makes you a brain dead fuck who can't hold a job! You're the brain dead fuck, Rob! You think that marijuana stays in your system for 30 days, while it really only lasts less than 10 days! You said that my position lacks science, and yet throughout the entire course of this discussion you've shown that the science is against you! You implied that Carl Sagan and Steve Jobs died because they smoked marijuana, when the evidence shows the opposite: Sagan died of bone marrow disease, and Jobs died of pancreatic cancer. Your accusations are ridiculous, and the tone of your argument likewise. I have utterly no respect for you, and neither does any thinking person here. PBfreespace (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Marijuana didn't do jackshit for Sagan or Jobs, and they still died before their time. That is a scientific fact. nobsBern baby bern 17:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One last thing on HRC/BS[edit]

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pretty tame and superfluous lastwordism if you ask me. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
One of the few actually funny things to come out of this whole fight... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
"One of the few actually funny things" - Ouch! And here I have the literal election-themed comedy video I recommended to everyone just sitting a slight bit up, gathering dust... Not as much as a "go fuck yourself with a leaf blower, Rev". Nothing. It just passed people by, like the evening breeze would caress their temples in a tall-grassed meadow, just... *gently blows an angel's kiss into the air* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My Return to Conservapedia lasted less than half a day[edit]

Moved to Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

God Awful Movies[edit]

So there's this series of webcasts called God Awful Movies. Basically, a magician/atheist (friends with The Scathing Athiest) creates a podcast every week or so with a breakdown of some horrible abomination that escaped from Christian Cinema. If you think that God's Not Dead 2 was a bad movie, well, that's one of the lesser sins unleashed upon us. Where would this go? Should I add some of his podcasts to the articles about the movies? CorruptUser (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Déjà vu[edit]

"Hegel remarked somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce!" Typhoon (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also been seeing some 'reoccurring themes" in US History. For instance some parts of 1830's Jacksonian Era have some very interesting ties to modern events. The rise of a 'people person' candidate that characterizes violence and brutish nature. Even the news and media of that time and today share some odd connections. There was the rise of nonpartisan 'objective' (used loosely here but nonetheless still objective) penny papers is eerily relatable to the rise of partisan online news and the decline of objectivity. I guess we will see how it plays out. Demosn (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you suppose they took Jackson, the 'people person' and founder of the Democratic party, off the $20 bill? nobsBern baby bern 17:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Question About The People Here:[edit]

I've liked this site for a while, especially since it hates the same things I hate... usually. But I recently found a rather... well... spectacularly wrong article, and I'm wondering if this is going to be fixed any time soon, or if I'll be banned for daring to question articles on the site. I've had bad experiences with wikis in the past, and that's how things usually went down.— Unsigned, by: SnansTheSkleleton / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Also, please add new threads at the bottom of the page.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, which article are you referring to? Generally if it's not a controversial subject, adding in stuff that isn't blatant propaganda/bullshit will suffer little more than a few grammatical fixes. If it's on a controversial subject, well sourced information probably won't be an issue. We generally prefer well sourced info, but as most people here are human, it's only a fight if people actually care ;P. StickySock (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If you have seen a very wrong article then you should bring it up on the talk page of that article. It's pretty tough to get banned here even if you go out of you way to look for it - so I wouldn't worry about it.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

SnansTheSkleleton (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) It's the article for Gamgergate. It's just as "It's just an evil hate movement!"ish as wikipedia, and I thought this site was bettee than that. Mainly because I've seen this site be better than that regarding things we both hate, such as Elizer Yudowsky. But why do the people of this site hate a consumer backlash against collusion and rich people being pricks? SnansTheSkleleton (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hoooo boy you picked a nasty article.
So I remember when the "quinnspiracy" was making its rounds on the interweb. Just a cursory glance was enough to make me hate the whole damn thing and everyone talking about it. It all started with a guy breaking up with his girlfriend and making nasty whiny accusations about her. That's it. That's all it was. There was never anything about "consumer protection". All that stuff is a flimsy cover. Then somehow everyone got involved, and it all became a Gordian knot of nooses. Trust me, don't even touch that filth, not worth the headache.
But if you have well sourced info (blogs aren't good sources FYI) and don't mind a painkiller addiction, go ahead. StickySock (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I mean, it's not a question of hate. I don't think we hate yud here. He's just a bit loopy and overtaken by his pet theories in an irrational way, that he ironically brands with the label of rationalism. Gamergate we probably do have a bit of collective antipathy for because there's a lot of serious problems it actually causes in addition conspiracy theories that makes it appropriate for coverage. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The hate associated with gamergate is most certainly there. There was a time when I thought that the mission was to call out collusion, over the top PC culture, and such. But I came to realize that a lot of the stuff I believed was not the case. I found out that I had been lied to or at the very least was being presented with a manipulated truth. The reality is that to some much of the gamergate community has done things that are downright despicable. There is being civil and having decent discussions and then there is reactionary and harassing. I find the gamergate community to be the latter.Demosn (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I went in, and I made the edit to the talk page, asking why the article is so anti-GG.— Unsigned, by: SnansTheSkleleton / talk / contribs

