RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive260

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 13 September 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>
, (new)(back)

This is quite funny[edit]

Sargon of Akkad is a bit of a wiener even if you somehow manage to look past the racism. Lola Lazerface (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It's beyond me exactly why Sargon trends to fall into a conspiracist bent on issues like ISIS, racism, Brexit, and college campuses. For someone who seems to be pretty intelligent and well-read, he just had a tendency to believe hearsay and generalizations. PBfreespace (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not under the impression that he's particularly "intelligent and well-read", though that verdict is based largely on our article about him. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
tl;dr his older videos were pretty good, especially the ones targeted against religion and conservatives, but his recent videos have basically been TYT-bashing stuff and not so well-researched and beautifully put together as his ones from years ago. PBfreespace (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Sargon's incompetence isn't particularly surprising. He never completed high school and never attended college. As a result he's had zero exposure to mainstream, academically-accepted methodology and knowledge. Like all crank "autodidacts" (see also: Eliezer Yudkowsky), due to lacking the grounding provided by exposure to the actual theory and actual practices of his professed field of knowledge, what little knowledge he's accumulated is so carefully, narrowly cultivated towards his own preconceptions and his own idiosyncratic ideology that he utterly fails to grasp either the greater context or the finer details of anything he espouses. He's actually a classic case of a self-taught crackpot, and I'm surprised more people don't recognize that. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I am curious, though, if one should consider him to be "class reductionist" since he seems to recognize classism but denies anything related to sexism or racism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
He certainly “over-steers” in the opposite direction. For the social justice crowd, class doesn't matter at all or is an afterthought at best, and Sargon goes into the opposite extreme, and downplays sexism and racism. I wouldn't say he's an outright a crank, he just holds a number of views that are demonstrably false, and he recently moved rightwards when it comes to Anti-EU, Brexit and (actual) islamophobia — where he also over-compensates the idiocy of the detractor camp (yes, iliberal, regressive Westerners exist). Sargon's SJW stuff is largely correct, mildy entertaining, but it can be criticized that it tends to fall into Fox News/PZ Myers model of entertainment, which focusses on material designed so that recipients can feel superior to what they see, and are entertained by an ecclectic mix of outrage and facepalm moments. In other words, it's nice that someone collects inanities, but he isn't an ideas person concerned with why they think what they think. However, compared to Kristi Winters, Steve Shives, Jenny McDermott etc, i.e. HBomberguy's gang, Sargon is a moral paragon and Nobel laureate. Only HBomberguy himself is fun and occasionally raises good points. ~ Aneris 04:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It's clear why he's like that - he's neither intelligent nor well-read. He never even finished high school, so he's just a useless gamer dropout. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

To Be Against Civilization Is To Be Feminist[edit]

Sometimes I poke around extremist websites, because I hate myself and I have no life, but today this led me to find the best worst MRA post ever written. It inspired this section title. Unfortunately, I can't share it on WIGO:Clogs, since it was posted back in 2012 (judging from datestamps in the comment section), but I can share it here and ruin your day much like mine already has. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Feminist = likes women = likes woo, man = pseudoscience = DECAY OF SOCIETY. qed. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha. Good find. "Rapists have called Principia Mathematica a rape manual" - CITATION NEEDED Mr. MRA dued; and even if it exists, those people are likely lesbian separatists or other crank/fringe-type feminists. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Fringe? Didn't read the article, though the thesis you try to mock is not far away from what happened. The example is a reference to an infamous episode in the so-called Science Wars and was by Sandra HardingWikipedia. Not at all fringe. Postmodernist ideology has taken hold in all of the studies subjects (e.g. women studies, postcolonial studies, gender studies, etc) and turned them into Dada at best, dangerous antiscience at worst. Of course, you are still in deep denial about the whole subject, while perpetuating it yourself on this very Wiki. You can be obtuse or ignorant for a while, but I've pointed you to the facts numerous times now, so you're now more akin to Intelligent Design proponents, who push their agenda, yet deny that they do. ~ Aneris 23:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Aneris, sweetie-pie, if you're trying to cite "this philosopher said something crazy" as evidence for anything, I have bad news for you about every published philosopher in history: they've all said ludicrous, stupid shit at some point. Every damn one of them. And they believed that ludicrous stupid shit, too. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It would behoove you to actually read the article under discussion. Because you know what everybody's least favorite perennial jackass on any forum is? The person who pops up to defend a total crackpot by pointing out that a single detail within a single sentence of their thesis is technically correct, metaphorically picking out a single leaf in the figurative forest of trees, and then proceeds to cast aspersions on everyone else for missing that single leaf. Nevermind that the actual thesis, body, and conclusion being advanced in the discussed material are dogshit, you're a pedant and it is your solemn duty to aggressively insult the non-pedants in the room. So you know what?
Feminists have called Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual. Feminists hate the technology industry and have attacked technology in general as male rape of the natural world and/or the enforcement of patriarchy over nature. Feminists know unconciously that civilization is the greatest threat to the power of women. Civilization was developed by men, not women. Women are only along for the ride because sex and babies can’t happen without them (for now). Every advancement in science and technology is a threat to women. Every advancement in science and technology brings up a step closer to freeing men from needing women. For feminists to totally restore female power, they have to completely undo the last 6000 years of civilization, science, and technology.
I invite you to discuss this thesis, the actual meat of the material under discussion, you worthless fucking crackpot apologist. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you sure do lay it on me, eh buddy? Claiming I'm "still in deep denial about the whole subject, while perpetuating it [myself]" and arguing that I "can be obtuse or ignorant" and that I'm "now more akin to Intelligent Design proponents, who push their agenda, yet deny that they do". That's kind of a tall order. For my two cent's worth, you actually seemed to be making sense - up to the point where you went full Jonan and started to semi-randomly ascribe me specific accusatory qualities X, Y, Z from the top of your head (???). I need not say you lost me there. I don't know if that was in line with your goals or not; if so, masterfully done. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: I'm not even sure you realise that the thesis I mock is the suggestion that Principia Mathematica is a "rape manual"; not the idea of pointing out that some (likely lesbian separatist-esque) nutjob argued as such. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm always using an inclusive swing-together-"you" when discussing this subject on the RationalWiki, unless I know the editor in question is not part of the mob. So it's not a personal "you". This generation's Harding are Watson, Myers et al, and you here are in support of their anti-science. On the Other Team are anti-postmodernist like Steven Pinker, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and other assorted New Atheist shitlords etc. who found themselves on the other side of the Deep Rifts™. ~ Aneris 00:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
"What is civilization? There are many definitions of “civilization”, but IMO the most important definition of civilization is controlling female behavior, all of which acts against civilization." ROFLMAO. I know that gender warriors can be entertaining, and I admit my attention has been one sided, but the reason is that I know nobody who propagates such blatant nonsense, whereas our intra-movement postmodernist are mainstream. Sarah Harding is for example referenced in an article by the American Humanists, and I recall this, because the author also has high opinions of Critical Pedagogy, along with the other usual hogwash. It was around the time they interviewed Aron Ra. ~ Aneris 00:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, so... You'll excuse me for assuming you mean me when you say "you X..." in a reply indented to my comment, which adressed you back. Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, and I know it's a complicated problem. Had I a solution, I would not snipe from the sidelines all the time. ~ Aneris 01:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Apology accepted; fair enough. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems like the person who wrote this believes that "The Handmaid's Tale" is a desirable state. According to this lunatic's philosophy, Phyllis Schlafly is a feminist because of her opposition to science and evolution. TeslaK20 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Confederate Flag[edit]

I see no problem with it, the meaning of symbols can change. Nowadays to most people it is a symbol of southern pride and not slavery. Keep in mind the meaning of symbols change. Take the swastika, originally it was a symbol of peace until the Nazis hijacked it for evil purposes. Thoughts?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That's an extremely faulty analogy. The swastika is a religious & cultural symbol in Buddhism, Hinduism & a few other cultures which oddly became a trendy good luck symbol for a while in western cultures around the early twentieth century & was then adopted by the Nazis, subsequently leaving it tainted in western culture but largely unaffected in the cultures it originally belonged to. As for the Confederate Battle Flag, it was created specifically for the Confederate States in the US Civil War & anyone making use of it is identifying with that. Some may be doing it for explicitly racist reasons & some for regional loyalty, but it's likely to remain a divisive symbol, especially for African Americans. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
rational story bro - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
To make an explicitly patriotic argument against the Confederate flag: the Confederate flag symbolizes a country that, for all but three months of its existence, went to war against the United States of America. The Confederacy sought to invade and conquer our capital and destroy our troops. This only ended with the Confederacy's defeat. There is no extant Confederate nation, and therefore no extant "heritage" to express. The Confederacy's entire existence was directed towards a war of treason in defense of slavery. It's a traitor's flag, and anyone flying it unironically is expressing solidarity with killers of American soldiers and invaders of American soil. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
But your own introduction to this begins with "the Confederate flag symbolizes [what you think it symbolizes]." I would wager that's the whole problem - the people who like it, save outright Confederate sympathizers, obviously think it symbolizes something far different then "a war of treason." Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Its intended target are the Tea Party types: the sort of people who will defend the Confederate flag while considering themselves patriots. But I've never had an opportunity to deploy it against such people, so it remains unrefined. There are definitely better ways to phrase it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the Confederate flag should be flown on the grounds of any government property. You can't ban it the way Germany restricts Nazi symbolism simply because we should respect individual freedom. My personal view of the thing is different than my legal view. PBfreespace (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here in Pennsylvania, you see this flag adorning houses, trucks, etc. by people who never lived in the South and have no Southern heritage. Of those I know personally, they are the first to use the N word in general conversation. Of course, I know some of those who let the flag fly do it for their Southern heritage, because there really isn't any other symbol I can think of that represents the South specifically. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I made another thing[edit]

So, some other people here wanted a Donald Trump quote generator. In my sandbox, I slapped one together. Semi-random, but needs more random nonsense. Any suggestions before I move it to funspace?

Incidentally, I'm tempted to add several templates for the random word generators. I'm thinking the following;

{{Coulter|}} List of random reactionary pejorative nouns. Sheeple, San FranSickos, Commie Scum, Mooslims, Cucksucker, etc etc.

{{Badverb|}} List of nasty verbs. Rape, steal, assault, trash-talk, insult, manhandle, fondle, destroy, etc etc. CorruptUser (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Like! But as we know, Anonymous user is a burly-boned dread-bolted codpiece with a face not worth sunburning!. ~ Aneris 04:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Pretty amazing! How about adding goring for Badverbs and Loony Libs/Liberals and assault knives/trucks and corporate shill for the pejorative nouns? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 05:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Kent Hovind cover status - any last-second nitpicks?[edit]

Kent Hovind has had a thorough reorganisation, polish and brush-up. If you have any last nitpicks, Talk:Kent_Hovind#Cover_story needs your improvement suggestions - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool Hard Logic, what have you done?[edit]

Turns out he's a bit of a bigot ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgeJyGe6lxg ), his fans even went as far as to say sociology isn't a real science after he completely failed to provide any genuine evidence for his positions, this is flat earther or creationist level special pleading.Threadnaught (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I've no idea who this YouTuber is, but — too bad I suppose, if he had other good stuff. I haven't seen any of his videos, including the one linked, though he did write this in the summary: "Don't worry: the channel isn't changing direction. This is just a script from a while back that didn't merit a full video, and was consequently quick to put together as an audio-only upload so that there wasn't such a gap between the last video and the next.". Maybe he literally just wanted to fill some upload space with "musings". And he also said that, whatever the content of the video you linked, it "didn't merit a full video". Who knows. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I liked it, naturally. Of course my view here is a tiny minority view. I'm subscribed to CHL for a long time, and this doesn't surprise me at all. More bonus points for him, from me. He's a fellow broadly in the Enlightenment tradition, wheras the subject he describes, as well as Intersectionality Social Justice is explicitly anti-Enlightenment and according to co-founders of the academical framework, it “questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism”. That's what puzzles me about it, how previously rational people go straight anti-rationalism and then whine why everyone turns their back on them. To rationalize this, they then come up with the “misogyny! racism!” shrieks nobody takes seriously anymore. I know, I know, RationalWiki is biased and you're proud of people you pissed off. I know! I've seem the joke a dozen times. It's still one thing to not bother with rationality, and another to go straight against it, and yet when pointed out, hide behind pre-written pages about a bias or non-neutrality. It is not sufficient to explain anything. ~ Aneris 13:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Where is that exact quote ("questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism") from? Who are these "co-founders"? I'm genuinely interested to hear. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
From Delgado & Stefancinc (2006) and their Introduction to Critical Race Theory. If you have doubts, whether this is The Ideology We Are Looking For, find Intersectionality, Kimberlé Crenshaw et al, who belong into that framework. If you are still not convinced maybe you can check the names and look for postmodernism. The easiest way to do this, is to lookup names listed there and categories (postmodernism, poststructuralism etc) on Wikipedia. If you are well-versed in the matter, you also see that this whole corner is postmodern, in its content, and also explicitly. We know this, because the academics are postmodernists and say that themselves. If you still doubt it, look for Derrida in the paper and elsewhere and research that. If you are still unsure, keep in mind that postmodernism is not an insult, as is it might seem, but an actual tradition that is hugely influential in all the “studies” subjects (e.g. women studies, gender studies, post-colonial studies etc). ~ Aneris 14:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Because the consensus from sociologists is that it IS a problem, the only possible dodge is to claim that there is some reason to allow an exception to what should be an unconditional following of the scientific consensus, and claiming that incontinent rules should have exceptions. This the exact definition of special pleading (RW: "Special pleading is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption.") The scientific consensus is that CHL is wrong, and therefore agreeing with him is not consistent with the rationality or enlightenment that he claims to support. If you can cherry pick which fields are right and which are wrong, you can justify anything you want.Threadnaught (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I suspect many confuse issues, like racism and sexism, with the theoretical approaches some academics have developed. Racism and sexism obviously exist. But that doesn't make the postmodernist social justice ideology any more true. It's hogwash, and it is decidedly anti-Enlightenment and has been since the late 1980s, at least. I have long stated, we need Science Wars II, for one to remind people that we've been through this, and for another to defeat this anti-intellectual movement once more. ~ Aneris 14:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do we still portray Hamas as innocent freedom fighters and Netanyahu as the second coming of Hitler?[edit]

After this happened and these remarks? Clearly Netanyahu is a mensch who wants nothing but peace and prosperity for all people- including Arab Israelis and Palestinian children. Meanwhile, this wiki still accuses Israel of Apartheid and worse things while whitewashing Hamas and Hezbollah. Enough of this! (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should admit that Netanyahu is a corrupt, warmongering asshole, kept in power by keeping Israel's PR situation at abysmal levels and provoking EVERYONE he possibly can, such that having a militarist in charge is basically seen as necessary for survival. AND that Hamas is a bunch of violent religious fanatics engaging in terrorist attacks on civilians. (talk)

He should do a cover version of Sting's Russians. Then we might believe him. Annquin (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Double Standards of Social Justice[edit]

First, let me say that I hate how fiery hatred over feminism, gamergate, and sexism have torn/are tearing this community apart, and debates on this topic almost always descend into tribal barbarism and savagery, which is why I, like Richard Dawkins on creationism, will refuse to get involved in such debates. This post is not meant to be taking sides. It is like communism vs capitalism. You don't need to be a maniacal fanatic like Stalin or McCarthy. One can critique both without being a "commie" or a "bourgeoisie".

Nevertheless, I believe certain people in the politically correct movement have significant double standards, as well as a lack of respect for source materials. In recent times. I have heard calls for a female Link in the Zelda games, or a "Jane Bond". But why don't we hear calls for a male Chell and GLADOS (in this case voiced by Allen McLain) in portal? Can you imagine GLADOS being male? Why don't we hear calls for Agent Dan Scully and Foxine Mulder? Where is Lawrence Croft, Tomb Raider? What about Jaden, King of Narnia, the White Wizard?

I understand that females are underrepresented in the world of fiction, however, rather than grotesquely changing cultural icons, we should build new characters. In fact, from a feminist perspective, why should a woman have to take on the identity of a man in order to be great? Why must she rely upon what he has built up for her? Can she not make a name for herself? This is also why I am against "gay retconning", that is, taking an established minor book character, mentioning his homosexuality in one sentence, and then making no further mention or use of this. It is unnecessary to the plot and serves only as a "Look guys, I'm politically correct!" on the part of the author.

The point is that gender is part of who we are (if there was no mental difference between men and women, transgenderism and homosexuality would be "choices"), and that we should have respect for our cultural, literary, and cinematic heritage without politicizing fiction and using these mediums as expressions of political correctness.

