RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $6000Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive258

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 August 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>, <257>, <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>, (new)(back)

Contents

I can't stand the fucking liberals[edit]

Don't they know that this mass shooting could have been prevented by people at the bar also being able to carry semi automatic AR 15s while they partied. I don't know how you dance with an AR 15, but I'm sure they do it in Ahghanistan all the time before they fuck their goats. Homosexuals dancing drunk with AR 15s is no big deal.

I hope this was sarcasm but I'm paraphrasing my Facebook news feed - minus the goat part. Jesus H Fucking Christ Objective (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And no I don't give a fuck about hunter's rights when in one weekend with the Grimmie shooting and the pulse massacre, Orlando became the 2016 US Murder Capital Objective (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
What. StickySock (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think OP is making fun of the "Good Guy With A Gun" canard, but i'm not quite sure. Petey Plane (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
More angry, but yes. Objective (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Grew up around hunters. None of them ever advocated for full auto weapons, and everyone thought there should be background checks, not to mention safety courses. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun license than an auto license... StickySock (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"good post emoticon" Same. I personally own a handgun that stays in my night stand (the realities of living in America and having my house broken into once). No kids though, and if i did, the gun would go. We're never going to have full-on gun bans and confiscation here in the US; that ship sailed a long time ago, but i'm all for background checks, licensing and required safety courses, same as car ownership. Here in South Carolina where i live, all that was necessary to buy a pistol was a 5 minute background check and my debit card. No waiting period at all. I see little, if any, need for private ownership of a semi-auto long-rifle (aka assault rifle), like an AR-15, and do think those should be banned. Petey Plane (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
And i do think there is some confusion. Full-auto guns are actually incredibly hard to obtain (legally). The processes for licensure to own once can take years and thousands of dollars, and you basically have to own a gun store to even get one. AR-15s are semi-auto, but can be converted into full auto. The parts necessary to convert them are regulated by the same laws that regulate a fully assembled full-auto gun. Petey Plane (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Petey Do you think gun owners should be required to have liability insurance?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 22:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Good question, but i don't know. that would require research into accidental and purposeful gun deaths against the number of gun owners, research that is currently banned in the US. But off the top of my head, yes, they should. Petey Plane (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I do realize that the CDC is banned by Congress from conducting gun violence research lest they lose their funding from Congress. I think that requiring such insurance would help to push the insurance industry to support gun control measures. I only ask you because if such a requirement was made you would be someone affected.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
How much backlash to any gun restriction legislation can be attested to people who fear the government? Like crazies talking about black helicopters and FEMA camps. I've always felt that a large number of people have that underlying belief. edited to add signature Demosn (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Look into the history of auto seat belts in the late 60s. Auto industry lobbyists put up a huge fight to prevent manufacturers from being forced to implement this (and other) common sense safety features in automobiles. They argued that seat belts were an infringment of constitutional freedom, that bad drivers were the problem not unsafe cars, and that seatbelts would not prevent all fatalities so why bother...and all the other bogus yet familiar arguments Luckily, we know better. Leuders (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that tip. I heard President Obama mention something about this when he was discussing gun violence but I guess it's good to hear it again so that it clicks in my brain and I want to go look for info on it now.Demosn (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Owlman Actually, I'm not strictly opposed to that on principle. Depends on whether other insurances cover firearm theft or damage. But insurance generally doesn't cover criminal activity, so I don't know what that'd actually do. CorruptUser (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, if a seller was required to provide liability insurance they may be more concerned about a background check and it could cut down on straw purchases. Insurance companies would be more likely to push for more safety measures like gun locks, safes, etc.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 02:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
"Safety measures"? "Background checks"? The largely defensive nature of the Weapon of gun must be acknowledged! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The poster has a point: try and take away the guy's gun who finds a cross-burning in his front yard. nobsBern baby bern 17:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I had a discussion with Hentropy about that and I have always sympathezied with that view. I can't believe in self- defense and not believe in a right to bear arms but those arms must be balaced with public safety.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 18:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It's like a paint factory that has 20 or 30 fires a month, but refuses to restrict smoking in any way. Making military assault weapons easy to access in the name of personal freedom is what you could charitably call a failed experiment. It may take generations, but public safety will eventually prevail. Leuders (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the US's gun laws are so weak that they are worthless but I consider myself a moderate on this issue. I want universal background checks but that won't change anything when it comes to these mass shootings. I would support gun control like Australia but not like Britain.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 01:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
What's your view on concealed carry as self-defence? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm so pleased I live in the UK where there is better gun control. The United States needs to learn from the rest of the world here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Concealed Carry: applicants should be required to demonstrate good cause and undergo review and strict evaluation commensurate to the responsibilities of a deadly weapon. But most states don't require much except filling out a few forms. [1] There are some legitimate reasons why one would need to walk around at all times with a gun; undercover security, inner city liquor store owner, payroll courier, violent crime victim, etc. However I'm guessing a large portion of concealed carriers are paranoid or just want to feel more powerful and cool with a Glock on their hip. Leuders (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Same as above but I think gun owners should have to go through some training in order to get a license to own a weapon. I would much rather have concealed carry over open carry because I think open carry creates a chilling effect as would make someone with a weapon more obvious and, thus, a target.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick question, whenever i see american movies (we all know hollywood doesnt lie) if anyone even looks like they are packing, the movie police are on them like flies on shit. How come those open carry folk arent continually pestered by police, or at the centre of incidents where concerned citizens have dialled 911 after some guy walks into macdonalds armed to the teeth? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Without guns there would be no drama in movies. In real life, there is some statistical data that indicates concealed carry more often results in suicide/homicide than in self defense. [2] Leuders (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump is right.[edit]

Before you flip out at the title, read what I have to say. The terrorist attack that just happened was committed by a person born in America whose parents were ethnic Pashtun (likely rebel-supporting) Muslims born in Afghanistan. His father supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan, a country that he fled. Trump said he wants to ban Muslim immigration temporarily. If this was implemented back in the early 1980s, this attack would not have happened. I'm not implying that there isn't a gun control or mental healthy discussion to be had (there is). But we need to at least consider immigration restrictions towards countries with high Islamist terrorism , and significantly reconsider who we want to enter the country across seas.

And here comes the shitstorm... PBfreespace (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You cant judge individual things by their result, but by their expected result. When we let Omar's dad in, what was the expected value of his and his family's contribution to the US? If it was positive, then it was right to let him in, if not then not. CorruptUser (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that I don't know. I don't know if he supported the mujahideen then, but he certainly does now, as he runs a TV show that praises the Taliban and calls for the overthrow of the current Afghan government. I don't know if his contribution was a net positive. We'll find out more about his parents as the investigation continues. PBfreespace (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
How do you tell who is a Muslim? Is it the guy from Singapore? Is that the guy with a large turban (Sikh)? Is it the Coptic Christian? Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You would ask them if they are ethnically Pashtun (basically all Taliban supporters were at that time) and if they're Muslim. Headgear typically wouldn't be used except to indicate someone might be, say, a Saudi Wahhabi, in which case they would be questioned further. I personally would allow Copts and other Christians to come over here, no questions asked (exaggeration). PBfreespace (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh look, a Sanders supporter who is OK with racial profiling. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not surprised at all. Typhoon (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course you wouldn't be.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I, too, oppose all immigration on the off chance that someone happens to be a terrorist. Did you know that 100% of white terrorists came from Europe? If we had enacted an immigration ban from 1600-2000, Sandy Hook would not have happened. Thank you, thank you, I'll take my Peace Prize. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey Pb: America accepts .25 mil Muslims a year. What percentage of those have to be terrorists for us to ban the other quarter million? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Here comes Mr. Smarmypants. I don't oppose all immigration. According to the position I've just laid out, the PBfreespace that is talking to you in this section believes that immigration of Muslims, particularly Arabs, Wahhabis, and Pashtuns; should be restricted much more than it is right now in order to prevent such attacks from happening. I personally don't believe this proposition, I'm simply putting it forth to gauge RW's reaction. A social experiment if you will, and also a healthy philosophical/political discussion. PBfreespace (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Based on current circumstances, the intense focus on screening would apply mainly to people coming from areas with high terrorist activity, not all innocent Muslims. We aren't going to be blanket-screening everyone from Tunisia, Oman, and Iran. However, there would be an intense focus on Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pakistan due to their higher propensity to support terrorism compared to others in that area. We'd focus on Sunni Arabs in Syria and Iraq, as well as Libya and Yemen. It would be focused rather than blanket. PBfreespace (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You mentioned the Boston bombing. The Tsarnaev family was forcibly displaced from Chechnya in the 1940s. In 2001 they moved to Dagestan (an area with high terrorist activity, like Chechnya) and moved to the US in 2003. If, after 9/11, the US had banned immigration of ethnic Chechens to the US, the Boston bombing wouldn't have happened. So your point there is somewhat moot. PBfreespace (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Should we ban Russian immigrants, because Chechens suck? Israelis might be hard-right Orthodox Jews, that's like 5-10% of US terrorism right there. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No, only ethnic Chechens and Dagestanis should be given vigilant screening. I also think we should be skeptical towards Israeli Orthodox Jews, but that's just me. PBfreespace (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but what about Pashtun Muslims who lie and say they are not Muslim? You can't just exclude them all, what about Pashtuns who think religion is BS (I know some)? Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If they lie, that's too bad. We could lock them in a room for several hours, and if they don't pray that's a sign they're not very devout. Burkas are also a useful screening tool to sense very devout people. Pashtuns who state that they are atheist or "non-believers" can come in if they want; a true terrorist would have to commit apostasy in order to get in. I'm not saying we would stop everybody, but it would help somewhat. PBfreespace (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You're underestimating the fanatics. They could justify a fake apostasy (and not praying for a while) via taqiyya. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Bummer. Bad apples putting on the skin of good apples. It would still weed out many bad apples though. PBfreespace (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2016 (lUTC)
This guy wasn't even that devout and how long to we force them in this room. On what charges? Where to we put them and how much will this cost? Shall we try waterboarding them to see if they are lying? If they are devout but they will be killed if they return home then what to we do? What to we do with their family if only one person is proven devout? What do we do with the whole family if they are devout? What do we do with the children if they are devout?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Good. I'm getting a lot of good responses that show why Trump's proposal is stupid. We should put some of this biting analysis into the Trump article to help chunk his immigration proposal. If only Hillary Clinton was smart enough to use these attacks rather than criticize him from an ideological perspective: maybe she'd actually win that way just by pointing out how impractical his proposals are. The same thing she did to Sanders. PBfreespace (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@PB I hope you realise that even though it isn't unconstitutional to ban certain people from entering the country or to deport them based "threatening" ideologies, ethnic background, etc such a view got many socialists, communists, and anarchists deported. Emma Goldman was deported because of this view that certain ideologies are dangerous and Ibrahim ParlakWikipedia's W.svg is being deported because of his past ties to the PKK.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I do realisze this. It's actually illegal in some states. My state bans communist symbols actually, so I've violated the law in the past. Thankfully the ban does not specify punishments, which should give you an idea as to how smart my state representatives are. PBfreespace (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It's ok when Stalin did it, the ends justify the means when it's our ends in question! Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
(EC)@Pb What do you mean it is illegal in some states?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. Stalin killed millions, and put people in camps. You should be thankful I'm not advocating that. PBfreespace (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankful?!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a joke, Owlman. In some states, it is illegal to seek public office or hold a government job if you are a communist, socialist, or totalitarian. In many states, communist symbolism is illegal. Granted, these cases of symbolism aren't prosecuted, as the laws are federally unconstitutional, but the public office oaths against Communism are still in place, even in my state. Advocating anarchism (which I've done before) may also be illegal where I live, I have to check. PBfreespace (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not in my state, but advocating the the overthrow of the government is in states where my relatives have lived. Also, my state bans "organisations advocating and/or engaging in acts aiming to overthrowing the government". No anarchist groups here. The law is unconstitutional though, so it's not in effect. But I guarantee that if a vote were held today in my state's legislature to remove the text from the state constitution, it would not pass. PBfreespace (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
But we aren't talking about political office or political activism we are talking about immigration.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I know. Those restrictions aren't in place, but to be a citizen you do have to pass tests and stuff like that. Also, in my state, sex toys are banned, even though there's a sex toy store in my county. Hah! PBfreespace (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Again we are talking about immigration. Immigrants are not protected by "normal rights" that the constitution protects as per the Plenary Powers Doctrine.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 04:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
That's all the more reason why what I'm proposing is legal. Right? PBfreespace (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly since Congress would have to agree to do this but the Supreme Court tends to not review this issue since immigration is viewed as a national security issue. Now, just because is legal doesn't mean it is a good idea and to ban an entire people from entering based on their religion is unprecedented AFAIK.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 04:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you an American? And if so, which state of the Union is it that bans Commie symbols, exactly? --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sadly yes, I'm an American. It's kind of hard to say, because it is illegal federally to enact such symbolism bans, but they were banned in Minnesota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and California in the past. PBfreespace (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. Stromberg v. California (1931) invalidated those bans. There are no current bans against the display of Communist symbols, nor will there be for 1st Amendment reasons. You have not violated the law. Laws invalidated by SCOTUS decision are considered to be null and void.
  2. Good to know that a supposed-fellow American would very much like to ditch the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as neutering the Civil Rights Act simply because he's terrified of some browns. You have my utter contempt. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Did you literally not read my response? So now jokes are banned? I was kidding, and if you don't believe me, you can go climb a tree. I support the 1st and 14th Amendments, by the way, and I'm not "terrified of browns". PBfreespace (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I read it, I just don't believe you. To believe you, I would have to believe you are stupid. Since the choices are stupidity or malice, and you are obviously not stupid, it must therefore be done out of malice, and you're using the old "social experiment" ploy to try to take it back. That's all it is. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said above banning certain immigrants from entering this country wouldn't actual be unconstitutional. The president can declare such a ban as "protecting America" since immigration is seen as an issue of national security. Congress could pass a law preventing such an action but, as things stand now, the law leans more to deportation than immigrant friendly.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 01:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Except for the 1 million that legally immigrate every year and the 20 million currently illegally here. CorruptUser (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well that is why Obama is getting sued for creating DACA because he may not be enforcing the current immigration law which would be unconstitutional. There isn't a whole lot of incentive to deport everyone en masse because it would destroy certain industries which exploit these workers. Jimmy Carter suspended Iranians from entering when the Iranian hostage crisis occurred. Congress has banned anarchistsWikipedia's W.svg, communistsWikipedia's W.svg, socialists, fascists, ChineseWikipedia's W.svg, and most AsiansWikipedia's W.svg from entering by law. Emma Goldman was deported because of her political beliefs using an immigration lawWikipedia's W.svg. The Supreme Court ruled that an Indian Sikh was "racially inelgibleWikipedia's W.svg" of becoming naturalized under the naturalization law at the time and the Supreme Court has only reaffirmed the government's right to expel immigrants without judicial oversight under a 1977 decision. Hell the president can seize migrants' remittance pay or a foreign country's property by declaring a state of emergency using the International Emergency Economic Powers ActWikipedia's W.svg.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand this discussion. This Muslim was US born; what in the fuck does that have to do with Trumps statements on immigration? The deliberate, mindless distortions commie-libs generate is what is repsonsible for, and adds sympathy and support to, Trumps rise. nobsBern baby bern 02:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Because in spite of him being American born, Trump is still using this as proof that we shouldn't let Muslims immigrate. As for Trump's rise, no it's fairly simple. The Media decided to humiliate the Republicans this year, and rather than cover any reasonable candidate (Kasich, Pataki), it was Trump TRUMP Trump TRUUUMMP! But the public saw his face everywhere, and a few started to vote for him. Then the media realized they had created a monster, and have spent the past year running the most obvious smear campaign. But the public is not entirely fucktarded, and realized they were being manipulated, so out of spite they started supporting Trump. As for the Dems, I do think the Media has been in Hillary's pocket considering that Bernie got so much less attention than Hillary until the very end. CorruptUser (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well Trump and Clinton have been prominent figures for decades and Trump was accepted as an elite so I find it disingenuous that his views are only now deplorable. I remember when most of the media called for Sanders to drop out after the super Tuesday in the midwest but after he went on a winning streak they all started to criticize the superdelegates convoluted endorsements. The media manufactured consent for Trump and helped Trump to normalize this hateful vitriol.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
CorruptUser (love that name by the way) Do you have a link on Trump using the Orlando shooting to argue for a ban on Muslim immigration? nobsBern baby bern 03:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a news headline: Hillary tells her donors to stop funding terrorism. nobsBern baby bern 03:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll retract that statement. Fair enough.
Owl, what makes you think I only started disliking Trump now and not back in 2012? CorruptUser (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I never said you did only that the media didn't find his statements against Japan etc in 1980 wrong and if they did it didn't stop them from toting him as a successful businessman who ought to be respected.
@Rob Also here he is stating he would ban Muslims.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 04:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. And good work, Owlman, thanks. It's the same sort of disgusting political opportunism that both Hillary and Obama deservedly have been reviled for. nobsBern baby bern 20:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you spot it?[edit]

From the above:

the PBfreespace that is talking to you in this section believes that immigration of Muslims, particularly Arabs, Wahhabis, and Pashtuns; should be restricted

