RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive262

This is an archive page, last updated 25 October 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Gary Johnson Aleppolooza

How much of a story is it that Gary Johnson didn't immediately recognize the name of a major Syrian city? I'm struggling to see what the controversy actually is. Is it just the media trying to discredit a third party candidate for bullshit reasons rather than actually targeting his policies? CorruptUser (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If Syria wasn't the epicenter of, if not the biggest, definitely a top 3 foreign policy concerns right now, it's kinda hard to take someone who doesn't know the basics of the situation seriously. It's roughly the foreign policy equivalent to not knowing who Janet Yellen is. It raises questions like, "How can you even begin to formulate a policy on Syria if you don't know one of the biggest cities has been under starvation siege for the better part of 2 years?" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll bet you'd have a problem finding anyone in Syria who would recognise the name "Garry Johnson".--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is Janet Yellen? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 20:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you American? Because the name's pretty much only relevant to American domestic politics or rich people concerns elsewhere. But not knowing it would be more than enough for me to openly laugh at a presidential candidate. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Bernanke used to come up in every other Infowars article. It'll be interesting to see if this woman recieves the same negative spotlight, or if Alex only wants to joust men. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen exactly zero negative criticism of Johnson on this. He gave the response most Americans would give. And Hillary cannot answer the question either from informed journalists because she is directly respondible for the Syrian mess. Nobody wants to ask her how she would fix a massive humanitarian crisis that she personally, and unnecessarily, had a hand in causing. Let sleeping dogs lie. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It's further evidence of Johnson's proud ignorance:

“”Boosting his friend George W. Bush to reporters, Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico recalls a conversation they had at a conference on state government: "George turns to me and says, 'What are they talking about?' I said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'You don't know a thing, do you?' And I said, 'Not one thing.' He said, 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived.

——New York Times, July 28, 2000

Bongolian (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems the age of career politicians is winding down. You can't run for national office unless you're a total question mark, like Kennedy (or Obama, if we're being honest). It almost seems like the ideal president has to be some type of attractive salesman -- the real work is being down by faceless bureaucrats whom we never see. 24-hour cable news also makes it harder. Imagine if you're at work and your boss keeps looking over your shoulder, straightening chairs, correcting your punctuation, and getting angry if you talk too loud indoors. How do you get any work done? That's the job of the president: clown around in front of the cameras. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe ideal of the presidency. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Except they all become lobbyists once they are done. Also, I have never understood the attraction to Gary Johnson since he has always come off as a conservative opportunist who jumped of the Repub cruise before anyone else saw the iceberg.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, but if you're a conservative ideologue, the alternative right now is the iceberg. Or, you know, the utterly unacceptable idea of a centrist democrat. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hah. If there is one thing I've learned in the past six months, it's this: politicians talk big, but when the chips are down, they fold quicker then me on laundry day. And it's not unique to Americans by any means. Where are all the Remainers in the UK Conservative Party? They've all fallen silent. Maybe they know something we don't. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Plutoniumboss has a strong point: since Watergate, inside the beltway experience counts for zero. The one Washington insider who was elected - Papa Bush, was shown the door very quickly.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 17:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've made it unscathed through another natural disaster in Taiwan

In case anyone was wondering, I'm still safe and sound after the most recent natural disaster to hit Taiwan. Super Typhoon Meranti has left one person in Taiwan dead, thirty-eight people injured and thousands of houses without water or electricity. It could have been worse. The eye of the storm stayed out at sea and didn't pass directly over Taiwan. Anyway, all of that was in the south of the island. The north, where I live, was largely unaffected. On Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, it was very windy and very rainy, although not at the same time. That was all. I'm now enjoying the four day weekend I've gor for Mid-Autumn Festival. Spud (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're safe, buddy! Didn't know you were in Taiwan. Thanks for keeping us posted, anyways. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, potatoes, the most durable of vegetables. CorruptUser (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The potatoe, Dan Quayle's favorite vegetable. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 20:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

我喜好土豆. Yes I speak a little Chinese.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate says,"I like potato." LOL-Hail Satan 666 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Name for a fallacy

At least here in Germany, there is this really frequent type of bullshit argument that goes like "Nobody is going to do this just because of measure X.", whereas it appears in other forms, too. It is especially relevant in the context of environmental goals. The most rigorous refutation is that human decision making is indeed affected by thousands of influences (to the point of being chaotic), but a person who is already near the tipping point between two options can very well be swayed by even a smaller influence; and when considering a larger number of people, it gets increasingly likely that such cases occur. Said bullshit argument may be seen as a form of the continuum fallacy, but I think this does not express and criticize the the underlying false thought well enough. Is anyone aware of a catchy name for it or a shortcut to rebut it? --Sophophobe (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what you mean a bit more clearly? Maybe provide a syllogism for it? Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please give a concrete example, I am not quite sure I catch your drift. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 11:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To both of the above questions: they mean things like "No one is going to start recycling just because there's a curbside recycling program, it's still easier to throw everything away", which at its core is an unspoken false dilemma "everyone will start recycling everything possible or no progress will be made" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So basically, this tedious fallacy once again? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nirvana fallacy? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 16:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the one the OP was after, yep, pretty sure. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you call the fallacy that results from writing music while on Lithium? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 16:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The shotgun fallacy. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my immediate exposition was unclear. ikanreed's example with recycling is precisely the kind of argument that I mean. Indeed, it is the Nirvana fallacy. So thank you Laurogeita Hamabost for that. Also thanks to Reverend Black Percy for the example in the wild, I haven't seen it.

For reference, here is what I believe is the syllogistic form, whereas the part in brackets is implicit and the fallacy occurs at the transition from 1 to 2. [1. Measure X will not have the desired effect in every instance. 2. Therefor,] measure X will not have the desired effect in any instance (or a significant number thereof). 3. Therefor, measure X is not helpful.--Sophophobe (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

MFW "The shotgun fallacy". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Eccentrics

There was, briefly, an article on 'Great British Eccentrics' - which included Stanley Green and Bill Boakes: perhaps there could be an article that covers 'eccentrics' in general - 'mostly harmless but slightly odd', and including such things as [1]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The page you mentioned is still here as Fun:Great British eccentrics. I won't dignify it by calling it an article. Spud (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hoping for someone else to develop it? 109.153.101.243 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

More crankery

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandiandsteve/

No words can explain this in flickr form: it doesn't appear suitable for an dedicated article in the name of that source, so I wonder which article should it go to? --User4501 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Why should it go in any? It's just a load of Tea Party/Alt-Right memes. There are hundreds of pages like that, on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Flickr, 4chan, 8chan & elsewhere. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all just a bunch of alt-right bullshit. It shouldn't go anywhere. Not that it's unmissional; it's just that we're not looking at importing as much as single picture from those type of random image dumps. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not literally importing every images from the clogosphere, but I wanted to expose every crankery that I have come across to date. -User4501 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Drago Vrhovnik

Anyone heard of this guy? That Wikipedia article is marked for death for a pile of fairly obvious reasons, but if it's not only missional but interesting we can certainly rescue it for here - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems totally worth porting to RW, assuming it's not all bs (lacking citations? Haven't looked closely). You old TOW dogs know how porting works best; I've learned my lesson to let other editors directly import as much as a letter from TOW. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any point in copying over the same article. It would need so much rewriting that you might as well just start from scratch. I've just added my vote for its deletion on Wikipedia because it's pseudoscience-promoting spam. The totally uncritical article was written by one of the woo-peddling Drago Vrhonik's supporters (more than likely Drago Vrhonik himself). Anyway, I don't think he's notable enough for us yet. If he makes a lot of money out of his water woo, then he will be. But I hope people have more sense than that. Spud (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

More interested in his notable wok. I'll have a Ma Po tofu, extra spicy. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 13:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not usable as-is or I'd have just copied it over (and it's remarkably deletable at Wikipedia). But he might be a suitable RW subject - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, based the photo, the guy's a shoe-in. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean this photo. It's right here (for the time being). I hope it doesn't get nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons after his Wikipedia article gets nuked. Oh, go on then! Let's have an article that rips the piss out of the water boy. He wanted to be famous, we'll make him infamous. Just don't be surprised when he comes here and tries to turn his page into a hagiography. Spud (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Go Spud! Also, I hope that when he does, his rhetoric will be as funny as that of John Gabriel. John Gabriel unsarcastically writes the exact way Newman talks. No, really! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Though to be completely fair (to Newman), Gabriel is sadly also afflicted by that same caustic pottymouth otherwise trademarked by Ryulong. I doubt the above pictured sandal wearing water bottler could beat the high-powered mutant hybrid (between Ryulong and Newman) that is John Gabriel, in terms of demanding hagiography. If so, he'd essentially be the Neo of cranky internet grump. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think that his Tungaj Transformer (no, not a new Transformers character) alone would make him missional. Oh look, according to The Other Wiki it has been "certified as effective by independent, objective scientists from the Institute of Bioelectrophotonics in Germany." Must be true, then! ScepticWombat (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, what a website! That's some business-minded crankery right there! The next generation... Leaving InfoWars ads in the dust! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What's not to love about a gilded buttplug (no, really — it's from their site) that deflects radiation and is portable enough to take golfing? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw, that Institute of Bioelectrophotonics looks pretty missional too. I love the fact that it not only has a voluminous disclaimer accessible fom its top bar, but that they've located the site map as a roll out submenu of it. A sort of Freudian web design slip perhaps? ScepticWombat (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Al Jazeera a reliable source?

So I recently marked Al Jazeera in a WIGO article, because imho labelling is not dangerous. But unfortunately, it was reverted and reverted again, so not wanting an edit war, I let the matter slide. However, I do think we should discuss whether a media company owned by a major member of a Gulf State ruling house should uncritically be cited as a source. Yes, they are better than Saudi TV, but they are not exactly the BBC of yore that truly was as impartial as people thought it was. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 19:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"Labeling is not dangerous", sure. On a more serious note, many mainstream news sources are owned by massive corporations or Rupert Murdoch so they would all be ruled problematic to cite. Regardless, the link you labeled was a blog post that, in itself, is bound to be biased which is something that you seem to have an issue with.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. In my opinion, I'd like to see the source cited in the listing, maybe in parentheses at the end. And it would keep me from giving clicks to The Intercept. Jagulard (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What are your objections to the Intercept?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to achieve with your troll templates? Stifle any sort of debate on Al Jazeera and the Intercept? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 23:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, unless you can cite reasons for your opposition, you will be labeled as a concern troll.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is owned by a member of a ruling house in one of those king-dictatorships in the Middle East (can't be arsed to look up which, they are all different tastes of shit to me). So if we have concerns about the corporate ownership of American cable news, we should have concerns about the corporate and/or royal ownership of Al Jazeera. As for the intercept, I would like to hear Jagualard's response. I am not an avid reader of the Intercept, but it sounds vaguely agenda first facts second to me. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 00:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that isn't a strong case for me. If I can read WP while knowing that anyone can edit any oage and that they can downplay info because they aim for a NPOV then I can read Al Jazeera knowing that they are owned by a Qatari family. Also, I doubt you don't know about the Intercept since you have labeled them in the past.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What harm does labeling do? In fact, why don't we label all WIGO entries regardless of source and reduce any need for this "debate"? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 01:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(EC) This is just a retread of Avenger's previous crusade against Electronic Intifada (e.g. see here, here & here). Presumably he won't be happy till we purge the site of all non-white-guy news sources. Plus he's now tag-teaming with his own sock to make demands. This isn't good faith editing. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere in the number of socks you mention I lost track of what it is you are saying. Also, what is electronic intifada? Sounds like an anti-Israel rag to me. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 01:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Having re-read your screed, I do have to ask how you square the circle of me a) wanting to ban all non white guy news sources (as if Arabs weren't white) and b) having some shifty secret agenda that I can only accomplish by introducing foreign language WIGO entries. I am not the Ombud's man 13:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If you actually want a real answer: Al Jazeera is reliable as a source only if they report on certain things. For example, if they are talking about ISIS, Syria, and even Palestine, they probably shouldn't be used since they are biased in favor of those groups. However, if they report positively of a Shia faction (unlikely, I know), it can absolutely be used. This is the standard Wikipedia uses, one that does the better job of producing reliable articles. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, are they biased towards both ISIS and Assad (who is Shia)? StickySock (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you really want to start a debate on the relation between Shia and Alawi Islam? Annquin (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To CorruptUser: no I'm not. I'm saying that Al Jazeera can be used in a context where it reports the gain of a faction Al Jazeera doesn't like. Namely Shia. But they can't be used to report rebel advances on levantine governments. Take the latest UN convoy airstrike story. Since Al Jazeera supports the rebels and opposes Russia, it shouldn't be used for that story. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sticky, ask the question this way, Are they biased toward a multicultural secular regime vs a radical Sunni sect that would behead the Gulf states ruling monarchies (who happen to fund Al Jezzera) if given the chance. Then throw in the caveat, But if the Alawi and their Iranian backers seem threatening, ISIS might have a role to play given their rabid hatred of everybody.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's how to do it: look at both Al Jezerra and PressTV reporting on the same subject, and realize Al Jazerra's reporting is somewhat tempered, so as not to offend Shia living in Eastern Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and therefore can appear less inflamitory on an emotional subject.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is an over exaggeration to compare Al Jazeera to Press TV; I would compare their bias to TeleSUR or, at their worst, RT. I would say their reporting is as accurate as CNN and, in my opinion, better since they are willing to bring up more controversial info.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the point is Al Jazeera is the Saudis' and Gulf State monarch's mouthpiece. PressTV is the Ayatollah and the Iranian Ruling Council Politburo of Grand Imam's mouthpiece. The two sides have been engaged in a covert belligerancy and a propaganda war for 37 years. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 07:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say TeleSUR is even worse than (the English edition of) al Jazeera, but Press TV is worse than TeleSUR. Of course all state owned or parastatal international TV stations are biased to a certain degree. France 24 will probably portray France's hunger for intervening in its former African colonies in a more positive light than - say - BBC international, but Al Jazeera is not controlled by any notable democratic and free public. There is much more public debate in France or the US than there is in Qatar or the other countries down there. I am not the Ombud's man 18:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust PressTV to report on the final score of the world cup, let alone anything nuanced. CorruptUser (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The world cup of what? I am not the Ombud's man 19:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Handball? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What's that? I am not the Ombud's man 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