I am sorry if I offend anyone, but please, if you disagree, please tell me respectfully, and remember that just as we can constructively criticize economic systems peacefully and dignifiedly, without taking sides, we can do the same with this issue. --TeslaK20 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing above that I disagree with, but I think the tone could be perceived wrongly by some people. PB (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The major problem with "new character creation" is that new characters don't sell as well as series do. Hence why FemGhostbusters sold very well, but "Ghost Suckers: Like Ghostbusters but with women" wouldn't have.
I think your larger point is valid, though -- many who push for more women in media don't ever do the opposite, unfortunately. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You make good points. Ghostbusters is an interesting case since it has an ensemble cast. With an ensemble cast you can do anything, as proven by the recent remake of Star Wars. They switched around the character roles, genders, ethnicities, and attributes, and it worked. In series' based on one or two single recurring characters (I'm looking at you, Roberta Langdon) this would not work as well.
Moreover, things like "The Hunger Games" have proven that films or books with a female protagonist can succeed, and the fact that "Ghost Suckers: Like Ghostbusters but with women" would not have been successful may perhaps help foster more originality and cure the film industry's ailment of remaking movies endlessly. TeslaK20 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A short, pithy answer:
Much will be required from everyone to whom much has been given.
—Luke 12:48
A somewhat-longer answer that takes a completely different tack:
we should have respect for our cultural, literary, and cinematic heritage without politicizing fiction and using these mediums as expressions of political correctness.
All culture is political. All culture has been shaped by those who came before, who always had definite ideas about how society does or should work. More to the point, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of culture, and in doing so profoundly disrespect it. No work of art or culture exists in isolation. It is inevitably and unavoidably shaped by what preceded it and what surrounds it. To say "let us make new works of art, and leave the old alone" is absolutely staggering in its ignorance, because so much of art is responding to and altering what already exists. What you're asking for is not an end to political correctness, but an end to art itself. To freeze culture in amber is to destroy it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
As a film, Ghostbusters 2016 didn't do well, unlike what Fuzzy claims. It cost about $144 million plus $100 million marketing, and has grossed $122 million so far. However, the business model allows for companies to make a net loss with a film, and use it as an extended ad for their franchise and merchandise which tends to bring in most money. I otherwise agree with the OP, too. As we've seen with Star Wars (soon, twice) — there is no problem with female leads. And the buzz is pretty good for Wonder Woman, too. But fans are notoriously conservative regarding their fandom, and for understandable reasons. They're invested in characters and continuity and hate it when things are being switched around.
fnordA Jane Bond would perhaps work, because this franchise is known for replacing the lead every few years, but even this is tricky, because fans consider the character as somewhat consistent with one story. Sony has of course purposefully applied the SJW script that has worked tremdenously many times before. Overtly inject the gender-race-warrior politics into an otherwise unrelated area, insult the people who are invested in that area (2011 rape culture: atheists think they have a right sexually harass women, 2014 gamers are dead, 2015 ghostbusters fans are misogynists, ) then wait for the reaction and milk it. Ignore good criticism, and focus on the trolls and hatemail just as in round one, rinse and repeat. ~ Aneris 22:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Your philosophical analysis of the nature of art is enlightening. I will agree with you that art is an adaptive form, but is drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa's original canvas not desecration? Of course, our situation is different. We are speaking of creating new art based upon the old. If the variations stem from inspiration and creativity, I will gladly admire them. But while politics do influence many things, is it not sad that a variation which was made by greedy executives seeking to please a modern progressive audience shall have a claim to the fame of the original? I admit that such political struggles have greatly influenced the great artists of the past (including Leonardo), that does not mean that it should remain that way.
If this movement was about a modern interpretation of art by a new generation which values equality, I would support it. But to me at least it seems that it is being spearheaded by both greedy populists and by people who care less about the art and more about the political side. Is modifying a beloved work of fiction for the sole purpose of populistic, trendy liberal political correctness any different from the Conservative Bible Project? What Andy is doing is rewriting the Bible (a prominent and culturally significant work of fiction) in order to be conservatively politically correct, no? This particular argument is not about the end, but the intentions. I would love to see evidence that I am wrong about this.
TeslaK20 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think your strategy to win this fight is to just make tl;dr posts that no one wants to respond to. It's working for me. PB (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If you have objections to greedy populism in art, then you effectively have objections to the vast bulk of art ever made. Art that is popular is art that is remembered, remade, reinterpreted, transformed, and therefore preserved, in a way. This is why Shakespeare, whose works feature dramatic fight scenes, puns, and raunchy humor, is still with us while you probably can't name any of his contemporaries. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The Conservative Bible Project is no more transformative than the many, many guides written over the years for how you're "supposed" to read the bible. As a Jew, I suppose I'm a lot more comfortable with this than many Christians; there are dozens of complete rewrites of the Haggadah (the story of Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt), and every one of them, from the ultra-conservative Orthodox versions which extend the story with fanfiction that celebrates the pointless suffering of Judaism's enemies, to the Reconstructionist versions that stretch the metaphor of "slavery" to absurd levels, to the BDSM-centric retelling (yes, that exists) is a political work. Much of the Midrash, another important Jewish religious text, is outright Bible fanfiction, and commentary on Bible fanfiction. Religion is a subset of culture, and is capable of wild transformations and additions the same as the rest of culture.
Andrew Schlafly's efforts were mocked for two reasons in particular:
(1) How blatant he was about its purpose. Radical, politically-motivated reinterpretation of religious texts is par for the course (see: the entire Protestant Reformation, and the abolitionist movement which rejected the biblical basis for slavery), but Schlafly made the mistake of being very open about it. Most transformative religious works, particularly today, try to maintain a cloak of theological respectability about it. Schlafly's inartfulness made obvious what many people try to deny about religion: that it's about politics, and always has been.
(2) The appalling morality he sought to inject. I'd like to circle around and point out that to dismiss all efforts at "politicizing" art out of hand, again, assumes the existing version is nonpolitical (the New and Old Testaments both clearly condone slavery—how is that not political?), but just as importantly, assumes that all politics is equivalent. It's the ultimate moral cop-out. The Conservative Bible Project is bad because, to most observers, Schlafly's morals are bad. Saying "it's bad because it's transformative" is an extremely poor way to engage with any work of art or culture. By this reasoning, ISIS' theology is bad because it's radical, not because it's horrifyingly immoral, and therefore any movement to transform Islam with a radically progressive theology in the opposite direction is just as bad. This is farcical. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
To you, Pbfreespace3, I have a thing with long posts. It isn't meant to discourage people from responding. And I am not trying to "win this fight". This isn't a battle. We aren't trying to destroy each other, but to convince.
To you, Stabby, you have convinced me that my argument against politicization is at least partially fallacious. Nevertheless, I still believe that this movement does not have pure intentions, as evidenced by the double standards I showed. Nobody would dream of doing the things I outlined. Also, I stand by my point that gender is part of our personality, since if gender identity and sexual orientation are not determined by genes, then they are determined by environmental factors and the fundamentalists are right. A change in gender is a change in character. Now, I am not against a change in character in most, but I will not tolerate a movement filled with double standards and hypocrisy. This shows that the political motive behind this is not pure liberalism.
If we shall do this, it should come from an artistic desire to experiment, fueled by liberalism. But nevertheless, we should still put artistic quality before political ideology, I think. The two come together, but we should still give creativity a higher priority. And we should have no double standards for our sacred cows.
TeslaK20 (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reading my responses, Tesla. We still have different opinions, but I'm grateful you've been willing to hear me out so far. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is it a double standard or gross disrespect or blasphemy or something to call for a female James Bond, but not an Irish/Australian/Welsh James Bond or a black James Bond or a working class James Bond or a James Bond who isn't working in the 1960s? Pop culture has always mixed things up. Every Dracula or Frankenstein movie departs almost entirely from the book. Same with Tarzan and every other long-living fictional character. Indeed, same with Paradise Lost or Prometheus Unbound or whenever Shakespeare retold existing stories. But for some reason people get really really upset when someone suggests making a character female. That sort of extreme reaction requires some kind of explanation. Annquin (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
But is this even true? Confirmation bias can be a nasty. The reaction was (afaik) very good when Starbucks was gender-flipped. I think she even became a fan favourite. Also, don't confuse public domain characters with a franchise, because “lost opportunity” is another big factor. Fans can pretend the Star Wars prequels never happened, but they'll resent that films were made, and thus opportunities were used up. Ghostbusters fans wanted a continuiation of their familiar universe (i.e. what happened in the other films did happen, and new things have to work with that), and didn't want it rebooted into a postmodernist comedy flick with an overt meta-jokes and SJW politics. You can do a lot of things, even have Harry Potter sit in a pub reading chapters alternating Atlas Shrugged and the Vagina Monologue, but you're destroying an universe with it, and some people will hate you for it. I remain unconvinced it has anything to do with the “narrative” the SJWs are shoving down everyone's throat. ~ Aneris 10:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Female Leads=SJW Politics. Cool meme there bro. The so called "Ghostbusters fans [who] wanted a continuation of their familiar universe" were probably not actually fans to begin with, because they would have known that Ghostbusters 2 was terrible and destroyed much of the continuity of the first movie two decades before the new Ghostbusters was even conceived. These "fans" are likely nothing more than retrograde conservative idiots who needed a new thing to blame the erosion of their privileged place in society on. Also, one of the reasons the first Ghostbusters was successful was because it WAS a "postmodernist comedy flick with an overt meta-jokes". It was able to serve as a summer blockbuster and a comentary on summer blockbusters. The only narrative here appears to be the false one created by you in order to push a conservative agenda. Petey Plane (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Discordian and empirical leftist, whereas you're at best from the CTRL-Left, an authoritarian with no clue nor respect for art and artists, but who wants it under control of The Party. That's the difference here. ~ Aneris 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. I did not expect the discussion to come to this, and I sense that we are nearing the inevitable fall into savagery which occurs when discussing feminism and SJWism. Therefore, I would like to steer the conversation away from this current path. In order to put us back on track, I will lay out so far what I think are the pros and cons of gender-swapping.
  1. Allows more representation of women in media, and women are currently an underrepresented group.
  2. Can create positive change
  3. Allows for new creative opportunities
  1. Can create negative change
  2. Breaks continuity, can alienate established fanbase, who are by definition conservatives when it comes to their beloved characters.
  3. Often originates from pure political correctness without any thought of how it would fit with the source material.
  1. Many of the people behind this movement have double standards and would never allow their favorite female characters to become male, even if it would positively impact the franchise.
Conclusion: We should not be averse to modifying the gender of a character if we believe it fits and could positively impact the franchise or provide fun new opportunities. However we must avoid gender swapping if it would hurt the character or series. We must always put art first.

TeslaK20 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

ikanreed is angry with your stupidity[edit]

I'm gonna split from the polite objections here and say go fuck your made up double standards. One of your central theses is just so incredibly context-unaware it makes me want to beat my head against my desk.
Specifically this part: "Why don't we hear calls for Agent Dan Scully and Foxine Mulder? Where is Lawrence Croft, Tomb Raider? What about Jaden, King of Narnia, the White Wizard?" two thirds of speaking roles in major Hollywood movies are male. Three quarters' of major protagonist roles are male.
In that context it's fucking insane to demand even more roles be converted to male positions. It's bafflingly loaded with bullshit. You take that we've reached an equilibrium and egalitarian treatment as a given then demand more to compensate for falsely perceived slights.
Take your bullshit, false fairness, and shove it. Ass. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As I expected, despite all my attempts never to reach this point, I now see that it is impossible to hold a polite and reasonable discussion about certain issues here. While the majority are helpful and are doing their best, someone has to come along and ruin it. I was planning to vote for you, but that decision of mine has now been called into question.
As for your actual argument behind the hot-headed fury, I never called for more male characters in films, or for the conversion of female characters to male. On the contrary, if you had read my latest post, something which, despite your name, you might not be capable of doing, you would have seen that I mentioned that women are an underrepresented group and representing them more by gender-swapping would be a good thing. What I said is that from a creative perspective, the people behind this movement who are trying to show that gender is a simple unimportant attribute like hair color or eye color, would never agree to change female characters into male, in violation of their own arguments. If it is such an insignificant change, why object? Now, if you agree with me that gender is an important attribute which defines a character, then you will also agree with me that changing female characters into males is wrong, since it is a significant, and significantly negative (from a feminist perspective) change. The point I am trying to bring across is that the tactics people are using in order to convince people not to oppose gender swapping necessarily create double standards, and should not be used. Rather, we should accept the fact that gender is significant, and that females are an underrepresented demographic.
I suggest you read my latest post, in which my thoughts are summed up. I don't think we disagree, I just think that you are misunderstanding what I am saying. TeslaK20 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
What you're saying is largely a strawman. Nobody believes that "gender is a simple unimportant attribute like hair color". The point of gender-swapping is surely, as you say yourself, that "we should accept the fact that gender is significant, and that females are an underrepresented demographic". Looking at your unsigned pros & cons list (I'm assuming it's yours based on your subsequent comments), I see "can create positive change" and "can create negative change" cancel each other out, and "often originates from pure political correctness without any thought of how it would fit with the source material" is baloney. Film studio & game studio executives don't make decisions out of "pure political correctness" or "without any thought" about continuity. The salient points are weighing "more representation of women in media" against "alienating established fanbase". WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
"As expected my attempts to be dismissive of an entire movement while ignoring the most relevant facts of that drive that movement weren't treated with nothing but respect." I don't respectfully disagree with people whose "polite" arguments are actually built on top of contempt. I'm angry and unreasonable towards them and I don't give a fuck about your tone argument. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No film studio would indeed make a decision based on pure political correctness, but some activist groups have asked them to do exactly that. Additionally, you may say that "gender is a simple unimportant attribute like hair color" is a strawman, but the website I linked gave me that impression, as they compared Link having pink hair to Link being female. In order for this discussion to be meaningful, I suggest changing direction. Please lay out what you believe to be the pros and cons of gender-swapping, and I will respectfully examine them, and see what I can learn from them. Thank you. TeslaK20 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You're taking two very different ideas and treating them as the same. They are saying that nintendo has no trouble changing physical attributes of link and has done so in the past, not that "gender doesn't matter". The people asking for change are saying gender matters for representation in a world where there aren't many female protagonists in games. These are not at all the same, and I can't sincerely believe you actually think they are. Please step up your intellectual honesty. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the idea that gender is not a significant attribute is not conveyed by the post I linked to, but I have heard of some radical people who have held this view, though they may have been Poes, particularly the more funny ones. I would like you to examine this statement of mine: If it does not negatively impact the story or conflict with the core premise, there are few reasons to oppose a change in gender. Women are an underrepresented group in media, and we welcome new creative opportunities. Additionally, in time new original female characters will rise. However if a change in gender would negatively impact the story, it should not be done. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you got examples where a deliberate decision was made to "negatively impact the story"? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Just as (most) bad movies are not deliberately bad, such will be the case here. Roland Emmerich doesn't set out to make films with 1-dimensional characters and no respect for the laws of physics. He believes in what he is doing. TeslaK20 (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Then when you say "if it would negatively impact the story, it should not be done", who or what are you arguing against? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
A hypothetical scenario, where a greedy executive who wishes to appeal to a politically correct audience compromises the story?
Also, as an example of more double standards, look at the case of Jane Bond. Imagine if the James Bond series was rebooted with a female lead. Assuming the character's base attributes would remain the same, this character would be a seductive "manizer" (whatever the female equivalent of womanizer is). But female characters who behave in this manner are called "sexualized" by the media, while nobody has ever called James Bond "sexualized". That's what they call the Bond Girls. So feminists would criticize Jane for being sexualized, while her behavior would be no different than that of James. This displays a sexist, anti-female double standard which prevails even within progressive communities. TeslaK20 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Gender swapping characters wouldn't be an issue at all if we stopped trying to drag out old franchises and gave some original works a chance. Then the issue of representation could be completely stripped of this frankly retarded franchise continuity baggage. Who knows, maybe we could start valuing decent scriptwriters. (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"I understand that females are underrepresented in the world of fiction, however, rather than grotesquely changing cultural icons, we should build new characters. In fact, from a feminist perspective, why should a woman have to take on the identity of a man in order to be great? Why must she rely upon what he has built up for her? Can she not make a name for herself? This is also why I am against "gay retconning", that is, taking an established minor book character, mentioning his homosexuality in one sentence, and then making no further mention or use of this. It is unnecessary to the plot and serves only as a "Look guys, I'm politically correct!" on the part of the author."
I agree. Tokenism is offensive to those checkboxes it marginalises. Also my good Bon above is correct, re-heated is never as good as freshly cooked. (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What's your political ideology?[edit]

Or what political ideology do you agree with the most? and why?

Just curious to see where exactly does RW lean regarding politics :) --YellowJelly (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In my case, I would probably lean towards Classical Liberalism, as I believe it brings the most prosperity to a country in both economic and social terms. Neoliberalism could work as well, but it's a bit too extreme for me. --YellowJelly (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
does transhuman count? cos that Threadnaught (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
No --YellowJelly (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably consider myself democratic socialist. – AOAPJM (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
As in, democratic and socialist? Or the mixed economy kind of democratic socialism? --YellowJelly (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably the former, although I agree with a mixed economy to an extent (probably to a lesser extent than most social democrats). I'm not going to go and ask for the re-nationalisation of PickfordsWikipedia or British TelecomWikipedia, for example, but I 100% believe in re-nationalising the railways, keeping the private sector out of the NHS and the concept of a welfare state. Put it simply, I would agree with the likes of Jeremy Corbyn (UK) and Bernie Sanders (US) on most issues. Although I do share your social liberalism. – AOAPJM (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a tad technocratic, with a strong concern for lifestyle freedom. I find my core views to mostly be informed by Locke. But as a modern American I'm kinda forced into the choice of "Vaguely reality based" against "Totally batshit" as my choices. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Pragmatic and results-oriented, with a personal preference towards authoritarian. But really, what means gets those ends I'm looking for. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Check my user page first. I'm fundamentally socialist in my economic wishes, but I tend to support democratic reform on economic matters to get us to the point of democratic socialism, as well as social democracy. I'm also pragmatic, which means I don't mind the state being authoritarian on economic matters, e.g. jailing 2008 predatory lenders and shutting down banks. I'm also a string libertarian when it comes to social issues. All drugs decriminalized, polygamy, prostitution, no surveillance, police reform, etc. PBfreespace (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Informed centrist. Both sides suck, and I'm probably a little more prejudiced against the left, and most centrists are ignorant cowards, so probably a little more center right.nobsBern baby bern 05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Menshevik81.145.153.190 (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ghostbusters illustrates how Social Justice Manufactuversies work[edit]