Arabs, Wahhabis, and Pashtuns

One of these is not like the others! Kids, can you spot it? Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Wahhabis. One could extend Wahhabi to mean extremist Pashtun though, like Taliban supporters (which this shooter's dad was during the 2000s and today). PBfreespace (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you understand what Wahhabism is? If you're looking for a catch all word for "ultraconservative Muslim," use Salafi. And for obvious reasons, terms which describe religious affiliation should never be used along with terms with describe racial or ethnic identity. But then again, I suppose this thread wouldn't exist if those reasons were so obvious. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me, "conservative Sunni" or "fundamentalist Sunni" would be more accurate; Salafism is mainstream today. nobsBern baby bern 18:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Pashtun are sexy. Wait, that's what we are talking about, right? CorruptUser (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Kurds are more sexy, you have to admit. Come on CorruptUser. PBfreespace (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Savage. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 04:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are going for for the Amazonian fetish only, yeah, can't go wrong with Kurdish women. But Pashtun women are almost as badass as the Kurds, but with a chance of red hair and green eyes.
Hooray for Lily Evans, the Pashtu hero :D :D :D--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 13:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well this conversation changed directions rather suddenly Demosn (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
And I think I'm on another watch list. CorruptUser (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously they should never have let Obama's father into Hawaii. He might have been a Muslim. He was jailed by the British for involvement in the Kenyan independence movement so he could have been a terrorist. Who knows what his son might have done?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. Independence movements aren't terrorist except in rare circumstances (Chechnya), so that wouldn't be covered. Nice try. PBfreespace (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
"Freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are defined politically. He was jailed by the British at one time for the activity so I would suspect they were thinking the latter. But more importantly for this argument, I suspect that that would have been the interpretation of an earlier incarnation of Trump. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Many or most so-called freedom fighters in Africa or Asia are worse than the actual or purported tyrants they're fighting against.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think, the US should use extensive background checks of any immigrant (don't they do that already?), Muslim or not (how'd you know one's a Muslim? It's a religion, not a so-called "race", there are Muslims from very white til very black (and many with East Asian faces, too) and most or many Muslims also wear the same clothing as anyone else does) and also interview them, when they come to the US. Who knows, Freespace may even vote for Trump, he agrees with him about the immigration policy.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I depends upon what you mean by "Muslim"; if you mean adherenet to Islam, Islam is not just a religion, it is a political system like democracy, socialism, or communism. nobsBern baby bern 20:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The US already has an extremely rigorous process in place.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 04:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
i thought the us already routinely refuses visas for people from certain parts of the world. I have friend who was refused a visa because they were born in nigeria, and i seem to remember a family with links (maybe dual citizenship) to india were not allowed to board their flight AMassiveGay (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
[3] AMassiveGay (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Kugelschreiber, I'm not voting for Trump. Read my damn userpage and you'd know that. I'm surrogate voting for Jill Stein this year, unless Bernie Sanders doesn't massively come out in favor of Hillary Clinton, in which case I'll write him in. PBfreespace (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful. Either a vote for the Green Party and homeopathy, or a write-in vote that will be discarded due to its mathematical meaninglessness in our electoral system. Clearly dealing with a mass intelligence here. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
First, this. Now, Castaigne, who do you support? I hate the bullshit! Oh, Stein is bad on this one unimportant issue (homeopathy)! Therefore noone should vote for her! WAAHHHH!!!! Quit the bullshit. Hillary is far worse than Stein and doesn't deserve our vote. She is also very homeopathic medicine-supporting, so you're shit on that point, Castaigne. I don't give a shit about mathematical meaninglessness! Do you think I care whether I throw away my vote? My vote is already pointless since I live in a state whose electoral votes are all going to Trump anyway! Criticizing me for "ohh, you're throwing away your vote, idiot" is just stupid, since it doesn't matter anyway. PBfreespace (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
First, this. Now, Castaigne, who do you support?- PBF
I couldn't tell you. The conventions haven't happened yet. After the nominations for D/R are completed, I will compare party platforms decided at the convention and choose whichever one is more suitable. Unless things change remarkably, that will likely be the Democratic platform and thus the Democratic candidate. Who will be Clinton or whoever is nominated.
Oh, Stein is bad on this one unimportant issue (homeopathy)! Therefore noone should vote for her!- PBF
Not Stein. The Green Party. Homeopathy is a plank of the Green Party platform. As long as it is there, I will never vote for the Green Party candidate. Period. This is aside from being a mathematically wasted vote, since a third party cannot win a US Presidential election.
Hillary is far worse than Stein and doesn't deserve our vote.- PBF
She's no better or worse than any other politician. And no one "deserves our vote". I don't even know what you mean with that term.
She is also very homeopathic medicine-supporting, so you're shit on that point, Castaigne.- PBF
I can't find that in either the current Democratic platform or on her policy positions on her website. Could you point where that is? Thanks.
I don't give a shit about mathematical meaninglessness! Do you think I care whether I throw away my vote?- PBF
Clearly you don't, from your statements.--Castaigne2 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. I think it's stupid to eliminate a party choice from your list because of one minor issue. The whole platform should be taken into account, the issues ranked by importance, and then tallied up. Whoever you agree with more should be who you pick, unless certain electoral circumstances prejudge your vote otherwise (as in my case).
  2. Hillary is worse than Stein, as her policy positions are much more to the right. Stein deserves my vote more than Hillary, as she would help people like me more than Hillary would. Do you get it?
  3. I gave you a fucking link, is that not good enough. Here and here. There are some more link for ya.
  4. I want to vote for Stein/Sanders as an ideological point. If more people than in the past few elections vote for a third party, it will be a sign for political pundits that the major candidates aren't likeable and the party platforms should change to better suit the wishes of American voters. As such, my vote would be ideologically significant if not mathematically. PBfreespace (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. I do not vote for any political candidate whose personal/party platform includes a) Young Earth Creationism, b) Woo, C) or Pseudolaw. Those are my bedrock rules. It's why I'll never vote Constitution Party or Libertarian Party either.
  2. If that's how you choose to define worse for yourself. If you want my personal opinion, I'd say that Stein is a low-rent statie who can't play with the big boys, while Clinton is a fairly expert Machiavellian game-player. I generally prefer the latter as my politician of choice. Whether the policies are more right or left is frankly irrelevant to me. Only the platform is relevant to me.
  3. No, those links are not good enough. I require that the position be on the party platform or the personal platform. If it's not on the platform, I do not care.
  4. We don't really have a real 'third party' in the US. We have vanity parties. There's a formula to becoming a major party, and not a one of them, including the Greens, actually follow it. In a nutshell (and, yes, this is terribly oversimplified), it's a matter of starting first with the easiest contests. And they need to get people elected in those easy contests nationwide, not just in California or a few friendly states. School boards, elected delegates, city councils, etc. Then they move on to slightly more difficult positions. State legislatures and so forth. They need to become a household name before they even begin to put resources into a Presidential campaign. The Greens have a whopping 134 people in office in the US. They blow a ridiculous amount of their funds on the Presidential race, despite the fact that they haven't even developed a significant foothold in Congress. Basically, it's masturbation. We're a two-party system not because the R's and the D's are too entrenched, but because nobody else wants to put forth the effort to become as entrenched as they are. Dr. Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, et al are around to make a point, but that's about it. Every one of them knows they haven't got the party apparatus to get elected, and every one of them lies to supporters about them having a chance, because fundraising. So go ahead and make that point. It'll be soundly ignored. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
There is much wisdom & truth in what you say. But ultimately, a third party would simply replace one of the two existing parties which would just die away (as the Republicans did to the Whigs, for example). There really isn't room for three party governance in our system. Hell, it's all we can do to create bi-partisanship. At least we're not hearing the old "unity through fragmentation" argument usually brought out to tout third parties. And when a new third party eventually does supplant one of the exisitng parties, all the remaining adherents from a former major party would jump ship to the new party, bringing thier experience, ideoloigies, and prejudices with them. So you'd have new wine in old wineskins.
Bottomline: stop belly-aching about how corrupt the two parties are and step up and be a reformer. If you (rhetorically speaking) are not doing this, or waiting for someone else to do it, or dreaming about third party non-sense, or just apathetic -- you are part of what is wrong our body politic. nobsBern baby bern 00:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

People[edit]

I was kind of joking. I put this proposal forth both as a social experiment to see how RationalWiki members would react, and to add more talking points to our Trump article. I now hope these great people who tore down my proposition will go to the Trump article and add their refutation to Trump's Muslim ban proposal. PBfreespace (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, kindest greetings to all across the internet who are watching this fascinating episode. PBfreespace (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to avoid the partially shaved orangutan in the room here. You can touch up that article all you want. StickySock (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, social experiment. Right. We believe you.
Fucking liar. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, no. Go edit articles yourself, instead of "social experimenting" people to do it for you, you lazy shitfuck. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, some great and nice responses here. This was shits and giggles. Just because I played around for a few hours doesn't mean I'm all the sudden an evil, Trump-supporting POS. Stop the silly tribalism bullshit, this is why the left is losing. PBfreespace (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not left. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Good. We don't want you. PBfreespace (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Nice to see you back Castaigne2. I see your constant swearing and insulting other users is still intact. Are you still vandal binned?Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This person was in the vandal bin? No wonder. Nerd (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The big issue here[edit]

Hai, I made a new subsection so you'd all see me me me me. Anyhoohow: If we just murdered people for their ethnicity indiscriminately, this never would have happened. If we banned nightclubs, this never would have happened. If ifs and ands were pots and pans, this never would have happened because we'd have all choked to death. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 00:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Madness trumps all. Just an aside, I see that you quoted a nerd on your user page. Ha ha ha! Nerd (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It uses the username of the person looking at it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 06:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Very nice! Nerd (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Matters of unknown importance (Add to "Pissed at us"?)[edit]

Recently, I was browsing your Facebook page, and found a creationist and chiropractor (big surprise) very upset that they were blocked from editing. I am now wondering if this should be added to Rationalwiki:pissed at us or if not, state so and dismiss it.

Here is what they posted in response on the same day:

Comment posted by Bob Kinser
"The RationalWiki website states that it invites opposing opinions. But when I attempted to provide a profound argument for the creation of life using the scientific method, I am blocked from the site. My book cannot be disputed. and I challenge anyone to do so by requesting free epub or mobi files for their cellphone at [REDACTED] There are two kinds of people. Those who are genuinely looking for truth, and those who have an agenda. Which one are you?"

Note: The email was redacted (still on the original post if anyone wants to call it a coincidence) due to not knowing if it is allowed or not here. The name probably does not matter anyways.— Unsigned, by: Biologically Mad / talk / contribs

When someone says "my book cannot be disputed, read it for free!" it's a sure sign the book will be in not even wrong territory. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's sourced well, specific to RationalWiki enough - and the guy is literally pissed enough - then I see no reason why it couldn't be added, considering the missionality of chiropractors and creationists generally. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Livestream[edit]

Bernie Sanders is doing a livestream speech now. I'm watching. It sounds like a "I've lost, but let's continue the campaign to become something more". Does this link work for people? PBfreespace (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

For a split second my brain really tried hard to imagine Bernie Sanders streaming e-sports. Associations with that word. The stream works for me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders this is a humble plea asking you, to be a caster for The International 2016'Legionwhat do you want from me 00:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If I were him, I would basically do the equivalent of a Kickstarter for a Progressive PAC organization that funds far left-wing state and national congressional candidates. PBfreespace (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, say what you will about Bernie, but for the few minutes I've been listening now, he's only been talking about the real issues, and in an important way. In a way that a guy like Trump never could or would care to do. I do like Bernie, on a personal level; even if he's a terrible politician (in the sense that Hillary is a brilliant politician). The one thing that's bothering me right now is that I wish that he'd just work to unify the democrats. Maybe that's what he's getting to? Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, this is just one little speech, but - he seems to be warming up to HRC a little. He still isn't quitting his campaign however, but who knows, maybe he can actually rally his voters to Hillary's side if they manage to work closer to each other now that the tension of him even having a possibility of beating her is gone. Maybe he'll put some more leftist pressure on HRC, and maybe she'll give in to the pressure, and maybe they'll unite the democrats and actually make it more progressive than if he had just quit his campaign. That'd be the dream scenario I suppose. Who knows. All I know is that Trump can't win or it'll be like the video I posted above. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders just criticized the DNC by making a Howard Dean-like remark about how the Democrats should be competing in all 50 states rather than ignoring them and giving them up to the Republicans. PBfreespace (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know what that means, but I think it's good that he encourages people to also seek the grassroots positions and get involved politically and so on. For people, young blood, dedicated people, to participate in society and so on... That's what I heard, and I agree with that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And there, the speech is over... I thought it was a nice speech. I like Bernie, as far as politicians - US politicians no less - go. Also, did you mean you thought he did something akin to this? ^^

Back in 2006, Howard Dean became the Democratic National Committee chairman. He criticized the way the DNC was running its campaigns. He wanted them to put their campaign and advertising money more equally into all states rather than 'swing states'. In 2004, the Democrats lost. In 2008, after Howard Dean had implemented this "50 state strategy", the Democrats won back control of both the House and Senate, and regained the presidency. Look at the county percentages in 2004 and 2008 as one example. Bernie was basically saying that we should do what Dean did. Since the 2008 election, the Democrats have lost both the House and the Senate again, and the Republicans control like 2 out of every 3 state legislatures and governorships. Bernie thinks that by appealing to more 'rural' type people, that the Democrats might gain back some ground. PBfreespace (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Well, shooting from the hip - his intention is clearly good. To wrestle back the power democratically from the GOP. Thumbs up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders is one of those politicians you can take seriously, in a good way. He focuses on issues that matter to his voters. For example, why else would he flatly refuses to talk about Hillary Clinton's "damned emails" during the very first Democratic debate? Nerd (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If only his supporters followed his example, right Nerd? Typhoon (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrong! That was before the FBI investigation was confirmed by the chief himself, Typhoon. It is now a serious issue and is yet another item on her list of liabilities. Nerd (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox Christian on their differences with Catholics[edit]

"Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, she does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science." - By Father Michael Azkoul, St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO

Keep in mind this is a supposed to be in favour of Orthodox Christianity. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not unique, everyone from the Catholic Aquinas to the Sunni al-Ghazali said something similar. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Not an expert on Catholicism but IIRC this (difference between Orthodox and Romans) is best illustrated with Transubstantiation. The RC church says Transubstantiation is a real thing, despite the fact that science can't detect any change, because things must have properties that are true but aren't measurable. So it's possible for something to "be" blood, even though it isn't measurably different from wine. This involves more frantic hand-waving than trying to pretend Donald Trump isn't racist but it can claim to be "compatible" with science. Whereas the Orthodox just says the wine definitely turns into blood and refuses to engage with the fact that it doesn't at all, if you are persistent you'll be told it's a "holy mystery". In contrast to both most other branches of Christianity decided that the wine just symbolises blood and it's OK for their believers to notice that it's actually just wine still after the ritual. In certain cases (particularly popular in the US) they've even persuaded themselves that it should be regular grape juice instead of wine so that they can continue pretending they don't drink booze. It is most fun to watch them accepting their grape juice while obviously hung over, man that irony must physically hurt. Tialaramex (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
i have never understand why some religious folk try find scientific explanations for miracles. Its seems more hnonest to me, and involves less torturous logic, to just say 'its beyond science because god willed it. Goddidit in effect. Isnt that the point of miracles? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I just can't believe they flat out stated they don't care about facts or science that oppose their position, that their moronic delusions are somehow above "man's intellectual accomplishments". I hate arrogant idiots. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
it seems like a reasonable position. I dont really see it as particular arrogant or moronic. It takes away the argument that scientific achievement can somehow out shine god. It says that whatever man do with stem cells, genetic engineering, computers, robots etc, god can with a click of his fingers. It says man can do the things it does because god gave us the skills (he left me out there the arsehole) and the circumstances for us to do them. Its all arse sure, but what logical or scientific arguments are going to trump faith in an almighty being? I think it more arrogent to think people are going to take the time to formulate and respond with apologetics that most know full well are weak and plays no part in their faith to begin with. It flies in the face of all i observed of human nature. The smart move for them is to say goddidit and not engage. The moronic approach is to answer with spurious logic and wonky science to explain how god did it. If science can do that, then we have the literal power of a god. I am high and an imbecile, bear that in mind in any response. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump finally lands the 2016 world presidency: a vision for our future[edit]

Just shut up and watch this, please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Japanese version of wp:Daisy (advertisement)? Leuders (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Those look like Soviet T-72s, shouldn't they be using the blocky American and NATO tanks? Or are they trying to compare a Trump presidency to the 20th century "communist" dictatorships? Lord Aeonian (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of comparisons to 20th century dictatorships in general (not just Communist ones)... Pause the video at 0:45. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw the Nazi references, there were several, I just want to know if they were trying to say something by using PACT tanks or if they just overlooked it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah... Makes me wonder what, if anything, they were trying to say with this entire thing. What one could not claim, however, is that this is part of any "persecution" of Trump. If anything, this appears to be some kind of fan art to the meme of the Trump, if nothing else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize, I forgot the part where Trump was a Transformer. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I liked the part where he was a dinosaur... No wait; it was actually nightmare fuel. Scratch that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Mother of mercy, this is definitely the strangest thing I have ever seen in ages. I wish I could unsee it. I'm a biologist... and a madman. (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't watch the vid (I've seen enough Trumpaganda to last me for the rest of my life) but those appear to be Japanese Type 74 tanks, not particularly out of place in a Japanese video. My guess is the images were just easy to find. (apologies for the interjection, I just really like tanks)ConcernedCitizen (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dude... This joke is clearly at Trump's expense. Watch the video. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy Doomsday to all! Happy Doomsday to all! Happy Doomsday! Happy Doomsday! Happy Apocalypse! Nerd (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been asked before, but why do people think Trump can win?[edit]

  • Polling average:
  • Endorsements:
  • And, the four myths:

Where does a Trump victory fit into this? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't explain myself, my opinion is that people here (usually liberals in America) tend to think Trump will win because of the human tendency to create worst case or apocalyptic scenarios and then live in them. Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Why people think Trump can win? Dude, what video did I just post right above this thread? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's my cause for concern, and it's not evidence-based, it's a litmus test I developed for myself. "What are the least informed centrists I know saying?" And Trump, like W in 2000, is passing that test. McCain, Romney, and Kerry all failed it pretty hard. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Simple, really. Trump might win because the Democrats insist on running Hillary Clinton. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@ikanreed: Heh. That's fair, all my friends who whine about US ECONOMY COLLAPSING BUY GOLD!!! are Trumpetistas. Apparently hating the system correlates with liking a candidate who will probably destroy it.
@Smerdis: but but POLLS The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
What ikanreed said, personally. I'm also thinking of the NeverHillary camp from the other side of the fence. This is turning into (if it isn't already) an election more of "voting against" than "voting for". ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Republican leaders were initially hopeful that they could get a collar on Trump, or at least control his ego-driven gaffes, but are quickly coming to the conclusion that he really can't be controlled. I'll go out on a limb and predict there will be a "convention intervention" to remove him from the ticket, resulting in a 3 way race with a GOP stand-in like Paul Ryan and an Independent Party Trump competing against Hillary. Could happen. Leuders (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Just as a trial balloon; wouldn't that cause an even bigger uproar in the Republican party, as Trump is - as I understand things - partially or largely carried by voters who are pissed at the old way of running things in the GOP and want to punish the "establishment Republicans"? I mean, wouldn't they all go haywire if Trump was forcefully removed from inside the party, so to speak? PS: I ask just to be given a perspective on this. I currently lack one, especially on the Trump-GOP dynamics. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, the percentage of the population that supports Trump would go haywire. But I think the GOP would gamble on doing a hard reboot beginning in July, and spending gazillions of Koch dollars in promoting their new candidate (whoever it is) as a savior of the people. Leuders (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. If that imagined scenario were to hold true, that means in a sense that the Republican party is just wasting its time and dollars right now - with allowing Trump to futher a platform partially based on him being precisely that "loose cannon" the disgruntled voters want for a Republican president, I mean? "Gamble" is the right word in that scenario... I can't see the GOP winning the election in that case, if they had to somehow get Trump off the stage that late in the game...
It sounds so far-fetched to ditch Trump at this point, even if it'd actually work and he'd go relatively peacefully (which I seriously doubt - you think Bernie's stubborn for holding on? Imagine if the GOP tried to cheat Trump of all people out of realising his most climactic Emperor Nero fantasy) what with the amount of support he actually has (compared to people like Ron Paul or whoever) and much of that support being based on them wanting a man willing to lash out just as excitedly against the establishment Republicans as against the Democrats... Which reminds me, who would replace Trump as Republican candidate for president? Marc Rubio? They don't have a second candidate even close to being as popular as Trump, as far as I know?
Sounds like the only hurdle for the Democrats to win if this (admittedly both hypothetical and, due to my lack of expertise, sophomoric) scenario holds is for Bernie to actually pool his followers to HRC in order to atleast guarantee a Democrat win... But what do I know? Nothing, that's what. Again, I'm asking to find out. And a good way to do that is always to shoot off a few zany trial balloons and see how people explain it all back to you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Imposing my own seat of the pants gut feeling on the poll data, I would guess that a little over 30% of the population are hard core Trump supporters. On top of that are 10-20% who lean toward or away from Trump, depending on which way the wind is blowing. I think the GOP is willing to gamble that they can survive Trump going off on his own (he's threatening to do it anyway just because he can't stand to be contradicted or criticized - by anyone) and find a Karl Rove type genius to engineer a new GOP candidate who embodies all of Trump's popular positions but is ultimately controllable. Leuders (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't know, don't care. I'd like him to win just so my fellow citizens can be taught a lesson. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Americans don't learn lessons. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Good post.