PressTV has produced some informative documentaries but the objectivity can be laughable; I remember watching one about the women's rights in Saudi Arabia and, while factual, came off as an attempt to implicitly whitewash Iran's record on women's rights. TeleSUR and RT have been improving, though, I don't read them that much; I am suprised how many big media personas RT America has gotten.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's do this: let's call the monarchial establishments that run Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States "reformed Wahhabis" and the beheaders of Daesh "fundamentalist Wahabbis". The reform Wahhabis are a little more tolerant than the fundamentalists, they tolerate Shia in Eastern Saudi Arabia and the along the western Persian Gulf coastline. They tolerate business relations with non-Muslims, as the Shia do. Al Jazeera is in competition with PressTV for the hearts and minds of the Shia outside Iran and the fundamentalist Wahhabis target base for recruiting. So Al Jazeers walks a fine line of moderation not to offend anyone. PressTV & Daesh outlets, are driven by a hardline anti-American, snti-Israel, anti-reform Wahhabi political agenda to incite their own adherents, and fence-sitters, to their POV. Mind you, none of these are playing to a Western audience. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 19:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually like your turn of phrase with regards to "reformed Wahhabis"... I am not the Ombud's man 20:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Silver nominations for Gamergate support articles

Claims and Timeline. Once again, just looking for enough up or down votes to call this a consensus before I blow another load...of silver dust. What did you think I meant? While I'm here, the cover story nomination for the main article is still pretty hot so if you wanted to voice yourself there too, be sure to hit it. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The cover story for Gamergate has already been determined to be no, by your tallying, so there is no point to recommending people there.

Since the subsidiary articles really rely on the status of the main article, we shouldn't bother. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The Superimposed State of Dishonest and Incompetent

Are Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort intellectually dishonest, wilfully obtuse, merely incompetent, unwilling to do basic research, afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger effect, Lying for Jesus (i.e. ends justify means), somehow mentally challenged and prone to slothful induction, charlatans who deliberately torment with PRATTs? All at once in some superimposed state? Astonishingly, there are controversies with participants who are sometimes at it for years or even decades, and which are clearly important to them. Yet, they give no indication that they are even familiar with the basics of what their interlocutors assert. Do you know a term for their mindset? If there is none, I'd like to coin the portmanteau "(to be) discompetent" and the discompetence for this in-between state of dishonest and/or incompetent. It's a fascinating state of mind with some specific criteria (not limited to creationists). Of course, to accuse someone to be discompetent is an ad hominem proper. Since discompetence is also a rhetorical weapon, I find it adequate to likewise defuse it with a rhetorical charge. What's your take on it? Does a term exist for this? ~ Aneris ✻ 21:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Are Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort intellectually dishonest, wilfully obtuse, merely incompetent, unwilling to do basic research, afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger effect, Lying for Jesus (i.e. ends justify means), somehow mentally challenged and prone to slothful induction, charlatans who deliberately torment with PRATTs? All at once in some superimposed state?- Aneris

Does their motivation matter, so long as they're wrong? I say no.

Steal bread to feed your family, steal bread to enrich yourself - you're still just stealing bread and that's all that matters. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course motivation matters in being wrong. Being incompetent is never mens rea for fraud. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't care why a person did something. All I ever care about is the action. If I shoot someone in the face, is that person going to care why I did it? No. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you truly believe that stealing bread to feed your family (which is most likely brought about by a patently unjust political and economic system) is morally no different from stealing bread to enrich yourself, you are indeed a morally abhorrent person and I am rather glad I do not have to deal with you in person. I am not the Ombud's man 22:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Discompetent. Good word. Dennis Kucinich is the first that comes to mind.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 22:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I like this neologism a lot. I don't think it's useless. I'm currently reading The Heretics: Adventures With The Enemies Of Science by Will Storr (a book I most warmly recommend to everyone here). I think the rough topic of that book is precisely what you're after with this term, Aneris — that gray area where you know the cranks are way off the marks, but it's literally not likely that they're just fucking with everyone. There's even proof that they themselves genuinely believe their nonsense, and so on... But I digest. I euphorically tip my fedora to this rather clever neologism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's morally equivalent, Laurogeita, because I don't bother assigning moral equivalencies to it. Morality is different for everyone and thus is subjective opinion. Cannibalism can be moral, depending on what culture you belong to. So instead of assigning my own personal morals to everything and pronouncing "This is moral, that is immoral, there shall be absolute obedience to my moral pronouncements.", I prefer objective publicly-promulgated law that can be applied without resorting to religious/ethical/moral/philosophical opinions. If it's legal, it's legit. If illegal, it's not legit. Stealing bread is illegal? That's all I need to know. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think laws are a priori good and right you are unable to even conceive of criminal justice reform or ending the war on drugs. Morals may not be objective, but laws aren't either. And I for one believe that morals should be more important than laws and if the two clash, the law should be changed, not the morals. And if you really cannot see the difference between someone stealing to survive or enable their next of kin to survive and someone stealing just 'cause, well... I dislike diagnosing people over the Internet, but... I am not the Ombud's man 18:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

He's auditioning for the role of poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. At least there's a reasonable chance he'll starve to death if he ever ends up destitute in a country without adequate social welfare. I take some comfort in that. Robledo (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think laws are a priori good and right- Laurogeita

Laws are not "a priori good". The purpose of law is to impose order on society. That's it. Not good order, not bad order, just order. A method of control, nothing more.

And I for one believe that morals should be more important than laws- Laurogeita

Then I ask you the same question I ask everyone that says that. Whose morals should be elevated as the Absolute Standard that everyone must be obedient to? Yours? Mine? Pope Francis'? Trump's? Pol Pot's? Ghandi's? And why the specific person you choose? I leave it in your hands.

And if you really cannot see the difference between someone stealing to survive or enable their next of kin to survive and someone stealing- Laurogeita

I can see the difference. The question of whether I care is something different.

If you like, oh moral arbiter, provide me a logical reason as to why I should care. Please know in advance that, if I were the one stealing bread and caught at it, I would reject any defense that attempted to state that I should receive a different punishment based on motivation, stipulating that only the action should matter. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

My morals are more important to me in my decisions than the law is. Whether or not smoking dope or drinking Tsingtao beer is illegal or not has no bearing on whether I'll do it. Though to e quite honest, Tsingtao beer should be illegal. Not all beer, but Tsingtao beer. I am not the Ombud's man 19:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

i can see an argument for smoking dope not being immoral, but i am struggling to see one for it being moral. If you dont like a law, talk to your mp. If you break said law, be prepared to pay the legal consequences. My morals arent really important for non trivial laws. I am sure many folk in many places believe their morals allow them to assault gays/blacks/people who look at them funny. Vigilantes believe their own morality trumps the law. Sociopaths do. Most of us here are fortunate enough to live in liberal democracies. Most if us here are not forced by circumstance to break laws they deem immoral. As castaigne says its not so much morality, its about order. You dont have to look to far to see the awfulness of life where peoples personal morality trumps law. As they say, dont do the crime if you cant do the time. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

i smoke snort bomb all manner of chemicals from class a to class c. I dont pay my council tax. I dont pay my tv license. I watch films and listen to music pirated from the internet. I do these things because i want to and because i am both unlikely to be caught and the penalty is slight if i am. With the exception of council tax, i am not forced to do any of these things. Morality is not the my motivating factor here nor am i arrogant or delusional enough believe i am justified in doing these things. I wonder if 'my morals are more important' would work in court?AMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

My morals are more important to me in my decisions than the law is.- Laurogeita

So says every egotist. I am not interested in what applies to me and only me, or you and only you. It's frankly irrelevant. I only care about what can be universally applied to everyone. I don't care about the individual; I care about order being maintained in society and the maintenance and further continuance of technological, industrialized civilization. Das ist alles.

Also, as opposed to your morals, it's an objective outcome that can be measured. Bonus! --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

you say all that but only god can judge me. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

unless i'm caught. Then im going to the big house AMassiveGay (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you really and honestly think many people take the law above their sincerely held moral convictions? Imagine some tyrannical government were to outlaw RW editing. Would you still do do it? Or they'd require attendance at public executions or some praising god/the dear leader/Ronald Reagan rallies. Would you do it? I know few people who make their own decisions based more on the law of the land than their own moral compass. The law figures into the decision making process, certainly, but try and guess why "drugs are illegal" did not work as a drug prevention slogan. I am not the Ombud's man 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@lauro - hahaha life must be a struggle for you, having to constantly consider tbe morality of things before you do them. When i snort something illegal im not weighing the moral issues of supporting one the various drug wars around the globe or the funding the many terrorist groups that earn a crust trafficking the stuff or putting a strain on the polices finite resources to control the stuff nor the strain on the health services. Sure, legalisation would stop much of that but its still illegal and thats what happens. Talking to my mp about law changes might, getting off my face doesnt. When i snorting snuff all i am thinking about is am i going to get caught and are these bath salts bath salt, or are they actual bath salts? Laws provide a frame work to live in so we dont have to think about the moral implications of our actions all the time. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

So apparently for you drug laws trump your own moral sensibilities or lack thereof. More power to you. But would you say the same regarding laws about homosexuality? I am not the Ombud's man 22:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

what about it? There is alot different between my choice to get wasted and my sexuality. Certainly when i was still closeted it led to various illegal actions the morality of which played no part - getting caught was more of a worry. Now i am out it still leads to actions that i would not consider moral. I said earlier that most here are fortunate enough live places where we are not forced to break the law to simply exist. We are also luckily enough to live places where we can petition the government to change unjust laws. Just breaking them is not enough. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

point of fact, my sexuality is not a moral choice. Any laws broken, unjust or not, is through compulsion not morality. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Cannibalism can be moral, depending on what culture you belong to" according to Castaigne. I disagree. Even when I charitably assume the unfortunate person died of some natural cause, there is no cultural mechanism by which consuming someone's flesh becomes moral. Or I cannot imagine any. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not recommend going to Indonesian New Guinea and meeting the Korowai, then. It's certainly moral to them. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

does it help if i am really hungry and they are really tasty? Was it immoral for those folk in the plane crash where they had to eat the dead to survive? Or the donner party? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes actions may be necessary, inevietable, or wanted, but they don't have to be moral. This is a related problem with people who want everything to be "true" but don't want to adjust their views, but rather bend reality around. Because if their convictions are true, that's better, isn't it? And Castaigne, "It's certainly moral to them." is cultural relativism. You try hard to avoid to never come across like a crypto-postmodernist, heh. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

if i have kids to support or need to keep up my strength for the good of group, ie. To be able to go look for help, would it not be moral and necessary to canniblise to those killed the plane crash (of my previous post)? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

because it is distasteful (the idea not the taste), doesnt make it any less moral. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Cannibalism is distasteful (& therefore offensive & therefore immoral) in most cultures because of the views of the living. The dead themselves are unable to know or care what you do with their carcasses. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

tastes like pork i am led to believe. I thought the internet loved pork products. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I will stop practicing both moral relativity and cultural relativity when I am presented with evidence of the one true morality system and one true culture that everyone should follow and be obedient to. After all, when you have determined the one true morality and culture, then all other moralities and cultures are inferior and therefore should be destroyed, as all obsolete programs and items are. Just like Victorian culture set about erasing everything not Victorian because Victorian was best and so why do you need anything else?