Wait, people still care about Gamergate? But seriously, be sure to read List of Gamergate claims and the talk pages for all the GG articles before adding anything, because your objections have almost certainly been addressed innumerable times before. Expect any changes you make that were not first discussed on the talk pages to be immediately undone. Also, you're gonna need good sources, so Reddit threads and random blog posts by unknowns don't count. Otherwise, have fun. Petey Plane (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey! Comments about Conservapedia and Garmergate on the same day. I guess some dead horses don't know when to lie down. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Video games are serious business. Petey Plane (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Has anything productive come about since this person complained? Demosn (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As usual with Gators who have a stick up their ass about the realities of their "movement"... no Petey Plane (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thought Experiment[edit]

Let's say you're a civilian in Syria, living in a town that's a suburb of a city. The protests and civil war start. Let's say you don't really care for either side. The rebels take your town, and there is heavy fighting nearby. The government starts doing large airstrikes on rebel positions in neighboring towns, and then your town. What do you do? Stay, or flee somewhere else?

Let's say you support the rebels. You're in a town that the rebels have controlled for a long time, but the government keeps bombing it on a monthly basis. Do you leave at some point for your safety, or do you stay? Let's say you support the rebels, but ISIS has controlled the town for 2 years. Leave or stay?

This is all relevant. Here's a story about a Syrian government airstrike on a market in a town that has been held by ISIS for 2 years and lies on a supply route for ISIS to the front line with government forces. A couple dozen people were killed, many women and children. So the question I'm asking is: why did those families stay in that town after it was held by ISIS terrorist gangs for YEARS, and subject to air raids for years? They had ample opportunity to leave, but I think they chose to stay because they support ISIS. Here's my final question: am I totally crazy? Or is there some merit to what I'm saying? PBfreespace (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe they are afraid of what will happen if they are caught trying to leave? I think you are trying to have a post hoc justification of the death of civilians.
My answer? War is hell. A lot of innocents will be killed to purge Syria of ISIS, but more innocents will be killed if nothing is done. There will always be the people who will try to claim moral superiority from the sidelines in spite of never having had to make the tough decisions themselves (Chomsky, Greenwald, Zinn, etc, though Zinn gets a pass because he actually DID bomb civilians). CorruptUser (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The question isn't how you justify the killing but rather was the action which resulted in civilian death balanced by the necessity to destroy said target. Right now, coalition forces have been bombing oil refineries which will poisonous gas that will give the general populace cancer and other chronic illnesses. This is an awful externality but it can be justified since bombing said refineries will damage ISIL's economy. Another example would be bombing an arms factory not too far from a suburb; this arms factory helps your enemy's war effort but its destruction will result in the death of countless civilians.
I think CU's statement that "war is hell" gives a pass to those who commit war crimes because it justifies their actions as an uncontrollable effect and normalizes atrocities. I don't see anything wrong with criticizing the country you belong to or criticizing it w/o having "experienced" war is ridiculous since someone who is morally opposed to war wouldn't justify any military action.
To answer Pb's statement, I don't see why they have to run. They have always lived there and they have worked hard to create the place where they reside "home". These people didn't ask for wr or invite such violence so to say they should be punished is callous. No one killed in that strike had any power to decide whether or not that market should be bombed; all they did was try to by food from a market and, by chance, the Syrian gov't bombed them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 06:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
1) "War is hell" doesn't mean "anything goes" but rather "due to the very nature of war, even the 'moral' decisions are grey at best". It's not "eh, so what if Corporal Asswipe shot 2 civies for shits 'n giggles and then raped their daughter, they are just a bunch of skinnies/shitties/krauts/yankees/graybacks/tories, give him a high five!" but rather "we just got word that the 81st had contact with the enemy 2 hills over and hour ago and there's two goatherders with guns here, one with a bulletwound in his leg. They are probably Taliban irregulars but we aren't sure. Should we shoot them?"
2) People have the right to criticize, and it's a good thing because nothing should be without scrutiny. But in the case of the people I mentioned, rather than "what if we switch perspectives and see if from the other side, we look like the bigger monster", in which many cases we were, they become deranged into "America is nothing more than a source of pure evil in its most vile form!". Sure, the winguts will criticize Chomsky and such, but the wingnuts hating something doesn't automatically make that thing right. CorruptUser (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the whole thought experiment if faulty and based on the false belief that civilians living in occupied areas (occupied by Assad forces, ISIS or Free Syrian rebels, it doesn't matter) have unrestricted freedom of movement. Considering that public transportation is severely compromised, and most civilians in these areas don't have personal cars, traveling is difficult even in the best of times. Those who are able to leave still have to contend with the fact that they may never be able to return, and leaving would mean potentially abandoning a family and every support system the person knows. Petey Plane (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@CU I didn't mean to accuse you of handwaving war crimes but to point out that your reasoning is an