Does anyone around here familiar with US politics remember the remark Rick Santorum made about Mitt Romney right before the 2012 convention? He said something like "Mitt Romney is the worst person in the country to run against Barack Obama. We will lose for sure." That was pretty prescient. The Republicans wanted to run someone against an inspiring, visionary, likeable leader. The person they chose: a rich, stuck-up millionaire private-equity firm manager politician with few fixed principles. Do you see why they lost? They ran Obama's polar opposite, and the polar opposite wasn't good enough. Now, the Democratic Party needs to run someone against an outsider charismatic billionaire businessman with a large populist base, and who did they pick? An insider stuck-up career politician who changes her views like phones. They're running a corrupt establishment politician against the ultimate anti-establishment figure. The Hillary Campaign rests on a false premise. The entire premise of their campaign rests upon the American people being willing to pick an insider against an outsider. That's entirely against everything America was founded on. We love outsider underdog rebel-types. This antiquated, establishment notion of "oh, of course the people will come to their senses and vote for the less extreme, token candidate" is bullshit, and will be proven such 5 months from now. PBfreespace (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that bet. How much real money you want to put down that Clinton wins? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you may be right, and it was an interesting analysis. Thanks for writing it. On another note, said from outside the US and this whole race, let me just say that part of the overall absurdity in the whole situation is the idea - not of the underdog, of the rebel, of any of that - but that the orange white male American celebrity millionaire Donald Trump, known for getting back on his feet with the meagre assistance of loans on just a million dollars, is the man who can be spun into representing or embodying the "underdog", the "rebel", the "outsider", or anything those words mean outside of the spin-doctored American political arena. I mean, he might be as much of an outsider as you can be... as a member of the top 1%. And I'm not disagreeing with what you say, with how you describe the characters involved and so on... I'm just, on a personal level, as a Swede and not an American (though with a very friendly disposition to y'all), as an outside observer looking in from a frankly, uh, different society - shocked at how so many relatively poor, uneducated, and frankly mistreated Americans can somehow seem to genuinely feel that any type of "gap" between them and "the establishment" is being abridged - in the good sense - by a guy like Trump of all people. Like they finally have "one of theirs" up there - in what sense is he anything like them, or his "struggle" even comparable to theirs? I'm just in awe that they project upon him to such a degree that there's any familiarity, even solidarity (which blows my mind) towards him whatsoever. The immersion of the whole narrative is, for me, at wrestling level. People keep talking about the backstories and the feuds and the dramas and the good and the bad and how the two wrestling opponents are so different and represent such opposing views... And I just can't fit that much nuance into what feels as hyped as wrestling fandom (with the obvious exception that wrestling is staged and politics isn't, of course). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You're right about the silliness of many Americans seeing a billionaire as their champion against "the system", but it makes sense if you understand American culture. The poor in America tend to see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed capitalists", to quote John Steinbeck. It's all the "American dream" propaganda you get fed in school (I know; I went to American public school). "If you work hard you will get rich!" Hence, the poor are poor because they're lazy degenerates, and the government TAKING YOUR MONEY is a criminal act, unless it's for blowing up foreigners or throwing minorities in jail, because they're scary. It's your birthright as an American to be rich, so if you aren't rich it's obviously either something you're doing wrong, or the fault of someone else. --Ymir (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Call it American Exceptionalism. We don't want to disembowel and casterate the rich; we all wanna be rich. nobsBern baby bern 05:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Every American I know hates Trump, his candidacy is a joke around the world. Where is this massive anti-establishment electorate? Especially when the anti-establishment rebels tend to be young and progressive. They really love Trump. Really. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The 4chan/reddit alt-right/neoreaction pileup is getting pretty big and smugly self-satisfied now. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@ikanreed: Speaking from personal experience, that ones who were "conservative" a few years ago seem to have transformed into altright race-baiters and mememasters -- but not the liberals. I'm thinking that the altright is eating the right. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I hope by "eating", you don't mean "growing into". Because the alt-right almost make me nostalgic for the right (as vague as that juxtaposition is... but you get my drift. The alt-righters are nuts). I can't believe I just wrote that, but I fear it may be true. So; I hope you DON'T mean the alt-right are Borg-assimilating people into their numbers at a growing pace. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope, assimilation is exactly correct. A lot of the young conservatives became Gamergaters became altrighters. I think it's just more fun to rant about degenerates when you've got more than 1 kind of degenerate. Damn Cultural Jewxicans. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
"Jewxicans", that's a new one... I tried saying it out loud and it just became "Jew shit-cans". Sounds like it could be a prospect addition to the Cuck-o-tron 3000? Anyways, depressing to hear that the alt-right is getting traction. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pbfreespace: How do you square those words with the polls upon polls that show Clinton being more popular and less unfavorable? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Clinton might be (slightly) more popular now. In the last 23 days, RealClearPolitics says she has an average spread in the polls of 6 above Trump. There are still 5 more months to go, and a lot can change in 5 months. The Trump you are about to see in October will be nothing like the Trump you saw in the primary debates. In other words: this isn't even his final form. He's going to be all over Hillary in the general. In 2012, Mitt Romney thought he could win by being very moderate ("Moderate Mitt") and centrist. He lost. Obama won in 2008 by being very liberal, and in 2012 as well. I predict that Trump will attack Clinton from a populist and somewhat left-wing(!) angle. You're going to hear policy substance about the wars in Libya and Iraq, bad trade deals that let other countries screw us, rich Wall Street donors and special interests ("I'm self funding!"), and most of all, the word "establishment".
Here's what I predict the end speech of Trump's final debate with Clinton will be: "We've seen the terrible policies of Ms. Clinton time and time again. Whether it's bad trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, terrible wars in Libya and Iraq that destabilized the region and led to the rise of ISIS, rigging and election fraud in the primary, or incompetence and corruption in the handling of classified e-mails, Hillary Clinton will not be good for this country. If you want to vote for the Washington establishment, then vote for Hillary Clinton. If you want to send a message to Washington and the establishment, you should vote for Donald Trump."
That's all he needs to do. If he does wide-ranging variations of those themes, he will win. I understand your skepticism of my view, but believe me, I'm right on this one. PBfreespace (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Except he won't stick to that script. He won't listen to strategists or advisors. He'll only listen to his ego, which tells him he's the greatest and he knows best about everything. So instead he'll hint that the Bin Laden raid was faked, Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist, Michelle had a secret abortion, and Hillary paid a mafia hit man to murder Vince Foster. You think I'm kidding, but this National Enquirer-level stuff is the sum total of his playbook. Leuders (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That kinda shit is too weird even for him.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC) 22:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It hasn't been too weird for him yet. Not at all. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Those links man... Trump is such an insane trollfaced asshole I'm almost worried I may start liking the guy! (But just almost; also, if I were American it'd be a whole 'nother story). Seriously though, with the type of Trump moves linked here going on already, Leuders' analysis has to be granted as being spot on. And that's a bit terrifying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, I'll take that bet. How much real money do you want to put down on it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to bet money over the internet. I'll bet my userpage that Trump wins. If Trump wins, I get to edit your user talk page (sans obvious libel and vandalism), and if Hillary wins, then you get to do the same to my userpage. Deal? PBfreespace (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
In practice, you just significantly raised the bet. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
No deal. What you're offering is essentially meaningless to me. If I won, I'd not be doing anything to your user talk page - I would see no point.
No, I put money where my mouth is. I've got the same bet going on with my Crankpot Coworker (gold standard, Bilderberg, chemtrails, etc) for $100.00. Real money. Something I actually care about. I'm happy to put down real money on the bet, but everything else is just dosh and blather. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll bet a $20 donation to the RationalMedia Foundation on Clinton to win. @PB: there will be no teleprompters allowed in the general election debates, so the "end speech of Trump's final debate with Clinton" will actually be something more like "We don't win anymore...the American people...our country...we're getting schlonged...China is killing us...I'll build a wall...believe me...Mexico will pay for it...when I'm president, we will win...bigly...bigly". Leuders (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ahahahaha! Made me laugh ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Kinda like this? --Ymir (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk), could you please also post the margins of error and the sample sizes if such information is available? That would help a lot. Thank you! Nerd (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Of which ones? The Huffpost polls list the error bars and sample sizes if you click on each polling organization (for example), and the RCP polls list Sample/MoE right on the table with links to more specific information when you click on each poll. They're like... there. Like. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is terrifying[edit]

This has been posted to WIGO ("Gaze into the abyss"), but I just had to comment on it to you guys anyways... Afaik, a normal person decided to just visit a Trump rally (not a protester or anything, just there to observe) and quietly live-tweeted his private thoughts on what he saw there. It reads like a parody, yet it's not - "enjoy". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does this terrify, surprise, bother, or shock you?
This is just humanity at its base. The lowest common denominator. Your typical fellow man, stripped of their supposed ideals and ethics and "higher nature".
I keep telling people this and they don't listen. And that's why we deserve a Trump presidency. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you do. I could do without the return of fascism. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
We Americans need a harsh lesson on what people are really like again. We make the mistake of not embracing Hobbes. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
dont they watch the news in the US? Seems plenty of evidence of the 'nasty brutish and short' variety. Is that not why you love your guns? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The news? The Daily Mail provides better news than most American media. As for loving guns, the people that do are generally mall ninjas. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
About what i expected, honestly. Petey Plane (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Terrifying. Makes the riot I saw with my own two eyes, the crowd chanting "Fuck Donald Trump", throwing rocks, bottles, and burning T-shirts at police horses, rushing the baricades, smashing windows and police cars, beating up a Trump supporter in a wheelchair, look like a walk in the park. Absolutely frightening. nobsBern baby bern 02:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't vote for Trump, Castaigne2. He's a bad influence and is simply unfit for political office of any kind. Nerd (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, because millions of racist bigots supporting someone who proposes using the full force of the American government to round up 11 million people in a year (or 30,100 people a day), murder the families of enemy combatants, sue media sources for publishing unfavorable pieces and starting a trade war with China isn't more terrifying. Petey Plane (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's not forget he will have access to the nuclear launch codes. Given his volatile temperament, there is no guarantee that he will not become a mushroom farmer even though he may have small hands. Nerd (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, his hands are regular sized! It's his tiny fingers that are much too petite even for a man half his size... ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
That's what I've been saying. I think Trump is a terrible idea. But protests that spiral into riots like that are just going to be proving his, and his supporters', point. There needs to be a certain level of restraint, which is admittedly rather difficult in that sort of size of crowd. (inb4 Tone argument) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You mean, to quote Trump, "There used to be consequences for protesting!"? ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
That rally was fucked up. Bongolian (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Could Cultural Marxism/Sexual Bolshevism "work?"[edit]

If a powerful socialist state actually tried to implement "cultrual marxism" and "sexual bolshevism" in a capitalist country like the US, via planting agents and such, could this actually be a successful way to engender communist support in that nation?

I suppose I don't really understand how things like gay rights make people more likely to support Marxist-Leninist style socialism. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

no idea about the cultural marxist thing, but sexuallity does not in any way make you more likely to support a particular brand of politics. There are plenty of right wing gays, left wing gays, racist gays, sexist gays, femisnist gays, etc etc. It riles me when people make assumptions about my polutical persuasion based on what i do with my cock. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you really riled by assumptions that people assume those who demonize you for political points aren't your political allies? It's not so much that being gay ought to make you left leaning, it's that overt right-wing hate for gays ought to make you left leaning on at least some level. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
the right wing do not have a monoply on homophobia. I dont remember the soviets being too gay friendly. I would imagine a lot of russian gays at the time could be assumed to be right wing by the logic of it being the opposite of their oppressors. There is nothing inherently right wing wbout homophobia. In the uk, it was the tories who legalised same sex marriage. I know gays who idolise thatcher and i know gays who emblazon their gaydar profiles with the facile 'never kissed a tory'. I resent the assumption you can tell ANYTHING about a person solely on their sexualality. I resent it being just another lazy stereotype and i resent my sexuality being hijacked for someones political ends whether they be a right wing nutjob or dirty unwashed hippy. Fight homophobia and hatred takes support from across the political spectrum, not adding to the senseless polarization thats blighting us all by making baseless assumptions. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

For those who don't know the conspiracies in question, here are our relevant pages: Cultural Marxism Sexual Bolshevism Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

According to Hearts of Iron IV, all one needs is a government propagandist and BAM! -- Communist coup.
More seriously, I have doubts that it would work with 100% of the people -- simply because most people don't change their political beliefs and because conspiracist antigovernment nutters (who'd actually be correct) fall on both sides of the spectrum -- but you might get at least 25% of the population to change ideologies over a generation. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
We've had plenty of Frankfurt School nonsense in academia for forty years or more now. We seem to be not much closer to a Communist revolution for all that. Those beliefs don't represent leftist subversion. They represent leftist self-subversion. A retreat away from issues that make a difference in people's lives. A retreat into fantasy. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Before I clicked on what Sexual Bolshevism was, I thought it was an MRM concept to justify rape and sexual entitlement Objective (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

What's sexual entitlement? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The idea that every man is entitled to an attractive woman. It's common among MRA's and terrorists. CorruptUser (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The dark underbelly of sexual entitlement thus being: the idea some highly mateable but clearly heartless cumdumpsters get in their heads, that they somehow have the "right" to just bail on giving the fair pay they owe back to all the Nice Guys who have - without ever being asked to; extra noble - pulled out chairs and held open doors to the c***s and had all those Nice favours be accepted by the misandrist women in question, who totally didn't protest and who thus accepted the tab they had started. You scratch my back I scratch your is REAL equality. Yours has been scratched, now scratch mine already you voting-enabled child. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So I went to Alex Jones' radio show to test my sanity...[edit]

Now I am starting to wonder where all the crazy dialogue went from their staff. Sure, there is mention of Bilderberg, FEMA, etc now and then, but conspiracy theories and rants are now starting to become scarce. And yes, they do talk about guns very often. How am I going to find something worthy of being ridiculed now? I'm a biologist... and a madman. (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

By "went to...", do you mean you actually visited the studio? Petey Plane (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he actually bought tickets for the Live Radio Show (where they record in a Wrestling-type arena with Alex cosplaying The Joker center-stage). More likely, he just listened online. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd pay a surprisingly large amount of money to see Jones fight Shinsuke NakamuraWikipedia's W.svg at an NXT house show in Huston. Petey Plane (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Haha... I'd pay bizarre amounts of top dollars to see a turqouise jumpsuitWikipedia's W.svg-wearing David Icke wrestle President Obama wearing a V-style full body lizard suit. With a bullhorn-wielding Alex Jones as commentator. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
He's a growing boy ♫... I think the time may have come for you to graduate to David Icke. See my sandbox for novel information on the contents of his forums - it's the Bizarro version of RationalWiki: Abandon all faith ye who enter here. (Oh, and make sure you click "Show" on the collapse). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Jones is shifting into a more overtly Christian phase, so i'd expect a greater focus on Glenn Beck style sanctimony in the future. Petey Plane (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The posters in his forum seem to think Christianity is the "source of the all evil," so it's odd for Icke to be Christian. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Petey Yes, part of how and why Infowars exists as it does today at all (compared to the typical, long-stagnated crank website) is because they've been smart enough to do exactly what the corporate lamestream media (which they despise and mistrust so) have done - that is, made sure to spend a very large portion of their budget on their image, on selling adspace for various companies, on clickbaity layout, style over substance, dramatic video edits, photoshopped images, soundbites and familiar hosts' faces, etc, all with the goal of trying to cultivate a rhetorically and emotionally captivating look for a core demographic they want to sink their claws into. All of this, budget-wise, before even giving their content a single thought (though they never fail to budget for extra amounts of insane and completely wrong in their "reporting").
@Aeonian Icke isn't actually Christian. See here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Something about that is correct. They have had a bit more stopped clock moments than usual. For example, one of their writers actually called out extremist christians. I am still waiting for the moment something absurd comes up, but Sturgeon's law keeps ruining it. Biologically Mad (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they're almost up to 2-3% stopped clock rate. Just 97-98% absolute crank insanity. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I remember going on Infowars a lot during the Bush years. (It was my teenage ultra-libertarian conspiracy theorist phase. Mistakes were made.) Back then, it was pretty much all conspiracy material calling Bush a fascist, to the point where you'd have to do some digging to really get the sense that Jones was right-wing. As an experiment, I went into the Internet Archive and pulled up the front page of Infowars from June of every year since 1999 (the earliest it goes). The headlines from the 2000s read like paranoid libertarian rants about the rise of the police state and endless war; though there were warning signs in its occasional anti-Latino xenophobia, it wasn't a major theme of the site. It definitely seemed like he was trying to broaden his audience to anti-Bush activists on the far-left. The shift started creeping in around '08 (the year that Obama was running for President), but it only really entered full bloom in '13 and '14. Now, it reads like every other right-wing blog with its Trump worship, xenophobia against Latinos not 'assimilating', Islamophobia, and defense of law enforcement abuses. The last one especially is the sort of thing he used to rail against during the Bush years as the police state in action; as late as 2010, his site had a "Police State" section on the front page criticizing things like the no-fly list, excessive force, and less-lethal weaponry. Now, he's wholeheartedly embraced it, calling for precisely the same draconian police state that he used to criticize, only directed against the 'right people'. Methinks that the rise of Black Lives Matter (another major bugbear of his) was what made him do such a 180 on such a major libertarian issue; he was all for criticizing cops run amok back when it was white people like him who were afraid, but now that the face of police oppression is a black one, he stands with the people he used to call jackbooted thugs.
Something tells me that this is what he's always been like under the surface, and he just used to mask his views under a veneer of libertarianism. (The fact that his pre-9/11 articles seemed to very much come from the militia milieu seems to lend credence to this, at least in my opinion.) To borrow from the term "welfare chauvinism" (i.e. support for a welfare state, but only for the 'right' people), I like to call this police state chauvinism. It's when people are afraid that their civil liberties are going to be taken away, but at the same time, they believe that those people should have to live under a police state in order to keep the rest of society safe and free. You see it a lot in some of the more extreme rants about 'political correctness' (which is, surprise surprise, another train Jones has hopped aboard), especially the ones that dip into open bigotry: that their rights are a threat to my rights. Freedom for me, but not for thee. This, I think, is what drove a lot of the people who called themselves 'libertarian' during the Bush years only to turn into alt-right rabble-rousers afterwards.
That, or he's a cynical sellout hack who decided in the last few years that the 'angry white male' demographic was more lucrative than the old conspiracy theorist base. Hence the clickbait style of the 'new' Infowars. Him being both is not out of the question, of course. KevinR1990 (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