You have heard of the contoversy surrounding Ghostbusters 2016, the misogyny and racism and — basically GamerGate all over again. And Elevatorgate. And Racefail. And... wait, isn't there some kind of pattern? This pattern is awfully specific. Most of this is mission already, see all the blue links here: social justice or social justice warrior, yet you miss the obvious in the centre of it all, how those manufactuveries are created, and perpetuated, perhaps because the RationalWiki does the perpetuating, too: Scientist Man Analyzes Ghostbusters (RedLetterMedia). Do you recognize yourself? I wonder about one thing: many here expressed this was all a conspiracy theory, yet again and again completely unrelated people in diverse areas from fiction writing to atheism to film-buffs observe the same thing. Here's your challenge: propose an alternative (better) theory ~ Aneris 20:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You have heard of the contoversy surrounding Ghostbusters 2016, the misogyny and racism- Aneris
The only controversy over the movie that I've heard has come direct from from the MRAs on Reddit. Oh, and a bunch on [ Twitter]. And Return of Kings. Oh, and Milo. Everyone else who isn't part of the MRA crowd seems to see no controversy at all.
Scientist Man Analyzes Ghostbusters (RedLetterMedia).- Aneris
I don't know who this is and I don't watch videos Youtube that are some guy blathering for endless minutes. Can you summarize it or give a transcript, please?
I wonder about one thing: many here expressed this was all a conspiracy theory, yet again and again completely unrelated people in diverse areas from fiction writing to atheism to film-buffs observe the same thing. Here's your challenge: propose an alternative (better) theory- Aneris
Um, what's the conspiracy theory?
Because all I'm gathering from this post is that social justice warriors are somehow creating manufactuveries among the MRAs? Because, really, those are the only people to whom Ghostbusters 2016 is "controversial".
To us normal people, it's just a remake with chicks instead of dudes.
And to me, this just looks like MRAs losing their shit because of the gender-swapping.
(Which is kinda fucked since the original movie wasn't all that great to begin with.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You have it exactly backwards. "Normal people" have no idea about MRAs and your favourite gender-warrior subjects, or your tiny echo chamber where you listen to their whiny tunes played on a micro-fiddle. You have no idea, whatsoever, but then you spout off about MRAs and other assorted rejects of society, because that's apparently the corner where you sleep at night. Had you at least some clue, you'd know that Ghostbusters 2016 was a topic across the entire entertainment industry, across talk shows and of course everywhere on social media for a while. You are simply out of touch. ~ Aneris 22:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
your tiny echo chamber where you listen to their whiny tunes played on a micro-fiddle.- Aneris
You mean the office building I work in with 500 other people? Oh, OK.
You have no idea, whatsoever, but then you spout off about MRAs and other assorted rejects of society, because that's apparently the corner where you sleep at night.- Aneris
Yes, we do document the "rejects of society" here at RationalWiki. Creationists, sovereign citizens, woo promoters, authoritarians, MRAs, etc. Gee, could it be possible that DOCUMENTATION OF THESE PEOPLE provide some knowledge?
Had you at least some clue, you'd know that Ghostbusters 2016 was a topic across the entire entertainment industry, across talk shows and of course everywhere on social media for a while.- Aneris
Yeah, it was. And the topic across the entirety of the entertainment industry and social meda was Why are these bros screeching about how their childhood is ruined forever?
Let me ask you - at your place of work, what were people saying about the movie? Not in the Slymepit, not on a forum, people that you work with every day? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm confident people have heard of Ghostbusters, but have no clue about "MRA". I have not seen the film, and my post above is not about the film, but about the manufactuversy surrounding it, i.e. "meta". ~ Aneris 22:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The "manufactuversy" was all on the MRAs, dude. No one cared about dudes being replaced with chicks till those manbabies got their diapers in a twist. And then everyone wondered why they gave a fuck. And since it's MRAs, most people don't know that the answer is "MRAs find genderswaps SCARY." --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Although I don't know why I bother. You're a conspiracy nut who never actually answers any questions put to you, substituting meaningless green ink instead. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Conspiracies? For real, or of the Discordian variety? I tend to be the opposite of what an agitated interlocutor thinks of themselves, which is the nature of Othering, and to me a sign of intellectual weakness. I make no bones about that. When I see this, I immediately lower my expectations. But at least people can look at the twitter feed and form their own opinion. And which question do I refuse to answer? Maybe I don't accept your framing, which is a product of your BS, and which is akin to loaded questions. For example, the video above contains talk show appearances, media articles, and more which give you an idea of the scope of the controversy. Why it's also a manufactuversy becomes clear, too. Your sub-par argumentation technique of utmost cocksure assurance about things that are demonstrably false, gaslighting (perhaps), ad hominems and derail are otherwise well known. You're not the first who tries this route: it's the default of the quarter-wit who engages in discussions for other reasons than understanding and enlightenment ~ Aneris 23:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, how many days has it been since someone on RW thought you were a fucking idiot? - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a while, I think it was your buddy Ryulong? Other than that, it was determined earlier, based on tribal affiliation we both know well, since you're of the "Horde"(their actual self-description, founded by PZ Myers), and I'm a Slymepitter (also named by PZ Myers, but appropriated by Abbie Smith's commentariat). Only you're cranky and childish about it ;) ~ Aneris 22:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess going on and on about things no one except you cares about doesn't qualify as "cranky" in your mind. I wish Mediawiki had an ignore feature. Now go ahead and spew more of your paragraphs upon paragraphs that only you are reading. --Ymir (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
For other readers, as Ymir's talk page reveals, he's concerned with MRAs as well, i.e. the same whole gender-warrior corner, just like Castaigne. It's the way through which they see the world. ~ Aneris 00:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Six degrees of Ryulong strikes again! Vulpius (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not see the new Ghostbusters movie. I think the critics said it was alright. I think movie producers should be able to do what they want, but personally I dislike the movement to add female characters to movies and media out of a need for equal representation. PBfreespace (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Why the need to ascribe that particular motivation? The movie was directed by Paul Feig who did Bridesmaids, The Heat and Spy, all vehicles for Melissa McCarthy, so why is it a surprise he cast her - or for that matter, the three SNL heavy hitters that make up the rest of the group? Can't it just be that Feig likes to work with actors with whom he is comfortable, and are also funny as hell? Was Scorcese unfairly pushing an 'Italians-only' agenda by casting DeNiro over and over again? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's your fault that we have stupid ideas because you publicly dismantle those stupid ideas[edit]

The header here seems to be one of the most recurring brands of obnoxious thought on the internet.

  • "I'm so sick of people calling me racist. It's their fault that Donald Trump is so racist. By the way I'm voting for trump".
  • "anti-gamergate is a movement that justifies gamergate."
  • "It's those feminists who stirred up controversy about Ghostbusters. Please ignore the major sites in my movement who definitely raised objections months ago"

No. Telling you that your ideas dumb only reinforces those ideas in your head because your an obnoxious ideologue. Sorry buddy, you made that bed. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm nearly speechless, blaming the people that are trying to stop the issue for causing the issue. That can't be healthy to believe. -MasterofLogic (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
...at what point is MRAs criticizing feminists for criticizing blatant sexism trying to stop the issue? (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Read the title again, it's just in large bolded font. Publicly dismantling stupid ideas doesn't cause them. -MasterofLogic (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Simple Explanation[edit]

  1. Hollywood creates movie
  2. Trailer gets lowest score ever for a movie trailer on YouTube, due to trailer being awful
  3. Sony goes into damage control mode. Benign negative reviews of the trailer get deleted but the abusive comments remain. This is done to make people criticizing the movie nothing more than MRA's.
  4. Suddenly, it's not about people disliking a crappy movie, but Feminism under Attack! People come out of the woodwork on both sides to turn this into yet another crappy internet argument.
  5. Movie is released. Turns out to be mediocre but not terrible.

Really, that's it. It's a mediocre movie and Sony has been abusing and altering the narrative to try and make more money, and both the MRAs and the Tumblr crowd have been suckered into this. Just walk away. See the movie if you want, or don't. Up to you. StickySock (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much. I saw it. Was a pretty shit film, although the trailer was significantly worse. RLM joked that the editor of the trailer must've had a personal grudge against the creators of the film, which seems pretty true. EA did something similar to this a while back with Mass Effect 3 and some other games they had going on, but that seems to have died down now. X Stickman (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't agree it was a shit film. It came off much better than the original, the original being terribly dated, embarrassing as hell, and full of awkward pacing. And the creators of the film seemed to like it a lot, considering the number of cameos.
Doesn't matter much. It's now definitely getting a sequel and an animated series, so the money will be made. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
What you're eliding is, if I recall correctly, the MRA crowd went on their usual freakout about feminazi SJW indoctrination when it was announced the movie would have an all-female lead cast, before any trailer was ever released. I haven't heard anyone saying, "You must like this movie if you support feminism," though I don't hang out much with the "Tumblr crowd". I haven't seen it myself. And of course, the bigger picture (heh) to take into account is that when a movie has all male leads no one bats an eye because it happens all the time. --Ymir (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
While the MRA junk was always there, Sony hyped that portion up and deleted non-MRA criticisms in order to make it appear that the only reason you wouldn't like the film was if you were some basement dwelling manchild. It was a bad trailer. It was a mediocre movie.
As for the all female cast, this was an established series, and people were going to complain no matter who replaced Bill Murray. Yeah sure more complain when it's a woman replacing a man, but you are falling into the trap that ALL or even MOST of the complaints are because the new cast was female. Let the then reboot Wonder Woman as Wonder Man, and then see if such a movie gets half as many complaints before making the statement that it's mainly "female cast" that people are complaining about. StickySock (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
YouTube comment moderation seems like a relatively minor aspect of a movie's marketing & PR activities. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You'd be surprised what companies do when "marketing". Watch the RLM video on it; love that group, they do very thorough reviews of movies, most famously the Star Wars prequels where the reviews were longer and better than the prequels themselves. Anyway, there's no such thing as bad publicity. They want the controversy, because it's free advertising. StickySock (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed! They hinted at their views with their “Sensitive Joss Whedon” joke, when he was chased off Twitter over the Black Widow/Monster controversy, where no MRA could be pulled out of a hat. Also recall Mad Max. It's entirely possible that one loner somewhere in the depths of youtube felt the flick had evil feminist elements. Nobody cared, and it only became a thing when SJW tasted a hint of blood in the surfing water, and of course, had to go all out nuclear war over this. Clickbait and native advertisement of course play a role, and either set Reichtagsfires, or nutpick one and fan the flames, and its not by accident that this is happening now with social media. What's comical is that this is seen as a conspiracy theory, even though its all across the media, and even campus. Yet, the belief in Teh Patriarchy™ and MRA as the foremost agents of oppression is somehow a legitimate view. Not that “War is Peace” moments are unusual with SJWs ~ Aneris 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Patriarchy is a thing though. It's not that there's some sort of secret society of seashell sellers a few men trying to control everything and keep women down, but that society is at least someone biased towards men. Ignore the crazies though; just because feminists have a few fringe nutjobs in their ranks doesn't mean that all of them are wrong. StickySock (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, patriarchies exist, and I also agree that positions of power are held mostly by men. I also don't believe this outcome is a product of meritocracy or choice, and my views are feministic, since I also believe this needs to be addressed. Though I don't think much of arguments that try to portray something as complex as societies as a simple object with easy to describe properties. Hence, I also consider the oppressor/oppressed views as complete rubbish, and Teh Patriarchy™ as used by SJWs is a concept taken from radical feminism, that went through Critical Race Theory and via Crenshaw back into Intersectionality Feminism. It's a conspiracy theory, and utter rubbish. ~ Aneris 21:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Syrian orphan sorry to hear North American childhoods ruined by enjoyable film about ghosts - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Muslima, oh wait. And, it's a manufactuversy because a tiniest group of anonymous people, somewhere, have expressed that their childhoods were ruined. Those who made it a big story were your SJW buddies, as usual. That's the whole point. It's clear that only SJW are obsessed with gender warfare, while virtually everyone else is just pissed off by them. ~ Aneris 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The point is how stupid "childhood ruined" rhetoric is, so your inane, stupid comparison is pretty much on par with the credibility of anything you've ever said here. But you know, that entitlement you've got has to express itself somehow. You've got a real problem with radically misunderstanding the basic idea of things others say, and then getting a stick up your ass about blaming imagined enemies for how evil your misunderstanding is. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Try again, whargarble. I agree that “ruined childhood” is idiotic, so does RedLetterMedia. ~ Aneris 15:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh fuck you, you childish ass. Because you don't "believe" that, you can suddenly ignore that thousands upon thousands of people on the internet have expressed exactly that sentiment, and make unreasonable comparisons about a satire piece. I'm sick of your bullshit Aneris. So very sick of it. Own the stupid shit you say. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
What makes you so upset when I, as well as the people in the video above AGREE that "ruined childhood" is idiotic. The argument has been that a growing number of people, colloqially called "Social Justice Warriors" became internet famous in the recent years for going thermonuclear about a few nutters that certainly exist, but are in no way significant or important. In turn, their histrionic, aggressive and showy antics, their "social justicer than thou" attitude, geared towards each other and their own self-image in the rear mirror of history, has pissed off the other half of the internet. The SJWs themselves attribute this to "rape culture" and declared everyone an "MRA" or other such nonsense, rather than recognizing the blatantly obvious explanation that SJWs have been obnoxious imbeciles with an idiotic, anti-rational ideology — which in turn gave additional reasons why we have a kind of Science Wars again. ~ Aneris 16:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, this is just the latest shitty remake/reboot from a Hollywood studio desperately grabbing for cash and putting in little effort. Just like Fantastic Four, Smurfs, Garfield, Alvin and the Chipmunks, etc... It isn't the end of the world, it isn't an attack on Americana, Masculinity, or anything else besides good taste. (talk)

How can I edit the Potus16nav?[edit]

I'd like to add the article on Mike Pence. We may or may not want to have one on that boring white guy on the Democrat side as well another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article on Tim Kaine. Vulpius (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes but neither he nor Mike Pence show up in the thingy. How do I change that? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want an article to show up among the suggestions of a certain nav, you don't edit the nav afaik. Instead, you add the relevant category to the article in question. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
But the nav is at the bottom of the page. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The nav is a template; you should edit that. It used to have some form of dpl that made all the articles in Category:2016 US presidential election appear in the nav, but I have reorganised it a bit.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the odds of Category 6 being added to the Saffir-Simpson scale? (Not sure if I spelled the name of the scale right)[edit]

I just wanted to get input from other users, I think it might happen.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one not understanding a word you wrote? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope. That makes two of us. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to the scale that measures hurricanes, I probably should have mentioned that.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The scaleWikipedia is only roughly logarithmic (unlike the the Richter scale for earthquakes, which is logarithmic), so is therefore semi-arbitrary. A category 6 has already been proposed for winds >174 mph or >180 mph (throw a dart to pick). These are speeds that have already been recorded. Bongolian (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

IS Mondoweiss anti-semitic?[edit]

We (courtesy of Mona Holland) quote Mondoweiss quite a bit. If you read https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/mondoweiss-is-a-hate-site/ this contribution, it rather seems that instead of quoting and endorsing them we should be writing articles about them and denouncing them as the anti-semitic cranks they are. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2016-08-05T19:01:56

i.e, one libertarian says so on his blog. Looking at your contribution history this appears to be your latest attempt to bring the permanent floating Israel-Palestine flamewar to the saloon bar. Please don't - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You're citing the Volokh Conspiracy? Really? Volokh is run by libertarian crackpots who should not, under any circumstances, be cited for anything. On the other hand, I highly encourage everyone to read them for entertainment value. "You can't tax people to save the world from an imminent asteroid impact, that'd violate my rights" is some of the finest libertarian nonsense I've ever had the pleasure of reading. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I should also point out that "anti-Semitic Jew"/"self-hating Jew"/any-variation-thereof is a dogwhistle among right-wing Jews for "filthy liberal", and any accusation can be safely dismissed as such. (This is especially ironic considering the prominence within the natural law variants of conservatism and libertarianism of arch-crackpot Murray Rothbard, a Jew who was an adamant race realist, a man who spun his own revisionist history blaming the evil welfare state on Jews and lesbians, and an open admirer of Holocaust deniers like Harry Elmer Barnes. Funny how the actual anti-Semitic Jew gets a free pass, but left-wing Jews have their every statement scrutinized lest they cross some arbitrary line—a line conveniently set by their ideological opponents.) Point being, this is petty internecine politics and it can't be cited as the final word on anything. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Stabby, that should all be added to the Libertarianism and Murray Rothbard articles, respectively - great links. ROFL at the asteroid defense one. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nav suggestions[edit]

Couldn't we whip up a fun nav, a music nav and a machismo nav? We certainly have the categories well-established, and populated with a sufficient amount of articles to warrant a nav for each. Thoughts on this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me – AOAPJM (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Fun nav: Indifferent. In opposition: There's nothing that unifies the funspace articles, and so there's no reason for a nav. In support: people might want to binge-read the fun articles, and a nav is an easily-accessed way to do so.
Music nav: Oppose. In general, we should not have navs for particular media types -- the booknav and movienav should be purged -- but should instead use the navs which make the subject notable. Eg, 1984 isn't notable because it's a book, but because it intersects with politics.
Machismo nav: For previous discussion, see Template talk:Mrm. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The latest developments on the state of Ayurvedic medicine[edit]

It's still ass. Go read; we're done here. Class dismissed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Who, exactly, is this childish & aggressive troll above now controlling Rationalwiki?LMM (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Full identity revealed here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
So yes a troll you mean. Fine. If this site doesn't find a way to rein you in, it'll just become a joke site. Can some other editors weigh in with some adult supervision? LMM (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Can't we talk about this? I replied to you in the forum thread you set up. I would actually really appreciate a reply; I'm geuinely wondering if you support humorism and germ theory denialism (for starters). Don't you agree that that is a valid question to ask? I would certainly think so, under the circumstances (I mean, it IS the WHO we're talking about after all). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Gadzooks saves mankind part 22 - privacy chain[edit]

I shall not speak of the other 21 times for fear of undoing my work...or as I like to say 'in my professional opinion as a naturopath' ... I read about the company now tracking all Americans for corporate shills and I wondered if there is room for a service that acts as an aggregator for financial payments etc, that maintains a back chain of proof for White Hat actors, yet offers the corporate data miners a brick wall. Like a privacy service so you don't get e-reamed by eager actuaries. Via slashdot.Gadzooks (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

How can I apply for Sysop rights?[edit]

I hear most regular editors here have them and I'd like to be part of the club . Objective (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just keep making helpful edits and contributing new content. If you don't come off as a nutter or get into edit wars, you'll get a mop eventually. Blitz (Complaints Box) 00:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
A bit too late for that. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Should primary and secondary fundie schools should be added on the fundie school list?[edit]

Plenty of non-college level fundie schools could be turned into articles and or added to the fundie school list.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If I say yes, will you actually go out, write up the articles, and add them? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Asking the real questions. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the general rule is, if it's relevant and you do a good job, you don't have to ask permission. Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's a question or suggestion about a specific article, it's best raised on the article's talk page rather than the Saloon Bar. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

How do we know what is true?[edit]

I'm new, and have a serious, non-troll question.
First, a sentence or two of background: I have always valued reason and science above superstition, and think that it's vitally important to fearlessly pursue the truth. Science and reason comprise the ideology that has done more than any other to improve the human condition, and is our best hope for the future. I was a liberal, politically, until a few years ago, but then I found myself being pulled to the right, because of what I consider sound, logical reasons. Believe me, I had a strong emotional aversion to being right-wing.
So, finding this site, I thought at first, "Great, a site dedicated to sorting out fact from fiction." Now, in my opinion, a crucial aspect of science and rationality is a certain humility that allows you to be open to new information and new ideas. I have to always be aware that I'm a fallible human, susceptible to bias, and any given opinion I have might be wrong. To combat that, we need systematic, objective ways to keep bias out -- it doesn't alway work, of course, but that doesn't mean we should give up.
So, my question is the general policy question: How do you (collectively) know you're right? How do you determine what is true? The community standards page says this is a "mobocracy", which doesn't bode well, IMO. It seems to me that a robust program to authoritatively discern and disseminate the truth should be much more rigorous than what you have here. I wrote a couple of questions on Twitter:

  • Do you have a page on how to filter and extract truth from noisy, corrupt information resources?
  • Is the purpose to debunk pseudoscience, or to find the truth? If the former, who determines what is "pseudoscience"? In the past, of course, there are many examples of things that were initially considered pseudoscience, that later were vindicated.
  • How does rationalwiki guard against coordinated infiltration by a group with a mandate to spread false information? This is a real, plausible scenario that is studied in game theory and cryptography/trust networks. Have you considered it?

