RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive261

Has anyone watched this holocaust denial video?

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6AmyRTBdXI

some people might of watched it for the Holocaust denial page,i thought it might be useful to get more argument points out of this to add, or it could be a load of Pratts. Tell me what you think. And, of course, it is narrated by a computer voice. (First post on saloon, give me any criticisms if you have them) Bloodcode (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Bloodcode

How (un)popular are the Clintons outside of the US?

The article got at least one thing right: The Clintons are poster children for free trade and neoliberal economics. Green voters have more common ground with the alt-right, for example. Traditionally "liberal" candidates are suddenly finding themselves defending the status quo (poorly, I might add).
I've actually been browsing Reddit a lot of late. I've noticed that the European subs are generally pro-Bernie, even when they're expressing disenchantment (or outright annoyance) at frou-frou candidates like Corbyn and Hollande. To the non-Americans at RW, I'm wondering what the story is. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

One sentence for you: Clinton is the American counterpart to Pena Nieto. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 06:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

How so? Peña Nieto went to a book fare once and couldn't mention three books he read. Never heard anything even approaching this level of stupid for Clinton. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

World outside the US tends to like your presidents that don't start reckless invasions or try to reignite the Cold War. I'm not sure if people have really strong opinions on Hillary anyway since Trump's antics get the most attention. The press does like drumming up the dynasty angle though. Vulpius (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective including what my friends and peers say and from the news articles and essays I read in foreign press (I read sources from Spain, Belgium, UK and Canada regularly) People are overwhelmingly rooting for Clinton and few people can understand the immense hate directed towards Hillary. The mistakes that she has made and the fact that she rubs noses with a few dodgy or very rich friends...simply don't seem to warrant her portrayal of such villainy. Of all American politicians who regularly talk about difficult issues, she seems to offer one of the most humanist and realistic take on problems and realistic responses. Also...it is baffling how a clear majority of registered democrats can select her as their candidate and yet a very small percentage like her or trust her. It's all very confusing. ShabiDOO 18:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

For me, the simple answer is war and whistleblowers. Clinton has always been a neocon and her support for Iraq (2003) was pivotal to Democratic support. She pushed both her husband and her husband and Obama to be more hawkish. She will not free Manning or stop trying to prosecute any of the whistleblowers Obama went after.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Laurogeita, you should mean the level of corruption, not stupidity. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 18:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the average American voter (rightly or wrongly) sees the Clinton's roles in (1) the Crash of 2008; (2) pre-911 failures; (3) the Iraq war; (4) declining income as the result of NAFTA; (5) the on again-off again relationship with Putin and Russia and rebirth of Cold War tensions; (6) a shitload of other issues we'll put under miscellaneous; and finally (8) basic issues of integrity, be it in government, or the examples leaders set for children and the whole society. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

What happened to example 7? Also, most people see them as a part of an upcoming dynasty.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Most people see her as the alternative to the Trump bogeyman, that's all. Bill's an STD infected slug, and Chelsea, the heir of the dynasty is another underqualified spoiled rich kid who isn't even Bill's daughter. You can't hide these things. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 21:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the conflict with seeing her as an alternative to Trump but also being a part of a political dynasty. Every American, no matter how politically ignorant or apathetic, has heard of the Clintons and they know they are involved in politics. It appears to me, though, that people are willing to swallow this pill and stagnant for four years rather than to use the enema Trump is offering.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's the dilemma. You can't complain about corruption when it's been mandated by tbe voters. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Spanish press have Trump as more-or-less insane and Hilary as the oblivious choice for President. Bill Clinton was quite popular as well. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I live in Spain and I don't know a single person who isn't flabbergasted by the kind of support for trump you see on the polls taken. I think if there was an election with a candidate like trump in Spain and the opponent was any random 8 year old...95% of voters would vote for the 8 year old. That doesn't mean there aren't stupid candidates here...there totally are...super stupid ones...but they'd never get away with even one of the scummy nasty filthy offensive bullshit he spouts. It makes for incredibly entertaining news in the boring summer slow days. ShabiDOO 21:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You say that but I doubt Spain is immune to this tripe. This sort of bravado worked for Brexit and it has created a strong, lasting base in the US. There are a massive amount of essays on this phenomenon both here and internationally that boil down to rage against globalization, a precarious middle class, and an unnecessary working class abandoned by their community leaders.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

First...if you can show me an example of a Canadian, Belgian, French or Spanish leader of a party who said something as scummy as what trump says and wasn't stripped of leadership or expelled...I'd like to see it. I cannot think of a single example. Pointless, inflamatory dishonest stupuidity yes...full out scummy nastiness...it's hard to think of a single example. Can you even think of a previous US presidential candidate that approached Trump's slimy nastiness?

You can say something that is a gross exageration, something that angers people or even full out lies...but if you ever laughed at a disabled person, called women gross looking bimbos, accused any politition of starting ISIS, suggested building a border wall that the neighbour would pay for, called for the mass expulsion of one race/religion, outright insulted an entire race/religion, called anyone a fat ugly retard...at the very least your party you strip you from being leader if not expell you. It would happen within a couple hours. Minor politicians are expelled from their parties for much less. In France or Belgium the leaders of the far right parties might get away with the insulting an entire race/religion...but only them. In any other party they would also strip them of leadership and/or expell them and they may face (probably in Belgium) will face criminal action. The leader of a far right Belgian party was heavily fined for making a veiled nasty comment about muslim immigrants. He didn't say anything that approached the full out summiness of what trump says. Another Belgian far right party was disbanded under order of the government...also for saying things less scummy than what trump says. In Canada there was mass protest against the conservative government for airing a commercial showing the leader of one party as being ugly because of his dissability. It was denounced by everyone in every party including the party leaders who were all horrified and the conservatives went on to go from 170 seats out of 295...to only 2. ShabiDOO 15:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So, who holds the power in those instances and examples you give, the voters or the party? Mind you, the US is not a parlimentary system. Trump held no position within the party that the party could strip him of or boot him out. Under US law, any individual can run for office on whatever party they choose. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion that shows up the differances between the US system and European parlimrnary systems. In 1996 Lyndon LaRouche sued the Democratic party under the Voting Rights Act for trying to keep him off the ballot as a Democrat and not awarding him delegates he won. He lost, as I understsnd it, because he was a convicted felon and felons cannot register to vote, registering to vote as a Democrat being a requirement to run as a Democrat. Trump is not an ex-con, so unless the GOP adopts convoluted bureaucratic rules like the Democrats have to rig party elections for insiders and keep out insurgent outsiders like an independant Democratic Socislist, it will happen again.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Most people here I've talked to seem to think the Clintons are just your standard-issue American politicians - they're sort of analogous to our kinda Kevin 07 or Malcolm Turnbull, except a little more pander-y to the young kids. Depending on who you're talking to, in my experience, they're either seen as "yeah I guess they're better than Trump" or "fuckin corrupt American pollie scum hey". Our left-leaning press is generally a little less terrified about Trump than other places, which I think ties into our general kind of separation and isolation from most of the world, but still sees him as a fucking dangerous whackjob, and Hillary as the boring but obvious choice. Even our super right-leaning press, like, the cunts who fucking defend Pauline Hanson and try to justify our fucking shithouse abhorrent detention centre thing, seem to think he's just a fucking demagogue, even if he has the occasional "good" party policy (usually fuckin stickin it to them fuckin muzzo ragheads "fighting political correctness") As for Sanders, the only places here that really covered him in detail seemed to be the more full-on political websites and that. Petrichor (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet the sum majority of Europe prefers Sanders to Clinton and Trump. PBfreespace (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

i'm willing to bet the sum majority of europe dont know whow sanders is AMassiveGay (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll bet you're right.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the general take from Mexico:

- On the one side, you have a former secretary of state, former senator, commencement speaker at college, somewhat ruthless clearly capable of making difficult decisions that I don't have the guts to make, respected world-wide, the chosen succesor of one of the best presidents in your history... but whose apparent biggest flaw, according to the american public, is having used a personal server to send and receive email, and a manufactured contreversy about Bengazi in which not even 8 republican investigations could find anything wrong. And this 2 wildly insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) issues somehow are enough to keep the other candidate within striking distance.

- On the other side, you have a businessman whose primary means of making money is to bankrupt companies. He has had over 200 lawsuits filed against him. He was widely considered a joke as far back as 2008, and a reality tv entertainer since The Apprentice. He is a birther. He has outright lied and flip-flopped so egregiously that networks now fact-check him live. While no Sarah Palin, he has shown dangerous ignorance of world affairs. He is easily angered by comments about him, leading him to throw childish insults and nicknames over twitter. He routinely insults whole groups of people. The parliament of England briefly considered making him Persona Non Grata. He acted so vile during the primaries, that even Ted Cruz won't endorse him. He routinely insinuates violence against people he doesn't like. World leaders consider him a joke. He made his penis a subject during the primaries. He is so toxic, he somehow managed to sink even lower the already abysmal approval ratings of our current president, and the politician responsible for inviting him to Mexico was forced to resign. He is a clear narcissist.

So yes, the rest of the world is thinking "WTF is wrong with you people". Danoso (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Quote of the day

In the vast game of Darwinian musical chairs, whenever the music stopped there were large numbers of people without a seat—and some smartass had sold them guns. - Daniel Suarez Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Must be a pretty slow day. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Preventing Nuclear War

I was watching WarGames the other night. It was my first time watching it, but I had known the plot and ending beforehand, just like every kid knows who Luke Skywalker's father is. I came to the conclusion that idea that the only winning move in nuclear war is not to play is wrong. The winning move is to strike first and to convince your opponent to think logically and morally. Suppose Russia or China launch nuclear ICBMs at the United States. Retaliation would not prevent the destruction of the USA. It would only guarantee the destruction of humanity. If you are on the receiving end of a nuclear attack, the logical move is to let the attacker win and preserve civilization and the human race. To extend the Tic-Tac-Toe comparison used in the film, the situation of a country being attacked by a nuclear power is analogous to that of a Tic-Tac-Toe player. He has reached a point where he can either lose and destroy his opponent, leading to a tie, or let the opponent win. In either case, he loses, but if he lets the other person win, millions of lives are saved.

I sincerely hope that secretly, every government has a non-retaliation policy to a nuclear attack. Of course, they would never tell anyone this, since otherwise they would be attacked. The trick is to bluff. Your opponent needs to think that you will retaliate, while in reality you would never do so. But your opponent probably thinks the same way, and he will attack you, knowing that your massive retaliation policy is likely to be a bluff. You need to be very convincing in order to avoid such a situation. To prevent nuclear war, you need to convince your opponent that you are irrational and immoral, and will not be affected by reason. This shows just how crazy MAD is. In the past, I would have considered discussions of nuclear war between superpowers to be a thing of the past, but with a certain Donald Trump getting ever closer to becoming president of the most powerful country in the world, it suddenly seems very relevant. We need to find better ways to prevent war. Any ideas?

TeslaK20 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As Steven Pinker argued in “How the Mind Works”, the winning strategy is a Doomsday Machine, which will always retaliate and never think morally or rationally. Of course, the joke is that such a machine is featured in Dr Strangelove, but with the flaw that its design was not advertised to the opponoents — which is a crucial aspect. Consider the greaser game where two cars race at each other, and the loser is the one who evades first. The winning move is to throw out the steering wheel, though importantly, in such a way that the opponent sees it. This is also one theory why humans have visible emotions that make someone irrational, as it might have evolved (or remained) for exactly this game-theoretical calculation. Besides, I am annoyed that your example has China or Russia strike first. US wargames led humankind several times to the abyss. And US american war criminal politicians did it, like the abysmal Kennedy — who in alternate history, belongs behind bars for life. Of course, the Russians and the Chinese are terrible to their own people, and have a horrible political system. We in the West have the best system, and the values are rightfully considered universal. Though, Americans need to get off their high horse. Soon, they'll vote for another warmonger and friend of war criminal Kissinger. ~ Aneris ✻ 15:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Re:Tesla: Unless you think that a society dominated by [surviving country] is worse than a society dominated by the surviving South Americans, Africans, and Oceanians.

Re:Aneris: America has been overaggressive. So have Russia and China. The important conclusion is not that America will elect a warmongerer, but that humans will. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not correct, and an explanation that rules out less is inferior, too. To say humans do something is nearly meaningless. Like it is often the case, the more you know: the US engaged in marine operations in the Barents Sea, provoked Russian submarines and also pulled the strings in Sweden (which was neutral). This was a highly dangerous game. The Russians were busy with maintaining a fascade. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

To Aneris: An automatic retaliation system which cannot be deactivated in any way but secretly does nothing would be best.

To Fuzzy Cat Potato: Let's see. A global Russian, Chinese, or American empire would have difficulty sustaining itself if it destroyed the other two superpowers, and China would actually be in the best position after the attack. I think all 3 of these nations meet the minimum requirements for ruling the world. They may not be free or democratic, but they are advanced, functional, and capable. A society ruled by surviving African nations may not look very good, given that most such countries have a low HDI and have trouble sustaining their own population, much less the world. Ditto for Indonesia and the Philippines. Brunei is advanced, but it is also an Islamic Monarchy, which is far worse than a secular oligarchy or a communist dictatorship. As for South America, many South American nations may have the capabilities to handle the world semi-competently, but crime would definitely be a problem. Also, given Trump's view on Hispanics and Mexicans, South America may not be spared in a nuclear confrontation. --TeslaK20 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you think Kim Jong-un is a rational person? Do you know the identities of the persons in control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? because Pakistsan's democratically elected Prime Minister didn't know until the CIA told her (and these persons, by law, must be Muslim by faith; the same group that hid bin Laden for years). The logic behind MAD would prevent any first strike because the looser would survive to retaliate and incinerate the initiator. This however, is meaningless to an ideology intent on destroying God's enemies by suicide only to be welcomed into paradise by 72 virgins for doing do. And we haven't discussed limited, scaled down, or dirty nukes, or these weapons in the hands of non-governmental units. So it's a completely different world today, but I know I know, I sound like George Bush or Dick Cheney trying pitch the dangers of WMD just to scare people, right?nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Retaliation would not prevent the destruction of the USA. It would only guarantee the destruction of humanity." Past and current nuke stockpiles are a long way from being able to destroy humanity. A major nuke exchange would wreck up the nations involved pretty well, but the survivors (and there would be a lot of them) would soon get to work rebuilding. That is, unless a hostile foreign military were taking over. Even after a thorough nuking, the US would probably be well-armed enough to be unconquerable by an intact Soviet Union, but retaliation would prevent the attempt, and it would leave the survivors with less interference from other nations. The unavoidability of costly retaliation is what prevents nuclear war, at least among parties that value material gain, and it has produced the most peaceful era in recorded history.

"if you kill your enemies, you lose" is not a universal or even widely accepted value system. Nations tend to look out for themselves and their interests, at the expense of others if that's what it takes. Rationality is about achieving goals, not what the goals are, and morality doesn't enter into consideration at all unless it's part of the goal set. The WarGames resolution relies on the computer having particular values that it probably wouldn't have been programmed to have. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

An unconsidered factor in your analysis is that a lack of retaliation against a nuclear aggressor would leave that aggressor with the means and incentive to continue performing nuclear attacks. If Russia, China or whoever else was already insane enough to launch ICBMs at the United States, they are absolutely going to be willing to keep nuking other countries (both nuclear armed and non-nuclear) after the United States is gone. US + China destroyed is less destruction than everything except China destroyed. Even if the target of a first strike was a non-US nuclear armed nation, a lack of retaliation diminishes the effectiveness of deterrence for everyone, not just the one country that failed to retaliate. --RussiaWatch (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The entireity of this section is why rationalwiki should not be allowed to watch films. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@nobs: When I saw your typo I couldn't help thinking of Allah saying, "Here are your 72 virgins for doing do as we say here in Heaven. You can do all the do you want for eternity." 2.126.237.246 (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Banning the word "Trump"

John Oliver's extension edits wikitext and screws up articles. (Recent example.) The problem is that, since the edit often affects huge swathes of an article, it can be impossible to revert. The only automatic solution that I can think of is edit-filtering "Trump", to follow in the footsteps of Special:AbuseFilter/3.

Special:AbuseFilter/41's contents (currently disabled) are:

spamtext:="(?i)(Trump)";
rcount(spamtext, (rmspecials(ccnorm(added_lines)))) > 0

The editfilter merely warns the user and asks them to resubmit. The warning message is:

Please disable the "Drumpf" browser extension. The word "Drumpf" was detected in your text. John Oliver's "Drumpf" extension automatically replaces all instances of "Trump" with "Drumpf" in the wikitext. This screws up URLs containing "Trump", changes people's talkpage comments, and in general makes mainspace look really shitty. Please remove all instances of Drumpf from the text. (An automated tool is available here.) If you resubmit, your text (whether it contains Drumpf or not) will be added.

Too draconian? Not necessary? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is most certainly necessary. I've seen plenty of edits that accidentally changed all the "Trumps" into "Trumps" which meant that I (or someone else) had to revert a usually well-intended edit.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

How the bloody hell did that happen? No, don't bother telling me. I wouldn't understand. Yes. Ban the word. It looks like it's the only way. Spud (talk)

I'm out of the loop here, but why on earth was this ever done in the first place? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Because this is the state of US politics in 2016. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For anyone out of the loop, don't worry — as always, RW has the scoop. Quite a humorous read, for the record. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(Hey, that rhymed!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That's too harsh. Reverting it is not that hard.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 09:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC) 09:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

All it does is give a warning message. It doesn't stop you from saving the edit. --Ymir (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, then it's OK.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 10:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC) 10:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that nobody seems apoplectic with rage, I've enabled the filter. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 10:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, Fuzzy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be the case for all substitution filters, so I'm likely to cause a few instances of Pigfucker Hameron, Cunty McCuntface, Twatty Twat-Twatterson, Jeremy Cunt, the Fucking Shitstorm and Hitler's Favourite Rag... ^{Don't click here} 13:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I found someone who needs a article.