New from The Onion: Only News Source Man Trusts Has Logo Of Eyeball In Crosshairs . http://www.theonion.com/article/only-news-source-man-trusts-has-logo-eyeball-cross-53106 Petey Plane (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

HTTPS[edit]

I don't feel safe accessing RationalWiki, due to it's lack of HTTPS. Not that I would feel completely safe with HTTPS, but it would be slighter better. I saw this is the 4th time this topic is brought to the Bar. But, this time, I will not simply tell all of you are stupid and lazy people who don't/can't use Let's Encrypt (or whatever name it has now), like the previous topiccers said. Instead, I will say: think about the people who need rationalization! They come here, see that the Illuminatti is spying them through network analysis, and flee. This cat on the ceiling, of the WARNING, is Illuminatti. If you all make this people flee, they will not be rationalized!!!!--199.58.81.144 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we're all in perfect agreement that HTTPS is a feature we ought to have. It's the practical bit that's the problem. Also, may I ask why you are posting with your IP adress showing if you don't feel "safe" without HTTPS? And if it's a proxy, then - why do you worry? As long as you're encrypted between your computer and your proxy, you should be good. And besides, browser HTTPS isn't exactly the be-all, end-all solution to safety (meaning: if you take other steps it's not hopelessly much worse to just browse RW without HTTPS on our end). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Because it's not the IP address of my house, so I don't see benefit in creating an account just to post here, since RW will anyways know the IP I use. Using a proxy/VPN makes the data encrypted between the computer and the proxy/VPN server, thus not allowing the ISP to know what the visitor reads. But and if the proxy/VPN is evil, and decides to know what the visitor is visiting? HTTPS would make it harder. This way, I think there is a big difference there, one more intermediary will know the user interests!--199.58.81.144 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok? I would suggest to you that simply not posting as a BoN but posting under any username has clear-cut security benefits over not doing so. Which, considering what types of threats are actually here, is probably a bigger factor to security than HTTP/HTTPS is. Secondly, sigh... There are trustworthy VPN providers. And on the other hand, you can't ever be truly safe on the Internet either. I mean, if we add HTTPS, that doesn't change the fact that the server(s) that RW run on are more likely to be breached than your VPN provider is; thus, you're safer running a proxy to HTTP RW than running no proxy to HTTPS RW. And the vast majority of your security situation lies in how your actual computer is set up, etc. No offense, but you don't seem that interested in actual internet security, just in the feeling of it... I work in corporate IT, mainly with security issues, so I know what I'm talking about. But anyways, sure, I totally agree that the site ought to have HTTPS anyways. But as you say yourself, it's been taken up many times now. Maybe you should pester David Gerard about it some more? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
There are trustworthy VPN providers, but they can simply turn non-trustworthy withouth the users knowing. I have not suggested that people stop using proxies and VPNs after HTTPS taking place some day. I could not understand why you think I'm not really interested in security and that my computer is improperly set up, could you explain better? Also, I don't know that is BoN! So this prevents me from viewing the clear benefits of creating an username and than abandoning it later. Thanks for linking the article security theater, I will check it.--199.58.81.144 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are always risks... That's my point. Are you running Linux, Windows, or Mac, for starters? (Which dist, if Linux)? All I'm trying to get to here is that: your own computer setup and your own internet safety practices are way more vital to your actual, overall internet security than "if we have HTTPS or not" is. Meaning, if your own internet safety practices and your own computer setup is good enough, you'll be safe enough to be able to stay on RW and contribute until the day we finally get HTTPS. Even if you're a little "on the paranoid side" (^^). So don't worry. That's all I meant.
Also, I'm not saying that I know anything about how your computer is set up - I don't. But, I was trying to say that: unless it is safe as well, then HTTPS amounts to - well, security theatre (the article I linked). Security is just as strong as the weakest link in the chain, and frankly, you have to know more than a few things about configuring your system and good browsing habits before your overall security chain is so strong that HTTP/HTTPS would literally be the weakest link in that chain. I mean, if you run like an unpatched Windows Vista, browsing with some old version of Internet Explorer, running no ad blocker, no functional antivirus installed (or worse, running Norton), etc... My point is, in that scenario, HTTPS on RW doesn't matter for your security. But I don't know anything about your particular setup, of course. I'm just saying.
BoN is a word we use here at RW, it stands for "Bunch of Numbers". It's a word for when people edit anonymously, i.e. using their IP adresses instead of a username, because they sign their posts as a bunch of numbers (their IP). In your case, 199.58.81.144. Anyone who posts from an IP can be called "BoN" for short. It's just one example of how possibly the most important (relative to ease of hiding) security detail you have here - your IP adress - is showing. I mean, proxy or not - this IP is from Kansas, a bit outside Wichita. And more importantly, even with your proxy IP showing, it could let a directed attacker port scan that particular IP and essentially get started on a directed attack... I'm not saying anybody will, I think you'll be fine! This is all an entirely theoretical discussion. But, one of the best simple and easy security tips I can give you right now, no matter what type of setup you have, is: to start editing RW from a registered username, instead of being a BoN and posting with a visible IP. That's all. Thanks and all the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You're talking about something much more serious than an evil VPN, aren't you? You talked about someone attacking a VPN just to get the visitor. As there is nothing that can prevent this type of thing, it's not my focus here! About my OS, I can say I'm using GNU/Linux with some content blocking, but I don't see the need to reveal more info, as I'm not even included in the fleeing people that I described on the starting post - and I'm not paranoid at this moment.--199.58.81.144 (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sites like RW are already blocked in countries like the KSA, you need a VPN or similar systems to access them. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the amount of tunneling and security techniques one needs to browse the general internet from within a dictatorship is so great that it will be of little consequence if the endpoint site has HTTPS or not. Again, it's not bad if we fix HTTPS. But it's possible to take steps that don't depend on whether we implement HTTPS. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
RW is blocked in Saudi Arabia? This is a badge of honor!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 12:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It sure is! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Blocked in KSA? Not blocked in PMR! Nothing is blocked here. Schenok (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah! Someone from Transnistria! You meet all sorts of people on the internet. What is your opinion on the Transnistrian issue? And for that matter, might I ask your ethnicity? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I really don't think asking such questions on the Internet is a good idea, Pbfreespace3. Nerd (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

bias correcting learning group?[edit]

Hi Have you heard of a bias correcting learning group? We could improve ourselves and each other by discussing something (personally/in an email list/forum/composing an article or wiki together) and giving feedback: which sentence/paragraph/post was enlightening, cogent, adding value; a metaphor apt or weak; if the composition could be improved: how; if a bias was committed: which bias (providing a link to the description of that bias on [[4]] or http://energyskeptic.com/2013/cognitive-bias over 250 Cognitive biases, fallacies, errors). The members need to focus on the joy that they are improving, commit fewer biases, learn how to get closer to truth, have a solid foundation, avoid (self)deception. We pay the price of feeling bad because our errors are seen by others and ourselves; this is an investment to avoid remaining in error and keep losing more and more, but instead gain more and more in the future, being able to be proud of real achievements, real performance, better working models, solutions that work in reality, not only in wishful thinking. Practising thinking and writing correctly, without biases improves our ability to, we gain a good habit.

The technology that could make the bias correcting practice viable and efficient: a forum where posts can be tagged by clicking on icons (like/dislike, agree-accept-support, no bias/bias: choose the appropriate one(s) from a given list. Nice to have, not necessary: if the bias tag can be linked to a sentence/paragraph, not only to the whole post. Do you know of any such forum or group?

Janos https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V0mSZRLSouxgdv5v2qsAbJGYoqrQqPqbtqnR4dVA42g/ — Unsigned, by: Jratkai / talk / contribs 23:22, 19 June 2016‎

No thanks. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't really tell what this is about, nor am I honestly too keen on finding out, but I can recommend you read through our article on cognitive biases. I hope they are helpful to you, whatever it is that you do. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like an attempt to reinvent LessWrong from first principles - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Permablocking IP Addresses[edit]

I have seen, that some IP addresses have been block for an infinite amount of time. I don't think this is a good idea for the following reason: An IP address may be assigned to a new PC or someone might move out and leave their IP address to the new inhabitant. Having them permanently banned would create the very real possibility of people banned from this website without ever having done anything wrong. A month long or year long ban should be the maximum and if the same IP comes back after that and does the same shit that got them banned to begin with, we can ban again with relatively little work... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good reminder. The official policy of blocking at RationalWiki generally discourages permanent bans. Nerd (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
3.14 months is usual for egregious editing from an IP - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Nerd (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Should previously permabanned IP-Adresses be paroled? Or their blocks reduced? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest reducing the duration of their blocks. Nerd (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In most cases, yeah. Some are open proxies - David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
How do we find out what is what? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Google whatis ip lookup and pop the IP in, it'll give a range.
Hey DG: there are some proxies with ranges larger than the blocker allows (max is /16). (1) is that possible to fix (2) the edit filter has no such restrictions, any thoughts? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Block them a /16 at a time. That limit is inherent in MediaWiki. /16 is a huge range already - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you can change it, at least if I'm interpreting this correctly. --Ymir (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why debunk conspiracy theories?[edit]

I think the people who believe in conspiracy theories simply don't care about being or not refuted. If they cared about good arguments, they would not end believing in conspiracy theories! If they come to Rational Wiki, at least they can ignore everything written here, claiming this site is liar/ignorant/shill... And if they simply don't read, to begin with?

  1. I believed in conspiracy theories in the past, began to contact only 'friends' (not friends anymore) in my city that believed more or less in the same things, and ignored everyone that didn't agree with me because they were too dumb to understand The Truth®! I only stopped with all this bullshit because in some point I tried to kill myself, and decided to give the psychiatrist a try, and was cured. These other people, were not;
  2. One person of this group does some kind of treatment for years, and I think now is doing something neurological in the same "clinic" I treated myself (this person sat down just in front of me on the reception room). Does not appears to be effective (yet)!;
  3. Other person don't see any value in reading (maybe this person have attention deficit disorder!), needed me to read texts for it (voice) over computer networks (summarizing, of course) to understand what was the campaign it endorsed without knowing exactly for it was for, and believed EVERY place have PRECIOUS knowledge to teach. So this person basically ignored good information and was searching The Truth in every fucking place, like, the restaurant;
  4. My father don't like to read because it's boring and stupid, so he only gets facts that confirm what he says, and turns off the computer. It is more or less like this on real world too, not hiring people who say the work can't be done because it was ill-planned by my father. Closing bank accounts for not reading some message, and losing all the money, etc. He believes in every alternative medicine that exists, and FREE alternative energy taught on poorly made and explained YouTube videos (example: water-powered car). Or sensationalist news on free TV programs. By the way, he forgets any information after a while, so refuting is useless, because he forgets and start believing the same bullshit again. Believing does not requires information!;
  5. One of his brothers used some kind of antibiotic for 30 years, drinking beer everyday, and say doctors know nothing because of BIG PHARMA teaching them lies. He was having some kind of labyrinthitis and simply decided to die and re-incarnate in Mars, because he was to old and wanted a new body anyways. When he went to gynecologist (yep!) it was discovered that he had a hemorragy on the brain, and he refused to do anything about this (some months later, he is "well", and maybe thinks it were lies of the chemical (not spiritual) WESTERN MEDICINE).

For me, all of these are examples of the conspiracy theories coming from REAL mental health problems, so arguing with this kind of people is useless! This prevents me from creating an account and helping the project...--199.58.81.144 (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Because if someone has already read these debunks, or runs into them when first introduced to the theory, before it fully takes hold, it might help. 68.200.26.93 (talk)
Reading debunks is not a vaccine against mental health problems.--199.58.81.144 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The simple truth is this: it's a hobby for skeptics to understand and interpret flawed modes of thinking, to analyze and disassemble what makes them wrong. Not solely for the benefit of anyone operating under the beliefs we're analyzing, but also as an intellectual exercise in our own critical thinking skills. Additionally we try to herd cats enough to form a political force that opposes pseudo-scientific forces that actually bring about harm, hoping to get big placebo regulated, or keep creationism out of science classes. And we try to be a resource for people who are more directly debunking these things to a friend. It's not great, but it achieves a little on all of those fronts. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
If someone doesn't speak out against pseudoscientific ideas and conspiracy theories, the default will be that the ideas must me true. I, probably like many people on RW, once believed a number of pseudoscientific ideas. For me, I think that this was because they were popularized by the media and there wasn't much obvious refutation available. Bongolian (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You think there is noone speaking against pseudo-science, in the entire world? In the entire internet? How about science? It's mere existence already proves there is someone speaking against pseudo-science. But, when you believed in pseudo-science, have you made at least 1 search on Google Scholar? Have you looked scientific sites? Have you engaged in discussions with people who believed in science? I have not, none of these. For me, all were Illuminatti "agents", or were too stupid to see this 'reality'. There was plenty information, and I chose to ignore. Again: if I haven't ignored good arguments, I would never believe in so much bullshit; but, as I ignored, it's irrelevant if you here is refuting the conspiracy theories, because I would ignore you if I heard about Rational Wiki. By the way, I never heard about, because I was afraid of using computers, sometimes I hated them, and couldn't read and think properly, so all I did on Internet was waste time on some kind of anonymous forum! --199.58.81.144 (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Some people are older than dirt and still alive; they actually were sentient in pre-internet days. Nowadays, not all obscure pseudoscience & conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked (e.g., see Essay:Why notability is stupid and I hate it). Bongolian (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
So because you can't prevent every instance of someone believing in conspiracy theories we shouldn't waste time debunking them. Something about that logic seem so familiar... Leuders (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that I can't see who could I help stop believing in shit. Everyone I saw believing in shit had mental health issues, including me. And I can't tell them to treat themselves because they don't belive they have any problem, and that it's a matter of opinion, psychiatry is evil and is used to jail geniuses-dissidents, etc. Just like I told to others too.--199.58.81.144 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Azealia Banks[edit]

She says: "Leave MIA the f–ck alone. You guys are idiots and have COMPLETELY missed the point of what she’s trying to tell you. THIS IS A BLACK PERSON. Sri Lankans/Indians are BLACK. U guys keep for getting that black is not something we share as an ethnicity it’s something we share as a GLOBAL STRUGGLE … the LIBERAL MEDIA has its d–ck so far down you sheeples throats that you can’t even understand what she’s saying. SHES TELLING YOU THAT HER PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING JUST AS OURS ARE. LEAVE MAYA THE F–CK ALONE AND LET HER DO HER PERFORMANCE. FOR F–CKS SAKE." from this article.

The liberal media isn't doing much about BLM, in my experience (if she uses her experience then why can't I?) and they are actually focusing on the refugees. A example of the liberal media focusing on the non-BLM would be here and here from Vox.com.

Now to get a bit more technical. Note: using "Islamophobia" as a key word for Muslim is flawed as not all article concerning islamophobia atcually contain the word unlike "syrian" refugee which will probably be in most articles about them. If we count from the left-wing Guardian search engine, we get 244,000 results for "syrian refugee", 69,500 results for "Islamophobia" and "black lives matter" is 65,600 results.

But that's left-wing UK news. So US new sources.

Left: MSNBC: "syrian refugee" 530 results, "Islamophobia" 82 results, "black lives matter" 1179 results.

Middle: CCN search engine: "syrian refugee" 2500 results, "Islamophobia" is 237 results, 7188 results for "black lives matter".

???: ABC search engine: "syrian refugee" 4951, "Islamophobia" 62, "black lives matter" 75378

Conservative: Fox News: "syrian refugee" 400, "Islamophobia" 276, "black lives matter" 707

Banks now criticizes liberal bias and the liberal media even though the problem of uneven coverage is bipartisan. What do you expect from a person who literally uses "sheeple" and ALL CAPS seriously? I don't think fox news coverage was any better than the LIBERAL BIASED MEDIA, I didn't rate the positive or neutral or negative attitudes of the news stories. We now have data correlating with a news coverage bias but not the attitude bias.

So I don't have data on MIA's claim that: “It’s interesting that in America the problem you’re allowed to talk about is Black Lives Matter. It’s not a new thing to me – it’s what Lauryn Hill was saying in the 1990s, or Public Enemy in the 1980s,” “Is Beyoncé or Kendrick Lamar going to say Muslim Lives Matter? Or Syrian Lives Matter? Or this kid in Pakistan matters? That’s a more interesting question. And you cannot ask it on a song that’s on Apple, you cannot ask it on an American TV programme, you cannot create that tag on Twitter, Michelle Obama is not going to hump you back.”

Also are Lankans and Indians black? I'm really confused after seeing stuff like this and this.

ClickerClock (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have a thesis to your post here. It hops around a bit and clearly centers on BLM but without really making it clear what your point is supposed to be. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I didn't. That was a rant. I was just getting so anger at Banks out.ClickerClock (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Clicker: Yep, the person you quoted is being dumb. If anyone whines about the media -- especially "liberal media" or "mainstream media", it's a red flag for idiocy. (The media is flawed, not centrally-orchestrated.) As for "ethnicity", the speaker is probably referring to the idea of "blackness" -- that any oppressed groups become "black" (so to speak) and are otherized -- made into a "them", much like there are "whites" and "nonwhites". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Westerners are silly. I like how she sees no difference between Sri Lankans and everyone else in India as well. Seriously, try to speak Hindi in a Tamil speaking area. They won't be happy :D

Edit: What is MIA going on about? Muslim lives in Pakistan matter? When Zia-ul-Haq and everyone's favorite Salafi Abu Maududi were propped up by the West to Islamify Pakistan? Hahaha, the Westerners actually believe the West is oppressing Islam. I wonder why they send trillions to the Wahhabi propaganda machine, hmm? How about Mossedegh's life mattered? Or the countless other secularists either murdered by the West, or by Western backed Islamists? MIA and anyone who thinks the West is anti-Islam is delusional. Without NATO's Cold War imperialism the Middle East would be in another Golden Age. 3ASH 3ASH NASSER! Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we should care whatever a celebrity says, particularly ones known for making bullshit polemics. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

what the fuck am i reading.jpg --Ymir (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea either.ClickerClock (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

"We're through the looking glass here people..." - Milhouse[edit]

Moved to Talk:Rome_Viharo#Moved_from_Saloon_Bar'

Facility fee in US hotels.[edit]

My wife, who is Spanish, recently went to visit the US with a few friends. They stayed in a hotel in New York which, to be honest, they weren't particular happy with for various reasons.

