RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive259

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 January 2018. 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>, <258>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, (new)(back)

Contents

A short essay thingy[edit]

So I wrote this the other day and wasn’t really sure what to do with it. I kind of just left if on my user page and thought I’d come back to it later. I really would like to get into these short type of essays were I share things that I have learned in hopes that it exposes others to new knowledge. If I could get some feedback and some thoughts on this I would be eternally grateful.

Essay begins

The Violence Against Abolitionist Movements

I've spent a significant amount of time studying the history relating to various aspects of the American Civil War. I like studying the Lost Cause ideology in particular. That might give you a sense of where I am going with this. I'd like to share with you what I learned about the abolitionist movements and the overtly evil reality of slavery. In short, within the North, Abolitionist movements were often violently targeted by mobs.

In the book, "Just the Facts: How Objectivity came to define American Journalism" by David Mindich, the author identifies numerous instances of violence perpetrated against individual abolitionists and abolitionist groups. To quote, "...attempts to silence [abolitionists] meant destroying printing presses and types. Sometimes this involved trying to kill abolitionist editors, as [the mobs] did William Lloyd Garrison, pulling him by a rope around the Boston streets until he was rescued by friends. One on occasion in 1837, a mob actually succeeded in both goals: in Alton, Illinois, after destroying the presses of Elijah Lovejoy, an abolitionist editor, a mob tried to do it again. Lovejoy, in the skirmish, was shot dead."

This shouldn't have surprised me when I read it but it did. I understand that the "Peculiar Institution" had far reaching influences in northern politics and society but never to the degree that it could convince people to violently suppress those who disagreed. It's terrifying and interesting to say the least. It called into question whether I truly understand the evils of slavery. After some thinking I reached that perhaps we as a society have an all to narrow understanding of the evils that parallel the reality of slavery. Familiarity with the fact that slavery is bad in the sense,"People own other people narrative" is a recurring theme that comes up when talking about slavery, which is all well and good, but rarely do we identify and learn about the 'other' evils of slavery. For our ancestors, they lived in a world where speaking out against slavery could get you killed. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering we fought a war to end slavery. I guess what I took away from this is that I should never assume I understand the degree of evil of slavery. That is to say, it always finds a way to out evil itself. Demosn (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Put it into Essay space.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 16:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 16:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
That was my original intention. However I felt that it was lacking and wasn't up to RW Essay standard. I felt it was rather brief and not fully suitable to be placed in the history essay categoryDemosn (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Check out Category:Essays. Our standards are not that high. Your text is fine. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not "up to RW Essay standard?" Dude, check out this amazing piece of work. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Should this be a separate article or part of Patriot Bible University[edit]

I came across a website called http://www.bibleinstitutes.org/details.htm and I know it is affiliated with Patriot Bible University. Add your opinion and lets discuss it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Same article. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you think Wikipedia has a Zionist bias?[edit]

If you look at Ratwiki artikles about Zionism Israel and Terrorists like Hamas, they are much more critical of Israel and apologetic towards anti-semitic murderers than Wikipedia. Do you think this is because of a Zionist bias in Wikipedia or because of some problem with Ratwiki? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's because of either. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a fundamentally different approach to bias. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
F-f-false dilemma!! But thanks for playing, Avenger. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The wikipedia page on Zionism seriously discusses whether German Jews provoked the Holocaust, among a long list of other criticisms. The introduction to the WP article calls Zionism "racist" and "colonialist". I don't see how the RatWiki article on Zionism can be seen as much more critical than the WP one. Annquin (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Where does it say that? And just because WIkipedia has a "criticism" section, doesn't mean that Wikipedia's articles have an overall voice of "Israel is evul murderer of innocent pali children crymeajordan" 62.212.73.246 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
What is the deal with the Zionist OCD around here? -MasterofLogic (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It's such a thorny issue because the failure of Israel/Palestine to turn into some utopia of fraternity and equality and egality exposes some huge flaw amongst many strains of thought amongst the Left (and Right, and Center, and Other). For example, you have the UN. The UN was supposed to be this organization that'd make war obsolete, where conflicts could be resolved without violence or significant harm. It was the embodiment of pretty much everything the Left stood for. Very first thing the UN deals with? Israel/Palestine, and it still isn't solved. The very existence of the conflict after all this time is "proof" of sorts that there are serious shortcomings to certain strains of Idealism, many different strains actually, and people hate ever having to confront the fact that they are inherently wrong. So yeah, it becomes a hot button issue. CorruptUser (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The UN is the epitome of liberal internationalists overconfidence that war can be ended with trade and a global forum. Regardless, I have always found that the two-state solution is both implausible and will likely cause more violence. I think the BoN assumes that every editor here holds the same opinions like a hivemind because we are critical of Israeli policies. This doesn't surprise since they believe we are somehow aligned with Hamas and has refused to actually refute anything.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 01:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The UN even helps to perpetuate the conflict.--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 01:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 01:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all of the UN's failures can be easily and pretty accurately pinned to its inability to really do anything. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well it seems to be crippled by design since the permanent members of the UNSC can veto any action they disagree with.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 03:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Given some of the members of the Security Council, the General Assembly, committees and similar, it's unfortunately for the best.--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 04:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 04:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
MasterOfLogic is right. This site does have a bit of an obsession with this issue. A great teacher of mine, an Israeli, told me that the moment we get into the issue of who is right, we have lost the game. This should not be a game of going though interpretations of history and trying to find out who is worse. This attitude will never lead to peace. On a related note, it seems to me that both sides are moving away from a mentality which will lead to solution, and reverting to the old game of blame and shame. There will never be a solution to this conflict, ever, because once Netanyahu (who at least pretends to want peace) retires Israel's next Prime Minister will be a religious fanatic, probably Naftali Bennet, who will create a theocracy, pass the Nation-State basic law (which officially places Jews at a higher priority level than others), and destroy any prospects of a solution. This is a man who called the Palestinians "shrapnel in the rear". Due to this, the attitude on the Palestinian side has shifted to trying to make Israel look bad to the world. This provokes Israel, who in turn cracks down on the Palestinians. This leads to terror, and terror leads to Israel building more settlements. The world should focus on a one-state solution, because that is the only possible solution now which can actually occur. The two state solution died with Netanyahu's reelection. Otherwise, Israel will become a Jewish Iran. On another related note, I am angry that people around the world are not condemning the recent Muslim terrorist attacks there. Some people even dare to justify them because of Israel's actions. For me, if a terrorist murdered the 13-year old daughter of Kim Jung-Un, or Abu-Bakr-Al-Baghdadi, this man would be a piece of bloody inhuman filth. TeslaK20 (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I may agree that the one-state solution was a more rational solution, I have always found it to be the inevitable solution. There was never going to be a way to create a Jewish state or Palestinian state w/o ethnic cleansing and the hardliners wouldn't want to share power with the minorities. The biggest problem with the one-state solution is that it may turn that united state into an actual apartheid state. With Israel's right wing making Netanyahu a center-right moderate, this faction may try to disenfranchise Palestinians who would become the majority population even w/o those Palestinians returning home.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) 17:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem most Israelis have with this idea is the fact that since the Palestinian refugees will return into their country, and not a separate state, Israel will "lose its Jewish character". (I personally have no problem with this) Indeed one of the main problems from an international and internal perspective is the nature of this state. Will it still have a "Jewish Israeli Identity"? Will it be a theocracy? If so, of which religion? Another issue is the Palestinian right of return. Support for the one-state solution comes mainly from the Israeli centre-right wing, with its most notable proponent being President Reuven Rivlin, a fluent Arabic speaker and a strong supporter of minority rights (sadly the President of Israel is a mostly ceremonial role). The left still supports two states, as does Yair Lapid's party (to understand Lapid: imagine if Donald Drumpf ran in 2000 with his progressive policies and sane behavior). While there are plenty of convincing proposals for such a solution, it will never happen, unless the UN intervenes, and even then, the UN has no real power. The religious right is the fastest growing political group in Israel, mainly because of the fact that ultra-Orthodox families have 10 or so children. While the multitude of religious parties are in no way united, and in fact many are the result of schisms, they nevertheless share the same basic ideology. The most frightening man in the Israeli political arena is Naftali Bennet, also known as Bennito Naftalini, who may not be crazy like Miri Regev and Oren Hazan (they behave like 2016 Donald Drumpf, minus his cunning evil intellect), but that is what makes him so dangerous. He wants one state, where the Jews are the "chosen people". I saw him speak in person once and he displayed his unsympathetic Jewish-dominionist worldview (though it did take place at the World Bible Quiz so I should have expected it). --TeslaK20 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder, Palestinian "refugees" (those who have inherited their refugee status) or Palestinian refugees (Arabs who actually fled from the area compromising Israel today)?--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC) 21:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
is there any room for returning refugees? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
First, there probably is room, and second, actual refugees who left or were removed from the area during the war are getting scarce... but Jews who were actually alive during the Second Temple Period are nonexistent. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Guess who's the only one getting inheritable refugee status from the UN, the Jews or Palestinian Arabs?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 18:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems we mostly agree. --TeslaK20 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Kill Lists[edit]

Ok. I just want to vent about this. I got in an argument earlier with people who are convinced or "on the fence" about the Clintons killing dozens of people. I just can't. They honestly believe this is a thing and I wanted to smack them. I used every logical argument that I could and they still were like, "Well, it is all to coincidental for me." How are people so stupid and how do they make it to the voting booth? AyzmoCheers 18:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, don't fight stupid, just feed it more stupid: Trump is "Illuminati" to the Bone Leuders (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean all the military interventions Clinton has supported? Oh wait, those are brown people. They don't matter. --Ymir (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hatred makes people stupid. They look for anything to justify it. -MasterofLogic (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It is impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists, Trumpalos, or Sandalos. Don't even try. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
"Trumpalo" sounds like a Mexican snack food. --Ymir (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I happened to live in Pittsburgh in the late 90s, when Richard Mellon Scaife spent millions to spread FUD about the Clintons in his Tribune newspaper and I was a Flavor-Aid drinking teen Republican. The root of it is the same as any real intense 'othering' - the other side isn't human. They're not people like us, they don't love their children or have hopes and desires like we do. They are engines of evil, destroyers for the sake of destruction. And when you think that way about your opponent, no amount of language is going to help change your mind. To these people, Hillary Clinton is literally the Devil, and holy wars don't allow for compromise. Semipenultimate (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I work in a machine shop and I am surrounded by people that believe this crap. The guy that I share an office with is a true believer. The conversations I get to sit in on are the highlight of my day. I have heard them talk about the supposed body count before, among other things that I fortunately can't recall at the moment. This particular guy was a Cruz supporter and listening to him argue with one guy that would come up and try to get him to vote for Trump was incredible. The bullshit that flows from these peoples mouths never ceases to amaze me. I just smile and nod mostly. I know who I can have a meaningful discussion with and who I can't. The people that have sunk to that level are beyond reason. Dustandshadow13 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How does one reason with one who rejects logic?

How does one prove scientific fact to one who rejects all media?

How does one fucking get through to these contrarian idiots? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"You can't reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into in the first place." --Ymir (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" (Sam Harris). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just get the names, and ideally recordings, and when Trump crashes, or loses big to Hilary, you can remind them.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This whole subject needs updating. Much of the original source of this is Larry Nichols who, in the 1990s was the inside whistleblower at the Arkansas Finance Development Authority marketed by Jerry Falwell on VHS as the Clinton Chronicles for $29.95 (this is whom Hillary was referring to in her "vast rightwing conspiracy" theory speech about people who accused them if murder). In the current Updated Clinton Chronicles, Nichols, who us presently very ill with cancer, is purging his conscience and confessing to not just being the inside whidtleblower, but the trigger and hit man himself on Clinton's orders. The subject is interesting, the sources diverse and scattered, but Nichols is directly referenced in Bill Clinton's memoirs. Nichols in fact is the guy who introduced Clinton to the Stephens family of Arkansas. Witt Stephens is Clinton's political godfather. The Stephens were joint owners of the American branch of the BCCI with the Riaddy family of Indonesia. Ken Starr had to take over the Whitewater investigation from Robert Fiske casuse Fiske represented clients in the BCCI scandal and had a COI when the Whitewater investigation began leading to Stephens bank, etc. Anyway, Larry Nichols wants to die with a clean conscience now and is saying not only that he knows the Clintons order hits, he himself executed some of them. nobsBern baby bern 20:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of "frist the star then the cross"?[edit]

So apparently many Middle Eastern Christians are now of the believe that the end of Israel (the "star") would also lead to the end of Arab Christianity ("the Cross"). Apparently this started in Lebanon and lead to tactical alliances with Israel. Do you think this is true? Do you think it has already happened (Jews expulsed from the Middle East and now Christians also expulsed)? Do you think it will get worse? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

First i've heard of this. Where, specifically, is the "star and cross" allegory being drawn from? An argument could be made that it is also a logical strategic alliance with the most sympathetic regional power. Petey Plane (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, where did all this come from? -MasterofLogic (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK the prediction, that after the Jews are going to be dealt with by hostile regimes and/or terrorist organization, the Christians going to be the next on the chopping block is called "After Saturday Comes Sunday"Wikipedia's W.svg. This prediction came in parts true after the Jewish NakbaWikipedia's W.svg, partly after Israel left the Southern Lebanon and later Gaza and now we see in Syria/Iraq the DAESH murdering, enslaving, raping and so on more or less anyone who's not an Arab Sunni and the other terrorist groups not doing much better than DAESH.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 23:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 23:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

in praise of rw as a news aggregator.[edit]

Thanks all, I've been trying to turn off my Murdoch news universe and rw has renewed some of my faith In snarky humanity. Salutations and good thoughts to youGadzooks (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I finished reading all of the articles of my personal interest on the site a awhile ago, but I still come to the site daily for WIGO. Having links to the articles of the various groups and individuals featured is really nice when I'm unfamiliar with them. 107.77.76.63 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No kidding RW beats Alternet, huffpo and all the execrable news content we're force fed down here in the Great Southern Banana Republic & Workers Paradise. We've had our maps drawn by Lying Cartographers for a long damn time and it turns out that Here Be Dragons is total BS to keep us obedient to Pharaoh Fox & Frenzy. I'd rather wait for something worthy to pop up in WIGO than do the omg-wtf-happened-is-it-a-kardassian-pavlovian-check-my-fb-every-five-seconds thing I have been doing. Gotta stop that. Anarchist Dyslexics Disuntie! We have only our syntax to lose!Gadzooks (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Godwin's law is getting to me[edit]

I'm pretty sick of it.

Text literally reposted from a neonazi forum, and people were like "whoa man, don't call them a nazi" and overwhelmingly took the side of someone charging that Jews controlled the media. I'm scared for the United States. People take middle-ground approaches between "Jews control the media stop calling nazis terrorists" and "what the fuck?" I'm sincerely and honestly scared for the next decade. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 05:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Idk how many right-wing, working class people you live by but things have gotten extremely hateful where I am. There have been a few instances of Muslims in my community getting screamed at and one person in my family believes that we are being invaded. They describe disgusting, horrendous, and humiliating forms of collective punishments like execution and torture we should use in order to prevent "the next attack". There are liberals I know who will privately say how disgusting this racism and sexism is but they won't actually do anything about it. They dismiss class issues because they think things shouldn't radically change and instead believe that nothing can change the opinions held by the working class.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 05:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if Godwin's law really applies at an actual neo-nazi forum. I mean, is there any surprise that the view that jews control the media was being defended at a neo-nazi forum? What's the story here? You said the text was reposted - so it wasn't written by nazis, it was "common folk" (whatever that means)? I'm lacking a lot of context here, I'm afraid. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Nah, it was copied from there to another forum. And regular people were defending the nazi. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh... Well, that's upsetting. And where was this? If the text was pasted from a neo-nazi forum, into which forum was it pasted? Facebook? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
yikyak, a local feed type app. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Local feed type app? "Local" as in, native provincials from your area? Interesting... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Approximately equal to zip code in scope. I'm in the south, but college-educated, middle class implicit endorsement of nazis has me on edge. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds more like the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory than Godwin's Law, by the way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No, because people were directly invoking it for an actual nazi. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Taking something seen on YikYak seriously enough to dissect and analyze? Really? Leuders (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
If it's literally word-for-word fucking nazi propoganda, what the hell more do you want to see it as "political debate" and not harmless? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well in context (YikYak is literally an electronic version of public toilet stall graffiti, a place where people can post significant stuff like "Shout out to the girl in the red sweater on the campus steps. Looking real good.") I think it's just mindless trolling by youth looking to emulate "edgy" and "hard core". Leuders (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
And again, I was far more perturbed by the people who were earnestly defending the "middle ground" than the stupid little /pol/ shithead themself. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Millenials[edit]

Re:Next decade: I think you're just seeing the polarization of youth -- conservative kids are a little bit Nazi, liberal kids are a little bit Commie. But then again, so are their parents. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

No, current group of 20 year olds is measurably backsliding on a lot of important measures of egalitarianism. There's something fucked up happening and it's the Internet's fault. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any stats on that?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 20:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
here's one ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. It is interesting to see that millenials are supported of women's rights but hold a more traditional view of gender roles and that they don't see those roles as feminist issues. I don't think you can blame the internet for that, though, since I would say that MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWS, et al aren't exactly supportive of women's rights like no-fault divorce. I would also say that there more traditional views of gender roles doesn't mean that they are backsliding on progress made in LGBT rights, race relations, or income inequality.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 20:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I have bad news about white Millennials' opinions on race. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks like white millennials are (slightly) less racist on all categories except "blacks are less intelligent than whites" -- IOW racialism is succeeding with white millenials. A case for more education on the topic. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well that definetly disappoints me since millenials appear to be more socialistic, internationalist, and concerned about income inequality. So it appears whites are more 'class-reductionist' than outright supremacists.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ikanreed that the internet has a lot to answer for. Another thing to bear in mind is the culture shift over recent decades whereby progressive attitudes towards women, minorities & sexuality have become (at least superficially) the default position of governments, the mainstream media & mainstream society. This means that those espousing retrograde attitudes towards these issues can position themselves as edgy, defiant or even anti-establishment rebels (cf. Donald Trump). & Since youthful angst goes hand & hand with rebelling against the establishment & its norms, it's not totally surprising that at least some young people gravitate towards reactionary worldviews & the areas of popular culture where they flourish. Unfortunately the unwholesome internet culture of 4chan, ED, et al is the closest thing to a mass counterculture this generation has. & That's a depressing thought. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This guy can't be serious![edit]

Saw this on my way home from a late trip to the store.
Don't really have words for this.

I really want to think that this just a trollmobile or something. Who knows...