oversimplification and has been used by people to justify war crimes like the US's recent attack on the MSF hospital in Afghanistan. It is a similar excuse to the claim of the use of human shields, which is a war crime, in order to justify bombing targets that supposedly holds those civilians who are being used as human shields, which is also a war crime. I understand that people who criticize the more powerful faction in a conflict tend to ignore (or even support) the other sides awful positions or actions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC) 03:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I can speak for me and only me, but I'm not a hero and would probably try to flee somewhere. Probably parts of Syria, where the risk of being beheaded or bombed is lower (Syria has the obscenely high IDP (internally displaced person) number of 7.6 million, so many people made this "choice"), probably somewhere else, although that'd depend on what group I'd belong to. If it's a risk group (Kurds) or a high-risk group (Shiites) or a super-high risk group (Yezidis), I'd probably try to evacuate my family and than join one these armed groups that'd have a chance of bringing some modicum of stability in that particular corner of Syria (the YPG aren't by no means angels, but no-one is on Syria and calling most of the parties demons would be a severe insult to demons; Only we humans are capable of such atrocities, so given a cursory reading on the situation, I'd probably go to Rojava).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I am offended that you used the d word to refer to beings of a non-human nature... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I notice that you don't mention the Druze... CorruptUser (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Because I have a bad memory.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 16:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDarkSideWillMakeYouForget Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you're totally crazy...but no, there is no merit to what you are saying. It's actually difficult to unpack all of the shaky and downright false assumptions you are making, but here's my attempt at a few.
First off, since a number of towns have changed hands several times during the Syrian civil war, your hypothesis requires that the resident of some areas to have been, in some order, supporters of an officially-secular-but-largely-sectarian Alawite Arab government; largely secular rebels; militant Sunni Islamists; and insane Islamist-flavored nihilists. This seems unlikely.
You explicitly assume that they have had ample opportunities to flee, but that assumption is shaky at best. Trying to flee risks arrest and summary execution as spies or deserters by the besieged forces AND arrest and summary execution as rebel spies by the besieging forces. There have been a lot of compelling reporting that ISIS in particular has publicly executed ordinary civilians as "deserters" for trying to flee. It's also a siege tactic that's literally at least as old as recorded history for besieging forces to intentionally trap civilians in besieged areas in order to force the defending forces to "waste" resources on caring for them.
There's also the problem of information. Where would they flee to? How would they know that the town they try to flee to would not be besieged and bombed next? How would they know it is not being besieged and bombed right now? How would they know what safe routes exist?
And that last assumes there even are any "safe" routes to "safe" areas in a third world country torn apart by civil war. Which brings up, how would they physically flee? They don't all have cars - and if they do, those cars would be obvious targets for troops on every side of the conflict. Do they try to walk through siege lines? For an unknown number of miles? Carrying food and water and their belongings? How do they transport infants and toddlers and the ill and the elderly?
And there are deep socio-economic structural issues. The civilians who have not fled are literally on their home turf. They know both the physical geography and the human geography. They know where to obtain food, water, and shelter, both in terms of where the wells are and who controls them and what they will have to exchange for how much clean drinking water, to mention just one of the many, many necessities of life. They have elaborate support networks of friends, family, business associates, trusted charities, and on, and on, where they are - and no support networks wherever they wind up.
And that's just a few of the problems with your line of thinking.70.62.74.74 (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You have lined out why fleeing might appear foolish or be impossible. But you have not lined out why not fleeing may be deadly. For all the good reasons you listed and several bad reasons I listed elsewhere (someone saw fit to have this topic twice), people did not flee when they still could or when doing so would have been easier. Ultimately there is no safe way to survive a multi-way civil war except getting out of range as soon and as fast as possible. Unfortunately humans are prone to making the same "It's not gonna be that bad" mistake every single time. If history tells us one thing than that it is gonna be that bad. And worse. Unfortunately many of those who have made it out of Syria (often the well educated, well connected and somewhat better of, at least before the war) are now treated horribly for the "crime" of running for their lives. If we want to stop mass atrocities, we have to both punish the guilty parties and provide shelter and a safe haven for those targeted by them. But unfortunately the world has shown more than once to be unable to do this. Be it Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Darfur, or countless other examples... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The people in this particular area had a highway to several border crossings (Tell Abyad, Jarabulus, al-Rai). I guess the question is: does ISIS kill or arrest people who flee? That's a key question here. Still, I think it's very dodgy for someone to choose to stay in a place like that. It is similar to the civilians who stayed in Montecassino Abbey for a month even though it was exactly on the front line between the Allies and Axis, and served as a key strategic point. It's just very sketchy, dodgy behavior. Come on. You didn't have to die, civilians, you should've just left when ISIS took over. PBfreespace (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