This guy. https://www.youtube.com/user/Truthneversleeps/videos And here are some of his videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MhchS6uCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53C4UHh0jwM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giMq6DZPWfw The last one is stranger than the others.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.148.166.180 / talk / contribs}

There are hordes of YouTube accounts posting this kind of thing. I don't think he's worthy of his own article, but nobody's stopping you from starting one; just be aware it may be voted for a nuking later on. Read Bicycle Wheel's comment in the "Using RW to attack non-notable people is cyberbullying" section above. If you do start one, you should reference anything you say about him and avoid being unnecessarily dickish. Remember that the goal is to refute disinformation like that in his videos, not to write glorified hit pieces about people you think are stupid. B) talk 23:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this type of stuff is better as reference material for articles on existing topics. But again, nobody's stopping you. The problem is though, the less "notable" the figure, the more demanding the article will be to write. You have to make it all the more interesting, well-sourced, and novel (unless you want to risk deletion relatively fast). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of cranks in the world. What exactly does this guy do that makes him notable? 173.71.121.36 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It seemed like classic conspiracy mongering + I'm-helping-people-find-the-righteous-truth-through-God, so not exactly novel. Maybe OP was thinking his 50k subscribers gave him enough of an audience to merit an article, but unfortunately that's not that out of the ordinary either. B) talk 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

He is just more insane than the others when you compare him. 68.148.166.180 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what you want from the article. If you want "this person exists and is a poopyhead" like many skeptics enjoy, and then never revisit the article ever, then don't bother. If he has a particularly unique argument or idea that no-one else has seen before, create a page based on that idea (cf., Lunar bukkake hypothesis), otherwise use as examples on existing articles, or create articles based on the ideas that he uses that are common but haven't got articles yet. I'd point some out, but I can't physically watch a video of a talking head for more than 30 seconds - 5 seconds if it opens with a "hey YouTube, what's up" type intro. ^{Don't click here} 09:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Theory

I've been an agnostic all my life, but my girlfriend talked me into going to a fundamental Baptist church with her. I've been going there for a couple months now. I'm beginning to think they are right and everything my science teachers said in school was wrong. My theory is that the devil created the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, the gay rights movement, women's reproductive rights, humanism, the Democratic Party, birth control, other religions, and RationalWiki to send more people to hell. What are your thoughts on this? I think outside the box (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you should study both sides and come to a conclusion. You don't have to stop going to the Baptist Church (although I would), but you should watch atheist videos and read atheist books in addition to the Bible. I believe our side is better and that you will get on our side if you properly research both sides. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. But whst if the atheist books are written by the devil to trick the mind? I think outside the box (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

MWAHAHAHA!-Satan 02:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

But seriously, study both sides, like Pbfreespace3 said.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Also take a look at Biblical contradictions and Q gospel, and don't forget God Hates Shrimp! Bongolian (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You haven't given us any evidence or reasoning behind the claim that atheist books were written by the devil. Give us some and we'll explain why they're false. Unless you give us the correct one, then we'll cop to being agents of satan and let you on your merry way. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to original poster: how exactly would the devil write atheist books? Aren't the people who write the atheist books... atheist humans? Do you think the 'spirit' of Satan has infiltrated the cerebrums of millions of homo sapiens to do... what? PB (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The bit I like is: "My theory is that the devil created .... women's reproductive rights ..." Come on guys. It's obvious he's not serious. Biggest Poe in a while.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh...ok.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 22:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban Islam?

I think Donald Trump has the right idea. We should ban Muslims from coming to America. We should also make practice of Islamic tradition a federal offense, and establish special (privately run) prisons for Muslims. We should destroy all of the Mosques. Thoughts? I think outside the box (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

So concentration camps, just like WWII?-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What if Nazi Germany was punishment for the Jews not accepting Jesus? Just a thought. I think outside the box (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Really? So you'd saying, around six million people deserved to die? WTF?-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If Christians are correct, a lot more than that will burn in hell for eternity. I think outside the box (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Why infinite punishment for a finite crime?-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What if it's not a finite crime? I think outside the box (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does RationalWiki block people for pi times infinity? I think outside the box (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Using some whataboutism, are we?-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What if whataboutism is a lie? I think outside the box (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What if it isn't?

But in seriousness, here's the correct thought process: "hey, let's ban ideology X"-- nope. That's literally all the thought required.

Atheists don't tend to say that we should ban all religion, make it a felony to believe, and destroy 320,000 churches. Mostly religious people make those kinds of proposals. PB (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That is not all the thought required, and twisting a highly defensible position into indefensible hyperbole doesn't help to make the case that banning a religion and persecuting its followers is a god-awful idea. What you call the "correct" thought process has more in common with I want to put Muslims in a box's proposal than it has with a reasonable objection to the proposal. B) talk 04:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

CorruptUser (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah! Radicalize them and push them underground! What could go wrong? Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

They should hold a reality TV show to find what's the best religion, and force everybody to obey that. Annquin (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think outside the box (what an odd name that is), you lost all credibility when you began to engage in Holocaust apologetics. I reread your rant at the beginning of this section and if you truly believed what you were writing, you would not have acted so naive and deluded, so admit it, you're a troll. Your theistic worldview has led you to close your mind to the idea that perhaps Satan wrote the Bible in order to destroy humanity. God, being omnipotent, has the ability to write a holy book so convincing that any atheist who reads it will immediately convert. As this is not the case, and the Bible does not instantly convert many people, it seems that either God does not want us to believe and be saved, or he did not write the Bible. Like all fundamentalists, you display a shocking lack of perspective, and declare anything that you do not like to be a Satanic conspiracy, unaware that perhaps your own beliefs are part of it. Furthermore, you deny that martyring Muslims makes matters worse for everyone. Based on your postings, it appears to me that you are not here to be constructive, so try and be logical before its too late. Godspeed! --aschlafly (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Bible does convince every human, and everyone else who isn't convinced is an alien, or perhaps a devil. Didn't think of that, did you? 2.126.237.246 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

So all atheists and non-Christians are really reptoids whose presence on Earth is being covered up by the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and the Knights Templar? That explains everything! --aschlafly (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Guys, guys. Don't feed the troll. KevinR1990 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay how about this; we temporarily ban Islam, but we don't tell everyone that it's temporary, we just say "right we're gonna ban Islam and anyone who doesn't convert within a week will be shot dead in the street like a dog, and small children will be forced to mock your corpse." That way, all the mostly moderate muslims who aren't particularly likely to blow themselves and/or others up, or take up arms to murder non-muslims, will probably play ball and at the very least go meekly underground and become secret muslims like Obama. Meanwhile, all the crazy muslims who ARE likely to blow things up and gun down non-muslims will immediately out themselves by shouting and becoming violent and refusing to renounce islam. And then after a month or so of this and all the crazy muslims have been suitably gunned down and small child mocked, we can repeal the ban on islam and all the remaining muslims will be the mostly sensible ones who thought "fuck this, I'm keeping my head down" rather than "I guess this is the call to blow up a hospital". X Stickman (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Except you are basically creating an entire cohort of the population that hates you and wants you gone. CorruptUser (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If we made it an annual, or even weekly, purge, the numbers should be manageable long term. X Stickman (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to exterminate all of Islam? CorruptUser (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 21:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not feed trolls, there's nothing else going on in this... thread? I don't know what they're called on wikis. X Stickman (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

They might as well have posted a bunch of those bait memes from the internet and pasted them all over.Teurastaja (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You are a liberal troll trying to make Trump supporters look bad. I support Trump unapologetically (my rationale is on my user page - essentially I agree with putting the brakes on globalism). This country can ban immigrants from terror sponsoring countries. This does not contravene the First Amendment nor does it implicate religion. However, this alone will not prevent terrorism as terrorism can be homegrown. We need reasonable gun control, and we need to develop due process mechanisms for lists like the No Fly List so they can be used without constitutional challenge. Objective (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Violence doesn't work

The Soviets tried your stupid way to eliminate religion, it didn't work. Only a holistic approach which combines quality childhood education, cultural outreach and integration, and firm stand when it is necessary can successfully eviscerate the plague of ignorance - and even then it will take generations. No government has the spine to do so, because when the masses are equipped with the tools to see through the lies of their religion and culture, what shall prevent them from turning those tools against the sycophants and demagogues who compose their government? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake shut up. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the whole eliminating religion thing, but violence does work for a lot of things. You can't argue or fight back when you're dead. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You too. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not endorsing the use of violence, but I really hate the argument that it "doesn't work".

But then, I want to stab people on a daily basis. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Or just copy Mohammed; you can be whatever religion you want, except...

1. You must pay heavy taxes each year for "protection", ensuring that my army is well funded in order to spread the Good Word and "police" you
2. Your word has less value in a court of law than mine, ensuring legal inequality
3. You are forbidden from owning weapons or acquiring military training, ensuring that you are unable to rebel
4. You may not take a wife from one of mine, but I can take from yours, ensuring a slow but inevitable genocide
5. You may not build a house taller than mine, nor ride on camel/horseback or anything else that would indicate that you might have a higher social status than me, ensuring complete humiliation

And viola! In just 200-300 years, through "voluntary" conversion or attrition, the majority is the religion of your choice! Or non-religion in this case.

It seemed like a perfect idea until the first schism. Bongolian (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

CorruptUser (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I'll bite on a serious answer... (I'd say to define "your stupid way" better but I'll assume I'm just late to an in-joke and assume you mean banning it outright by violent force)

Did you notice that you've treated religion as a monolithic entity and assumed, from the start, that it would evaporate given this "quality education" you say is central to your plan? It seems, therefore, that you're defining the "quality" of this education and the "quality" of your new culture by this end result and that only. I.e., if it didn't remove the whole set of religions you would say it was a failure, Have you considered a possibility of a future where "quality education" preserves an element of religion but actually removes the active harm it causes? If not, then you're really just operating with religion=bad axiomatically, and treating religion as set regardless of the members' individual properties, in which case your objection isn't with harm but with the label. Further, you seem to have an aim to remove it no matter the cost, hence making an emphasis of the time it would take and how governments allegedly don't have the pussy to do it, regardless of what this "it" actually happens to be since you don't go into details. I can't see how this 'ends justify the means' approach is qualitatively different to "your stupid way". You object to religion practically as a label, you then want to remove it no matter what, and just disagree on the most effective route from A to B. You might claim it's a comparatively non-violent approach, but you're using a form of coercion anyway since you've set "removal of religion" as a final objective rather than "make the world better" as a more effective proximal one. ^{Don't click here} 01:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the troll above, so yes you are correct that the stupid way in question is force, see the thread above.

“”Have you considered a possibility of a future where "quality education" preserves an element of religion but actually removes the active harm it causes?

Why are you assuming religion is a cultural construct that can change and not a divine ordained set of practices which cannot? Why, probably because you don't invest in any superstitions yourself...and I'd wager another guess that that's because you are aware that all religious arguments are unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious and that, facing such a condition, belief isn't rational. It certainly seems as if a quality education (we'll define that as one which emphasizes logic and epistemology to be brief) wouldn't preserve any element of religion at all, unless you would say the non-supernatatural elements could stand as a "religion" on their own, but I'm not using such an inclusive semantic.

“”[You] just disagree on the most effective route from A to B.

That's right, as the context and content of the post should have conferred. I don't see why you needed a long paragraph to come to that conclusion. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My god, it's a sorta-rational and mostly-polite discussion about religion on RationalWiki! Armondikov brings the GOOD TIMES! Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I will chime and say that religion tends to give people, especially the working class, a feeling that structural problems they face can be overcome even if their beliefs can be used against them. You need to show people that they don't need to believe in a higher power in order to overcome the struggles they face and that requires a whole new outlook.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the Marxist assessment that religion is the 'opiate of the masses' adopted by those who want a higher power and, much more dangerously, certain religious systems, to comfort them, for the simple reason that neither class nor relative wealth of a society wipes out religion. Yes, there is certainly a decline in wealthy societies and among the wealthy of any given society - but yet the vast majority of people, religious or otherwise, will not say they believe to have hope, or disbelieve because they live comfortably and happily. There is even an apologetics industry of sorts, which gives believers the means to try and justify their beliefs - note that the believers in question are those who can afford to buy, consume, and benefit from the materials in the first place - overwhelmingly somewhat educated people in developed countries. Well religion certainly is used a tool by the government and ruling class, it is exploited no more so then culture itself. The Marxist structuralist approach somewhat underestimates religious belief and, in a trend somewhat common to Marxist views in general, oversimplifies human motivations for holding those beliefs. It isn't of matter of "we'll make everyone equal and fix certain systemic problems" and then, suddenly, supernatural worldviews disappear. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how your views conflict with the statement that religion is an "opiate of the masses" since you believe people's beliefs are being manipulated to adhere to a ruling class-friendly interpretation. I have always found that an individual's deity's beliefs are usual a projection of their own beliefs and provide a feedback loop that everything good is meant to be a reward while everything bad is out of their hands, some kind of conspiracy, or a punishment for something they already believed was wrong.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Because I disagree with the premise that religion is more or less a psychological reaction on the part of the proletariat to emotionally adjust to the capitalist system, if not a sinister bourgeois creation entirely. Religion is an independent worldview and ideological system that, while interacting with society as all such systems do (including potential for manipulation), is neither a reaction to or dependent on the rest of the social system.

In other words, religion is not just an opiate people take to content themselves with their fate under the capitalist hierarchy. It is much more substantial ideological system.

“”I have always found that an individual's deity's beliefs are usual a projection of their own beliefs and provide a feedback loop that everything good is meant to be a reward while everything bad is out of their hands, some kind of conspiracy, or a punishment for something they already believed was wrong.

I agree completely, but I don't see what this has to do with the rest. While supernatural beliefs certainly have a predilection for such manipulation, and associate closely with all kinds of fallacies, it's also fair to say that the religious dogmas in question don't always support such lazy usage and, more importantly, every belief and viewpoint people have will inevitably be used in a similar manner. That's just human psychology, not a behavior specific to religion. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, political cults are just as problematic as religious cults but both can be used against people. My point that people who are religious tend to believe that their moral code is divine is that it is a psychological position but no amount of education will simply ease these feelings since these people will still need a philosophy that justifies why they are living the way they are and that they can overcome the difficulties they face in their life. I agree that religion can be indepent from the ruling class's views but Tolstoy's views, for example, have not been widely adopted.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hmmm, religion can be independent of the ruling class's views, Tolstoy said something along that line? I'd be interested to know more. Arnold J. Toynbee ends a long and fascinating discussion on the breakdown of civilization with a conclusion, "the whole movement ends in positive acts of creation—and this on the part of all the actors in the tragedy of disintegration. The Dominant Minority creates a universal state, the Internal Proletariat a universal church, and the External Proletariat a bevy of barbarian war-bands," the context being the "ruling class" seeks to extend its position in a disintegrating society by creating a new, larger, government structure and the internal unwashed masses seek to preserve their family values and traditions during a time of chaos and disintegration with a spititual, otherworldly belief system. In this theory, the powers-that-be behind a civil authotity and those behind a religious faith never had a common origin, interest, or control, nor have future plans together. Religion was never the servant of the state or vice versa. Wars, chaos, and societal disintegration tend to come from one group or the other trying to make it so.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 17:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Liberté, égalité, fraternité" my arse!

Just what on earth are the French hoping to achieve by this asinine "burkini" ban? It's a complete farce. They are literally stripping women on the beach. Literally! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-make-woman-remove-burkini-on-nice-beach. Yeah, that's not going to exacerbate things! That's not going to give more ammo to hate preachers and other Muslim radicals and Islamists. It's mind-boggling. In it's utter adherence to secularism, France is becoming the mirror image of theocratic countries, like - I don't know - Saudi Arabia! Liberte! Many westerners complain about the failure of the Muslim community to integrate into society. Well, here you have Muslim women trying to enjoy French society - bath in the sun on the beach - in a way that's compatible with their religion, in a way that doesn't mean they have to pick between their religion and integration, and what is the response of the French state? "No, you have to pick one! Your religion or our culture!" The French are actively isolating the people whose help they need in order to defeat Islamic radicalism.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Those crazy French. I'm not aware of any terrorists using burkinis to launch an assault on western beach-goers, but maybe in the interests of harmony we should return to the era of bathing machines, or just ban beaches (which at least has a public health justification, the skin cancer!). While you could argue that the burkini is a classic case of evil misogynistic western capitalists inventing a product, tying it to women's insecurity, and marketing it, if you banned it for that reason, you'd also have to ban all cosmetics and beauty products and everything ever mentioned in a woman's magazine or the Hitlers Favourite Rag, and the French economy would be ruined. Annquin (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's freeing women from the patriarchal oppression of being told by a bunch of men how to dress by getting a bunch of men to tell them how to dress. Sound reasoning. ^{Don't click here} 09:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

So you completely reject the notion that some women who wear these "burkinis" or burkas choose to do so, even as they tell you/us that they choose to wear these garments/outfits, regardless of reason? Speaking of patriarchal oppression, wasn't this new law telling women what to wear, or rather, what not to wear, introduced by a man (be it Sarkozy in 2010, or the mayor of Corsica in 2016) or a group of men (the overwhelmingly male French legislature)? So, I take it patriarchal oppression is okay (with you), so long as it isn't being done in the name of Islam. Okay. Sound reasoning.Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that the burka (the full-face veil) ought to be banned in public. The burkini, however, shouldn't, has it doesn't cover the face. Indeed, I don't know why it's even called a burkini. It's a complete misnomer. It would be more accurate to call it a "hijabini", or, what it really is, a full-body swimsuit.Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"So, I take it patriarchal oppression is okay (with you), so long as it isn't being done in the name of Islam." Whoosh.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"They are literally stripping women on the beach. Literally!"