An hour after encountering this, "thing". I am still at a loss for words.Dustandshadow13 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, definitely a genuine wingnut. I used to talk like that when I was immersed in the Tea Party clusterfuck. Also, what does Blue Lives Matter mean? Is it blue-collar workers? Smurfs? Avatars? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 05:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I was the same way about ten years ago. When I was 20 and stupid. I work with a lot of people like this. I just can't believe the guy put the shit all over his car. Dustandshadow13 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Zexcollar: Police officers. Blue Lives Matter came up after Black Lives Matter. --Maxus (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Any guesses as to what was on the plate on the front of the car? Dustandshadow13 (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Holy christmas jew! That car his waging a Hitler-scale offensive in the war for dumbest bumper stickers. "Wingnut-Clowncar.jpg" is an objectively fitting title for this image. Thanks for showing it to us! It should go on Imgur or something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes! I wish I could have seen what was driving that monstrosity, but he quickly pulled into a "gentleman's club" of all places. By the time I got turned around it was too late. Definitely one of the most insane things I have ever seen! 76.125.255.178 (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, insane. Glad you posted it here. We just don't get that level of crazy in Sweden - this is probably the worst in the general category of nutty-shit-worthy-of-RW that I've yet to run into over here (direct image link here). I keep my fingers crossed for better crazy in the future, though. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Why so serious, folks? What the heck, I'll laugh any way! Ha ha ha! Coincidentally, I walked pass an advertisement offering spiritual solutions to all your problems because rational scientific ones are dumb, astrology, and voodoo. Perhaps I should take a photo and post it here. Nerd (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Do it, Nerd! :D We need more exhibits for our gallery of the damned. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Did you mean Gallery of the Dumb? I uploaded it. Please see below. Nerd (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There really isn't anything on that car that's really far from mainstream Republican and right-wing talk radio thinking. I did have to look up ICLEI. Good thing he has 'Blue Lives Matter' on there; probably helps him from getting pulled over for having his rear window view obscured. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 13:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Good points. So, what was ICLEI? Where did it even say that? Not these guysWikipedia's W.svg, right? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently it is a local government sustainability initiative with the UN. This loon must be all up in arms because Pittsburgh is a member. Judging by the bumpersticker it is the usual Agenda 21 nonsense. Found some info here Dustandshadow13 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, is nobody going to point out that the URL "Jonoverpasses.org" doesn't seem to work? Or am I misreading it? Nothing like mega-advertising a wingnut page that's gone 404. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll point out that it says "JOIN OVERPASSES.ORG". ħumanUser talk:Human 00:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yea he wants you to go here Dustandshadow13 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that site is crank city. Thanks anyways! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Kookcar.jpg
This type of display is not that uncommon. This wonderful specimen was sighted in the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC. I found the bizarre antenna system fascinating. It looks like a home-brew ham radio rig. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of gas? No problem. Raise the sails. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Haah! Made me laugh, Smerdis. Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Their HAM hobby has gotten out of control! Petey Plane (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
If it's a ham radio rig, then I think I think I know who it is. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 17:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Holy shit! That rig is intense! Dustandshadow13 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
If it's a ham antenna it doesn't conform to any known pattern or frequency. Looks to me like it's just a Christian cross and all the wire-rope rigging is there stabilize it for travel at highway speeds. Leuders (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
No one ever said they were good at their hobby. Petey Plane (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yea I didn't look at it like that. Wonder what was driving that thing. I shudder at the thought. Dustandshadow13 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it's supposed to be a cross, since one of the placards says that the cross is the "image of the beast". WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Haha, good catch indeed. Typical religious ultra-crank, then? So Christian that the cross is now against God. Kinda like ISIS being so Muslim that they bulldoze mosques. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Good catch.. I am now totally confused.Dustandshadow13 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It really is just a nut pole and nothing to do with radio transmission. Leuders (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm entertained by the fact that I just now learned how nut poles are a real thing, and I think we should write an article on them. Not a funspace article; just a funny regular article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I started it here: Kookmobile. Feel free to rename, edit, add cats, etc Leuders (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
See also kye20121.net if this car didn't already confuse you enough 196.52.22.82 (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Are we mocking this guys politics and beliefs or are mocking this guys obvious, and perhap over the top, display of said politics and beliefs ?

Obviously I cannot speak for anyone but myself. Personally, I am mocking his totally over the top display of his political positions. Nerd (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

And while we are at it, folks, this guy is seriously offering some truly bizarre solutions to real life problems. Please take a look and laugh out loud! Nerd (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Unapologetically cranky. Omnipotence or impotence, that is the question.

Eye power, eh? Does that mean they'll stare into your soul and feed you copious amounts of bullshit? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 02:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Heat vision, X-ray vision, persuasive vision, death vision. And don't forget the profit! Speaking of which, I wonder how much money this guy is making. I certainly hope he goes bankrupt, which is a terrible thing to say. Nerd (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I also think he meant ObeahWikipedia's W.svg - not ObeyaWikipedia's W.svg - as it would fit with the rest of the list. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe he does project management consulting on the side? This guy already has so many nutty unspecific jobs on the same business card - why not one more? I imagine it's some kind of woo Kramer who gives those cards out. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
"Lifelong Protection" and "100% Guarantee" sound like an attractive combination. I wonder what the terms of that guarantee are. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
its a little bit disturbing the amount of attention some anonymous guy in a car is getting. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. Attention is clearly what somebody who decorates their car with so many large slogans is looking for. & The license plates are blurred out in both photos. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
He may have more than one car Leuders (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The real burning issue of the day[edit]

Why do we still have no smoking signs? Do we still need reminding not to spark up inside? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The politician that saves billions of waste on the anti-smoking industry is the one that "wants to force our children to smoke 3 packs a day". CorruptUser (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
they should really include no vaping on many of them AMassiveGay (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Anti-smoking has been a civil rights emergency for quite a while now. Your government shouldn't portray a group of its subjects as weak-willed spreaders of disease who require segregation and can be identified by smell. No good can come of it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 12:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I still see people light up indoors on a somewhat regular basis. I really wish non-quitting-smoking vaping would go away. I've had to ask several people (all men) to not vape in my office and they always looked shocked when I do so. AyzmoCheers 13:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've always wondered why people think they have the right to put things in my body I decide I don't want in the name of their freedom to smoke. -MasterofLogic (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever actually met anybody who told you that they think they have the right to put things in your body or are you just making that up? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually Weasel, buddy; based on our articles, I think we might be them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am going back to Paganism[edit]

Okay, I was in church today and I was not happy, they were judgemental to gays and generally hateful. I remember why I left Christianity in the first place. Okay, probably a bad place to rant but I just need to get it out there.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably a great place to rant about the vast issues plaguing organized religion, actually. Though, why paganism? Why not just naturalismWikipedia's W.svg, without the woo? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Or can the whole shit and join the ranks of godless?--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 10:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 10:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I do believe in a higher power but I respect peoples right to not believe. But seriously I remember why I left Christianity.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I respect that, too. It can be helpful to put views into words, too. For example, have you seen this video, RationalZombie? :) If not, watch it and give me your thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, what makes the character of your higher power fit any structure that requires a religion? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Black community responsible for 50% of all murder in the USA!!!1[edit]

Criminologists study race and crime for years, they get PHDs for fucks sake, but my facebook relatives seem to think it's as easy as a single stat. Do we have an article to cover the crime stats espoused by stormfront? --Frybread (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No, but Race and crime would be a wonderful article. FuzzyCatPotato of the Rude Popes (talk/stalk) 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
IIRC when including age and wealth, "black" is negatively correlated with crime and murder. That is, if you have two people identical except for race, the black one is less likely to mug you. Young people are more likely to be criminals, and black people are much younger on average. Poverty also influences crime, obviously, and black people also tend to be poorer. StickySock (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Socioeconomics; education, income inequality, poor city planning, age and gender also affect things. Perceptions of race can play a huge role, too. Actual race genetics play no role whatsoever. And let's not forget how few crimes women commit compared to men, universally. Especially violent crime, and so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That might contradict what I just said, since when accounting for other factors, being black reduces the risk of crime. But... it's complicated. StickySock (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, I hadn't heard that before. Do you have a citation? Bongolian (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I looked at Wikipedia's page on Race and crime in the USA and the causation list includes several discredited and historical theories. I think our page should focus on one or two of the best theories. --Frybread (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

On a related note: "How bad are police?"[edit]

Could somebody savvy with this type of stuff shed some light on the quality of this presentation? I had suspicions of the tone of writing (e.g. mocking the concept of patriarchy) as I was going along, and obviously I still do because I'd not ask otherwise, but towards the end of it I thought the tone turned around to something that sounded more progressive. So read the whole thing and the end-note before commenting, I suppose. I dunno. I'm literally just submitting this for dissection. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if the stats are accurate, but they are plausible. The big picture is that the USA keeps especially blacks in precarious situation, through a mixture of racism and (general) class warfare. But looking at crime stats or going with easy slogans is a truly bad idea, and as we see, backfires quickly. The story should start with why are people of colour are often poor; with brutal attitudes towards the poor in general, powered by the military-industrial complex; criminalization and imprisonment of the kinds of “crimes” which are more common among the lower rungs of society (e.g. see Clinton, she gets a slap on the wrist); or with the widely spread belief that poor people deserve their lot (and the bizarre sometimes comical extensions like Prosperity Theology, which makes it only worse). ~ Aneris 20:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Where the story should start depends on the questions being asked. If the question is "Why are police killing black people disproportionately?", considerations of socioeconomics and such can inform the systemic background of the situation, but in the interpersonal interactions that actually result in police killing people, the police don't usually have a means of telling just where a person is on the social ladder (Remember Obama's comment about Trayvon Martin? US dress codes are rather egalitarian.). So in the absence of police racism, what distribution would we expect to find for police killings by race? If people of all races behaved the same in aggregate, the distribution of police killings should match the population distribution (13% black). However, for whatever reasons (they don't matter for this consideration), people of different races commit crimes at different rates, in aggregate. Rather than population, in the absence of racism, I would expect the distribution of police killings to closely track the distribution of aggravated assault (the crime for which police would normally use immediate deadly force). In 2014 (the last year with complete stats), black people represented 33% of aggravated assault arrests and 30% of people killed by police. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Something I recommend for people with mental illness[edit]

Get a therapy animal to help along side your medications.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Animals are therapeutic, especially alongside - as you point out - actual medical intervention and/or therapy. In that context, great advice. While animals can't replace the companionship of humans, other humans can't replace that of animals either. Seek out both. The other side of the coin (of how having an animal friend or two is linked to feeling better) is the fact that people who enjoy harming animals aren't just criminals; they might be genuinely deranged. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a therapy cat myself, I had to get approval from my psychiatrist because I live in an apartment where no pets are allowed. My cat is very helpful and she has no tail (she is a manx). Anyways, I recommend it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
A helpful cat?! ...Oh, you meant therapeutically. (I have a cat too, your cat sounds nice!). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a ferret. I'm thinking about getting a cat too. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's sweet that you have a catsnake, Weasel. What's he or she like? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Like this, although quite a lot older now. He's a good kid. My other weasel, whom I'd had just as long, died back in December. I did adopt a couple more ferrets earlier this year but it didn't work out, which means I probably won't get another within Fidget's lifetime. I'd like to see how he gets on with a cat, which could be great or a disaster. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
He's adooorbz! :3
Sorry about your other Weasel, man... He had a good home, I figure. Also, I was asking myself too if a cat and a ferret would get along or not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't personally know anyone who's tried it but the cat-ferret combo can work, depending on the temperament of the cat & the ferret. I would need a cat with a similar temperament to Fidget: playful & inquisitive, not aggressive but not timid either. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Ironically that sounds like my cat to a tee! Though, he's a real oddball - the rainman of cats. But in a nice way. Rainman is apprehensive, this guy isn't. Actually, let me rephrase that. He's the Dr. Steven Brule of cats. Love that little scamp moron. His name is Ozzy, because he's an OcicatWikipedia's W.svg. Unoriginal, I know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Things that are better than Kent Hovind's dissertation[edit]

My 10th grade report on Santa for mythology class, my 10th grade report on James Watson, my 7th grade report on the Gas Giants and my 10th grade report on Sir Issac Newton.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds vaguely familiar.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a shopping list the other day which would likely have a better fighting chance in peer-review than Hovind's stuff. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Like Joris said, anything I wrote for school is superior to that piece of trash. Watching that guy talk on YouTube makes my blood boil. My dog makes more sense than he does. Nerd (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@RZ: We do have a page for Isaac Newton. Please consider improving it. Nerd (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about a report I did in tenth grade, that was five years ago. I didn't do a page on Issac Newton--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Quote from you, above: "...my 10th grade report on Sir Issac Newton.". Anyways, Nerd was just saying - feel free to chime in on articles. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, Reverend! I'm trying to get more people involved in our physics pages. As far as I can tell, the people who created those pages and who gave them early attention are now either gone or not very active. That makes me one of the very few active editors working on them. Nerd (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I would help with the physics pages but I don't know squat about it. Sorry--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Where to communicate with RMF candidates?[edit]

Where is the place where users can ask RMF candidates questions and make suggestions? --TeslaK20 (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's a question for all of us, pose it here (and if need be, alert those concerned via talkpage). If it's for a specific person, ask that specific person on their talkpage. Note that not every candidate (e.g. me) has any prior experience with the RMF. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be really nice if someone created a talk page specifically for this, to prevent things from being drowned out by saloon bar chatter and talk page business. --TeslaK20 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You're right. Come to think of it... These are the droids you're looking for. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:2016_board_of_trustees_election/Campaigning#Question_the_candidates. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Something that would be ripe for the picking[edit]

I was thinking for a future RW article we could make one on the International Metaphysical Ministry; they run the University of Sedona/Metaphysics and their standards seem to be on par with a degree mill. Example, for a doctoral degree there is no course work other than a 10000 word dissertation. Tuition seems to be a red flag as well. https://internationalmetaphysicalministry.com/doctoral-degrees-uos/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you finish the articles you have already started on or suggested? -MasterofLogic (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Put it in here.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds totally missional. Like Joris said, put it in the official list of suggestions. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
10000 pages? 94.7.174.20 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I meant 10,000 words, my bad--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Just had a look - the only guideline Leiden University gives for the length of a PhD thesis is that it must be shorter than 100,000 words, while a BA thesis in religious studies must not exceed 10,000 words. 10k isn't exactly much - my final essay from high school was over 40k, and I have a few essays of around 5k. Especially if no other coursework is required, 10,000 words is a piece of cake and an obvious sign of a diploma mill.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If you speak the DEUTSCHE SPRACHe[edit]

Habe einen Blick hierher https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKs304Bbxp4 jah! Gutes Musik! Hören gerne und mir dann Meinung darauf geben! Jah! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

A beautiful message on American patriotism[edit]

Dear reader. If you haven't seen this video before, shut the hell up for three minutes and just watch this; you beautiful disaster, whoever you are. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice video! If only they could translate that "love for one's country" and its people into something concrete, such as pushing for universal healthcare or affordable higher education... (By the way, united and diverse contracts as universe. :-)) Nerd (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
But... but Based Cena isn't supporting Based Trump... ;( <-- single tear Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

TempleOS[edit]

I was mildly surprised to discover no mention of TempleOS here on RationalWiki. Its author, Terry Davis, is pretty well known in certain internet circles, and he would certainly seem to qualify for Category:Internet kooks. For those of you who haven't come across Terry before, I think that this page should give you a general idea of what he's like. 95.148.100.86 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

He's mostly-harmless. Technical people tend to appreciate his creativity, give him a pass for his schizophrenia then ban him from their sites. It'd be hard to write an article that didn't feel like we were just taunting a crazy person, which is probably why we don't have one on Tila Tequila - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this subject calls for the application of Formosa's Law. Compro01 (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

In the Philando Castile and Alton Sterling cases, I see utter hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.[edit]

But I see it differently in each case.

In the Alton Sterling case, Sterling was carrying a gun illegally as a felon. He had previously been sentenced to five years in prison for carrying a gun illegally and also had an altercation with police while selling CDs (in a different parking lot). Gun control requires the police to effectuate arrests for people illegally carrying guns. When a person who is illegally carrying a gun then attempts to reach for his illegal gun while physically resisting arrest, deadly force is authorized in all 50 states. The Left's defense of Alton Sterling in light of the facts is illogical, disingenuous, and is supportive of deadly violence against police.

In the Philando Castile case, however, from the video evidence, Castile was compliant. In fact, he had a permit to conceal carry a firearm, proving aside from minor traffic violations he was a law abiding citizen. He was responding to a command from the police officer to get his license and insurance when he was shot. I don't believe the officer intended to kill Castile out of malice, but his recklessness in handling a traffic stop with a legal permit holder and his reaction afterwards should warrant at least a manslaughter charge. What is shocking however, is the Right's defense of the officer and attacks on Castile. They hate black people way more than they purportedly care to defend gun rights or the 2nd Amendment.