...
I'm having a good deal of difficulty forming a response to this. There is some high-quality reporting in the particular instance of the Syrian civil war that all sides, particularly but not exclusively ISIS, have targeted civilians for attempting to flee both areas that they control and areas that they are besieging. And beyond this one specific example, there is voluminous scholarly research in history, political science, and other fields that this is pretty much a universal aspect of civil wars and siege warfare.
But beyond that, again, and I don't really know how to make my point clearer, simply picking up stakes and fleeing to a "safe" area isn't a realistic option for many, many civilians in a war zone.
And, if they do flee, where do they flee to? By your formulation, if they flee to a government-controlled zone, they make themselves legitimate military targets for all of the rebel factions. If they flee to a non-ISIS rebel controlled zone, they make themselves legitimate military targets for both the government and ISIS. And so on.67.209.17.212 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I would think they could flee to Turkey or Jordan,which are pretty safe. Lebanon is an option for some. The 3 crossings I mentioned lead to Turkey, and were all controlled by ISIS 1 year ago. Today, 2 of them are ISIS-held. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but there is a contiguous ISIS-held territory between the town in question and those crossings. The traditional was is to reach the border town, then sneak across on foot at night. PBfreespace (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The refugee camps in Turkey are currently hellholes. I don't know if Jordan is any better, and Lebanon simply can't take in any more. CorruptUser (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Well shouldn't the US be in the business of giving shelter to those huddled masses yearning to breathe free? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Silly, every True American™ knows that offer only applies to white heterosexual Christians. --Ymir (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the person who wrote that was talking about Jewish refugees from Russia... CorruptUser (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually some definitions of "white" actually include Arabs in general and people from Syria in particular. And one of the persecuted minorities is indeed the Christian minority. And probably the same portion of them is heterosexual as of any other ethnic group in the world. So, I guess there are still some people from Syria who'd qualify... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Muslims aren't white! They're brown! Jews are honorary whites. We need to protect them so they can gather back into Israel and trigger the End Times. --Ymir (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@CU I know a Jordanian American who has said that Jordan has begun to turn away refugees out of fear of attack and overcrowding in the camps. The UN is currently unable to help any country which hosts the all of these refugees.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 03:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I do think my country should do more to take in refugees. Perhaps set a yearly quota of 1% of our population worth of refugees, which amounts to 3.2 million people. That's about half the total number who have fled in the entire war, and seeing as there would only e a few million more who flee, other countries could handle the rest. But even if other countries don't accept, you can still flee illegally to save your life. PBfreespace (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?.
I can speak for me and only me, but I'm not a hero and would probably try to flee somewhere. Probably parts of Syria, where the risk of being beheaded or bombed is lower (Syria has the obscenely high IDP (internally displaced person) number of 7.6 million, so many people made this "choice"), probably somewhere else, although that'd depend on what group I'd belong to. If it's a risk group (Kurds) or a high-risk group (Shiites) or a super-high risk group (Yezidis), I'd probably try to evacuate my family and than join one these armed groups that'd have a chance of bringing some modicum of stability in that particular corner of Syria (the YPG aren't by no means angels, but no-one is on Syria and calling most of the parties demons would be a severe insult to demons; Only we humans are capable of such atrocities, so given a cursory reading on the situation, I'd probably go to Rojava).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Humans are irrational and very attached to earthly belongings. To make the point a bit clearer, just look at Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people did not leave despite the ample warning time (some I grant did not have the means of escape). Why? Because they wanted to "protect their home" (which is patently absurd against such forces as hurricanes or aerial bombardment). Because they thought it "wasn't going to be that bad" (compare the Jews in Germany during the 1930s, who could not or would not believe the Nazi propaganda about Jews being the prime target for murder by the regime). Because they though they were in a "better, calmer less dangerous" part. Humans are irrational. In most cases of natural disaster and war/genocide there was ample warning for those who ended up dead, but due to myriad reasons they did not heed the warnings... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