I know I should be opposed to this ... 90.205.44.181 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That is literally what I said if you read to the end. ^{Don't click here} 13:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh snap! Indeed it is. My bad! Apologies. (How did I miss that?) That's probably what Кřěĵ meant by "whoosh". Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to see Skirt Day really, to understand what's happening in France. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I won't really be satisfied until we deal with the disgusting problem of men going topless at french beaches. It's completely inappropriate and only women should be allowed to sunbathe topless. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What if the men in question are hot? --Ymir (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please. This is about decency! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The state shouldn't tell the people what to wear. If they want to wear this horseshit, fine, but only if no-one forced them to wear this (which is a problem among fundie Muslims, fundie Christians, fundie Jews called Ultra-Orthodox and so on) and if they don't force other to wear it. It may look weird, but that's their business.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC) 14:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Burkas are allowed in France but only if combined with a string of onions around the neck, and at least one bread or cheese product in hand? 90.205.44.181 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really support it, but to understand where it's coming from (assuming that, like me, you're not French) you need to read about laïcité. France has a very idiosyncratic concept of secularism, which includes resistance to public expressions of religious belief, borne of the long struggles between the left and right since the Revolution. Religion was identified with the right (as in many countries) and support for the ancien régime. Throughout the 19th century, whenever the French right was in power it would promote Catholicism as the state religion, and the Catholic Church would generally provide official support for the right. Napoleon III, for instance, got France into various international squabbles with a religious dimension, like the Crimean War and buttressing the Papal States, at least partly to garner support from French religious conservatives. This in turn engendered backlash on the left against any presence of religion in the public sphere, which is where this stuff comes from. For instance, all religious apparel and symbols are banned in French public schools. When supporters of laïcité see religious symbols in public, they have visions of people dismantling the Republic and bringing back the Bad Old Days. --Ymir (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, no, it shouldn't be called a "hijabini" (wtf) because the hijab refers to the veil worn to cover the hair, is not a full body outfit like the niqab, abaya, or burka. Westerners can't tell the difference between those three so using "burka" to refer to the general idea is close enough. Second of all, the burkini is skin tight and many Muslims dislike it because the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad specifically dictate that an important aspect of haya (modesty) is that women should not only be covered, but wear loose clothing that does not reveal their form. Finally, and most importantly, the concept is patriarchal regardless of whether some privileged Western munafiqeen "choose" to wear it or not. Why? Because of something called modesty culture. Islamic haya is literally the definition of modesty culture. Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, first of all, your "wtf" about the word "hijabini" applies equally to the word "burkini". Both are equally ludicrous terms and should be met with equal incredulity. Second of all, I say "hijabini" (with tongue-in-cheek) because, correct me if I'm wrong, the burka is the most concealing of all Islamic veils. It is a one-piece veil that covers the face and body, often leaving just a mesh screen to see through. I have yet to see one of these so-called burkini be so concealing. Have you? Therefore, as the only difference between a full-body swimsuit and the so-called burkini is the inclusion of the hijab - the headscarves traditionally worn by Muslim women, it would be more accurate to describe it as a "hijabini". I, however, would prefer we call it what it is: a full-body swimsuit (with a hijab tacked on). Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we have an article going into detail about modesty culture? CorruptUser (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously it's patriarchal but that has fuck all to do with these bans which are straight-up Islamophobic. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The main reason is most likely "we don't want Muslims in public places".CorruptUser (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do not. Modesty and Purity Culture have quite a bit of information discussing them in various feminist sites around the web, it wouldn't be hard to make a good page about it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I think. I think France, and indeed America should have a rule saying "If you are in America, you are one of us. Please do not dress demurely in public places." This will be taken as a burka/hijab ban, as well as a burkini ban. PB (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Note however that the french state is not (at least not directly) responsible for this dumb measure and its even dumbest enforcement: they were put in place by mayors from the hard wing of the main right-wing opposition party. I don't want to exonerate the government which has been at least complicit to the recent rise of knee-jerk anti-islam sentiment but they're not responsible for this shitty policy, neither are most French citizens. The burkini was invented as a trolling tool for exactly the kind of people who are currently in charge of Nice and Cannes and it succeeded perfectly at this; I deeply despise the islamist activists behind this but in this instance they masterfully exposed the racism of a substantial fraction of the French population and officialdom, to the point that major new outlets deem it more important than police shootings in their front-page coverings 86.233.92.123 (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"The burkini was invented as a trolling tool..." No, that's more conspiracy bullshit. Here is the inventor writing about why she created the burkini. I don't see anything that looks like trolling in it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "invented" was completely wrong, my apologies. On the other hand–and this is what I wanted to say–it was certainly used, by people with no connection to the original creator, as a way to discredit the laicity principle by associating it with racist policies such as the recent ban (see the front page of http://www.lecanardenchaine.fr dated August 17th). This is a real case of a "mirror image", since the far-right (most notably Marine Le Pen and the FN-affiliated mayors) has been trying to make its own discriminatory policies more justifiable by passing them under the fight for laicity. 86.233.92.123 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: French's highest court has just suspended this draconian ban on the grounds that, and I quote, it "seriously, and clearly illegally, breached the fundamental freedoms to come and go, the freedoms of beliefs and individual freedom": http://www.reuters.com/article/us-religion-burqa-france-idUSKCN1111J5. Laicite my arse!Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, courts are my favorite part of democratic governments, even though they tend to be the least democratic. It's the principle of weighing the results of a law as it's actually used that just brings to the top all the problems with it. They don't always work at it, but I really appreciate the ways the impair injustice. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It's one of the reasons why I chose law as a career path. Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy needs to go

Reverend Black Percy needs to leave or be banned from this site. The guy is a loon.Schizophrenic (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy who chose - CHOSE! - "Schizophrenic" as his username calls someone else a "loon". Please, you must send me a passport photograph at once so that I can send it to the Oxford University Press and have it printed under "irony". Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

He was just elected a member of the rationalwiki foundation board. By a pretty large margin no less. If personal sentiment about him as a person is all you've got as a charge, I'm afraid empirical evidence puts you in the minority. If you've got a more specific charge, you can always put it forward in the chicken coop ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Nerd271 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

^{— Unsigned, by: Armondikov / talk / contribs}

I know, and I don't care. I know Percy's a good dude, and this user's just being a dick, but I'm also going to let anyone who has a complaint against a member make it. I don't feel any compunction to circle the wagons. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree in principle with your point, ikanreed, but the nonspecificity of the initial post, lack of elaboration and a track record of trolling/Poe posts by the OP, leads me to caution against feeding what's likely a troll unless and until (s)he provides any specifics on The Rev.'s supposed transgressions. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that Percy's such a handsome young go-getter... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC) 14:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

And you can check the OP's talk page for (other) examples of trolling/Poe stuff (cue, this little gem: "But the anti-Semitism in the 'far-right' is usually planted there by moles/spies/agent provocateurs (call them what you want).") You will find similar examples in the OP's contribution history, btw. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

PBfreespace (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

B) talk 00:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 14:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 04:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Nerd271 (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The mob has spoken

Percy stays. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You would have, but then you talked about yourself in the third person! Objective (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Caesar referred to himself in the third person and he conquered Gaul. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"RationalWikians... lend me your rears! I mean, ears!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Whose rear are you thinking about, exactly? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I only care about preserving this Wiki for posterior! I mean, posterity! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I understand the feeling of relief and the confidence boost, but can we keep the triumfalist gloating to a minimum? ScepticWombat (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

But I always allow myself due levity when people climb soapboxes, call out my name at the top of their lungs, and then instantly proceed to haphazardly piss on their own shoes. Also; my internal struggle when kindly asked not to gleefully cash in on well-earned gloat. Have some sympathy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Congrats dude, missed the drama unfortunately.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it's not too late for you to be doing your part by adding your own {{dftt}} to the above list. Assuming you don't also want me outta here like a home run dinger, naturally. What with me posting that thing about canned meat on your talk page the other day. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the OP, Reverend Black Percy is a good guy.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Classic scam with real credentials?

So... I just saw a link to this article which was more incredulous than I'm used to the news media being. All the classic signs of being a scam are there: patient funded trials, skipping the FDA, the word "detoxification", but at the same time, it's apparently developed by the head of MIT's department of aging research. Do we want a page on it, since the name attached to the product makes it a pretty big deal? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Weird. The man's credentials are impressive, but it seems to me that a real, science-based age-slowing treatment which actually worked would not be a simple pill, but a far more complicated process. Moreover, the use of "detox" is a huge red flag. I can think of three possible scenarios. First, it is possible that the founders of the company are aware that the product does not work and are using the placebo effect to gain money. This is unlikely because such distinguished individuals would not descend into quackery. Second, it may be that they genuinely believe that the product works. This is unlikely because few people are more qualified to understand this topic than them. Third, it is possible that it actually works, to a limited extent. This is unlikely because of the sheer implausibility of it all. Strange indeed. --TeslaK20 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the article and it seems to me it's a mix of all three. The scientists at least seem to be pretty open about the limited evidence for the product. What they're selling is just a combination of two things already sold as supplements. They seem to be trying to make money with the supplement and use it to fund more research, because they say funding for anti-aging research is limited. Comes off to me as a bit cynical, but hey, if people want to buy unproven supplements I'd rather the money go towards research than lining charlatans' pockets. And I do think the issue of funding they bring up is a real one. There are huge perverse incentives in the system we have at present because any compound that isn't newly-discovered or newly-invented can't be patented, which means companies won't fund research on it. --Ymir (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I'm just used to anything being sold as a supplement having specious or no evidence, not limited evidence of effectiveness. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this sort of thing before. 1) Preliminary research looks promising. 2) Scientist starts supplement company 3) Oops. Doesn't work in humans. Step number 2 is basically a conflict of interest: it can cloud the scientist's judgement. Bongolian (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but wouldn't this basically kill his credibility as an academic if it doesn't work? That seems like a huge career gamble to take given his position. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It could depend on how the seniority/tenure of the scientist and how the supplement company is structured. If the scientist is just a minority stockholder who is not active in company decisions, it may not be such a risk to the scientist. Bongolian (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I went to the weird corners of the internet and back

and on my way I found this video. What do you think? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Psychiatrists hate him!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Introverts

There seem to be a lot of articles & blogs (& cartoons & memes) about the experience of being an "introvert", written by people who self-identify as such. Examples: Quiet Revolution, Introvert, Dear (which also includes a lot of Myers-Briggs personality type stuff) & a fair number of articles in mainstream sites such as this NYMag piece on "introvert hangovers" I saw today.

I could accurately be described as introverted & can relate to a lot of the behaviours & experiences described in these pieces, but there's something, or a few things, that rankles me about the whole thing. For one thing, it seems an odd thing to identify so strongly with - not merely as a vague personality trait, but as a label or identity or even a subculture. & There's the fact that these bloggers (though they usually stop short of outright saying so) are writing about introversion as if it's a specific condition like Asperger's or OCD, & with the usual hallmarks of iffy pop-psych self-diagnosis. But most of all, there's a rather ugly smugness to a lot of it, suggesting in one way or another that "we are smarter, deeper & better people than the rest of you". Here's an egregious example. It seems a lot like overcompensating for shyness & awkwardness, & also kind of reminds me of high IQ societies.

Any thoughts? Is there any credible science behind any of it? Any scope for RW articles? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh, well, introvert-extrovert is a personality dimension(not a binary) that's widely used in the most scientifically accepted measure of personality, the so-called "big five" which have a much better track record for yielding predictive value than the pseudoscientific and mostly unsubstantied Myers-Briggs. So... "does introversion exist as a meaningful concept?" the answer's mostly yes. Does it correspond to how people talk about it on the internet? Mostly no. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there needs to be "science" behind a bland claim like "some people prefer to read a book at home rather than go out partying". It's like asking for "science" backing the claim that some people like the color orange.

I don't like the smugness either, but I do think it's understandable, because that sort of "we're not the losers, you are" is a common reaction for anyone rebelling against what they see as the dominant culture. There's a reason for the pro-introvert pushback (and the corresponding smugness by some people). At least in America, a lot of people grew up with terrible children's shows that punished anybody for having different interests. Now they're all adults, and are caught between the conformity they were taught was important and the real-life faux-meritocracy that overvalues an extremely narrow set of traits that a great many of them can't emulate with any success.

Probably the single biggest reason though is the requirement in post-industrial capitalism that you be your own hype man at all times. Employees are expected to be outgoing, ambitious, creative, adventurous risk-takers, and employers have an extremely narrow idea of what this looks like. You can be ambitious and creative, but actually being acknowledged for it requires broadcasting those qualities loudly and in a very particular way that's comfortable for many people but also uncomfortable for many others. Getting hired in the first place often requires "networking" with other people in your industry all the time. Unemployed people, or underemployed people, are expected to find opportunity everywhere, and if you aspire to any kind of "professional"/white-collar job then you're expected to actively seek out and participate in an array of social activities for the express purpose of cultivating job connections. For people who don't value socializing with strangers or large groups, it can be a punishing, exhausting process that subsumes your private life into your professional one. The pro-introvert backlash is an inevitable consequence of this. It's a rejection of the idea that good employees are loud employees and that professionalism means spending your free time with other professionals. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the thing I wanted to raise an objection to is the idea that "introvert" is something you are or aren't. To qualify yourself as an introvert is to take a somewhat arbitrary threshold of the trait known as introversion and declare it an identity. And then to couple it with things like "introverts are smarter" is to take a weak correlation and make it a group trait in a way I only really could call bigotry. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, both of you. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

True story, it's not exactly a binary. What bugs me is the incessant "HEY EVERYONE LOOK HOW INTROVERTED I AM". It's so much more hypocritical and dishonest than PFSC or Tao Lin monetising depression. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't it the very notably woo-friendly Carl Jung who coined the "introvert/extrovert" concept? Freud was rigorously scientific compared to that guy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Possibly? But it doesn't really matter if something starts as pseudoscience if you can take it, and make meaningful extrapolations and testable hypotheses from it, much as how some terminology from alchemy ended up naming real chemical elements. Sensing/Judging turned out to be a meaningless intuitive deduction of Myers. Introversion has predictive value and reliable metrics associated with it(even though the inventory for measuring it has shifted a bit). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Turns out, "The terms introversion and extraversion were popularized by Carl Jung,[1] although both the popular understanding and psychological usage differ from his original intent.". The moar you know! (From Extraversion and introversion) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Percy, why do you hate the humanities so much? Jungs ideas were influential and useful, even if his models now appear quaint. For example, Jungian ideas have shaped such utmost important areas like screenwriting. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

How to know you are in Oakland

When you're on the bus heavily intoxicated, and there are people next to you talking about "being an empath" and "embracing ones inner spirit"'Legion^{what do you want from me} 01:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Welcome to Oakland, bitch!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Totnes is like that too. Bicycle^wheel 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that's better than the reputation Oakland has in certain circles. Too many people still think it is a hotbed of crime and violence. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, Oakland, that completely drab and boring city when contrasted against its rich-asshole cousin San Francisco. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 05:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Who said this quote?

“”Feminism is largely a Western concept.

I think it came up somewhere on this site in a Gamergate-related page. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fairly sure that's a quote from Heraclitus. Also, St. Hildegard would have said it, had she lived long enough. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing, any implication of that statement to those ends are pretty much pure genetic fallacy. "X came from Y? It must be good/bad" is pretty much batting 0.500 for being right. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 02:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If a Gamergator used this phrase like I suspect the quote is likely being used in bad faith. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this WIGO clogs, blogs, world or somewhere else?

At any rate this is fucking hilarious. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Clogs, methinks. Thank you AvengerogtheBoN for continuing to contribute to the Wiki. At least things have died down now. Feel free to continue hating the Shia in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. PBfreespace (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Shia are kuffar, they disrepspect Aisha (mother of believers) and the Companions of the Prophet (saw). Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't it Sunni Saudi Arabia that tore down the house of Muhammad (saw) in Mecca? So therefore the Saudis are the true infidels. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wahhabis saw that the house of the Prophet of Allah (saw) was being honored greatly and realized this was shirk, they demolished the house because the Most Noble Qur'an said that Muhammad (saw) was only a man and not to be worshiped as such. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

But the Prophet (saw) is a special man a special respect is due to a special man. And if you deny this, you hate the Prophet (saw) another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The more important fact here: NONE OF THIS IS FUCKING REAL!!!!!!!!!! PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually all of this is real, just not the religion behind it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wahabbis are enlightened, they tore down the House of the Prophet and put up port-a-potties to accomodate the crowds in Mecca. Think this is a joke? Study it. These Saudi-Wahabbis are the real deal. They understand and practice true Islam.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 16:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you blame Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner?

I mean, what do you expect men to do when they're married to lesbians? Objective (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed their wives are lesbians. CorruptUser (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The National Enquirer, and they broke the John Edwards baby story back in 2008, so we know they're right. Objective (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FWD:RE:RE RE FWD VERY FUNNY POLITICS JOKE. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Because a tabloid magazine happens to publish one true story, everything else in the magazine must be true. You hear that everyone? That bible contains at least one fact, therefore creationism must be true! Time to tear down this website, replace all the pages with numerous praises of Ken Ham! Thanks for showing us the light, Objective! CorruptUser (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Any time! Godspeed!!! Objective (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Consider this: would Anthony Weiner be forced to tweet dick pics or would Bill Clinton be forced to get sucked off by a fatty if Hillary and Huma were straight? Of course not!!! (Invoke Poe's Law as necessary) Objective (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Remind me how any of this is relevant? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Compassion for Weiner. Objective (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Objective:

• calls people lesbians without really knowing
• reads tabloids and thinks they must be true
• calls women 'fatty' even though they aren't
• thinks sex scandals are either funny or relevant PBfreespace (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, political sex scandals are funny, and yes Monica Lewinsky is a fatty. Objective (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Shaming people is funny? Huh. Remind me to try that one on my wife. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You just need to put on your no.1 concerned face and talk about her heart and her arteries. No need for shaming. Rakim (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to back off from this parody

First, I meant this entire thing as a politically incorrect joke. Allegations that Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton were lesbian lovers go back a while and I was parodying this. What I didn't realize is how deep lesbian rumors dog successful female politicians. Even the Simpsons episode where Lisa Simpson succeeds President Trump, she is the first straight female President. As a rule, I don't apologize for parodies and jokes, and honestly I've no clue why Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner did what they did, but I'm going to back off of this one. Objective (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"People disagreed with me, so I must have been making a joke all along!" CorruptUser (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Many on the Internet agree with the original premise vs. a couple people here - so your point holds no water. I kinda like offending the over the top political correct sensibilities of this site, and will continue to do so with parodies, most of which I'm agnostic on or could really care less about. It wasn't what was said here, but rather seeing a right wing meme on Facebook that I decided to back off this for the reasons I stated above. Objective (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, and I hate having to explain to explain parody to those who are unable to get it, but read my first comment on the National Enquirer. Objective (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not buying that. "But it's a joke" is no excuse for expressing whatever bad behavior you inhibited. In addition, it is a bad and tasteless joke. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Some people here are so predictable. I bet you hate people like Bill Maher. Do you need your safe space? Objective (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hate? Not exactly, but he's an anti-vax, anti-gmo shithead who tends to be more smug about religion than effective in criticism about it. Politically Incorrect would have been a better show if it could have managed to be factually correct more often. There's nothing wrong with a bit of heavy handed condescension once in a while, but he manages to do it making some of the most asinine, contrived arguments I've ever heard in favor of positions I frequently support.

Meanwhile you're stirring up shit because, frankly, you have a poor understanding of wit and humor. "Lol, these politicians I dislike are a sexual minority" is humor so lame I expect it from geriatrics who have nothing left in their life but hate. There's no puns, there's no defiance of expectations, there's only "laugh to show you hate the same people I do." It's sad objective. It's real sad. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I do hate Bill Maher and people like him. Why wouldn't I hate an anti-vaxxer who denies germ theory? Don't you hate those type of people? They're directly responsible for the re-occurrence of diseases we had successfully stamped on.