I believe intellectual honesty on both political sides will stop the bloodshed from continuing here. I'm just not holding my breath to see that happen. Objective (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have heard different accounts on whether or not Sterling had a gun so I would like a link. I am aware that if he did he would've had one illegally. Idk if you watched the second video of Alton Sterling but he wasn't armed and it appeared he was mostly subdued. I think the officer shoot him as a reflex to the other officer's screen that he had a gun.
Philando Castle shooting actually confuses me. I can't understand how anyone who supports gun proliferation can't be upset by how disturbing that video was and how that cop was clearly in the wrong. I thought the NRA's statement was pathetic compared to how much fear mongering they did after Orlando and Newton. They have a significant amount of Black members so I guess I was taken aback that it took them so long to comment.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 06:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
If you're surprised you apparently don't pay much attention to American politics. The NRA has become a far-right arm of the Republican Party. The American far right is made up mostly of disaffected whites. They think blacks are degenerate criminals. See: Trump supporters. --Ymir (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't what suprised me. I was surprised that the NRA decided to completely ignore their Black membership by not immediately defending a Black man who was killed for legally owned a gun and following the law. Gun proliferation groups have for years tried to convince Black folks that they can only defend themselves with guns and fearmongered about gun control by pointing out that slaves and later "Negroes" were banned from owning guns.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 03:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Now the question is, was the shooting of Alton Sterling justified? The officers had no knowledge of who he was or whether he could legally own a gun at the time he was killed. It was a family member who actually made the fact he couldn't legally carry known. You can't use that as a justification since he could have had legal carry at that point for all the officers knew. As for whether he attempted to reach for it, that's apparently up for debate. I've watched both video upwards of a dozen times each. He was wearing cargo pants with the gun in the knee pocket. As someone who wore too many pairs of cargo shorts growing up, it is physically impossible to reach down into the knee pocket without bending over. This is an overweight man who was prone, on his back, with two grown, also overweight, men on top of him. He couldn't have reached into that pocket if he wanted to. After watching the videos, it became pretty clear to me that he stopped moving when he had the gun pointed at his head. AyzmoCheers 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
You forgot to take into account that blacks are superhuman. We're all lucky that heroic cop killed that crazed Negro, who was just about to slaughter every defenseless police officer around him and then go on a murderous rampage. (*serious mode on*) Also U.S. police are generally taught to shoot first and ask questions later (or never). --Ymir (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Moar[edit]

Goat. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

And more graceful than Sheep, too! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Not available in my country (United States). Damn Brits, hoarding all of the goat for yourselves. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, here's the video and here's the description of the video. Have fun!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 20:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

How could peace in the Middle East be achieved?[edit]

I am not talking about the "big picutre" (i.e. no war between Western Sahara and Pakistan), I am just talking about the whole mess that Mona and Avenger liked to disagree on: How can Jews live in peace with their non-Jewish neighbors? Is there anything Israel can do? Is Hamas in demanding all Jews to be killed? Shut Hamas declare a unilateral unconditional unlimited cease-fire to put pressure on Israel? Would Hamas and Hezbollah accepting the right of Jews to have a state in the Middle East help solve the problem? How important is Jerusalem really, all things told? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Turning the whole of it into a glass parking lot. Once everyone involved is dead, then you have perfect and absolute peace. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it will ever happen. Unless some divine miracle occurs but I doubt the Gods would care. I bet they are thinking, "What the fuck did we allow to evolve"? Don't mind me, just the ramblings from a Pagan.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I've long been in favor of peacefully nuking Jerusalem in a way that makes a big crater. That crater is the designated dump for the world's radioactive and toxic waste. Just toss the barrels into the hole that used to be Jerusalem, and nobody cares if the drums leak. Two birds with one stone. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The best way to solve peace fii ash-sharq alawsat, and by extension the world, is to remove all human beings from the area'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Whose crimes were worse...[edit]

Indonesia in East Timor or Morocco in Western Sahara? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
East Timor is home to the boring clam. Nothing the Mexicans Moroccans could do can match that. Annquin (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried this on the PCC talk page but nobody responded[edit]

New names for Pensacola Christian College-

  • Cult College
  • North Korea Academy
  • Pensacola Christian Prison--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the reason nobody responded is because nobody cares. --Ymir (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Uh, yeah... is there a reason I'm supposed to respond to this? Is this school really important in some way I've yet to detect? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Just trying to have some fun--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there something about a religion / religious tradition that you admire?[edit]

Especially if it is about a religious tradition you are no member of or have never been a member of. Of course most of us probably don't believe without evidence in supernatural claims (i.e. are not religious by most sane definitions), but religious traditions have in fact produced things besides that. Be it Roman Pagan Saturnalia (when did they ever get out of fashion?), Buddhist methods of meditation, X-Mas or the - arguably - "Jewish" way of arguing as evidenced by the Talmud that may or may not have influenced both Hegel and Marx in their approaches to dialectics. I am curious to hear what you say. If this gets too long for the saloon bar (or should not have been posted here in the first place), please move it to an appropriate place. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(Christian) Monks make good alcohol. That kind of thing? Annquin (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Some Muslim nasheeds are nice. Christian monk singing is also good. Basically anything artistic that religion makes. All of that art would've simply been expressed in a nonreligious way if religion weren't so prevalent. PB (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Gtooving on some Tibetan throat singing. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 06:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic in a nutshell[edit]

  • Chiropractor: Got a back ache? We will manipulate your spine
  • Chiropractor: Got a head ache? We will manipulate your spine
  • Chiropractor: Got the flu? We will manipulate your spine
  • Chiropractor: Got necrotizing faciitis? We will manipulate your spine--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey, some of them will prescribe "drugs" too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
That's actually pretty good. Worth a cquote? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The same goes for osteopaths. "Got schizophrenia? Let me rub your foot a certain way and see if you're cured! That'll be 900 dollars please!" PBfreespace (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Preliminary note for my fellow 'Muricans: osteopaths are different in the rest of the world. Here they're just doctors with a different title. My primary care doctor is a DO and he hasn't rubbed my foot once! I feel cheated! --Ymir (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It makes sense if you understand the idea behind it: disease is caused by the nervous system being disrupted somehow and impeding the body's ability to heal itself. It's wrong, but at least it's a testable hypothesis, in contrast to the unfalsifiable vague assertions favored by some other areas of woo. --Ymir (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Ymir. If you get a stomach infection, what the fuck dord that have to do with your nervous system. I want to make sure you understand this fully. Diseases in general aren't caused by something disrupting the nervous system. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Is my comment unclear? I meant "all disease is a result of problems with the nervous system" is what chiropractic claims, and that this claim is wrong. --Ymir (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article- https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chiropractic-education-for-primary-care/--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Who is our greater enemy? Racist Trump or ISIS?[edit]

Donald Trump30Vote
ISIS24Vote
--188.166.156.100 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump. Racism and Islamaphobia drive "radical Islam". FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
What is worse? Being set on fire, or being thrown into a wood chipper feet first? --Ymir (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
At least if someone sets you on fire you have a chance of becoming an iconic image and stoking significant social change, a la Thích Quảng Đức. I've never heard of someone going through a wood chipper in any direction being the catalyst for anything besides a criminal trial. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
ISIS isn't in my country, so not my problem. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Not in your country that you know of anyway. They supposedly tell their recruits that if they can't come to the Islamic State, do your terrorism wherever you are. Bongolian (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Then we'll take care of them like we do any other extremist group in the USA. The FBI thwarts hundreds of terror plots each year; I'm not particularly worried about it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see the torture, terror, and rape apologists coming out of the woodwork today. This poll is total fucking bullshit. You like Trump, you don't like Trump, you like Obama, you don't like Obama, they're not psychopatic torturers. Objective (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump's not a torturer that we're aware of, but there is plenty of speculation about his narcissistic psychopathism.[1][2][3] Bongolian (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
So speculation is a useful method of determining the truth now? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The people voting for ISIS here have very little uncommon from the Holocaust deniers. Objective (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

ISIS feeds off authoritarians like Trump to get new recruits and leaders like Trump need the fear groups like ISIS cause to implement their authoritarian measures under the guise of security. -MasterofLogic (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I get it. The RegressiveWiki, hardcore Clintonian in nature, needs to bully people to vote for the warmonger Goldwater girl and noted wallstreet shill, and to do this, post a bogus poll that hypes up Trump as worse than ISIS. I'd support Bernie Sanders and then Jill Stein and obviously think Donald Trump is a dangerous idiot. But worse than ISIS? These people have enslaved, tortured and killed thousands and drove even more away from their homes (not to mention their destruction of cities and ancient culture). If anything, Clinton takes the second place after ISIS, as she advocated for the war in Iraq (supporting Bush) and also military interventions in Lybia and probably elsewhere. ~ Aneris 19:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The sick fucks here who are apologizing for ISIS need to watch this. [4] Objective (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It all depends on whose threat were talking about. Speaking as an American and member of the West, I'd say Trump has a greater chance causing massive death and assorted problems worldwide. Then again, I say the same for Hillary.
Objective, the question said "who is our greater enemy". I take "enemy" to mean who is the greatest threat to democracy, liberalism, secularism, and freedom. Trump poses a far greater threat to these things. Believe me, my answer would be different if I lived in Baghdad, since ISIS poses far more of a threat to my safety than Trump, but I live in America, where ISIS stands almost no chance of doing anything significant. That's why I answered the way I did. I hate ISIS. I support the current military campaign against them, which as a downright right-wing position for a flaming communist such as myself. I just think Trump is my enemy more. PBfreespace (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
(EC) It's a bullshit question to ask anyway, so don't read too much into this silly poll. We don't know if Trump is gonna be president. We don't know how much of what he yells about he would actually do if he were president. We don't know how long ISIS is gonna stick around. We don't know whether or not ISIS will continue being a terrorist organization of note after it loses all its territory. And then there's the vague wording. What we-group is this "our" referring to? The US? RationalWiki? All of humanity? And by what standard do we judge enemy-ness? How hard they shake their fist and talk about destroying 'us', the extent of things they've done 'we' disagree with, or how credible of a threat they actually are? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Has ISIS invaded any of the countries on the North American continent? Or our hemisphere even?
No? Then I don't give a shit about them.
As far as I'm concerned, they can take over every country in the Middle East and establish their Caliphate and I wouldn't give two shits. Why? Because as soon as they acquire real power, they'll civilize themselves and make deals with everyone else. And what they do there isn't my problem or the problem of the USA. Let Russia fight them. Let every European country have a democracy cakewalk in the middle of Mecca. Let ISIS pave every historical landmark they own. Whatevs.
You want me to care about ISIS? Invade them, conquer the territory they have, and place it under permanent American possession. Expand the USA's empire. Make them our subjects. Until then, let the people over there deal with it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could create a page on forced choice, and/or other problems with polling methods? Bongolian (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

To those voting ISIS:

Let's say Trump starts a major conflict. (Trump won't take Chinese job-theivery any more. The wall hits a roadbump and Mexico acts up.) Or Trump either fails to prevent one from happening or gets heavily, heavily involved. (Putin annexes Ukraine. China decides to win its islands and its economic zones once and for all. Korea gets united by force. China annexes/retakes Taiwan. Any number of African scenarios, including/especially civil wars.) If "merely" a million people get hurt, that's worse than ISIS.

Let's say Trump enacts his economic policies -- and pushes the US and the world into a recession or depression. How many billions hunger? How many millions starve? And when the economies come crashing down and resources dry up, dictators and warlords and fearmongers win -- leading back into the war scenario.

There's evil by degrees -- and ISIS is evil, superlatively. But even in a scenario where Trump is merely incompetent, he wins evil by scale. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

so trump is worse because of a bunch of hypotheticals of varying realism not least that he gets elected in the first place? The very real atrocities and literal genocides of ISIS comes second to the what is essentially a poltitical fantasy football league?
but lets be generous, lets say it all comes to pass, its still an obscene numbers game in which most killed wins and those suffering under one should be thankful they are not suffering under the other.

AMassiveGay (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

just a quick question, you realise that red dawn was a work of fiction right? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice forced choice. But just because ISIS is scary bad and needs their asses kicked, that doesn't mean I have to elect the first dangerous idiot who comes along saying he'll do that for me. Also I really love the idea that "as soon as (ISIS) acquire real power, they'll civilize themselves and make deals with everyone else" and I wholeheartedly wish that were true. The world would be better if we could just pump enough eTrade, Toyota, Netflix, Apple and Sony products into the cultures of suicidal religious extremists until they became capitalist consumers just like us. Leuders (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC) I see a surprising amount of "ISIS isn't in my country, so I don't care" comments. Hopefully being ironic, but I've been wrong before. Anyhow I shouldn't need to explain to a bunch of people claiming to support social justice why that's more than a bit fucked.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandal bin[edit]

Our policy clearly states that one should not put IP addresses in the vandal bin, where they may remain indefinitely. Those vandals could be using a public computer or an otherwise borrowed device. I went there today and found out that so many have been banished to the depths of Tartarus and got them out. Many more remain, however. But I am busy at the moment and must go. Could another sysop please continue this at their leisure? Thanks. Nerd (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a great scientific experiment I think. We should see if there is a marked and significant increase in vandalism over the next month, and if there is, that might tell us something. I'll wait and see. Oh, can you show me where said page is? I thought I saw it, but I couldn't filter by IPs, so I'm not sure. PBfreespace (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 06:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 06:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! It is probably better to request statistics on vandalism from a technician, since different sysops and moderators will take actions against vandals. I'm not sure what you meant, PB. If you meant the page that lists IP addresses in the vandal bin, I did not know there was one. In fact, I doubt it even exists. I simply went down the list and parole them on new tabs to speed things up. Nerd (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a mass-unbin function? It's a pain in the ass to do the same thing hunders of times over. If I'll make a primitive bash script to do it for me, will I trip some kinda safety guards against automated spam that exist[citation needed] here?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I really appreciate your effort, Kugelschreiber. I stopped only because my finger hurts. You should probably talk to a tech. Nerd (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
You can do it from the API with your script. There are no speed limits. Conscience (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Does vandal bin have an API? If so, lemme give you ninja so you don't clog RC. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
An API? Cool, do you have the documentation of the API? I hope it's simple, I can only write primitive BASH scripts.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) 12:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I think we got them all. Nerd (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Baton Rouge shooter linked to sovereign citizen movement[edit]

There's interesting news about how Gavin Long who shot 3 police officers in Baton Rouge had links to various sovereign citizen movements including the weird-sounding Washitaw NationWikipedia's W.svg.[5] Although for the mainstream media this is less interesting than blaming it on Black Lives Matter, it sounds like the sort of craziness RationalWiki should be covering. Does anybody know anything about these groups, have some good links, or maybe even fancy writing something? Annquin (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely sounds worth covering. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
He apparently also considered himself a targeted individual as well. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 12:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This is about as on-mission as it gets. Someone should right sections in these articles about this individual. PBfreespace (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I think a page that more broadly covers black separatism and the black sovereign citizen movement, as distinct from black supremacy, with insight into foundational groups like the Moorish Science TempleWikipedia's W.svg which inspired groups like the Washitaw Nation and the Nuwaubian NationWikipedia's W.svg (which also adds plenty of UFO insanity) would be very on mission, for sure. Petey Plane (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yikes! The Nuwaubians believe in a whole bunch of crazy shit. Dwight YorkWikipedia's W.svg, the founder of the Nuwaubians, is a scam artist, snake oil salesman, criminal, tax evader, paranoid schizophrenic, and convicted child molestor currently serving a 135 year prison sentence in federal prison after being convicted of various crimes in 2004. They are tangental to many topics on RW but I've never heard them referenced as "foundational" or "inspirational" for anything but a bunch of cultish criminals. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I meant to say that The Moorish Science Temple was a precursor to groups like the Newaubians and the Washitaw. Petey Plane (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Heather Mac Donald[edit]

I am going to try and not rant her too much but I have never read anything so mind-numbingly stupid than Heather Mac Donald's posts about her stats on police crime. She was invited to write 3 columns for the libertarian law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Her first post was about race and police shootings which brings up stats about how whites are killed more than blacks by police but she openly dismisses the effect that these killings have on these communities by saying that killings shouldn't be measured against a population. This seems reasonable (as long as you ignore the possibility that crimes whites commit are underreported because that aren't targeted) until she justifies unarmed killings by the police: she cites an example of a 50 yo white man using a spoon who was Tased prior to being shot, a 28 yo white man rushing officers after a high-speed chase and was shot, and a 21 yo white who was shot by police after he wouldn't remove his hands from his pockets. Of course, she doesn't consider that police in the US kill more people than police in other countries.

Her second post discusses stats that she uses to prove the contentious theory that there is a Ferguson effect. I have nothing on this atm but I don't feel that this is enough proof for me to prove that the effect is real.

Her last column discusses the race of officers who kill which tries to prove that BLM is built on a false narrative about white cops killing black teens. A commenter on the article had a great rebuttal to her three claims third article but I will summarize it here. First, the two studies she cites to prove that cops don't disproportionately target blacks: the first study took officers and put them in a computer simulation in order to see whether they had a racial bias towards unarmed and armed suspects but it doesn't take into account that the lab condition removed the officer bias since they weren't on duty; the second study involves those who have been stopped by cops and it shows that blacks are less likely to be killed during a stop but the paper itself details that this doesn't prove that there is a racial bias towards those who are stopped. Her second claim is that black officers use lethal force more than white officers which somehow proves that BLM's narrative that white cops kill black teens; besides that BLM believes that the abuse is systematic idk why black officers' willingness to use lethal force unless I assume, she is trying to say that black police officers are immune to racial prejudice. Her last point is that a higher amount of cops are killed by blacks than blacks that are killed by cops. This has to be the oddest claim since it would be strange for members of a random population to be killed by cops than cops killed by the population they police since they purposely put themselves in high risk situations. Regardless, this ignores the fact that police are less likely to be killed than they have ever been. Further info is in her book, The War on Cops, but I will save you the brain damage you may get by linking to a Reason article that debunks her claims.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible......[edit]

For a disease pathogen to influence the brain of an animal or human to spread the disease? Take Rabies, it alters animal behavior to where it could spread. No I am not trying to sound stupid here, just a thought.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. No, it's not trivial to evolve simple chemical pathways to ideally alter the behavior of a complex central nervous system. At the most evolved you get things like cordycepts, which can activate a specific response in a snail's brain that causes it to seek higher altitudes(so the parasite can be eaten by a bird). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You're basically right, but I think you're confusing species. CordycepsWikipedia's W.svg is a fungus genus that primarily attacks insects and other arthropods, often causing the zombified host to climb up from the forest floor before latching onto vegetation and dying. The benefit for the parasite is improved spore dispersal from the height. The parasite of the snail is a flatworm of the genus Leucochloridium.Wikipedia's W.svg Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not just possible, it's a proven occurance. ToxoplasmosisWikipedia's W.svg alters the behavior of tons of its many host animals, including of humans, as well as of mice (who become more risk-taking towards cats that may predate on them). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
i am aware of somethings affecting animal and human behaviour, but is there anything that alters human behaviour to actively propagate a virus or parasite? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but in a roundabout way that isn't quite evolution. Debilitating diseases often contribute to poverty, which puts people in a position where transmission is much more likely. StickySock (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's theoretical possible for, say, an STD to cause its host to become more sexually active. And then there's the crab parasite WP:Sacculina. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Another interesting "sort-of" case is guinea worm.Wikipedia's W.svg The female burrows out through the skin, causing burning pain. Sufferers frequently immerse the affected body part in water, which is exactly what the parasite wants; it releases its larvae into the water to continue the life cycle. (Now would be a great time to donate to eradication efforts if possible. Guinea worm is on track to be the second human disease eradicated after smallpox.) --Ymir (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Disaster Films and the laws of physics[edit]

If you think the Day After Tomorrow violates the laws of physics try watching 2012:Supernova or 2012:Doomsday (Not the one with John Cusack) or even Category 7: The end of the world. Those movies have even less respect for the laws of physics.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Are they at least fun to watch?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Category 7 is fun to watch. The others, not so much--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's lame that the earth can only generate winds and earthquakes of a certain power. We need bigger bangs. I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of special effects wizards. Annquin (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Relevant Chainsawsuit comics: http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2009/02/16/strip-162/ 173.71.121.36 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur and Alex Jones (nearly) come to blows at the RNC.[edit]

This is funny. Ana Kasparian calls Jones a "fat fuck" and he calls her "Jihadi Jane".[6]--Mercian (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. I saw this confrontation but I didn't see TYT's stream come back on.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 02:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Alex Jones storms into an already set up interview, won't stop yelling at people one feet away from him, won't leave, won't use inside voice (only use inside job), pandemonium erupts. Typical Alex! What can you do? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
...and Devon Tracey is praising Jones for standing up to the water buffalo. Sigh. PBfreespace (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Jordan the Palestinian state, a Palestinian state or neither?[edit]