For the context of your question, I believe in a great number of places, Daesh does not allow people to leave cities easily, especially in strategic areas. The whole point is to keep as many civilians there so they can't just flatten the town with an airstrike. I have heard reports of them allowing civilians to flee cities recently before ground assaults. I could be wrong though, I'm by no means an expert. And yeah, many Sunni Arabs at least did support Daesh in the beginning, Iraq and Syria were both run by sectarian governments and Daesh gave them hope they could self-govern again. Daesh was always just a more scorched-Earth and righteous version of the Syrian Opposition, much of whom just want a sectarian, fundamentalist government in their favor. The "moderate, secular" factions have always been somewhat small. Hentropy (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Well the US never supported the leftists in the FSA and the Turks have proped up the Salafists so the FSA has become a husk used by Salafis who aren't completely opposed to getting US support.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 04:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a fun fact for you: I actually supported the FSA/rebels when I had first heard from the biased Western news about the conflict starting (2011) to late 2014. It was in mid 2014 that I actually started seriously researching the Syrian Civil War, and the more and more I read about the rebels and the various Islamist groups, the more and more I became convinced that the government was the better option. By 'better' I mean Hillary compared to Trump. That kind of better. Also, once I saw the Kurds were the only ones seriously fighting ISIS in Syria (September 2014), I supported them too. Today it's Kurds first, Syria second, moderate rebels third. I also find it really funny that some folks here coughcough really dislike my support of Shia movements as if I'm some evil guy who's had it out for Sunnis since forever. If the FSA were the main rebel faction with all the ultimate say-so in Syria, and al-Nusra and Islamist groups never existed there, you'd probably find me supporting the rebels to this day. PBfreespace (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I've been supporting the Kurds first for a long while now... CorruptUser (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you're good on most issues, CorruptUser, except for Israel/Palestine. That's the only thing for me. Alas, it won't be resolved. PBfreespace (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Because we disagree slightly on what the borders of the two state solution should be? CorruptUser (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Partially. It was also a double-reference to the conflict itself. I think the 1967 borders are the ideal choice, with voluntary settlement evacuation and automatic citizenship. But now Bibi appointed a defense minister who thinks Israel should outright annex Area C and relocate hundreds of thousands of Arabs into a smaller space in A and B. Not good for peace, and I hope you oppose that, as well as those 2 people. PBfreespace (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
At this point I'm sick of the bastard. As for annexation, any land that Israel annexes MUST come with the people too. Otherwise the word is "ethnic cleansing". CorruptUser (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I guess you both should hate me then since I support a federalized one state solution. Also, Pb, I don't think you should the government in any form since the Assad regime has been atrocious. Obviously, w/o airstrikes the rebels weren't going to win but that doesn't mean the Assad regime will improve its human rights record.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 05:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem there is that the rebels were mostly Islamists to begin with, which are probably worse than Assad. CorruptUser (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
True, the coalition was always dominated by Sunni Islamists but you don't need to cheer for the status quo. If that coalition had popular support they would've won but they didn't. When it comes to the question on whether an Islamist coalition with secular elements vs an autocratic regime I tend to see the Islamists as preferable because that future regime, as backwards as it may be, will most likely institute some democratic reforms like Iran did. This isn't a justification for intervention, though, since these coalitions don't always have popular support and regime change forces that regime's supporters out of society like we say in Iraq and Libya.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 06:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Iran? What have you been smoking? CorruptUser (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
And now I find myself agreeing with CorruptUser against Owlman. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE are countries that had Islamist governments starting from 1900-1979. These countries are all disasters civically compared to Jordan, Egypt, Oman, and Azerbaijan. What do all of the latter countries have in common? They were secular dictatorships since the 50s. Even though countries like these are far more oppressive and undemocratic, they are still better off than any Islamist country except Turkey, which really belongs in a gray area between the 2 categories.
In Libya, we overthrew a secular dictatorship, and militias and armed gangs took over. It turns out that when it came to actually running the damn country (we can argue about how well Qaddafi did), the rebels were shit. 5 years later the country STILL doesn't have a united government, with many factions literally fighting for the title of 'sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people'. Wahhabism barely had any presence in the country, and al-Qaeda still seized multiple cities. The resulting refugee crisis is burdening Europe to this day, and thousands died needlessly crossing the Mediterranean.
Compare that to Syria. We've seen the results of Western intervention against secular dictatorships already, and we're seeing it again in slow motion in Syria. Take a look at government-held cities like Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Latakia. Compare the lifestyle and society of those places versus the bastions of rebel-held Syria (ignoring ISIS). Idlib is held by al-fucking-QAEDA, full Sharia law is in place, and it's as bad as the Taliban ever was. And I haven't even mentioned Raqqa or al-Bukamal yet.
Do you see the point I'm trying to get across? PBfreespace (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE are countries that had Islamist governments starting from 1900-1979." Hilarious on several levels.