(Also, he's not funny, but most "comedians" aren't.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, politically incorrect jokes. So tell me, Objective, will you come to my workplace and make spear-chucking and pickaninny jokes with my black co-workers? I can now be assured that it would be all the ha-ha. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Lesbianism doesn't have to have anything to do with the initial premise. The facts can remain that neither Huma or Hillary, these alleged role models for women, are very attractive or sexually desirable to their own spouses. And their feminine qualities, or lack there of, is totally related to their mental attitudes, not their physical looks. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 16:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the shit this has to do with my comment. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Bill didn't really have picky standards to begin with. Monica was far from ugly, but Clinton was perfectly willing to hook up with "cute girl next door" rather than "Christina Hendricks and her bisexual best friend". CorruptUser (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Look it is none of my business to begin with, but the fact that Bill and Hillary are still together indicates that he likes something about her. Maybe him being wicked smart he likes her intellect? You do know that relationships where one or both sleep around with the knowledge and consent of the other do exist? Basically the mere fact that we are discussing the marriage of any politician is disgusting and wrong. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless it's Newt Gingrich divorcing his wife. Because it's only wrong to gossip about the marriages of Democrats. CorruptUser (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly - an I am only speaking of myself - Gingrich's marriage is none of my business. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘According to several published accounts, on Bill and Hillary's wedding day, Bill was in the bathtoom "passionately kissing a young woman. He was fondling her breasts." No wonder Ol'man Rodham, Hillary's dad, was reluctant to give her away a few hours earlier, the preacher had to tell him "you can step back now". nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 19:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding whatever Hillary and Huma's sexualities are or aren't, the marriages of Hillary/Bill and Huma/Anthony are ones of political convenience. Whether or not Huma is a lesbian, there's a reason Anthony is snapping dick pics across the Internet. Objective (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

that's true, there is a reason. the reason is, he's a colossal jerk. You, also, are a jerk. all this "I'm going to say something provocative and if you don't like it I'll say it was a joke and you don't have a sense of humour" is basic troll behaviour. Grow up and fuck off. Bicycle^wheel 21:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This person was always a troll, why are you over-analyzing this latest poor taste antic? Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Izmy

Has anyone heard of that website? It's created as a friendlier alternative to Reddit. Since we have communities and groups on social sites, I think it would make sense if we create a community there. Here's the site. What do you think? --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Their business model seems to include monetizing user interaction, allegedly to foster a positive atmosphere. Some other features smell a lot like Citizendium. If some faction of RatWikians chooses to infiltrate imzy, that will be consistent with the general trend of this and other online "communities." SmartFeller (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientology has got to be the biggest scam in existence

Agree or disagree?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't give you figures, but I'd imagine the Catholic Church has it beat. Still, it should get a gold star for trying! MyHatIsBread (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(EC)Scientology only pulled a total revenue of $200 million in 2015, meanwhile multi-level-marketing firm and fake medicine peddler HerbaLife had profits of $300 million, with revenue of 3.7 billion. Scientology membership is only in the 25,000 range. Big for a cult, small for a religion. Scientology isn't a small fry, but they're really only a bugbear because they went around suing people on the Internet before it was cool. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I wonder how much the Pope's gold cross would sell for on the open market? Off subject I know.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

and I thought Amway was the biggest scam...duhh. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 16:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientology is one of those things we should have a gold quality article on since yesterday. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SPLC's Hate Map

If anyone's got time, the SPLC lists 892 active hate groups and their locations. https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been shown some of the SPLC's hate groups are one man operations operating out of a P.O. box with some old fart stuffing his self produced literature at his kitchen table. But hey, if you can garner contributions to fight hate, go for it.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 16:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Just for lulz I followed up on some of this 892 (shocking) hate groups. First one I investigated took 5 mins and results are readily available to anyone with internet access.

Lobelville TN (pop. 897) is said to have 2 of 892 hate groups. But the two groups evidently are the same, the Mary Noel Kershaw Foundation being a trust created by a former board member of the League of the South who resides in Lobelville. The trust is named for the board members wife, and he and his wife are both dead, leaving no heirs. The trust is currently administered out of Killen Alabama, which is the League's HQs, and is begging for donations for this, "largely neglected opportunity for our people to donate funds which can be used to support the educational work of the League of the South. " IOW, the trust is a broke slush fund for the League and neither are located in Lobelville. Yet the dead former League board member counts as two active hate groups in the United States.

SPLC is a fucking scam. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 17:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

For this criticism to work you have to assume that the contributions are used for other purposes and not fighting legally against hate groups. The criticism could be leveled at other entities as well. Take for example this website which takes donations to function but also covers absolute nobodies who scream idiotic beliefs into the mic of their webcams. Most if not all big organizations/movements/groups used to be the brainchild of one or few people at first. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 17:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

And I'm sure you have some sort of proof/evidence for this? Or are you just here to yell about things that you don't like and/or that disagree with you politically? Arawn Emrys (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

But there's a big differrnce : these "nobodies" are people who exist and are seeking audiences for their deluded crap. The SPLC takes a dead guy and through mitosis creates two "groups". nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Stats

Busy. Here's the August stats:

Users dropped. Edits rose. I'm worried about the former. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How does the drop in users compare with previous Augusts? People were on holiday. Bicycle^wheel 20:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

2016: -26 (-3.3%) || 2015: -18 (-1.9%) || 2014: +7 (+0.7%) || 2013: +20 (+2.6%)

Unweighted lazy average: -17 (-1.9%)

There's no clear pattern. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As such, it's clear that RW is losing users. The cause is unclear. FuzzyCatPotato of the Unrefined Couch potatos (talk/stalk) 21:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Let's micromanage and try to analyze every minor statistical anomaly and say the site isn't doing well" PB (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. The site has lost 25% of its users in half a year. Statistical anomaly, my ass. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I got third place in edits! Woohoo!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

To FCP: the site is losing users because of a toxic atmosphere and people that aren't willing to accept viewpoints they disagree with. How do you fix that? Well, moderators that take action to resolve flamewars quickly would help, but the underlying problem is more of a grassroots issue that has to change on its own. PBfreespace (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed my anniversary

I joined RW on August 4th, 2007. I've been here nine flippin years! I feel very old. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

August 2007? Get outta here, n00b! Bicycle^wheel 09:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Bob, Human, and Trent are the only originals who remain. The n00b takeover is almost complete. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

WHAT?! THAT LONG?!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 17:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's slightly shocking to realise that the mass chaos of May 2011 is closer to RW's beginning than to now... gibber... Bicycle^wheel 21:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the earliest you have seen Christmas items in the stores?

For me it was August.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My friendly local big box store has explicitly put a sign up denying it gets earlier every year. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw some Christmas puddings in a shop in July once. I thought "are they this year's or last year's?" Bicycle^wheel 09:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you know "Adam ruins everything"?

Its a relatively new TV show (currently going into its second season) based on the College Humor web series about one guy (who is portrayed as humorously obnoxious) dispelling common notions and elaborating on things behind stuff we always took for granted but which is not the way it is for any particular good reason. Some of the things he has done shows on are right up our ballpark, like the episode where he rips apart "medical advice" TV shows including their vitamin superdosis bullshit. I would post a link, but the full episodes on Youtube would probably be taken down if I were to link them, so you can google yourself. this is the official website. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well we do have a page on the show.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How did I miss that? Thanks. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

He also does a podcast (with the same name) that goes into more detail with some of the guests. The episode on death and funerals was particularly interesting. Worm (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The issues

As I see it, the Undecideds, at least 16% of the electorate, have to make a decision. Personalities aside, the choices are : Do I vote for corruption, or do I vote for racism?

Now given that racism is a subset of corruption, and not the other way around, racism may be the lesser of two evils in this difficult choice. So I'm to trying to find a logical countervailing argument for corruption. Somebody help me out here, please.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Consider that the racists are likely just as corrupt as the ones you tag as "corruption." --Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

All racists are corrupt, but not all corrupt persons are racist. Okay. So what's worse, a narrow and specifically defined form of corruption, or a generalized overarching propensity toward corruption?nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 04:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not the racist douchebag, that's for sure. Probably like you I wager, going by your behavior. You say a lot of things and what you've backed up with are not exactly reputable sources. How you managed to be in RationalWiki for a while is beyond me. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So in nobs' world treating vast swathes of humanity like scum, purely because they're a different colour/religion/sexuality to yours isn't as bad as feathering your own nest? Ok, so it's clear he's voting Trump. Because fuck der untermensch. 197.89.253.205 (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? When Clinton was SoS, she oversaw Obama beat Bush (and every other president in US history) on deportations, she approved drone strikes which 9 out of 10 people killed with were innocent Muslims, and she advocated to deport the Central American kids who came into the country. Sounds racist to me.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Since Trump will carry my state anyways, and Clinyon will win anyways, I'll do the principled thing and vote for Johnson. I am grateful for Trump in any case for putting economic nationalism and foreign entanglements back on the front burner. I hope these fresh old ideas make for a better GOP next time around. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I will likely be moving to a state that overwhelmingly votes Dem anyways, so I'll be voting GayJay (Gary Johnson). I wanted him back in 2008, but noooo, the media couldn't be arsed to give any coverage to a popular governor, because that would mean that Obama would actually have a chance of losing 2008. Just like now, how they couldn't give an ounce of coverage to any sane Republican in order to ensure that the public perception of the Republicans was nothing but Trump. CorruptUser (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

fnordWhy not vote for Jill Stein? I see people who cite huge reasons why Clinton and Trump are unvoteable, yet then they cite minor reasons (by comparison) why they wouldn't vote for her. In the end, sensible people feel bullied into voting for Clinton. How anyone can vote for the raving madman Trump is beyond me, though. I can only relate to that as feeling trollish and frustrated with the political system and wanting to throw a wrench into everything for four years, hoping that parties wake up and get it together.
fnord But as I see it, the USA isn't really a democracy in the ordinary sense of the term. The candidates frequently differ in — relative — minor areas only that are known to be extremely partisan. They may be still important issues, but they are unresolved and partisan to have them as bargain. You always get a big corp Wall St shill. They'll anyway make sure your spine fluid is suctioned off to keep the engines running; sending your natural resources through the chimney. You'll pay for your resulting back and lung problems yourself, of course, and an elite of billionaires drink champaigne on their yacht, carrying the heavy burden of “responsibility”. The bonus money goes into their pockets, and if they fail, you bail them out. What's left of public influence is cut apart and gerrymandered so that your vote doesn't do anything in practice. The few americans who sit in a swing state have the illusion of a choice. Everyone displeased with the state of affairs should vote for third party, on principle. If people did that, there might be a slim chance of improvement. But of course that doesn't happen, and it just shows that your democracy isn't really one, since the principle of “we could have voted otherwise” is a nice theory only. ~ Aneris ✻ 14:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, like I'm totally going to forget that the Green Party nominated one of the most racist and insane members of congress to be President back in 2008. The Green's can go fuck themselves with an endangered cactus. CorruptUser (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rob Honestly, you should ask yourself what is better for the country and what you believe to be true through the media. Do you think that Trump will normalize racism and bigotry? Do you believe Clinton will normalize the political corruption inherent to the US? Is it better to deport people en masse and deny refugees entry in order to provide for minorities who are suffering here or should the US be a home for everyone?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@CU I don't think it is fair to say that she was one of the most "racist members of Congress" but she is certainly an Anti-Semite. Regardless, you are voting for Gary Johnso so I have few objections to your stance; he isn't a particularly good candidate IMO so I likely won't vote for him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnson's Health Care plan - if you can call it that - is fucking insane. If you want to vote Johnson to escape Wall Street shills, you are about as smart as the Europeans who vote for right wing populists because they think the socialists abandoned the working class. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnson will not pull out of Afghanistan, he will not end the drone program, he will not challenge our military relationship with Israel, he will not grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants, and he will not open the borders. He is a staunch conservative opportunist who has jumped on the libertarian bandwagon; he will only corral more cronies into the Libertarian Party.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing the conundrum with clarity. I'm trying find a logical justification to willfully vote for corruption. You came close. The racist sentiments expressed by one candidate are not likely to become law passed by Congress, so that candidate is limited to Executive Orders. And deliberstely misleading the public with bogus campaign promises is the type of corruption the other candidate is known for. Then there's the lingering social ills connected to the candidates attitude and rhetoric despite the fact he can't possibly fulfill any legislstive accomplishments on his signature issue. Conversely, the racist candidate has no record of racism to stand on, and can always flipflop in office, whereas the corruption candidate shows no remorse for previous deeds of corruption.

But I'd still like a logical basis for knowingly exercising my franchise in favor if corruption, whichever candidate I settle on. The best I can come up with is Hope, I hope neither candidate means what they say or intends to do what they promise. But voting for hope based on emotion rather logic and a reasoned analysis of the issues makes me feel like a goddamn Democrat. Maybe this is the end of the GOP.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 19:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So Clinton intending to carry out many of Obama's policies, including LGBT+ rights, appointing new Supreme Court Justices, keeping ObamaCare, regulate Wall Street (and she has every intention of shooting down Citizens United), and decided to take Bernie Sander's ideas is corrupt because she's an ambitious left-wing woman? Someone has misread the dictionary. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You make it sound like GayJay is my dream candidate. No, I just think he's the least awful of everyone running. That's part of the problem; Hillary supporters think that everyone backing Trump agree with all of whatever booze-fueled brainfart passes for his policies, rather than thinking that maybe he'd be slightly less awful for the country than Hillary. The same goes for Trump's supporter's views of Hillary's supporters, who think that her supporters actually approve of her corruption and ruthless ambition. Me? I just dislike both so much I couldn't honestly give a shit which of the two bastards wins, that I'd rather "throw my vote away" by demonstrating to the powers that be that they will have to actually earn my vote in 2018 by presenting me with candidates that at least make an effort at pretending to match my interests rather than just, ugh. CorruptUser (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Throwing your vote away is not a very smart thing. By picking which president to vote, then by consequence you get to pick who's part of the Supreme Court. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I wasn't addressing you, CU, when I said that Gary was a staunch conservative. Nord, screw off with that "throw away your vote" BS; I guarentee you didn't tell Romney voters they shouldn't have voted since their candidate lost. Even if someone isn't voting they are making a choice. It is the responsibility of the candidate to win votes and if they, fuck 'em.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to vote for the losing candidate. I'm telling you to vote in the presidential election. Personally, making voting mandatory would make things a lot easier. Also, some videos from John and Hank Green. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Right but the phrase, "Throwing away your vote" is purposely aimed at the voter when it is the candidate and party who need to be attractive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want a logical argument which favors general corruption over racism: the former tends to harm through neglect whereas the latter tends to harm through malice (as well). If you want a logical argument which favors racism, just switch the framing around and focus on the positives. Corruption is giving (undue) preferential treatment to one group. Hillary would only give preferential treatment to a small group of rich donors and lobbyists, while Trump would give preferential treatment to white Americans generally. Morality is clear; vote racism! (Admittedly though, Trump may be too busy giving himself specifically preferential treatment, so maybe vote Hillary after all.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That's well put and addresses the point. Now I could convince myself Trump doesn't mean what he says, is just pandering to the 40% who wanna hear that crap, and will abandon the immigration issue upon taking office. Let's give this scenario 50% probability cause he has no previous record. (Hillary OTOH, we know exactly what to expect). But then I'm voting for, and facilitating, corruption. So we've wittled down to a single issue : integrity. Which candidate has the higher probabilty of actually accomplishing those things a voter agrees with, however secondary to the primary emotional issues they run on.

Let me say something to any Republican voters of whatever stripe thst may be reading this : Even if the Trump faction wins, from day one it must reach out to people who do not agree with it across the entire political spectrum and must abandon some of its ideological principles. Failure to do this the day after election or inauguration would be a worse mistake than nominsting or electing Trump. If you want to criticize Obama (who still carries a 50% approval rating now), his failure to do that could be some of the most legitimate and justifisble criticism leveled, and would make Trump no different than that fuckwit. Even Hillary, who is a POS, and knows she is a POS, is already trying with varying degrees of success, to reach out to the vast right-wing conspiracy she's been at war with for 30 years. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rob. I hate to say it, but it comes down to competence for me. Clinton may or may not be corrupt. But she IS competent and sane, and if she's corrupt, she's got enough skill to avoid prosecution despite numerous attempts to do so. Trump somehow managed to run casinos into bankruptcy, and he's personally declared bankruptcy multiple times. The Presidency isn't a reward for being a good person, it's one of the heaviest duties a US citizen can perform. Sure, it comes with a house with its own movie theater and bowling alley and who knows what else, but that's all there to make up for the lack of freedom of movement and having to understand and make decisions on things where there are no good and easy answers, and having to learn about things you'd be happier not knowing. Oh, and let's not forget the frequency of 3 AM wakeups where the President is asked to render a decision right there. And having to be responsible even for people who hate your guts. Whatever else she is, I think Clinton could handle that better than Trump. --Maxus (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a very reasoned argument. I'm beginning to have sympathy for Hillary, even tho I don't like her. But after reading about Hillary's colostomy, that brings Tim Kaine into the picture, who maybe the best choice of the four (Trump, Hillary, Pence, and Kaine). But all we really know of Kaine is what's been spoon fed.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 07:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't even mention her brain transplant and her daily baths in the blood of disabled orphans. You $hillarybots can't stop lying can you? --Ymir (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Whst are you trying to say, her colostomy bag is a Kremlin inspired plot? nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 15:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Darn that fuckwit Obama for forcing the Congressional Republicans to pledge on the day of his inauguration to never cooperate with him under any circumstances. Remind me, was that before or after Obama crashed the U.S. economy and made Bush invade Iraq? I have a hard time keeping track. --Ymir (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My conundrum

I am able to vote in this election. I consider myself to be ideologically a social democrat, tending towards a forceful government presence in the economy, and freedom when it comes to social issues. While I overwhelmingly prefer Jill Stein and the Green Party platform to Gary Johnson, I am considering voting for Johnson simply because he has such large support this time around (2.5 times Stein's), and there's a chance the Libertarians grow to something more this election. Is this a misguided idea? Does it not really matter?

Keep in mind this all depends upon opinion polling in my state (Georgia). For a couple of weeks, it seemed like Clinton could have a chance to win Georgia, but that might change by election day. If Trump is tied/losing in the November polls in my state, I'll vote for Hillary. PBfreespace (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Single state polls can be way off. Especially in states that are not usually considered swing states where the demographic models are not as well refined as they are in states like Ohio or Florida. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The word is, Johnson has a big chance in Arizons. After McCain's big primary win McCain said fuck it, he's not worried about a down ballot effect, where Hillary was making a strong bid to carry the state. So it's turning into a Hillary-Johnson contest in AZ, and of coarse no GOP candidate can win w/o AZ.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not getting a concrete answer regarding my original question. I'm asking both what you would do, as well as what I should do. PB (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

IMHO the winner in 2016 will have a plurality. This is not such a bad thing cause historically both parties take notice, and both parties elevate the concerns if this protest vote in a competetion to get them back. It takes patience. You need clearly defined issues, and you need to articulute clearly when the parties or candidates deviate from those concerns. Consistency is the key, but typically the minority protest vote melts away in time.