So we all know that Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967 and also denied Jews access to the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron and other places. We further know that Jordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine as originally awarded by the League of Nations. And we also know that many people that would fall under most definitions of "Palestinian" are citizens or permanent residents of Jordan. So is Jordan "the" Palestinian state (as in the only state Palestinians have or need, just like Germany is "the" German state) or "a" Palestinian state (as in one or several states of and for Palestinians, just like the GDR was "a" German state)? Or is it for some reason neither? Please discuss, I am looking forward to what you have to say! 107.170.215.131 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is considered to be an Arab kingdom, not a Palestinian kingdom, due to heritage of the ruling family. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Palestinians only make up 22% of the population, the majority of those having given up Palestinian citizenship altogether and become fully assimilated as Jordanians. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It makes more sense to call Israel the Palestinian state. Annquin (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan
—King Hussein of Jordan, 1981
Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate

Palestinian are Arabs, did you forget it? --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And people can easily be divided by their creed. Just because the Jordanian king supports unify Jordan and Palestine doesn't mean the Palestinians want that. A good comparison to this would be how the people of the Northern Mariana Islands want to unify with Guam but the people of Guam don't want to unify with them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 21:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Creed? Most of Palestinians and Jordanians are Sunni Arabs, about half of the population of Jordan has Palestinian ancestry and there are also about 2 million officially registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan. Jordan is also the only Arab country to fully naturalize their Palestinians instead of the discrimination they face in the rest of the Arab World.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 16:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Right and emphasis on Jordan being the only country that naturalized the refugees. Just look at the Gulf states who haven't taken in any Syrian refugees even if they are Sunnis. Like I said before, though, the Palestinians don't consider themselves Jordanians.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 16:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So should this be covered in a RW article and if so which one? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Tim Kaine[edit]

So, now that Hillary has Virginia in the bag, I went to check what that means in the general election. NY Times has Upshot already on, which previously correctly predicted Romney being demolished by Obama. Scroll way down for the paths to victory graph. With Virginia Clinton will now have 494 ways to win, while Trump is left with only 16 ways. Who was it on this wiki that said that we'll all be crying when Trump wins in November? Typhoon (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Great news! By the way, the bottom of the link currently reads:
Clinton has 945 ways to win (92% of paths)
7 ties (0.68% of paths)
Trump has 72 ways to win (7.0% of paths)
Which are the newest numbers? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Right above the paths you have buttons for swing states. I checked Virginia as Dem, which gave me the numbers above. Typhoon (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Right now, according to the model, if Clinton wins Virginia, she will have 474 ways to win (93%) and Trump will have 34(6.6%) and there will be 4 ties(0.78%).-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Typhoon -- a Trump victory is about as likely as a Clinton landslide (meaning Trump has low chances of winning the presidency). The only problem is that this is current polling, and it could change. (Currently the trend s towards a tighter race.) Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 11:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Polls are so far only reflecting Trump picking Pence and the RNC, which is actually bad for Trump since this would mean he has reached his ceiling. Polls will certainly move once the DNC ends Typhoon (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Just winning the states Democrats have won in every election since 1992 + New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia gets Clinton one electoral vote away from victory. Trump has a lot steeper hill to climb. Vulpius (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there will be much of a "convention bump" for Trump this year given the Cruz speech and the controversy around his wife. However, it may well be that the DNC doesn't deliver a "convention bump" either. If Sanders supporters start anything approaching a floor fight on platform issues the media will spin the 1968 narrative until even a turtle living under a rock knows it. And we don't know whether there might be a speech that could be construed as an attack on Clinton or even worse a speech by someone not Clinton or Kaine (btw what's his stance on the Brotherhood of NOD?) that makes people too enthusiastic. Nothing worse than an aging ticket with a young alternative just having risen to prominence. I actually think Obama's 2004 speech hurt Kerry if anything. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering the fact that the theme for the first night is "United Together" and Bernie Sanders is the speaker on that night, I think any angry Bernouts will be silenced. Typhoon (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I cant wait for Tim's RW article. "Harley Tim is Jokerrly's sidekick. I found some legislature he signed when he was 4 that says "gay ppl are caca" Anyone else who dissagrees with this edit is a ZEALOT and PRO ISREAL" Sandflapjack (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What does Israel have to do with that? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Fitting user signature. Typhoon (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm loving all of the Hillary supporters circlejerking each other in mew Saloon Bar threads. All the usual suspects come out. You guys are going to be so shocked on election night when Trump wins. It'll be a madhouse here the morning after. PB (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at the "same since 2000" map here. You know what it takes to make the Democrats get to 270? Virginia and Ohio. You don't even need Florida, Nevada or New Hampshire. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
And given that Kaine basically means "+2.2% in Virginia", if all is the same, the Dems only need to win Ohio or equivalent. Trump currently looks fucked. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@PB: Actually, my "beloved polling group" agrees with the 2.2 statistic. If anything, it's a conservative number. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And how much do you think she would've gained if she put Sanders or Warren on the ticket? How many more perdent would've voted for her? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Not sure. If she got 100% of the Green Party (which would be unlikely), that's about 3-5%. But she might lose 3-5% of "moderates" and Republicans-voting-Democratic. (Armchair statistics here). The major benefit of Kaine, as I see it, is that (1) he doesn't piss many people off, but basically hands her Virginia, without which it's much more difficult for Trump to win, and (2) he's a good talker, so the VP debate will be a Dem victory over Pence's lardmouth. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the last question: will you apologize to me when Trump wins and say my prediction was correct? PBfreespace (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If, yes. If not, shall you? ;P I recommend a read of this article. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Putting Warren on the ticket would've hurt the Dems so very badly. The Vice Presidency is a symbolic office with practically no official power (outside of tie-breaking Senate votes) and not much unofficial power. Warren has been making great strides advancing and protecting the regulatory state within the Senate, and that all stops as soon as she's no longer a voting member of Congress. Kaine is a generic left-of-center Democrat who's relatively replaceable, so his absence is no great harm to the Democrats. Though honestly, if I'd have made the pick, I'd have advocated going with Tom Perez, Obama's current Secretary of Labor and a man with an impeccable political record, who's the most pro-labor Labor Secretary we've had since Jimmy Carter was president. Also, he's Hispanic, which symbolically is a huge win for the fastest-growing demographic in America right now. Just as importantly, it sets him up as the natural successor to Clinton in 2024, and I would kill to have an unabashedly pro-union President. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Kaine is probably one of the lamest out of the bunch and I dislike his positions on deregulation and free trade; he is also rated as a centrist among the Dems. His successful governorship helps him against Pence's claim of "success". Kaine has been go::od on social politics as well but, like Pence, he isn't known outside his state. I wish he would've been more principled against the death penalty. The most interesting thing is his attempt to replace the War Powers Act; I am wary of it because he worked with McCain, who is a hawk, but it doesn't seem like it waterdowned any of its power.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 23:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Of the four, Hillary, Trump, Pence, and Kaine, Kaine seems the least objectionable and maybe the least crazy to be president to some people. nobsBern baby bern 07:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And supposedly Trump at the very least hurt his chances in Ohio by snubbing the governor like that. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Can one party hold onto the Presidency for decades or even generations?[edit]

There is a common belief that holding the Presidency in one party for more than three consecutive terms only ever happens in very rare circumstances. However, for most of the second half of the 19th century the Republican Party held the presidency and both FDR and his successor were in the same party for more than three consecutive terms. Given that this election is - if anything - the Democrats to lose, should we be worried about 2020? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz will obviously run in 2020, and Donald will maybe go on another rampage too (though probably as independent after he blames the GOP for losing in 2016). The teabaggers will continue their silly search for "the most conservative candidate, ever". Typhoon (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a sensible prediction. Nerd (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
So in other words the 2000s Democrats are poised to become the equivalent of the 1860s to 1910s Republicans? At least in terms of holding onto the Presidency? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not unusual in other countries for one party to rule for decades in the post-World War Two period: the Liberal Democrats in Japan, Congress in India, Mapai/Labor in Israel, the Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party... If, as seems likely, the Republicans remain strong in Congress it's going to be far from a one-party state anyhow. Annquin (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Something like this? Also during the second half of the 19th century the Republicans did not control many states and were far from controlling Congress at many points in time. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Dems won 5/6 of the last 6 popular elections (92,96,00,08,12). By all rights, this should have been a period of intense Republican introspection about their continued failures. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How does the picture look like if you analyze the popular vote of House elections? They are a national election, too and analyzing them provides more data. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The latest edition of the Economist had an article about how a big loser, like Goldwater and McGovern, impacted and shaped their respective party's ideology for decades to come. My prediction: after Trump is trounced, the GOP will become more like the Democratic party in organization (adding Superdelegates for instances) and outlook (less free market, more big govt social spending, crony capitalism, etc). nobsBern baby bern 22:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
So the primaries become a farce just like they are at the Democrats' side?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Farce". Obama won. Clinton had the DNC's backing. Primaries matter, even currently. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
FCP, I don't think you understood what Arisboch was saying. He meant that the established Democrats have too much control over who wins. Do you agree with how the DNC works right now? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
No, but the system has more flaws than just "superdelegates". I'd rather replace all caucuses than remove superdelegates, if forced to choose. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rob I am slightly confused by your assertion that the GOP will be for more cronyism and less social spending as if they were ever entirely against those platforms. The Repubs haven't killed the Import-Export bank, ended energy or farm subsidies, and they haven't cut defense spending or foreign military aid.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The conservative movement in America as we knew it is dead - half by attrition, half by suicide. What is left are malcontent defecters from the Dems and a few single issue religious right types who haven't got the big picture yet. The Dems themselves are increasingly taking over Jesus and church people. Wall Street and business types defected to the Democrats in the first Clinton administration. The GOP has no choice but to become more centrist and mainstream; it's two most prominent living conservative thinkers since the deaths of Goldwater, Reagan, and Bill Buckley, that would be Bill Kristol and George Will, have already departed. I don't see them returning after Trump gets beat because of the structural problems which allowed a liberal outsider & RINO like Trump to hijack the party. And adopting an ex officio bureaucratic Superdelegate system like the Democrats have will murderer any pretense to being democratic, and totally destroys the conservative principals the Party stood for for more than the last half century. Once again, the party will "reform itself" by copying the Democrats success. nobsBern baby bern 06:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to insult you but why don't you consider Obama to be a conservative?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
has the presidential election campaign started yet or you all still faffing with the endless primaries farce? AMassiveGay (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Uh, I wasn't talking about the primaries?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
(ec)Obama? He's not like the Clinton's, he doesn't pretend to be conservative nor even try to poach conservative voters. Obama pretends to be bipartisan and concilliatory, but has been at times extremely confrontational. nobsBern baby bern 06:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
How exactly has he been confrontational and on what issues has he been confrontational?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You could begin with the passage of Obamacare, the way it was passed; they had to bend the House rules to do it (that criticism extends to Dem Congressional leadership, too); or keeping Susan Rice on in the White House after she was rejected with good reason as Hillary's sucessor at the State Department. Or his "punish our enemies" and "I won" comments that set the tone. Now the whole FBI whitewash of Hillary endangers his legacy, and that criticism won't come just from Republicans. nobsBern baby bern 07:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I only asked because Buckley's son endorsed Obama in '08.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 07:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@nobs: You consider Reagan a prominent conservative thinker? Sure, he was The Great CommunicatorTM, but I'd hardly consider him a great or original conservative thinker (actually, I don't consider him to be much of a thinker at all...). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Reagan was a classical liberal in the Hayek & Freidman tradition, which would make him a a late 20th century American conservative. The modern, now dead, American conservative movement dates its origins with Bill Buckley circa 1952 (and the publication of Whittaker Chambers book Witness) down to the betrsyal of conservativism by GW Bush and his big government prescription benefit plan. nobsBern baby bern 19:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So what about Reagan's defense spending?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 19:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Reagan was a war criminal. His administration was one of the most corrupt in recorded US history and it left millions of Americans worse off. But he did bring a lot of change to the political landscape. Not positive change, but still change. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You guys attribute too much to Reagan. Reagan faced a Democratic House throughout his term and a Democratic Senate the last two years. There was a national concensus to rebuild and modernize with or without Reagan. Even the level of spending remained in Congress's hands. The buildup began under Carter, the MX missile and stealth fighter, for example. It really wasn't 'Reagan's buildup'; most of the criticism was directed at Reagan's foreign policy, his refusal to negotiate with any Soviet leader before Gorbachev, and confronting Soviet foreign policy in Central America and Afghanistan. nobsBern baby bern 02:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Like Obama, Reagan is blamed for things that are beyond the president's control. The president is often little more than a national mascot.
Uncle Sam/Columbia 2016! CorruptUser (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, sure. But it's not like Reagan complained about military spending. The president is certainly complicit by not using the bully pulpit or veto power.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Iran-Contra was done without any input from Congress. In fact Congress trying to keep him from doing it started the whole thing. Similar things can be said about the Lebanon disaster. And his requests for spending were actually higher than what Congress ultimately approved every single time. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
In the case of the "Reagan buildup", there was a bipartisan national concensus to modernize. Defense spending involved multi-year contracts, and Congress committed to increased spending in the later yesrs of the Carter administration. While level of spending is set by Congress, and final approval to go ahead with certain projects, it is the administration (of whichever president) that chooses which programs to move forward with. In this case, Reagan's Pentagon & National Security team chose 'Star Wars', or hi-tech modernization over conventional weapons.nobsBern baby bern 03:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Intentional removal of sourced info[edit]

Is this the new normal on Rationalwiki? I'm asking because of a recent debate on this talkpage, where I learned that, quote:"I do only want to mention negatives and not positives"; is a perfectly fine justification to remove half of text along with sources. Is lying by omission Rationalwiki's new modus operandi? Should I start to worry that more articles are being edited with this line of thinking? Typhoon (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you upset that someone else has adopted your well-tested "modus operandi?" Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Heh. Just one example of a super-sourced text I remember. There's a lot lying by omission. It's the default in some areas. Not even what kicked off Elevatorgate is properly documented, and that's arguably the biggest flame-war-manufactuversy of the atheist-skeptics-corner. ~ Aneris 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon needs to stop demanding that everything on the site is pro-Hillary or pro-Kaine in some way. PBfreespace (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I have never demanded that thing should be only pro-Hillary or pro-Kaine, in fact I repeatedly stressed in the linked talkpage that all viewpoints should be represented. Pbfreespace3 has been the only one demanding things to be only anti-Hillary and anti-Kaine. Typhoon (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Quora: What do you think about Rationalwiki? And please use reason[edit]

Perhaps our Yahoo Answers fan was not happy with their responses.

Great site—not perfect, but pretty good. It’s not as “professional” as Wikipedia because they don’t adhere to a stance of neutrality—neutrality is neither necessary nor desirable when making an advocacy site—and some of their articles are a bit more antagonistic than strictly necessary, but it’s a good source for many of their articles.

Good sense of humor. Excellent critiques. Decent info. And honestly, it’s a better source for leads on conspiracy theories, urban legends, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and the likes than most sites actually dedicated to supporting that sort of thing, so its an asset to fans of those topics such as myself.

And this has been your daily dose of random internet links. Join us tomorrow, as Internet Man again protests the removal of his free speech rights. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, your free speech rights have been removed? Where do I sign the online petition? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Atir-Rosenzweig-Dunning effect[edit]

The Atir-Rosenzweig-Dunning Effect: When Experts Claim to Know the Unknowable

I, for one, support an article. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Add a section to our article on the old Dunning-Kruger effect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I support it as a section under Dunning-Kruger.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 00:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
They're crazy. I'm totally familiar with biosexuality. Much better than the alternative. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Rare good article on the Milo thing[edit]

Check it out guys by Cathy Young this article about Milo banning. I'd like to hear different opinion on it. https://www.allthink.com/1488357 — Unsigned, by: 182.64.66.229 / talk / contribs

The article raises some good points. I believe that Milo didn't technically do anything to violate Twitter's ToS, thus the ban was unjustified in a certain sense. But at the same time, I feel that Milo not being on Twitter only makes it a better place. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe that Milo didn't technically do anything to violate Twitter's ToS, thus the ban was unjustified
Whaaat
Lola Lazerface (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Social media and freedom of speech[edit]

I'll just leave this here. Vulpius (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

These arguments are bad and they need to stop.
Here's the thing: there are no public spaces on the internet. Everything is private. And it's not "private" in a way that benefits the average person, either. Own your own website? You're still subject to the terms of service of the server hosting it. Even if you buy your own server and host your own website—and that is a steep fucking price to pay for guaranteed free speech—your ISP can still tap you on the shoulder at any time and say "We don't like what you're saying" and pull the plug. (It wouldn't violate internet neutrality. Your ISP wouldn't need to intercept and discriminate against particular data, just read your website, check that they're your ISP, see if you're violating their vague Terms of Service, then completely shut down your account with them. They are not, after all, legally required to accept your money.)
The internet tends towards oligopolies (Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr; Google Adwords/its competitors), often even monopolies (Google search; YouTube). True, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're entitled to millions of listeners. But in an environment where there are very, very few meaningful options, saying "it's a private platform" is like making an argument in favor of company towns—if all services and property are technically privately owned (by somebody who isn't you), you have no rights at all. When there are no public platforms worth a damn, then large private platforms are public spaces. Saying "private platforms can do what they want" becomes functionally an argument against freedom of speech. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, they whip out the "censorship can only be done by the gov't" spiel only, when they see their ideological opponents banned. If it's someone they agree with, it's corporate tyranny and whatnot.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 18:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I remember that there was an indie game that criticized Apple's use of slave labor but when they were noticed by some media outlets they got pulled from the store; at the time, Apple dominated the market and the devs wouldn't be able to make an impact anywhere else so they might as well have been censored in full. One of the most concerning things about the privatization of the web is corporate surveillance since any company can steal your info and sell it without your knowledge or consent yet I doubt anyone will say that they have a right to do this since you are on a private platform. The worst part about this permaban is that Twitter has had a shit record when it comes to harassment and it appears that they will only ban you if you go after more famous people.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You are correct.
Unfortunately, the only way to correct the situation is to nationalize the monopolies/oligopolies and place then under government control.
Until then, as far as I'm concerned, the private platforms remain exactly that - and may be run as the private entities see fit. Their house, their rules. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Regulation is also an option. The California government, for example, protects the right of free speech even on certain forms of private property. Property rights, like all rights, are an invention of human beings, and are largely academic without a government to enforce them. In practice, the government can place whatever restrictions on the use of property that it wants. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As it were, the editorial view on the RationalWiki (as it emerges) is in line with the tweet/comic above, or Steve Shives' views and generally those of the "social justice" crowd. They want to have a nice chat exchanging the latest buzzwords in critical race theory and social justice, and then there are those hateful trolls that ruin everything, so of course can you can ban them, everywhere, because not subscribing to critical race theory is by definition hate speech. Or so goes the argument if it were spelled out. The latest schtick is to deny people their own YouTube channel with the rationale that critical videos would "incite" followers to "harassment" and because of that they need to be shut down. This is a known trend for a while. You can make 233524665 videos on Ray Comfort or episode 2509 on "why do people laugh at creationists", but don't even dare this with the Special Snowflakes of Social Justice. That's hatred! Harassment! Violence! When the people then complain about the obvious encroachment and creeping contempt of freedom of expression of others, the Social Justice crowd shouts "Ha! Freeze Peach!" thinking they are super clever, because every child knows that YouTube is private, and thus freedom of speech doesn't apply. Shives is basically RationalWiki incarnate, and Gary Edwards made an excellent video on all of this. So in my view, be consistent and add the comic in the tweet into an article. ~ Aneris 19:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiki moderation bot[edit]