But what has really pissed them off is that, when they came back, the people in whose names the rooms were registered had over 100 dollars each debited to their credit card accounts for a previously unknown "facilities fee". They had booked and paid through a local Spanish travel agent so they are taking it up there.

But when I investigated I was amazed to find out that this is apparently a real thing in the US! is this common? It seems outrageous to me.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I believe it's notorious among hotels in high-demand vacation destinations (New York City, Las Vegas, Miami, Myrtle Beach, Puerto Rico). They're generally charged on a per diem basis, so I'm guessing they stayed for about a week?
Do they remember if it was disclosed in fine print somewhere? The FTC has already said that not including it in advertised rates isn't considered deceptive, as long as it's declared up front. This is why you always read whatever fine print you're given, and try to book direct. Some third-party websites also keep track of them. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Problem is they were all Spanish and it was booked through a Spanish travel agent. (Yes, I know - who uses travel agents these days?) When I looked at the hotel's website it was there in English in the small print. In a section called "the small print" no less.
Anyway they are taking it up with the travel agent who booked them in and made the arrangements. I'm just surprised it happens. I hope it doesn't spread to the rest of the world. I spoke to a hotel manager I know here (in Spain) and she was amazed at the idea.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to deal with it through the credit card company and dispute the charge. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Always good to see a couple of Trump enterprises listed among the scammers hotels. Bongolian (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Wud' choo expect in New York...they're all goddamm Democrats.... nobsBern baby bern 04:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just spent 5 nights in a New York Westin and had not heard of these facilities fees. I will keep an eye on my card statements. Thanks for the heads up. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Translation of reasons[edit]

FCP archived his, ah, reoccurring suggestion. His reason given was "Removing the whole nuke political articles thing. It's a distraction from the original shit-show."
Translation - "I still didn't get the support I want in order to remake RW how I feel it should be, so let's bury it. Again." --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Translation: I didn't want a vote, because it wasn't a serious suggestion, because nobody ever wants to go through with it even if people agree with the idea. Meanwhile, the dumpster fire that is the Coop Case burns on, unnoticed. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Coop case is always a dumpster fire; that's the purpose. And I don't believe it wasn't a serious suggestion. Your oft-linked essay indicates otherwise - unless that essay is a lie, which is the first I've heard of it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
{{Pwned}}!
In case intent is unclear: I was going to accompany the post with this .gif, but couldn't find it yesterday.
And, Castaigne, as always, your whining about ideology-war, tribalism, and "punishing" people who disagree is rubbing thin. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, I do not believe that was your intent. And you have no way of proving your intent to me, since I'm not psychic and can't read your mind.
I also have no idea what you're talking about in terms of ideology, tribalism, or punishing people. I haven't said any of that. I was talking about your personal ambitions and desires. That's all that really exists. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's disingenuous as hell. You mean the proposal seriously, and you push it regularly despite it not taking. I do strongly suggest you actually not push it for several months and see if you can build actual consensus for the idea - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
He could, perhaps, even not push it again at all - accept he's in the minority on that one and move on. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 23:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Solving edit wars[edit]

Swallow your disgust of "bureaucracy" and read:

RationalWiki currently cannot resolve edit wars. For proof, see the endless reruns of Israel-Palestine and Clinton-Sanders edit wars. Both issues burn on -- even though more than a year has passed. Each major edit war inevitably goes to coop. In coop, people vote for their ideological-side, rather than considering behavior. In coop, a permanent solution is never achieved. And consensus on article viewpoints has essentially never been reached. In terms of edit wars: Mobocracy has failed, is failing, will fail.

As a user, I see two solutions. No policy has been changed; this is just a place for discussion. If anyone has other ideas, then this is the place to write. FuzzyCatPotato of the Illegal Vortexs (talk/stalk) 17:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Binary editing guidelines[edit]

1: Binary editing guidelines. Rules like WP's 3RRWikipedia's W.svg have two benefits: [1] They are boolean: true/false, no gray. They are also simple, with only 1 easily-verifiable true/false condition. This means that the question is only whether to punish. [2] They aren't ideological: they acknowledge that it takes two to tango. This means that everyone involved faces punishment, not just losing side. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Moderator arbitration[edit]

2: Moderator arbitration. Alternatively, mods could create a page where people submit edit wars for arbitration. Mods -- and only mods -- would lock the page(s), decide if an edit war exists, and determine who (if any) gets punished. The benefits are: [1] There are fewer active mods than active users and [2] Mods are hopefully less involved or better at mentally extracting themselves in/from edit wars. The downsides of handing off punishment to mods should be clear. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Harsher punishment[edit]

In either case, RW needs harsher punishment than a slap on the wrist. Sysop removal and vandalbin for 1 week sounds about right. Yes, vandalbin and userrights both don't have inbuilt timelines -- but approximately a week should be enough. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. Edit wars draw us waya from our mission. It would be nice to not have issues like this brought up in the Chicken coop again. I would agree on vandalbinning or a temporary revocation of sysop rights (depending on magnitude). Yes, I know I am not a veteran member like some others. I'm a biologist... and a madman. (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so like a 5RR or 6RR with a week or two suspension of page protect priveleges? That doesn't seem too harsh a punishment and would slow down edit wars without silencing or killing divergent POVs with strong feelings. nobsBern baby bern 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that's too lenient. A 3RR is enough (most edit wars don't touch 4 reverts, much less 6) and it's difficult to enforce a topic ban. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
What about tag-teaming? what has WP done to address tag-team revert wars? In my experience, you get tag-teamers who are either socks or don't really have a dog in the fight, they're just helping out a friend. How has this ever been addressed? nobsBern baby bern 20:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Punishment is bullshit. Anyone who thinks their role online is to punish people should not be trusted with sysop or moderator status. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's say you're right. What's your solution? And if you have none, screw off. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"Punishment" is the wrong word, but "discriminating" in favor of quality is not. As I see it, a new or recent edit should not be reverted if the text is: 1. Relevant, 2. Documented, and 3. Where the documentation is questioned as to credibility, that credibility can be reasonably supported. Applying these criteria are the only means of protecting intelligent, good faith edits and editors from bad faith, ideology- or sociopath-driven reverts and instigation of warring. It is simply not the case that when it comes to smartly editing articles that all editors are equal-- superior news sites do not let just anyone write their articles for the obvious reason that not everyone can deliver quality and well-supported writing.
Not everyone even wants to, some merely wish to disrupt those who do provide such superior text. These are simple realities of the Internet, realities that have caused many, many sites to close their comments sections rather than deal with endless bullshit from trolls. A site that allows trollish people to join and which accords them the same status as anyone else is going to drive away those who won't tolerate this untenable state of affairs -- which means driving away those with contributions worth having.
Carpetsmoker -- with whom I frequently disagreed, and we were virtually always able to negotiate our differences -- had done some great stuff on a variety of articles, and was a tech workhorse. But a trollish asshole was allowed to make him miserable and drive him away. Why? ---Mona- (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem with those criteria, Mona, is that it's possible to argue endlessly overwhether the reversion or the original better fits. For examples, see essentially every edit war. People have a tendency to always think they're right and well-sourced. Hence why we need a rule that's independent of quality of edits. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 06:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

So, essentially you're saying that we should dissolve the anarchic mobocracy, correct? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Only for edit wars. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The same set of rules should apply everywhere on the wiki, in every situation. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Although, really, you're a mod - you can just rule by fiat, strip the other mods of their authority, and do what you like. It would make it that much easier for you. You should do that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You've never made clear why conditional rules can't be useful. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Consistency, dependability, practicality, uniformity, conformity, ease of use. Keep It Simple. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
"The same set of rules should apply everywhere on the wiki, in every situation." Why, Castaigne? We can't we be nuanced and make rules plastic to each different situation? There are some parts of the wiki (coop, edit wars) where anarchic mobocracy reveals its ugly side, namely banning users ideologically. I'm actually pretty comfortable with the general sentiment behind FCP's proposals. I'm going to sit out the actual policy debate and let the other parties involved iron the new rules out. PBfreespace (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Consistency, dependability, practicality, uniformity, conformity, ease of use. Keep It Simple. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Try to find a set of standards so broad that they apply to all interpersonal interaction in a very large system with hundreds of participants. If you apply standards that don't, then you end up having lots of problems at smaller levels. PB (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Amazingly, it's called "treating everyone absolutely equally no matter the situation". I find it works very well, except for those with swelled egos. But that's Not My Problem. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This is like saying that basic worker right's laws like a minimum wage or safety laws are "dissolving capitalism". It's not. It's realising that any basic idea of government driven to its pure extremes has a lot problems. Mobocracy is no exception. The best systems take a basic idea, carefully look where the sharp edges are, and then establish rules or procedures to minimise the effect of those sharp edges. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say anything. I asked a clarifying question - and FCP answered succinctly. He wishes to eliminate anarchic mobocracy for edit wars. Do try to keep up; reading comprehension is one's friend. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne, please try to add more than unbased insults. Thanks. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 06:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign finances[edit]

Does Trump really need a bunch of money for his campaign? He's already on the news all the time, so why waste money on ads? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Presumably so that he can purchase positive coverage, instead of what the media chooses to give him. And GOTV efforts for that massive white electoral revolt that he's definitely gonna pull off. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Because it's free publicity (presumably). I'm a biologist... and a madman. (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, he might be relatively cash poor, as is often the case with real estate wheeler dealers. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Another issue here is how much money and personal the RNC is willing to pony up for the General election; RNC officials have been trying to talk sense to him for months, but the money and personal effort can just as easily be put into down-ballot campaigns to salvage some of the damage he's down to the GOP name brand. nobsBern baby bern 18:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not about ads so much as it's about infrastructure. Like his fingers, his team is very, very small, so he's going to have serious trouble organizing and getting voters mobilized. Jagulard (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Typically or traditionally that is a coordinated effort between the campaign committee and the RNC or DNC. But the RNC establishment may loose at the convention, but they still are the party regulars who GOTV on election day. Who are they gonna get out the vote for, the top of the ticket? or Congressman X and Senator X, etc.? nobsBern baby bern 18:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
And let's not forget that Presidential campaigns now cost a lot more than his puny few hundred million net worth. It's a game for billionaires and corporations and not celebrity "billionaires". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Where is the financial support of the bigots who love him? -MasterofLogic (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why the fuck...[edit]

...do I have a mop? In accordance with the coop decision those are supposed to have been stripped. That decision is permanent and irrevocable, as all coop decisions. I request that such status be removed from me immediately and that the violator be dealth with accordingly. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, silly Castaigne, you don't have a mop. All you have is autopatrolled status. Would you like that revoked as well? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Aye.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
For some reason I had the ability to block people. As far as I know, autopatrolled does not have that ability.
I'm glad to see it removed. If autopatrolled is in violation of the coop decision, yes, it should be removed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It has been removed. Nerd (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Are we gonna need a #LondonIndependence page yet[edit]

IK it's unlikley, but I so want it to happen Threadnaught (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please let it happen, that would be the most glorious thing imaginable.'Legionwhat do you want from me 13:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Do me a favour and sign the petition please https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independent-from-the-uk-and-apply-to-join-the-eu?recruiter=561268022&utm_source=petitions_show_components_action_panel_wrapper&utm_medium=copylink Threadnaught (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't actually want to see the world's oldest continuous democracy fall apart, of course. Like sounds cathartic on paper, but the actuality would be less so. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
And I didn't want the EU to fall apart but shit happens and human quality (ergo the economy) of life is more important than history.Threadnaught (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not going happen. There is no way it could possibly happen. And i would not want it to happen. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a protest. I don't think people actually want London Independence. EU referendum very dubious anyway, and should be redone. {{SUBST:User:Mkbw50/sig}} (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

.#ScotLond was trending yesterday. Scotland & London uniting for independence from the rest of the UK. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Rome Viharo entry needs a clean up[edit]

— Unsigned, by: Tenchu2 / talk / contribs

Keep it on one page, kid. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

He's going to need a page soon[edit]

http://www.avclub.com/article/tom-delonge-says-he-quit-blink-182-focus-national--238478 Petey Plane (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

And I thought they only made bad music... 'Legionwhat do you want from me 07:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Truly a beacon of lucidity in thought, that man. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

(SKEPTICAL ANALYSIS) What do you make of this apparently fulfilled Isaiah 17:1 prophecy?[edit]

A DISCLAIMER BEFORE THIS POST GOES ON: To be honest, I am actually not a Christian, though I used to be one in the past, but somehow, I find similarities between some events in the Bible (which I read occasionally for mere analysis) and the real world quite uncanny. I am also not sure if this is the right place to post of such topics, since it is mainly of politics and stuff. I also understand that some events in the Bible apparently allude to events in times past (preterism), and are thus, seemingly fulfilled a long time ago, such as the Abomination of Desolation, which was said to be already committed in 168 BCE when Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Second Temple in order to make way for the worship of Zeus. So here, my main purpose of posting this is to inquire if the prophecy has deeper historical context, or if there's an intended message behind it for those people in the past, or if it was a coincidence, or some sort of shoehorning.

SECOND DISCLAIMER: I am neither strongly on the skeptics' nor Christians' sides on this matter. I would like to keep my views as neutral as possible, so that I can look into it from both sides.

As Isaiah 17:1 says, 'The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.'

And look at Damascus now. image

All this thanks to civil wars, a certain Islamic radical group, and so on.

And here's a Christian's interpretation of the prophecy: link

Isaiah 17:2 also mentions of a specific place called Aroer, which is said to be, at that time, 'forsaken...shall be for flocks...'

Pictures of Aroer online mainly depict it as a barren plain, with not much animals/people on it.

However, back to Damascus. Despite the amount of damage and the refugees living, life apparently goes on in it, with some of its inhabitants choosing to stay. link

However, what I want to ask of is this: Is this prophecy close/nearly close to what's happening in Damascus, or is it merely a coincidence/shoehorning? Or is there a historical background to the writing of the prophecy? Or does Isaiah say that other stuff will happen before this itself happens?

If any of you are well-versed in the Bible/willing to look into the chapter, then please comment your thoughts on it. — Unsigned, by: Webshite Hunter / talk / contribs 04:49, 24 June 2016‎ (UTC)

"On a moonlit night, you will meet a dark-haired stranger." Any vague enough prediction will eventually be true. This is how horoscopes work. Also, is there any sufficiently old human settlement that hasn't experienced devastation at some point? What about prophecies from other religions' holy works? And for amusement value see failed Biblical prophecies. --Ymir (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Not only that, but as you kind of acknowledged, Damascus is far from completely devastated. It's currently Syria's most populous city. I guess we can chalk that up as another failed prophecy. --Ymir (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure this isn't the first time in human history that Damascus was been a war zone. I believe its happened numerous times over the centuries–Damascus has a rather strategic location in the Middle East. So, if this prophecy has been fulfilled now, it's been fulfilled numerous times before. But let's face it, if 2000-3000 years ago you made this prophecy about any Middle East city, then if the city still exists today the prophecy has almost certainly been fulfilled multiple times by now, and if it doesn't exist any more, that's probably because of its past fulfilment. It doesn't take a prophet to make an open-ended prediction that something will eventually happen when in the long-run it is highly likely to sooner or later happen anyway. Name me a major city which existed 2000-3000 years ago, and still exists today, and hasn't been besieged or overrun in the meantime. I'm pretty sure you can't. (((Zack Martin))) 12:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Erbil hasn't been destroyed iirc. The longest continuously-inhabited city. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It can also mean, "taken away as a city", meaning an urban center where the people of God can dwell in safety and protecion, and a "ruinous heap", much like Hollywood, Las Vegas, Babylon, Sodom, etc. nobsBern baby bern 19:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We need a haiku: Know correlation? It doesn't mean causation! So just stop. Please. Stop. — Unsigned, by: Mkbw50 / talk / contribs 19:39, 24 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Survey: White evangelicals think the US isn't a Christian nation[edit]

That’s according to 59 percent of white evangelical Protestants recently surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Brookings Institution. And that number has jumped 11 points in just four years, from 48 percent in 2012. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. They're more shifting into "we used to be until those liberals... something something". Which is a transition from the "Christian Nation built into the fabric of our country by the founding fathers" that was the popular framing before. The meaning of the term to them completely changes when you include "no longer". It goes from the high-power framing to the ostracized-targets framing. The wording here is what makes them tick. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The Muslims are invading and implementing shariah law, duh. That's why we need to elect President Trump to put them in camps! --Ymir (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That's certainly one of the less plausible something somethings they actually put out. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
What an awesome hypothesis. Some Researcher should test that.ClickerClock (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Not the first time a great nation lost God's blessing and went down the shitter. BFD. nobsBern baby bern 00:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Ymir It's "in ze camps"!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Pointless wikipolitics idea: the prisoner's dilemma ban[edit]

Ban two users who fight each other too much. They're the only ones who can unban each other, and there's one page where they can talk to each other.