I don't see either candidate being magnimonious in a first term, meaning the country is likely to remain bitterly divided. And I don't see any voters for the looser proud of it afterward, meaning no one will have justifable criticism of the victor. We Americans are now on the precipice of getting what we want and deserve, and have worked so hard to achieve - a lawless government - whoever wins. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 06:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Another Jewish Conspiracy...

So I have been browsing that other wiki and I found this. Apparently while we have an article on kosher (which is an adjective, not a noun), we don't have one on the "kosher tax hoax" or whatever we might call it. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be a good section to add to the existing page if you're up to the task. It's odd you don't consider it a noun. It's a noun, adjective and verb according to Merriam-Webster's.[1] I've heard the word used all 3 ways, including by a practicing Jew. Bongolian (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

At any rate, should we have that article? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ITT Tech shuts down for good

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/09/06/itt-technical-institutes-shut-down-after-50-years-in-operations

Behold, the biggest for-profit college corporation has closed its doors permanently! Is this World-worthy? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 01:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Time for some mindfuckery

For a (proper) afterlife or reincarnation, you need a soul and some supernatural hocuspocus, right? But do you really? Let's start from some very scientific premises:

1. Conscious experiences arise through signal exchanges within neural networks.
2. Neural networks consist of configurations of ordinary, non-unique particles.
3. Thus, conscious experiences are merely physical phenomena and they can, in theory at least, be reproduced regardless of the corresponding neural networks' location in time or space.

If consciousness can be reproduced, does that mean you can be resurrected after your death (intentionally, by accident or by random chance (parallel universes or a near-infinitely big universe could offer plenty of opportunities)), even if there is no material connection (e.g. a preserved brain)? It may seem counterintuitive that your consciousness could 'jump' from one point in time and space to another, but there is no meaningful physical distinction between a genuine resurrection and the creation of an exact copy that only thinks they're the genuine continuation of the original's consciousness, so is there really any difference then? Depending on the answer, death could be the transition to a potentially infinite number of afterlives, or the ultimate end (but with copies who think they're you possibly continuing your legacy anyway). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes consciousness is obviously the result of a physical process. However it is not a nice clean dry digital process but a messy, wet, chemical analogue one.

Our present ability to make analogue computers is rather poor and shows no signs or improving in the near future.

In order to simulate consciousness in the way you describe you would probably need to simulate a messy wet analogue system.

You would also need to know the status of the chemical bonds between the atoms in the original system you were simulating. Is it even theoretically possible to obtain the information? And if you could obtain it could you manage the massive quantity of data which this atomic scale data mass would represent?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about making digital copies of people's consciousnesses, though. I'm talking about brains (plus bodies, optionally) being physically recreated "intentionally, by accident or by random chance". It's also not known at this point whether, in order to emulate the same consciousness, the new brain would need to be truly identical down to the last atom, as you seem to propose. If future humans, AIs or aliens decide they want to recreate some 21st-century-style human brains, they could hit it right on the mark by accident, if they continuously (and obsessively) create new brains over a long enough time period. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But they would need to be identical down to the chemical level. That would mean you would need to know the bond status of each atom. How many atoms are there in the human brain? In how many ways can they be chemically bonded?

This, by the way, is also why much talk of uploading consciousness is bonkers.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What Is Life? Is Death Real?

This video is on a similar track to the above. Especially at around 4:52 (but watch the whole thing, obviously — it's just five minutes in total, but jam packed with stuff!). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It's more about our various subjective conceptions of "life" rather than the possibility of continued phenomenological existence post-death, but certainly a nice vid nonetheless. Feel free to imagine my first post being told in the voice from the vid btw. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that really helps, for some reason! (Reading in that voice, I mean) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, please check out these two videos. They might be more specifically on topic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I regret to bring you the sad news, but you will die some day. You will return into a state of non-existence that is perhaps comparable to being unconciousness. Of course you cannot have any idea how this is like, which is scary. But be assured, it's entirely fine. You know of this every morning. Only that one day, you will not wake up anymore. Should civilization progress that far and be able to upload the configuration of your neurons into a computer, or reproduce it in an isomorphic manner, it will be you, and not you at once. You see, identity becomes meaningless at that point. It becomes as silly as asking which of the files you dublicated on your hard-drive is the "original". What is certain. One of these entities, the one of meat and flesh will certainly cease to exist. The copied version, which once started existence as a meat-version, and which also thinks it is you may continue existence, provided technology advances that far. Which is, I'm afraid to say, very unlikely. ~ Aneris ✻ 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure who you're replying to here, but that's hardly news to me. Again, please check out these two videos. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was clear from context, I replied to the OP. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You think I like the idea of being resurrected ad nauseum in God knows what bizarre/horrific circumstances? This is nightmare-fuel caliber stuff. Not sure why you bring up mind uploading-type stuff either; I thought it was clear enough that I was talking about bodily resurrection, potentially from scratch. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Who's to say? (Not that it has a lot to do with my earlier post though.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

...Anyone who is keeping Occam's razor, the The Dragon in My Garage and the burden of proof in mind. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Must have been disappointing you had to follow that up yourself. Come on people!11!!! B) talk 18:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

*sigh* WEEEE ARE THE CHAAMPIOONS, MY FRIEEEEND... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever this woman is, I'm against it

What is RW's opinion on this woman? Personally, it feels like Ethan sums up my view on this topic perfectly. Keeping in mind that the video title is "crazy feminist" with the emphasis clearly placed on crazy, not on feminist. Specifically, the quote at 6:42:

"It's almost like this like "neo-feminism", "triggered", "social justice warrior" shit; it's not even feminism, it's just like a... a cult. The cult of being offended. The cult of outrage. Feminism is great. This? Is a fuckin... phew. This is insane."

I consider myself a feminist, just like Ethan and Hila do (verbatim). However, this is absolute crap. Just like Ethan put it so well; "Feminism is great. This? Is a fuckin... phew. This is insane". I feel so bad for everyone involved (except that insufferable woman and her goon friend). If that dad joke was sexual harassment, everything is (read: nothing is). And that's obviously a completely unacceptable viewpoint. Talk about trying to appropriate a real crime; Jesus Christ on a stick! She's clearly the one guilty of harassment, against several completely calm people who were all perfectly within their rights, no less. Like Ethan also puts it, she doesn't need social justice. She needs therapy. Years of it. And for the record, I'm not out here to bait a lot of bullshit. This discussion isn't on "the pros or cons of feminism" (which would be some nutpicked straw man nonsense) — Ethan and Hila are vocal feminists, so am I. And this woman wasn't doing anything related to actual feminism. That being said however — certainly there is nobody here deranged enough to actually defend that woman's actions? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO her reaction is hugh-mungus-ly out of proportion. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Give in to the power of the darkside, Percy! You saw what the internet calls a “social justice warrior”. There, I said it. Again. I'm told they don't exist, but there are such cases every other week. You might enjoy Chris Ray Gun's take. Hugh Mongous is already a kind of a meme. Before that, there was the racist hula toy situation, showing you another case. Welcome. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So, because somebody overreacted to something, we throw people with PTSD under the bus? Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 01:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence that trigger warnings offer a long term benefit to people with PTSD and they may inhibit the development of proper judgment of risk. But if you have evidence that says otherwise please post it. Annquin (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything in the video? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dude makes a mediocre joke, other person totally misjudges the situation and feels verbally assaulted, groan-worthy antics ensue. Not sure what that has to do with triggering in the usual sense. What worries me most, though, is how this guy clearly fantasizes about kicking people in their vaginas. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ess Jay Dubyas. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The next US President

How big is the risk we'll end off with President Trump? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You can consult sites like Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight, and forecasts are changing all the time. He himself currently writes: "Clinton’s ahead, by a margin of about 3 percentage points in an average of national polls, or 4 points in our popular vote composite, which is based on both national polls and state polls. While the race has tightened, be wary of claims that the election is too close to call [...]", read it here. ~ Aneris ✻ 12:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

About equal to the chances Hillary has Stage two Parkinson's diseases.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 14:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

THE CHANCES THAT SHILLARY CAN'T RIG THE ELECTION ARE EXACTLY MAGA PERCENT! TOOT TOOT NO BRAKES

but srsly she's outperforming Obama vs Romney, so *meh* Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a very real current. I wouldn't discount it. Trump is actually leaking Hillary in the polls right now. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The question is: Who has the lower floor with a significant vote for Stein/Johnson. Because Trump may well be trying to get Johnson into the debates because he thinks his 40-odd percent are more stable than Hillary's, for which there is some evidence. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump is not leading. He's down 4. The reason we're worried is that he used to be down 8. Sh. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, we should not forget about the electoral college where Trump needs to take at least six states away from Clinton to become president.--Cms13ca 21:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

Trump seems to have a ceiling of about 44%, and Hillary a floor of about 44%. I don't see Stein/Johnson getting 12% nationally, but in a few states where they spent money they could do better than that. On balance, I think Stein/Johnson hurt Hillary, but probably not enough to deny her a win. Neither will carry any states, so that throws out the possibility the House of Reps have to decide if nobody has a majority.

It's Hillary's to loose right now. How can Trump win? (1) Hillary's failing health becomes an issue; (2) Trump begins talking daily, everyday, about Trust, and asks the voters to Trust him. This is the big issue, Trust. Voters do not Trust Hillary, but they have no reason Not to Trust Trump. He has never broken a campaign promise or abused an elected office. (3) Trump needs to backoff the divisive rhetoric and paint his immigration proposals as a jobs program, if he's asked about.

But Trump hasn't listened to anybody elses advice, I doubt he'll take mine. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Bye, Ralph

Ethan Ralph of The Ralph Retort has been arrested for drunken assault against a cop. Denied bail. Facing felony charges. He'll probably plead down to misdemeanors and so rob us of entertainment, but it really couldn't happen to a nicer guy. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is. StickySock (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's physically attacking a police officer while under the influence of alcohol. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the Ralph Retort. What is it and should I even care about it? StickySock (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know and don't want to know, you shouldn't care. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Retort is a nasty shit from Gamergate who was responsible for widespread doxing. Bongolian (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So, will someone put this in the relevant article? E.g. in "Timeline of Gamergate" and/or "List of Gamergate claims" under "GG is nice"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly, he was obviously never really a Gamergater - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

*is gently confused* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a reference to all the Gators now claiming he was never one of them and was a third-party troll. They do that every time one of their own encounters legal trouble. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have liked to, but it's locked. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to see how many times a page has been viewed?

Hey guys, is it possible to see how many times a page on this wiki has been viewed, and if so, how? Just wondering. QuantumDude^{I am beyond your understanding} 17:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: no, for regular users. Long answer: maybe, with the right kind of access depending on the way the server is set up, but even then likely no. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

IIRC Gerard used to publish some kind of list of our most popular pages, possibly based on individual page views. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

yeah, then I realised the numbers were actually completely fucked up ... so they're a vague indication but nothing I felt like labouring over, and they would only give a completely false illusion of precision - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It kinda worried and confused me that said numbers always crowned the not-even-bronze semi-fork page "List of forms of government" as our clearly most popular landing page. Elating to hear those numbers were fuggup-tagup. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Racialism is racing towards gold

Thoughts and assistance welcome. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

+1 to this endeavour, this is an article we need to hit out of the park - David Gerard (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to search to find out when a particular piece of text was inserted? This phrase is on the racialism page but it contains just a sentence fragment and it's not clear what was originally meant: "and craniometric[29] Of the latter, <10% is found between large continental groups of ethnic groups/demes (such as "white" or "black" or "Asian")." Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll be in trouble with the admins/techies for posting this but you can use WikiBlame; setting the language as "www" should work. Set search mode to binary, for the love of goat. Annquin (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That quote seems to have been introduced in several pieces so I'm not sure how useful it'll be, but see [2] and [3]. I think you just need to delete "and craniometric". Annquin (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Bongolian (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Come one, come all! The crank circus is in town!

Please press play before reading on. Headphone users, beware.

Now then. As you all know, I hail from the fair city of Uppsala in Sweden. And today, on the 10th of September, a real bonanza sweeps the town!

Kulturnatten (literally "culture night") is a fun time (search for "kulturnatten Uppsala" on Google images)! Wish you could all be here with me.

As the minor annoyance fixture in our community that I've become, naturally, it is my job to carry our banner on this fine day (the sun is literally blasting outside).

Never fear however, accompanying me on this noble quest will be my trusty steed, joining me all the way from the remote den of inequity known only as Tierp. (Think Monty Python's Holy Grail, except with two unfunny assholes instead of anyone worthwhile.)

In preparation for the arrival of this festive date, I dug through the entire program (which sadly features about 99% non-religious non-crank stuff like jazz; stupid Sweden), nutpicking as best I could. As a result of these efforts, I will be attending the following "classes"/"seminars" today;

1. "The many uses of dowsing". Course subheader reads "not just useful for finding water". The sky is the limit on this one. Auradiagnosis? Quack cancer detection? Repelling slanderous wiki editors? What ever will they think of next!
2. "The path to sainthood". A Jesuit priest and self-described philosopher (dare I hope, in the vein of WLC?) goes through the clearly very rigorous and thought out process of saintin' people. The local Catholic church was kind enough to lend him their pulpit for the occasion. This'll be good.
3. "The origins of man - Planet X". The official description of this two hour long gem is literally JAQing off right off the bat. It reads "Was both Darwin and the Bible right?". Betteridge's law of headlines applies here, of course. It is held by a Tai Chi congregation calling themselves "The Golden Chariot" (or, less kindly translated, "The Gilded Wagon"... He, he, he). I'm hoping for some David Icke-level cerebral pyrotechnics from this one.

I'll also be meeting with a renowned Swedish skeptic's organization known as Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning (roughly: The Society for Science and Popular Education) in order to apply my new-found skills in dowsing, know-how on the beatification of saints and wisdom regarding supressed 2012 apocalypse cosmology, in order to determine the true messiah from the dime-a-dozen cloaked reptilians present wherever non-truthers converge. Wish me luck! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I must say their website doesn't give much of an indication of it being all about woo and crankery. I'd go to see Rigoletto myself. Spud (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd go just for the tofu buffet. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 14:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Reincarnation

I figured now would be a good discussion on this subject. My though- could consciousness be our soul and after we die our consciousness gets transported to a parallel universe?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I brought up something similar a little higher up. (Though I hope I made it sound a little less ridiculous than this. >.>) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably not.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Who was the worst presidential nominee ever (Major Party only)?

So I recently watched a video of Kyle Kulinski where he made up the strawman that people claim Trump is the worst Presidential candidate / nominee ever (honestly, I have never heard anybody say that, I have heard him described as "the worst since [...]" but never as "THE worst, Period."). So here my question to all of you. Who do you think of as the worst presidential nominee of a major party (i.e. Republican or Democrat after the Civil War, one of them weird parties before it) in US history? And why is that? If I get enough responses I'll give you my answer as well. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here's three in no particular order

• George McClellan, needlessly dragged out the Civil War snd caused untold suffering through inactivity; fired for insubordination; repudiated his own party's plstform
• John W. Davis, nominated at the Klanbake Convention, argued for segregationists in Briggs v. Elliot, implicated in the Business Plot to overthrow FDR.
• Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democratic party and racist scumbag.

I'm sure there's others but this is a start. Oh, did I mention, they're all Democrats.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 05:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Still having trouble thinking of worse Democrat nominees than Hillary. Carter, maybe? His heart was in the right place but he has to have his teeth cleaned at a proctologist's clinic. For Republicans, also having trouble thinking of worse than Trump. CorruptUser (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump, Nixon, and Dubya, two of whom somehow managed to get elected. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nixon wasn't actually that bad. The whole "Nixon sabotaged the Paris peace accords" is mostly conspiracy theory territory. His crime was spying on the DNC, something both parties today are guilty of. The secret war in Cambodia was a bigger crime than that, and that was him noticing that the war was already there. As for him personally being a racist, I don't give a shit if it doesn't bleed out into actual policy. StickySock (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. The South Vietnamese were dumb to believe his promises, and the whole plot hinged on them buying the idea that they'd get a better deal from him getting elected, but the historical record leans pretty heavily to the you're wrong side. And that's ignoring the whole "using the CIA to spy on political rivals" thing that actually ran him out of office. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and he was an egregious anti-Semite. Let's not forget that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ikanreed, can you name a single individual or group that Nixon used the CIA to spy? Hmm? One name, please, with the evidence. Uhhuh. See what 40 years of listrning to propaganda and bullshit gets you. Nothing. You look like a fool repeating unfounded lies. Time to check the veracity of your sources. Oh,btw, it's not too late to change the course of your life from the path of error you've chosen to follow. Meantime, keep looking for any evidence whatsoever that Nixon used the CIA to spy on any US citizens.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

oh, and the link you provided, Johnson is not talking about Nixon, he's talking about "these people" and "the China lobby", whom Nixon identifies as John Tower and Anne Chenault in a call with LBJ the day after the election. So again, your sources are seriously flawed.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really going reconstruct the strong implications of Watergate for you. The record is just barely ambiguous enough that I can't prove he was involved, but it overwhelmingly implies he had a hand in it. You can hide in that ambiguity for as long as your denial suits you. As for my article it pretty explicitly spells out the Nixon part. Now you're just in reality denial. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Facts: Nixon tried to decieve the FBI into thinking the Watergate breakin was a CIA operation so as to get them to abandon the investigation. So Congressional Demcrats inflated this to "misuse of the CIA", but the CIA was never asked to do anything. The media, college professors, and future generations take "misuse" to mean "domestic spying" which the FBI did but the CIA didn't. Of course no one was ever prosecuted in the CIA, no reform legislation introduced for alleged violations of the law that never occurred. But hey, the Democrats succeed where Nixon failed; they decieved future generations about Nixon's "crimes" and drove him from office. Ask Hillary Clinton, facts do not matter.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 13:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ <digression>Nixon's "treason" alleged in the LBJ phone call is based on illegal domestic wiretaps and misuse of the FBI ordered by Johnson - an impeachable offense according to the Watergate Committee. The FBI had its own domestic spying program - COINTELPRO - and was pressured by Nixon in some cases to prioritize targets (notably the cases on Daniel Ellsberg, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn) But Hoover's FBI still refused if Nixon proposed breaking the law. That is why he created an independent Plumbers unit, cause the FBI refused to go along. Simple logic. It's all about deception. Hillary learned well and young. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this about the worst campaigner or the worst human being? Vulpius (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the ones whose election (would have) caused the most shit. So McClellan - who ran on a platform of "let's lose that war we have been winning for years now" - is pretty far up. As is Andrew - never met an Indian I did not hate - Jackson. Bad campaigners and bad people (e.g. being nasty to their personal friends and acquaintances) are not that interesting to me. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Clearly I don't know enough about American politicians. There have seriously been worse candidates than trump?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dewey and Truman could both be considered bad nominees. The New Deal coalition fell apart in a three-way split under Truman's watchful eye in four short years. Dewey was supposed to win in what was supposed to be a walk, but he fucked it up. Truman was so unpopular by 1952 his approval ratings were less than Baby Bush. Truman's administration was racked by scandal ("To err is Truman"), yet history has been kind to him. Somehow, in the worst of an extremely difficult situation, he did make, on balance, the right decisions, however unpopular.