I was also disappointed to see that whoever is running the Twitter account is tweeting a lot of overtly political messages. I would think that a site called "RationalWiki" would make efforts to remain above the fray of partisan politics.
I really hope people don't think I'm a troll. I have my beliefs, and I recognize there are very bright people here who believe the exact opposite from what I do, about various topics. I want to find out the truth, and if anybody had links to resources that might help, I'd definitely appreciate those.
Thanks Klortho (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"I would think that a site called "RationalWiki" would make efforts to remain above the fray of partisan politics."
This would be true if neither side was right and the true truth lies in the middle. That's not the case, and political leftism is correct, while rightism is incorrect. Simple as that.
Just because we're RationalWiki doesn't mean we "stay above the fray". In fact, it's our purpose to delve into the fray and sort out what's going on. There are right(er) sides to most issues, and we don't hesitate to point that out. You should ask others about the other questions you raised. PBfreespace (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"That's not the case, and political leftism is correct, while rightism is incorrect." -- How do you know? Surely, you must be able to admit, as I did, that you are human, and susceptible to bias, aren't you? If so, then prudence demands that you make every effort you can to eliminate your own bias, especially if you are going to appoint yourself as the arbiter of "what's going on". Relying on the fact that the mob here agrees with you obviously isn't good enough -- we all know at least that much mob psychology, don't we? And, I'd point out that it's in your interest to do so, because that would add weight to your conclusions. As it is now, any of your opponents could (and do) point to your guidelines and conclude that the site is biased. I mean, I'm actually a little bit incredulous that I'm on a site called "RationalWiki" having to explain this. Klortho (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Not everybody here believe political leftism is (always) correct. To your original query, a lot of times there isn't a right answer. What I think this site does a good job at is promoting science and the scientific method. In that, there is a left bias, but ONLY as it relates to science, in my opinion. In areas like economics, business, and the liberal arts, there is much more disagreement on this site. Some areas that mix science with law and business (like Big Pharma and the War on Drugs), disagreement tends to prop up again. This site was founded as a rebuttal to Conservapedia, but the strongest objections to Conservapedia were its anti-science opinions, versus their economic ideology. We're not a left wing site. Objective (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This would be true if neither side was right and the true truth lies in the middle.- PFB3
Correct, although it's fact, not truth.
That's not the case, and political leftism is correct, while rightism is incorrect. Simple as that.- PFB3
No, that's an opinion. If political leftism was always correct, then Lysenkoism would be correct, being a scientific theory of a branch of political leftism.
The problem, as usual, is that you are too uncritical of your own side. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, the true truth. That's the good stuff, alright. Accept no substitute.
@Klortho: Go do a philosophy degree. If nothing else, it should probably disabuse you of the notion that someone on the internet will be able to give you truth's address and phone number. Robledo (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Truth is the realm of philosophy. Here is not what Klortho wants.--Castaigne2 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Outside of non-fuzzy mathematics and logic, the "truth" is hard to pin down and doesn't really exist except in opposition to obvious falsehoods (e.g., denialist ideologies of various sorts). See for example, quantum mechanics. Bongolian (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
> This site was founded as a rebuttal to Conservapedia
It's unfortunate that the founders decided that the best way to rebut a site that pushes an irrational viewpoint was to create another site that pushes the opposing irrational viewpoint. I'd have thought a better way might be to start a site that actually pushed a rational viewpoint.
> Outside of non-fuzzy mathematics and logic, the "truth" is hard to pin down and doesn't really exist except in opposition to obvious falsehoods.
That's written with such confidence and authority -- almost as if you believe it were true.
I guess the joke is on me. I thought this was a serious site, with a goal of promoting rationalism. But, I see, from every article about politics that I checked, it's a parody site. Yet, other pages have just enough factual information to dupe the naive. So, I guess that makes this some sort of hybrid parody / disinformation echo chamber. Klortho (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems that you be mistaking snark for parody. Please provide specific instances of false rather than sarcastic statements, along with citations as to how they are false. Although, if you have such citations, you are welcome to simply edit the offending articles. Please note that Breitbart, Drudge, and talk radio are not sources. Arawn Emrys (talk)
Meme arrows are for imageboards ― use wiki markup here. The locals especially like it when you quote them in green. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Those are Usenet quote characters, not your newfangled "meme arrows", millennial scum - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You also seem to not know what snark is and therefore have a rather limited view of what the site is about. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's complicated. You appear to be a Naïve Realist, which is an untenable position. The Right is also mostly wrong and a drag, since it clings to the obsolete, while science and moral progress keep marching forwards. Occasionally, humankind runs into the wrong direction and winds up in a dead end, though that happened overally less often, while conservatives are still commited to Bronze Age myths. :fnordThe Right also denies climate change and fights science that contradict their fairytales with tooth and nail (in the US), and hence they are busy with their war on evolution, cosmology and geology (as muricans would put it) because these areas are threatening to their beliefs the most. A part of the Left has left its empirical path as well, notably with postmodernism since at least the 1980s and which currently undergoes a revival in the Social Justice movement (that's how I see it). This movement, notable for its committed followers, has introduced their views in many articles and it influenced many more — in line with a general shift away from “hard science” New Atheism / Skepticism towards “soft science” humanities and intersectional “Social Justice”.
fnordSince this shift didn't happen entirely peacefully, the now SJ faction uses this wiki to also spread their slanderous misinformation about the “other side”. Both things together, stated anti-rationalism from postmodernism, and the smearing seriously undermine the project as a whole, because when "science" articles contain utter nonsense and the RW manages to spread spiteful falsehoods even on Richard Dawkins, how reliable are articles on Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and the likes that are traditionally disliked? ~ Aneris 12:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Citation for SJW corrupted science articles please. Arawn Emrys (talk)
The one I linked to above and if you follow levels of analysis in it you are also in a science article proper. Levels of analysis, like Marr's are not applied to “sociological forces of oppression” and it is probably also incompatible, since the former is a reductionist approach (as science generally is), and the latter is about “lived experience” and “storytelling” and such things. This is not me being polemical, this is officicially in the manual. Time to end the denialism. People should at least know the manual of their own beliefs. Other well known areas are around evolutionary psychology, and most social justice topics, which more or less all have a reputable science veneer, despite that intersectionality and the overarching framework, CRT was cooked up in law schools. Also see the discussion above. ~ Aneris 14:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
That isn't a science article. I questioned you regarding your statement that "SJWs" are corrupting the science articles on the site. Arawn Emrys (talk)
Don't bother. There's no point in engaging with our resident "SJW CABAL" conspiracy crackpot. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Now, in my opinion, a crucial aspect of science and rationality is a certain humility that allows you to be open to new information and new ideas.- Klortho
I don't really see that humility has ever been required in order to make changes to a data set.
To combat that, we need systematic, objective ways to keep bias out- Klortho
That is combated by adhering to the scientific method.
How do you (collectively) know you're right?- Klortho
I do not care about being "right", as "good" and "right" is absolutely subjective.
How do you determine what is true?- Klortho
I don't determined what is "true". I'm not a philosopher. I determine what is fact.
Do you have a page on how to filter and extract truth from noisy, corrupt information resources?- Klortho
Define "noisy".
Define "corrupt".
Is the purpose to debunk pseudoscience, or to find the truth?- Klortho
Debunk pseudoscience.
If the former, who determines what is "pseudoscience"?- Klortho
Read the definition. That should provide you with the criteria.
In the past, of course, there are many examples of things that were initially considered pseudoscience, that later were vindicated.- Klortho
...like what, exactly? Examples?
I would think that a site called "RationalWiki" would make efforts to remain above the fray of partisan politics.- Klortho
You need to lurk moar. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There's reasons above and beyond "The left is better"[edit]

So the tone of politics on rationalwiki leans pretty far left, because the bulk of pseudoscience with real, substantial presence in (english-speaking) politics leans pretty far right. That's it. In a more sane political landscape, there would be a lot more room for balance. Creationism, climate change denial, theocratic ideology, politicians getting advice directly from god, sketchy biotruths, non-empirically validated economics, and let's not forget tribalism in foreign policy: these are all things that have serious, strong representation in one major faction of (again, anglocentric) politics. There are places where more left-leaning parties have this kind of problem and so it's not a fundamental superiority, but a temporal, local one. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand ideas about anti-vax, anti-GMO, the power of crystals, homeopathy and such like is certainly not absent on the left. Nuttiness is not a function of political belief.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Reality denial.
  • "Power of crystals" doesn't have any fucking place in politics. Not one major candidate of any sort defends that shit as a political point.
  • there's no political correlation to anti-vax beliefs. And what little correlation there is indicts conservatives. Anti-vax doesn't have much mainstream political support from liberal candidates, except when you get to fringe characters. Meanwhile the republican presidential candidate is an anti-vaxxer.
  • Homepathic medicine's biggest backer in politics is the super-right leaning Utah representative, Orrin Hatch, who won't let the FDA touch the industry.
  • The "DARK" GMO labeling act was passed with 2/3rds of the votes for it coming from republicans, and only 45 democrats voting for it.
None of your examples stand up to scrutiny. Stop telling me your impression of who's supporting anti-science position, and give me some evidence. If you think any of those issues having political clout are a left-leaning thing, you haven't even remotely examined the support. Many liberals aren't quite where I'd want them on the science, but if you think both sides are equally wrong, you're wronger than both. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you're violently agreeing with each other. There definitely is support for various flavors of woo on the left. Go ask people in Marin CountyWikipedia (one of the bluest-blue counties in the U.S.) what they think about vaccines or GMOs. And see, for instance, Bernie Sanders's fence-sitting on GMOs, or, in the UK, Labour tacitly endorsing homeopathy. It's true that in the U.S. these issues generally don't get much attention from the Democratic Party mainstream, and you have to get a bit out into the fringes (like in the Green Party) to get to the really hardcore stuff, probably in part because the American political spectrum in general is to the right of most other developed countries. If American politics shifts leftward you'll start hearing more of this stuff. --Ymir (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You know there's a whole world outside of America right Ikanreed? You might want to reflect on that before ripping into someone's understanding of your (peculiar) domestic politics. There are plenty of countries where the left wing is various degrees of bat shit crazy. (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Uh, yes. Look just a little tiny bit further up at my first post in this thread where I specifically qualified that point. Congrats on the catching the "mistake" I directly and clearly acknowledged. Totally makes me want to buy into the rest of your analysis where you suggest I secretly agree with someone who says things a little research finds to be pretty much the opposite of reality. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
"Opposite of reality"*
*In Murica (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. That's been exactly the nature of the conversation. I'm so glad you finally caught up. Do you have any other condescension about your own lack of reading comprehension to contribute or is it just the one thought repeated over and over? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Good post! For the BON who doesn't seem to get it: Ikanreed is talking only about America, and says so. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Well it's not hard to find people on the political left in the UK who have antiscience beliefs. The world is bigger than the US - and so is "the left"--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the discussion in question regards US politics, including the original post, so the UK left is not relevant. Arawn Emrys (talk)
Ikanreed spoke of english-speaking and anglocentric politics. IMO that involves more places than America, especially given the definition of the word anglocentric. On top of that a few cherry-picked examples of right wing lunacy taken as proof that the right wing is worse than the left is precisely the bias problem that the original poster is referring to. You haven't done any research ikanreed, you just went out and looked for evidence that confirmed your belief that right wing politics is crazy. Even if they weren't cherry picked, as Ymir pointed out, the American "left" wing (at least the Democrats) is by any standard a right wing party so those examples simply prove that a moderate right wing party is less loony than an extremely right wing party. (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW Note the position of Democrats on the topic of GMO here.

Article Idea: Rape and Immigration[edit]

I think this is a good idea,but I'm new to the wiki and not sure how to go about this. But I've noticed a staple of right wing sites is to publish articles about how white women in Europe are constantly being raped or sexually assaulted by "Muslims" yet whenever a white woman accuses a white man of something like this, the woman is suddenly a lying feminist whore. I'd like to include something about this but don't know how-Maeve (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is a horrible article idea in my opinion. No doubt, there is discussion by politicians, both in the US and Europe, about sexual assaults committed by illegal and non permanent migrants. Many of these stories are true. To make an article making light of those allegations is, well, fucked up. Objective (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Mind telling me how this is making light of allegations? It's not about saying it's not true. It's about exposing double standards of certain racist publications that are increasingly becoming popular. I would think it would be perfect for rationalwiki.-Maeve (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, I'm not condoning Trump's Mexicans are rapists comment, though illegal immigrants do commit a fair share of sexual assault crimes. The Muslim migrants are rapists is a much more defensible position. Objective (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I fully support such an article -- though IMO it shouldn't mention even a single story (single incident) of rape, but rather focus 100% on statistics (as immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and less likely to commit rape). Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is the statistics are not known USA Today 2015 article link Objective (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The article rather seems to note that there's incomplete and seemingly contradictory data -- when surely RW would make a good place to sort the data? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be better included as a section under a far-right conspiracy theory bit, were it me. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Complicating matters is that supposedly governments in Europe seem to cover up mass rapes by immigrants. Rotterham for example. Köln back in January, for another. Then there was that Swedish music festival that no one gave a shit about before the "coverup". StickySock (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably a subsection of an article about the European refugee crisis?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Rotherham and all the other recent major sex gangs were made up of legal immigrants from Pakistan, except for the one that was made up of Somalis. Well that might not be strictly true either; can't find out if they were immigrants or born here, only that they had "Pakistani Heritage", and other Pakistani-Brits condemned the coverup. I don't know what fraction of all rapes were committed by immigrants nor the demographics of immigrants to the UK, so just picking individual (albeit huge) cases does not for sound conclusions make. StickySock (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Why all the articles on rape and very little on healthy sexual relationships?[edit]

By no means do I not appreciate the outrage shown towards rape and domestic violence here, but there's almost zero resources here on healthy sexual relationships. While rape is not sex and domestic violence is not love, these topics are very intertwined. I think having articles on what is healthy may be as or more useful than talking about what is unhealthy. I know some people get outraged by the Yes means Yes campaign and Consent is Sexy campaign. But those slogans have an important meaning. Healthy sexual relationships are much more valuable than rape, where you put your self in serious legal, academic, and professional jeopardy. Objective (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have the time and feel like doing the work, there is literally no reason why you cannot write up such an article or articles and put them up on the site and I encourage you to do so. I agree that a little more positivity might be a good thing, but have very little free time. Arawn Emrys (talk)
Note that RW's primary goals are:
   - Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
   - Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
   - Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
   - Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. 
My guess is that since positive sexuality does not immediately align with any of these, it hasn't been viewed as a priority. If you have a compelling case for an article that connects positive sexuality to the goals above, feel free to start one. Also, RW's silence on the subject doesn't imply a critical stance, or any stance for that matter. In the media I've seen Yes Means Yes accused of clumsiness, and Consent Is Sexy accused of suggesting that consent is optional and merely attractive rather than completely, absolutely, crucially necessary, but I've not observed this on RW. Have you? Though I can't speak for others, I suspect that very few here would find reason to critize the main thrusts of either campaign. Bshaw (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
its alot harder to pin down just what is a 'healthy sexual relationship'. Its going to be different things to different people. Issues of consent arent clear cut either. Different levels of consent are going to be in play from relationship to relationship. There is rarely a definitive 'this is right' 'this is wrong' scenerio. You would hope cases of rape and sexual abuse would be more clear cut but this is not always the case. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the huge homosexual in that i'm not sure what an article on "healthy sexual relationships" would actually look like. There are nearly as many variations on what could constitute a healthy sexual relationship as there are individuals engaged in them, where things like rape and sexual harassment are much easier to define and categorize. But, Objective, you are more than welcome to take a swing at it. Petey Plane (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Because a lot of rape-related things are missional because they're either authoritarian or pseudoscientific in nature. Healthy sex is more missionary than missional. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You ask "Why all the articles on rape?" which implies an obsessively large number of them. But I can find three with "rape" in the title. (Though my wiki searching skills may be off). I don't really think that's a lot.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Rape is generally defined in relation to informed sexual consent, something that has fairly clear boundaries (even if individual cases may be open to interpretation). Whereas trying to draw boundaries on what is "healthy" or "unhealthy" in terms of people's sex lives is wading into a quagmire of value judgement. There may be scope for analysing some of the arguments & counterarguments in this area (e.g. re BDSM) but I wouldn't like to see RationalWiki dictating what a healthy sexual relationship should look like. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Change the status quo on here- less fights based on nonsense[edit]

There is a lot of intellectual dick measuring fights on this site. Sad thing is, I've only been here a few weeks and seen this many times. People on here should be asking questions about about how things are run because the system of management on here sucks immensely. Just my view from a fairly new person. — Unsigned, by: The Unwritten / talk / contribs

To use an American phrase: Your mistake was learning "how the sausages are made". Well, you got your answer. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Simply put: there is no management system on RationalWiki (so, perhaps, anarchy sucks?). If you've got specific solutions to specific problems, we'd love to hear. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Define "intellectual dick measuring", as I'm not sure what you mean beyond not liking to hear "citation, please" Arawn Emrys (talk)
It's as if skeptics were somehow argumentative or querulous or something - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there are many silly quarrels here, but that's to be expected with a group such as us. I think it's died down lately, but maybe that's just my perception being wrong. My primary wish is for more heavy-handed administrators who can actually put out fires instead of hoping they'll burn out on their own. PBfreespace (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think a lot of it also has to do with the exceptionally ridiculous US presidential cycle we are currently going through, and politics are front and center on a lot of people's minds. Petey Plane (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The worst of it's over; the only remaining issue is, Do you vote for somebody you don't like or somebody you don't trust, nobsBern baby bern 20:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

RationalMedia Board elections[edit]

Paravant started up the 2016 RationalMedia Board of Trustees election on started. By 10 February, it was forgotten. In March, Tielec01 wrote:

So no board of trustees this year? Or is it life terms for elections again? After all, it's not like we need more board members... half of them are still semi-active and we still have 1/3 of our elected positions filled!

Previous board election discussion at: RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive253#RationalMedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees_election

Current boardmembers:

In the previous thread, several people said that (1) we might want to discuss the role of the Board (if any) before having a Board election, and (2) little information about the Board is available (see previous thread for Boardmember Human's summary of activities), so it's difficult to tell if they've done a good job or what their job is at all.

Since it's been about half a year since the mod elections -- and the Board elections are four months overdue -- now-ish seems like a good time to have Board elections, if we're gonna have them.

Useful links[edit]

Board purpose discussion[edit]

Thoughts? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this still apply? If it does, then everyone who isn't familiar with its contents (me included) or just needs to freshen their memory probably ought to read it start to finish as a premise to the discussion on this... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
And just as my initial reaction - on the one hand, this needs to be adressed (four months overdue no less). On the other hand, I work under the principle that it's important we not try to fix anything that isn't actually broken. Just my general hunch. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been here long, but I definitely don't want board members that do not really edit here having a longer term than they should.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This still needs to happen. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but how to start it?-DiamondDisc1(talk) 06:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think people should probably discuss the role of the board a little bit, and people should probably actually be aware of the nominations page and whether they've been nominated.
If people here are fine with it, I'll put up an intercom message linking to this thread, the nominations page, and the guide page -- and notify all the nominees who've not yet declined. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm totally fine with it.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Let the elections begin! Good luck to everyone.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 19:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to sit out this one, I'm not eligible to vote. YET. -DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


Btw, is this the same as the above? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kind of? It's got some of the RW page, but not all of it.
As another issue, I've always felt that having the RMF stuff on another page was both redundant (it should also be on RW) and uninformative (people won't look at it). I move to merge rationalmedia.org and rationalwiki.org, eh? ;) Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 06:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm..Idk...-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination deadline: today, 10 July 2016[edit]

The board of trustees nominations ends today. Yet we have just 6 candidates:

  1. Human
  2. David Gerard
  3. Reverend Black Percy
  4. FuzzyCatPotato
  5. Bongolian
  6. Owlman

As such, the election wouldn't be "which individuals should be on the board" but rather "which individual shouldn't".