  1. First off, Neither of these countries were states in 1900 - and why choose this seemingly arbitrary starting point anyway? Note: You could argue that Persia was Iran's predecessor, but to make a similar equation between the Republic of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire would be tenuous at best. The same objections can be made about the countries on the list of counter-examples, bar Egypt.
  2. How do you define "Islamist governments"?
  3. Which pre-1979 government of Turkey do you characterise as "Islamist"?
  4. Oman is a "secular dictatorship", unlike Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE? Okay, where exactly do you see that demonstrated and how do Oman distinguish itself from these latter "civic disasters" (yet another vague, undefined term)?
  5. What makes Egypt preferable to Turkey in terms of being a (non-)"civic disaster"?
  6. "The resulting refugee crisis is burdening Europe to this day, and thousands died needlessly crossing the Mediterranean." Not entirely wrong - depending on what's actually meant. If it's supposed to mean that the intervention in the Libyan civil war created the streams of refugees, then it's clearly wrong (Libyans constitute a very small proportion of the refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean). What it did do was end the dubious deal by which the EU haggled with and eventually paid Gaddafi to contain the refugees crossing into Libya before they ventured out on the Mediterranean.

I could go on, but I think I've raised enough points already. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. What I meant by "1900-1979" is that Saudi Arabia was Islamist starting in 1900, Qatar Bahrain and UAE in 1940s, and Iran in 1979. Sorry for the confusion.
  2. Islamist means a government that is ordered according to Sharia, and that seeks to promote the morals and teachings of Islam in most/all aspects of life. Sharia law in criminal issues tends to be a signifier.
  3. I can't really quantify that, other than to say that I characterize the governments of Turkey pre-1979 as being relatively Islamist when compared to those of Azerbaijan, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.
  4. In Oman, Sharia only applies in personal status issues rather than criminal law, unlike Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iran. Oman isn't what I'd call a civic disaster because it has stable, well-functioning civic institutions as well as thriving business, trade, and political participation, as well as respect for human rights. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Iran are all countries where voting and running for office is banned or difficult compared to other nations. The human rights records of all these nations are abysmal.
  5. To be honest, Egypt isn't doing too well right now due to the coup, but during the Sadat/Mubarak years, there was basic political stability, economic security, and well-functioning government capable of providing for people. During this period (1967-2000), Turkey suffered from a terrible economy, multiple coups, and a civil war with tens of thousands killed and millions displaced. That's a pretty big difference.
  6. Libya is the main route for migrants from other parts of Africa (Eritrea, Sudan, Mali) to get to Europe. Look at the thousands of dead migrants due to bad boats. Where do all of the smugglers come from? The fractured state of the country. Different militias control different towns even neighborhoods in Tripoli's case. Kidnappings, assassination, ransom, and theft are all much more common now than they were under Qaddafi. If Qaddafi were still in control, the Libyan portion of the migrant crisis would be reduced by something like 90%: Africans wouldn't be able to pay smugglers or get boats because the secret police would've caught them.
These are pretty good points you raised, I'd love to hear some more. Did I answer your questions well enough? PBfreespace (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, PBf and I apologise for my tardiness in getting back to you (am in the middle of moving and exams and a lot of my colleagues quitting so I'm a bit of kilter).
  1. I'd again object to speaking of Saudi Arabia in 1900. At that time it was still simply a province in the Ottoman Empire - although the level of Ottoman control was shaky. If you want to trace the background for the odd and contradictory relationship between the House of Saud and violent Wahabbism, I'd point to the partnership of Ibn Saud and the IkhwanWikipedia's W.svg ("Brotherhood") which he used as muscle to create Saudi Arabia. Later, Saud turned on the Ikhwan when their raiding of neighbouring territory made the Western colonial powers howl and with the help of British pilots and planes and modern weaponry, Saud defeated an Ikhwan rebellion. Robert Fisk also cites this, as well as the special status of the monarchy in Wahabbism, as good illustrations of the built in tensions between reverence for the monarchy and demands for extreme religious puritanism.
  2. Using this definition, Turkey is definitely not and has never been Islamist.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Okay, I get the distinction - however I wouldn't use such vague criteria as "voting and running for office is banned or difficult compared to other nations" when making such sweeping generalisations.
  5. Nope, I still don't buy this, because you only reach this result by choosing a time frame that neatly excludes the huge losses of Egyptian lives incurred in its wars against Israel. I actually see the two states as somewhat similar in some areas (both have essentially been created in their current guises by military juntas - compare Atatürk and Nasser and the Deep stateWikipedia's W.svg which is equally applicable to Egypt). Among the differences, Turkey has tended to be more stable due to its most important conflicts being mainly the internal struggle against the Kurds which has never reached a level beyond guerilla warfare with little hope of actually detaching territory from Turkey without some consent from Ankara. By contrast, Egypt's main conflicts have been external: First against the former colonial powers, Britain first among them; subsequently, though overlapping, against Israel (by contrast, Turkey's "external other" is arguably Greece with whom it only has had one large, post-independence military conflict: The Turkish invasion of CyprusWikipedia's W.svg), but also infighting with various other Arabic states for the position of "top dog" in the Arab world. While Turkey has seen a number of military coups, these were, as military coups go, fairly "unbloody" with the numbers of people killed being in their hundreds or below. Turkey has thus seen three "actual" coups since Atatürk created it in its modern incarnation: 1960, 1971 and 1980 (plus the "silent coup" in 1997 when the army pressured Erbakan to step down as Prime Minister) as well as one external war (in Cyprus) and one long running internal anti-guerilla war (against the Kurds). Egypt has hardly fared better with a series of external wars, at least three successful but hardly unbloody coups/revolutions (1952, 2011 and 2013, not to mention such attempted ones as the murder of Anwar Sadat which Islamists(!) hoped would spark a general uprising), and finally Egypt has its own internal conflict between the military and various Islamist groups. I'm fairly sure that if you asked most people if they'd rather live in Egypt during the Sadat/Mubarak era or Turkey during the same time span, most would choose Turkey. I think you're way overstating Turkey's problems fighting the Kurds (a conflict mainly confined a particular area of the country) and painting an extremely rosy picture of Egypt during the same era. It's also ironic - given your focus on Islamist - that it's Egypt which has long struggled with a domestic violent Islamist movement, whereas Turkey has not; just like Turkey has been far more explicitly anti-Islamist in terms of an rather militant secularism (e.g. banning headscarves at universities). Indeed, Atatürk created the Turkish Republic as a secular state exactly because Islam as a political ideology had been central in justifying the Ottoman Empire (the emperor was, after all, also the caliph - at least in name) and thus it went the same way as the fez, being discarded by Atatürk as a remnant of a failed regime. Of course this did not change the fact that the vast majority of the population was and is Muslim, but in terms of governing, religion was seen as something that had no place in a modern, effective, rational and national state.
  6. Yes, Libya is a main route for African migrants and refugees, but that was also the case during the Qaddafi years and he simply "turned the spigot on or off" whenever it suited his bargaining strategy vis-a-vis the EU in general and Italy in particular. Claiming that it was better to leave these migrants and refugees to the tender mercy of the Qaddafi regime is hardly a strong argument for anything beyond and "the end justifies the means" outsourcing of the problem from EU migration offices to Qadaffi's secret police. Also, Qaddafi may have been able to keep up the appearances of unity, but from those specialists in Libyan history and politics I've heard, he essentially juggled with some of the same geographic factions we see today. However, my main point was simply that the overthrow of Qaddafi didn't create the migrant flow; it simply unleashed it - just as Qaddafi himself had periodically done. The only "extra" contribution is the portion of migrants who used to have Libya as their final destination (e.g. those looking for work, rather than actual refugees).
So, to sum up: I think you tend to sustain your conclusions by cherry picking your data, including your periodisation, and some of your other categorisations also seem rather slapdash. I also think you tend to short change Turkey and wax far too lyrical about pre-Morsi Egypt. Finally, and most problematically, your sweeping conclusions that seem to view most, if not all, problems in the Middle Eastern states you discuss as a function of a Islamist, seem to be what guide your analysis, not the other way around. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Bernie[edit]