It should also be noted that moral relativity and cultural relativity have nothing to with postmodernism. In fact, both existed long, long before postmodernism ever did. Before you ask, yes, I consider you to have a completely uneducated idea of what postmodernism is and consider you to apply it in places it does not apply. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Human rights are better than any non-human rights mumbo jumbo. I am not saying "the West" is living up to the ideal of human rights, but I much prefer the "Western" human rights over some BS Cairo declaration of Islamic Islam rights in Islam subject to the hadith and the fatwas of some stuck up cleric. I am not the Ombud's man 22:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget the point at the heart of all this. If you steal bread to feed your family, fuck off and rot in prison you thieving shit. 2.121.204.174 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

And if you take drugs in Singapore you deserve to die because drugs ruin your life. I am not the Ombud's man 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@B0N: Javert would certainly agree. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverse Racism

Can a minority be racist to whites if they a. distrust them and/or b. consider them devils/crackers ? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Holding a racist attitude is something everyone is capable of. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it inherently wrong to be "racist" against white people? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen the article Reverse racism? What do you mean by ""racist""? There's a big difference between positive discrimination and killing every white person you see. Annquin (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

White people are accusing me of being racist towards them and I am viewing that article on another tab. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you are saying something against them purely because they are white, then yes you are a racist. I don't know if that is the case, but there is no such thing as reverse racism, just racism and anyone of any race can be racist. Arawn Emrys (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, non-white people can be racist against white people. CorruptUser (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

But white people have the power. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me as I also point out that I don't know that "whites" — in the monolithic sense of the word — is a constructive grouping to make. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WTF does that have to do with anything? treating someone differently because of their race, especially in a negative way is fucking racism, period. Arawn Emrys (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Because tbh whites are the most racist people in the world 99% are racist just saying. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And you just stereotyped an entire race. That kind of makes you the racist here. CorruptUser (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea you were, in fact, this racist. Feels bad man. Speaking of "white" — I suppose you realise that that isn't even a group which actually exists? Nor does "black", of course. We're all human beings, equally capable of bigotry and hatred, like that which you flaunt here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Tbf I'm not racist its just facts that white Americans grew up in a country built on white supremacy with institutions that constantly reinforce it and influences them even if they don't realize it. Dr. Joy DeGruy, Ph.D. speaks of a Post Traumatic slave syndrome that effects many African Americans today because of slavery followed by legal oppression and now social oppression. I realize that biologically there are not races but socio-politically people are treated as races even in modern USA. I dont see how I'm racist when I don't have white privilege. It's hard for white people to admit they are racist even to themselves because their privilege has blinded them. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the claim that "whites are the most racist people in the world"? At all? Because I can damn well tell you that as racist as white people are towards black people in the US (and I guess Europe), most of the rest of the world is worse. Oh look, 5 seconds on google found this very nice citation showing racist attitudes throughout the world. CorruptUser (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an American. The Internet reaches far, my friend. I'm just a regular Joe from a country that outlawed slavery already in the 1400-hundreds (with 100% of the captured slaves up to then having been caucasian "white" — literally, stemming from the Caucasus region). Today, our society is among the most equal in the world. So you will understand how bigoted and uneducated you sound to me when you literally conclude that [racial group] is "the most racist" (as if hatred was quantifiable) in the world. As in, globally. You then present numbers that "99%" of [racial group] are racists. 99%, meaning — "those people, members of [racial group], are all the same". Meanwhile, you yourself are somehow not being racist. Here's the scoop: saying that precisely anything is "done by 99% of [racial group]" is racist. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it racist to just point out a fact about a race? For example, if an anthropologist stated whites are genetically and evolutionarily prone to a certain illness? Even my white family members call me a nigger and a black bastard but I'm racist. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For your first question, no, but you damn well better have the facts to support it. And if you are going down that road, watch out; that road is a two way street and the oncoming traffic is mostly made up of meth-addicted truckers asleep at the wheel.

As for your white family members, those people are racist. But you are only looking for things to excuse your own racism. CorruptUser (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

An individual person is or is not racist based on their own perceptions about race. You claim to reject racialism, yet you constantly fall back on employing the terminology of "race realists", e.g. "point out a fact about a race". The only fact about race is that there are no races. We call those who disagree with that exact view by their proper name — racialists. You further seem to confuse genuine human genetic variation with concepts like white privilege, the snarl word "nigger", and so on. The biology of certain illnesses and those terms and concepts belong to different discussions, because — again — racialism has it all wrong. Now, do you want to talk about the genetics of lactose intolerance, or about racial intolerance — which you yourself seem to espouse, while also insisting that doing so is not — in fact —racist? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Some white people have already admitted they're all racist. "Racism comes out of our pores as white people. It's the way that we are." http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/why-all-white-people-are-racist-cant-handle-being-called-racist-theory-white-fragility By your rhetoric, are they racist too?TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Just the fact that you would overtly assign special weight to the skin color of those few individuals making that argument betrays how racist your mindset actually is. Like that makes them "insiders", or "spokespeople" for "their race"? Jesus, man. Who caused all this anger in you? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright sure, but are the white people that admit it racist? That is my question, because I'm a "racist" apparently? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Newsflash; everyone is bigoted on some level. There is no "bigotry-binary", it's a spectrum and a multi-dimensional non-Cartesianal spectrum at that. So your question is mostly worthless. CorruptUser (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting how you're more hung up on the label of racism than the actual concept. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. They seem to subscribe to the concept of race, and they — insanely — assign functions to wide swaths of people, based on those same flawed racial distinctions. "All members of [race] secretly think [x]!". Yeah, back to Stormfront with you, pal. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Amazing Skeptic advances a popular idea among SJWs called: prejudice plus power. ~ Aneris ✻ 15:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is useful inside of academia/research, but outside of academia is worthless and typically only advanced by racists in order to shield themselves from being called out for what they really are. CorruptUser (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Early in the above discussion, I already linked TAS directly to our criticisms of P+P. So far, he doesn't seem all that interested in facing up to them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a term for "useful concepts that get hijacked by people with agendas to shield themselves from criticism"? Because P+P, Regressive Left, and SJW are all otherwise useful concepts, but the overwhelming majority of the time you see them it's in a counterproductive fashion. CorruptUser (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The p+p idea is widespread in the SJW crowd, see Anita Sarkeesian. She and others were criticized for it, but I'm told that all critics were just alt-right gamergate neckbeards. And indeed, many popular memes portray her p+p take as a form of bigotry and racism. The "SJW or Stormfront quiz" was an entertaining offshoot of such observations. Academics, however, define their terms before operating with them, and p+p doesn't appear to be particularily widespread. I assume it's commonplace in the antiracism discourse and will show up in areas that are more marinated in that thought. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

its difficult to see how sjw could ever be a useful term. Anyone describing themselves in such grandiose terms is clearly a knob. It can only ever be a term of derision. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It used to describe this, this, this, this (warning contains falsehoods), this, or more recently this, or this and so on. I know, it's popular still to claim this wasn't a thing. But that increasingly looks like your aunt insisting that trolls don't exist on the internet. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that it would've saved everybody a lot of time and effort if TheAmazingSkeptic had explained his issue in detail instead of a series of context-free questions. Vulpius (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That'd require TAS admitting that the reason for their posts is to seek validation for their belief that it's acceptable for them to be racist. CorruptUser (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean, wowie, the idea that people of all stripes can fall into unreasonable and unhealthy patterns of thinking, guess us libby-lib-liberals who want to educate our way past them got owned by never thinking of that. In some ways it parallels the way trump supporters will go "I bet you don't know that that a majority of people in Muslim countries are anti-gay!" Insofar as A. Yes of course I do, B. of course that doesn't excuse your own "lesser" disdain for gay people, and C. It also doesn't validate your dislike of Muslims, I'm left wondering what exactly they think the point of calling out racism is. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the first part of your response is supposed to be. CorruptUser (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Gorgeous Portraits of Goats

Sometimes the headline says it all. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The Stealing of Experience

The Guardian has a new piece on cultural appropriation, stealing of experiences and the limits on fiction writing. This particular topic was the first major social justice flamewar, called RaceFail '09 (where the term SJW arose), two years before Elevatorgate, and five years before GamerGate. The thesis of the social justice movement is that experiences and identities are commodities white westerners would appropriate and downright steal, and to prevent that, it should not be allowed to write fiction from other people's point of view, if they are from another sex/gender/“race” etc. The usual lunacy is in the details. It effectively means that books by white people portray only white people in any depth, and only one gender/sex. But of course the very same movement also rallies against two-dimensional or simplistic portrayals of women, and stresses the importance of personality, experiences and the like. What's your take, should fiction writing be limited in some fashion as SJWs persistently demand, and what kind of limitation should be imposed? Should the audience be taught (as it is with such articles) to be acutely race-gender-sex aware, and alerted to check identities of writers and maybe refrain from buying them, if their subject doesn't match? Should a legal ban be imposed? ~ Aneris ✻ 10:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as the writing of fiction is concerned, anyone should obviously be allowed to write anything they damn well please, as slanderously or as romanticizingly as they wish. And as well (or as poorly) as they'd like to or are able to. A no-brainer to the point of tedium, honestly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What are they proposing, another Hollywood blacklist of screenwriters? We wouldn't have had To Kill a Mockingbird which appeared right between Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat and Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 15:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously a legal ban should not be imposed, and the likelihood of that happening is next to nil, even in places where legal distinctions are already drawn between free speech and otherwise "dangerous" speech. Writers should, obviously, be able to write about anything they please. The author's reaction to what she took as exploitation apologia, or even endorsement, seems extreme to me. That said, the underlying sentiment is a valid one: there are certainly cases in which marginalized voices are exploited, and I'd argue that it's pretty humane to feel disgusted by that. The problem seems to be that there's no easy way to prevent egregious cultural exploitation for profit without also limiting the right to "appropriate" (read: reference or otherwise use) a culture that is not one's own with neutral or positive intentions. Blanket-ban opposition to "appropriation" under that definition amounts to stupidity at best, but there are reasonable arguments to be made in opposition to clear cases of exploitation. Personally I think a working level of race-gender-etc awareness is useful insofar as it can help to ferret out and ridicule the fuckwads making money off a story they stole from someone capable of telling it themselves and likely telling it better anyways- but teaching audiences to be hyper-aware of any mismatching between writer/cultural content in general, or in order to stifle all "appropriation" by force is just ridiculous. B) talk 18:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

All this talk of cultural appropriation is stupid to me. People have been appropriating others' cultures for millenia, and it will not stop for as long as we are around. Plus, it isn't even a bad thing. PBfreespace (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody born today can possibly know what a Roman era slave must have felt like. You can still write entertaining and insightful books and movies with them as characters. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

People should be allowed to write whatever fiction they like and if a book contains problematic elements, people are free to point those out and boycott the book. Whether someone is capable of writing 'good' or 'correct' books is not something that needs to be determined beforehand, least of all according to perceived ethnic or cultural identity/affiliation. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

True dat. There are good books where people write what they know, there are bad books where people write what they know and the same goes for books where people write what they do not know. Besides if books written by white males had no black protagonists, people would also complain. Not entirely without reason. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Remember the case of Rachel Dolezal? the white woman who insisted she was black? Even her parents couldn't convince her otherwise. And this woman teaches at a college.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 22:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to write a rowdy sex novel featuring anyone who accuses me of appropriating their experience as a character. The title? "The actual experience of being this person". Enjoy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Only a Muslim from central Africa, or maybe Malaysia, should write novels about 'adultery in academia' or 'my Jewish childhood in New York City'. Only they have the needed life experience to make it new. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That tears it! You're in the erotica! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Lionel Shriver, who caused the offense with her speech has now put it up on the Guardian, too. At one point she criticizes SJWs stating “But of course he’s using them for his plot! How could he not? They are his characters, to be manipulated at his whim, to fulfill whatever purpose he cares to put them to” — views she mocks here also famously advanced by RationalWiki saint Anita Sarkeesian. She rallied against “objectification” of video game characters, taken seriously here, which however made Immanuel Kant rofl-copter in his grave. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Aneris is a dipshit but the good Reverend and Pbfreespace make a good point (not like they don't) about appropriation. As long as cultures exist, there will be nothing that will ever stop the merging and appropriation of cultures. I daresay that its a good thing when it happens (most of the time, anyway). Would you say that it might be necessary for appropriation sometimes in order for a culture to survive and not decay (interpret that as you may)? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 02:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Adaptation isn't necessary for a something to survive, especially if the formula is already very good, but natural selection does tend to favor it. PB (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

And it's going into the next big round, via Jerry Coyne. Shriver wrote, aptly titled “Will the Left survive the millenials” for the New York Times. ~ Aneris ✻ 00:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

How do you think about this Chinese satire?

主持人：下面有请共和党候选人特朗普！
特朗普登台。
主持人：下面有请民主党候选人希拉里！
工作人员推上来一具尸体。
主持人：这不是个死人吗？死人也能参选美国总统？
白左A：请注意你的言辞，不要歧视死人。残疾人能当美国总统，死人就不能当总统吗？
白左B：黑人能当总统，女人能当总统，死人也能当总统。不管你出身如何，只要你努力，就能实现自己的梦想，这就是美国梦！

主持人：请特朗普陈述自己的执政方针。
特朗普：blablabla……
主持人：请希拉里陈述自己的执政方针。
希拉里：……（死寂）
台下观众、电视前的选民、媒体，闭目倾听，少顷：
众人：好！
白左A：（含着泪）此时无声胜有声！这是我听过的最好的施政方针！
白左B：我给希拉里点无数个赞！
白左C：我们要选希拉里！

--124.193.87.98 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Google translate gave me the least funny political joke I've seen since Aneris tried his hand at it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I wanna translation. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate gives me the following when I run a Chinese-to-English translation;

Moderator : Here's the Republican candidate, Trump!
Trump takes the stage.
Moderator : Here's the Democratic candidate, Hillary!
Staff pushes a dead body onto the stage.
Moderator : Hey, isn't that a dead body? How can a dead women run for president?
Left-wing white guy A: Please watch your words, do not discriminate against the dead. Persons with disabilities can become president, so why can't the dead?
Left-wing white guy B: A black man can become the president, a woman can become the president, and a dead can become the president. No matter where you came from, if you work hard, you can achieve your dreams. This is the American dream!

Moderator: Mr. Trump, please present your platform.
Trump: blablabla ......
Moderator: Mrs. Clinton, please present your platform.
Hillary: ...... ( silence )
Audience, voters in front of the TV and the media, closed their eye and listened carefully. After a while:
All: Good !
Left-wing white guy A : (tears) Her silence is more eloquent than words! This is the best policy I've ever heard!
Left-wing white guy B: I give countless "likes" to Hillary !
Left-wing white guy C: We want Hillary !