Who doesn't like solving interpersonal disputes with technocracy? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I kind of like it. English Wikipedia has something somewhat similar: the interaction ban.Wikipedia's W.svg --Ymir (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and that's a good approach, but it's not fun enough for me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I like it. The optimal strategy for repetitive prisoner's dilemma play is cooperation. If the players can't figure that out themselves, they're not being rational and can stay banned. Bongolian (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Cool idea, so long as it works! :)-💠💿☝️ (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The point of the prisoner's dilemma is that they can't talk to each other, & end up screwing each other over because of it. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Both variations exist. The point isn't that they can't talk. The point is that your results are always better betraying, and the sum total is always better cooperating. Creating a tension between what works best and the most you can squeeze out of the situation. Talking modulates the problem because it introduces social complexity. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Even without overt talking, there is a covert method of talking in repetitive prisoner's dilemma, e.g., by adopting a strategy like "I will cooperate unless the other person does not". Bongolian (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Will the Troubles start again?[edit]

Apparently the Northern Irish Catholics are pushing independence / joining the Republic of Ireland after the Brexit vote where the Catholic areas overwhelmingly voted stay whereas the Protestant regions tended towards leave. I have not yet heard any NI Protestant voice of importance, but it may well turn into an ugly fight with religious undertones. Whose betting against new political violence? Will David Cameron go down as the man who not only ruined Great Britain but also the Good Friday Agreement? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

A return to violence doesn't really help the Republicans. The next census (2021) is likely to show that Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland. Give it another 20 years after that (the early 2040s) and Republicans may well outnumber Unionists in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Of course, they need to exploit the Brexit for their own political advantage in any way possible, talk about the Good Friday agreement being under threat, maybe even trigger a constitutional crisis at Stormont, try to use this as leverage to extract further concessions from the Unionists and the British, but going back to violence would be totally counterproductive for them, and I think they know that. (((Zack Martin))) 03:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Who said anything about the Catholics going back to violence? It may well be that radical Unionists will want to delay the inevitable with violence. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I fear that as a possibility, albeit faint. Moderate unionists may also have leant toward remain for practical reasons, and the radicals, fearing an unholy alliance of Republicans and pragmatists seek to utilise violence for delay the inveitable and their own sliding power. Right now, it's a bit of a powder keg and it only takes a bungled responce in Westminster to bring the situation to a very dangerous place. I don't think the republicans feel they have much to gain by violence, but rather than the unionists stand to loose if they don't. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 23:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
As an ignorant Yank, let me get this straight: Northern Ireland is kinda like Kosovo, and the UK is like Serbia trying to hold onto it, is that right? nobsBern baby bern 00:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Fuck no Rob. Stop sticking your head into a knifefight. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
NI is split between Catholics and Protestants pretty much half-and-half. More like Bosnia, that's a better metaphor. The current situation is basically like some Serbians wanting Bosnia back and actively campaigning for it. The main difference here being that the Serbs in Bosnia aren't persecuted, whereas the Catholics in NI are. PB (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
how are the catholics discriminated against exactly? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A couple years ago 52% of Catholics supported remaining in the UK. Catholic does not equal Republican. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
NI Catholics have historically been discriminated against and arguably the Protestant presence is a result of British settler colonialism (though much of the Irish aristocracy has English or Scottish roots as well, even Irish speaking Catholics). However, today's political situation in NI seems to have tilted towards: "meh status quo is alright" despite the shifting demographic (Protestants will soon be smaller in umber than Catholics). But the recent dynamics with Brexit could seriously fuck this up. Of course we might end up with a divided Northern Ireland with the mostly Catholic areas annexed to the Republic and the mostly Protestant ones annexed even more directly to the UK or whatever is left of it. But given the way Northern Irish demographics looks like, this would require population transfers on a scale of Turkey/Greece in the 1920s. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Protestants have been living there before any country known as Ireland ever even existed. It was not British colonialism, but Scottish and less so English before the UK even existed. Now a days Protestants in Cluan Place, Thistle Court, the Fountain, etc are subject to frequent attacks or were before they started fighting back, I haven't heard much news since then. Same in County Armagh. They mailed Protestants bullets in Rasharkin and vandalism against PUL fraternities continues, as well. Just trying to point out that not everything is black and white. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lithium Water Woo[edit]

We need to debunk this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/should-we-all-take-a-bit-of-lithium.html?_r=0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithia_water http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/15/theres-a-mood-altering-drug-in-the-water-supply-and-you-probably-didnt-even-know-it/

I saw some quacks saying it improves mood, decreases depression and suicide, balances circadian rhythms, and a bunch of other stuff.

Just putting this here for future reference if anyone's in the mood to write in article. I checked our water woo article and I couldn't find any mention of lithium there or anywhere else on RationalWiki. PBfreespace (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's probably because lithium really is a scientifically demonstrated mood enhancer. Its side effects are just worse than modern prescription anti-depressants. It's an outmoded treatment. Not sure if that rises to the level of woo or not. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like people are treating it as a antidepressant-panacea, which is def woo, but the actual effects are not. Typical conflation of "interesting results" and "mind-boggling medicine-revolutionizing world-changing (and, if I do say so, quite profitable) results". oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 07:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It's hardly an "outmoded treatment". Lithium is still a mainstay for treating bipolar disorder. It's darned effective; the only problem is the adverse effects, which include long-term kidney damage. --Ymir (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
People say Cobain made this because he was taking Lithium. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Lithium as medicineWikipedia's W.svg is not woo in any sense of the word, quite the opposite. Besides, what do you have against 7 Up? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mobile Friendly?[edit]

Ok Rationalwiki is hard to read on my phone because it is designed only for desktops and laptops. I propose that Rationalwiki has something like this (desktop link) / this (mobile link) for mobile.

Except unlike wikipedia there is no separate mobile site extension but a site that automatically switches based on the device viewing the site.

Why?

As Troy Hunt puts it:

You see that? The “m.” prefix was kindly added when I loaded the site on my mobile device and now I’m stuck sharing that URL. Everyone who opens it up on the desktop now gets the mobile version of the site which means I’m sitting here at my PC looking at about 80% wasted space and buttons that are literally 1,850 pixels wide. This is why we have responsive design – you detect the capabilities of the device and then display content in an appropriate way, not boot people off to another location then keep them there even when it looks like crap on their big screen!

It's annoying.

Will this MediaWiki extension for mobile-friendly view help?

ClickerClock (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Like many other things, using that extension is contingent on updating RW's software - the extension requires MediaWiki 1.23, RationalWiki still runs 1.19. Which, by the way, reached the end of its life in May 2015, more than an year ago.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh the managers and technicians will hate the bothersome upgrade job. :| ClickerClock (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe there's only one active user with any sort of direct access to the server itself. And he's overloaded as hell with real life. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It's planned for 2018. Also, I don't agree that "responsive" design is some sort of holy grail, there are some drawbacks as well. I often get kicked to the "responsive" site obviously designed for touch screens when I zoom a little bit since I like larger text. It can be very annoying. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant the mobile design that detects what device you are using not change based on the parameters of the viewing screen.ClickerClock (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The "viewport" control reacts to the screen size, not the device type (to try this, go to a responsive site, like mine, and reduce your browser window size - at some point, the layout will probably collapse to a different layout). More sophisticated systems can strike a balance between both. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I edit quite a lot from my Android phone. I think it works well as it is. Not saying an improvement wouldn't be an improvement (tautology), but... It works. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I also don't like the "m." method of creating a mobile-friendly site, but in re the WP implementation, it takes me, um, about three seconds to delete those two characters from the url and reload. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh my[edit]

DidYouMeanVagina.PNG

Went searching to see if we had an article on vaping. Turns out, we basically do don't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have replicated your experiment, Reverend Black Percy, and found the same result. In the name of the Universe! But the good news is, as you imply, we basically do have that article. It's just he search engine that went haywire. Nerd (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I can confirm that, too.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 22:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes a vaporizer is just a vaporizer. Vulpius (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey now, anything's a vaporizer if you're brave enough. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Insert Lewinsky joke here (weren't there some rumors about Billy-Boy putting cigars up his favorite intern's vagina?).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 22:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears Lucene is a better search engine than we thought - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, she's a genius... Just mention vaping and she'll offer to direct you straight to Vagina. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

\//\[edit]

"Cure cancer, cure diabetes..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Funniest Stuff I've ever heard in my life/ Black Supremacist pseudo-pyschology[edit]

I had to share this

"On both St. Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day, the white male gives gifts of chocolate candy with nuts…. If his sweetheart ingests "chocolate with nuts," the white male can fantasize that he is genetically equal to the Black male…. Is it not also curious that when white males are young and vigorous, they attempt to master the large brown balls, but as they become older and wiser, they psychologically resign themselves to their inability to master the large brown balls? Their focus then shifts masochistically to hitting the tiny white golf balls in disgust and resignation—in full final realization of white genetic recessiveness[sic]" From Black psychiatrist Frances Cress Welsing
Incredibly bizarre to the point of hilarity. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I lolled at the tiny white golf balls. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And don't forget pingpong, where asians smack around even smaller balls (but with far greater masochistic vigor - as they have faced the music already in their youth). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Please please please put this in the black supremacy article. It's as revealing as the altwhite nonsense about cucks. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
"Please please please"? That level of energy proves the good doctor's thesis... I think somebody needs to go whack his tiny golf balls with a driver for a while, cool down, get some bearings. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
(Jokes aside - I whole-heartedly agree with FCP! :3) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
All I see here is a guy that's really into balls. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
BAAALLLLSSSSSSS PBfreespace (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What the? This is the same level of "What the hell" as YADA. I'm a biologist... and a madman. (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Carrier Censorship[edit]

David Gerard has reverted talk page reporting on Richard Carrier with the astonishing excuse that this was a legal matter. This is obviously poorly concealed nonsense to protect his FTB/Carrier tribe. For one, Michael Shermer actually sent out lawyer letters, and it was of no concern to the reporting here (and still isn't). Carrier has not even done that, only said he might, and not against RW. For another, it is perfectly legal to write “Richard Carrier was accused of sexual misconduct” because it's true. At one point the crowd here should realize that you are beeing fooled and that your reporting on anything pertaining the a/s movement is halfsided verging on Bizarro Universe Alternate Reality. ~ Aneris 13:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh shush, I put it back. Conspire elsewhere. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything to look forward to anymore?[edit]

I feel like the world's gone to shit and there's nothing to be optimistic about... --50.184.16.117 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Technological unemployment has yet to hit, economies are still going. Give it two decades, than the fun begins. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to be optimistic about? Ha, quite the opposite! Rejoice, for fate has put you at the crossroads of humanity's destiny. You are one of the few in human history that get to see the path mankind takes firsthand. Will you witness the grand rebirth of human civilization or total annihilation? Either way, it'll be quite the show. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
We're making ungodly technological advances and life expectancy globally has never been so high. The only thing we have to get right is politics. Right now it looks bleak, but politics is the most inherently fixable thing on earth. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Slavery ended no less then 100 years ago , and just recently we have created devices that allow us to have unlimited access to all information. I think the future is looking bright as this will just continue. Sandflapjack (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Completion of the Network is going well. A very large fraction of the Earth's population now have routine, always on access to a global telecommunications network. That's very important.

Autonomous vehicles are on track. We will probably be able to reverse the negative consequences of deciding that everybody must drive an automobile (and thus implicitly the standards required to drive an automobile must be very low) within just a few decades after the anomalous 20th century.

Several major human diseases are on the verge of being wiped out. Polio and Guinea Worm for example. 81.2.89.118 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Need something to look forward to? Perhaps that the UN thinks poverty could be eliminated by 2050? That the average human is wealthier than the average historical monarch? FuzzyCatPotato of the Trusty Options (talk/stalk) 17:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
People around the globe are finally rising up against the clerisy, against the professional and financial classes. There's one ground for hope. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
i would agree if the method of rising up hadnt left us completely fucked. In the uk at least. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I always like to think of revolution as rolling dice. You get an entirely new outcome from Stalin to Napoleon to Washington to Ghandi. You won't know until the smoke clears and the leader of the revolution or their successor shows their true colors. Thus if you have a revolution to deal with an actually-pretty-good status quo, the odds don't favor your society ending up in a better place than it started. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's "Gandhi". Why do so many people spell it wrong? --Ymir (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

BREXIT[edit]

So the UK voted to leave the EU today, and already the GBP is crashing. Pretty soon the USD will beat the GBP. America is offiacly #GreatAgain'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump visits the UK for one day and the U.S. is already winning! Just imagine how much we'll win when he's President! --Ymir (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

52% of the UK has voted to replace their EU membership with "something else, no bloody idea what, don't care, anything". I mean, does the UK stay in the EEA, like Iceland and Norway and Liechtenstein are? Well, if they stay in the EEA, they get to keep access to the Single Market–including the passporting rules which are so important to London's financial industry–but they still have to accept unlimited immigration from EU citizens (freedom of movement for the win) and they have to adopt 80% of EU law despite having 0% vote in that 80% (just like Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein do). Or they leave the EEA but stay in the customs union (as in Turkey)–which while it's better than nothing will really fuck up the British services sector including financial services. Or they leave the customs union too, which implies either customs controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic, or customs controls between the Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, or Ireland voting to leave the EU too in a constitutional referendum (the later option is unlikely)–but the former two options would reopen a massive can of worms in the Northern Ireland peace process. This is the utter idiocy of Brexit–having a vote to replace the current state of affairs with some utterly undefined arrangement. They should have had a vote between remaining in the EU and a concrete clearly-defined alternative–I'm sure if they had that the EU would have gone much better. (((Zack Martin))) 10:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Has Armeggedon come yet? Objective (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a page on WIGO:World about this topic. I'd direct your conversation there. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If they had Superdelegates or brought back heredity peerage with veto power, or god forbid an ability to filibuster, a divisive 51%-49% mob rule crisis like this could have been averted. nobsBern baby bern 00:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Out of the many ways this could have been averted, those are among the more far-fetched. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The issue seems quite simple: should such a momenteous decision like this be made by 51%-49% mob vote? My god, the voters in California's Proposition 8 couldn't even amend their own Consitution under the Constitutionally mandated process. There are a zillion examples of large popular vote majorities being wrong-headed. nobsBern baby bern 01:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The referendum is only advisory, parliament don't have to leave. That's why Cameron quit; whoever takes over is going to be seen as a failure whatever they do. Pretty neat way to flip the board once he lost, if you ask me. (Of course, he shouldn't have offered the ref in the first place...)

81.145.153.190 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Getting money out of politics[edit]

For those who want to "get money out of politics", what exactly do you mean? What needs to be specifically reformed? Does it mean publicly funded elections? Does it mean reforming the donor process, and if so, how? Does it mean we want to prohibit groups like the NRA from running ads that drive gun reformers out of office? Does it mean no more lobbyists? Do we mean we want fewer rich people in office? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverse the decision of citizens united. -MasterofLogic (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
In general, there should be zero perverse financial incentives for politicians. There should basically be no money coming to a person before, during, or (mostly) after they're in office, as it relates to their political views. In no way, shape, or form. That's the coarsest possible answer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Fund campaigns publicly and ban private contributions. I'll live if Koch brothers can spam lawn signs but can't pay politicians. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. Let the government pay it. And when the government goes broke and can't pay no more then send in UN peacekeepers. Right? nobsBern baby bern
I'm gonna start of with the absolute maximum which does not currently exist in any country and will probably never exist in that form. Any politician who either personally or on behalf of his party or a charity (even one unrelated to politics) accepts so much as a pencil is to be tried like a bribed public servant would be. Political parties are to be funded by nothing but membership fees and public funds. Political advertising is to be provided on TV by law with equal time guarantees. No ads besides those required by law are to be run that are or may be perceived as being of a political nature. An independent commission with twenty members, ten appointed for lifetime, ten randomly selected from the populace is to arbitrate in unclear cases. No party may own shares of any newspaper, radio station, TV channel or art gallery. (okay I am willing to compromise on art galleries). Media are to be treated by an especially harsh antitrust commission that forbids non-media entities from owning them and has full authority to break up conglomerates. That's a rough outline of the maximal position. Remember that you start out from that to end up with a compromise that's still progress. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I might add a thing or two about the style of corruption as evidenced by politicians "miraculously" getting well paid positions in the private sector after leaving office. That's harder to tackle unless you want to prohibit them from ever working for money ever again and pay them out of public money. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd go with forever. Maybe just five years or so after leaving office. And sure, pay them for those years. Some kind of exemption based on size/assets of the employer would probably be fine. I don't think Mr. Congressman opening up his own knickknack store, selling his own paintings, etc. is a problem. The problem is him leaving office and then immediately getting hired by some big company or trade group to lobby his former colleagues. --Ymir (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I would just like to suggest that politicians should be well paid to reduce the chances of corruption. Nerd (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
A mandatory disinterest in material wealth sounds like a much better idea. A disproportionate amount of politicians would consist of Buddhist monks, but that needn't be a bad thing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You sure about that? --Ymir (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ymir! Religion, no matter which kind, is not a cure to any of our problems. Nerd (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My main concern is with politicians who set up their own charities since I think they are merely trying to get anonymous donations w/o paying taxes on it; I think that was why Romneys and the Clintons started their own foundations. My other concern is with think tanks who tend to muddy the water by creating reports that oversimplify or ignore data.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 23:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this stuff make sense to you Castaigne? Personally agree with any of it? PBfreespace (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense.
No, I do not agree with any of it. This is why. And before you rail against me about my lack of idealism, read the article and keep in mind that I hate chaos and disorder. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that you've set it up as a dichotomy there...either you are for the current status or for chaos. Where the climate seems to be instead that voters no longer think their elected government is representing their interests because they have been paid for openly so many have lost trust that it is representing the their will. -MasterofLogic (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not a dichotomy. It's just that the suggestions given here increase chaos and create more Trumpalo/Sandalo bullshit. Offer a suggestion that doesn't and I'll probably cotton to it. And you obviously didn't read the article, did you? It addressed what you just said. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Where did it address this? -MasterofLogic (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Castigne2 raises a damn good question. Perhaps using bitcoin or going to some sort of barter system could get money out of politics. A candidate for example could act like a manager of a barter club, arranging deals between restaurants and TV producers who get to eat in restaurants that advertise on their station, and the candidate/manager would run campaign commercials and eat in restaurants for free cause he brokered the deal. That's how to get money out of politics. nobsBern baby bern 19:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In my infinite wisdom, I have devised schematics for a device that directly extracts money from politics ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"You think you can control me with a hair cut?" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The us's electoral process lasts over two year with billions (is that an exageration? I'm not sure) of dollars spent. American politics is entirely about making money. The election a president seems like an after thought. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Religion is getting easier[edit]

Persecution! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Nerd (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hah, Joris made a repressed peasant template? :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I really like it. :-) Many thanks to him. Nerd (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I was using this so much that it was easier to simply create a template for this. Turns out it was a good idea.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Board elections[edit]

Instead of having elections for a board that never seems to do anything can we instead have an election for someone to get access to the RationalWiki servers and:

  1. Upgrade MediaWiki
  2. Keep the software up to date
  3. Install and update extensions
  4. Allow access via https

87.192.220.205 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The board looks after the financial and legal side of RW, it doesn't do tech stuff. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm contradicting you, but RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation explicitly states that the Foundation hires the Operations Manager. More to the point, the Foundation is the legal owner of the servers, so it has the final say. --Ymir (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what I was seriously hoping for? Carpetsmoker not to be an idiot so I could foist the job off on him. Instead he turned out to be a dramatist prima-donna who thought fucking Kiwi Farms was in any way a good idea. We had a dramatist sysadmin before, and it's still a fucking delight finding things that one did his way. The problem with this job is finding someone who can do it who isn't going to be a fucking disaster with root - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you and trent kinda grew the tech side of this wiki from the ground up organically, which meant you guys got exposure to the mistakes to make before making a mistake was a disaster. Sans importing a professional mediawiki tech from a major wiki, I think the appropriate skillsets are very hard to come by. Which sucks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@DG: I mean, CS kinda got pissed off by drama here in the same vein as Paravant, who was pretty trustworthy. I think if we want help, Ikanreed is probs right -- we'd need to ask someone from WP. Unless DG is willing to run a root-access boot camp <_< αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right time/place to ask this, but do any of you have Steam/Skype?