Moreover, several mainstays of the community (Tmtoulouse, Weaseloid, Bicycle Wheel) and one active user (NarkySawtooth) haven't accepted or declined their nominations to the board. (Tmt doesn't really need to, as he'll probably get appointed operations manager.)

Should we extend the nomination period? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Updated. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I tried to nominate two people, but I was reverted :-(— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
While I trust every editor among the currently nominated, I would certainly support an extension in time, if that was not in breach of any rule and was agreed upon by the mob. It's important that things are done for RW's best and so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
In fact, if we were to extend, I'd nominate a few good people that haven't been nominated yet. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If nobody else (other than I and Percy) support an extension by the end of 12 July, I'll close it. (wow elections are fun) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd support it. There's barely enough people to make a choice.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm spending my 25000th edit to say: based on 3 people for and 0 against, the nomination period is extend by one week, until 17 June -- or 4 more days. Nominate away! FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

17 July, you mean? *cough*--JorisEnter (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
25000 edits? Wow!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Guess it's over. Whoopie. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to close nominations now, there are enough people to make a good choice.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 03:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Nobody else has been nommed, time to shift to campaigning I suppose. FuzzyCatPotato of the Conservapedian Sweet and sour chickens (talk/stalk) 17:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Deride and salute![edit]

G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a handjob to your loyal henchmen!)
  • Providing moar Goat (just make sure you wipe it down afterwards!)
  • Just asking some questions to the candidates

Your participation will help other users better direct their votes, and also show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype! All the best, candidate Reverend Black Percy (talk) I14:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Any chance the above post (minus my greeting and signature, aka the last sentence) could be made into something like a 24 hour sitewide intercom message? We don't elect for the board often, and it's an important event, and I think directing attention to it in the short term may be warranted. Participation is good, as is the ability for people to praise or malaise respective candidates. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
is good idea Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Neat. When you do lunch that intercom message, make sure it counts as a "new message" (so that nobody has it set to "read" by default and thus by accident). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've put it up for 1 week on Site wide urgent. Perhaps we can do voting afterwards? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems fine, old chap! 1 week also seems like a good idea. Let's hope people get a bit more engaged, generally. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Voting starts Tuesday morning UTC[edit]

cos I forgot all today daytime and I won't get it up tonight, sorry - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing!!! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Voting? Good luck RBP and David Gerard, hopefully you'll make it.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:Election is up[edit]

Special:Election - presumably someone should do the fancy pages.

BTW, who's the returning officer? Tielec01 again? no, he's inactive ... well it shouldn't be me, obvoiusly ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"And we're all very grateful, indeed, that he stepped in at the last minute, when the previous Returning Officer accidently brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving." BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Pages have been fancified. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
We still need a returning officer, someone who can work OpenSTV and be trusted to be honest - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
So, how about you?-DiamondDisc1(talk) 22:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

We should probably close this[edit]

Right? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

How many registered voters have voted? If 67% or more have, I'd say we close it. Nerd271 (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Closing it tonight, it's been long enough and the notice is down. Technically this isn't how to do it procedurally, but the evidence is clear we're less than 110% organised here - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
An understatement worthy of Webster's. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Poll's closed[edit]

dues to Hades. I sent copies to Fuzzy to think about and post (minus the UIDs in the first entry) and Trent to file and forget - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I OpenSTV'd the results and they're ready for release (as is the file, commandline, etc.) -- just waiting for Trent to confirm. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Best of luck to everyone! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I second that statement.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Results released![edit]

Head over to RationalWiki:2016 board of trustees election/Results to see the carnage. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want to click the link, the winners are David Gerard, Reverend Black Percy, Human, ikanreed, and DiamondDisc1 a certain fuzzy potato.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 18:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, you know the rules guys. This means we all have to mysteriously stop editing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha..very funny.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 19:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
*Exhales strongly through nose* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo Answers: Is RationalWiki a bigoted ideological cesspool?[edit]

This discussion was moved to Forum:Yahoo Answers guy.

More crazy lunacy[edit]

The same person may be associated with this thread about 9/11. I wonder if these are Poes:

The airplanes were holograms, watch the video, watch the planes just vanish into thin air, no debris falls from the air, they just vanish, but watch the explosions, how they go out in all directions, airplanes were not made for collisions, the nose of the plane is the weakest part.
Did any planes really hit? Rich fakers can photoshop. They make Hollywood movies expertly. Those photos of the planes hitting. Planes. They didn't bang into them as in reality but sailed into them smooth as butter. Impossible.

TeslaK20 (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


LongRoom.com has been making the rounds among Trump supporters for allegedly "unskewing" the polls -- meaning, finding that every single poll has a "media bias" (which is definitely the correct statistical term) and giving Trump a boost.

I can't quite tell when LongRoom was created -- ICANN is useless, Whois isn't much better, and web.archive's first records it (in its current state) in March 2016 -- but it seems like it was created in order to provide positive news for Trump supporters. (Namely, it runs pro-Trump "news" articles and writes, "As the hours tick by, it becomes obvious that the terrorist incident is the work of radical Islamic terrorists, however Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton continue to deny the Islamic involvement. Just as in Spain, it is game, set, match, and Mr. Trump is the next president of the United States.")

Vox shat all over LR. So far, that's the only news article on Long Room.

Is it worth an article? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it should merit an article, seeing as it might end up being a stub article. Let's see what else happens, I say. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 01:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
If more news articles come along, sure. But for now, let's just keep gathering data on them for potential future use. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
DG added a mention of it to WIGE. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
There's room for a broader article also covering UnskewedPolls, which may be a dead site but got a pile of coverage. And Karl Rove's bloody hilarious meltdown in 2012. This sort of thing is pretty missiony. Title: Straight-up denial of objective reality amongst right-wing voters. (well, maybe not.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll make an article on LongRoom and include the history of UnskewedPolls, which should be enough material. Aye? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. You might call it the "biased polling conspiracy" or something and include both. From my observation of Free Republic, I think this is a meme that we'll see repeating for some time. They're saying the EXACT same things over there that were said during the 2012 election about unskewing the polls. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
There was a fivethirtyeight article on this phenomenon within the last day or so. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 16:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Link? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-behind-a-mysterious-website-saying-polls-are-skewed-against-trump/ Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/longroom.com FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/15/12480950/breitbart-poll-bias-clinton-winning-trump Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
http://archive.is/SO2iM FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Summer passes by so fast[edit]

Don't you agree?-DiamondDisc1(talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I do. Kinda sucks, man. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Move to a tropical country: Endless summer. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Or move to Sweden. Whatever is endless here, it ain't the summer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Two seasons, icebox and mosquitoes... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
To quote the great Charles M. Schulz, "Summers fly. Winters walk." Spud (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Noted.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Not fast enough. The weather here in the middle of South Carolina is pretty fucking miserable during the Summer. 3 straight months of daily 90°+/90% humidity can GTFO ASAP. Petey Plane (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Where I live, it's only been hot for a week. Strange, usually it's most of the summer.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 18:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Humidity currently at 23% here in So Cal. Nods.gif Of course that's why the mountains are currently on fire, as usual. --Ymir (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Try moving up here in the Bay Area. No mountains on fire here.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Humidity here right now is 40%. Temperature: 83-90 degrees Fahrenheit.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
No thanks, I'd rather not have to sell myself into slavery to afford a broom closet to live in. And outside of peak summer temperatures you've got that chilly breeze! I have visited a few times. --Ymir (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm..never noticed. Probably 'cause I'm used to it. Nods.gif I've visited So Cal before, it wasn't bad. (Visited last fall)-DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I want winter, to hot here in Michigan. It is always so humid.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Noted.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Pathos gambit[edit]

I'm trying to coin a new fallacy. Any thoughts? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I think you failed. No offense, but the article is incomprehensible. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
What's the difference between this and poisoning the well or ad hominem? Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a specific form of both? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I like it. Though maybe it's worth featuring a more clear-cut example than the "Take your feelings.." quote? Even thougn commenter is probably claiming poster is arguing from emotion rather than fact, he could just be implying that emotions are not worth considering at all, even the, um, traumatic ones associated with the experience of rape. Not that that's any better, but doesn't necessarily look like an example of the fallacy. B) talk 03:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this like some sort of 'reverse' appeal to consequences, where the opponent accuses the arguer of raising consequences which are deemed emotional while at the same time the opponent is oblivious that they also commit the fallacy in their response but in their case the consequences they raise are considered rational? NameThatNobodyTakes () 11:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is just a variant on emotional appeal. Anything salient should be included in that article, but not new made up terms for it, awful rage comics & a bunch of inconsequential Tumblr quotes. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I like it in principle, since emotions of the asserter don't have any relationship to the truth. You can be passionate about 2+3=5 or angry about 2+3=7, emotions make things neither right nor wrong. With that being said, SJWs do have an anti-rational, anti-Enlightenment ideology where narratives, lived experience, and subjective impressions are of great import and trump the facts, but I could tell this to the hand, editors here are too smug to ever educate themselves on the subject. It's also unclear what makes it a gambit. I don't see the maneuvre, but a simple fallacy. ~ Aneris 13:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It really is impossible for you to write a post without using "SJW" and relating the subject (however tenuous) to your own persecution complex, isn't it? On FCP's Pathos Gambit page, it's a good, but i agree with Weaseloid in that it's a variation on emotional appeal. Petey Plane (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It really is impossible for you to write an informed post, as opposed to an ignorant one, isn't it? But you can still do it, just click on the blue link >here<. Then, you read the article and see what is about. Then come back with something clever. I also wonder where persecution comes into play? ~ Aneris 14:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Weaseloid: It's actually the reverse of an emotional appeal. It's claiming that the opponent is using an emotional appeal when they are not -- an emotional appeal fallacy fallacy, as it were. ;p Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's placing emphasis on the emotions of someone involved in a debate (or whatever) rather than addressing their arguments: that's an appeal to emotion. And it's already covered as such within our emotional appeal article (under emotion-baiting). WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Aneris: You calling others too smug to educate themselves about subjects may be the biggest hypocrisy I've ever fucking seen. I've never seen a argument by you that isn't a massive, gigantic and totally undue strawman entire fields of inquiry or classes of belief. You tend to be the most condescending ass this side of me. And when I'm condescending towards you, I at least feel like your own statements and arguments tend to justify it. Your thoughts tend to be almost impressively naive. Here, for example, you make the claim that "SJW's" are anti-rational. You back this up with nothing.
Guess what dumbass: universal human equality is an enlightenment ideal. Proposing that society should value it more is about as anti-enlightenment as suggesting that governments should be more democratic, or that religion shouldn't dominate society. The philosophical basis for the ideal called "social justice" is well grounded in both philosophy and empirical observation. Your flabbergastingly dim-witted views are really getting exhausting and I wish sincerely you'd attempt to understand what the enlightenment is before accusing anyone of being opposed to it. I suspect your whole reason for claiming it is because you buy into stupid-ass narratives where criticism is denial of free speech. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Weaseloid: Emotion-baiting covers the same issue, but not in the same depth -- it is genuinely possible for overemotional nonrational people to exist, and so there must be some delineation. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ikanreed: I almost wholly agree. While there are genuine anti-intellectual (or, in Anerisian, anti-Enlightenment) strains among the left, "social justice" is not inherently one of them. Even Critical Race Theory -- which Aneris so loves to hate -- is based upon social science and statistics that are based on people's lives. So yes, Aneris: "lived experience" is given weight by the left. And so it should, if statistically sound classes of experience exist. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The philosopher in me wants to point out that deontological ethical perspectives say statistically insignificant experiences that happen even once can be unacceptable. Wanting torture to be illegal even if it has only happened once in 100 years can, for example, be a perfectly valid ideal to hold. People holding that there are things that simply should not happen in a modern society aren't necessarily anti-empirical. Utilitarianism isn't the only enlightenment view on ethics, even if Kant was a religious wanker.
The non-philosopher in me just agrees with you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, thats the puzzling thing. On the hand, I'm (rightfully) accused of repeating myself, but then again, none of the arguments and sources are ever addresed and pretended as if they weren't provided, rinse and repeat. Percy, so far, was the only one to pause for a moment and look at it. It's interesting to me, even when I know the script. ~ Aneris 19:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I definitely took a moment and looked at what you said. I didn't accuse you of repeating yourself, I accused you of, among other things, using massive straw men and offhandedly tossing off pretty legitimate ideas as inherently worthless on pretty specious grounds that you never applied any critical thinking to.
And, frankly, I can understand taking a defensive posture after being called some shitty things. But you are those shitty things and you definitely were unfair to the breakdown I gave you. I addressed the "argument," as it were that, social justice is inherently anti-enlightenment by pointing quite rightly at the enlightenment-era ideal that forms its core. I didn't fail to address your point, you failed to make a coherent point that warranted more than a broad dismissal as completely stupid.
Frankly, it's not just politics. Your views seem to come from the internet-popular approach of declaring everyone you disagree with as fundamentally and intractably irrational, and it's got no basis in anything beyond your assumption that you're right about everything. And I'm aware of the irony of posting that on a site that calls itself "rationalwiki" that implies everything modestly different from the ur-identity here might be irrational. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a Westerner, but from what I can tell the issue is not that Aneris and others think that "Social Justice" is "anti-enlightenment," rather they think that the "SJWs" are not actually pursuing social justice, due to ignorance on their part. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case, I wonder what Aneris would claim "SJWs" are in effect pursuing, and what s?he would claim is the correct way to pursue social justice? If not, well, to ikanreed's point, that seems a lot less defensible. Apologies if this is beating a dead horse, I'm new here. B) talk 20:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You're fine. Arguing on months-old posts is normal, and this discussion is from today. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, forgive me for assuming that the label derisively applied has any bearing on the intended meaning. Generic criticism towards nebulous, poorly defined enemy group is harder to interpret and approach than trying to take a concrete term and infer what is meant. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Except it's not a "nebulous, poorly defined" term when Aneris clearly defines what he means by the word. And it really isn't that hard to try and figure out what those who use "SJW" are trying to say, unless you're so deadlocked in the rationalwiki definition that you're incapable of viewing the term as anything other than a vague snarl word. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. He links to "Know Your Meme", which says Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative label applied to bloggers, activists and commentators who are prone to engage in lengthy and hostile debates against others on a range of issues concerning social injustice, identity politics and political correctness. In contrast to the social justice blogosphere at large, the stereotype of a social justice warrior is distinguished by the use of overzealous and self-righteous rhetorics, as well as appealing to emotions over logic and reason.. That's pretty fucking nebulous. You could apply that to priests of the Catholic Church and be correct.
He also links to the regressive left, which our own article discussions have shown is a term fraught with nebulosity and confusion. Then there's the blanket statements, such as SJWs all being zealous adherents to critical race theory, of which he has little-to-no understanding of (not to mention that those who advocate social justice mostly DON'T believe in it), or his incredible ignorance of what postmodernism is and how it is used. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I actually don't make a blanket statement about all SJWs. There are differences between the stereotypical tumblr warrior, the special snowflake, the regressive leftist, and more. There are half a dozen different plausible theories on various aspects of the phenomenon. It's clear that the common SJW isn't an academic philosopher, but they use a folk-buzzword variant of postmodern tenets. There are ideological, and rhetorical-discoursive aspects that can be sorted out. There are also various sub-factions and beliefs aren't uniform but run a certain gamut. ~ Aneris 23:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ikanreed wrote: “Your views seem to come from the internet-popular approach of declaring everyone you disagree with as fundamentally and intractably irrational, and it's got no basis in anything beyond your assumption that you're right about everything.”
fnordLet me put this straight, I point you to philosophical systems, tenets, conceps and ideas. And I have done that many times. I ported a huge list of media articles from bookmarks as evidence. I gave tons of links to relevant opinion leaders and what they said to document tenets and beliefs, made connections clear between the CRT and SJW movements (i.e. how they match), e.g. Intersectionality, safe spaces, critical theory, microagressions, Crenshaw, hooks et al. I quoted relevant passages from Sokal & Bricmont, the standard critique of postmodernism. I gave ideas how, in case of doubt, you can double and triple check everything, e.g. looking at the discipline the big names are typically sorted into and who they list as their inspirations, e.g. Derrida. I provided the intro chapter for CRT, which states — verbatim — “questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” which is perfectly in tune with standard descriptions about postmodernism. On the contrary, you pretend all the time as if this was controversial. It's not.
fnordNow my interlocutors have so far provided: ad homs in all shapes and forms, pointless meta discourse, 1 decent exchange with Aeonian. Many of the interlocutors were since banned and are internet famous lolcows, but I still had to deal with them (too). After some time it's just getting ridiculous. What else do you want? This is more than enough to explain why something that walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck is still not a duck — if this is your argument. We don't even get to that stage. Yes, it's complex and more nuanced, but if we cannot even get the most basic things straight, it's madness to try even more. ~ Aneris 23:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean nation states can call you a criminal and then just bust you just 'cos'[edit]

I'm not sure if I am interpreting the 4th circuits logic correctly, so I figured I'd put it out here. Does this ruling mean that the US can just declare you outlaw and then too bad, All Your Bases Belong To Us? I mean, Drone strikes are are bad enough, but taking your dang watch? It sounds like Warren G on the Westside, except over in Kiwi! And all our mate Kimmy did was a little downloading. Several mansions worth but still. All this over Buffy Re Runs and Pron? Sheesh. Was that slow turning propeller overhead? Gadzooks!Gadzooks (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Article via slashdot.