Another racist scumbag was Woodrow Wilson (see link above). He was elected with a plurality and popular vote in 1912 that was less than the looser got in 1896. In 1916, his slogan was, "He kept us out of War"; six weeks after inauguration we were at war. Also, there are striking parallels - only worse, actually - between Wilson's arms smuggling to Britain (related to the sinking of Lusitania) and Iran-Contra. But Wilson had "the vision thing" in his 14 Points, so history has been kind to him, too. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 21:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnson as well as Nixon used the CIA to spy on the New Left and black rights/power movements in the US based on the completely baseless notion that they were all run from Moscow, see Tim Wiener (2007), Legacy of Ashes, chapter 27: "Track down the foreign communists" and the anti-Vietnam War movement was being monitored through Operation CHAOS under both Johnson and Nixon. However, Weiner also pointed out that this was preceded by JFK (p. 223) and that the CIA had been opening first class mail going in and out of the US since 1952 (p. 208), so the distinction is more one of escalation than invention. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Certain groups did recieve CPUSA funding, which is Moscow funding. Others traveled to Cuba for guerilla training. Still others travelled to Beijing. But most all of this is unrelated to Watergate. Nixon's "misuse of the CIA" is when he instructed aides to mislead FBI-Wategate investigstors that those who were arrested - veterans of the CIA Bay of Pigs Operation - were actively involved in some ongoing domestic CIA operation vital to national security, and not the renegade Plumbers outfit, and get the FBI to terminate their investigation.

Misuse of the FBI was when Nixon demanded action in locating Bernardine Dohrn, the first woman ever on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted. The FBI illegally broke into her sister'apartment hoping to find mail from Bernardine with a return address. Bernardine Dohrn, incidentally, was Michelle Obama's bridesmate at Barack an Michelle's wedding (True.). nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting News

I guess Cher is a reader and tweeted about RW, picked up by some news orgs, about the trans-exclusionary radical feminism article. Neat. -MasterofLogic (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I guess we should really cherish her support. PBfreespace (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Basically we have the best article on the subject. Hilarity in Twitter responses: all these TERFs thinking they can totally convert her, neglecting the existence of Chaz Bono - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's great! Cher retweets RationalWiki's postmodernist article, Huffington Post restates that “feminism is intersectional”¹. First, RationalWikians are quick to deny that postmodernism plays a role, going as far as calling that a “conspiracy”. Second, intersectionality feminism (now the mainstream) is itself based on radical feminism, and not, as the article suggests a moderate and agreeable form in opposition to it.² Third, radical feminism is considered the mainstream³ by Amanda Marcotte, too, which is consistent with the HuffPo statement, since when intersectionality feminism is now the dominant form (it obviously is), it follows that radical feminism is, too, since intersectionality comes out of radical feminism. Your radical feminism article suggests that, correctly. Fourth, the article defends Third Wave Feminism, yet another term. As any introductory text will tell you, it is post-structuralist (hence postmodern), too. The bracket that keeps this together are postmodernist assumptions. Following only the feminist line, it approximately looks like this: Postmodernism ⊃ Third Wave Feminism ⊃ Radical Feminism ⊃ Critical Race Theory ⊃ Intersectionality ⊃ Intersectional Femism. Some subtle complications apply*
_{*They are unimportant for the point, but let's list some: 1) CRT is obviously also connected to other traditions and not confined. Likewise, 2) intersectionality is based on connecting different areas. 3) postmodernism is more a zeitgeist than a rigorous framework, which is fine, since I use it that way. Other people however have strong feelings about this and want to lock it up into academia only. I follow Sokal, Chomsky et al who regard it is charlatanry, hence I see no reason to distinguish between Derrida and random Tumblr warriors.} ~ Aneris ✻ 12:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The above is reminiscent of one of those entertaining online proofs that 1 = 2. Just divide both sides by Nietzsche and multiply by Popper's critique of positivism, and here's the number you first thought of! Annquin (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Aneris is pretty consistently the Science and Math Defeated of the humanities, except he's not trolling - David Gerard (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget he also has disdain for social sciences(except, *swoon* economics), which are a completely separate academic branch from the humanities. If I had to guess, he probably also doesn't like the historical method, but that's just a guess. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. Please show us where I have expressed disdain for social science, and praised economics. Let's see what you have. I don't remember any such discussions and don't recognize myself in such claims. Quite typical trick from abusers. Show it. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The connections I cited above are well-known and even obvious enough for Wikipedia, of course still denied on the RationalWiki. I believe the correct term is “crypto-postmodernists” for people who advance it, yet want to deny it at once (or are too incompetent to know they do). The cocksure attitude, and fabulations of Anquinn, Ikanreed and David Gerard shall illustrate that once more. Have you checked the sources at all? Problems reading or understanding them? What else do you need? Should I make a screenshot of introductory material and circle and annotate the salient bits? ~ Aneris ✻ 20:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, you keep reciting these same points day in and day out, but without — as far as I can tell — presenting any type of conclusion (you just seem to go "Hint, Hint! This is connected to this via this! Wink wink, nudge nudge!"). What is the conclusion you wish to draw here? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

When you deal with “Intelligent Design” proponents, your first problem is to show that they are Creationists, which they of course deny. Some do it out of ignorance, others deny it for tactical reasons and a third group sees some important differences that are however not really important. Once you have demonstrated they are really Creationists, you can address their views as anti-science, anti-intellectual rubbish. Exactly, that's what I do here, for similar reasons. I'm however only concerned with the first problem. You do promote “lived experience” in this very article, for example. An astute reader also notices the typical feature of postmodern social justice writing, that it is mostly meta-discourse rather than enlightening a subject. Very typical. But I don't really care about that article and I no longer care about improvements. Actually, I'd be happy when the RationalWiki was known as a postmodernist social justice project, solving problem one. It would be truthful and you had more sucess like this with Cher, rather than trying to appeal to the science-minded community you largely lost anyway. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear — when you talk about "the promotion of lived experience" and the "typical feature of social justice writing", you are referring to the current TERF article, right? Because you used the word "you", and I wondered if you meant that I was writing in some "typical social just warrior" way. Speaking of "lived experience", I've recently clarified my skepticism against those viewpoints. Also, just so you don't lose track of things — the TERF article is not even bronze rated. That means we consider it to be pretty ass. Even Gerard said so on the talkpage. So most criticisms against the current article that pertain to quality are likely true. And for the record — the suggestion that RationalWiki is on some kind of slippery slope towards becoming a "postmodernist social justice project" made me exhale sharply through the nose. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't exactly like postmodernism here (in the sense postmodernism is even "one thing", and/or in the sense postmodernism is even intelligible). And as far as "social justice" goes (a concept I think we don't share a definition of) — as you no doubt already know, RationalWiki is healthily divided between making fun of all the assholes who use the term "SJW" the way their peers say "cultural marxism", and debunking stuff like trigger warnings and power plus prejudice. Not exactly the clear-cut SJW cuckster safe space you make it out to be. You also know me as a supporter of Hugh Mungous. And before you plant your flag (for the infinitieth time) declaring that those really interested in (and representative of) science have been driven away, you should be aware that I proudly consider myself a passionate member of that exact science-minded community. And I'm hardly alone in that (though I am one of our most active editors). I was was even elected by popular vote to the RMF foundation board on the radfem mangina platform of "focusing more on the actual pseudoscience" (look up my election platform). We're less of an echo chamber than you might think, even though we generally don't keep any monologues about SJW's that you insert into semi-random mainspace articles. So please — enough with the ad naseum melodrama, dude. I don't know which outlook you think you represent, but tonally, it appears to be based on melancholic community theatre of some sort. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Communism

How many of yous are communists? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what definition you're using. Is belief in Marxist eschatology a necessary requirement? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Where all property is publicly owned, following a class war, everyone is paid and works depending on their needs. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Er... not me. I think Marx had some useful ideas on the ways societies change over time, applying his class warfare dialectic, but I can't imagine human beings, as they exist today, ever successfully forming a utopian communist society like Marx described. At the same time, I also can't imagine human beings creating a serious free-market society like libertarian ideologies suggest. We're too competitive for the former, and we're naturally stratifying for the latter. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are not a Hoxhaist, then you are not a true Communist, just a schismatist. Bongolian (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Never have been. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone a commie these days? The only commies I see are Trots and Maoists and even then they don't get anywhere. Titoists blew up with Yugoslavia, Schactmanites (third camp) became neocons, NeoTrots went into the trash bin of history, Castroists will disappear when Cuba likely goes through shock therapy, Eurocoms fucked right off, and leftcoms never really got anywhere. Any "old left" parties are usually too busy worshipping their leader in a cult, covering up rape, apologising for Stalin, or selling old Marxist works and newspapers. I know there are plenty of Anarcho-coms but besides blogging, I don't think they have achieved anything noticeable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Great response TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have never had an issue with the commies, I just find that they have disappeared from modern politics, at least in the West, and will unlikely be able to return.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha, proof that they were planted by the soviet union! No more soviets, no more commies. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not a commie.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So all property is publicly owned but everybody gets paid, meaning you can only spend your money in the service sector. Imagine what that does to monetery theory. There's a limit to how much you can spend on haircuts or eating in restaurants. And since you can't own anything, you spend nothing on mechanics or plumbers. Oh, let me guess, in this service sector paradise, healthcare is free, despite the fact people have hoards of cash and nothing to spend it on. Sounds wonderful.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 05:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No communist society has ever abolished all personal possessions, although abolishing land ownership is a common suggestion (some proposed systems allow for farmers/workers to own their own land/tools/means of production), and most interpretations of "to each according to their needs" are based on distributing goods to the needy rather than having someone steal the food from your mouth. If hypothetically you abolish possessions you'd almost certainly abolish money too, which makes your complaint pretty much meaningless. Annquin (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So no one can own real estate. We must be a nation of renters or fuedal serfs. That's very progressive. As to personal property, communists have used something like the US tax code's definition of non-depreciable property, property with a useful life of three years or less. Assets with a useful life of more than three years are perks handed out by the state, such as automobiles or houses. This of course led to the phenomena of 30 million blacks in Aparteid South Africa by 1989 owning more cars and houses than 300 million white people in the Soviet worker's paradise.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 15:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Marx (in concert with Engels) was much like Aristotle — one of those must-read thinkers of history, who was also dead wrong about the majority of things he ever argued. He was also, for the record, a terrible historian. Like most corageous thinkers, his own views on things also alternated (to the point of contradiction) during his own lifespan.

Rosseau, the saint of the jacobins, was also a very important philosophical engine for the development of communist thought. His luddite primitivism and utopian view on the innocence of children and the nature of man (and positively racist view of the innocence of "natives"), combined with his paranoid view of modern man, and especially with his ultra-neurotic and dangerous theory of the general will (derived entirely from his own crippling fear of aggression) all compound with the worst sides of Marx in modern communist thought.

Moving over to communism in practice, Lenin was insane; a poor theorist and a violent activist. Stalin was a monster. Mao was also a deranged thug. Need we even mention Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty and the rest?

Communism is incredibly interesting. Fascinating, even. But it's also the insanest political misfire in all of history when it comes to attempting world utopia, as it has and continues to do. A bit like with Voldemort; the communist track record spans between being a complete dud, and resulting in great things — terrible things, but great things.

Either way, writing as essentially a social democrat, communism is to social democracy what dominionism is to deism. Meaning, it's like a menacing caricature of the latter, boggled down by an absolute layer cake of ideological garbage, and with the volume turned way, way up (in the late Christopher Hitchen's words) "as if to drown out the terrible emptiness".

No, I am not a communist. I don't think the motives of individual people who are communist are bad. And not everyone opposing communism has an ethical bone in their own bodies, either. I just know perfectly well that the communist mumbo jumbo does not fly (and in each of their staggering, leaden-shoed attempts at finally getting their ideal society airborne — if only for a second — they tend to cause enormous harm to innocent people, the environment, the unity of mankind and so on). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But, but there are a few successful communist experiments like anarchist Catalonia (defeated), Ukrainian Free Territory (defeated), the Zapatistas (two decades running), or Rojava (having the behemoth of the Turkish military breathing down their neck and facing ISIS on the other side). Of course you could argue how much these examples are actually communist as in Rojava for example, they would allow private companies to compete against co-ops, and such a scenario would in my opinion just lead to another capitalist free market as the odds are heavily stacked against the co-ops obviously.

However I agree with basically most points raised here so far and the forceful implementation of utopia has ironically resulted in hell on earth. The alternative which would be to use libertarian socialist means to achieve communism has, as said above, no practical presence beyond the internet. That's why I pretty much see spontaneous and leaderless groups or protests like Occupy Wall street or Black Lives Matter as the way forward to achieve a desirable (communist, as say gift economy-based) eysociety in the (very very) long run. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 13:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with communist economic theory revolves around Marx's flawed surplus value theory which assumes because factory infrastructures exist, they will always be producing a profit. This then is built into a massive, juvenile, political threory of class warfare, revolution, redistribution, collective ownership, etc etc. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 15:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, you deny the existence of surplus value? That's "interesting"... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

WP says Marx misunderstood or misspplied the term right in its Intro. Then, after tearing the whole idea apart, in a section called, Morality and power of surplus value marked as possible original research, it goes on to critique Prof. Lester Thurow of MIT who was a lone voice if criticism against Reaganomics in the 1980s, trying to resussitate and rehabilitate Marxist doctrine as it was being spread over the ash heap of history. Even Thurow, last I recall, backed off some of his idiot apologetics of the 1980s.

But I think I thumbnailed it pretty good above.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's no surplus value then how can this be explained? Surplus value produced by workers is appropriated from them, no matter how you cut it - and then certain people have the nerve to claim that workers are parasites... ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 21:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it's useless to discuss Marxist theory without differentiating between absolute and relative value — without it, the entire framework for Marxist value interpretation goes out the window. Secondly, as Popper pointed out clearly already in his book The Poverty of Historicism, the Marxist concept of "value" is literally not subject to falsification, even in principle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not ssying there is no surplus value, I'm saying Marx's theory of surplus value is wrapped up in a bunch of psuedo-intellectual mumbo jumbo and dangerous nonsense. The question surrounds the ownership of capital; capitsl is the unconsummed portion of GDP from previous years. Capital then provides the tools and materials for workers to produce their own subsistence the following year. Marx claims a worker who consumes 100% of his subsistence in a given year, then has some legal or moral claim on the property of those who accumulated capital from previous years, above and beyond the natural rate of wages.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 21:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck is the "natural rate of wages"? That sounds like pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo to me. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The natural rate can vary from town to town or year to year, based upon labor market conditions. The availability of skilled workers in a given profession. <an aside>My daughter just changed her major from biochemistry & pharmacology to economics. I am so damn proud. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 21:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

In other words it has little if any predictive value and does not seem to be a concept well attested in applicable literature. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the point is it is not fixed or pegged. Wages are constsntly changing from place to place and time to time, not because of greedy unfair capitalists, but because of the availability of workers. But the key point is the concept of "value". What is value? How is value determined?