Added bold and italics where I think they helped (without changing as much as a comma in the actual translation). Thanks for the laugh, BoN! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to just assume that the joke is that the left wing in this country would not only prefer a corpse to Trump, but actively praise the corpse's lack of policies. Is that right? CorruptUser (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

They end up wanting Hillary. She's as quiet as the corpse, though. I dunno. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any leftwing in the original. The general public approves of the dead silence they hear after Hillary's asked about her approach to governance. What is funnier than shit is the grasp they have, and nuance, of American politics. And how up to date it is.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Corrected.--69.12.68.66 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Corrected the corrections Jagulard (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Generic Chinese antidemocratic shitflinging. If Xi was sick, you would very likely not even hear of it. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What? The CCP hide negative news from their citizens? Who ever heard of that? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You guys have to agree that the part that said "a black President , a woman can become president , the dead can become president. No matter how you came from , if you work hard , you can achieve your dreams , this is the American dream!" was absurdist gold. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A Philly cheese steak can become President! What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 20:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Didn't know about that dish, but Google images helped me infer that it's probably very tasty. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Just... don't get one in Philly. There, they add Cheeze Whiz^TM brand artificially flavored cheese product. In sane places they add cheese. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That Cheeze Whiz^TM is the wave of the future. The wave of the future. We'll occupy France, and once we've occupied France, we'll make'em use it for all their dopey cheese needs. The wave of the future will reach them, once we've occupied France. Take it from us, we got the best artificial cheese flavoring. In the future, they'll thank us for occupying them, and for the artificial cheese flavoring. Oh God one rum & coke and I'm Trump Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We'll invade the Mediterranean and force them to eat hamburgers and pizza, thus making the American diet the Mediterranean diet, then we'll all be healthy. CorruptUser (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The perfect method. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So do the Chineese read rightwing blogs, or are they more atuned to reality than partisan idealogues blinded by a false sense of hope in America?nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 01:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I hate to interrupt another session of Rob talking out of his ass, I thought I'd point out that this is simply a very common Chinese style of joke telling. The story builds, in very Chinese fashion, to a well-known phrase: 此时无声胜有声- which translates to something like "There's no need for words," or "Silence is more eloquent than speech." It's not really making fun of anyone, the humor is in the clever twist on a famous phrase. Jagulard (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Chineese are anti-government. That which govern's least govern's best (Jefferson). They are a bunch of Paulbots. Even the true Marxists don't believe in the state. No one ever, in the 3000 year history of China, ever looked at government as a benevolent force. That is a particularly American POV since the 1930s, not even shared in Europe. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking out of Urectum, Nobs? Seriously, I am not an expert on China, but if there is one thing the "Mandate of Heaven" clearly implies its that government should be stronk. And this stronknesss is a necessary evil at the least and maybe even a positive good. And the US in the 1930s are far from the only place to ever conceive of government as possibly a force for good. Yes, also in Europe. For example Scandinavia, where bears and wolves and bitter bitter cold would get you if tried to live a life of "rugged individualism". What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 16:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Prior to Nixon's visit to China, the Chineese viewed the Great Wall like Westerners view Auschwitz - a symbol of government oppression and atrocity. Only when foreigners expressed interest in it as an engineering marvel did the Chineese government begin to see it as a source of tourist revenue. Chineese still see it more as hallowed ground and the final resting place of many of their ancestors, in the way Americans view Arlington National Cemetary or the Ground Zero World Trade Center site. They don't view the Great Wall as a symbol of national pride, but rather a symbol of great shame and government oppression.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess that means the Chinese invented Internet memes before the Internet. Sweet. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Great Wall was a source of Shane because it provided a road for the Japanese horde to use to conquer northern China and butcher/rape 11 million Chinese. There are reasons that Germany gets along better with its neighbors than Japan does. StickySock (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Guo jin min tui. As government spending increases, the private sector shrinks. As China reclaims it position as the world's largest economy, others look to its leadership and model in this simple axiom of small government conservativism. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi, the Han dynasty and Mao Zedong were small government conservatives? Tell me more... You amuse me. I am not the Ombud's man 21:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nah nah nah...the people have an inherent small government or anti-government bias precisely because of the legacy of abuses sufferred under those assholes.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait now you know what "the Chinese people" think or want? All one point three Billion of them? Do you have polls, data, anything to back that up? I am not the Ombud's man 18:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

All Chineese are placed in a communal-nursery-boarding school at age two and returned to their parents at age 8. At 18 they either continue their education or work in a factory. With the one child policy and the times spent a part, family is something rare and precious in China. The Chineese are essentially a nation of Oliver Twists. This system predated communism and will probably survive it. It seems to work to get a crowded society to learn to live together. It's probably more a Chineese cultural phenomenenon than a government dictate. But instilled from birth in a nation of orphans is an inherent distrust of institutions, which they view as government interference in their lives.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 14:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Updating myself on this phenomenon. According to Wikipedia, as of 2007, in populated areas 70% board at secondary schools snd 20% in primary boarding schools. In Western rural China the numbers are somewhat less. A rough estimste would probably be at least 400 million children in boarding school. A 2011 study says, "children's interests are ignored and their rights overlooked in educational policy formulation and enactment" and that the schools "fail to provide a safe, healthy environment or protect and enable students' human rights." So, I would guess the average graduate or drop out would share a pretty dim view of laws and bureaucrats that fucked their life up beginning at a pretty early age, especially if it's drilled into them you can't complain and don't think about overthrowing the system. BBC of course, commie rag that it is, tries to put a good face on it.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 06:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump is at War with Eurasia Eastasia

Now Trump is saying that Obama was born in the USA, that Trump's own demands for Obama's birth certificate were part of his heroic struggle to defend Barack from the birthers, and that his actions led to Obama proving his citizenship and silencing the denialists. Trump therefore single-handedly defeated birtherism. And to put a cherry on top of the whipped cream, Hillary Clinton started the Obama citizenship conspiracy. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. A true Clintonism if I ever heard one. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, Rob, who would be your ideal presidential candidate? Cotton Mather? Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been excited about any GOP candidate since Phil Gramm lost in '96; Evan Bayh is a guy I could be proud of as president.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 23:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like Trump. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

PUMA did actually start birtherism, didn't it? - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes they did and her close confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, spread that shit too. She never denounced the accusation nor did she denounce the accusation that he was a Muslim; she JAQed about how, as far as she knew, Obama didn't say he was a Muslim. She also claimed that he had ties to Louis Farrakhan and that Rev. Wright was a radical pastor.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oxford's Biographical Dictionary cited Obama as a key organizer of the 1995 Million Man March along with Farakhan & Sharpton - until Obama got nominated in June 2008. Then they whitewashed it. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I will need some sources to believe that but, if that is his only connection to Farrakhan, that is as loose a connection as her connection to Alinsky.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

In 1995, along with other prominent black leaders such as Al Sharpton and Barack Obama, Farrakhan helped lead the Million Man March on Washington. A second march, called the Millions More Movement, took place in 2005." But like I said, the original source, Oxfords's, removed it in 2008. I may have a screenshot still somewhere. The Obama team essentislly never denied it. They said it was an opportu ity you would expect an ambitious and upcoming black Leader to take advantage of. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 04:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh. The affliation still seems fairly weak.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Farrakhan, ever see this? Sure,it was a primary, but those kind of sentiments are hard to walk back in a general election. And do not dismiss or underestimate Farrakhan's influence outside the Muslim community, or inside black Christian churches. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

In an attempt to steer this conversation back to something useful: What's the general policy on bold font? Do we write nicknames in bold, or just the real name? It's not a big deal at all; just a head-scratcher, particularly since Trump has so many names (666) and I'm not sure if they should be in bold or not. Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So how have the birthers responded to this? Don't they feel betrayed by Trump?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but the criticisms are too benign to be a threat.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Most birthers realize by now the whole birther movement was a diversion to take the focus off the real issue. They were asking for the wrong birth certificate. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 09:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh gawd. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So the birther argument now is "It wasn't really important"?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

First she calls half of America deplorable, now she calls birthers racist. Never interfere while your opponent self destructs.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

She didn't call "half of America deplorables" she called half of Trump's supporters deplorables for their views. Don't overexagerrate, RobS.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hitting Trump hard, fast an repeatedly is the only way Clinton can possibly win this. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 19:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at the obvious -> she's on the defensive. This late in the game she has to shore up her base. She's unsure of the African-American vote, so she has to play the race card. Only now, it won't work. You think they're willing to forget mass incarceration of millions for a bit of birther bashing? How fucking stupid does she think blacks are? nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 22:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So how are nutjobs like WND spinning trumps flip flop?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The same way they always do: Smearing the Democrats and every country outside the US. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 19:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You have to remember, Trump supporters love it when he tells a whopper. He's rude, politically incorrect, and makes everyone dance to his tune. (Wish fulfillment, basically.) And they have no qualms about playing the media in the interests of 'positive' change, whatever they make it out to be. Trump shifted gears and blamed his earlier birther nonsense on (who else) Clinton. Those who want to believe it (Republicans, Bernie supporters) will swallow it, and those who understand Donald's method (alt-right) will go along with it, too. Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, there is absolutely nothing new about what Trump had done, or is doing. He has been using the Clinton How To... manuel to get elected president from 1992, which is 24 years old now. Only he doesn't have a fawning media, and the technology has changed. He has debased the society and discourse, as Clinton had done, only standards of civility somewhat rebounded under Baby Bush & Obama.

When Hillary runs putrid snot like this I hesitate to say it's laughable. She's the one who, according to Jeffrey Toobins book, who said, "Fuck 'em. We gotta win" when Bill was impeached and refused to resign. She's the one who caused 10 year olds across America to say, "Mommy, what's oral sex?" She's the one who engaged the country in a great national debate for two years over whether a blow job is sex, while we could have used the time and surplus to fix Social Security. While North Kores built its nuke, bin Laden made plans, the mortgage crisis was brewing, and 500,000 Iraqi children died. Does she really want to go there? discuss that POS's influence on children? nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 08:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary did not go down to the gutter about The sex life of the President. The GOP did. Hillary did not make legal arguments about who said what when regarding sex. The GOP did. Nobs, why don't you talk about China a bit more? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 23:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The asshole could have resigned and spared corrupting our children. The only reason she's running now is to rehabilitate his reputation then.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 06:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Resigned for what? Getting a blowjob? If that's the bar, pretty much every President the US has ever had should have resigned. Or do you seriously believe having (what we can only presume to be) consensual sex with an intern is so much worse than Japanese internment, Watergate, Vietnam, toppling democratically elected regimes, interventions in Latin America, resegregating the military (and those are just random things from the 20th century). Not to mention that there is precedent for a President not only getting blown by an intern but impregnating a slave while married. And there are still people who consider that guy among the best Presidents or politicians in any position the US has ever had. If you have a problem with the fact that we do not elect eunuchs and never have, I suggest you to grow up and get out of that goddam closet. And if you have a problem with "the children" knowing what a blowjob is but no problem with them being exposed to the racist and hateful BS Trump says day in and out your priorities are severely skewed. I am not the Ombud's man 13:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

He could have stepped aside and avoided corrupting our children. Unless you think Al Gore was some Spiro Agnew-like figure to be feared. Hell, Gore would have been reelected handily in 2000 and could have spared us the Bush adminstration.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, what's up with your obsession with corrupted children? Al Gore would have made an okay President, I guess, but there was no reason in hell for Clinton to step down. Furthermore, no VP whose boss had stepped down was ever elected President. I am not the Ombud's man 20:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the closing chapters of Peggy Noonan's 2000 book, The Case Against Hillary Clinton (Noonan wrote Reagan's Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall speech). Even the NYT review says Noonan suggests that the coarsening of our society in general and of our political culture in particular throws a shadow across this otherwise gilded and happy American age. On this, most Americans will more or less agree. Hillary uses those children in the above linked video as a stage prop, like a jar of pickles. Only one president has stepped down, but Johnson, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt and others all were elected in their own right upon succession. The Clinton's assumed a bunker mentality like a notorious German head of state descended upon by Red Army tanks, with a messiah complex that only they could lead America, and no thought of the consequences on the nation for future generations. And the candidacy of Donald Trump is one of those consequences. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, what? Any kid with internet access can get their hands on 1000x more ***WARNING*** explicit sexual content ***WARNING*** than a kid who heard about Bill getting a fucking extramarital blowjob. So, like, yell at people to censor the internet or something. Oh wait, actually don't- it's SEX. You know, the thing humans do to reproduce. B) talk 00:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you still talking about oral sex? Because I don't think that's something humans do to reproduce. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You punch the time clock, go home or rent a motel room. You don't do it on my dime in the workplace owned by us. I mean jeezuz, what the hell are we paying you for? anybody else would have their paycheck docked and get fired. Oh, and nobody ever reproduced by getting a blowjob. Are you peddling pseudoscience to young minds now? nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 04:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

President is one of those jobs you are. You are not paid for sitting in the office or for shaking someone's hand. You are paid for being President. Just like some doctors are paid for sleeping with their beeper on ready alarm in case they need to save a life, the President is also paid for being able to interrupt everything (s)he is doing (including coitus) in case the Costa Ricans launch a surprise attack. So your hypothetical punching out and going into a hotel is not only absurd, it is impossible. The only way this could be done is by invoking the (forgot the number) amendment and handing over to the VP for every time you decide to get to biblically know your companion. Thank god we don't live in a monarchy any more, where impregnating the queen was done on company time and on the government dime... I am not the Ombud's man 18:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Then there's the issue of illegal conversion and misappropriation of government resources for personal use. Getting a blowjob in the office is obviously not work related. Hence, Clinton must report the lesser of cost or fair market value of Secret Service protection and overhead use and maintainance for the pro rata duration and immediate aftermath of a sex act in the Oval Office as other income on Form 1040. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 18:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump's level of double-think certainly seems truly bizarre.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but as this thread demonstrates the real issue is the Million Man March / Michelle Obama's birth gender / Bill Clinton's sexual exploits / corrupting our children / take your pick. Let's keep talking about anything except Trump's hypocrisy. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:0km3, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In point of fact I was experimenting on this thread to see how much Whataboutism posts about Trump would generate. I'm sort of sad to see that the sequence has come to an end.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A good read from Michael Moore