[EC] You misrepresent the judgement. If Dotcom had just obeyed the extradition order, then he would not have been subject to "fugitive disentitlement".
Commenter: "terrifying really. If i wanted to live under US law i would live in the US, The over reach of american courts is frankly disgusting. I hope the world soon realizes that America is the tyrant and not the victim"
Sooo edgy. FuzzyCatPotato of the Vigilant Microwaves (talk/stalk) 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
errr...I wasn't sure that having the extradition treaty was the prerequisite. Just sort of seemed like 'we declare you outlaw gimme your rolex' but either way it's nice to be critted by the fcp :) me learn stuff.Gadzooks (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Isn't there an argument to be made that the raid was premature and invalid? The WP article even cites a couple NZ court decisions to this point, though one was overturned. I agree that complying would have saved him the trouble though. B) talk 18:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm no legal expert, but it sounds like the logic rests on the assumption that American law is applicable to people anywhere, regardless of whether they've ever stepped foot inside the US. Growing pains of the internet age? Also it's not necessarily any nation state doing this. The US is the largest actor by far in this "global police force" thing. Frankly I'd like to hear opinions re this sort of case under a hypothetical world government, as many here tend to lean in that direction. At least right now you can make the case that the US oversteps its bounds when it does this. Not that that seems to matter. B) talk 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Not being familiar with the facts, but somewhat familiar withe Robert Vesco, Manaul Noriega and Iranian asset cases, and siezure laws (which I'm not defending), there may be two issues here. (1) The criminal case; (2) disposition of assets with other claimants against the property (including the US govt for tax purposes). A ruling such as this does not deny the subject access to US courts to make their case or for appeals. So it's opened ended. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Mostly correct. If you have committed a crime in the USA, whether you are here or not, you are subject to US criminal law, whether you are here or not. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but doesn't that usually go like 1) break a law while you're in the US, 2) leave, 3) extradition request, etc, à la Snowden? Or operate a business or org in the US that does something illegal? Did Megaupload have servers or something in the US? B) talk 22:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
No. Megaupload was hit by a more 'global' anti-piracy/copyright law, I think. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 22:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
What 'global' anti-piracy/copyright law?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC) 15:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Pointless Poll (Vote for the 21st Century GOP nominee of your choice - no pass option or other option)[edit]

Poll created by and on: Objective (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump



Mitt Romney



John McCain



George W Bush



Why did you create that poll? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Unelected terrorist says no to peace - again[edit]

Mahmud Abbas - whom nobody ever elected to anything - said no to repeated attempts of Bibi Netanyahu to talk about a fair peace deal, showing once more that he is a terrorist that hates Israel more than he cares about "his people", the Jordanians west of the Jordan river. If Abbas wanted elections, he could get elections tomorrow. If Abbas wanted peace, he could have peace and a state tomorrow. Instead he wants to live in an unelected position until the end of his days and complain about Israel being a mean boy while they deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and get rocket fire in return. (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering it is someone unelected, I am not shocked--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is this not on WIGO?[edit]

http://images1.ynet.co.il//PicServer4/2016/08/12/7195983/71959802970100980869no.jpg An Egyptian Judoka refuses to shake hand with a dirty Zionist pig Israeli athlete after the Israeli beat the Egyptian in a fair fight. Does it not fit the predominate anti-Israel narrative here? Just like when the Palestinian father wanted his son killed and you all pretended nothing had happened? Don't let reality get in the way of your hatred of Israel. Am Yisrael chai! And stop censoring me! (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You think this website, with all of their Federal Reserve apology and thinking any criticism of the banking system and its bailouts is anti Semitic, is now anti Israel? Quite the opposite. This site is Zionist galore. Objective (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You sound like a crank, Mr(s) "Objective" another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
joooooooz.jpeg Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That was actually kinda funny. Why is Israel a cuboid, though? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I had to check the wiki. Something to do with Jewish physics. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a 100% success rate of random BONs complaining about [random Israel-Palestine event] on the Saloon Bar. One might even thing that we have a dedicated troll. Of course, that would be conspiratorial thinking -- and this wiki is coincidentist galore. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's an open secret that reddit is controlled by CTR shills RW is a Zionist front. .Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can post items in WIGO:World, even B0Ns. If you think something should be on there, you're welcome to add it. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The IOC and the Egyptian Olympic Committee condemned it and the latter even sent this moron home because of that. --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem with IP shit[edit]

Hey so I've been trying to edit just using my mobile data or wifi (I think they're dynamic IPs but to be honest I'm not even sure I know what that means) on Telstra, but it's blocking all of them and saying I'm on the DNSBL and so I have to use a shitty phone VPN to do this. What's the deal with that? Petrichor (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's strange. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Telstra has a lot of IPs in the DNSBL, it's true. This is because they're so slapdash at running a network, and let their customers run rampant sending spam out through zombie PCs, that it made Wikipedia. It doesn't help that their support is run by monkeys, per this user mutual support thread. Telstra Business are apparently slightly less worse. But tl;dr Telstra are shit, the ball's firmly in their court but they're incompetent, you need a provider who don't fill the net with a firehose of spam. Unfortunately I don't know a way to add exceptions to our DNSBL use, but if we didn't run it we'd be spammed and vandalised even more than usual - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Fuckin hate Telstra hey. Petrichor (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I've had a problem with this too while accidentally editing in anon mode via cell. Objective (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Should Plutoniumboss be cooped?[edit]

I hoped that what ultimately was not a coop case could solve this problem before it becomes too big, but unfortunately Plutoniumboss continues his problematic behavior, in fact it is getting worse. What should we do? What should I do? Is the coop a potential solution or would it only exacerbate the drama? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the vandal bin not proving sufficient any more? - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. He is now a Sysop. Nerd271 (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this the issue? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
what the shitting Christ, when did that become anything resembling a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
oh fucking Mona, of course. Now sysoprevoked. I've unblocked him so he can at least proceed at vandal brake pace - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
He paroled himself just after he got his mop. Nerd271 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
That is unlikely to happen again, as he has been demopped.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I hope this solves it. Thanks guys (and gals) another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Is a Coop case being filed? I really have no idea what's going on aside from the editor making bad edits (but not necessarily blatantly vandalizing edits) and being reverted constantly? Objective (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the coop is necessary but I am not sure what the issue is outside of the link edit war.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently it merits a sysoprevoke and a binning. I don't see how this has escalated into an issue requiring this remedy? Objective (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
(add) I'm not saying a coop case is needed if there's community consensus, but as a community member I'd like to know what's going on? Objective (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
perhaps if people actually read the changes they are reverting and gave a reason on the talk page, they might avoid much of this. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Plutoniumboss keeps being the worst editor ever who is actually capable of correct spelling and grammar, and has infuriated many over the past year. He's been binned repeatedly. (Once I had to bin him to stop him splattering shit all over the wiki by bot.) If he consistently shows good judgement when he has 30 minutes to think about each edit, we'll see how it goes - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Laurogeita, maybe you should have, I dunno, talked to him about it first? Maybe invited him to a conversation on his talk page? You know, there are some things you can do for conflict resolution other than asking other people to air their grievances about someone and immediately going to the authorities asking for that person's privileges to be removed. Do you understand diplomacy is a thing? PBfreespace (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

David, you sysoprevoke'ed and then vandal binned an editor of over a year. With all due respect to your moderator authority, this deserves a Chicken Coop review. Objective (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. To do this permanently should have some debate.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I also concur with the above proposal. PB (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Max Whitlock[edit]

101 minutes between gold medals, is that the fastest time between golds ever?--Mercian (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Usain Bolt won again[edit]

It's a record!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hence the hastily-written Racialism#Race and sporting ability. Annquin (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Australian movies you should watch[edit]

Animal Kingdom, Snowtown, Two Hands, He Died with A Felafel in His Hand, Romper Stomper, Wake in Fright, the original very first Mad Max (and not the dubbed American one), Chopper. Petrichor (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You forgot the crowning jewel, Bad Taste. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I really don't know a single thing about NZ cinema. Even with Bad Taste, I've only seen like half of that movie a while ago, and I really don't get what the fuss is about. Is it, like, ironic? I have like hardly any memory of it except that I didn't like it. Anyway, while we're on the subject, fucking HATE that it seems the most well-known Australian film overseas is fucking Muriel's Wedding. Don't get me fucking started on Moorhouse/Hogan's fucking formulaic fucking high-farce wannabe fucking tryhard fucking pandering bullshit. FUCK. Petrichor (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Malcolm. That is all. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Haven't seen, will watch. Petrichor (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, does anyone know if that Nick Cave Outback one is any good? Petrichor (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not Australian, but i liked this one, The PropositionWikipedia (is that the Nick Cave outback movie you refer to Petrichor?). It's good. Also, the Road Warrior is definitely the most popular Aussie movie overseas, not whatever Muriel's Wedding is. More people are familiar with Priscilla, Queen of the Desert than Muriel's Wedding. Hell, the Yahoo Serious vehicle, Young Einstein, is probably more popular that Muriel's Wedding. Petey Plane (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
not sure where you are getting 'priscilla more well known than muriels wedding' i'd say the opposite is true. And whats wrong with muriels wedding, any how? Its hilarious. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm only speaking for popularity in the US. Preiscilla seems to be more well known of the 2. I was (obviously, i hope) being facetious about Young Einstein. Petey Plane (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Ned Kelly. Can't understand Aussies without this one. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 18:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen the 2003 Ned Kelly yet, only the 1970 version with Mick Jagger which is a bit of an oddity. Mad Dog MorganWikipedia with Dennis Hopper is a far greater bushranger movie. The Proposition is OK but kind of underwhelming. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I watched the 1975 meat pie western/sex comedy The True Story of Eskimo NellWikipedia all the way through. It was in about fifteen parts on YouTube. I found it interesting to see how the viewing figures went down for each of those videos. The first part had several thousand views and the last part had about seventy. Spud (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wake in FrightWikipedia (already mentioned) is perhaps the most terrifying film ever made. Stay away from the outback! For higher-toned filmmaking Rabbit-Proof Fence (film)Wikipedia is excellent and shocking in its depiction of the treatment of Aboriginals. The Year My Voice Broke and Flirting (the latter with the young Thandie Newton, Nicole Kidman, and Naomi Watts!) are both good teen comedy-dramas. Annquin (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

RW-ers with ASD[edit]

I am not sure whether this is appropriate question, but how many of editors and readers of RW are in ASD? Sorry if this topic was already somewhere disscussed, in such case, i would please for reference (link).

--Voidghost (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally not an adjustable-speed drive, but i can't speak for other RWians. Petey Plane (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I've been diagnosed by such experts as "idiots arguing for race realism on the internet." So clearly I must be. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
If you ask the right folks, anyone can be just another aspie sperg. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I know I don't have ASD (I do have adult ADHD-C, though). I was tested for both in February of this year (as the conditions can co-exist in some people) so I can conclusively say I'm not ASD. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous user with Aspergers here. Yes, and it bothers me when Kiwifarms jokes about it. AnonASP (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I assume this is about Autism Spectrum Disorder, in which case, yes, I'm autistic. I was formally diagnosed when I was eleven or so. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Technically, I don't have ASD.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I hope it's not in bad taste to point this out (though I struggle to see why it would be), but according to Joris' userpage, he self-identifies as a "professional autist". (What I can tell from the outside is that the man is professional, that much is certain). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I was diagnosed about a year ago. I don't edit on here (besides the occasional comment at the bar), but I read a lot. (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Yugoslav wars have arrived to RW![edit]

Yet another pointless debate caused by a BoN who in two edits inserted Serb nationalist talking points and now we have the Yugoslav wars here and here. In part about my supposedly too trigger happy banhammer. At any rate, I don't care about Serbs vs. Croats (truthfully they are both similar) but I do care about edit wars. And I want things on this topic to be well sourced so we don't look like hypocrites when we tell stupid BoNs with an agenda to fuck off. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

2 whole edits. When will this bloodshed end? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Good post! FuzzyCatPotato of the Sheer Rackets (talk/stalk) 18:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried to prevent a notorious edit war from coming here before it happened. Fuck me, right? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, don't get too "pre-emptive". Innocent until proven guilty and all that... Still, your warning will be heeded. I hope nothing breaks out. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, invade Iraq before they can develop WMDs! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
You mean, invade Serbia and/or Croatia before they can develop the Tesla Death Ray? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hamabost: Don't feel bad. We think you overreacted, not that your reaction is wrong. All the teasing is in good faith, and nobody is hating. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Careful there, Fuzzy, or you'll get flamed by Plutoniumboss for being too nice! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks FCP. Also, I kinda like the idea of a preventive war against the Serbo-Croatian death ray :-P another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


VC.org, Ken Ham's favorite vacation planner. Hemant Mehta response. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denial has been nominated as a cover article[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Holocaust denial

I think it's pretty solid and it's certainly much better organized. It's as good as other gold level articles. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Holocaust_denial#Renewed_push. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Prepare for cranks to capitalize on the possible fifth force[edit]

Scientists have found evidence which may indicate the existence of a fifth fundamental force of nature. Such a discovery, if confirmed, would revolutionize physics as we know it. Of course, this is just one study, and FAR more evidence is required before a definite statement can be made, but don't expect the cranks to recognize that. They will certainly try and claim that this "only confirms what the ancient gurus knew all along" and that this force is "the life energy which connects every soul", and will use it to sell their alt-med products. If the fifth force turns out to be real, it will become the new quantum, with Deepak Chopra and others using it to promote their quack treatments and self-help guides. Scientists should work to inform the public that this is not the case right now, before it's too late. --TeslaK20 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you, uh, link the study? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
FCP, at this point it's at the "we slammed some particles together and there's motion we couldn't explain in so maybe a new force?" Too early to even guess if it has staying power past the first attempt at reproduction. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I was just wondering which study they were referencing, so I could see if there were follow-ups FuzzyCatPotato of the Liberal High-powered laser rifles (talk/stalk) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The paper can be found here. It is extremely new so there have not yet been any follow up studies, but when there are, they will likely discover a better explanation that does not require rewriting physics. Still, this does not change the fact that cranks are going to try and bend this to their own ends. --TeslaK20 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. Why didn't they try to pull that when the Higgs field was confirmed? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Because the higgs field doesn't modulate a force, but affects instead attributes of other bosons and leptons. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
You're both wrong -- they did. EG: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/betweentheshadows/2015/01/quantum-woo-the-god-particle/ FuzzyCatPotato of the Perspicacious Nobs (talk/stalk) 19:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I completely misread who the "they" and the "this" was in Aeonian's post. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The new discovery is already being covered on woo sites: newparadigm.ws Galactic Connection. The connection of a fifth force to extrasensory powers is already hypothesised (See the Wikipedia article on Parapsychology § Physics.), so I'm sure right now it's all coming together. Annquin (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Tmtolouse needs to go[edit]

He's been here way to long and he is a scum bag. Buhahahaha! — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs

He's basically never here anyways? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Troll another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh piss off Troll--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC) 16:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kurzgesagt CRISPR summary[edit]

CRISPR is a gene-modifying tool in its early stages. Kurzgesagt makes good and science-based summaries. Here's the CRISPR Kurzgesagt. In reference to human modifications: ethical or not? What's the biggest gain that could arise, the biggest loss? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a great video; just don't pause at 4/5 and start commenting then, or you'll think Kurzgesagt have become transhumanist. They haven't; they're just saving the bulk of the criticisms for last. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
There a lot of ways this can turn out, but I'll focus on two.
In Scenario A, CRISPR becomes a toy for the rich. The world doesn't change, since class has never been about merit anyways, but structural advantage, and a hundred thousand Martin Shkreli's with 200+ IQ and the ability to run a mile a minute while flawlessly belting out an opera won't change a damn thing. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
In Scenario B, CRISPR becomes cheap enough that it's weaponized against the poor and disabled. I would remind you, there is an unbroken thread from diagnosing rebellious slaves with "drapetomania", to diagnosing African-American civil rights protestors with schizophrenia in the 1960s, to today's overdiagnosis of black children with "conduct disorder" relative to their white peers. Now imagine a world where you can track down whatever genes are associated with these "problems" and change them. In such a world, CRISPR becomes the dream tool of would-be eugenicists to utterly wipe out anyone they see as unfit, unproductive, or simply unwilling to quietly obey the upper-class's authority.
Think that can't happen? Welfare recipients are already subjected to a host of indignities. Forcing "unproductive" or "lazy" people to undergo gene therapy to make them "employable" would be a conservative's wet dream. Anything is possible if you overvalue a specific kind of life and undervalue consent—and it's pretty clear our society doesn't value consent and takes an extremely dim view of anybody who steps outside of the lines.
CRISPR could usher in an era of free of disease and discomfort, one celebrating diversity and experimentation (a utopian Scenario C). Or it could enable a society that treats humans as identical and interchangeable, where all difference is forcibly purged in order to fit an extremely narrowly-defined human experience. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Eugenics would ever get anything approaching a parliamentary majority in any democracy. It is just too hated in all political camps to overcome its stigma. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a marketing problem.
Eugenics won't be called eugenics. Besides, CRISPR won't be killing anybody. It's not murder. It'd just change people a little. It'd improve them, transform the infirm and indigent into productive members of society. Do you hate poor people? Do you hate the mentally ill? We're just helping them, allowing them to live free of such a burdensome life.
See what I did there?
Of course, it doesn't have to be a grand act of legislature. It could simply happen, in a thousand tiny ways by various actors, like the abusive, lethal "troubled teen" industry and the blatant war crimes that happen under the cloak of fancy tech. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
i dont the poor would benefit long term. The wealthy would pay for all the best enhancements to health, strength, intelligence what have you, while the poor will be stuck with tbe lottery of a natural birth or whatever enhancements the slaves need to be kept in p!ace. I guess it depends on if you view a brave new world as a warning or aspirational. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Should we add to the CRISPR article?-DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Done and done. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stabby: Do you see no room for assisting "the poor and disabled" rather than "weaponized" against them? For example, could a equitable society be produced if genetic diseases were eliminated, the effects of the "genetic lottery" were reduced, and the world made more meritocratic? I know your response is that "genetic diseases" will be redefined ad nauseam -- but imagine, for a moment, a world without the entirely destructive Huntington's or hemophilia. If we also accept that healthcare is vastly more expensive for the poor than the rich, removing crushing burdens like this might even directly reduce income gaps. (All of this assumes that therapies like this are cheap -- but given that personal noncommercial CRISPR kits currently sell at about $100, it's not at all unbelievable.) A world where neither poor need not suffer symptoms from disease while the rich pay for "treatments" sounds quite nice to me. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, ideally, yes, that's what would happen. It's what I'd like to happen. But the society I see is astoundingly cruel to the poor, and given how even basic medicine like EpiPens is seeing its price raised sky-high for literally no reason beyond greed, I don't see anybody ever giving it to the poor unless it can be tied to numerous indignities (e.g. the U.S. has food stamps, but states obsessively police what they think poor people should be allowed to eat). We are still the same society that allowed the people of Flint to be poisoned, after all. Technology, even wonder genetics, is worthless in the face of the fundamental brokenness of society. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I know I'm being real downer here :-( We're approaching this issue from very different directions. You're excited for a technology that can used to do good, while I'm doubtful of humanity's capacity to actually be good in the first place. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey no probs! I asked the question. I guess what I'm wondering is, if the tech is cheap enough, will that allow people to individually pursue better genetics for their kids -- regardless of what society thinks? (The rich more able to pursue than the poor, but it'd help the poor more to be free of the diseases.) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 04:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This could be used to take the CRISPR article to bronze.[edit]