We'll mainly talk about debunking conspiracy theories, looking into pseudoscientific stuff, and so on. However, we can talk about video gaming, entertainment and stuff if you're into them.

Find me on Skype at roboticizedteggs, and/or on Steam as FURFR0U. I won't add you unless you specify your account name in the replies. First, we have to get to know each other in the chat before going on into the meat. Webshite Hunter (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we reform coop procedures?[edit]

The last coop case was derailed more than once by debates about procedure and how to vote on what. I think this is a highly undesirable outcome. Should we reform the procedure by which to hold coop cases and if so how? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Trying to actually get 2/3 of the community together to agree on something and make things around here better will have the Streisand Effect: causing more drama when getting rid of drama is the original point. It's a pointless endeavor. PB (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I think part of the problem was that there was disagreement what "getting a two thirds majority" actually means. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
no1curr. No. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Coops are a continuing time drain. Add a Prisoner's Dilemma-like de-mopping facility as a pre-coop filter; it would require some programming unfortunately. Bongolian (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting. You're saying demop both the accused and the accuser during the Coop? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it would be more like if two sysops engaging in edit wars with each other, then automatically demop both parties for a modest period of time, and automatically revert edits to the pre-war version. Encourage both parties to go to the talk page and work it out. If the edit-warring continues after remopping, then it might go to the coop. Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I **might** be able to set up the edit filter to do that. Probably not, though. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Definite nope. FuzzyCatPotato of the Malicious Fruits (talk/stalk) 20:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. We need to at least state how a vote should be set up and establish punishments for trying to meddle with them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Nerd (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. The system works fine. As fucked up as it is, it discourages people from getting involved in coop cases or bringing them. To reform it would only produce more cases with more expectains of results and punitive actions. nobsBern baby bern 19:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So, the coop case is now closed? Does anyone know why? The new vote just got started. Nerd (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Typhoon got penalized. Case closed. Let's move on. Nerd (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
And so, peace once more shines upon our humble goat farm. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's go back to raiding libraries and do some very serious mental exercises. Nerd (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A few things:

First off, check RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Solving_edit_wars. Since edit wars and related squabbles have made up 100% of recent (last year) coops, that's probably the real issue.

Second off, the failure of the coop to generate anything but drama suggests, to me, that we need more active moderation.

Third, I made a thing, way back when. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars need to be resolved with dialogue, not voting. & Especially not clusterfuck voting with dozens of options & arbitrary counting methods that users make up as they go along. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
What Weasel said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
What Weasel said certainly sounds reasonable. I agree especially with the need for more active moderation. But what if all attempts to resolve differences via dialogue fails? Nerd (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Switch off editing between 10pm and 8am? - David Gerard (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@DG: I'm not sure if that's the best alternative. People live in different time zones you know. Nerd (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
He was just kidding, Nerd (it's a horrible suggestion lol). ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the coop altogether. Clearly people can't come to an agreement about anything, so let's cut the pretense that they can. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

3 person debate[edit]

my suggestion would be to nominate 3 persons acceptable to both parties with debate limited and only from both parties. This would prevent one side ganging up on the other egged by the usual grudge holders. Punishment should be clearly defined, with block limits, vandal binning etc having clear criteria. Consistency here is paramount. With edit wars specifically, should they neec to be cooped, both sides should face it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Problem is, the people acceptable to both parties will probably never overlap. Partisanship is a bitch, aye? FuzzyCatPotato of the Queer Papers (talk/stalk) 20:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No offense, but to me, that just sounds like a perversion of the current system of electing moderators. It sounds like a mobocracy - like now - but shrunk down to three people. That's not more just. It also sounds way more clunky than the current conflict resolution system. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@fcp - i agree it might be difficult, but it still might be doable. Rbp - how is remotely like the mobocracy. It takes it entirely out its hands. How is it more clunky? Did you not you see that farce of the coop that you started? Any debate would be constrained to force concise and too the point arguments. I am sure 3 neutral people could quickly come a decision more easily than the current shit show. It not at all like the mods. The mods serve a term. My suggestion would have those nominated only for that specific case. They need not be mods, they might already be involved. As fcp suggests, the only sticking point would be the nominations. I am sure there is enough folk of good standing who arent involved in the petty drama and inane cliques to make it work. But lets be realistic about this. Even if not my suggestion, something similar will have to happen because everyone weighing in to a free for all witch hunt isnt working and never could AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How about an ancient greek like system?[edit]

The Ancient Greeks (at least Athens at the time of Socrates' death) had a system of two tiers: First both sides would argue about innocence or guilt before the jury would vote. If innocence were to win, the accused would walk. In the second stage both sides suggested a punishment. Each side only got one try. The jury could then decide between both options but could not propose a third option. In theory this would ensure both sides to come up with a reasonable punishment. What do you think about this? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. [1] Would the innocence/guilt vote then be a majority vote? (Rather than 2/3?) [2] Would a requirement for the accused be that their punishment be more substantial than "nothing" or "warning"? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
In the Athenian system there was no required minimum penalty. In fact, some say Socrates asking for a ridiculously low penalty made him being sentenced to death possible as the jury did not like being insulted. I think we should have a two thirds requirement in there somewhere and this proposal can obviously be improved upon, but I think it may be a good starting place. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. The coop works as intended. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
and its pretty much the system we already have. I think your focus on punishment is missing the point. Coming to a fair decision is surely the point AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this system focuses on punishment -- rather on making everything a binary choice. Either guilty or innocent, and either [punishment 1] or [punishment 2]. That prevents clusters like the previous coop. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thats how the system plays out. Thats how reform arguments are focused. We should be discussing how to resolve conflict not arguing how best to decide a punishment. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
and how is it a binary choice? Its always been six of one and half dozen of the other. Tbats why mob votes dont work. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@AMG: Sorry, I think I confused you. By "this system" I meant the one proposed at the top of this section. I think the problem is this: RW users appear categorically unable to come to agreement on deeply held issues (irrationalwiki amirite lol). This is the real reason why arbitration (as you propose) can't work: even if the 3 arbitrators decide something, they need a way to enforce their decision -- which is where punishment comes in, and is why the coop is needed in the first place. In other words, people will break the rules unless there's a reason no to. Do you disagree? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
i dont see a great difference between the current system and the ancient greek system. Both rely on a disfunction mob with vested interests and grudge who would get glassed if they acted like they do here in real life. Punishment is secondary to all this. We cant even agree on the crime most times. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's why it makes sense to de-mob-ify (?) it. One person raises the coop (so mob doesn't "agree on the crime"). Votes are a binary -- for or against guilt (so mob doesn't decide options). After X time, the vote is decided (so mob doesn't decide when vote ends). If "for" wins, then the person who raised the coop decides [punishment X] and the accused decides [punishment Y] (so the mob doesn't decide options, again). After X time, the vote is decided, again (so mob doesn't decide when vote ends, again).
As to "vested interests": you're probably right. But I don't see any functional system (no offense to the arbitrator idea, but I don't think that two users who hate each other's guts will find in three people from a "d[y]sfunction[al] mob with vested interests and grudge[s]" that they can agree on) that can eliminate this. Instead, we can only minimize it. By breaking options down to binaries, it makes it harder for overactive and overangry people to dominate the process. They've only got the one vote, after all -- where in the current coop they can just create thread after thread and option after option ad nauseam. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
ha, one vote, but infinite flaming comments generating more bad blood. No it is never as simple as guilty or innocent. Its always six of one and and half a dozen of the other. Most coops open arbitrarily accusing someone of wiki crime with the accuser claiming to be the aggrieved party while behaving in the exact same way they are accusing the other. These things are not black and white. The crime in many of the cases is simply disagree with accuser as vigourously as the accuser. It all boils down to whose got the most pals to back them up. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
And that's why I think the coop can't resolve edit wars (see RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Solving_edit_wars) -- they're wars and naturally tend towards partisanship and groupthink and both sides "behaving in the exact same way" as each other. Essentially, I think: mods should handle edit wars, and users should handle sysop abuse. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Trial by Combat[edit]

Might has always made right. CorruptUser (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Or vote telepathically; similar to caucus votes without recorded paper ballots. nobsBern baby bern 03:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Invert the coop[edit]

Currently: [1] Someone abuses rights or edit wars, [2] the mob rages in the Coop for a week and then [3] a mod closes the discussion and enacts punishment.

Instead: [1] Someone abuses rights or edit wars, [2] a mod enacts punishment, and [2.5] if the mob is unhappy with the punishment then [3] the mob rages at the mod for a week.

Benefits:

  1. Faster. Oh my god faster. 7 days? To fix an edit war?
  2. Mods already have the power to do so, they just don't use it
  3. Doesn't require wikilawyering or vote interpretation by the mob (at least until the [whining] stage)
  4. Some decisions will be relatively uncontroversial, and so avoid the dramafest of the coop
  5. When users whine, they whine at the mod, rather than at each other -- it'll bring us together!

Downsides:

  1. Mobocracy is dead, and we killed it (except for determining site policies and article content and who the mods are but whatevs)
  2. Mods have to be active at the time (though this is also true of the coop)
  3. Leaves users at the whims of arbitrary mods, rather than arbitrary peers
  4. Mods can disagree and make dramafests all their own

If we flip the coop upside down, maybe all the shit will fall out its windows.

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we should give it a try. (But don't get me wrong. I hope the next case will not come soon.) Nerd (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This has potential of alienating users: Mods are not "the people"; A blocked user will not be able to participate in the coop if one develops; Mods are not always neutral and/or innocent and even if they are, they are not always perceived to be; fastness is not a virtue by itself - sustainability of the peace and quiet is. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Mods are elected. So if they show poor judgements, they will soon be elected our of power, no? Nerd (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. The coop works as intended. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
fcp - the same old shit as before. @Castigne i must be confused as to the coops purpose. Can you enlighten me? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
"The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM)." --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
really sure how its doing that right now. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the HCM is well contained when it's there. It sure as shit stopped being on the other pages. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thats because nothing else happens during coop. No one can resist the opportunity for dick waving. Its tragic that they believe they doing something more. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
FCP, for once, I say give it a try. I support your proposal. As a mod, you have the power to implement it. PBfreespace (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done with this site[edit]

Please don't nominate me for moderator or board member anymore. I have very little interest in this site anymore. It has a special place in my heart, and I'll happily defend it against whiners, but I'm not willing to put in any work for it. The other board members have probably suspected this for some time.

I consider my time as treasurer and board member for the RationalMedia Foundation an embarrassment. By any reasonable standard, I failed every goal I set for myself. I worked to gain the trust needed to be appointed treasurer, then set about exercising the same lack of discipline that's led me to drop out of college five times. I successfully managed only two fundraisers across 2013 and 2014. The latter half of 2014 was both a personal and professional disaster for me, and when my depression was at its worst. In 2015 I accomplished fuck all. On top of all this, the accounting software I had the Foundation pay for was only used by me for a couple months, at which point I never touched it again—that's $23 a month for the last two years, pissed away, because of me.

The past three years have presented a cavalcade of evidence that I'm unfit for any measure of responsibility. I will not accept any further nominations for board member (or moderator, for that matter). I also resign my position as treasurer. There's no need to panic about this: I've done literally nothing for two years in this role, so my resignation makes no difference.

I might pop up every once in a while. I have one or two articles I'd like to write someday. But I probably won't. I can barely bring myself to work on the things I actually enjoy, and I haven't enjoyed my time on this site for a long while.

I'm sorry for letting the Foundation down. I'm sorry for letting all of you down.

Bye.

Sincerely,

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, you sound like you need help. Get help. Medication, therapy, whatever. If you are already doing some of this, shake it up, go to a different therapist or try different medication. Best of luck to you. And get well soon! Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But unless you have a medical degree, please do not make clinical judgements. Nerd (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Nerd, my friend... For once you're in the wrong. Hamabost isn't making any type of "clinical judgements" by pointing out what is obvious and good advice, advice which any responsible person should be giving. Stabby mentioned depression by name, aside from signaling a rather overt mood from the entirety of her/his text. As a person without any stigma towards mental illness and with many personal years of therapy and several medications in my past - it does sound like Stabby could use some help. I concur with Hamabost - Stabby, consider getting help, if it's possible, if you're able and if you think there's a need for it - not if you think you "deserve" it or not, not if you think it'll "work" or not - if there's a need as in; if you're feeling depressed or the likes, Stabby. Medication, therapy, or both. Though, I won't ask you to switch therapy and medicine on a limb - that's a discussion to be held between you and your healthcare provider(s). But really, Nerd. Stabby doesn't need conflicting advice on whether or not to seek help if (s)he's feeling down. We all care for eachother here to some extent and we all want Stabby to feel better. So Stabby; if there's any need, please don't hesitate to get help. We're here if you wanna talk. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stabby Anyone with 22k edits is a god damn RW hero in my eyes, period. And you're being honest on top of that. Two thumbs up man. Respect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Since what you said makes sense, I retracted that comment. Sorry, everyone! Nerd (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Naw, it's ok, I know you meant nothing bad by it. Neither did Hamabost, though. Which was my point. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You did not let the Foundation down. And quit diagnosing people with mental illness on the Interwebs, not cool. You did not let the Foundation down. Objective (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Hamabost's intent is correct. Professionals have done wonders for my friends and family, even those who didn't have mental illness(es). Someone to talk to, who is neutral, and who knows the literature on psychology etc., is incredibly useful -- because life is hard.
As much as you demean it, your influence here is and will remain substantial. It might not seem like it while we squabble, but RW has genuinely grown into the internet's largest anti-conspiracy and anti-pseudoscience -- and your contributions (all 22k of them, edits alone) have helped them along. Failure is a human thing, all too often a RW thing, but that doesn't mean that you didn't move RW in the right direction. I wish you the best of luck in everything you do. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

ehh, don't beat yourself up. Do RW stuff an and when it's fun, do the grindy bits when you feel you should, stop doing them when they're too much of a goddamn PITA - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Objective Who was diagnosing people with mental illness on the Interwebs...? Stabby mentioned his/her own depression, Hamabost didn't diagnose anyone. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@FCP I also agree with Hamabost's intent, and I raise my voice in unison with it. Stabby, get well buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

To fuck up is human. No one expected a god. I can't blame you for wanting no part in the bureaucracy and lawsuits that makes the site keep going on the back side, though. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

EvoWiki: In case anyone wants a reprieve from drama[edit]

EvoWiki articles: 304 down. 2767 to go.

Drama got your head in a spin? Still hate creationism? Love tedious and unrewarding wiki tasks? Have we got the thing for you!

Project:EvoWiki is still ongoing. EvolutionWiki and its contents are owned by RationalWiki. Yet they remain separate. What can you do?

  1. Clean up ports. RW currently has 26 articles categorized as Category:EvoWiki ports. These articles need [1] to be cleaned up (they were written in '08-era wikicode), [2] to get an appropriate navsidebar and navbox, [3] to be renamed or merged with existing RW articles if necessary, and [4] removed from the EW port category. Tons of wikignome fun!
  2. Port over articles. EW has thousands of useful articles on evolution-education and creationism-rebuttal. (I'd estimate it's got 1/8 to 1/4 as much material as RW mainspace has.) And RW owns EW. To help port over the articles: [1] Ask me or David Gerard (DG is probs busy) to give you curator (edit) rights, [2] edit the EW article, copy its text, and replace it with "{{rw}}", [3] paste the text of the EW article to a RW article (if the RW article is under a different name, create the original name from EW as a redirect), [4] remove all categories, links, and templates that don't exist on RW, [5] add "Category:EvoWiki ports", and [6] proceed through "Clean up ports".

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Western Christians imagining or pretending they're persecuted[edit]

Should we have an article about this? See Author Mary Eberstadt Thinks Christians Are Under Attack, but Her Own Examples Show Otherwise. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Persecution is central to the Christian narrative and most of its theology, so it is preached and adhered to as fact, regardless of the realities. I'm definitely in favor of a page examining that. Petey Plane (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Persecution complexes are inherent in all of the Abrahamic religions; in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) Sunnis constantly complain that they are being "persecuted" whenever the government makes a concession to the Shia minority in the North, or the Hindu guest workers. Also, very many Shias come on the Hajj each year, people ask why the KSA allows so many Shias when there are presumably Sunnis around the Arab world who want to go but cannot. A common narrative is that, by giving in to the Hindus and Shias, the KSA is becoming a kufr state and will soon began violent persecution of Sunnis. You can find similar narratives in Egypt and Morocco with Christians and non-religious people as the enemies. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
True, but i think Jesus' persecution and execution adds an extra layer to Christianity's complex, although your example of Sunni's cries of persecution when accommodations are given to a Shia minority is a good example of a non-christian culture in which the majority religion is able to self-justify a persecution complex. Petey Plane (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have an article idea but no idea what to call it[edit]

About the kind of mental shortcut people take about probabilities. Inspired by the recent 538 article An 80 Percent Shot Doesn’t Mean Clinton Is A Sure Thing, where people's intuition about probabilities is that big numbers are treated as a certainty. When a weather report calls fora 50% chance of rain, they're good enough nowadays that about half of such days it really does rain, and 80% of 80% chance days have rain.

This doesn't correspond to people's intuition about those numbers though. They'll say "Anyone can say 50% chance and you'll be right either way" about the weather example, not realizing the rigor that that probability actually reflects. What do you call this mental shortcut? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

wishful thinking. Its why i buy lottery tickets. Its currently my pension planAMassiveGay (talk)
Someone has to win, and I deserve it! Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
i wouldnt go quite so far as to deserve it. There would be much squandering and much outrage from the daily mail. Shit, i dont even want much material goods. Once i have a nice house, i'd smoke the rest. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd bet this is related to the Gambler's fallacy. 22:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I think you're all of the mark. It's not wishful thinking when there's an 80% chance of rain and your brain just goes "it's gonna rain". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
You could write something under a "Popular misconceptions" section header at the Probability page. Appeal to probability and Improbable things happen also seem relevant pages. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

New Moderator Elections[edit]

Anonymous RationalWiki sysop here. Moderator elections are scheduled for next January, but do you think they should be pushed ahead to reshuffle the moderator list? With all of this recent coop drama and edit-warring, do people here think a referendum on how well the current moderators are handling these crises would be a good thing? 72.15.86.74 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we have a very good set of moderators for the time being. The only guy who hasn't really been super-active recently is ScepticWombat, and that seems perfectly fine to me, considering that several of the other moderators are and have been active basically all of the time (and considering that us sysop janitors basically have all the tools we need to handle the drive-by trolls and spammers). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the moderators are doing OK so far. Just because edit wars are more common recently does not mean the moderators are at fault. Nerd (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, compared to the Israel-Palestine days last year (and to when Ruylong was entering his red gigant phase)... things have only gotten better. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the wars have more or less been confined to Hill/Bern, and their related pages, and hasn't had much effect on the mission centered pages. The Primary arguments will inevitably fade over time. Petey Plane (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Huevos rancheros, and begging the question[edit]

That is all. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Farmer balls. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Aristotle did not speak or write Latin. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Nicely caught; the other wiki says it should be something like τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αἰτεῖν, if I squint real hard. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I think people who insist the informal-fallacy-describing idiom is the only correct use are silly, but I don't think there's anything complicated or counter-intuitive about the phrase "begging the question" being used to describe circular reasoning, bad translation or not. "Question" just means "the matter/issue at hand" in this use, as opposed to referring to a sentence with a question mark. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
When I first heard the English phrase "begging the question" I thought it was referring to statements which present an obvious question. For instance, an appeal to prayer is just inviting someone to ask which deity we should pray to. It thus "begs the question," i.e. invites someone to ask a question revealing a key (if unstated) assumption in the statement. Edit: Heh, after I read the comic in question, it seems my initial assumption is quite widespread :D Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Image use granted by creator, is now on begging the question. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Future articles- Naturopathic Medical Schools[edit]

I was thinking we could add articles on Naturopathic medical schools both legit and diploma mills.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Start with finding some references. Your newest creation needs them. Badly.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I added two links--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Monthly stats: June 2016[edit]

Click to enlarge.