...you are living in a bubble that comes with an adjoining echo chamber... You need to exit that bubble right now. You need to stop living in denial and face the truth which you know deep down is very, very real. Trying to soothe yourself with the facts – 77% of the electorate are women, people of color, young adults under 35 and Trump cant win a majority of any of them! – or logic – people aren’t going to vote for a buffoon or against their own best interests! – is your brain’s way of trying to protect you from trauma. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You are assuming that Trump can't win a majority of white women over 35. I'm not sure that's true. I'm sorry to say, but my mother, aunt, and both grandmothers are voting Trump. CorruptUser (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My mother is disgust by him but ever since Bernie dropped out she will vote for him. She hates the Bubba for exploiting the women he worked with and she hates Hillary for the way she bashed Lewinski.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We have got to rein in what is absolutely inexplicable

What the hell does that mean? If you can't explain it, what are you going to bring to heal rein in? nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There's been terror attacks in New York in the past 48 hours!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No, don't think so at all. She's talking about improving policing and race relations.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Love the PC outrage from Robsmith on this. Are you triggered by her comment, Rob? Do you need a safe space? PBfreespace (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Which inexplicable should we rein in, the cops or the superpredators? Mind you, blacks are atuned to the use of code words. To rebuild the trust that is lacking in communities, between neighbors and the police, we need lesders who are forthright, to explain what is absolutely inexplicable. (A note to millenials: Welcome to the world of Clinton bullshit). nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your question is ambiguous and tangential, but I'll try to answer it. Superpredators, if you want to call hardened criminals that, exist largely because of shitty government policy. If broken-windows policing didn't exist and drugs, prostitution, and gambling were all legal, half of these people wouldn't exist and crime would drop dramatically. We also need to fire and stop hiring police that are constant emotional wrecks 24/7, as well as implement most of Campaign Zero's policy proposals (minus community policing). This will only have a chance of happening if hard liberals are elected. PBfreespace (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

So a 16 year old can be a hardened criminal?nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 21:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well if they smoke weed or run around with a toy gun we better just shoot them now and be done with it. After all, everybody who takes drugs and owns fake guns deserves to die. And if you doubt that and sit down during the anthem to change it you are a godless unamerican homoqueer communist who does not respect the troops and should emigrate to North Korea. I am not the Ombud's man 21:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Masterbrain

Scientists say the majority of humans only use 10% of their brain's potential. What if there was a product that could unlock the other 90%? Well ... There is! Clinical trials have shown that the ingredients of MasterBrain can boost brain power by up to 89.2%, increase focus by up to 121%, and sky-rocket your energy levels. (Source)
Anyone ever encountered this...supplement before? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I might have. The 60's and 70's were a hell of time, I remember so little from that time, I'm not even sure if I was even alive at the time.

But seriously, no, haven't heard of this before. CorruptUser (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Where do I buy a distribution franchise?nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha haha. I love all the obviously faked/fudged statistics, with a fucking decimal point just to drive it home. Also, exploitation of an old myth. We only use this portion of our brains at one time, while almost all of it is used at some point or another. PBfreespace (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We have an article on nootropics. I guess that's what this is. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, Masterbrain is an example of a completely bullshit nootropic. Certain select actual nootropics (notably dopaminergic stimulant drugs) do work, keeping in mind that the non-woo definition of "working nootropic" means something like: giving a minor edge — similar to that which a low dose of amphetamine would — at best (see here and here for examples). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Using 100% of your brain at once is what's commonly known as a grand mal or generalized tonic-clonic seizure, so maybe that's what it really induces. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Iggy and the goats

The 2016 Ig Nobel Prizes have been announced.[2] Of note are:

1. Thomas Thwaites: shared the Ig Nobel Prize in biology for living as a goat and writing the book, GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being Human (Princeton Architectural Press, 2016, ISBN 1616894059).
2. The Ig Nobel Peace Prize for several authors who wrote the article "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit" (Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp. 549-563). The authors created a Bullshit Receptivity (BSR) scale based on Deepak Chopra’s tweets, as well as a New Age Bullshit Generator.[3] Bongolian (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh man, I remember reading #2 when it came out on PloS One, I linked it here. And then later, another paper correlated BSR to conservatism, I linked that too. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Footlemouth

Like "foot in mouth".

I'm adding a bunch of common weird terms that the Freeman on the Land seem to love. Should these stay in the FOTL article, or if we get enough should they be split off like the Manosphere Glossary is? CorruptUser (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest keeping them in the FotL article if they're specific to that movement, as it's pretty niche. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see some citations for the Freeman meaning of the actual expressions. There have to be citable uses avaliable (or you couldn't have whipped that list up without taking creative license) so let's just source them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mostly from youtube videos of Freeman trying those arguments, but I could probably get some good cites from freeman websites. No, seriously, just watch this guy trying to CorruptUser (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, a quick google gave me this monstrosity. Do we need a separate article on TheForbiddenKnowledge.com or just link to it as a cite? CorruptUser (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

omfg it actually seems like it's well-trafficed. This domain is dedicated to the teaching of knowledge that was hidden from the human race all through history.:

• Ancient Egyptian Light Bulb
• The New World Order
• Freemasonry's connection to the creation of Mankind and his purpose
• Luciferic power structure and Government center Washington D.C.
• Master numbers encoded within your DNA
• Nikola Tesla
• And much more. . .

oh god they have relevant music oh god please oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't "Ancient Egyptian Light Bulb" seem a bit...out of place :/ Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Added to ToDo List. If enough people agree, I'll spend a chunk of my weekend skimming through the site. CorruptUser (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving the Overton window

Now apparently "support the troops" is so ingrained in society that it is not even questioned in the US. How about moving the Overton window by putting a "fuck the troops" bumper sticker on your car? I am not the Ombud's man 21:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a foolproof plan. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that sticker better be fireproof.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Because nothing protects a car or its owner like a fireproof bumper sticker. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that is part of the joke. Based on the reaction to athletes refusing to take part of the national anthem I would assume that someone would firebomb your car.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd try something a bit more oblique, like 'War is for suckers.' - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the reaction stems from the fact that Kaepernick is a washed up attention whore, so it's at best questionable how genuine he is; if Big Fatass *ahem* David "got nailed for steroids" Ortiz did it I think the reaction would be much more positive. In any event, I do tend to like a more sly message, but it's also hard to underestimate the intelligence of most people. Maybe one that's more obvious and one with a bit more of subtle jibe, that would be a nice 1-2 punch. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"Support the troops—bring them home" might work, and it appeals more to family values. PBfreespace (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

When Kaepernick retires next year at the age of 29, I doubt we'll see him in the anchor booth or a pre-game show. McDonald's won't want him. I hope he saved some money cause he's reached his peak earning potential. He can't be too bright to make it in the business world even if he did save some money. Nobody will want to partner with him or buy anything from him. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 05:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I'm sure some college will hire him as an adjunct professor of some course with the word "studies" in it. CorruptUser (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A Football player of his stature will always have a job coaching the game. The only question is whether he will do it for six figures or more at a big name NCAA or NFL program or at some hinky-dink high school, in Canada or in some league outside North America. I am not the Ombud's man 18:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Official Fundraiser posts

The Board has resolved to put a small amount of actual effort into the fundraiser this year. I just posted these:

• https://www.facebook.com/Rationalwiki/posts/1504534852893915
• https://twitter.com/RationalWiki/status/782911755206950912

please share, tweet, Klout or whatever it is you kids do on your iPod-360s and get everyone else to as well. If someone could ping the skeptical blogs, that'd be good too. Spam your friends! I'm sure they'll love you for it! - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Site slowness

Looks like a fuckload of organic traffic. Approximately usable for reading, way slow for editing. Keeping an eye on stuff ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not organic, one IP spidering the site at several hits a second. Blocked that IP for now - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

if it's not organic, is it at least gluten-free? Bicycle^wheel 20:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a GMO. robots.txt updated - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to make sure, the default rule is allow, right? And judging by the user agent you killed, someone is trying to clone the site's entire content or something. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep - default is we allow everything, but that software seems too impolite to allow - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ikanreed: Google updated its spiders, they now come with radioactive teeth and a yearning hunger 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

With great power comes great responsibility. Bicycle^wheel 09:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree, when I'm downloading my porn, this site is very slow :( please fix it. Ghost (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

PB3 permabanning Laurogeita

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Chicken coop. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

#ShamelessSelfPromotion

So, anyway, I'm opening up the sandbox page on True Capitalist Radio to the public for adding stuff to, since I never get around to adding to it. Feel free to give it a lot more Ghost Goat, everyone. TheMyon (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ghostler! I lol'd. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The working title for the page came from an actual nickname he got from his fanbase. Call him up and say it to him, by the way. He loves that. TheMyon (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's sit and remember now

I remember a time... a short period after i joined, that the coop was used to get rid of trolls and the like, and not this whole Mona/Avenger BS that has been plaguing the site for how long? A year now? I have left multiple times for periods of longer than 3 months in a hope they would resolve. They did not. Lets reflect on the times before the Mona/Avenger/PB dark ages, because i am quite tired of the constant edit wars and coop cases. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 17:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is actually pretty typical for the sort of flamewar that led to its creation - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we're destined to do this forever. Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If one doesn't like getting involved in coop cases, one can normally just ignore them and go on one's merry way with edits. They're usually narrowly focused enough that one may not even know they're happening without looking at the Recent Changes. Bongolian (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the only thing that's annoying about them is when they clog recent changes, maybe the community just needs to sort out some way of saying "You two have to sort this out between yourselves politely before the rest of us will put up with your bickering anymore" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The current coop seems to be mostly about the behavior of Pbfreespace3 which may or may not have been triggered by things I and Jagulard said and did. The trigger seems to have been incredibly minor, though. I am not the Ombud's man 18:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No, stop. Please, just let people vent some steam about the dispute without extending the dispute here. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am not the Ombud's man 20:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you try to bring the shit back here again I will block all your heads I can find just to get a bit of rest - David Gerard (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Moderator election / recall election

I hereby announce my candidacy on the Zionist/Socialist/anti-German combined ticket for moderator of Rationalwiki. I will stand as a candidate for moderator and accept your endorsements. I pledge to not abuse my powers and to never act ahead of the coop but to follow the mob. Let's make Rationalwiki a wiki we can be proud of! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

is probably more attention that anyone should be giving you, but still.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm being super fucking honest here, OK? Have you lost your fucking mind? You blow your cover by pulling out the sockmaster account, just as you're about to win the vote. It's like if during the primaries, Trump said "we should kill all the Jews, seig heil!!". You're ruining your chances. PBfreespace (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time I've ever read someone mention the ultra-obscure leftist current "anti-German" on here before - the first time was on my talk page by a BoN, who had the same writing style like other multiple BoNs and a certain Pizzameister who all posted there about Zionist topics of interest, which was sometimes English and at other times a concoction of German, Yiddish and Swabian. Now a coop case is going on for someone who has been suspected to be all these people from the past, while the Avenger and Pizzameister accounts are coming out again at the same time. I believe at this point it's really not a conspiracy anymore, if I just look at my own short history here alone, that this is one and the same troll user. What I really want to tell is this though: There have been multiple coop cases around this person and they all haven't managed to rein in on this destructive behavior. It's like said person is making a mockery out of the RW coop system by showing its limitations. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 21:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sadly it looks like Avenger's gone down the rabbit hole of inanity or it really is a troll. If it is a troll, then: Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 06:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of being sealioned, can I just say: Block this twat and all his fucking socks. Bicycle^wheel 09:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 
Blocked for nine hours for doing this shit after a warning - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Block him for-fucking-ever. I'm sick and tired of his shit bringing this wiki down. It's time to stop his riff-raff, once and for all. PB (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Barely used account for sale

I just hacked into this account. If you want it, I can change the Password to what you want. What do you give me in exchange? Bidding starts at one bitcoin. Pizzameister (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hacking and theft of personal info is a bankable offense. What a genius this guy is, posting on the Saloon Bar instead of using back channels first. Sigh. PB (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he's using 7 proxies and Tor. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 06:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I offer one rather well-used buttcoin. Bongolian (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ooh, do we have a Shitties player among us? Graham Chapman was a leading member of Cambridge University's shitties team that toured Ghana. I thought the sport (which involves holding coins between the buttocks and dropping them into a beer glass) had died out. Bicycle^wheel 09:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll give you an Esperanto bitcoin'Legion^{what do you want from me} 17:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

My User Page

Why did you delete it? Oliver D Smith (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please guys, why are you doing this to me? I just wanted to fit in and be friends. Oliver D Smith (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Eh. Edit a bit, I'm sure that once you contribute a few things someone will stick up for keeping your userpage. I don't know why JorisEnter deleted it, but it also didn't seem worth saving. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Joris rightfully deleted it because it looked like userpage vandalism from a drive-by BoN, namely 149.56.141.122. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

that looks nothing like drive by vandalism. Also, what is tbe problem with actually explaining why something is being reverted or deleted instead of expecting folk to suck it up? It shows no good faith and is a dick move that puts people back. You wonder why people edit war? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of people not showing any good faith — first of all, anyone creating the userpage of another account is deserving of a vaporization (and likely a trout slap right to the face). Secondly, considering the BoN in question is likely Mikemikev, I think the former goes doubly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

maybe say to that effect when deleting/reverting then? How difficult is that? Certainly less so than us expecting to guess. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying Joris couldn't have provided a different rationale for deleting. But I don't buy your suggestion that expecting editors to have read the Community Standards of the site they are currently editing on is comparable to expecting them to "guess". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Because your user name is (ugh, ED) associated with this shit? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The combination of the facts that (i) the page was created by a a BoN, not by the account itself; (ii) that said BoN had previously made edits to Racialism and Talk:Racialism, two pages that have recently seen a lot of vandalism, spam and doxing; (iii) that this account has the exact same name as a name that is often found in said doxing; (iv) that this account blanked this very Saloon Bar and replaced its contents with "oliver d smith" less than a week ago; (v) that this account has also edited a race-related page (not vandalising, however); and (vi) that the userpage I deleted included the text "My dissertation was on Atlantis and I believe Atlantis exists", which reminded me of mikemikev's recent trolling under the name of Thorwald C. Franke -- all of this gave me the strong impression that this new account was probably another mikemikev sockpuppet or similar troll.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

...But because you didn't fit that into the delete reason box, instead just being nice and saying "sorry", something something bad faith edit by you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Stats

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't actually done a significance test on the data, but... I think that's actual evidence that the site is losing users at this point. Any ideas on how not to be citizendium? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have brought some up before.