Hello, I am a contributor on Conservapedia. I know there has been some tension between RationalWiki and Conservapedia, but I'm hoping that is not the opinion of everyone on either site, but only of some.
Due to the sometimes high volume of vandalism on Conservapedia (a problem you are probably familiar with as well) I have been attempting to set up a moderation bot, since our last one had a problem with an update a while back. While researching how to do this, another Conservapedia editor told me that someone here had offered some time ago to provide advice and/or assistance in setting one up, but had been turned down. I do not know if this is true, nor do I know who might have offered or if such an offer is still open, but I figured the one way to find out was to ask. If it was a genuine offer and is still by any chance open, I would greatly appreciate such assistance, if someone were willing. I know this wouldn't really benefit RationalWiki, though, so I understand if you do not wish to do so.
Thank you for your time! --Dave987 (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm surprised they allowed any mention of this website on Conservapedia. If they do make a bot for you, take a look at it first and make sure it isn't a script which permanently blocks Andrew Schlafly. I personally lack the skills to help you, but I hope someone else will, since we are decent individuals here and not an intolerant dictatorship, despite what Fox News may tell you. TeslaK20 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Heh... There do seem to be some hard feelings towards Mr. Schlafly, don't there? RationalWiki is something rarely spoken of on CP, but a few "typos" cover a multitude of evils. Anyway, thanks for the response! We might not have a whole lot in common, but if it helps, Conservapedia doesn't like Fox News much more than you do, though our reasons differ significantly. --Dave987 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem a decent fellow... There are too few of you at the upper levels of CP. It crosses my mind that you might be a Poe, but I will presently assume you are not, since you appear serious and respectful. I must ask, do you really believe that there is a liberal conspiracy to fabricate the evidence that the Earth is not 6000 years old, or is that view only shared by the sysops and their like? I am really enjoying this conversation, since I am nostalgic for the days that CP was the focus of RW. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Re:ModBot: A moderator bot is difficult to set up and requires installation on the CP server (or on a dedicated server of its own) or else it wouldn't run 24/7 and would be useless. Instead, I'd recommend installing AbuseFilter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter). While it can only get maybe 50-75% of vandalism (it's good for spam with distinct patterns like spam/page blanking but bad for trolling), it's a huge step up from vanilla. That said, if CP managed to purge all its trolls, it might look functionally unviewed and unedited. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

TeslaK20, I assure you, my intentions are genuine. The short answer is yes. The long answer is that I believe a lot of scientists honestly believe in what they are doing. Misguided enthusiasm and a blending of observational and assumptive science causes false results, but this is at least in part due to what they are taught. By the time they begin research, they have already been told how to look at everything, and cannot see what they should, since they view is already filtered. The simply ignore blazing problems with their theories like irreducible complexity (some things could not exist in simple form according to evolution), interdependence of species (some cannot exist without certain others), fossil record (so far, there has yet to be found an authentic "transitional" fossil, and that just one, not the trillions we should be seeing all around us), size of the solar system and the smooth obits of its planets (there simply is not enough room for a sun large enough to have lasted this long without disrupting the orbit paths, and also the earth's moon would have an elliptical orbit if it broke off the earth), etc., etc. However, I believe that there are some so desperate to prove that macroevolution is true, they stretch facts and yes, even invent them. This has been publicly proven on certain occasions. However, we could discuss points and counterpoints for decades. That's not really why I'm here. It's nice You can enjoy some nostalgia and my and CP's expense. ;)
FuzzyCatPotato, I do not have access to the wiki's host server, but I have a dedicated server I'd gladly use if I could set up the software. We don't have AbuseFilter, but we do have a couple other extensions with similar purposes. I can't remember all the names, but AntiSpoof is one of them. I'll probably suggest the addition of AbuseFilter, so thanks for mentioning it! Ultimately though, a bot really would be something I'd like to get working. It's harder, but they generally seem more effective (though nothing is perfect, of course).
We don't want to keep vandals around for statistics, nor do we need them. We get plenty of quality edits and truly interested visitors. It's true that vandals and trolls do effect the statistics slightly, but if anything, that's a disadvantage. We want an honest reading of genuine usage. Thanks for thanking the time to respond! --Dave987 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Dave, I'm refreshed by your apparently genuine disposition. Welcome to RationalWiki, even if for a specific purpose unrelated to anything outside the bot/edit filter topic. I hope you find what you're looking for here. However, since after all you did enter in here - into the proverbial lion's den - to ask for assistance, I'll participate in showing how we're not exceptionally bad people in any way, while also taking you up on some of the points you just gave, admittedly in passing.
1. First and foremost - the orbit of the moon is in fact clearly and overtly elipticalWikipedia's W.svg. This is probably the one entirely uncontroversial thing I'll hint you to, so with any luck - even if the entire rest of your points are kept - you may atleast shelve that point.
2. Regarding Irreducible complexity - if you had the time, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these two short videos on the topic? The second video highlights notable Creationist replies to the first video, so they're a worthwhile watch for all sides of the discussion if viewed back-to-back.
3. Regarding transitional fossils, please see TOW's List of transitional fossilsWikipedia's W.svg (We have a shorter list too, albeit without the pretty pictures). It's also important that we don't fall into demanding one single proof.
4. Would you mind clarifying your comment on the "...size of the solar system and the smooth obits of its planets (there simply is not enough room for a sun large enough to have lasted this long without disrupting the orbit paths...")? I'm afraid I didn't understand that argument, though I'd like to.
Thank you in advance for your time. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
At this rate, we're going to need to break off this rabbit-trail into another section, lest this discussion get derailed completely...that's fine though, I'm willing to side-track.
  1. You're right about the moon's orbit. I was getting my points mixed up (debating while half asleep doesn't work well). The elliptical orbits was supposed to be in reference to the planetary orbits, due to the shrinkage of the sun. (meanwhile, the orbits continue to expand. Not that many million years ago, the earth would have been within the Sun's corona, yes?) I had intended not to mention that particular point. The point I should have made about the moon was it's expanding orbit. At an expansion rate of 1.5 inches per year, the moon would have been touching either 1.4 billion years ago, assuming universal uniformity (which I believe cannot be assumed). This means that the earth could not have existed in a life-supporting state for more than 1.4 billion years.
  2. An underling problem I saw here was the idea that although something is irreducibly complex, it could have morphed from something entirely different which used similar parts. The problem is just that--there are no similar parts. As with the example of bacterial flagellum, the selves, "motors," and tails are entirely unique to this bacteria. The video claims that these complex parts have common building blocks. This is deceitful, but not entirely untrue. Everything is made of atoms (and it seems, every atom of "quarks"), so yes, everything has similar ingredients. Further, amino acids are very common--they are formed into different proteins. So every protein is therefore basically the same? The list could go on and on but in short, the assemble of these building blocks is unique, and capable of only reasonable serving one function. Evolution is the process of one new addition at a time, which proves beneficial to the organism, or the removal of useless material, one piece at a time. Many generations live with each mutation before another takes place. This is not possible when all parts are required all at once to make something functional. I couldn't find a high-def version, so pardon the quality, but here is a better rebuttal on that point.
  3. On transitional fossils, I do not have enough knowledge on the topic (though I know it exists) to speak on most of them without further research. If I have the time, I'll try to do some research and get back to this. For now I will say that: a) 100, 1,000, or 100,000,000,000,000 extinct species do not a species change make. From the Cambrian explosion, there has been a steady decline of species and varieties in most areas. In some cases, breeding has produced more variety within species, but this is not the creation of new species. b) You'll notice that most of the images shown are drawings and computer generated depictions. I can't say for sure about these specifically, but in some cases, only one bone is found, which seems slightly different than what would be expected (for example, Neanderthal skulls--pronounced forehead and jaw, but these bones are found to continue growing all throughout life, so if you lived for 400 years, you would look this way too). This leads to the conclusion that it must be another species, or a transitional one. I think the main issue here is that WP is calling certain species "transitional" when they are just similar to one currently alive. However, similarity to one does not make it transitional.
  4. The sun is shrinking at a rate of about 0.1% per century. As the hydrogen (and other light elements) is fused, mass is both condensed into more dense materials (such as iron, the star-killer) and converted into energy. For the sun to have had enough fuel to have been "burning" for billions of years, it must have been an incredible size--large enough, in fact, that the earth would have been inside of it, as I mentioned before. If the sun was this large in the past and the planets actually had larger orbits around it, then if the orbits did shrink properly, they would end up elliptical and uneven. (Also, the sun would contain a lot of iron by now, which would tend to cause a much more red tint than it does. Of course, we cannot see inside the sun, though, so this is is not a certain proof, but does cause question.)


Back on the topic of a wiki bot, I also have web hosting. I don't really see how a script could run from here without it being accesses, but my understanding of web development is limited. I read somewhere that a script can be installed on a shared hosting server, and run as a wiki bot. I don't see how, but I have the resource available if it could be used. --Dave987 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Misguided enthusiasm and a blending of observational and assumptive science causes false results, but this is at least in part due to what they are taught. Due to their religious convictions, by the time they begin research, they have already been told how to look at everything, and cannot see what they should, since they view is already filtered. The simply ignore blazing problems with their theories...However, I believe that there are some so desperate to prove that creationism is true, they stretch facts and yes, even invent them. This has been publicly proven on certain occasions.

Huh, look at that Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The sun is shrinking at a rate of 0.1% per century? If that were true the sun would disappear in a hundred thousand years. I don't know where this data came from, but my guess is that it was invented randomly in order to explain some creationist contradiction. Science has never found any evidence that the sun is shrinking (the sun will expand into a red giant, and then contract into a white dwarf in several billion years), and the Bible doesn't say so either, so there is really no excuse for anyone to believe this. --TeslaK20 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, it appears to come from an ICR paper, which claims as a source an actual scientific study. However, creationists like Answers in Genesis have stated that the sun is not shrinking. This paper (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html) rejects this ridicolous hypothesis, and it is written by a Christian organization. So it seems that apart from ICR, nobody accepts the ridiculous, outdated, and extremely incorrect theory that the sun is shrinking. Scientific studies clearly indicate that this is not the case, and the fact that Christian evolutionist groups as well as a large YEC organization have rejected these claims is telling as well. TeslaK20 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The Sun's core is shrinking, as it becomes denser due to conversion of hydrogen into helium. However this doesn't affect the whole star's volume (while it remains on the main sequence anyway) because a denser core fuses hydrogen more rapidly, producing more of the radiation pressure that supports the rest of the star. This is also making the Sun gradually brighter. Also, minor nitpick, but you meant white dwarf. A white holeWikipedia's W.svg is something completely different from theoretical astrophysics. --Ymir (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I meant white dwarf. While the sun's core is indeed shrinking, ICR's point is that at the current rate of shrinking the sun would have in the past engulfed the orbits of the planets. That is not true, though it will be true in a few billion years when the sun goes giant. ICR apparently have no problem that according to their "hypothesis" the sun will not exist in 100,000 years, since they believe they will raptured in their lifetime anyway. Of course, every generation since Jesus has believed this as well... TeslaK20 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What was your first thought when you saw or heard the name "Liberty University"[edit]

Honestly, I thought it was a research college--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

When I hear about any group with 'Liberty' or 'Freedom' or 'Patriot' in the name, I apply the standard analysis. First, how will they attempt to appear to be patriotically defending their freedom while simultaneously infringing on others' liberty? And second, whose pockets are filling up as a result? Semipenultimate (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The name made me think of Liberty Science Center. It's all been downhill from there. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Harmless exceptions to thirdtolast's rule: statue of liberty, liberty bell. I think that's it. Seriously. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Super Bonus Fun: just Google various combinations of liberty, freedom, and patriot. 'liberty freedom patriot' returns a whole bunch of safes you can buy for when the apocalypse comes and the Agenda 21ers come to take yer guns and dried soup away. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Oh, seemingly respectable university like George Washington or something." PBfreespace (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting name. Let me look it up. Good heavens! Nerd (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw or heard the name "Liberty University"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I live reasonably close to Liberty so I often saw advertisements, and even in those they paint themselves as a Christian university, so it didn't surprise me to find out exactly HOW fundamentalist it was. Hentropy (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw ads for Liberty U on TV last night. My opinion is that, if a college has to advertise on television to boost enrollment, it's not a place you should expect a quality education from. (See: the University of Phoenix, DeVry University, Keiser University, Lincoln Tech, and all the other for-profit schools that helped drive the student debt crisis.) The fact that they're now running TV ads speaks volumes IMO. KevinR1990 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Cash[edit]

Should we create an article on this? There is a fact check list on the claims. Lawrence Lessig has praised the research while Chris Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, has dismissed it. The book ranked as #2 on the NYT's bestseller documentary was released a day prior to the Dem Convention. The NYT and WaPo have used its research in their articles.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think it's missional?
I mean, I know that the whole "WE'RE GIVING ALL OUR URANIUMS TO THE RUSSIANS!!!" was one of the conspiracy nut reasons given for the Bundy/Malheur debacle, but otherwise, how does it fit in with the mission? --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well that is the reason I am asking but I think it fits into our mission against conspiracy theories.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems fully missional to me! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, is it a conspiracy theory or an actual thing? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It is and isn't. It appears the foundation took in those donations and that would create a conflict of interest. Whether this led to a conspiracy whereby they sold their opinions while in power may be more flimsy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 23:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyways, my only other issue is whether we should make a page on the book/movie or on the foundation itself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC) 00:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
According to Roger Stone, Chris Ruddy has donated $1.5 million to the Clinton Foundation. Makes you wonder what kinda poop Larry Flynt dug up on him. nobsBern baby bern 20:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Stone is a hack but Ruddy's page already acknowledges that he has donated to them; the op-ed he wrote explains that he never saw anything political at the foundation and that it was another potential witch hunt. At this point I think we should make an article on the foundation since I have read a lot of allegations of corruption from both the left and right.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The Foundation is here to stay in perpetuity. Since the Clinton's have effectively retaken control of the Democratic party from the Obama/Progressive faction (remember, there was a big fight over that in 2008), Obama will not have the power and influence the Clinton's had after leaving office in 2001. It will be interesting to see if Obama can command the same or better speaking fee averages the Clinton's have in coming years. nobsBern baby bern 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the Dems never opened themselves up to the influence that their grassroots would bring so it is unlikely that the Dems will change in the coming years. On the other hand, Priebus's failure to hand the nomination to someone the donor base approved of will likely change the Repubs for the coming future. I am curious on how the Libertarian party will turn out since it appears the Koch bros have abandoned ship and the Dems have rejected a coalition by choosing Clinton.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 04:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Koch brothers have given up on the White House, but that leaves more money to focus on state legislatures. They have nearly $1 Billion to spend. Last I heard Jeb Bush is contemplating voting for Gary Johnson and the drug legalization platform. Johnson is pulling 7-8% in some polls; he could pick up quite bit from Sanders people who are still really pissed off. nobsBern baby bern 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Rob, if Trump does beat her that will end her and her family's political careers since no one will invest in a family that couldn't stump the Trump.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 02:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Jesus, Bro!" Movie[edit]

Brad Jones (The Cinema Snob) is creating a movie called "Jesus, Bro!", a spoof on Christian films. He has trying to raise funds for the film.--Cms13ca 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure if mockery is really the right way to deal with these kinds of things. Mockery and satire didn't stop that stupid Ark from being built and all the bullshit that came along with it. Hentropy (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if mockery did not help it would still be important to mock religion. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks terrible. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
He should stick to reviewing Tyler Perry films. in my experience it rarely bodes well when a critic tries their hand at filmmaking. It takes a different skill set. Moreover, I have watched two of Brads previous films and they didn't exactly light anyone's fire. (Although he is a compelling actor.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
For a more historical example of "critic tries hand at moviemaking, fails", there's always Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, screenwritten by the esteemed critic Roger Ebert himself, and panned by himself in his own review of it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary has secured the nomination[edit]