June 2016 Users: 794

-00019 or -002.34% from May 2016
-00119 or -013.03% from June 2015

June 2016 Edits: 17824

+05218 or +041.39% from May 2016
+02619 or +017.22% from June 2015

Excel file here.

Overall: Users insignificantly down (1/31 > 2.34%), edits significantly up. June 2016 represents 1.096% of RW's total recorded 1,626,509 edits.

Alexa numbers essentially unchanged, in viewers and site rank. Quantcast US numbers down, 96k to 72k views. Compete numbers down, 510k to 397k views. Note: these are all imprecise.

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

Nabbed third place again (second if you don't count a bot). Also FCP, remember how we discussed site visitors with Gerard in that other thread? Seems the average there landed somewhere around 2.4 million unique visitors (based on the 55-60 million pageviews a month from the squid data). Do these new admittedly very imprecise (but still interesting) ballpark estimates from the sites above change the likelyhood of that number? How likely is 2.4 million to begin with? (Resting ultimately against the 55+ million pageviews Gerard has proven). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Remember, though, that DG's "numbers include MediaWiki calling itself, page fragments, etc." If we were willing to assume that even 1/10th of the squid logs are genuine page views, and that each person views about 3 pages (Alexa says: "Daily Pageviews per Visitor 2.43"), that'd make 1.6m-2m views. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
So what would be the best (most realistic) "vernacular ballpark" to give, in terms of: individual readers (even if they just view a single page once) per month? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd peg it between 500k and 3000k per month. *shrug* Ask DG, he's probs got a better idea. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

RW Press Release Idea[edit]

So I was culling reviewing EvoWiki articles, and they had a page for their press release to Panda's Thumb. Should RW do anything like that? FuzzyCatPotato of the Boorish US Navy aircraft carriers (talk/stalk) 19:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you more clearly say exactly what you mean? I'm not quite sure I understand. PBfreespace (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
(EC):Well it didn't help them much, did it? No. Also, if you port it over here I shall be forced to throw you into the pit of aardvarks. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the truth is not a popularity contest. Nerd (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pb: Basically that RW do a brief writeup of its mission & best articles and ask prominent atheist/anticreationist/anticonspiracy/antialtmed/etc. blog(s) to mention us and use that. Try & get new users &etc.
@BW: That's fair. Though RW is a lot larger now than EW was then -- and so are the blogs that'd be posted to. *shrug* I've not set my heart on the idea.
@BW: Shit. Aardvarks: direct fucking opposite of goats.
@Nerd: Yea, but often lies are. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@nerd - the truth is absolutely a popularity contest. Its no use being right if your such an egregious arsehole thag no one listens. More people should perhaps learn this. Uk might still be in the eu. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@AMG: I see your point. Alas, many people still favor the style over the substance. Nerd (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Big and tall[edit]

I am 6'4. I go running. I work out. I have a 6pack stomach. I am, point of fact, NOT fat. Why is it so hard to get trousers that are not either too short or made more for, someone, lets say, larger? One of my last pairs of bespoke trousers split at work the other day, handly before an interview, leaving me with one final pair. I cannot afford to get more made, so i have been forced to buy from jacamo, who until recently were advertised by johnny vegas. Part of me has died inside. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I just wear elastic pants, or if formal, belt-able pants w/ tight belt & wrinkles. In my case, that's b/c relatives like gifting clothes but not getting the right sizes. And as for why it's hard to get large, skinny pants? There aren't many large, skinny people -- and the relative distribution of money talks. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm 6'3" and wear a 34/34 usually (don't know what that is in metric), so i imagine you need a 36 inseam? That's tough without a 40+ inch waist too. I feel for you. Petey Plane (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's to looking goofy as hell in a convertible. Petey Plane (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It's good that you're so concerned about waste. --Ymir (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@_@ Petey Plane (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
i'd be less agrieved if i thought 6'4 was freakishly tall. Fucking stumpies. Totes jel of my godlike physic AMassiveGay (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Checking my logic here[edit]

The Spanish, unlike other colonialists, fucked the shit out of the Natives. We call the descendants of these people Hispanics. Those that had more Native on Native fucking are called non white Hispanics. Those that had less are called white Hispanics.

Without necessarily knowing the migration patterns of the Natives, isn't it fair to say that non Hispanic and non Native Americans who are American citizens are on the Hispanics' land? I mean, in other words, the ancestors of the Hispanics have been in the Americas way longer than the whites. Objective (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What? I thought "Hispanic" referred to anyone from the Hispanosphere, with the Spanish casta system coming in for actual racial stuff. For instance, people who are mixed with Spanish and Native are mestizos, those mixed with Spanish and African are mulattoes, etc. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The Roman church, whatever its other flaws, consistently upheld the shared humanity of Europeans, Africans, and Natives in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies. As a result, acknowledged miscegenation was much more frequent there, giving rise to a race system much more complicated than that of North America. Hispanic is a linguistic community that can only really turn into an ethnicity outside its home turf. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
"Hispanic" is a cultural descriptor, not an ethic descriptor. Most Central and South Americans are Mestizo, ethnically, which is a blend of Native American and European ancestry, as Aeonian said. Sort of like Aribic can refer to any Arabic speaker, but does not necessarily mean they are ethnically Arabic. Petey Plane (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the original poster is anti-liberal (though they likely would refuse the label in an attempt to appear unbiased and, ahem, objective), and that OP wants to show the liberals' hypocrisy when they call for land return in some cases yet refuse it in others. At least that's where I would take this line of thought. My belief is that land-ownership is a farce, an evolutionary relic of tribal societies and animal behaviors. Rather than try to implement a logical outcome of the aforementioned belief, I instead say that land should be distributed based on a combination of several factors: ethnicity, religion, language, and group identity. With regards to the question about Hispanics: I think the land should be divided based on group identity and popular opinion. If border areas like El Paso would rather be a part of Mexico, let them secede. I don't care. I conclude by asking the OP try to be a little bit less ambiguous with their question. PBfreespace (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I was implying that Hispanics specifically may have a natural right to be in the USA. This may seemingly contradict my previous anti trade and immigration posts, which were coming from a labor perspective, but quite frankly I don't care that I may be "arguing" against myself. Objective (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Why would South and Central American indigenous peeps have a right to live in North America, though? Would an Inca or Maya invasion of North America have been particularly more justifiable than the historical European one? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Broader question: what gives someone the right to own land? When the first humans in the Americas walked in, why did that make it their land? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 14:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

dont you have squatters in the states? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ethnicity is not based upon genetics alone. Some ethnic groups have more genetic variation within themselves than separates them from another ethnicity. As for "Hispanics" it can also be a (somewhat) meaningful designation within Latin American countries, as some countries experience conflicts between Spanish speaking people (white, mestizo or acculturated Native Americans) and other groups such as "Afro-Caribs", "Natives" and other non-Hispanic groups who are now or have historically been defined among other things by their language. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If anyone knows......[edit]

How common is mental illness among people with learning disabilities? I read before with certain disabilities there can be mental illness so I was just wondering.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

For example, ADHD is associated with something like a sixfold rate of comorbidity (that is; other mental illness as a side dish to the ADHD) relative to the general population. Example reading: here and here. This is, in turn, caused both by the difficulty of having said disability, but also probably to a very large degree because 90% of all sufferers (by today's numbers) go undiagnosed all their life. This, in turn, statistically propels many of them into drug use, sexual risktaking, and so on (what with the reward circuitry being central to the disability and amphetamines generally calming sufferers). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in Totnes[edit]

The capital of vaccine idiocy has a measles outbreak. Twats. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Twats indeed. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm waiting for them to blame measles on the EU and brown people . 107.77.106.120 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep waiting, Totnes voted remain. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
blameing measles on brown people? They would sound like rocket scientists compared to a friends neighbour in little totham in essex who blames the shitty summer weather on immigrants. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
nothing good comes from essex. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw some wankers blaming immigrants form south of the border for bringing diseases into the country (and took an outbreak form Disneyland or some shit like that, IIRC).--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 21:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 21:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I met this pastor the other day...........[edit]

And he was the rudest person I met. I have been checking out churches and I came across one called the Mount Hope Church in hopes of finding a church to go to and here is what happened: I asked about Pastoral Counseling because I suffer from mental illness and he asked me if I was in jail! That was a WTF moment for me, also he was downing the female Pastor at a nearby church because she was gay. He was far from Christian and a total ass.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, it's 50/50 with pastors. On the one hand, it's a reformed hippy who waxes philosophic, loves everything in life, and wants someone to thank for it. On the other, it's someone who wanted to go into politics because they wanted to control people, but realized that democracy doesn't work like that and/or were too dumb for government, and so just controls their flock instead. Usually by being as much an asshole as you describe. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and don't get me started on reverends... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Rationalzombie, if you have a mental illness, I would advise going to a psychologist/psychiatrist or counselor rather than a pastor. You are much more likely to get useful help that way. PBfreespace (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifNow that's the rational way out. Nerd (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you know he wasn't Christian? Did he say he didn't worship Christ? --Ymir (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

If you need mental health services, find those - not the musings of theologians. Psychiatrist is a good starting place, as they're educated both as psychologists and doctors. From there, find out about medicines and if you also need therapy, in which case a good psychologist is the next step (per my suggestion). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I do see a therapist and I have a psychiatrist plus I am on meds; I also want spiritual counseling--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

i dont know about pastors in the us, unregulated i guess, but i understand c of e vicars and probabably catholic priests are trained counselors if varying degrees. They might be of some use. I imagine many pastors are too. Just try to avoid with a too political bent. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Curious[edit]

Tell me, all who choose to respond, do you believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander? And if not, why not? What is the basis for the application of superior/inferior classification in your personal rule system? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I prefer to get my metaphors straight. I believe what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. —Diogenes (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe that everything that is good for me is good for everyone else: when I'm happy, others around me tend to be happy as well. Therefore I should get the best things possible, as it will help everyone else. If I'm the goose and they're the gander, then gosh-golly what's good for one is good for the other! PBfreespace (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Is your ultimate point behind this that Typhoon is right and Mona is wrong? That's what my primitive, recently installed emotion-sensors are telling me. PB (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
He's referring to this and this. So it's not "Typhoon is right, Mona is wrong;" it's "Typhoon is right, Percy is wrong, because Weaseloid." Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Mona never entered my mind, actually.
Nor am I referring to Aeonian's reference; as usual he gets things wrong. I was simply curious as to whether everyone is as absolutely fair-minded as I am. Not that fair-minded is good, or kind, or any such thing. As the Joker remarked, chaos is quite fair. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Egalitarianism can refer to two markedly different things:
  • The radical idea that morally irrelevant properties should not be cause for different moral/legal treatment
  • A simplistic reductionist moral approach which erases the fact that not everyone has the same needs and abilities and where treating people who fall outside of the established societal norms according to their individual needs and abilities is negatively described as 'making an exception for special snowflakes' and is thus strongly discouraged
Maybe this wasn't all that relevant to the specific context here, but just thought I'd point this out. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to simply apply the hammer to all the nails in equal manner, so they are all flat, without variation, without exception. I am, however, one who likes to have all things pleasant about him. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No. In particular people with very common preferences often mistake "very common" for "universal" and think it makes sense to make policy based on that preference, not because they're malevolent, but because they're ignorant that there even are people with other preferences. Pairing off is one example. Loads of humans think everybody would be happier paired off. Because they're happier, and many people they know are happier, and they just figure that must be the same for everyone. When you show them a guy who has deliberately chosen to work on his own in a fire observation tower two days from civilisation they say well, either that guy is mentally ill or he just needs us to send him a compatible partner so he'll be even happier. The possibility that he just wants to be alone either doesn't even occur to them or they reject that as a defect, something to be corrected. A person who starts out believing everybody needs an opposite sex partner may after a while run into a happy gay couple and they'll think they're being very open minded for now supposing that everybody needs a partner but they might be the same sex. And so then when they meet a much rarer person who has decided they're happier alone, they may think they're being helpful by suggesting that maybe the person is "just" gay. This is, needless to say, profoundly unhelpful.
As to why this happens this way, well, empathy is a very cheap trick. Babies need a model of the world to guide their actions. After a short while the models built have two major problems, which turn out to be amenable to the same solution. Some of the things in the world don't do what you expected, they have minds of their own. In particular, your "body" which is a bunch of things that seem to be roughly attached to where your senses are located, which does roughly what your mind tells it to, and a bunch of other bodies, which can be crudely modelled as having a mind like yours in them. You can substitute your mind instead for the purposes of the model, so it becomes simply recursive, it includes itself, many times, but identically. A cheap but effective trick which explains why the other humans in the model are trying to get pie (we want pie and they are like us), but stumbles easily on the problem of why they want cherry pie when you hate that and want apple pie. As we grow up the model is refined a bit, for example the idea that other minds might not know things you know can be used to explain a lot of weirdness you see, even when that's not really what's going on. We can model all these damn cherry pie fans as minds exactly like our own except that they don't yet know apple pie is better. Yes, that's why people keep telling you that their preferences are right and yours are wrong - they genuinely think they're helping even if they know intellectually that's wrong.
One of the reasons full AI is potentially terrifying is that an AI may not be amenable to this cheap crappy modelling at all. The AI may not simply be a person who has unusual preferences, or which knows or doesn't know weird things, it might think in an absolutely different way to us. We're instinctively scared about something we aren't able to model. An AI absolutely can surprise us in ways we hadn't appreciated were even possible. 81.2.89.118 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy treason day![edit]

You ungrateful colonials. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

We'll give you the South back if you let Scotland join us, deal? --Ymir (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
They'd get just as bad when they started having to deal with 99°/90 percent humidity every day for 5 months. Ugh, it's miserable here in the summer. Petey Plane (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

" *This post made possible through a generous donation from America and viewers like you. Thank you for your support. " Petey Plane (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


Speaking of which, this is still relevant today. Enjoy!

Nerd (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So, you're a showtunes type of gal, eh Nerd? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
We had to watch three different adaptations of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet for English class. West Side Story, from which this clip is taken, was one of them. Most of us really liked this song. Nerd (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds an awful lot like brainwashing to me, pal! Nah, I kid. :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
After being brainwashed, we had to demonstrate that we were brainwashed by writing an essay for the final exam opining and analyzing each adaptation. I felt rather uncomfortable because we had to write in pen. Nerd (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day US. Even though we're 195 years older than you and you stole most of your Declaration of Independence from us. But whatever.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, you're just 195 years older than the newborn US? Sweden has existed as a nation in written sources since atleast the year 1000. I mean, the university I happen to study at was founded in the 1400's! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting. God's own school, the University of Cambridge, and its neighbor, the University of Oxford, were founded in the twelfth century. Nerd (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, my university was founded six years before our own little declaration of independence was signed - apparently, the people of Leiden had the choice between not paying taxes for ten years and getting a university (which, by the way, was the first in the country). Luckily, they made the right choice.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
They did indeed! :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Without the slightest doubt. But to be honest, I would not feel comfortable giving people such an option. Receiving a proper education is an obligation as well as a fundamental right of all citizens in my view. There is a very real chance they will make the wrong decision. I am very happy to learn that the people of Leiden did not. Indeed, the Leiden University was home to many scientific luminaries. Nerd (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Netherlands declared independence from Spain in 1581. Obviously there were people living there long before that, but like a lot of places in Europe it was a mishmash of feudal estates and independent towns and whatnot. As for Sweden, one could make a case the current Swedish state only dates to 1810. (You know there were people living in what is now the U.S. before white dudes showed up, right? :p) --Ymir (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
In that case you should date the Netherlands to 1815. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Nerd Welp... They win! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ymir Interesting! And yes, I certainly (and I hope obviously) don't mean that the current Swedish state (or any type of state that would hold up even to early modern period requirements) existed in Sweden at around the turn of the first millenium. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Weasel My man! :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The United States only really became anything close to the country we know today with the 14th amendment... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump: Man of Wealth[edit]

So this comparison happened.

These folks are all pretty similar in their leadership style, methinks: "you do this, you do that, I am the best". Interestingly enough 2 of them were killed by the population they were ruling over. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

With foreign intervention that is. Nerd (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
FOREIGN INTERVENTION BAD HISS αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean? Nerd (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't tell if FCP is being sarcastic or not, seeing as how FCP supports the candidate that supported and actively campaigned for both interventions, and orchestrated one of them. FCP is so right-wing in general discussion that I wouldn't be surprised if FCP supported Libya. PB (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I do not oppose foreign intervention in general; it depends on the case. I just wanted to point out a fact. Nerd (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
So that's what his small loan of a million dollars from his dad has become, a yuggge fortune. He is tremendous potential. He's great. He's won big. He's a winner. They say he has small hands and insinuate that his brain must be small. He can assure you there is no problem. Believe him! Nerd (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

so right-wing

That's rich. "Right-wing" has, for Sanders supporters, become "anything to the right of god-emperor Sanders". FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And in some cases anything to the left from him as well. Vulpius (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Damn you. He was a really good candidate. I dont think other points of view are sacrilegious. Sanders isn't a god-emperor, especially seeing as he's going to die soon. Nor is Jill Stein. The left is what matters here. The left that Hillary abandoned. The left that is going to cost her the election. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Jill Stein can go fuck herself. She's your classic rich, lily-white, suburbanite liberal, which means outside of a handful of headline issues like the Keystone Pipeline and maybe taxes, she's painfully incompetent at politics outside of her tiny, tiny wheelhouse and staggeringly ignorant of how things actually work. Just look at her waffling on vaccine safety and her party's explicit support of GMO labeling: these are issues that are of interest primarily to a particular subset of rich white liberals, and have zero importance—in the case of pandering to anti-vaxxers, actual negative utility—in the real world. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
A comment about Jill Stein and GPUSA's stance on GMOS: They want to "put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)