1. We could try to advertise our way articles on Twitter and Facebook but no one wanted to do that. Gerard continues to be the only one running them.

2. I also have proposed we expand into other topics like criminology and animal rights (both contain pseudoscience and social justice). The problem was that I didn't know where to find people who have knowledge of criminology and no one seemed interested in animal rights.

3. Fuzzy has proposed adding more nuance to our political and social justice articles but that hasn't gone anywhere.

--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: reach out to other sites and steal their users FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good but who is going to do it and where are they going to go? The last time users reached out there were... issues.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobs has an idea!

Just a thought. If Hillary wins, there not only are still a lot of pissed off Sanders people out there, they will only get more pissed off at the rank, naked, corruption with a blank check the Clinton's hold. Get off the anti-Hillary hobby horse and give a place for the refuges of the Clinton smear machine. nobs 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think that the solution is to become more political.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think part of the project is that too often people consider this site more about "winning" than about having a rational debate and sometimes disagreeing. Because the only way anybody can ever permanently "win" is for the other side either to leave or be silenced. And if that happens often enough this is just the echo chamber of whichever sub-faction of a sub-faction "won" the most. I am not the Ombud's man 18:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Can't we just drone him?", refering to Assange. If that's not authoritarianism in today's world, what is? nobs^{— Unsigned, by: 73.98.20.96 / talk / contribs}

Aneris has an idea!

You have excellent Google ranking, and even had support from celebrities like Cher. Clearly, if there is a problem, it's not with the exposure. Your problem is that the RationalWiki is half-baked and obsolete. You don't know how to serve a target audience (you don't even know who they are). The design is hopelessly gnarly and looks like the 2000s. You should be rigorously complementary and use Wikipedia for your advantage, but more often, you try to compete with it. Likewise, you try to do a little bit of Encyclopedia Dramatica, but then you need to invent stuff, rely on Gotchas and you don't know whether to document ideas, or laugh about lunacy. Your “traditional audience” instantly sees that key articles are wrong (e.g. Elevatorgate). Your newer audience will be pleased that you include some of their pseudoscience, or that you provide FGM apologia or material on GamerGate, but they also have better places to go, e.g. GeekFeminism, the SJWiki et cetera and won't like that you disparage “prejudice plus power”.
Overall, the debate has moved on, and whole new segments have emerged that thrive on the new controversies (e.g. Rubin Report), but you here claim to be ignorant of all of this, and miss the opportunity. Making it worse, two factions are pulling in different directions: Fuzzy wants to return to olden days of the 2000s and combat Creationists and Woo. The Gerard Faction are social-justice “atheists-skeptics” from PZ Myers/Rebecca Watson's corner, and struggle like they do (their ranking plummets, too). You have no way forward, hence, you'll become a passive resource with little engagement. People will continue to read articles and consult based on Google. Maybe you should just embrace it. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Aside from that, you're putting two opposing views into blatant black-and-white morality. Everyone on here wants to combat Creationists/Woo and do some Social Justice. Pendejo Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Doesn't change the facts. There was even an attempt of a group to shove certain material into its own project. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You, not them. Sometimes I wonder if you're a Ryulong sock. Are you? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I used to opportunity to erase an embarassing apostrophe. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's 'the,' not 'to.' You traded in one editing mistake for another, and it looks like you're still acting like a bit of a dipshit. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 21:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Aneris this is shit b/c RW had user growth DURING the heyday of Gamergate (or do you not remember 14-15?). Facts not feels, kiddo FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see a contradiction? At the time you served that specific audience and provided relevant material for them. But you don't do that consistently, hence "half-baked". ~ Aneris ✻ 00:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see a contradiction? At the time you served that specific audience and provided relevant material for them. But you don't do that consistently, hence "half-baked". ~ Aneris ✻ 00:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

^{Do You Believe That?}

So you mean to say that the info the cat provided wasn't beneficial to the whole wiki? And you're assuming that FCP supplied information on the assumption that he has time to contribute to one whole subject of the wiki (the social justice articles). Maybe he was also doing research and work on Pseudoscience/Religion/Logic/etc. articles? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 16:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

My explanation

It's a very politically charged election. RatWiks are very politically charged. RatWiks spend their time reading election news and politics materials instead of RatWik. This would predict an influx of users in 2 months. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well did such a drop happen in the '12 election? Also, shouldn't we still try to motivate new users to try and expand this site?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing of the same level. I'd argue that '16 Trump v Clinton is more charged than '12 Obama v Romney. The '08 data is not applicable because the site was in its infancy. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's judge Fuzzy's hypothesis on its power of prediction then, shall we? I just have one question to Fuzzy: do you mean the influx is measurable in two months, or that the influx would begin in two months? Another way to phrase the question: do we test your hypothesis against the November data, or against the December data? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd check Nov-Dec-Jan and see if it's higher than the prior 3. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough! Let's settle this upon the posting of the January 2017 stats, then. If anyone can bother to remember. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Stabby's explanation

Shit happens Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Bongolian's minor notes

• Add more internal hyperlinks! Hyperlinks help to show the depth of articles available in RW, particularly to the casual reader. There is a general under-representation of internal hyperlinks, and I have been slowly plowing through articles to add them.
• How about adding a "Did you know…?" feature that highlights interesting tidbits that are perhaps not common knowledge and also link to the relevant articles. Examples:
  • Did you know that orchid bees and humans have chemicals in common their perfumes (and essential oils)?
  • Did you know that the world's smallest known natural visual system is contained within a single-celled organism (warnowiid dinoflagellates)?
  • Did you know that sea urchins have a diffuse visual system and no central nervous system (it is essentially an eye without a brain)?

Bongolian (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A proposal: the whinebin (whinedal bin? whine bottle?)

Are you tired of putting people like Avenger in the vandal bin, where they still shit out tons of HCM?

Why not put them in the whine bin!?

Tell me how it works!

1. David creates a user right, "whiner", that does absolutely nothing. (David will do this because he is enthusiastic about systems administration. David loves MediaWiki.)
2. An edit filter stops users with "whiner" rights that try to edit pages outside mainspace (ns = 0). (Full list here.)
3. A whiny user gets the "whiner" user right.
4. No more whining!
5. ... Profit?

Simple. Elegant. Flawless. Guaranteed. Luxury!

Buy now for a small price of discussion followed by majority vote -- and get an extra peace of mind free! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Problem. I'm whiney as all hell and don't like suffering consequences for my actions. Please advise. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Forum:Avenger said something, move said whining to said forum - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Such a forum will get deleted like the Robrail did. Because apparently diverting trollery to its own page is an unfair attack. Bicycle^wheel 22:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just proposed blocking the triumvirate as fucking toxic liabilities who make the wiki a fucking miserable place to interact on, that would also suffice - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Pb3 fuckwittery moved to coop - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

*cough* Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No thanks. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just put the simple version up at the Coop - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Fuck me

My mind is fucked at the moment. Everything's going fucking wrong for me, everyone's fucking leaving me, my first girlfriend broke up with me after a single fucking week, my psychological/former opiate addiction (it's hard to explain) sort of thing is taking over my mind and should I get a supply of that stuff, shit is gonna go bad. I fucking freak out and fucking dissociate or some shit, I can't fucking put up with all this fucking working and effort and schooling and shit like that, I just wanna fucking fall out of life and nobody in my life fucking gives a shit. I'm fucking unstable, I fucking freak out over the tiniest little shit, I'm ugly and my skin is fucking awful. I can see them all fucking bitching and laughing at Mr behind my back and what the fuck is going on? I am so fucking drunk and pissed off that I'm fucking ranting about this shit on some fucking shitto irrelevant website and I'm fucking mad. Meanwhile, you've got cunts carying on with this fucking "ban the Muslims" fucking bullshit??????? Why is that even a fucking debate? And another thing - fuck all this pro-death penalty fucking pro-fucking refugee death-camps and fucking "why do the moozles get a flag but not our troops SHARE IF YOU AGREE". Also, FUCK OFF A CURRENT AFFAIR! FUCK. MAD. ^{— Unsigned, by: 49.180.139.183 / talk / contribs}

I'm sorry to hear that, man. I'll cut to the chase: telling people on the internet how you feel is the first step — which you have now completed. The second step has to be talking to people near you in real life; a step you should not delay in taking. The third step, I must suggest, is speaking to a professional. If things go bad fast, visit the psych ER before you do something you can't undo. Hang in there, buddy. And the best of luck to you! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: racist/islamophobic shit going on everywhere. It sucks and I feel you, but it's one of those things you don't have control over. In the state you're in, dwelling on it will only hurt you. Take a break from following all of the bile circulating through national discourse right now. It'll be tough since - as I stated - it's everywhere. But you have to learn to let those things go for a time and focus on putting yourself back together. Rev's advice is an excellent place to start. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Do as Reverend says. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll pray for you. nobs 23:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Follow George Carlin's timeless advice: you've been given a front row trust to the freak show. Learn to point and laugh at all the freaks instead of caring too much. It's easier this way. PBfreespace (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"some fucking shitto irrelevant website" Oh my god how could you say that? You'll be invading Poland next. 2.125.247.226 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid, why was my comment removed, despite the excessive profanity and whatnot in every comment on this thread?? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they took offense at the Saddam joke?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 22:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I take offense to a person getting so angry at straw-man forms of positions, and choose to make a joke in response. I suppose the correct course of action would be to just delete the offended content, in this case the whole thread. I'll remember to be like Saddam next time :) :D Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I just remembered I did this. Sorry for being a semi-incomprehensible idiot when I'm drunk and thanks for the concern and all that yeah ^{— Unsigned, by: 49.197.35.235 / talk / contribs}

Friends don't let friends post drunk. Nowhere Man (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

After the anti-vaxxer faux pas

...Robert De Niro finally says something worth agreeing with. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

And I already hoped he recanted his position... The question really is, who would win in an aged-man tussle between the two? Both of them have anti-Vax opinions and fake macho credentials, De Niro through his crime movies and Trump through his "locker room banter". ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 12:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"Donald used pussy grab on De Niro! It's not very effective!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

😁. I totally forgot that both of them even have fake fighting experience. De Niro from Raging Bull and Trump from wrestling. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

De Niro's a communist whore. nobs 23:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

For those who missed it

Clinton supporters said she won the debate. MSNBC said Trump outperformed expectations. Berniebros said HRC missed her chance to bury the Republican Party forever, Bernie wold have crushed it. In other words absolutely nothing changed.

One interesting thing: Trump not only disagreed with his VP about Syria but admitted he had not even discussed it with him. Pence is widely presumed to be the real nominee for President, so a lot of hopes were dashed that Trump can be contained.. Plutoniumboss (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Republican vice president was the guy actually in control all along? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. CorruptUser (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump's proposal of getting all cogs moving to incarcerate Clinton if he became president was the highlight of the debate. It's like he didn't give a fuck in that moment if he came off as a dictator in the style of Putin and Erdoğan. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 12:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some bubba redneck "freedom fighter" tries to take Clinton out. If they truly believe that Hillary is a major criminal at large... Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying he'll jail his opponent makes him look good to the base who hates Hillary, as well as Republican voters who aren't sure about him but sure hate Hillary. But everyone be honest here: if John Kerry said he would try to prosecute George W. Bush for deceit of the public and war crimes in Iraq, would any left-winger here be complaining like they are now? PBfreespace (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You're unraveling, man. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about left-winger, but anyone who respects due process (like me) would advocate for Kerry to be shut the fuck down. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Jailing political opponents tends to be a bad thing to do, so any war crimes trial would have to be conducted by The Hague. I'm saying that if Kerry won and brought Bush to The Hague, I wouldn't demand Kerry resign or badmouth Kerry for it. Similarly, I'm not going to attack Trump for threatening to imprison Hillary, if for the only reason that it makes Trump look even worse. Let his words stand on their own merit: if the people are stupid and vote him in, they get what's coming to them. PBfreespace (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Hague has no political or judicial validity here, so unless the war crimes are charged in an American court, it's just a nonsense rally.

And you're showing your ignorance of American jurisprudence, because Kerry cannot bring anyone to the Hague. Out of his jurisdiction. He would have to make recommendations of prosecution on war crimes to the DOJ, who would determine if American law on the subject was violated. (Or American interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The entire argument of Kerry bringing Bush to justice is moot anyway, as he has been a wishy-washy pro-war candidate. However if he would have said something like that, I guess he probably would have had a teeny bit more of a chance of winning that election back then. The Democrat Party would have a far easier time winning if it started being more populist which would ultimately energize the moonbat base. Obama was so successful back in 2008 because he successfully managed to straddle the corporatist and idealist wings of his constituency. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

How can someone who has an email scandal, has made policies that spread ISIS, and calling millions of Americans deplorables getting so many votes?