Welp, that's all she wrote.
Now, we can get down to the debates. I look forward to Trumps mal-performance. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yup, officially made herstory. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Who was she up against? Didn't Sanders already withdraw his candidacy a couple of weeks back, long after it was effectively null? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nah, he was still put up for nomination. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think Trump will own the town-hall format, because of his unique debating style. Hopefully I wonder if his body language won't blow it like Al Gore's did for him. Hillary will do better in the podium format. Debates tend to be better for the liberal if they're evenly matched in terms of age and experience; see Romney in 2012. It'll be an interesting debate. PB (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I doubt Hillary really wants to debate him. We'll be lucky to see one or two if she can avoid it til October. She has nothing to gain and much loose by debating him as thing stand right now. nobsBern baby bern 03:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I would have loved to see a Sanders-Trump debate. Well, not gonna happen, sadly. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no teleprompters or written notes allowed to be brought into the debates. That's why you see the candidates writing furiously on their legal pads while the host makes announcements to the audience. They are writing down a list of memory aids for dozens of fairly complex policy positions and data to support them. During debate prep, they literally go to school. They study, train, and get drilled on this material. But Trump won't study. He won't even think about the issues in advance. (Why should he? He feels he is right about everything and has the best words) He'll just wing it, and bullshit his way out of stuff he's ignorant about (like the nuclear triad) or try to appear decisive on positions he's never given any thought to and blurt out gaffes (such as punishment for abortion). Leuders (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
And given that you're probably right, how much is it gonna hurt inside your brain when you find people the next day talking about how "awesome" he was at the debate? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, there are a shocking number of people who will support him no matter what kind of crazy shit he says. Leuders (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump is practically immune to 'gaffes'. When the clerisy rings the usual changes on 'how dare you say that' and 'that's a lie', Trump's fans will look on this as their hero's next triumph against the stifling consensus of political correctness. Running Hillary against that, she whose every utterance is subject to an eight second delay being parsed for potential damage, is a disaster waiting to happen. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I remember the primary debates actually hurting Trump a bit. That's why he wanted to skip them. Vulpius (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, having fun drinking Mona's bitter, bitter Twitter tears. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne, you're on watch. You're not doing much to improve your character. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
To Leuders: Trump will do better in the debates precisely because he's unscripted. He's actually going to look human going up against robot Hillary who just spouts canned rhetoric and platitudes.
Before, you were supposed to have better positions on issues than the other candidate, but think back to all make debate moments. Kennedy won because he looked better than Nixon, who was sweating. Reagan's "youth and inexperience" comment propelled him to secure victory. Bush Sr. kept looking at his watch. Gore looked too aggressive when he confronted Bush on the stage. Mitt Romney seemed like a goddamn robot compared to Obama.
Now imagine Trump against Hillary in a debate. Every policy junkie will say Hillary won, but every American voter is going to think Trump did better. Why? Because American presidential debates aren't about substance, they're about perception and likeability. There's nothing Hillary can do to improve her likeability.
Take Rubio during the final days of his campaign. Do you know why nobody liked Rubio? Because he was a machine that kept spouting think-tank terms and focus-group phrases. When he actually started insulting Trump's penis size (of all things!), hand size, weird hair and orange face, he actually went up in the polls. Not enough to win Florida and save his campaign, but enough for me to tell you that voters want a damn human for president. Why do you think they picked Bill? Dubya? Obama? They all were likeable. People you'd want to have a beer with. I'd rather have a beer with Trump than Clinton, and I'm a damn commie who doesn't even like beer! PBfreespace (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Or, Trump will flip out and start yelling at the moderators, audience, etc., when they don't like his "brilliant" responses (cf. him yelling at a reporter to "Shut up!" at his last press conference). You're failing to take into account that Trump is a narcissistic sociopath. In Trump's mind, Trump is the greatest human being ever and cannot be wrong, so if anyone doesn't like him, it means something's wrong with them. Your cited examples involve people who weren't narcissists. They understood they needed to make people like them. Also there were other factors: Kennedy was young and "fresh"; Reagan was a popular incumbent credited with an economic recovery; Bush Sr. and Gore were both boring and uninspiring, and Bush Sr. was up against a popular young candidate. --Ymir (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
"You're on watch"?! Stop threatening people, ya ol' wanker!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 14:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
How about a debate moderated by Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow and Trevor Noah? That would cut right through the Bullshit and the empty talking points. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump's BeerBuddy-TeflonProtected-AntiRobotic advantage makes Hillary and the Dems an easy target, but only if they saddle themselves with the old traditional campaign approach. It's a mistake to think Trump is the world's only media genius. Or that he's totally invulnerable because no one else is capable of tapping into people's gut feelings. Or that adopting Trump's insulting style was the only available tactic. As evidenced by this week's convention, Hillary is not going to present Trump with a stationary target, and the amount of world class talent and innovative thinkers working behind the scenes to defeat Trump is pretty astonishing. It's like an old Godzilla movie: guns and tanks and even the atom bomb have no effect on the monster and the situation looks so hopeless, but then the world's best scientists discover something that makes the monster vulnerable. I'll add one more thing I noticed. Trump calling out the entire media as liars and terrible people is now a staple of his speeches and rallies. So his base is effectively a cult where members are cut off from all outside ideas (even Fox News) and the only information they can trust is gleaned from Trump's Twitter and his speeches and rallies. Leuders (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
–All that is true, but it doesn't and never will amount to 51%; its hit a ceiling somewhere under 40%, add to that an anti-Hillary vote that brings it up to about 44%. So you have to isolate a certain uncommitted segment of the electorate that constitutes around 7% or one in every thirteen voters who will wait for a debate to decide and play to them. nobsBern baby bern 01:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Accreditation Service for International Schools, Colleges and Universities[edit]

Is this a legit accreditation group?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this a question which could easily be answered by using a search engine or referring to Wikipedia? See the Wikipedia article on Accreditation Service for International Colleges. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to support Hillary, and I'm pro immigration, but ...[edit]

The Democratic Party has dropped the ball on immigration, worker visas, and indirectly related to these topics minimum wage and benefits. One, worker visas are worse than either open immigration or no immigration. It sticks workers in a position where they can be exploited by employers at the expense of all workers, both foreign and domestic. With open immigration, at least the well qualified immigrants could become job creators, to steal a GOP word that is over simplified, and hire more domestic workers for higher wages.
Do away with the H1-B program. Do away with the hair brained idea of providing illegal immigrants guest visas. Do away with the country limits on Mexico, India, China, and the Phillipines.
This view is more aligned with the Democrats and I concede that,. However, Trump seems to be the only candidate that will shake the boat by going the other way, which is better than the status quo of a dual class labor system that hurts everybody. Trump embodies the frustration of a country and rightfully so. Obama has done a very poor job of addressing the underlying causes of income inequality, even though his motives are in the right place.
I'm frustrated about my election choice, but more broadly I'm frustrated about the state of our country. Unlike what Obama says, the country is not doing well. It is doing better than it was under Bush 2, but that is not saying much. Objective (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Then vote Trump if you don't like it.
I don't have any sympathy for people who complain about H1Bs. Most who do are the ones that swagger in saying "I am a Python programmer with 10 years experience. I expect to start at $200K/year." To which the correct response is to toss their resume into the shredder in front of them.
It's an employer's market. You don't want H1Bs? Underbid them. Work for what the market bears. Plenty of fish in that sea. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Objective Please ignore Castaigne. He's a techno-libertarian so every one of his ideas and opinions are manifestly worthless. --Gnillort (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
TBH I think that he's just an edgelord.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 14:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Libertarian what? No, I'm not libertarian at all. Libertarianism is the fucking stupidest ideology I know of; even hard greens are better than libertarians. You know jack shit, Gnillort. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am an authoritarian. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

How is no immigration better than bad immigration? Moreover, it's far more likely that the Dems will deliver a good immigration system than the Republicans -- who are unlikely to end the immigration system themselves. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming Clinton doesn't continue the mass deportation and militarization of the border that her husband started.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 03:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Meh, I'm just of the type that believes we should have near-open immigration for the upper and upper-middle classes, some highly-skilled workers as needed (and near-open immigration for those with student visas that graduate here), but limited immigration for semi-skilled and unskilled labor until we don't have significant populations in these cohorts. Thing is, importing a taxi driver, no matter how skilled, squeezes out the lower classes in this country and overall reduces per-worker GDP even as total GDP rises. The upper classes, the business owners and scientists and engineers and artists, these people multiply the economy rather than merely add to it, so importing them helps everyone (mostly) and increases per-worker GDP. "Right" and "wrong" don't enter into it at all, only what's best for the people in the country.
I, umm, take a different solution to the Repugnant ConclusionWikipedia's W.svg ethical paradox. I measure a person's worth by the amount they raise everyone else's utility, not total utility. CorruptUser (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Problem with that plan is that you will cause a braindrain on poor countries who need high skilled professions. This will stunt their growth and cause more low skilled immigration.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 04:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
That's true for some professions, like medicine, with long training times and limited numbers, but less true for other professions like software engineer where many more are currently trained in places like India than are needed. On the other hand, if you import most/all of your high-end workers, it will degrade the domestic education system, reduce incentives for companies to train their workforces, impoverish the middle classes, and in the medium-long term result in massive outflow of skills, experience, and money. Annquin (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me if I can't muster up some shits to give to the countries that have made themselves so terrible that the best and brightest decided to flee en masse. As for "more low skilled immigration", not a problem if you don't accept them. CorruptUser (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah they would be a bunch of fucking scabs anyways so let them starve!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 02:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But seriously, no one in the US wants to clean cow shit so you are going to have to higher those low skilled workers. Without their labor we would have nothing. Also, it isn't the fault of the general populace that their country is exploited by oligarchs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
And what better way to punish those oligarchs then by taking their best and brightest?
As for the cow shit cleaners, no one in the US wants to do it for minimum wage, but you'd find plenty of people willing to do it for $12.50/hr, the amount a typical garbageman makes. And cowboy is a sexier job than garbageman. CorruptUser (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
No offense, but I doubt that. There are jobs people just won't do. And taking the "best and brightest" from, say North Korea hasn't hurt the oligarchs; it is also classist to tell only accept people who had the privilege to go to university. It is better to take everyone we can in order to knock down an oligarchy since it delegitimizes their regime; I mean how could the Soviet Union be a utopia for workers when even the coal miner wants to leave?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 02:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
When it's YOU who pays for it, fine. But as long as I'm the one who suffers, no. CorruptUser (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are talking or how this is a "YOU pay for it" issue. I find it odd that you would bar low-skilled immigrants who will do jobs Americans won't do while the high-skilled immigrant replaces a college-educated worker. Don't get me wrong, though, I am not saying there are no negatives associated with immigration but those negatives can be solved by improving policies not by banning immigrants. Immigrants contribute to Social Security and Medicare but they never get that money or a vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
CorruptUser: "Forgive me if I can't muster up some shits to give to the countries that have made themselves so terrible that the best and brightest decided to flee en masse." Are you serious? You think that all countries entered the modern world on equal footing & the ones that are terrible got that way all on their own & not because of massive colonial exploitation by developed nations?
Owlman: "Taking the 'best and brightest' from, say North Korea hasn't hurt the oligarchs." What are you even talking about here? As the world's most closed totalitarian state, emigration from North Korea is minimal. Some of the few who manage to find a way out of the country (officially or illegally) may fall into the "best and brightest" category but it's really not enough of a trend to comment on whether hurts the regime, whose interest is to keep emigration minimal at all levels. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah NK was probably a bad example, I couldn't think of one off the top of my head at that moment.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 22:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
EC when you have organisations like the nhs importing nurses from places like the Philippines, so there are not enough nurses locally, its not the oligarchs who suffer. Nor is the brain drain of a countrys brightest only affect oligarchs (if at all). They'll suffer significantly less than the general population when the economy tanks, and make it so much harder to recover. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, sooo many things here.
1) Philippines intentionally trains more nurses than it needs with the intention of exporting them. As highly skilled and moderately intelligent workers, this is mostly a good thing for the West.
2) Whitey isn't so Mighty that He personally fucked up every single 3rd world country on Earth. Sure, Europe and the US fucked up a number of countries, but after a certain point, screaming "COLONIALISM!" just doesn't cut it any more. At some point, the countries themselves are responsible for their own mess.
3) Americans won't do certain jobs not because the job is beneath them, but the pay is beneath them. There is virtually no unskilled job in the US that you couldn't find some poor schmuck willing to do for even $15/hr, but shit jobs like farm work are paying below minimum wage because they can get away with it. Oh, and those pay below minimum legally; they include "free food" as part of the pay, but punish you for eating anything, then basically require you to live on site in a dirty shack with "rent" taken out of your pay. Oh, and they use child labor. It's not required that any kids you have with you work, but if they don't you won't be allowed back next year. So now, take a guess why farmers are so against abortion and sex ed? CorruptUser (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Farming isn't the only example of work that immigrants do the others don't want too: many cooks, maids, and certain construction jobs have many immigrants working for them. Oligarchs are a major problem in many countries but the people are not solely to blame for this. Trade and immigration and not the only things responsible for the state of the US's labor market.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC) 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for barging in but ...[edit]

... on FuzzyCat's advice I'll ask a question, which I haven't found an answer to. That's when and where is the vote for trustees going to be held? Cheers King Snie (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A valid question that merits a reply. I, for one, don't know. Sorry. Though based on this, it would appear that the voting may commence 7 days after July 25th. In other words, on August 1st. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Glenn Beck... voice of reason?!![edit]

Glenjamin didn't think much of God's Not Dead and walked out of the screening.

"Beck said that he went to see the film with his daughter and neither could stand it because it was so poorly done and one-sided and that they walked out after 40 minutes."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-walked-out-gods-not-dead Petey Plane (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Stopped clock phenomenon I guess. TeslaK20 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel like now that he's out of cable news and has lost some prominence, the need to push grandiose conspiracies for eyeballs is radically decreased. Cable News delenda est. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

People who study at Patriot Bible University[edit]

Should realize that there are better options for Christian education. Plenty to choose from (Liberty University, The Master's College, Cedarville University, Regent University, Pensacola Christian College, Cornerstone University and many others). So really, be smart and choose wisely. If you don't then you are stupid.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

They're probably not reading this. Why not keep all your thoughts about Christian universities in one place rather than starting a thread every time you think of something? It's really not very entertaining for the rest of us. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Now now Weasel, let's not be too harsh... I'd say some of the threads Rationalzombie tosses in here are unproblematic, even nice! That being said however... @RZ Weasel has a point in asking you not to start a new thread with every thought you get, RZ. I mean, there's three threads in the current Saloon Bar alone started by you which are minor-variance bible university discussions. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Education system + Tax reduction per child[edit]

This is a random idea that occurred to me one day. What if instead of the current system where you get credit to pay less taxes for every child you have why don't they make it so that the higher level of education the child is in, the more exemption you get. Example: pre k - 1%, k-6 2%, 7-9 3%, 10-12 4%, uni 5%. (I have no idea what the real numbers are so this is just for understanding). Wouldn't this plan make it so that people in poorer communities will be more motivated to go to a higher level of education rather than drop out to start working to help the family? Are there any large problems that could occur? I would like the opinion of someone that is more educated than me in the matter. Thanks.— Unsigned, by: Potpie / talk / contribs

It's common to provide benefits for older children conditional on them remaining in education. Child allowance in the UK works like this. The UK used to provide additional payments for low income kids to stay in school (I think this was cut back or removed). Tax allowances don't really help the poorest who don't pay tax. There's also a debate over whether money should go to the main wage earner, the main caregiver (traditionally mother) or the child. Annquin (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Cover nomination for Kent Hovind and Shakespeare authorship[edit]

The Kent Hovind article might be worthy of gold status - please leave comments on the talkpage.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy kindly asked me to include the page on Shakespeare for nomination too. So, here we go!--JorisEnter (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I made a hypothetical proposal for how to vote for a united nations parliamentary assembly[edit]

Feel free to pick it apart, but I think it's an elegant solution. TL;DR:rolling elections by timezone https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vnF_rvCekM2W169Xw81sBIe0jjintQ96wKy2R0LBjgA/edit?usp=sharing Threadnaught (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

So, uh, you want to replace the United Nations with United Timezones? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
nono, I want to hold rolling elections of a united nations parliament which get staged by timezone, which turns out is slightly more robust than it sounds.Threadnaught (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
But you seem to be suggesting that representatives be elected by timezone blocks rather than specific nations. That undermines the whole concept of United Nations, i.e. national representation in global diplomacy. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Are hawkishness and dovishness innately characteristic of one side of the political spectrum?[edit]

Given the debates over at Talk:Hillary Clinton and other places that I half follow, there seems to be an assumption that every last right wing person has a hawkish stance on foreign policy and every last "true" leftist is a dove. Where exactly does this view come from? And aren't there legitimate reasons (to those holding such views at any rate) for a leftist to wish for military intervention (e.g. spreading socialism) and for a right wing person to abhor such things (e.g. isolationism; making "NATO pay for its protection")? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that. It just shows one-dimensional thinking. Nerd (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
That's just how the political parties line up in the US: mainstream conservatism is hawkish, mainstream liberalism is dovish. Add to that the fact that people will extrapolate the nature of their immediate surroundings much farther than they should; and you get a lot of people claiming "conservative = hawkish, liberal = dovish" as some kind of incontrivertable fact. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Mainstream liberalism hasn't been dovish since Reagan. Abandoning anti-war as the default was part of the Democratic Party's rightward shift. Yes, the Iraq War inspired a lot of protests, some with tens or even hundreds of thousands of protestors. But the idea of a "just war" to bring freedom to other nations is still very much a part of the liberal consciousness now. That's changing—maybe—but right now the idea of bombing/invading other countries to "save" them is treated as an idea worth considering, rather than something to be rejected out of hand. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Meh. The mainstream Dems have proven themselves to be charlatans when it comes to the Bush years. Reagan has changed mainstream America and the Clintons changed the Dems. Most left-wing alternative media is anti-war or anti-militarist whereas The American Conservative is probably the last outlet of paleoconservatives. Libertarian outlets tend to go back and forth on interventionism with more mainstream outlets being clearly for or at least split depending on the conflict.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 18:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Years ago, I wrote an article about the other last outlet for paleocons. Now it sits, forgotten ;__; Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes but AC avoids the pseudohistory that Chronicle has. Besides, I haven't seen Chronicle at stores around me while I have seen AC.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Historically, in the USA, the Republican old guard was fiercely opposed to getting involved in overseas wars. This is why we stayed out of WWI until 1917 and stayed out of WWII until we were attacked in 1941. Right wing hawkishness is generally a Cold War and after phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In short, it's not. The point is that, in America, we ought to have a choice between being hawkish and dovish, and right now neither of the 2 parties give us much of a choice. You pick Obama, you get a 500% increase in troops in Afghanistan, and more wars than when Bush was in office. The point is the Democrats are supposed to be non-interventionist in contrast to the Republicans, but the choices we've been given aren't following that paradigm. That's a problem that needs to be fixed with candidates like Bernie Sanders. PB (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless the DNC has a moment of exceptional clarity, Sanders will most likely not be the nominee. By the way, don't forget Jill Stein, who is similar to Sanders in so many ways, and Gary Johnson, who also opposes military interventions in general. Nerd (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

RobS wants to define "patriot" again[edit]

Hawk/dove is more a function of patriot vs anti-patriot, and the GOP, despite its nativist and isolationist bent, generally since the Civil War, supports the Union. Democrats are known for thier tolerance of people who hate the Union and want to see it destroyed. The GOP by contrast, tends to support thier country even when Democrats get it into wars, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Democrats protest wars they start. But as a general rule, things may be changing now. nobsBern baby bern 03:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's unpatriotic to send our kids to wars they don't need to fight for corporations who don't need the extra profit. It's more patriotic to take a non-interventionist stance on foreign policy. PB (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why the Democratic Party is chock-full of neo-Confederates who hate the federal government. Oh wait, no, that's the Republicans. (I'll go ahead and await the Pavlovian "Robert Byrd was in the KKK!" response.) --Ymir (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Point is, both parties have alleged "hawks & doves". Dems have national defense patriots & a pacifist peace movement. Republicans have internationalists and isolationists. So party is not the key to looking at hawks vs doves. nobsBern baby bern 18:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Technological Unemployment[edit]

The World Economic Forum released a report earlier this year discussing the effects of what they call "The Fourth Industrial Revolution" up to 2020. I'd like to cite this passage specifically:

In absolute terms, men will face nearly 4 million job losses and 1.4 million gains, approximately one job gained for every three jobs lost, whereas women will face 3 million job losses and only 0.55 million gains, more than five jobs lost for every job gained.