The 2008 race was incredibly close; the current one isn't at all. Yet, Hillary was conceding to Barack at this time back then. Meanwhile Sanders is apparently going all the way to Washington DC, where he'll only get destroyed by the voters. I was always hoping that on the convention we would see Bernie doing the same that Hillary did in this video. Now I'm not so sure. This inside look at his campaign shows that he seems to have abandoned reality for his own imaginary world. He's pissing away everything he's achieved by bitterly dragging this race. The longer he stays, the more hostile his reception will be at the convention. Typhoon (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with bringing an election to its conclusion. Sure, Hillary has won within all bounds of statistics, but... who's being hurt by letting everyone vote? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Bernie conceding wouldn't effect peoples ability to vote for him. His name will still appear on the ballot in DC, and he can be written in, in the chance that it does not. He'll lose by double digits in DC regardless of whether he has conceded or not. It was a good fight, but the majority of voters picked Hillary, and he now has no path to victory. Petey Plane (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't anyone talking about Martin O'Malley's very real chance of winning the nomination? Vulpius (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I think what is going on is something like the following: Bernie was hoping to get something (be it the VP spot for himself or a person of his choosing, a promise of a certain policy focus for the campaign, a prominent speaking spot at the convention or whatever) and he has either gotten no response, a flat out no or is still in negotiations with the Clinton camp. He knows that the only thing he can possibly offer in return is getting out of the race. Hence he does not want to lose his bargaining position. Maybe he overplayed his hand, maybe he is pot committed. I do not think this is all some sinister plan to bring down Hillary Clinton (whom he at least liked until quite recently) or to get Donald Trump elected. Alternatively, Sanders knows something we don't. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
For me, that POLITICO article confirmed everything I had suspected after he lost in the Midwest. He made all of the decisions which explained why he had a hard time criticizing Clinton; his criticisms were always wonky and he would only attack her half-way. He also had no real think tank behind him which hurt him when he had to explain his policies. I learned more about his policies reading Robert Reich's blog than from listening to him. He always stressed the same platform and failed to address economic racism even after he released his criminal justice platform. He does appear savvier than I thought with his hardline stance to get his platform adopted, though. The only surprising part of his campaign leak was his refusal to support down-ballot candidates who didn't endorse him. That actually angers me.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC) 00:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Who's he hurting, you ask? He's hurting his supporters, whom he asked just today for even more donations for the DC primary (which he will lose crushingly), he's hurting the Democratic Party by dragging this when we should now concentrate on defeating Trump (Trump got a poll bump after his last Republican opponent conceded and the party and Republican base is now uniting around him) and most of all Bernie is hurting himself as now he's starting to look like a crotchety old guy disconnected from reality and becoming toxic before the DNC.
Ikanreed, nobody is saying that DC shouldn't vote, but you have to realize that the DC vote will happen even if Sanders concedes before. There is absolutely no reason for Sanders to continue to delude his supporters and fleece them of their money while filling their heads with wacky conspiracies. Typhoon (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with ikanreed here. No harm done. Besides, he said he entered the race to win and promised his supporters he would fight till the very end. Let him get to the finish line, even if he does so after Hillary does. If Hillary is absolutely confident that she would win after superdelegates vote, she can now completely move on to handle the Donald, no? Nerd (talk)
I am in agreement with the pro-Sanders faction here. Sanders, through running a revolutionary campaign that shook up the Democratic Party and changes people's ideas about what is mainstream, has earned the right to do whatever he goddamn pleases. I'd he wants to use his campaign war chest (bigger than Clinton's, by the way) to try to close the gap in DC, let him do it. If pro-Hillary people know she'll win, what do they care? Why are you so afraid of Bernie Sanders? If I were Sanders, I'd be doing exactly what he's doing, and during/after the convention, I would request to be her VP pick to 'unify the party' as she is so fond of saying. PBfreespace (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