How can someone who has an email scandal, has made policies that spread ISIS, and calling millions of Americans deplorables getting so many votes?--124.193.87.98 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Because she's running against somebody a thousand times worse. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Because even her staunch opposition--the ones who have to actually play the other side of the game as her, who'd uncork champagne if they could get her but also happen to be accountable for their actions and have oaths of office and ethics to uphold--admit the e-mail thing isn't a super-huge deal. ISIS, or something like it, was going to happen one way or another, and millions of Americans -are- deplorable. They have deplorable beliefs and act in deplorable ways.

Look at it another way. The man has been caught on tape and on radio bragging about making sexual advances on married women, but he criticizes the husband of his opponent. He's got the enthusiastic support of the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi movement. He thinks a 'million dollars' is a 'small loan'. How is he getting so many votes? --Maxus (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Last I heard, 25% of Republicans want him to drop out. Plutoniumboss (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Because nobody cares about emails and she apologized, because her plan to defeat ISIS exists, because she apologized for the insult, and because Trump has a list of scandals an order of magnitude higher? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that nobody cares about e-mails. The millennials she is trying to win over get further away from her when Wikileaks recently released her e-mail transcripts (unfortunately at the same time as Trump's misogyny was on full display, so that story dominated). Who can blame them for not being able to trust a candidate who says in their e-mails that they have both a public position and a private position on things. Some of those millennials see Trump's full-on idiocy and Clinton's two-facedness and find themselves unable to vote for either of them, or they flock to third party candidates in hopes that a third party might get federal funding and more political power 4 years down the line and break up the 2 party system a bit (essentially saying "I will write off the next 4 years and try to affect something after that"). Then there is the struggling below-living-wage working class/disappearing middle class/union people supporting families with sick people while unable to afford care/health insurance on 250 dollars a week who read how out of touch she is with anything below her rich middle class background and see Trump for the untrustworthy promises he makes about jobs and therefore they aren't likely to vote for either candidate as well. When voter turnout in the USA decreases the whole country loses, democracy loses, the world loses. These e-mails only exacerbate that. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

As a millennial with mostly millennial friends, I'd say what you're claiming is rare. I know about ten people who are having a hard time deciding and all, but one, is conservative. One was a hardcore Bernieorbust guy from the getgo and has fallen into believing many of the Clinton scandal lies (she has people killed regularly, etc.). The rest are all self-identified conservatives who hate Trump, but refuse to vote for Hillary on principle and are likely to vote for Johnson. As we know, most millennials are not conservative. Plus, most of us understand that having a private/public opinion on a matter is not an issue. I actually know far more boomers who are planning to sit this election out (every conservative woman I know above 40 actually). I know anecdotal evidence isn't data, but I don't think what you said was based on evidence anyway, so whatever. Ayzmo^Cheers 12:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(Hi, same bunch of numbers here from a different PC) Ok, not to give any credit to the usefulness of anecdotal evidence here, but your anecdotal evidence is probably better than mine, since you probably have more millennial friends in the US than me. Most of my "evidence" comes from social media comments (which, you know, are really biased echo chamber sources where calm thought gives way to emotion and exaggeration).

On a related note, we could discuss idealism vs cynicism in the younger generations. I've always assumed that they would lean towards the idealism spectrum of things, which means not taking the unreliable position trait too well and "voting your conscience" as a principle (in other words, only for candidates with integrity/trustworthiness, in other words, these people would be especially susceptible to things like Bernieorbust). 171.33.193.245 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

As an American millennial living in a red state, most of my millennial friends acquaintances are either libertarian Gary Johnson types (though without all the thought and principle) or flat-out Trump supporters who honestly believe Hillary had people killed. I met someone today who has an Infowars bumper sticker and honestly believes Hillary us just one of the worst people ever to live. The millennials I'm around tend to be quite pessimistic about politics and society in general. These are people whose parents saddled them with debt and ruined their futures (exaggeration, I know). The point is this is a simultaneously coddled and hardened generation, one that's conservative in spending and socially liberal. PB (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is her plan to defeat ISIL since all I have seen is that she will bomb them... and Obama is already doing that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, look at the alternatives - yeah, nope. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

We're at a terrible point in American politics where the reason one terrible candidate is doing well is "the other candidate is worse". Granted it's been that way for the past 17 years, but still. We need third parties that actually have a chance. PB (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There's "worse", and then there's "wow, I'm not entirely sure Hitler comparisons are inapt" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

17 years? You mean since the 217 years, sonny jim. It's been the lesser of two evils starting in the election of 1800.

You really need to bone up on your American political history, instead of that Marxist dialectic. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Because The Orange is worse.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC) 16:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

^This is the exact intellectual dishonesty that has pissed me off thourghout this election.

• We are assassinating people, most of them, being innocent, throughout the MENA Of the seven Muslim countries we are bombing, only one, Afghanistan, has an actual autorization of war from Congress
• Speaking of Afghanistan, when are we leaving? We have been there for over a decade making it our longest war and Obama will become the first president to have a war span their entire presidency
• We have deported a record-breaking 2 million people under a Democrat and many more immigrants who are being detained in detention centers, many of them being children
• The US has more prisoners than any other country and 1 million of them are Black. Most of our prisoners are held for victimless crimes, forced into slavery when they are held, and deprived of their liberties when they leave
• Almost everyday US police officers are stealing property, harassing people, or killing them w/o any accountability.
• Respected Democrat general Wesley Clark has called for internment camps for Muslims
• Democrats praised Bloomberg at their convention while his time as mayor saw Muslims being spied on and stop-and-Crown being instituted a log with other broken-window policies
• The US tortured POWs, who were kidnapped and indefinitely held w/o trial, and whose torturers weren't prosecuted
• We have a gulag which will never close and it's prisoners will be released throughout the world w/o a home to go back to
• Three government agencies use spy planes to collect info in bulk and mass surveillance has become even more "legal" despite 3 whistleblowers
• The FISA court is a secret court with secret evidence that never turns down a warrant to watch soeone and that individual will never know
• Muslim and leftists have been specifically targeted by of surveillance state. Muslims are already held to a different legal stamdard while protests are always meet with militarized police.
• Muslims already are on a registry that is both secret any that they can't get off not so they know how to. They are labeled terrorists and are restricted from traveling
• Oh and that precious wall Trump wants to build alreadt exists: built by Bubba, expanded by Dubya, and militarized by Obama

So what exactly is Trump proposing that isn't already happening?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I really dislike the people who pretend the US are the worst thing that ever happened. For starters the US is better in almost every respect than all but two or three dozen countries in the world. Even if you could live in your exact same absolute economic situation and job, would you really prefer to live in Sudan or Venezuela over the US? And those are not even the most egregious violators of human rights. Yes, the lofty ideals the US aspires to are hardly ever met. But aspiring to those ideals matters. Those ideals matter. If you think they don't then you probably also think 1776 was no big deal and the whole French Revolution was just one bunch of cynics murdering another bunch of cynics until Napoleon put them out of their misery. Rhetoric matters. Ideals matter. And the US is way better than its enemies make it out to be, even though it falls short of what it has promised itself to be. And people who gush over the US as if it could do no wrong are about as useful as those that bash it at every turn of their hat. I am not the Ombud's man 17:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a ton of shit here that I would say you're exaggerating to the extreme, but I can't be bothered to argue it. Guys like you don't convince.

I'll just keep it simple. You can have the status quo, or you can have the John Birchers and the alt-right in charge. If you really relish people like the Breitbart crew, Vox Day, Mike Cernovich, and so on being in charge and deliberately working to reduce racial demographics to pre-1965 levels or implementing the 16 points of the alt-right as law or packing SCOTUS, you go right ahead.

Those are your choices. Status quo or alt-right. What YOU want isn't available. So you can choose one, the other, or abstain.

But if you abstain, as far as I'm concerned you don't have a right to complaint. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not the Ombud's man 17:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cast What is being "overexagerrated" and at no point did I say Trump was preferable but continue to misrepresent what I said. The while "if you abstain you lose the right to criticize", shove it up your ass. People are fucking dying now and will comtinue to doe after so sorry if people abstain from giving a shit about the most important election that will only uphold the status qou. So yeah if the alt-right wins then they will have so many "legal" tools to use thanks to the covert fascism of previous presidents.

I said I wasn't going to go into what was over exaggerated with you. I have neither the time or patience right now.

Nor did I say Trump was preferable. I said your choice is Clinton or Trump, period. Those are the only practical choices.

As for people dying right now, dude, people die every day. The world is not just. The problem is, you want your idealism, when the only reality is cynicism. *shrugs* --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@LH Same with you. At no point did i sat that the "US is the worse thing that happened to the world". Disregarding such a stupid straw man, the US has no ideals that are being upheld. Almost everything I mentioned was a domestic issue outside of drones and Afghanistan. The magical Constituion isn't saving anyone from being warrantless surveilled, tortured, or assassinated in oh so progressive 2016.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, we need a new country at this point. It's hard to see how this system can be genuinely and effectively changed even as much as halfway towards where it needs to be. Simple presidential politics isn't going to cut it anymore. If we want money out of our political system and representatives that actually speak and make good policies for the majority of people, we need to have a revolution in Bernie Sanders' and Jill Stein's vein. The Democratic platform changes were alright, but we lost on so many important issues. We need to keep trying to get a progressive in the White House, but more importantly we need left-wing liberals in Congress. PBfreespace (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Owlman, you are hilarious. Your Hillary hate-boner has warped into an actual mental illness, I believe - really, taking Wesley Clark's admittedly rather shady idea of home detainment (radicalized, funny that you don't mention that) Americans as proof that the Dems are no better than Trump? Get help. Also your WIGOE posts are intellectual cancer, so stop posting them for everyone's sakes. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Our country reflects its citizenry. You want a different country? Change the citizenry first. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@NFH Haha, LOL you so #woke. I know that dehumanizing people by calling them "radicals" has always been in the best interest of the country. I mean such excuses weren't used to indefinitely detain the Japanese, exterminate the Native Americans, attack the Civil Rights protestors, deport radicals, or smear feminists. Where was Wesley Clark when anti-abortion terrorists were killing doctors, when far-right militias were shooting cops, or when Christian pastors were calling for the killing og LGBT people. At no point did I say that the "Dems were as bad as Trump" only that they have changed nothing but continue to purposely misinterpret my post, refuse to actually dispute my points, and bash mentally ill people like the human trash you are.

@Cast Well besides Princeton finding that the citizenry has "no statistically significant effect" on federal legislation and gerrymandering has become extremely problematic, elites have a massive ability to influence the populace. Obama's choice not to try torturers has normalized it. He chose to continue to militarize the police and to further expand the surveillance state. Muslims are being watched because they are Muslim and they will continue to be watched under these programs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Good points Owlman. Though of course, Trump as president would bring the USA completely into the realm of satire. But how America could bring such two contender to the fore already beggars belief. Astonishing especially when you consider that someone like Bernie Sanders was available. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

True. One talking point by Clinton supporters I can't fathom is that when they are faced with her more conservative record they say she can be moved but when they are faced by her acceptance of political bribes they say that it won't affect her because she has unwavering views. When it comes to Sanders, I doubt he would or could change a whole lot of those points on that list; he was still a hawk who supported drones and the MIC and he would still be close to Israel but I think he would've been someone who would have been more easily forced to be more progressive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If serious third-party candidates were available, then Americans would consider them. As it stands, Bernie is a modern day Jennings Bryan: a populist candidate whose strength lay in repetition of key phrases, but whose ignorant self-esteem and uncompromising nature lent itself to cult-like behavior. Stein appears to be in some kind of competition with Johnson over who can embarrass themselves on TV the most. She's the political version of that reporter who kept following around Buzz Adrin and demanding to know if the moon landing was faked, or "sovereign citizens" who film themselves getting pulled over on the Jersey turnpike. She's done nothing much for the Green party other to remind them of what a gem Nader was. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, due to the structure of the American political system, third parties have their work cut out for them when it comes to gaining any sort of real power. If a third party truly wanted to succeed in the United States, they should first focus on getting people in state legislatures and mayoral offices. Once they become better known at local levels, then they can start fighting for the House, Senate, and the President. Instead, the Libertarian and Green parties are too focused on getting a popular presidential candidate that somehow saves the day (à la Ross Perot, Ralph Nader), even in this strategy has been proven not to work many times before. Because of this misguided strategy, third parties have very little chance of doing anything significant in the long run (besides openly and purposefully tilting elections, which none of them have admitted to), as they have virtually no hope of winning without a strong base of support. As for me, I intend vote for Jill Stein anyway simply because my state is solid for Trump and I agree with Stein the most. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry man, but a vote for Stein or Johnson is a vote for Trump. I don't like Hillary either, but she's the only person who won't fuck up the country into even higher hell. If you agree the most with Stein, you are essentially supporting a candidate who is a known anti-vaxxer and wants to put a moratorium on goddamn GMOs. Unlike Hillary, Stein seriously has no comprehensive foreign policy or economic platforms. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 05:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"vote for Stein or Johnson is a vote for Trump", that is dumb. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. If I vote for Clinton and she loses, does that mean I wasted my vote? There are plenty of Democrats voting for Trump, and is he wins, it is because Clinton did a poor job convincing voters to vote for her. The criticism of Stein's views would have more merit if Clinton would end the surveillance state, end the drone program, or wasn't promoting regime change.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ending the drone strikes, the surveillance, and the advocating for regime change is super-important, but you're trading evil for ignorance with Stein/Johnson. The fundamental difference with voting for third-party candidates and Clinton is that the latter candidate has a much higher chance of becoming President than any other candidate, going by the current polls. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 06:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I would rather slam my dick in a car door than see Stein elected President. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zexoiler Yeah I would rather have ignorance than evil. I understand that third parties aren't going to win but there is no reason to vote for someone you don't prefer. Also, I assume you mistyped but I was condemning regime change.