Everyone can download the report in PDF form here, or read it on the WEF's website here. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, support sending the US military around the world and raining condoms from above. Less people, more jobs per capita, see? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
What about Bacon and Porn in addition to the condoms? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Less people translates into less demand; you still have the problem in the same percentages but with the absolute numbers changed proportionally. Besides, encouraging progressive attitudes towards sex would probably be considered Islamophobic. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Re:Demand: Unfortunately, no. Most population growth occurs in low-income LDCs; reducing LDC population would reduce the demand for products, but their incomes are sadly low enough that it wouldn't much dent the world economy. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
re:us military raining condoms from above. Sadly the us funded abstinence programs in africa did the opposite, reversing a dowmward trend in hiv infection in places like uganda. Probably help get the population down abit though if thats a price folk are prepared to pay. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wait a minute, doesn't the WEF subscribe to neoliberal/-classical supply side economics? Then how can they believe that these redundancies will not be magically fixed by the market through the supply creating its own demand and the invisible hand balancing everything out? Colour me confused. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Erdoğan's imposing of an Islamist state on Turkey inevitable?[edit]

Now that the coup has made him more powerful than ever, is this inevitable? Is there any way to stop it? I'm not Turkish, but I am concerned for the fellow secularists in Turkey if this takes place. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ataturk is rolling in his grave. Hopefully the *actual* military will have the spine to do something if Erdogan exceeds his bounds. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll wait to see if they stop having elections and instituting an Iranian system before making conclusions. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Iran never stopped having elections. They just chose who was allowed to run, and ignored results they didn't like. CorruptUser (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by inevitable. If the US actually gave a shit about protecting democracy in the Middle-East (ha ha ha ha!) then it could invade Turkey and overthrow their government and put the secularists in power. But if course, the USA won't bother, as long as ErDOGan cooperates with us. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The West backed Erdogan in the 1990s and his Islamist party before that, West has no intention of promoting secular ideas; it's easier to extract surplus value from backwards religious failed states than successful, sane states. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Not true. The US gets a fuckton of trade from Canada, and only part of it is backwards. CorruptUser (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Funny, but he means in the context of the Middle-East. And his point is valid. If the people of Saudi Arabia knew what their government was doing and how the US was letting the place be run, they'd break ties with America and try to cater to China and India instead. PBfreespace (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Depends. If they had the entire picture, and knew that the US more or less single handily saved Islam from the tides of secularism in the Arab world...I don't think they'd react so ungratefully to their masters. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
As Patrick Blanchfield points out, the US has a weird way of engaging with the world, arbitrarily dividing it into "countries it will eagerly compare itself to" (Britain, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Germany, France, Japan, etc) and "countries it considers inferior and therefore potential client states" (any country we backed a dictator in, or seek to "modernize" by exporting sweatshops and weapons to). The former we treat as our natural peers and partners. The latter are seen as resources to be drained and pawns to be advanced and disposed of as necessary in a game of global politics. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems legit. Do you think this also applies to Israel? God, imagine if we treated Kurdistan like we treated Israel. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me like Israel is in a weird in-between place. Its role in geopolitics makes it more like a pawn—it's supposedly a bulwark for US interests against the rest of the Middle East—but the power of the pro-Israel lobby has made it a pawn the US is unwilling to sacrifice. It's geographical position and own politics—tiny and physically surrounded by enemies that it needlessly antagonizes—makes supporting it uniquely burdensome in a way that other supposed peers (like, say, any given member of the European Union, or more reliable allies like Japan and Canada) are not. Neoliberal/neoconservative approaches to geopolitics demand that we support Israel, but realpolitik suggests otherwise. It creates this awkward tension that isn't present between the US and other peers or even between the US and its regular client states.
The closest comparison to America's relationship with Israel is, arguably, Taiwan. Though unlike with Israel, we can't enthusiastically support Taiwan for political reasons, and also Taiwan is up against a regional power while Israel is the regional power, I feel the comparison works. In both cases, ideology demands that the US support it in any conflict with our rivals/enemies, and in both cases it's a source of tension and a burden in a way that America's other peers are not. As John Mearsheimer notes, China is growing in power fast enough that by mid-century, we won't be able to guarantee the independence of an island that China sees as rightfully theirs when it's so far away from the US mainland and so close to China's own coast. Again, neoconservativism would demand that we support it unconditionally, but realpolitik suggests, eventually, saying "fuck it" and letting it take care of its own damn self. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that Taiwan may not survive the stab in the back you propose.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 23:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you're definitely right. Though I would quibble over whether it can accurately be called a "stab in the back". Keep in mind, China is a nuclear power, and this won't be like the Vietnam War; there are no proxy armies here. This is about nationalism, and China wants to directly absorb Taiwan into its borders. You can't really call it a stab in the back if you ask your supporter "Are you willing to start a war with a trillion-dollar, multi-thousand-life price-tag, against a nuclear power, just on principle?" and they answer "No". Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder, who's back do you propose to stab next after Taiwan was sacrificed on the altar of cheap computer mice and American flags?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 23:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm describing a likely outcome, not a desirous one, Kugel. At least, not desirous to me. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume that with the purges all the "actual military" leaders will be ones who think exactly like Erdoğan Gollum. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So far, Erdogan seems more like an authoritarian leader who wants something like a Putin style "guided democracy"Wikipedia's W.svg with powers firmly in the hands of a semi-autocratic leader than some sort of theocracy with the clergy playing a central role. So no, I don't think Erdogan is moving towards an Islamist state. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting you should bring up Putin in an analogy; he has said that he opposes most abortions, who has greatly restricted homosexual freedoms in his country, and has led the charge to undo the Communists' work and reinstitute Christianity as a key foundation of Russian society. Sure, his use of it is mainly as a political tool to build up his own power, but isn't that most religious state politicians and leaders? PBfreespace (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming at this point, erdodan has given up on eu membership? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pbfreespace: Sure, Putin attacks homosexual rights, but his disdain seems not to stem from religious arguments, but from his conservative macho view of the world and the safe assurance that in Russia's macho conservative culture, gay bashing is a popular and populist policy. The suggestions to curb abortions appear to originate more from a concern about the persistent population decline in Russia than about pandering to religious sensibilities. Also, the Russian Orthodox Church seems to function more as a creature of the state than vice versa. I think the difference is whether you simply use religion as a means to an end (e.g. Reagan and the old Republican establishment as well as Trump) or whether you consider the religious initiatives as an end in themselves (Khomeini, al-Baghdadi, Buchanan and probably Cruz). While there is a quasi-messianic and/or -millenarian strain to Nazism as well as Communism, I don't think either qualify as a religion, although both Hitler and Stalin had no problem using religion when it suited them. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Should the world powers join together and wage all out war against ISIS?[edit]

I think we should and show the world we will not bow to ISIS.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Short Answer, No. From a purely rational PoV, our current response to terrorism is dumb and completely emotion driven. Hard line policy is the best recruiting tool IS could ask for, and marginalising European and North American Muslims is about the best way to make some of them end up on the path to radicalisation (shameless plug, I have written a short medium article on this: https://medium.com/@Thr3adnaught/on-terror-7a2e9e32960e#.9ij9kkl1s ). I'm still open to other opinions tho, if someone can change my mind. Threadnaught (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
What the devil has fighting DAESH to do with marginalizing Muslims?! It is perfectly possible to do the former while not doing the latter! Kill the DAESH, but leave the peaceful Muslims at home (the majority) alone!-The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 22:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about domestic Islamist terrorist cells, but the politics of aggressive military action is almost always the politics of curtailing the rights of muslims in general. I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm saying that it is hard. (As a European) I would much prefer to see a more open door to refugees trying to escape to Europe, the entire region seems much more conducive to war anyway, I think it would be best to give the civilians a way out and let the people who want to fight fight. Europe needs the migrants anyway. Threadnaught (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It would have been better to kill ISIS early. Some estimates say that just 5000 US troops could have killed (and can still kill) ISIS in a matter of months. If Hussein could fall in two months, there's no reason to think ISIS wouldn't fall faster.

And since ISIS mostly kills Muslims, and since ISIS's survival promotes nationalist anti-Muslim right-wingers in other countries, the most pro-Muslim path would seem to be to kill ISIS? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Only the countries directly affected by it should intervene, although unaffected countries should be allowed to intervene should they choose to. Mainly Turkey and Saudi Arabia/Gulf States should have sent 200,000 troops to wipe ISIS out, but they didn't because they're Sunni. Gotta love Sunni nations! PB (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Only the countries directly affected by it should intervene
God, I hate this callousness. If -- as the socialists say -- the main divisions are those of class, why should we care for national boundaries and not send help? If -- as the multiculturalists say -- we are all humans, all brothers and sisters, no divisions between us, why should we care for national boundaries and not send help? If -- as the liberals say -- we are all equal, regardless of our origins, why should we care for national boundaries and not send help?
If everyone is worth caring about, why does your care end where your borders do?
And consider further that your nation's boundaries are arbitrary and that your birthplace is arbitrary. Why should you pledge allegiance to your country, based on location alone? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I support the air campaign against ISIS, dipshit. I absolutely think USA, Russia, etc. should help out. What I'm saying is that Italy, Greece, Netherlands, Spain, Japan, etc. should not have to contribute a quota if they don't want to. That's why the coalition is optional. I'd love it if everyone willingly intervened to stop ISIS, but that won't happen.
Be careful about insulting my socialism, FCP. Class has nothing to do with this particular military conflict and who should be required to participate in it. To finish my statement by asking a question, what policy do you support, FCP? Do you think every country should have a quota of troops they should send to fight ISIS? Should all of them be required to contribute money or airplanes? I'm trying to see what your alternative to me view is. PBfreespace (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Why only want USA, Russia, "etc."? Why should smaller or more "distant" countries be spared? If we are truly seeking an international order, why not make a genuine international taskforce for things like ISIS? Can we have global peace and, one day, global rule, if we do not require (short term, while countries exist) all countries work together?
Kk, insult has been designated "careful". Surely class has something to do with terrorism -- most terrorists are poor, opiated religious, uneducated persons (and this holds true regardless of type of terrorism, but is especially true for Islamist terror) -- and most terrorism victims are poor themselves. Surely a war "waged by the poor, against the poor" is a war worth fighting against?
And yes. I think that, until all countries have subsumed themselves to a genuine global order, that true peace and true democracy are not achievable. Integrating military actions is a good first damn step. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
At no point, ever, has there been a “just war” — not even when allies fought the axis powers. There will never be a “just war”. Wars are always fought for concrete tangible interests, such as access to resources, or denying resources to the opponent. Especialy Americans should get over their Captain America propaganda. No such thing exists, and never existed. You bomb other countries when the price is right. You have secured your oil in the melting arctis, or found new ways with fracking, and other oil states have secured your position for now. A little bit of stress on Europe and Russia is good for you, hence there is currently no need to attack ISIS. And when that changes, some other reasons will drive that change. ~ Aneris 23:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a strong claim. Where's the evidence that every war is declared with greedy motives? And, moreover, where's the evidence that war can never cause consequences that are good and outweigh the negative effects of the war? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not make the second claim. Obviously, the world is an infinitely better place without the Third Reich. I elaborate that here. TL;DR But of course, the USA, too, didn't care about Franco and assorted fascists and dictators, even helped them in many cases (Saddam Hussein was America's best man in the Middle East). Also, nobody cared about the Rwandan genocide. ~ Aneris 02:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It'd be absurd to pretend that leaders don't look at their or their nations' potential interests when doing anything even tangentially related to global politics - but I'll add that it's also something individuals do under most circumstances, too. I won't blame leaders for showing a bit of "greediness" in those cases, because war is a risky and costly business and wanting some kind of safety is only normal. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why you, FCP, believe ISIL would've been toppled so easily since militaries haven't been very successful against insurgencies but I won't get into a discussion of past wars and "just war" theory but I am mostly against ground troops fighting ISIL. Allowing regular ground troops in Syria or Iraq risks uniting Islamists militias with ISIL since those militias don't want us there; we would also risk fracturing the Iraqi government since Sadr has already told the Shia militias to attack us and the Sunni militias who support the government aren't likely to embrace the US's forces. The bombing campaign is mostly useless or even counterproductive at this point so we should scale back that campaign. Instead, we should use special forces against strategic areas and we should use human intelligence in order to destabilize ISIL's political structure. We should also use propaganda and encourage migration in order to delegitimize and starve ISIL of funds. We should pull our support for the Syrian rebels since they will inevitably lose and have become more hardlined as the war has dragged on. Lastly, we should give not just weapons and financial aid to the Kurds, Tunisia, and Jordan while building a coalition with Turkey, Iran, and Russia in order to contain this ideology.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC) 02:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The West could have "contained this ideology" in 1956, instead of toppling Mossedegh and eventually the Shah to support Islamists. They could have "contained this ideology" instead of supporting everyone from Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq to al-Qaeda's predecessors in the 1980s. They could have "contained this ideology" by letting theocracies like the House of Saud collapse instead of feeding them. They could "contain this ideology" today by embracing anti-theism instead of the Islamophobia narrative. Oh well, we all pay for our choices. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
And the West did contain Marxism in the Middle Eastso I don't see how we couldn't contain Islamism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Owlman, you should support the air campaign against ISIS. It's working, capturing key cities like Fallujah and Manbij from them, and cutting their supply lines and territory as well as killing tens of thousands of their fighters. They've lost the ability to do massive offensives like they could 2 years ago, because of us. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The whole point of unleashing the Salafi revival was to stop Marxists in the first place. The West knew religious fanaticism was a powerful deterrent against materialistic philosophies like Soviet socialism, and the Islamists knew well how they would be treated in the USSR or PRC. But the West could have accomplished the same goal by abandoning imperialism and actually helping Muslim countries build strong capitalist or mixed economies, thus joining the economic sphere of the West against the economically stagnate "real socialist" bloc. But they couldn't do that, because they didn't want a strong Middle East - they wanted cheap, easily controlled sycophants; the type of country a pathetic theocracy is excellent at becoming. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
As an American, I agree with this assessment. PBfreespace (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

iNoob[edit]