Or make a debate page.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Do sports competitions, like mental tests, have a racial bias?[edit]

We know the east asians score better than the white on average in some mental tests, and the mental tests surely have a racial bias. But the east asians tend to win less golden medal in certain fields in the olympic games than other races. Is this because those sports competitions, like mental tests, have some racial bias? -- (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A starting reference. And another. Just in regard to the premises of your question. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you have anything approaching credible sources for your initial statement holding true ceteris paribus and being independent of cultural factors? If not, I would consider engaging your second point a waste of time. At any rate, if you really want an answer, Wikipedia does cover some of those issues. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, what's next? Correlation of dick length and "race"?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Same as with the above starting referencesWikipedia... (For our dear BoN). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That was meant as a joke at the BoN's expense (probably a dumb joke).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 01:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 01:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I know (and the joke was fine). I just worried that the BoN might not be aware of the facts on that topic either, so I linked him. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
National bias is probably more of an issue. There's obviously going to be cultural bias in that if you grow up playing Olympic-type sports you're more likely to have Olympic-type sports skills than if you've played nothing but cricket or KabaddiWikipedia as a child. Particularly if there's the infrastructure and money to help you play Olympic-type sports. The Olympic rules are meant to ensure every sport is played in a large number of countries, but some popular sports like soccer are rather more competitive, and if your national sport is something un-Olympic like lacrosse or Canadian Rules football, you're out of luck. Canada (and the Nordic countries) do much better at winter Olympics than summer. As to whether there's a racial reason that the basketball-loving nations of east Asia aren't actually very good at basketball, I'll leave that to others. Annquin (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The US is good at Basketball in the Olympics because it has the NBA, where all great talent goes. When NBA players cannot compete, this benefits the US as it's not quite NBA talent is close to the NBA than that of other countries. If the NBA can compete, it still benefits the US as the NBA is still an American league. And training can do a lot to make a good player into a great player. This is less pronounced for "straightforward" sports like running, jumping or swimming (though good money in training has an effect there as well), but for sports like horseback riding, pole vaulting or team sports (except soccer, which a moron can play) training is almost more important than innate talent. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
In general, the answer is yes. But stereotype threat, one of the biggest moderators of performance differences, hasn't been shown to have a major effect on socially empowered majority groups. That may just be a localized phenomenon to the tests examined in the study I'm thinking of, but who knows? Not me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Creation wiki cracks me up[edit]

They actually refer to Kent Hovind as "Doctor Kent Hovind". Classic!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

CreationWiki is dying slowly. If ASOK is completely dead, CreationWiki is in its last days. What's next? Geocentripedia? FlatEarthWiki? --TeslaK20 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't give them ideas. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
too late B) talk 22:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank Goat; that particular site appears to be deader than disco. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
In complete violation of Haig's Law, the site looks really good. Even better than Wikipedia IMO. --TeslaK20 (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Must be End Times! Bongolian (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Scientists From Germany Show That Water Has Memory. This Video Blows My Mind."[edit]

uuuugggghhhh. 500k+ views. Homeopaths of the world are having a field day. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Aww aspie high school debater I'll pay attention to you! Here you go. Drink in the satisfaction of approval. You are a wondrous person and there must be someone somewhere who doesn't want something from you who likes you. Conscience (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused, was this meant to make sense in context? MyHatIsBread (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Conscience, can't you go be an asshole on 8chan or somewhere else where they'll welcome you for it? I find calling someone an "aspie" as an insult highly offensive. Do you hang out at hospitals and yell "cripple!" at people in wheelchairs to make yourself feel like a big strong boy? --Ymir (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Remarkably I'm not from 8chan or Kiwi Farms. I know on RW it's now in vogue to take enormous leaps in assuming the worst about anyone you disagree with or dislike. As a new editor, you're fitting right in. I really am someone who used to edit here years ago who was alienated as this site's shitty culture became what it is today. Sure, I'm an asshole, but I'm not wrong and I don't fit your sorry strawman. It's possible to find FCP detestable and hold against him his awareness of his compulsion to force everyone to watch him do whatever it is he wants whenever he wants to do it and his failure to control it. Conscience (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Your beef with FCP is probably best taken care of on your or his talk page, and regardless, it's unrelated to what Ymir said. Right or wrong about whatever, being an asshole only makes you an asshole. It doesn't make you more right or less wrong. If you think this site has gone to hell, you're either spending your time here to try to pull it back or you're trolling. If the former, you would probably make more progress if you weren't, uh, an asshole. If the latter, complaining about the site's culture and openly admitting to being an asshole in the same post is some next level shit. So kudos, or something. B) talk 17:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor who doesn't edit and thinks "aspie" is a great term of abuse? Yeah, that's fantastic. [mod hat on] Has a break until he calms down. A few months this time, since a few days had no effect last time - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ummm, you are aware that he can simply unblock himself, right?--JorisEnter (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Not now, he can't. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I notice it was Weaseloid who opped him before. If he's not a Kiwifarms troll he's deliberately imitating one. I'm pretty sure "and nothing was lost". If people think he's valuable and worth keeping around, or if he'll change his behaviour after a shorter time ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary: I thought a widely-shared pro-homeopathy news item would interest RW. Conscience thinks this is autism. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary: You thought right, it does interest RW. Conscience is just being himself — a harsh punishment, considering. Poor kid. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who speaks German fluently verify what some people in the YouTube comments are claiming; that the English voice-over completely misconstrues what the guy is saying in German? Some people claimed that he clearly said in German that there were impurities in the water, and the English voice-over completely glossed over that fact? Would be hilarious if true; my high school German isn't nearly good enough to attempt this myself. Great video by the way FPC, 2+ million views! Atleast people in the comments are being sceptical as hell. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
That's hard for me to hear, but it seems to more or less accurately translate the horseshit this guy is spouting. They didn't even give his name and according to the comments, he even belongs to an department that doesn't exist at the Uni Stuttgart. Boy oh boy.
According to a quick Google search, there is really no "Aerospace Institute" at the Uni Stuttgart. There is an "Institute for Aviation Systems", an "Institute for Airplane Construction", an university course called "Aerospace Technology" at (among others) the "Institute for Aerodynamics and Gas Dynamics", an "Institute for Aviational Propulsion", an "Flight Mechanics and Controls Lab" and a few other with a connection to Aerospace topics, but not "Aerospace Institute". They didn't even brag with the name of the alleged scientist. This all looks fishier than a NordseeWikipedia sandwich --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC) 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's their woo site called Welt im Tropfen. Here's a pdf with their findings and here is the psiram article of one of the authors Bernd Kröplin. ~ Aneris 10:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Great links, Aneris. Looks like we've been beaten to the punch, eh? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone with a Bachelors degree in Biology education earn a PhD in Biology?[edit]

I tried looking online but found nothing.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm just a bachelor generally (not relating to education), but... I know for a fact there are ways around those kind of hurdles, if you know what I'm sayin' sayin. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that the situation is not too different from that in physics, it depends on how much biology you know and how much research experience you have. Nerd271 (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone with a degree study for a higher degree in the same subject area? Yes, that's how higher education works. What is confusing you here? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he can't figure out if it has to go BS-MA-PhD or if it could just go BS-PhD? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, it's not an inherently dumb question. Weasel, haven't you heard the expression that if you haven't got anything nice to say, something something dark side? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh. If I'm right, that's a pretty easy Google search. Weasel has likely had enough of RZ's incessant stream of simple questions. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
As have we all... Ha. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Tis the season! Facebook drama over political posts[edit]

Quite honestly, it used to bother me slightly if I was "defriended" over a political post. I really don't care anymore. I'm to the point where I feel get off my page if you are that offended by what I have to say. Ironically, if I talk politics at a pub, it never gets confrontational, but it does online with old acquaintances (in my experience debates with close friends are much more fun than the acquaintance I've never talked to in years). Just my morning thoughts. Objective (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Make sure to link them to our 2016 election and candidate articles (our Trump article especially)! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
IMO the political opinions of unabashed Trump supporters without fail weren't worth listening to. FuzzyCatPotato of the Artificial Nitrogens (talk/stalk) 15:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Good, good. The bubbles are winning. Accept the bubbles of your friends. Accept the bubble of yourself. No really, we're all fucked and I'm participating as much as anyone else. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Term Limits (second go around)[edit]

Yes or no. Honestly I would like to see the end of career politicians.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Term limits do not necessarily eliminate career politicians, just made it a bit more difficult. In California, where we've a had a limit of 2 terms for most offices, popular politicians tend to jump between positions. Jerry Brown was Secretary of State, then Governor for 2 terms (before term limits), then Mayor of Oakland, then State Attorney General, then Governor again (2 terms). In the case of Willie Brown, he had a lock on the State Assembly (as Speaker) until term limits, then he became Mayor of San Francisco and left politics after that. I don't think career politicians are bad per se. I think the thing that vastly improved elections in California was changing the primary system for state offices: the top 2 vote-getters in the primary, from whatever party (even the same party) face off in the general election. This tends to eliminate extremists early. Bongolian (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
In practice you'd probably just see a series of inexperienced and biddable frontperson politicians chosen for their plausible media manner and doing the bidding of the behind-the-scenes party bosses, donors, media, and anyone else who can control either campaign finance or the candidate selection process. Or am I being cynical? (It's worth noting that there's an alternative argument that if people are elected/appointed for life, they're no longer beholden to outside influences, e.g. US supreme court judges and members of the British House of Lords.) Annquin (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Gravitational wave astronomy[edit]

This is not exactly news so I put it here. The glorious dawn of gravitational astronomy is upon us.

Enjoy! Nerd271 (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I love PBS Space Time! :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
From the same people who have been giving Deepak Chopra airtime. I'd say kick him out and put this on TV instead. Nerd271 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Cool video. Petey Plane (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Nice.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Diamond Disc: "Nice. -Not Nerd" made me laugh! Your signatures are amusing. :-) Nerd271 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Obscure threads on front page?[edit]

Why are some tiny Reddit comments prominently linked to on the main page?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 06:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could be more specific. Most likely it's either in the featured article or the slogan, both of which are on random rotation. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about "A well-known propaganda outlet, paid government shill, and intel-agency disinfo website in one easy package!" which appears on the main page even when I refresh.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 07:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I've now taken that out of the slogan entries. It is randomised but most browsers will display the same random options when pages are refreshed. Refreshing your cache should prompt different random options. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, you removed the link or that whole slogan? Because that is a funny slogan! I hope it was just the link you took out? All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The removed slogans are "A well-known propaganda outlet, paid government shill, and intel-agency disinfo website — in one easy package!" and "A regressive leftist indoctrination front!" I added the links; it's fair to remove them. I do like the over-the-top slogans, though. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Reinserted variants of them; I took some creative license since we're not quoting those links anymore anyhow. Everybody wins. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
How about we take the slogan off the site's front page & just keep it in recent changes? Stuff like this isn't a good way to introduce the site to the outside world. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The main page is our public landing zone. Keep the in-jokey stuff off of it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
<disjointed thinking-out-loud stuff>Wonkette does the same, calling itself a "nasty vile little snark mob" so we're not alone in defiant self-description, but we're heading towards post-snark here now... aren't we? The average new article isn't as gleefully vicious as they used to be. We're probably heading for a stage where snark disappears from mainspace altogether and hides furtively on the back pages.</disjointed thinking-out-loud stuff> BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 16:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Gawker shutdown[edit]

Gawker is shutting down next week. Note this is only gawker.com; other Gawker sites will continue to operate. Someone needs to run a bot to ensure links are archived and to update the links (excepting talk pages I guess). Here's the list of all gawker.com links on RW. --Ymir (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Make sure you archive with archive.is as well as archive.org, the latter respects robots.txt on parked domains - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll try and find CS's archival bot. FuzzyCatPotato of the Crazy Daffodils (talk/stalk) 15:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Does this mean I won't be able to load their older pages? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The Guardian says Gawker's archive will remain online[1] but of course we can't depend on that 100%. Annquin (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a nasty bot script. It doesn't look nice for any links that were formatted in [link text], but it's fine. Smerdis appears 50% correct, most of those links were shit. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 10:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Say what you will about Peter Thiel. He played the long game like an absolute boss! Edmond Dantes would be proud! — Unsigned, by: Levi Ackerman / talk / contribs

Science Isn't Broken[edit]

538 special on the state of science; both a support of and a rebuke to all the recent "science is untrustworthy" stories. The interactives are lovely. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuzzy — everyone on this site should read that article. The way it compiles it all, the sources and quotes, into a purposeful discussion is just great. And the visuals, especially the interactive p-hacking "game", was very helpful indeed. I think the content of this article should be implemented into our articles on science/the scientific method, statistical significance and peer review. Also, how do you feel about using this as the starting point of a new list article? Kind of like the one we have on scientists that endorse creationism? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Also these two videos from SciShow are on the same topic. Recommended viewing. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, let me link quite a few from HealthCare Triage as well, that also discuss the many steps to how science works, in this case, the science of evidence-based medicine;

That's quite I few, I know, but again — one has completely failed to understand science without engorging oneself in all the pitfalls of trying to achieve scientific rigor. And boy, are there plenty. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost forgot three of the most important ones;
There we are. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

PSA: Living people, references, and lawsuits[edit]

[Saying this as a RatWik, not a boardmember (BoardWik?).]

RW has gotten into another potential legal issue (see here). The reason for this is that the Pseudomathematics page had a section that asserted a living person was a pseudomathematician and antisemite (among other insults) without citing any sources whatsoever. There's nothing that regular RatWiks can or should do about this -- in fact, staying away, creating no new articles, and saying nothing is probably the best action.

What you can do[edit]

RW currently has 61 articles on living people or active organizations that contain at least one uncited statement (see the "Urgent attention needed" section of Category:Living people). With the exceptions of Trump, Clinton, Kony, and Xi, each of these articles is a little bit more likely to get legally attacked.(Side note: this category should also include "active organizations" as it is really the category for "entities that are likely to sue".) Anyone with time, please comb through these articles, read the uncited statement(s), and do one of the following: [1] Nuke the article. [2] Nuke the statement. [3] Cite the statement. [insert "RatWiki needs you to increase the reference/content ratio" poster] Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Nuke it all?[edit]

In general, RW might consider [1] a "nuke on sight" policy for articles/sections that list people under a negative attribute (such as the old List of internet kooks, the attempted list of minor cranks, and living-people entries on List of pseudosciences) without citing each entry and [2] a semi-formal review process for all new living-person articles (maybe they go to draftspace until a consensus thinks they're mainspaceworthy). This is not because that sourced articles cannot be legal targets -- if the source doesn't say what we say it says, that's still a problem -- but because unsourced articles appear far, far more likely to receive legal threats. And given that I'm probably "that guy who keeps suggesting stupid changes", these will probably just stay thought experiments. *shrug* Worth a try. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I repeat what I said previously, not that it will matter. You cannot separate a person from their ideas; they are one and the same. It doesn't matter if objectively true statements about the Kent Hovinds or Paul Elams of the world are made; they're going to sue your ass anyway because you disagree with them. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
(Although, if nuke on sight is required, I really fucking wonder how the Encylopedia of American Loons has avoided BAHLEETION for nearly as long as RatWiki has been around.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Re:SueAnyway: This is true. But [1] it's far less likely and [2] the case itself is far, far easier to argue, minimizing RW's losses.
Re:EoAL: I'd put my bet on ".blogspot.com". Easy enough to argue that it's an opinion -- and for those insulted parties to think of it as just another angry Internetier. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Then (again), if we are to be 'safe', then we need to delete all mentions of living persons in order to obviate all risk. Printing nothing that could be used, period, is more certain (which is the most important thing) than trying to assess likelihood of lawsuit. 100% certainty of avoiding a lawsuit can be achieved. It is the most practical, pragmatic solution if lawsuit immunity is sought.
But shit, I've offered several times previously for any legal issues to be sent my way so I can let my attorney deal with them - for friggin' free - and no one wanted it. *shrug* So there's really no point in me saying jack squat. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Castaigne2 In my view, it's less about preventing cranks and asshats from threatening to sue, and more about ensuring they have absolutely no case, were they to proceed (mainly by citing well and by nuking spurious claims). We don't negotiate with terrorists. Awful nice of you to offer to involve your lawyer and so on, for the record. Kudos, man. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@FCP Thanks for whipping this up, buddy! Imo, we don't need to nuke entire pages as anything but the last resort, though — going through said articles and removing dubious statements should be enough, while also adding sources where possible. The most important thing is probably that we're not the origin of a negative or possibly defamatory claim, i.e. that one of our articles which somebody threw together up at some point in the past happens to state, without sources, that some person or organization are — for example — antisemites. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I think nuking everything is an overreaction. Take a look at the Nolo explanation of libel law.[2] A person can sue someone for any reason or no apparent reason at all; it doesn't mean they'll be taken seriously in court. The important points from Nolo to avoid losing a libel case are:
  1. A potentially defamatory statements should be true (and therefore have a reference).
  2. A defamatory statement has to be demonstrably injurious to be libelous. Calling someone a turdblossom, a kook or a crank isn't likely to be considered injurious. Calling someone a crook, a thief, or a criminal is likely to be injurious — unless that person's reputation is already damaged (like Trump). Bongolian (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but in the U.S. (which is the relevant jurisdiction, since the Foundation is incorporated in the U.S.), even a ridiculous lawsuit still requires you to retain a lawyer and respond to the lawsuit in court. If you don't respond the plaintiff gets a default judgment and wins automatically. This is how rich people can use the courts to intimidate. Even if they file totally bogus lawsuits, the target still has to spend time and money responding. The thing is most threats of legal action are toothless. The person has no intention of actually going to court; they're just trying to intimidate. But conversely, if someone is hell-bent on suing there isn't much you can do to stop them. Of course I'm not calling for us to throw all caution to the wind, but short of taking down the project we're never going to be "lawsuit-proof". --Ymir (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, can someone explain why Thunderf00t is showing up in the urgent attention section? It doesn't have any "citation needed"s or a "too many unsourced statements". Bongolian (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Half of the PETA article would have to go away with this. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Using RW to attack non-notable people is cyberbullying[edit]