A box of tampons, for instance, is of no value to me, not in use, sale, or barter. I wouldn't keep them around the house. I'd throw them in the trash. OTOH, a box of tampons is of value to a person in need, and under certain conditions, even more than the retail purchase price at the store. So value is a subjective concept, and should not be confused with profit. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'd call myself a miniature l communist because I want society to drastically change. You can argue with me over the fine points, but I think the general idea is right. PB (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Marx's later works, in that a capitalist society will naturally transition to a communist society due to eventual automation of all human labor. I don't agree with the Marxist-Leninist and derivative attempts to "speed up" the process, which doesn't make sense in Marxist theory anyway, without Lenin and Stalin's "notes" and "explanations." I do believe that workers should be protected as we continue to transition, however. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Robsmith, you seem to misunderstand what surplus value actually means. Marx never claimed it to be a fixed quantity. Quite the contrary. Marx - correctly - pointed out, that all value ultimately derives from human labor. And that the difference between the labor put into a product (e.g. it takes 15 cent in labor cost to transform 1€ of leather into 100€ of soccer ball) and the money the owner of the means of production makes is significant, inherent to the system of private ownership of means of production and needs a technical term to be described. He could have called it tuches, if you'd liked that better. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No. You are not describing Marx's concept of surplus value. You are describing other writer's pre-Marx descriptions of value added. Marx took those same ideas and claimed the owner of the capital who supplied tools and materials had no rights, and the worker of a finished good was entitled to more than a wage rate for his labor. Marx ignored fundemental dynamics, such as depreciation and replacement costs, market competition for finished goods, supply and demand schedules, etc., and argued the worker was getting fucked, the greedy capitalist had no place in the system othet than a parasite, and if inequalities arose a guild of government bureaucrats could regulate things and settle disputes. The biggest flaw, and the thinking remains today, is that a profit making enterprise is perpetual. In fact, it is a delicate balance to begin and maintain any economic enterprise on a solid footing with a positive cash flow. Any modest ripple can upset the balance, such as excessive worker demands that eat into the enterprises ability to expand or replace depleted capital. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 15:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The tools supplied by the owner of capital were originally built by another set of workers. Everything, even something simple like a pen or a hammer, is a social product. I don't see a reason why a certain group which just so happened to gain capital and acquire tools should reap most of the value. Without workers using the means of productions, they would be utterly useless to the owner who has no skill in operating them like for instance that same owner has no need for a box of tampons if he's male. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 09:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So the question resolves itself very quickly into ownership of capital. Capital is unconsummed produce of previous years (savings). The savings or capital are produced by labor. IOW, capital is the labor product which has not been fully depleted or consumed yet. Mind you, there is no private ownership of capital in this system, i.e. one person cannot own the labor product of another, neither can an individual own their own labor product because he might have more than his neighbor and that would be unequal. So it is a nation of slaves, where all are forced to labor just to feed, cloth, and house society, and everyone is compelled by labor to contribute with the profit motive removed. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 15:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

4-Year-Old Approved for Gender Reassignment

A four year old has been approved for a gender reassignment operation to be conducted in Australia. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This lacks context. Who approved it on what motivation? Was there a question of standard sex assignment surgery at birth(a real thing that happens, FYI) that were deferred? Was there an overwhelming gender dysforia that could be detected at that age? Whatever medical professionals approved this almost certainly had their reasons, and lacking those, it's all just hot takes. I have no opinions other than "I don't know enough to have an opinion" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

or the ethical questions of informed consent and children's rights. Who gonna do the surgery, Dr. Mengele? nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 17:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of hot take I'm expecting to see a lot of. Useless conjecture based on assumptions about the medical details of the case. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Consent at that age is determined by the guardians/parents. The child requested it; the parents wish to comply with the child's wishes. Surgery will occur at the Sydney Children's Hospital, where they do such reassignment surgeries for children as young as three. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC::)

Wow. Have we come a long ways. This was a charge against Hillary Clinton in 1992, that she believed children had rights. Seems the family values conservativism side wins out. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether the child has rights, but what the law states on those under the age of majority. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked into this case? I don't know what the final disposition is, but the doctors who performed a sex reassignment on a 16 month old are alleged to have violated the child's civil rights.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course Rob. If you haven't noticed, the radical "left" today now supports the very things that the far right once did, but for "good" reasons. We used to view content warnings like tipper stickers as the thin edge of the wedge for mandatory censorship, but now embrace trigger warnings. We used to embrace cultural exchange such as listening to "jive" music like rock'n'roll or jazz, but now abhor "appropriation". We once feared the newspeak of 1984, but using medical terms that might be perceived as demeaning are double plus ungood. StickySock (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're very "concerned" about these issues "we" are causing, aren't you? You're certainly not comparing a government mandated label to a useless measure some people opt to take as a courtesy, or anything equally, and drawing "out" attention "our" problems. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've personally used trigger warnings for a while now, mostly in the XKCD rape forum. Read some of the stuff there, it's basically like reading the letter from that Stanford rape case where the guy spent 3 months in jail. But more letters. Stories. After stories. Horror. Anyway, that was a place where trigger warnings were needed; the forum was such that it was expected that the topics could trigger those with PTSD. But then somehow trigger warnings spread from the Internet forums to elsewhere. At that point it became a parody of itself. You have people demanding trigger warnings and forcing them in places where they shouldn't be. That's very dangerous, because it basically allows for de facto censorship. Remember that NO government law forces Walmart to not carry tipper sticker albums, they just crush the competition and effectively become a local monopoly where the Waltons decide what is Approved Viewing.

It doesn't need to be government controlling your actions for you to be in a fascist state, only that someone is controlling your actions "for the greater good". StickySock (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue of children's rights in 1992 that Hillary was attacked on surrounded a 16 year old girl who was allowed a medical proceedure - an abortion - in some states without parental consent. Hillary's appologists did do a good job in explaining her advocacy and refuting Buchanan. But it still boils down to the question in medical ethics of informed consent. Hell, some states to this day do not allow tattooing or body piercings of minors even with the informed consent of parents. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If it doesn't have the force of law behind it, then it can be totally ignored. No private citizen can tell me to do shit unless I agree to them ordering me about. And if you don't like Walmart being a local monopoly, then make a law forbidding them to be.

Remember - if it's legal, it's legit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

1. The fuck do voluntary actions have to do with the far right government-mandating of said items?
2. The fuck does this have to do with gender reassignment? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested by child, parents wish to comply, approved by the New South Wales Department of Education under the Safe Schools Initiative. Not that is known; birth gender of the child is being kept secret due to age. Supposedly, gender dysphoria is confirmed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for people, including kids of whatever age, living as their preferred gender or non-gender (for that matter), but it seems very problematic to encourage 4-year-olds to permanently have bits of their body removed/altered in order to achieve this. Especially considering the reason there is demand for these kinds of surgeries is mainly due to social osmosis of (biologized) gender essentialism. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What is “biologized gender essentialism”? I came across “gender essentialism” many times, and can wield search engines, but they don't yield conclusive results. It's one of those terms, along with patriarchy, rape culture etc that means many things to many people. Some deny that sexes don't really exist, and think gender essentialism (or gender binary) means something like sexual dimorphism — which they reject, including some RationalWiki article. Some think gender essentialism is a strong form of gender-role conformity (“girls not liking pink aren't real girls”), which is likewise rejected. So it's always a term that has a strong negative connotation. The unifying theme is that opponents, whatever their views, are comfortable with the confusion as long as it means something negative and they challenge the status quo. So what do you mean, and especially what do you mean by “biologized”? ~ Aneris ✻ 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler: it's not a term of art, but just asserting a biology-centric view of gender existentialism, which, if you haven't noticed can come from metaphysical assertions like religion or observational places like Aristotle's version. They didn't use a great word, but I can't honestly believe you didn't catch their intended meaning. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

When you think it obvious which version is meant, a strong or weaker one, why didn't you explain it straight away and do away with the unproductive habit of meta-discourse. I also assume you meant “gender essentialism”, and not “gender existentialism”— but if not, I never heard of that one, and appreciate if you can explain or link to some resource. Also, certain terms, like biologistic, reductionistic, scientistic are — I know, it's annoying — from the science-critical pomo discourse (in our times and in this area; though it's not surprising to me that it always pops up in so-called “social justice”, since its the nature nurture of the beast). ~ Aneris ✻ 00:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

When you think it obvious which version is meant, a strong or weaker one, why didn't you explain it straight away and do away with the unproductive habit of meta-discourse.- Aneris

Because you are a known crank who's only pretending to not understand the term so that you can go on another rant about how the SJWs are controlling and ruining the world using post-modernistic mind control, likely masterminded by CUCK POPE FRANCIS since the Catholics invented social justice in the first place.

What, you think we're going to take you seriously at this point? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What Castaigne is doing here: 1) “we” to speak on behalf of a hivemind 2) establishing alleged facts, e.g. “known crank” 3) othering and association, by bringing up “cuck”, a term I never used, but which is prominent in Castaigne's mind. At the same time, Castaigne wrote about himself:

To clarify, I've even been invited to white nationalist conferences under the couple of identities I use on Stormfront. That last one in TN was a fucking hoot (Stormfront Smokey Mountain Summit 2015, to be exact). Although, you won't have a lot of luck googling for my name on Stormfront; I've never posted there under this name.- --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)*

Great then that you are some kind of arbiter and spokesperson here. Do you run the official RW twitter account, too, that still endorsed the self-confessed paedophile Nyberg after having admitted to it, who also was a nazi? It all makes sense now. Further, I can't help but point out that there are at least two different forms of gender essentialism critiques, which I dubbed strong and weak forms, and even that is an abstraction that simplifies things, a lot. ~ Aneris ✻ 03:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• gender essentialism - the notion that men and women (and optional other genders?) have different 'essences'
• biologized - here, the coupling of sociocultural categories with certain biological features

I hope that clears it up for you. I, of course, don't deny that there's some sexual dimorphism in the human species. But the existence of biological differences doesn't mean we need to divide people into different social groups according to those differences. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not good. As a four year old I can't even remember a whole lot about the decisions I was making. For instance, I remember trying to pull off the gallon milk jug off the counter because I thought I was strong enough to pour myself a glass of milk. Turns out I couldn't. What will happen when they do this surgery, and later down the road, its my god, what happened to me? Why did my parents allow this? Then you can't go back. Ever. That would be a god damn tragedy. Its nothing compared to spilled milk.Roo (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

How can one pretend...

...that it's a coincidence that the major figures of the MRAs, the PUAs, the neo-reactionaries, GamerGate, Chan culture, the alt-right, human bio-diversity, etc., all happen to promote white nationalism in one form or another? And at the same time, fight against "SJWs"?
It's no wonder I hate them. I've always hated white nationalists; anti-science, anti-intellectual, and (despite their their bleatings about saving "Western civilization") anti-civilization to the core. They are the antithesis of everything I work for - the further progression of technological, industrialized civilization. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

the industrial revolution came from western Europe, particularly Britain, did it not? Do you not see your statement as a contradiction. There was no industrial revolution in the Congo.Schizophrenic (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Question. Do white nationalists include people of Polish descent? cause Poles seem to tske s lot of shit from white people.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think so. It's kinda like how the Iranians were considered Aryans, so the term is somewhat fluid.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the Poles are taking shit from white people, I'd like to know where. I haven't heard a Pole joke IRL since high school. Now the chans or Reddit? Different story. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

link 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Racial supremacists have always used ethnogeographic and ethnocultural definitions of race, nothing remarkable there. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Polish immigrants are a common target for racist & xenophobic abuse & attacks in the UK. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a terrifying reaction by rebellious, entitled white kids. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

After WW2 and with colonialism going out of style, white nationalists have quickly become the go-to reject of modern Western society, so it's no surprise that they pop up in various fringe groupings. Troublingly however, their rhetoric seems to be gaining in acceptance again. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

PUA and MRA and so forth are the kids that were promised everything but when forced into the real world were horrified that they didn't have it. And yes, promised; every movie had the dumpy "nice guy" with few redeaming qualities get the hot girl within 2 hours. Rather than look inward, they blame society. They see a woman with a decent job and it's feminism's fault for giving women independence and thus the ability to not be forced into a relationship with them. They see an interracial couple and it's the sex addicted black brute stealing all of da women. Always someone else to blame for their own failings. Thus, white supremecy; they are actually supposed to be the elite of society, but conspiracies by minorities prevent the true elite from being on top. StickySock (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne, didn't you write you even went to Stormfront conferences*, maybe you are troubled by your own projections? Your attempt of washing yourself by casting various groups as the evil other is not all that effective, in light of that. ~ Aneris ✻ 03:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Though Aneris, certainly you will agree that all promoters of "MRAs, the PUAs, the neo-reactionaries, GamerGate, Chan culture, the alt-right, human bio-diversity, etc." are crank as fuck? And conversely, that "the further progression of technological, industrialized civilization" is a most worthy goal? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The thriving of civilized society and the advancement of science and technology are nice goals, for sure. I dunno whether mixing the two into an ideal of a technological, industrialized civilization necessarily optimizes either of those goals. Is everyone walking around with industrially produced iPhones and similar gizmos objectively a great leap for science and/or human civilization? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

We are in the Anthropocene and amidth the Sixth Extinction, and I deem green progress as a most worthy goal that combines human needs with that of the environment (which is possible and even a driver of progress). If not attainable, at least progress that doesn't cause unrecoverable damage. With knowledge and technology comes responsibility.
~ But I don't believe these aforementioned groups have much to do with this, and have little to do with each other (outside of the feverish mind of SJWs who believe it's all about them vs everyone else {the patriarchy etc}, but of course everyone else is a conspiracy nut who sees SJW teaming up, plotting and sheming). Some MRA are true misogynists, but others appear to genuinely concerned with issues (e.g suicide rates). I knew four or so, then teens and twens who killed themselves. I can see this as a thing. But I find the focus on the gender angle silly and unproductive, and the problem is like with the “theory” on the other side: a trivially true core, and mountains of assumptions that condense into ideology. PUA are pathetic and abusive that makes them bad. But the casual followers appear to be shy young men who really want one (1) girlfriend. Maybe not. I don't know what the Neo-Reactionary supposed to be, and would think they are identical to Alt Right. Again, maybe not.
~ I detest the corner, and view them as dishonest freeloaders who exploit the situation on the Left and made it even harder for us to deal with the Regressives (who I view as Third Way, much like fascists, and not as genuine leftists, and I know this is slightly eccentric). Alt-Right and ctrl-left are like an abusive couple that feed each other's hatred and thus constantly produce outrage, fear and clicks. GamerGate is part hatemob, part legitimate criticism, part anti-SJW reaction. I know some types, because I know the situation well from atheism-skepticism, and that's where I can relate. I have no sympathy for the doxers and (genuine) harassers. But I trust SJWs even less, since I know dozens of stories that were flat out falsehoods (produced mostly through community dynamics), I have no way to know which accusations are legitimate without spending a lot of time, which I'm not willing to dedicate. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

^this PB (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You support Aneris now? Congratulations, welcome to the Mona Cabel, the reactionary dominate front of RationalWiki which supports the snarl word regressive left and is pro-Israeli genocide against the innocent Palestinians. Our side hobby is harassing the minority of editors who fight for the TRUE AND SUPPORTED worldview on gender issues. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Poe's Law dude. Just to clarify my actual positions here in brief: I oppose use of the word regressive and I'm pro-Palestine. Any questions? PB (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Regressive left is real though :( Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether "person" is a scientifically meaningful concept is already sketchy. Now you wanna say some abstract categorization of these alleged persons according to a perceived contradiction between the subjectively defined 'leftness' of their supposed 'political affiliation' and the subjectively defined 'rightness' of some of their supposedly reliably-established support for real-life 'policies' is real? Sounds like someone needs to look down an electron microscope more often. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

9/11

We will all remember.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It's still 10/9 where I'm at. Also, what's a 9/11? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Shut up-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 18:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the kuffar deserved it! /s Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Those eviiiiillll foreigners must be deported!-President Donald J. Trump (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Never forget!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fuck this thread. We should be talking about more important things, like the ceasefire proposal in Syria. PBfreespace (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There can no ceasefire while the khawarijis still live. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Why would the US bomb al Qaeda in Syria? Don't we need them to fight ISIS? Why is Obama, like Donald Trump, coddling up to Putin and bailing out Putin's boy Assad by bombing Assad & Putin's enemies?nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 01:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler: Trump is a atheistic Marxist Muslim just like Obama! Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

[Bleep] it!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's my friend's birthday. We're going to a pho restaurant for hotpot.Teurastaja (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts go out to the families of the victims, and I raise my glass to everyone who dares remember the part played in this plot by theism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Anti-bullying

Honestly school systems should focus on suicide prevention than anti-bullying. Lets face it, bullying will never go away.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorta like these shitposts. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Social intimidation is pretty inevitable in human societies, but there's plenty egregious forms of bullying which can and should be dealt with. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh... Stupid post. "Let's face it". Major trout slap for not wanting to help bullied kids. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider that zombie94 could be a bullied kid themselves, Rev. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 42016 AQD (UTC)

Maybe you should consider that I could be a bullied kid myself, 142. <.< Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So why the in-fighting? Fight the defeatism, not the messenger. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Murder will likely never go away. Maybe we should focus on better and cheaper funerals instead of forensic science to get the culprits behind bars. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We should focus on anti-bullying rather than suicide prevention. Lets face it, death will never go away. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What if we made the children go away? Much less bullying. Jagulard (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We should focus on banal pop culture rather than dealing with real issues and suffering. Lets face it, serious problems will never go away. CorruptUser (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider that Jagulard was banal pop culture as a kid themselves, CorruptUser. Lets face it, serious problems will never go away, we should focus on word games instead. ~ Aneris ✻ 09:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I was banal pop culture. All of it. Jagulard (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The invention of an ultra-annoying new fallacy: "Let's face it, X will never go away (so we should focus on Y instead)". Allows you to prop up anything with anything. Thanks, Obama! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's face it, fallacies will never go away, so let's ignore them and concentrate on punctuation and grammar. Neat! It works for anything. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Infectious diseases

Hillary Clinton probably has one, Donald Trump *is* one.

Seriously, though, feels like we're sleepwalking into a Trump presidency. She falls into the SS's arms and then lies about it. Trump holds rallies even with a strep throat. Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I read somewhere that she has pneumonia.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I heard she was running for President. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I heard she was the spawn of Satan and hell-bent on socializing Wall Street with black helicopters. Oh and she thinks the US military should used on occasion. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I heard she was Patient Zero for Asian bird flu. Basically the vector for the Walking Dead virus, is what I'm saying. Plutoniumboss (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously a progressively deteriorating nuerological disorder. Campaigning and crowds bring on stress, making her ability to cope with the disease worse. It's not partisan to discuss this. Die hard supporters denying the obvious facts are the ones putting the stress on her to perform when she obviously can't. Face facts, Karl Rove for the first time prooved validity of the stopped clock theory.

And we've seen this pattern of conduct with both Clinton's before: a tendency to drive themselves physically to excess, beyond what is healthy. Be it Bill who talked himself hoarse before the 1992 election (Hillary had to become the chief mouthpiece), or Hillary who refused treatment for life-threatening thrombosis in the 1998 off-year elections while she campaighed for others. This is where they got reputations for unhealthy obsessive ambitions.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 23:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

They should spend more time in Crawford and play golf. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, they don't live together and rarely see each other. Honestly, I have nothing but compassion for the ol' gal at this point. She made him. Supported him every step of the way. Where is he now in her hour of need? Out chasing whores. I've told myself 1000 times I'd vote for her if she would only promise to divorce that piece of shit the day after taking office.

Sen. Jacob Javits died of Lou Gerhig's disease, which left him totally without motor function, only a mind that could think and vote in the US Senate. It was sad to see him wheeled onto the Senate floor, motionless in a hospital bed, to vote on some pending issue before the Senate. He thought he could win re-election on the strength of his name, but unable to campaign, he lost a primary to Alfonse D'Mato. With President Hillary, more and more it conjures up those images of Jake Javits.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Where's User:Donald J. Trump? He should be here by now!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 00:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"I'd vote for her if she would only promise to divorce" Sure. I'm a Never-Trumper but...'

And that goes for all of you "undecided" pussy voters, as well. You know who you're voting for, you're just trying to be a special snowflake. We're two months away, c'mon. There's nothing either candidate can say or do now to change your opinion. Plutoniumboss (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There will be a YUUUUUUUUUUGE turn out for me!-President Donald J. Trump (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"The government is your enemy" rhetoric

The "government is your enemy" rhetoric has been covered by media associated with conspiracy theories, but also the severely marginalised:

Examples:

• http://www.naturalnews.com/052227_bad_government_Uncle_Sam_voter_dissatisfaction.html
• http://www.youngagain.org/economic112015.html

However, I do not know if this rhetoric requires an article of its own of a section within another, hence I'm not sure if to put this up in the "To do list" yet. Please comment. --User4501 (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Good find. That stuff goes here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What's up with deleted revisions?