All the above about freedom and "scared" is bullshit. People want Bernie to drop out so that no more money that could be spent on the general is spent in the primary, and so that no more rhetoric from Dems flies against Clinton. It's about beating trump (much as it was about beating McCain). Sanders status: stubborn old man, shaking fist math. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if the Shillary supporters had rallied themselves around Sanders in the first place, instead of a bourgeoisie candidate (hilarious, considering who some of these people are), you Amercians wouldn't have to deal with a Trump presidency. As the Christ-worshipers say, you reap what you sow. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, I could have gotten behind the Berning Man, but really he had no plan other than to repeat the same speech over and over "Wall Street blah blah blah, Free college, etc." He failed miserably on the reality test that at least two major newspaper interviews: it was clear he had no plan beyond "Wall Street"/"Free College" and did not prepare for the interviews. Having been in the Senate forever and done next-to-nothing, it's just not believable or impressive. Now he's back to raising money to fight that damned windmill. Bongolian (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Bongolian, can you tell me Hillary's plan to reregulate Wall Street to stop another financial crisis? What policy proposals does she have to curb or stop dangerous speculation in Wall Street? PBfreespace (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, are you really gonna call Wall Street a windmill, especially after what they did up to 2008?! You do realize they were committing securities fraud, right? PBfreespace (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It was Bernie's key campaign point (seemingly only 1 of 2 at that), and not Hillary's, so what Hillary would do is besides the point. His first 1st disastrous interview that showed there was no forethought to his idea of breaking up the banks is here (Daily News, April 1, 2016). Bernie was still unprepared a month later with the San Francisco Chronicle.
It's not beside the point: he has a plan, and she doesn't. That matters a helluva lot.
In the interview, he was asked a question about what agency he would use to break up the banks, and he couldn't answer. He would've found out what agency to use between then and January 2017, as his advisors would've told him. He simply didn't know to say "oh yeah, use the Federal Reserve". That's hardly "ZOMG disastrous Bernie interview!!!"
Do you think that Bernie isn't the better candidate? Do you really believe that Hillary would do a good job as president? Really? Vraiment? PBfreespace (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no. Bernie was not and is not a better candidate. He accomplished next-to-nothing in the Senate, and he expected a divided legislature to bend over for him as president… He's almost a big a charlatan/demagogue as Trump. Take a look at On Becoming Anti-Bernie for those with lingering doubts. Bongolian (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Bongolian. And it's really off-putting how Sanders supporters continue to act amazed that many people don't find Bernie the better candidate. Typhoon (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Allow me to concede that point (even though I still disagree) and change my question to this: do you believe the policy proposals and ideas of Bernie Sanders are, in general and on paper, better than those of Hillary Clinton? PBfreespace (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I would agree that Bernie's grand ideas are correct — yes, Wall Street needs tighter reigns on greed & corruption; yes, college costs are often ridiculously expensive compared to what they used to be (students weren't always saddled with college debt in the olden days). What are his actual policy proposals that could fix these problems? I don't see that. Bongolian (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel like linking the right now,b UTC you are genuinely interested, all it takes is a simple Google search. Well it's too late now to make a difference anyway. PBfreespace (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Team Hillary can piss on itself. Bernie's candidacy never was only about trying to win the nomination. When he says he is promoting a "political revolution" he means it -- so do many of us. There's a party platform to be debated -- granted, those things are kind of irrelevant, except for getting issues in the news. But more importantly, there are down-ballot races of enormous importance, including Tim Canova's challenge to the vile Debbie Wasserman Schultz. While Bernie is in the race this provides aid and energy to the Tim Canovas.
The Democratic Party is a corrupt carcass, owned by Wall St. The party of FDR has been destroyed by Clitonism/neoliberalism. That party now needs a stake driven through its blood-sucking heart. Many of us won't lift a finger to elect Hillary Clinton, even tho Bernie is eventually going to recommend that we do. I'll likely be voting for Jill Stein. And yes, I know, that could elect Donald Trump if enough of us do it-- that has its upside. The DNC needs a punishment it understands -- it understands losing. Moreover, Hillary Clinton would cause most Democrats to defend horrific foreign and domestic policies simply because they are her policies. You know what would get Democrats to sound and behave like progressives? What would get some overdue adjustment going in the DNC?
President Trump. That's what.---Mona- (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
How many seats were "proportionally allocated" to Sanders delegates on the Platform Committee? nobsBern baby bern 20:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I must say I slightly disagree with -Mona-. Sanders did say he entered the race to win. He's a serious candidate; he's not there just to spice things up. But you are right in saying that the "political revolution" is not about him but his vision, which many voters support. How else could he make it difficult for Clinton to win the nomination even though she got a substantial head start? Let's not forget Hillary Clinton is currently under a criminal investigation by the FBI. For this reason, Bernie Sanders is actually doing the Democratic Party a favor by staying in the race; he is offering them an insurance policy pretty much for free. Nerd (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It's meaningless for the Shillbots, they know Hillary is such a problematic candidate any opposition to her in her own party just increases the risk of more nasty stuff coming out. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Do people seriously still believe the FBI investigation will lead to anything? Jesus Christ. It's funny seeing the people less likely to be affected by a Trump presidency jump on this stupid bandwagon and hoping that SOMEHOW, several years of the objectively worst presidential candidate in US history will lead to people magically changing their minds about everything. You can put it however you want: what you people desire is for people to get violented and abused enough so that you can manipulate them into coming to your fold. It's beyond disgusting... But it's okay, because it's the blacks and Hispanics that are going to pay, and they deserved it for being stupid neg- I mean, "low-information voters" who voted for Clinton. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are you talking about the FBI investigation? I was referring to the usual campaign mud slinging with whatever they can dig up. Lord Aeonian (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)