Hi. Glad to be a newbie here today after procrastinating so long. I'm tired of "neutral" mainstream Wikipedia but I won't give up there. I prefer truthful to neutral. I also applied to WikiSpooks today. What do you think of WikiSpooks, the deep state encyclopaedia? Do any of you cross pollinate around? I intend to if that's okay. I have a few anti-establishment ideas, little projects, and creative contributions I'm developing to share. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said on the main talk page: I wonder is RationalWiki skeptical at all about science itself? Or at least, bad science. Though I'm new here, I think it should be one of the purposes. We all know there's good science and bad science. There are so many ways to have a bad premise, set up a bad experiment, be corrupted by corporate motives, selectively release studies that either promote your agenda and profits or publish sensational or nonreproduceable material (that gets stuck in people's minds), education institution sell outs, work for the Nazis, etc. Critical self-analysis is good. I think Oscar Wilde said, "Everything in moderation, even moderation." I say, "Be skeptical of everything, even science and skepticism." ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider to RW to be very truthful, since it can get very biased at times. I would always consider Wikipedia's information to be far more reliable and truthful for various reasons. Considering RW isn't really skeptical on a lot of issues, I highly doubt they are skeptical about science itself as well. --YellowJelly (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you mind telling me in what ways RW is biased? I'm exploring beyond WP because they are utterly biased in favor of Establishment, western government, and western mainstream media accounts (propaganda and manufactured consent of the governed). Their claims of "neutrality' are not necessarily truthful if they don't even allow minority, "fringe", or skeptical perspectives on important issues unless it serves their agendas (ie. climate change). Otherwise, WP is a great source for general information that is politically neutral. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This link explains the philosophy behind our articles. If we believe in anything as a group it would be the scientific method.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I read that article and I'm still not quite 100% clear. I'll probably figure it out as I go. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Which parts of the article were unclear?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
We're actually quite exploratory of philosophy of science and the ways that science can be misused or vary in quality. We also have a clear stated bias, but that's because we're not an alternative to wikipedia. We overtly state that we do not compete with wikipedia. We're something different altogether, and we like it that way. Welcome. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I like the looser fit. I appreciated the Pseudojournal and suggested on the Talk:Pseudojournal page that corporate influence corruption should be mentioned. My aim here is to try to bring some science to the political realm as much as to religion. Religion seems to be distraction, motivation, and excuse for many to be crazy, while politics and the money and motives behind it seem far more serious and also worthy of exposure. (One could argue that racist belief is like religion, and MLK could get people the vote, which cost the Establishment little because they figure out countless other ways to rig the system, but when he started fighting inequality they had to shut that down.) The chaos of the world cannot all be blamed on the Establishment cabal and their government puppets, but they sure know how to manipulate all of their rigged systems and if humanity can divert rivers they can certainly steer politics (burned Bernie), wage stupid wars, and mind control masses (debt slaves who unaware of Jill Stein) with patriotic propaganda, just as easily as religion does. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'm a little hesitant. From Category:Pseudojournals I saw this Journal of 9/11 Studies which was only critical. I don't know if it was sarcastic or even representational of general sentiments here. Countless conspiracy theories are bat shit, while countless have been proven true. Many can't be proven/disproven and some remain occulted (secret, not Satan idiocy) in countless giant secret agency industrial complexes. I know there's some crazy shit out there. Some of it comes from legit crazy people. Some of it is disinformation mixed into real material intentionally to discredit it in its entirety - which is an enormous problem. It takes lots of wading through propaganda shit (they REALLY don't want people to see the scams) in order to see past the wizard's curtain. There is evidence of the curtain and all those levers of power and Wikipedia (never mind mainstream corporate media) will never show that properly. The 9/11 page is not "rational" or skeptical and only mirrors mainstream sentiment but actually "humorously" touches on (without significant analysis) the counter scenarios without missing any of the tinfoil hat ideas. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, FYI, I wrote this James Corbett (journalist) draft for Wikipedia (albeit a little biased and could use some humor), but they really have their guard up against alternative media, so I've brought it here for now, to build upon. If its tone gets changed negatively then either they didn't seriously digest his material, they're government infiltrators, and/or brainwashed fools who don't realize propaganda and patriotic dogma is as powerful if not more so than religion. (A few years ago the NDAA literally made US propaganda legalized against domestic citizens.) ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So as an atheist skeptical skeptic truther skeptic who questions the motives and authenticity of many "terror" events should I stay or abandon RW or just stay for the the atheism? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Would you mind telling me which terrorist attacks you are skeptical of? That will help me answer your question. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I am always open to evolving my awareness with convincing evidence. You don't have to see the corpse to that something is rotten, but of course the more proof the better. With severe skepticism of mainstream media propaganda (that I can easily justify if asked), and with resources limited to others' online efforts, my brain can still to wade through all the info and disinfo to develop an opinion, even a very strong opinion. (I hesitate to say belief because I'm never 100% convinced.) As a skeptical skeptic truther skeptic (I also assess debunking, and debunking of debunking, etc. aka conspiracy analyst), taking in everything so far, besides the 9/11 false flag events with alleged and very real casualties, first responder casualties, casualties of endless wars, and casualties of liberty and economics, it seems to me many things are very suspect. Not every problem is covertly orchestrated, though usually exploited afterwards by the media, political agendas, and (disaster capitalismWikipedia's W.svg). Motives and outcomes must definitely be watched but are not nearly as definitive so a strong case must be built. Orchestrated events do not follow the same plan for obvious reason but there are elements that do resurface. Countless drills allegedly to help prepare employing unknown actors and government employees, occasionally go live and happen to occur the same day and place as a terror event. Many of these agents and actors with IMDb pages spout talking points in mainstream media interviews or are turned into villains. Sometimes the listed deceased, witnesses, or other associated characters with little or no other records beyond the event raise questions of their very existence. Sometimes the official story comes out fast with heavy repetition far sooner than a naturally unfolding story might, including formerly unknown characters and scenarios already well researched and accounted for ready for mainstream media to publish. It's also notable when the official narrative does not change or evolve despite new evidence, perspectives, contexts, and policies. The internet doesn't forget, and some errors may occur, but the greater the statistical anomalies of many dated records and/or activity before any event, the greater the suspicion. If officials warn you not to believe counter accounts, it's a pretty good give away and it may be time to investigate further, especially in an age lacking transparency. There's often a campaign of disinformation and extremely implausible accounts to purposely obfuscate clarity, impede investigation, and cast doubt about contrary accounts thereby nullifying all of them. If the official line is too simple, too often echoed, and too much like talking points, it may be to drive home the message to most dimwitted civilians. Sometimes the simplest answer is correct, sometimes not, sometimes it's just dumbed down for dumb or busy people too horrified by the macabre thought of massacred children, as I was, thereby ignoring it. And yet, never satisfied with official accounts, especially of 9/11, I was unintentionally drawn in to realize the farce of the whole war on terror. I already knew that statistically you had a much better chance of dying from slipping in your bathtub and the war on terror was bullshit. Statistically there way more chance of getting killed overtly by your own government (ie. police) than terrorists (or covert government). Just as the peace movement and their protest marches are far bigger than the media ever reports, if they ever report it, so to the 9/11 Truth Movement is far larger - even if people have questions but don't want to be called "truther" because, like "conspiracy theorist" made into a pejorative term in the 60s by the CIA to turn anyone who questioned the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations (among others) into tinfoil hat wearing lunatics. It's obvious that some tragic events have legitimate victims, some are without victims in staged event drills, and some have both. I should point out that several years ago the NDAA made it perfectly legal for domestic US propaganda, which was formerly only aimed at foreign countries' citizens is now aimed at all of their own American citizens.
So to your question, I question the official story of these events (which Wikipedia doesn't completely nor satisfactorily address) amongst others:
* 1898 The Spanish–American War began in the propaganda and aftermath of the internal explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbor leading to American intervention in the Cuban War of Independence.
* 1933 The Reichstag fire was an arson attack on the Reichstag building in Berlin, blamed on a communist. Hitler gained power claiming to protect the people from terrorism.
* 1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor, the advance-knowledge
* 1941-1945 "Holocaust denial" may simply be skepticism of exaggerated numbers, spin, and/or revisionism which is usually lumped into Antisemitism and thereby taboo, and interestingly enough, made "illegal" in the very country where investigating it would actually provide some answers. Sometimes it may be questions and sometimes it may be questions from Antisemetic people with agendas. No questions, no matter how stupid they may seem, should be off limits or illegal.
* 1956-1990 Operation Gladio, a clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operation in Europe during the Cold War in which the CIA's roles and relationships to terrorist attacks are debated.
* 1962 Operation Northwoods, a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government, originated within the U.S. DoD and JCoS
* 1963 Assassination of John F. Kennedy
* 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident
* 1968 Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
* 1968 Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, allegedly by Sirhan Sirhan (not Duran Duran nor TinTin) who seems to have been under mind control.
* 1968+ War on Drugs was for the Nixon campaign to vilify and target the antiwar left (hippies) and black people.
* 1993 World Trade Center bombing
* 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (watch the docu "A Noble Lie - Oklahoma City 1995" (2011) IMDb rating: 7.6)
* 1999 Russian apartment bombings
* 2001 September 11 attacks
* 2004 Madrid train bombings
* 2005 7-7 London July bombings, very suspicious and widely disbelieved, but got the UK support for the Iraq War that was waning. (watch the docu "7-7 Ripple Effect 2")
* 2008 The big banks are certainly to blame for the meltdown, as is the puppet masters' private corporation called the Federal Reserve, which notoriously remains absent from criticism.
* 2012 Aurora shooting, allegedly by James Eagan Holmes who may have been under mind control, and assisted by at least one other.
* 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, tugging at our heartstrings for children. The abandoned school with water damage was clearly the stage, and the actor "victim" parents had set up donate pages the night before which have raked in millions and millions of hush money. Also, boo guns! The story that this scrawny crazy fiction kid (who never even existed) could carry a hundred and fifty pounds of guns and ammo and swords and have amazing target accuracy is ludicrous.
* 2015-2016 Paris and Brussels all seems like a fine mess that may be Operation Gladio B.
* 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, a staged FEMA drill for gun control, mental health restrictions, and inflame controversial Gay and Muslim issues.
* TPP and TTIP will be worse than NAFTA with unaccountable corporations ruling the world the way European Union economic institutions and policies are unaccountable by non-elected vampires.
* 2016 Democratic Party kept Bernie in to drag along supporters victims distracting them with hope, enough not to discover the Libertarian Party or Jill Stein's Green Party, and while Hillary may say (but not promise) what Bernie said about real issues (the Democratic Party will not), and then they fucked him over.
Also, I don't know enough about the chemtrail conspiracy theory of geoengineering and secret military weather manipulation and/or "weaponization", but if they haven't at least tested it, they'd be strategic idiots. I don't think they're evil idiots. Evil, but not idiots. They've done crazy ass human experiments (MK Ultra, etc) and Napoleon won and lost wars by weather, so it simply makes sense to at least do tests. Large scale, I dunno. Because it's all secret we may never know.
If you still don't believe the government feeds disinformation to people, watch the docu "Mirage Men" (2013) IMDb rating: 6.4, about the UFO being strung along and fed with disinformation by agents trying to confuse and distract from top secret test flights of new military crafts at Area 51, especially during the cold war hysteria. I won't believe in aliens until I see one, like God. I do believe unidentified objects exist, on the bottom of my shoe, in that container in the back of my fridge, etc. It's also known that the cold war was all hysteria. Russia had like 14 nukes and the US had 12,000 (verification pending).
I'd appreciate it if you can show me anything to evolve my views. For example, among the accused usual culprits of killing JFK, the Federal Reserve was alleged to not want JFK to create a new currency independent of the Fed (like Lincoln or Gaddafi, etc), but he signed in a new bill anyways - well recently I learned it was not new but a regularly scheduled signing and simply housekeeping. It doesn't mean they did or didn't want him killed. It just means he didn't sign in a new currency as had been speculated as a motive to assassinate.
If you have your own questions about anything on this list then I recommend you look into the other things on this list too. You may be surprised.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you also list five or six of the "countless" conspiracy theories which you maintain have been proven true? And by "conspiracy theory" I mean something where a shadowy group of some unidentified people were alleged to be behind some real-word event for some reason which was not really clear. I don't mean real conspiracies which we found about about after the event.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Either you can find some examples in the list above, I hope, say of some of the older things that were conspiracies at the time, or despite historical evidence are still perpetuated through mainstream media today, including the shitty "History Channel". George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree and say, "Father, I cannot tell a lie." Yet we all know of the myth. I don't know what shadowy groups or giant secret agencies, or secret societies (whatever that means), do behind closed doors. I do know that governments lie. Sooo much of the time. Edward Snowden proved what people already suspected and partly knew and that the government leaders were denying and lying under oath, WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. Real conspiracies that we found out about after the fact count as conspiracies and historical prescient. FACT: There was a conspiracy to buy up all of the efficient and electric public transit in Los Angeles and junk it in order to get consumers to each buy a car and consume petroleum products. FACT: Planned obsolescence exists and is designed into products so they last a little while before you have to replace them (ie crappy plastic lawn furniture). Even Monsanto designed "death" seeds that would only grow one crop so farmers couldn't keep seeds and would forced to buy more. They were so violently unpopular they shelved that project. I am confused by your vague phrase, "a shadowy group of some unidentified people were alleged to be behind some real-word event for some reason which was not really clear". The skeptic in me wonders if you are trying to "trap" me in some crazy theory rhetoric, but the optimist in me hopes you really wish to know, so I'll try. When I approach any subject, I like to do so from several angles. See the official story, analyse it, get context, the motives, the results, who loses, what alternative media is saying, and of course look at the evidence. I may have missed something, but with all of that, you get the idea. Maybe some "theorists" may apply "some reason which was not really clear" which is either 1) bogus and made up, or 2) true but poorly communicated, or 3) I didn't comprehend properly. In that case, you don't throw it in the trash, you place it beside the trash, because later it might actually make sense, or, later you unequivocally prove that it's bunk. "Shadowy group[s] of some unidentified people" get together all the time - in board rooms they conspire to clobber the competition, in giant secret agencies and war rooms they conspire to defeat the enemy, in frat houses they conspire to throw parties and get laid, and I'm pretty sure the Bilderberg group does not conspire to have a pool party - but because there's no transparency and it's all top secret, we'll never know for sure.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You do know the difference between a "conspiracy" a "theory about a conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory" don't you?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


ISIS = CIA[edit]

On the pointless pole I think another option should be, "Get the CIA to stop supporting ISIS" or "Get the CIA out of the Middle East and it will simmer down now." ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, please explain to me how, I'd like to nominate a few articles (that I will definitely help with), about some alternative news media YouTube channels and their communities, such as James Corbett (journalist) of The Corbett Report, Sibel Edmonds of Boiling Frogs Post, their new network, NewsBud, and many of their affiliates. That's just to start. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If those go well I'd expand it with many others, and, I think importantly, create an overarching article with a table of brief reviews and ratings about their general quality, content and content quality, production value, political stance or leanings, and whether they dogmatically refer to old texts like the bible or Constitution (made irrelevant since the USA Patriot Act upgraded to the USA Freedom Act). Too often the reports are good and correct about things then they throw in some Revelations quote that kinda spoils it. Or racism, sexism, lizard people, or whatev. (This does NOT apply to Corbett or Edmonds and company mentioned above - they're solid, the best, the most rational - that's why I'd feature them first.) I can't do this on Wikipedia but I'd like to on RationalWiki or WikiSpooks. I'd love to hear your feedback about this. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You're going to get a lot of pushback if you try peddling 9/11 truther-type bullshit here. You'll have more support for this on the spooks site. Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind rational pushback without the dogmas of religion or patriotism - it keeps me from losing my head up my own ass. Or is that my belly button? I'm proud to be a skeptical skeptic truther skeptic. I'm not just talking about 9/11. I'm talking about the whole media circus of propaganda and manufactured consent for corruption (including staged terrorist events that become obvious once you seriously look into glaring problems with their "official stories" via corporate mainstream media). The corporatocracy, corrupting and perverting, is creeping over and into everything and every institution - including science, education, research funding and related institutions. An obvious example of manufactured consent for corruption is the disenfranchisement of the Democratic Party. Bernie's far from the liberal liberal they say, he's what would have been center a couple decades ago. Hillary is a Republican in Democrat branding. The Republicans have tumbled off the spectrum. We (the world) need someone way more just and radical left like Jill Stein of the Green Party just to compromise back towards center, or at least offer resistance. As Rachel Maddow might say, the Drift of the Overton window towards the corporatocracy (or fascism as Mussolini called it) is concerning. Like a flat tire pulling right, it's not going to steer (or fix) itself without letting a "lefty" like Bernie in, let alone allow the Green Party or Libertarian Party a voice to at least offer some objection. Good ideas are dangerous and threatening to the status quo (maybe even these may seem to be, hopefully). The thing everyone likes about a hypnotist or an illusionist doing tricks that fool all of us, is that we know we're being fooled. It's much easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled. The craftiness and dark art of "public relations" (rebranded from "propaganda") is that we don't realize that they are manipulating our emotions, beliefs, and reality through awareness control. They have mastered the science of mass mind control, weaponized it, and are using it against all of us without telling us so we believe in their undemocratic employment hierarchy, economic crisis (despite record profits), debt slavery (to keep us working), exploitative wages (to miserable and overworked to rise up), no benefits, taxes (to fund undemocratic secret agencies and wars), pollution (*cough*), terrorism (fear consolidates power), state terrorism wars (in the wrong countries), and wars on drugs (but not their "legal" drugs, alcohol, tobacco), whistle-blowers, and privacy/security (they know ALL about you while you cannot know about them). You are allowed to believe anything, but you are NOT allowed to know anything. Being "spiritual" doesn't mean you have to believe a religion. Being "patriotic" doesn't mean you have to believe governments aren't trying to fuck everyone in every which way, with your begrudging consent so as to avoid revolution. If you don't think it's working, how come more people are struggling and suffering while the billionaires are cackling? I'd go on, but even I'm tired of this tired old rant. Tired and nauseous, ad nauseam. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No, US sends money to the KSA, who in turn sends money to all the Islamist groups (including ISIS). The West hasn't directly supported these groups since the Cold War. Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The West hasn't directly supported these groups, overtly, in the open. I won't even begin to pretend to know what is actually happening covertly (because it's secret!), however, if most people are amicable, I would like to start some articles about comprehensive reporting the 6 major propaganda corporations will not touch, thus Wikipedia won't. I'd start with my faves so far: James Corbett of The Corbett Report, Sibel Edmonds (See the Wikipedia article on Sibel Edmonds.) of Boiling Frogs Post, their new network, NewsBud, then many of their affiliates and associates, some of which, hopefully, might already be started. Is there a better procedure to this, should I even be talking about it here, or somewhere else, or should I just do it? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You do know that we've dropped 50,000 bombs on ISIS over the past 2 years, right? You do know that we've sent supplies and weapons to multiple factions that oppose ISIS, right? You do know that they've lost several major cities and much of their territory since we began the air campaign, right? I'm not denying that the US has given arms and help to a lot of bad groups in Syria, but the notion that the CIA actually directly trained and supplied ISIS over the course of many years is total nonsense. PBfreespace (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting what I said. As I partially intended, to create controversy to gauge the political atmosphere. While the dogmatic veil of God has been lifted, the dogmatic veil of patriotic propaganda covers many minds.
I do not know how many bombs were dropped anywhere, nor have I claimed to. I said nothing about CIA training or years. I know little of supplies, weapons, factions, or even who's pulling the strings - but strings are being pulled, and many of those strings lead back to the CIA, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly. As long as they or we are fighting, their distraction works, their lucrative war and plunder and control and domination continues. The people on the ground may actually believe they are fighting for God or country or faction or revenge or whatever, but the puppet masters or the masters of the puppet masters are playing both sides, as they did in WWII and Vietnam. Prescot Bush, father of GHWBush, grandfather of GWB, financed Nazi and American interests, playing both sides for profit. In Vietnam the classified articles of engagement stated that were not allowed to attack unless attacked. A drawn out war for tin, rubber, and G.O.D. (gold oil drugs) and ocean route dominance, in the name of anti-communism yet the bombed the south more than the north. The war on drugs was for Nixon to vilify and target the antiwar left hippies and black people. The government will never tell you they are manipulating you, nor admit it until far far too late.
When hypnotists or illusionist perform we enjoy it when we know we are tricked. Imagine what malevolent professionals in media corporations and armies of think tanks can do to distort reality and manufacture consent for illegitimate decades of wars, or that to be successful in the rigged system you just need to pull up your bootstraps. Just ask Bernie.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they've been fooled."
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"I am a firm believer in the people... If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meed any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." ~ Abraham Lincoln
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
as i partially intended, to create controversy... AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
That's funny. She didn't mean it. I mean what I say. I didn't mention it in the sentence you quoted but the original idea in the first shit disturbing sentence was for the "Pointless Pole" to query, "Get the CIA out of the Middle East and it will simmer down now.". While I did disturb the shit intentionally, you left off half the motive "to gauge the political atmosphere" as a noob deciding whether or not I can critically discuss 9/11, trutherism, disinfo, etc. and finding that while you (collectively) may be willing to dismiss the fancy idea of God, as I do, you (collectively) are not so willing to dismiss the dogmatic idea that your benevolent governments are not lying, manipulative, exploitive elites that are willing to kill 1 million+ Iraqis (an illegitimate war) but (sarcasm) would never kill their own citizens (end sarcasm), (not counting soldiers or poor people) if it suited a purpose (continuing wars and revoking freedoms and rights). ( A US citizen is 58 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist FBI organizes almost all terror plots in the US ) If the official 9/11 story is true, that two planes brought down three buildings, then what, if any, safety revisions to building codes have been made? God is an easy idea to dismiss because there's no fucking evidence. Navigating through exploitative and oppressive mainstream media reality-shaping mind control propaganda and covert disinformation is a legitimate challenge. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You might be enjoying JAQing off here, but for everyone else it just creates a mess. --Ymir (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to test the political atmosphere, test mine. I believe that ISIS is openly hostile towards us. They attacked one of our allies (Iraq), who requested our aid to fight them. ISIS killed several of our innocent citizens, and they have declared war on us. The region has suffered as a result of ISIS barbarism, the looting of resources, and the brutality of ISIS towards civilians. In addition to this, ISIS openly attempted to commit genocide against an entire religious minority, killing thousands of men and putting thousands of women into sex slavery. The US air campaign against ISIS is justified and should continue until this group has been eliminated. PBfreespace (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Monthly stats: July 2016[edit]

Click to enlarge.

July 2016 Users: 794

-00010 or -001.26% from June 2016
-00140 or -015.15% from July 2015

July 2016 Edits: 15011

-02813 or -15.78% from June 2016
-01723 or -10.30% from July 2015

Excel file here.

July 2016 represents 0.914% of RW's total recorded 1,641,520 edits.

Alexa numbers essentially unchanged, in viewers and site rank. Compete numbers up. Note: these are all imprecise.

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been no actual coop case this month. So those numbers largely represent content and discussions. Hooray! Nerd271 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
A fall of more than 10% from July 2016 to July 2016 seems kinda precipitous. Annquin (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks! =P Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The bad news: that 15.78% fall represents a month-to-month decrease of 2,813 edits. On the weird/bright side, 1,224 of June's edits were to the Coop. While the lack of Coop cases doesn't explain July's entire decrease, it explains at least 43.5% of it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: For the past 12 months, the standard deviation is 2975 edits. For the past 24 months, the deviation is 3575 edits. Both suggest that this change may quite possibly be chance variation.
For the past 12 months, the deviation is 65 users. For the past 24 months, the deviation is 85 users. As above, the month-on-month change can be attributed to chance -- but the year-on-year change is far less likely to be mere chance. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

On the bright side, even a bad month now is about 1.5x as good as a good month in '14. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

...And I took second place once again, with 1314 edits in July! ("It's something") Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
*gold clap* FuzzyCatPotato of the Bare Turing machines (talk/stalk) 21:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, better save the gold clap for Joris! He beat me to the prize, as always. I'd give off a slight twerk in appreciation of a silver clap well-earned, however. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Joris definitely deserves praise for his hard work and attention to details. Nerd271 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed! And you're not too shoddy yourself, buddy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)