Can anybody just delete revisions and nobody but moderators can see them? That's a bit strange, if you ask me. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If you enable the "not even other admins can see this" checkbox, sure. Doxxing is not okay. And I'm not losing any sleep over a drive-by doxxer's revisions being memoryholed. If there's ever accusations of misuse, we'll settle them when they come up. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with deleting revisions of the type that had to be deleted today. You ask "what's up" with the deleted revisions? I'll tell you what's up — drive-by shitnuggets are attempting to doxx people (and we have sysops who act swiftly and justly in response to that). That's what's up. Further, our moderators are elected by the mob, which means they enjoy the trust and support of the community. There's nothing "strange" about this arrangement whatsoever. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mop power!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems my initial post sounded more belligerent than it was intended. Sorry. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon the internet I found a fetid corpse

At some point, futex.com.au was a small wiki that had something to do with C64s and Raspberry Pi.

Then, on 12 August 2016, the bots came. The site has more than 500 edits a day.

Watch as CandyColley64 has an identity crisis -- then Dora, now Juan, now Russ, now Tamika.

You can get roulette tips, "Femdom Cam Chat On A Budget: Seven Tips From The Great Depression", roulette tips, BDSM Video Chat Customer Service, and roulette tips.

Meanwhile, the Main Page is now an eternal edit war about how best to phrase an ad for a garage door opener.

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. CHEAP garage door opener $34!!! beside remains.

If RationalWiki ever dies, I can only hope that it should die like this. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh my God... Go to the main page and just F5 it a couple of times. The text literally changes every few seconds, and that's without having any type of rotating text code. It's literally the page getting blanked and replaced with something different. Eerie, almost poetic.

Thinking about how humanity has perished, leaving only these editing bots behind to fight their eternal war reminds me of the video game SOMA. And of Total Annihilation (to the garage door ad spamming bots, their edit war may feel as biblical as the struggle between the Core and the Arm). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

My belly literally hurts from the laugh I just had... What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 20:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The narcissist in me wants to know if it was me or FCP who was responsible for causing that laugh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You know what might be fun? Actually trying to write a half serious article and see what the bots do to it. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 22:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The scientific spirit of experiment, indeed! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Let the experiment begin! Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 23:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha. (Write something on the talkpage too; maybe the bots have unique settings for talk pages.) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the bot user pages there link to other wikis that have been taken over by bots, for example, this one. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Instead of blocking it completely, could the next spambot to come here be allowed to continue editing its own user page? It might then start saying things like, "I'm from France. No, I mean Belgium. Do you want to play roulette with me? Open your garage door with your penis." Spud (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

MFW Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, sounds like the start of the AI takeover, what with messianic advertising bots inventing new and thrilling dare games for us hoomans, cunningly devised to make us amputate our reproductive organs. "French-Belgian Roulette — close your garage door on your penis in one simple step!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Interesting project: since tbere are links to other infected wikis, why dont we create a web spider to map out infected wikis. I am okay at programming, though i have no practical experience, with a bit of reading i could setup something basic, though there are probably people who can do it better than me. We could use this "spam map" to just figure out how these bots target wikis, or it could just be for our amusement, whichever. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 16:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole situation is just laugh out loud funny. Plus penis door garage. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"You should try adding tooth paste from the golf hole to area it up when your spaces are seeking rough as a result of nicks and dings in your walls. Tooth paste can complete small nicks effortlessly and will maintain your space looking fantastic. This really is a cheap substitute and a quick solution." Sheer poetry. Bicycle^wheel 20:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"After playing French-Beligan Roulette, you should try adding tooth paste to fill in the hole left from your penis." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the articles have evolved into how to spy on your spouse with spyware if you suspect they are cheating on you like these examples. There are also fashion articles that particular example with this gem: "Those. jean. things that hang off her. along with her . panties.hanging out." And, "I'M NOT LETTING HER OUT With the HOUSE LOOKING In this way!" [sic]. The spam seems to evolve! It went from incoherent articles on "Femdom Camshows" to articles on how you cannot let your daughter go out with your house if her panties are hanging out. I wonder if the spambots evolved in a sense or if their programming was changed, or if these are completly new spambots replacing the old ones. This is interesting... Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 22:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly's political eulogy for his mom....

....is live on WND. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, AH! Welcome back bud! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back Hippie. Peace. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed nice to see you again, AH. I hope this isn't just a flying visit. Spud (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think AH is staying. We definetly haven't met his criteria for return. We came close in July. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Andy with the accidental truth. "Her successful “STOP ERA” effort did more to define the conservative movement today than any other struggle." It sure did. So representative of bringing the worst of America to the forefront of one party's ideology. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

He even missed the irony of quoting Trump in his obit, thus confirming that Phyllis' death is in fact all about Trump! Bongolian (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Scribunto

I wonder if RationalWiki can install Scribunto so that we can upgrade the citation system to use citations in the same way as Wikipedia does now? --User4501 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You could atleast dignify his question by providing some reasons, Fuzzy? Come on, be nice. :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To give a real answer, we're working on upgrading MediaWiki so Scribunto is available. No ETA, but when we got it, it will be gravy. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As an RMF board member... Wait; we are? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the upgrade should not be too hard, because I run one - from my experience the upgrade takes about one to two hours, but between 1.19 and 1.27.1, MediaWiki deprecated some features. I can advise if you need help, but an updated Mediawiki would really help with the mountain of questionables yet to tackle, such as this "oneness by PGR" (source: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZF5UMyocfNMESdf3r6xUfw/videos) --User4501 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The blockers are our shitty custom extensions which Trent confessed were "drunk code". WIGO doesn't work in 1.26 and so I expect it wouldn't in 1.27 - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘They are proving to be really drunk as I still haven't cracked how to fix them yet. Once I get it, we can go from there. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Should we implement CheckUser?

Note that this is not any type of official policy vote.

I'm merely personally interested in taking the pulse of the mobocracy on this question. I'm not asking by virtue of being a foundation member, but as an individual editor — and one with no editing experience whatsoever from wikis outside of RationalWiki (read: from wikis that actually run CheckUser as part of the administration of the site).

I'm no expert on CheckUser (part of the reason I'm asking), but I would advise complete newbies to read more about checkuser here and here before replying. Please help show me the way on this issue by providing some pros, cons and goats on the hypothetical question of implementing CheckUser once and for all.

And, once more, since this is not a vote, just providing a "yay" or "nay" signature doesn't do anything useful. It's the elaborations given that matter. By virtue of that however, the reasons you provide here could help direct how I personally would vote, was the case of CheckUser to be tried officially at a later time. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yay to CheckUser (elaborate on when/how it should be used)

1. Justice. PBfreespace (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Care to elaborate Batman? Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 22:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   We should be able to see if someone is a malicious sockpuppet of another user. If I'm really Davis56, a really bad banned editor for 2009, I think people should know. If Ryulong comes back, I think we deserve to know who it is. PBfreespace (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   if tbey came back and bebaved, why would wd care? At what point would we look? On registering? On blockable egregious behaviour? When your spidey sense is tingling? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   If a random, new account shows up and abrasively starts edit warring over GamerGate and Japan-themed articles with the fury of 10,000 suns, we'll just vandal bin said user for being a pig of a person Ruylong (in spirit, if nothing else). Problem solved, and no CheckUser required. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   We are a bunch of random as fuck people on the internet. There's no "we" team and there's no "them" team. Using what's likely an ineffective method to try to ban people instead of behavior doesn't make sense. B) talk 05:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nay to CheckUser (elaborate on why)

1. As far as I can tell, there's been no real reason to invoke it other than to settle "Is this a re-registration of user?" questions that really just make debates more personal. We have not, and I suspect will not, had egregious abuse of multiple accounts. Problems it solves: 0. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   So what's your stance on having sockpuppets inherit penalties? That rule becomes unenforcable (unless said sockpuppet pulls a John Gabriel and literally goes "It is I, you fools!") without CheckUser. Though, I'm not saying it's practically enforcable with CheckUser either (since, like with the NSA reading everyone's emails, actual terrorists will bother encrypting, and so on...) — not that the sockpuppet punishment inherence rule is necessarily a good rule to begin with (nor bad)... I just want to see all sides of the issue. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   I consider it a silly waste of time, mostly. For all intents and purposes, a new user repeating unacceptable behaviors is just as bannable as someone who re-registered to the same. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Since the rule to have sockpuppets inherit penalties was in fact voted into effect, does this mean you recommend that we clarify or change that rule via a new vote, to specify that it can only be extended to sockpuppets who themselves identify as being the socks of a particular user? As it stands now, we have rules against snooping out people's details and trying to out/doxx them, but at the same time, we have that rule that lets punishment fall on socks that can be proven to belong to a punished user. This needs solving, and I'm siding strongly on the side of privacy, not on having punishments "stick" (per se). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Oh, well. Hm. I don't know how to enforce that then. I suppose it would have to be through obnoxious application of checkuser. Or rampant speculation like on the coop right now. Either way I think it's a serious waste of time. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   But even with "obnoxious application of CheckUser", it's still completely bypassable via simple proxies? Never mind the fact that one could argue innocence if it's not the exact same IP, just another dynamic IP from the same block of IP's (e.g. from the same city of a million residents)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

2. it is a violation of privacy, I don't think anyone here wants to have their ip looked at by anyone, especially if it is only turned on because pb is going on The Great Sock Puppet Crusade. if we do allow it (which we should not) it should be moderator and admin only, don't want people taking peeks at ip's. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 18:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Oh my god. That too. I do not want any ass with a mop deciding internet stalking is A-OK and just jumping on board. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Having recently been the subject of extortion attempts (although unrelated to RW), I agree that it's imperative that we help all of our users — never mind "high profile targets" like the RMF board members — to stay as anonymous as they choose to be. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

3. CheckUser is unnecessary, besides it could be abused.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 22:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
4. No. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Could you please elaborate on your position, old friend? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

5. no on pirinciple, no on the vagueness of who wnd how its imp!emented, no as i wouldnt trust many here with it. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   I agree. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

6. It has never been needed by RationalWiki, since our community standards have never explicitly banned sockpuppets (indeed, many prominent RationalWikians of years past held numerous sockpuppets, including the creator and original owner of this very account). As such, and with so many ex post facto sockpuppets, where would we draw a line that sockpuppetry is/isn't allowed? It's really a solution in search of a problem, because problem users who create socks usually wind up getting those socks in trouble anyways. Furthermore, it would mean a radical change to RationalWiki's MediaWiki software which, I believe, also as a matter of technical principle, requires the consent of the RMF Board. And these reasons are just for starters. Yellow (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you for your well-considered reply. And for the record — atleast based on this particular Saloon bar discussion — we have atleast two current RMF board members (me and Fuzzy, see below) who openly reject the idea of implementing CheckUser. Further, wouldn't you agree that the points you make here (and which I agree with perfectly) stress the need for us to revise the relatively new rule on sockpuppet penalty inheritance? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   "New rule?" I see nothing in the rules about sockpuppets, which tells us that any so-called "rules" were created by fiat, and should be null and void as such. RationalWiki has functioned fine for 9 years without such rules and I see little compelling reason it would need one now. Yellow (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   Well, it's actually not fiat, but a rule that was officially voted on and implemented — under moderator supervision — in the Saloon bar in April of this year. Though just earlier today I was making the exact same point you make now. And I've been calling for said rule to be revised all day, here and in the coop. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   That so-called rule was never drafted officially into the actual Community Standards (the actual rules). As such, I'd say that vote in April was advisory only; a bit like the Brexit vote if you will. Until it's actually drafted into policy and put in the Community Standards, it's not actually an actual rule. After all, you cannot expect a prospective sockpuppeteer or, for that matter, new user to search the backlogs of the Saloon Bar for some obscure vote from a longtime ago. Yellow (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   Considering penalty action has been implemented on users by both sysops and mods — with permittance from the mob — since, and based on, that exact ruling, I'd wager it's not a meaningless statute. That being said however, we need not argue about this. My point is that our community standards far outweigh it, and that it's a highly problematic statute anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   Such rules also go against previous precedent set by, among others, no less thanTrent himself towards one of our most historically unpopular members, as a means of allowing them to get a clean slate without their reputation attached. Such a shame this place no longer believes in courtesies. Yellow (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

7. There is the potential that CheckUser could be abused badly, and cause drama far worse than what this place sees on occasion now. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   I agree (though, I must admit I am rather under the impression that both abuse and worsened drama would be a likely — and not just potential — consequence). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

8. Based on experience on anothet wiki it is unreliable and nobody knows how to use it properly.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you for your reply! Which Wiki, if I may ask? In which sense was it unreliable there? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   There was much discussion at the time, public and private. CP of course whitewashed many pages, but there should be some in RW. After the evidence was presented to me in CP I ran checkuser on myself and got not only the same results, but also that I was a sock of Conservapedia:Joaquín Martínez as well, which isn't true. I have those checkuser logs squirrelled away somewhere. But it destroyed my faith in checkuser, and realized if it was to be used as a valid tool, you need specialized training or it needs technical upgrades, or both. Not any idiot can use it, and wikis shouldn't put blind faith in it til these false positives are ironed out. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

9. Consider getting rid of the problem, not the symptom. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
10. One less thing the Kent Hovinds of the world can subpoena. NeverTrump! (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    A critical point; thank you! Like the VPN operators use to say — we can't give out what we don't have. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat to CheckUser (please wipe down afterwards)

1. Undecided. On the first hand, if the person comes back and doesn't cause problems, I don't care if that person used to be a complete nutjob like LogicMaster. On the other, if we don't have checkuser, there is little punishment in perma-bans beyond "you won't be able to vote for things for at least 3 months of good/productive behavior on a new account". CorruptUser (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   But what about the ease of evading CheckUser? All you need's a proxy, free or otherwise. The people who don't bother setting up proxies to evade CheckUser would be the ones that stood the most risk, if not all actual risk, of being identified via CheckUser, possibly as part of attempts to doxx them. It would reduce the anonymity for all of us. What are your thoughts on that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Given the nature of this site and the actual death threats we tend to get every year or so, not to mention that in many parts of the world atheists are still "in the closet", maintaining anonymity should remain a high priority. If it comes down to CheckUser, that should be limited to Moderators and maybe Techs. CorruptUser (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   CheckUser should obviously be limited to mods (Techs automatically get mod rights).--JorisEnter (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   I will agree that — even in the case that we had CheckUser — it would have to be restricted to mods and techs only. Not for individual sysops to perform their own investigations (worthwhile and well-intentioned as those might be). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   I didn't realize I had unintended mod powers. I'm only a tech so I can keep an eye on auto-filters. I'll, um, keep not using them for anything else. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Limiting Checkuser to mods is not good enough imo. This site once elected a notorious troll as a mod. We have also seen mods go into meltdown mode. Even a good mod might accidentally abuse Checkuser as has happened at other sites. Do you trust all our future mods with the power to doxx? Weorthe (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   I trust the individuals, yes. What I don't trust is having the CheckUser feature at all. Just having it around might tempt people to the dark side during trying times... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Uncommitted to either side. It would reduce coop drama over Avenger socks, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Or would it cause the accusers to start pestering the moderators and techs to hand over IP data to them day in and day out? Which makes the community explode over the privacy issue? Which turns out to be proxy data anyway? Which the accusers argue is further proof of it being Avenger? Which spawns eleven additional branches of shitfesting in all directions? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Hand over IP data? That sounds like an unnecessary and overly confident demand. What might happen is that a user might poke a mod to CheckUser a suspected sock and then the mod can check and say "Yep, it's X's sock" or "Nope, not a sock". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   During coop times, you will agree that it's hardly rare for accusers and defenders alike to precisely make unnecessary and overly confident demands to the moderators. All I'm saying is, people who are constructing cases against other users will be querulantly trying to exhaust every possible avenue of investigation. Including, even in the best case, "just" asking a lot of "magic eight ball"-type questions to the mods, to which they have to reply in the way you describe, ad infinitum. The vagueness of the replies (which could, in theory, be given with higher specificity) will likely be seen as a breach of trust by the inquisitors. The giving out of any reply whatsoever will likely be seen as a breach of trust by the accused. I'm just saying that: people knowing there's information behing withheld will increase everyone's fear of being outed, while fanning the flames of fervency among any witch hunters. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

3. just what are the privacy rules on this site? What kind of safeguards are in place? I do not believe they cover check user nor are the current mods elected to use it. I certainly wouldnt trust any of the folk who have asked for it the past nor would i trust many of the more block happy folk currently around. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Here are the privacy standards Note how it explicitly bans use of ip data unless volunteered, and bans using that volunteered ip to discuss Geographic or personal data Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   so checkuser is banned. This vote is pointless. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Speaking of pointlessness... Before making that post, surely you read the bold text at the very opening of the initial paragraph, which clearly read "Note that this is not any type of official policy vote"? And the closing statement, which reads: "And, once more, since this is not a vote..."? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   then how can we even discuss checkuser when we have no official privacy policy. Speaking of which why do we not have an official privacy policy? Thats what we should be discussing.AMassiveGay (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   ...but we do have an official privacy policy. It's linked right above, see? What's with you and reading tonight? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   i misread your previous post. Please ignore AMassiveGay (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   No harm done, friend. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

4. any vote, informal or otherwise, is pointless without some idea of its implementation and safeguarding. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   What? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   if i say yes to checkuser what am i saying yes to? How is to be used? Who by? What systems are in place to prevent misuse? I might agree to some instances or not to others. I know answer to none of these questions so i can only say, no. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Well, that's my point too, I suppose. I was hoping enthusiastic CheckUser supporters to provide reasons — answers to those precise questions you list — but all I've gotten so far is PB declaring "Justice". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

   Please note that this was intended in jest, as many people criticize me for using this kind of language. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

   Fair enough! No harm done. But, would you mind elaborating further on why you're pro-CheckUser? What types of problems would it solve? What about AMassiveGay's questions listed here? Thoughts on that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A technical note

To re-add checkuser would require someone to edit a server-side table somewhere, and the chances of that are near zero. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Re-add? We once had it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, years ago, during the May 2011 crapfest. One user installed it to address a personal issue (someone accused him of being a sock), and the wiki decided it was a bad thing. He left and checkuser was uninstalled. I've been looking through old forums and threads that mention checkuser, and it seems the majority have never wanted it. Bicycle^wheel 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the scoop, old timer. I think my questionnaire above supports about the same conclusion — so far, only PB is in support of it, and he's declined to provide further reasoning (e.g. replying to AMassiveGay's questions). Which I don't blame him for — it's not his job to defend CheckUser, and besides, nobody seems to want it but him. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Literally the only reason for it is to check if Y is X's sock, and if we can't tell that from their behaviour then we're obviously too stupid to be trusted with it anyway. It's completely unnecessary on a small wiki where we all encounter each other daily and can get to know each other's ways. Bicycle^wheel 21:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)