With the exception of Conservapedia administrators (who are only referred by their screen names), I have a major issue with using RW to attack non notable people. It is dangerously close to cyberbullying. Someone doesn't believe i is a number? Who gives a fucking shit? We are here to refute anti cranks, but in that zeal, sometimes RW goes too fucking far. Stick to attacking pseudo ideas, and stay away from attacking non notable people in any capacity. The fact that someone felt the need to resort to a lawsuit threat should be revealing. Objective (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And before you compare this individual to Kent Hovind or his son, Kent Hovind and his son are notable. The unsocial in question, based on a Google search, mixed it up on some forums over 6 years ago. Objective (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more (though, the headline itself is deviously loaded as it suggests that we are "attacking" anyone, which I don't think we are). And for the record — I don't think the letter i is a number, either. Pseudoscience and unskeptical thinking knowns no creed, no religion, no class, nor age, nor gender... You appear to be making a fairly elitist argument implying there are those who aren't worth the spotlight, and those who are, based on what reminds me of the argument that we should only engage "sophisticated enough cranks" and not just anybody who has decided to personally put a public dog in the race (which we should). And the fact that several times since RW began, various people have decided to "resort to" (or rather, "attack with") lawsuits, is not at all supportive of the case you are trying to make.
Every bad idea expressed is something worth dignifying to the extent that it warrants public exploration and sometimes, within reason, ridicule from us. In fact, the people whose nonsense we cover are the exact people (and peers of whom) we're trying to help. Creationism, conspiratorial reasoning and other types of crankery are diseased forms of thinking. At the same time, they're perfectly endemic to the species, a sign of everyone's common humanity — and what's better, for many people these ways of thinking are quite accidental. These are the people we have a duty to shock back into coherency; I know, because it worked on me, for one.
We do everyone a favor by merely — and as loudly as we can — providing our diagnosis, complete with reasons why that diagnosis is given. Reaching every strata of society is the only way we have a shot at breaking up echo chambers too, because if us editors here — all regular "nobodies" — were to only engage the uncritical masses (also regular "nobodies") via the proxies of famous nutters, e.g. David Icke or Donald Trump, we'd end up polarizing and separating the communities, passing each other like ships in the night. That would per definition be contrary to our mission of reaching as wide an audience as possible — we must work to avoid the disconnect with the everyman.
And to avoid that, we must approach this all with the solidarity and intellectual "intimacy" that comes from knowing that as editors, we're regular people, and we cover regular people as well. We're not a book of past curiosities; we're writing a modern history of ideas as well. And that, with a progressive egalitarian outlook no less, demands that we focus on the grassroot effort. The purpose of this wiki isn't to make Ray Comfort change his ideas — it's to make every single regular person who quotes him on Facebook think twice about what they are really subscribing to — and more importantly, the peers of said persons.
I fear I detect a great condescension in your suggestion here; in withdrawing commentary about and, thus, speaking past the volumes of regular Joes who hold indefensible nonsense as true. That is a solidarity analogous to the "democracy" of Athens — and as a man of the enlightenment, who believes that nobody need give up their seat for a king, I don't appreciate that outlook at all. What's more; "bullying" is not a term to be used so lightly. Bullying is always unacceptable, because it is the invention of slander, the coordinated sabotage of someone's life and public image for the sake of schadenfreude. Bullying never seeks to educate anyone; it is entirely a sadistic strategy to dominate someone.
Furthermore, bullies don't leave their targets alone — while we, on the other hand, never explicitly seek to invoke cockfighting with the people or organisations we happen to cover (and whom we cover entirely as a consequence of what they themselves are proclaiming to the world, with sources). It is something quite separate from any form of bullying to actually hold people to their own words, never interrupting them, and not skipping a letter when they speak ill.
The tone I'm picking up from you here is about the same as Hannity tried to mopingly constrain Hitchens with on the day Jerry Falwell died. Some of the "regular" people we cover here openly advocate hate. Some advocate violence, often against the most defenseless. Some classify large swaths of society as "the enemy". All of them beat their chest and demand to be listened to — the whole point of them going public is in the hope that somebody will pay attention. They only get upset when they find out that "the wrong people" are the ones listening in. They want to yell as loud as they want in public and to dictate who gets to stick around and listen to them at the same time. These are people that cannot be pleased. If any of them had the thinnest straw of power, they would silence any man who spoke against them. For all they say, where are our lawsuits against them? Who are, in actuality, the bullies here?
We're all here individually against hate, insanity, the incitement of violence and the spreading of lies. We're many enough, that we were able to join together in a sort of entity against the aforementioned things. As a result, we're big enough to actually pack a punch when refuting some of the soap-boxers of hate and bullshit. To no surprise, the mere fact that we land our spotlight on the less entrenched purveyors of nonsense can seem like a destructive interference on the further credible spreading of their crap. Good; that's the point. If we can literally educate on the specifics of what any and all cranks really imply, to the point of preventing even a single person from becoming a nazi (or a fundie, or a stalin apologist, or a quack cancer cure customer or...), it's all been worth it.
Another way it might seem like we're reversely spotlighting people here as compared to, say, Wikipedia or regular news outlets is because that is the case. Not with us, but with crankery — it is, in most avenues, precisely not considered notable. Guess where we get the basis for our novelty as public educators? Why, it's by dredging those exact mud lakes for the worst crap people actually spread around, in the hopes that our presence helps construct a skeptical bridge between the realms of conviction held by cranks, the often glossing-over stance of the media outlets, and regular people — like ourselves — who are just Googling to determine if that thing they just read on social media, that "maybe some particular ethnic group did do a lot of stuff and should be considered highly suspect", has any veracity.
It's so easy to accuse us of unfairly drawing negative attention to people, when what we are in fact doing is simply drawing attention to people who have themselves produced a lot of negativity. That's very different. One could easily accuse garbage men of appearing to have some kind of "sick motive" of being as disgusting as possible (why, they pick up precisely what other people try to leave out to be rid of!) — forgetting that the function of garbage collection is to gather up and process precisely all the shit that everyone produces (though some more than others), and which would otherwise be left out like beacons of nastiness in the streets. Where the children play.
And I don't care if that process "deprives" anyone one woo-meister of their "happy-go-lucky" attitude. The important thing is firstly that we guarantee that none of our editors breaks the law (especially in the context of any slander laws), and secondly, that everyone is held accountable by us based on their own comments and actions. We seek no conflict, we just listen in on their bullshit and won't still our tounges at what we hear. And to do that is, for anyone, both a necessary moral courage and the only hope for education that the world has.
So no, I can't agree with you on this at all. I will restate that we must not slander anyone, nor depart from what sound sources allow us to comment on. But conversely, we can't allow anyone to be excluded from the — ultimately solidary — project of actually taking them by their word, cataloguing their claims, and dedicating the time and effort to understand and disseminate how and why these people are off their rockers. Thank you and Goat bless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel is an exception[edit]

This discussion was moved to Essay talk:John Gabriel.

Compiling all the horseshit. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate: Nomination for Silver Gold (sticky)[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Talk:Gamergate § Nomination for Silver

Please jump in on this. More eyes the better. Sofar five in favor and one rando without a clue. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

See the main article on this topic: Talk:Gamergate § What's next?

The discussion is now on how far we've got left to go for Gold. Like Zero said: Please jump in on this. More eyes the better. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

See the main article on this topic: Talk:Gamergate § Cover story (sticky)

I've officially opened the cover story discussion. Please look even harder. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

IMPORTANT! Article Priorities Rules[edit]

In addition to the metal level of articles (bronze silver and gold), we have a priority level. Both of which haven't been used as much as we'd like, but are useful tools for the wiki. A while ago, I had noticed that no "official" explanation for priority was in the rules, and added the rule in. The mob rule basically amounted to "it was needed and no one complained, so whatever". However, I'd like to change the rules a bit to match our unspoken mob rules, but this time I feel it should be done with actual input from the mob.

Currently, the rules state that priority is based on "how missional an article's topic is". The problem here is that while crankery and woo is missional, priority should be based on a combination of missional and prevalence. Documenting one guy's blog about how injecting himself with lemon juice prevents cancer is not nearly as important as documenting the Wakefield study, because far more people have been harmed/impacted by the Wakefield study than by the lemon thing. If, however, "lemoning" becomes a thing and hundreds are injured, yes it'd be pretty important to document. — Unsigned, by: CorruptUser / talk / contribs

I recommend that the options be based on four things: [1] missionality, [2] niche-iness, [3] popularity, [X] core article status. Explanation:
[1] Missionality: Whether the article is broadly on- or off-mission.
[2] Niche-iness: Whether other major skeptic resources have covered the issue in-depth. (Includes Wikipedia if it's a skeptical article.)
[3] Popularity: Vague approximation of how popular the procedure is -- if the first 10 Google links for the title all look professionally done, it's probably popular.
[X] Core article status: If this article is the main article of a navsidebar or the base for a ton of other articles (eg, 9/11), then it's core.
Priority could be the sum of [1], [2], and [3] (corresponding to LOW, MED, HIGH) -- with an additional CORE level for [X]. (Like "FUCK ALL" but actually useful.) The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
[EC] So, should I update the rules accordingly? What other touchups need to be done to this section? Well, I'm pretty new so I don't know if I count yet, but I vote Yes, just in case. Arawn Emrys (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that any one person should just "update" the rules. That's not how any of this works. I am, however, really glad you brought this problem up, and it is a problem, indeed. We need to vote on a definition for the prority rules, and then look at how to re-evaluate the set priorities en masse for those of our 6,5k mainspace articles that have been prioritized thus far. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, we're especially not going to allow any rambo edits of the priority rules as long as this discussion is actively fermenting in the background. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Are these important? What purpose are they intended to serve? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they're intended to serve any purpose for the wearing of hats afaik... Post made redundant since Weaseloid corrected his spelling error Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Priority was something that was planned to have a major impact on the site, but was never fully implemented. Something that I'd like to eventually correct. But to do so, we need to have rules in place for it. CorruptUser (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
How will it have a major impact? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Ideally, it would provide a go-to list for everyone to use for deciding which articles are most in need of more goat, possibly as an addition to the To Do list. Somehow. Though that's a bit of a pipe-dream I suppose. CorruptUser (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how hard it would be to find this, but I wonder how much editing is done on articles we've called for edit help on vs. on articles of one's own choosing/writing. If there's a reasonable portion done after a gentle prodding that would suggest it's worth doing. If most people can't be bothered and do their own thing maybe not. B) talk 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles requiring attention is a separate category structure generated by various templates & has nothing to do with priority ratings. I doubt that tagging articles as HIGH or LOW priority has any significant impact on users' inclination to read or edit them. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Getting rid of the priority system altogether[edit]

What are the likely pros and cons? While it may involve work to clear away this rating system, it will likely involve less work and administrative overhead in the future, when we're rid of it? Might provoke fewer pissing contests on talkpages? Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless we revert {{pri}} such that it shows the article rating on-page, I think it will have 0 impact either way. If enabled, it's an easy click to look at other articles that "really matter" (which might direct people's editing habits), and it's also a bit ugly. It's of ultimately little significance. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's intended to direct editing habits, to Weaseloid's point it seems redundant. If it's intended to direct readers' attention (it's not... right?), then all the more reason it should go; the idea of letting editors tell readers which articles they think are most important (article quality is very different from priority in my mind) makes me mildly uncomfortable even if it's mob vote. B) talk 21:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree fully. The brainstar system determines quality (very usefully) via a system of voting and engaging the mob for each case. There are fairly clear qualitative differences between an unrated article and a bronze, silver or gold rated article. If the priority ratings are to be kept, however — which do nothing useful at all — they would (like the brainstars) need to be voted on, and for each article, et cetera... Massive overhead to no use. Further, we should be developing content for the long-term, and priority here demonstrably fluctuates over the years — consider the mothballed CP stuff. Nay, we need to get rid of that superfluous rating system. Until we do so, it will be naught but left to gather dust, occasionally becoming a source of pointless contention. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The half-done article priority system seems to be lifted from Wikipedia's system. The entire purpose of that system was to assist with article selection for an "offline release version of Wikipedia". Unless Rationalwiki has similar ambitions, it will need to have some other good reason for why time should be spent maintaining a priority system covering all articles.--RussiaWatch (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
That just underscores the fact that we should have bots clear out all the priority ratings site-wide and be done with it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
My 2 cents' worth is that the priority system's only current function is as a signal to visitors, not editors, about what (should) be considered important on RW. This is not a crucial aspect (how many visitors will actually notice an article's priority?) and as such the system can be scrapped without losing much in the process (babies, bath water, that sort of thing). Arguably the one good thing about the priority system as an "in-house" tool is that it provides a reality/missionality check: Is the RW mob spending an inordinate amount of time on articles that are not central to RW's mission? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree, though you must keep in mind that the mob — in unison — cannot per definition ever really be considered to be spending time on the wrong things (as the mob ultimately decides what is missional and not). Regardless, I concur that we could (and should) scrap the priority system. So far, I've only seen drive-by concern trolls ever try to point at the priority ranking of an article (be it to complain that one is rated too high, or to lament how an article of mid or low priority could be considered for brainstar upgrade even when it is clearly well written enough for that) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, if the mob's actions and manifesto don't match, the solution is either to change the action or the manifesto. In either case, the priority system might function as a reminder. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I find the system something of a duplication of our categories. They already give an indication of which part of our mission the article falls under (or kinda falls under, or doesn't but who cares). Relevance to the category is perhaps a more worthwhile thing to indicate, but that's pretty much a binary proposition. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The gold/silver/bronze system works (except the bronze/not-bronze boundary which doesn't matter a lot) but I hate the priority system. Most articles have no priority rating at all, and many of those that do either have an arbitrary rating ("I'm interested in this topic, therefore I'll rate it as important"), or the ratings have become more and more out of dated as their subjects rise and fall in importance and relevance (eg Mitt Romney, rated as high but not edited in nearly four years). These three factors make the whole thing pointless when searching, and are basically just a record of years-old personal biases. We can either re-prioritise every gold silver and bronze article, or forget the whole thing. I say get rid of it altogether. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
So basically, we're approaching consensus to remove the priority system here? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Well Corruptuser and FCP seem to have an idea of how to make the priority system consistent, but is anybody really going to apply that to 1000+ articles? A bot can't do it. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If you ask me, making the priority ratings consistent means removing them entirely and defering to brainstar rating instead. Also, what a bot could do is wipe away the priorities altogether. Takes little administrative overhead to do; results in less administrative overhead going forward. Oh, and it's one less sharp edge for the concern trolls to constantly jam their toes into. I mean, like RW of all places couldn't stand to rid itself of some redundancy. Purging the rating system is win-win. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
What utility we get out of priority can probably be duplicated by a time-stamped 'more attention here' template. Have a bot strip out the old priorities, then make a template to flag a topic that's currently in the spotlight or of current importance. As the template is time-stamped, it then becomes easier for the bot to clean it out after a month or so. If the topic still needs the template, it can be re-added, or someone can reset the clock before it expires. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the argument that priority is a waste of time has some merit. If we decide to end {{pri}}, a question: should any categories for (as I put it) core articles or for (as is currently named) high-visibility 'entry points' remain? If so, should we give them some objective basis? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Entry points should definitely be kept to a good standard (and the category kept so we know which ones they are), as they're most people's first look at RationalWiki. What exactly do you mean by core articles? The ones linked in the main page portals? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Going for gold[edit]

Two articles have been nominate for cover story (Holocaust denial and Donald Trump), and neither has any objections at this point. If anyone has anything to say about this, it would be a good time to add your comments/vote for-or-against in their respective talk pages. Bongolian (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, three have. Shakespeare authorship is not to be forgotten. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
No problems bud. Also, nice work as always, polishing on the Red Heiffer page. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly[edit]

The prominent anti feminist and mother of founder of Conservapedia has died.--Bonesquad11 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

She will be remembered... Briefly, anytime a student raises their hand to ask the question of how anyone could have been that dumb. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 01:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
May her progeny's legal affairs be peaceful. FuzzyCatPotato of the Ill-bred Ricers (talk/stalk) 01:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how this will affect Conservapedia, if at all. PB (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe her son can finally come out as a deep cover liberal? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
May the circle jerk of back stabbings begin over ownership of Eagle Forum! Actually, they already started before she popped her clogs (over Trump endorsement). Bongolian (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Not to be evil, but: The witch is dead! The wicked witch is dead! --aschlafly (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Time for me to begin gravedancing. And pissing on the grave. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Really? Better bring a helmet. I've been repeatedly warned today that merely failing to honor her beautiful memory — never mind going ahead to dance on her grave — is to be considered incredibly misogynist, sexist and antifeminist. Despite the nature of her fucked up legacy. Which overtly espouses those exact deplorable qualities. See here and here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Look, Phyllis Schlafly was a pest, and while I'm not glad she's dead, I'm glad she's gone. Nevertheless, we need to have a bit of empathy for her family, including Andy. Losing your mom must be horrible for anyone. I think feeling for his loss and recognizing Phyllis's terrible influence on American society are not mutually exclusive. --TeslaK20 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
There are people who are - to put it lightly - not exactly grief-stricken at the death of some parent. I don't know Andy's feelings towards his mother, but I find it absurd to simply assume things we cannot possibly know. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
∃X ⊆ A does not imply that a ∈ A is an instance of X. You're correct that we can't assume Andy is grieving. That fact doesn't do much to make the case that a balanced opinion like TeslaK20's (namely, that we can criticize a person, even posthumously, and still minimize the possible harm caused to those still living who cared for her by being respectful about it) is absurd. "Losing your mom must be horrible for anyone" may not be true in every single case, but we both know that's not the point Tesla was making. B) talk 20:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@TeslaK20 I think you summarize things well; at least my own stance. Check the two threads I linked Castaigne to — I doubt you will find anything but support for your own view in my comments. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I have neither empathy nor sympathy for her family, just as many here would gravedance if the Clintons were assassinated tomorrow. I don't feel any empathy for the family of Idi Amin either. Nor do I see why I should, other than to fill a Western culture myth about "honorable speaking of the dead". I rejoice when evil people die.
Shit, when I kick the bucket, I expect a few people here to give cries of jubilation. And rightfully so. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
And I'd say those people are wrongity wrong wrong. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a little bit uneasy about the idea of taking pleasure in, or being happy about, the death of anyone.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bug Chasing/Parties[edit]

Where people "chase" HIV, or try and seroconvert people to becoming HIV-positive. Are these things real? I'm highly active in the LGBT community and I've never encountered this concept within it, but I've encountered the concept from multiple people outside of the community... which is usually a good sign that it doesn't actually exist. Does anybody know more decent information about this... "phenomenon"? DarkFire (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A blogger at Freethought Blogs went in that general direction, but stops an inch short. “It is for sensitivity to all of these people […] that many prefer to speak of becoming converted.” Bold is his. A couple of paragraphs later he explains:
“First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive.”
Let that sink in. Later, he seems to backpedal a little and adds that non-disclosure is only okay when the condition is “either non-transmissible or undetectable” and discusses that people should better go for safer sex and frequent testing. It's muddled writing. He also indicates that “[…] not every person [with HIV+ … ] who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent” (link his). The source is here. ~ Aneris 00:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There's at least one person who claims to have deliberately caught HIV in a more or less suicidal gesture.[3] And he later became a politician. Annquin (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There are many people in the world and some of them are very strange. The answer to the question "Has any group or person ever done X?" is almost certainly going to be "Yes".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
With the fine print that that rule doesn't apply to self-sacrificing good-of-humanity acts, only stupid or selfish ones. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)