@Pluto Not to kink-shame but that seems to be quite the overeaction. Stein is likely the only candidate who takes global warming seriously, though, she opposes nuclear energy which is fundamental to eliminating fossil fuels. Her GMO stance also hinders her plan to reduce pesticide use. My problem with her is that she has never wanted to be a politician so unless she plans to cipy Lessig's strategy of halting everything, she won't achieve a whole lot. Why do you dislike her?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear energy still requires dirty mining (which wind and solar power do not or in much smaller amounts) and it clogs the electric grid with too much baseload thus it actually harms renewables rather than helping them. To say nothing of the very real nuclear proliferation concerns (remember North Korea? Yeah, they had a "peaceful" nuclear program as well) another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 20:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

DAE NORTH KOREA?? HuffPo has a lot to answer for. Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Owlman That's a fair question. I think there are underlying trust issues with Stein that cloud her proposals. When she entered the race, she was for a slow transitioning to renewables. Now she's gone back to the old "nuclear power = WMDs" rhetoric from the Bush years. She removed the anti-vaccination plank from her party manifesto. Flash forward to 2016: Look, it's back again. Jill Stein cares about policy, not personality. Oh look, she's shitposting on Twitter again.

I find her superficiality and lack of consistency very troubling. Unlike Johnson and Nader, who were always fairly naked in their ambitions (replace the Democratic Party and acquire their matching funds), Dr. Stein is actually trying to deceive people, mainly young people. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinton won the debate

Or so says 538. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsurprising.

There's very little mystery about what will happen next, barring "game-changing surprises" which in actuality rarely ever happen.

The best that the GOP could hope for is that Trump dies and Pence becomes the forerunner. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

They would just write Trump in. Qualifications are for "insiders"—and who is less-qualified than a corpse? Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Holy shit! 538 being pro-Hillary and saying Trump's opponent is doing better? Who would have thought? PB (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with you, PB? This is an analytical article presenting a data-driven case and your first thought is "BIAS!1" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Anything that disagrees with Bernie or busting is bias to him. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Clinton is going to win the election, or that the data is sound. I'm simply pointing out that 538's team is in the tank for Hillary. PB (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

538 is in the tank for WHATEVER THE DATA SAYS, you fucking dip. That's not the same as being in the tank for Hillary. If they were "in the tank for Hillary", they'd just falsify the fucking data to make her the winner. "Unskewing the polls" and shit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well you could argue that whatever the "plus" is in their "polls plus" forecasts (which they lay out in detail for those not too lazy to look it up) is what represents their "bias". However, in their editorials they do explain that they are not tinkering with the "plus" and they actually think that - given the atypical way this election seems to turn out - the "plus" (e.g. demographic and economic "fundamentals") is actually working in favor of Trump in the prognosis, not against him. Economics and demographics would - according to 538 - actually suggest a fairly close race. But of course 538 are now and have for a long time been in the bag of the Chicago Cubs, so whatcha gonna do? I am not the Ombud's man 17:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If Trump's gay sex tape came out, his base would start talking about how this was completely normal and everyone had done it ... hmm, might be a win - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be his Piggate. As long as Trump's not the bottom, it's all good. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the debates won't actually convince voters for either candidate to support the other or to a third party. I think that even if the general populace views Trump to be the loser in each debate, it will only loser his turnout; I doubt this will convince anyone to come out and vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems a little arbitrary. Certainly Presidential debates have been known to influence the outcome. If these debates aren't making too much of an impact, that's because 1) they are two very inspiring/divisive candidates (depending on your PoV) & by this point a lot of people are very invested in who they're voting for or against with relatively few undecided voters, 2) the debates are being overshadowed by scandals, & 3) nothing very spectacular has come out of the debates themselves. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say that it would be a mix of the latter part of option 1 with option 3. I doubt the scandals are doing anything in particular since I only ever hear them mentioned by the other candidate's supporters. Take for example the most recent scandals on both sides, the Podesta emails are mostly being brought up by Trump supporters even though various outlets are covering it while the Trump tapes are being brought up by Clinton supporters. The only people whose voting choice seems to be affected by these scandals are the Religious Right and "Bernie or Bust" voters but neither of them particularly wanted to vote for the candidate they are supposed to get behind and they are a minority; it is possible that either faction could help sink the main candidate but they won't be the only reason for it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The real news is, America is likely to be at war before inauguration day. nobs 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Significant numbers of Republican congress & governors are backing away from Trump & this is likely to be reflected by (or influence) Republican voters. I don't think anything very similar is happening with Clinton's Democrat base of support. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It ultimately comes down to change vs status quo, and how pissed off people are on election day. It is not unlike at all people who voted for Obama in 2008, an unqualified neophyte because they were so desperate for change.nobs 00:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I voted for Obama in '08 because John McCain was old and Palin was dumb, and being President is a stressful job where you don't often get a whole night's sleep. It was more a case of competent vs. incompetent. I'm amazed that a former POW who got tortured has made it another eight years, but I still recognize it as a legitimate decision based on information I had at the time. I'd probably still vote for Obama, twice, were I to relive that period again. --Maxus (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Weasel I understand that many Repub politicians are jumping ship but I would say that Trump was elected because he opposed those politicians so I think it doesn't hurt him the same way it would hurt Clinton. I will same, though, that Trump is becoming less and less competitive as time goes on.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of turnout, Reuters had an interesting article on how people may not turn out if they think Trump will lose anyways. Since many people who say they are voting for Clinton say they are only voting for her to stop Trump they may not turn out to vote for her if they think she will win in a landslide; even if she does win, she will likely lack many of the Senate and what few House seats she needs in order to do anything before 2018.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Paul Ryan's plan is masterful. He knows Donald Trump won't win this election, so instead he's focusing on maintaining his party's majority in the House and Senate in order to stop Hillary Clinton from being able to get any signature laws passed. Although the Democrats would likely retake the Senate in 2018, she won't be able to get very much done due to the Republican obstruction. This may result in the Republicans winning in 2020 with a better candidate, handing over complete control to the Republicans. Certainly a long-term strategy that beats the Democrats' short-sighted presidential and centrist thinking. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You're so fucking edgy, PB. Not only have you been rooting for a Democratic defeat this whole election, but you're ignoring the possibility of a House Republican revolt against Ryan. Paul can't work out a deal with the Dems, either, he'll wind up like his predecessor. He's flying by the seat of his pants, and it's all highly dependent on how the public takes to a Clinton administration. He lacks the principled leadership you seem to want to attribute to him. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you show me an example from the past 3 decades where the house Republicans, while maintaining a majority, revolted against the leadership in order to work with a democratic president?

I'm waiting.

No, the only time they recruited was because they were more extreme than the leadership. That's not going to change because Hillary Clinton is president. Obama's been in there for 8 years and they've been trying to block anything here ever tried to get done.

Also, I'm not rooting for Democratic defeat in this election. It looks like Hillary is going to win anyway, so it really doesn't matter who I'm 'rooting' for. PB (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You talk a lot without managing to say anything insightful. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of my points, so I declare victory. Muahahahaha! PB (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In fairness to him, at least he's a participating voter living in America. The number of Europeans complaining about/trying to influence the election is Too Damn High. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Well US elections actually matter to the rest of the world. Elections in most of the world don't matter much (unless you have friends or family there) but US elections have a very real potential to lead to nuclear war if they go wrong. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 20:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Kill the coop.

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Chicken coop. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

UK Tory Party Conference

Have any other Brits been following the horrifying new immigration policies outlined at the Tory Party Conference over the last few days? Decades of anti-discrimination law are to be unravelled or undermined in favour of an us-&-them culture where immigrants (many of whom have lived & worked here for most of their lives) will be treated as unwelcome interlopers, businesses who employ them will be shamed as national traitors, & racists will have all their prejudices vindicated by government policy. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Good to know I'm not the only one worried about the state of Western politics! May, her cabinet and their advisers probably just think they are engaging in a bit of manipulative populism, but they are playing a very dangerous game. What they are doing is normalizing views that would have once been considered xenophobic or at the very least discriminatory. This is what happens when the political class and the media class let themselves be cowed by shouts of "it's political correctness!" and "we're not allowed to speak the truth anymore otherwise we're seen as racists!" Instead of continually challenging these views, pushing back against them, they have given up ground and now people who hold these views and worse will now believe not only that they are legitimate, but they are mainstream, especially in the aftermath of Brexit. In short, many xenophobes around the country now believe they make up 52% of the country, and May (who was for Remain by the way) and co, instead of challenging these views, will seek to profit politically from them by telling them it's okay to hold these views expressly (as she did in her speech) and via policy (many of which she probably won't go through with). --Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm genuinely shocked by what's coming out at this conference, although I guess I shouldn't be given May's terrible record on immigration policy as Home Secretary. I (naively) hoped that, since the Tory mainstream including May had backed Remain, the government would pursue a soft Brexit retaining freedom of movement. Instead the rights of EU nationals in the UK are literally going to be used as trade barter in exit talks, & even if they are allowed to stay it will be as the other in our midst. It's opening the door for all kinds of racism & xenophobia, which of course the Tories will denounce & shirk responsibility for.

& How is this even going to work as an employment policy? Up to now the principle (both legally & ethically) has been for employers to give equal consideration to all prospective employees who are eligible for the job (through citizenship, residency status or a compatible visa scheme). If employers are now under pressure to prioritise British applicants over "foreigners", non-nationals simply won't get shortlisted, freezing the job prospects of any already in the UK as well as new immigrants (& all, according to party speeches, in the interests of "fairness"). Perhaps that's what the Tories want but it's a serious civil rights issue & should be resisted vehemently. We'll see how that goes but I haven't been impressed with opposition statements so far. It seems like the right wing has succeeded so completely in shifting the overton window on this issue that all parties feel they have to make a show of being tough on immigration. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Even worse, May was one of the Tories who was bitching the loudest over the European Convention on Human Rights... You know, the little agreement that limits to how badly you can treat citizens and residents? Her reasons were as flimsy as they were tied to immigration bogeymen: That the ECHR might prevent the deportation of convicted criminals (apparently ignoring that this barrier is only in cases were such criminals risk serious persecution, such as torture or capital punishment, when deported, but hey, out of sight out of mind, right May?)

What is interesting about May's current spiel is how much it resembles a rhetorical mashup of the early days "Just call me Dave's" "Big Tent" hot air and something that sounds suspiciously like Corbyn's criticism of the results of 35-year infatuation with neoliberal economics that has left such views as the baseline of (New) Labour as well as the Tories and LibDems. My hunch is that May's sudden concern with inequality in the UK will be as evanescent and devoid of concrete initiatives that will actually have an impact on these issues as Dave's Big Green Tent. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a perfect summation of the situation UK finds itself in. I'm going to borrow this for the article if nobody minds. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It begins: the government is now rejecting experts they previously worked with on Brexit practicalities where those experts are not UK nationals. This is some very dark fifth column thinking. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Tories are going down the path of maximising damage to the UK economy. To negotiate any remotely favourable deal they need to swallow their pride and agree to freedom of movement, etc. Instead they are asking to have their cake and eat it too but that won't happen. I reckon there won't be a deal at all, the UK economy will take a big hit by being cut off from the single market, and all those Leave voters who will lose their jobs which will be getting their just deserts (sadly, the innocent are punished along with the guilty, and Remain voters will suffer too – but at least they cannot be blamed for their own misfortune.) Five years from now, people will look back on what a mess it has become, and the Tories will be rightly blamed for it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

May, Johnson, et al. are stuck between a rock (their ideology) and a hard place (political adventurers like Nigel). How can Theresa talk about pay gap and giving people back "their" jobs while gutting worker's rights on the side? It's schizophrenic. But these are Thatcher's children: In their perfect world, citizens don't have a say in policy, only shareholders do. Tories don't want to pay taxes, ipso facto cutting tax rates and services will magically create growth. Meanwhile, in reality, the free market is eroding before their very eyes. (As a response, I suppose, to the economics realities of privatization). Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a proper opposition. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You do have one, it's called UKIP. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If by "proper opposition" you mean Labour, then forget about it until either Corbyn converts to some shade of New Labour, the huge NL faction of the PLP actually accepts that they can't unseat him, the NLPLP actually manages to unseat him through its war of attrition, or some of the traditional media get a sudden change of heart and decide that Corbyn isn't Mao's ghost and actually start reporting on his policies (instead of cut and paste stories where his political opponents tell how awful he is). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"Five years from now, people will look back on what a mess it has become, and the Tories will be rightly blamed for it." Oh, how I hope you're right, Zack. But since the most recent five years' mess hasn't led to a swing against the Tories, I sadly have my doubts. The UK has run one of the hardest austerity policies outside of Greece, its results have been pitiful and yet Just Call Me Dave won his reelection bit last year. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately there is cross-party opposition to hard Brexit & to some of these other policies. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope you're right Weaseloid and that the pro-EU Tories will actually come through, but I have my doubts — especially on areas other than free trade (free trade is supported by a huge swathe of Tories, including Brexiters, as long as it doesn't include people). My worry is that the hardest of the hardline Tories will use Brexit to gut as much as they can of the remainder of the UK welfare state along with human and workers' rights under the guise of more "austerity" and "control" needed to "restore confidence" in Britain on the financial markets (what Paul Krugman calls the "confidence fairy") and to demonstrate that they are "taking back sovereignty" (in the empty posturing rhetoric of UKIP). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn is legit beginning to scare me. It's obvious his real mission is purging "Blairites" and not governing or winning elections. And letting 'the people' govern, which is why he raised no fuss when UKIP took over. They're on the same page. Plutoniumboss (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious, PB? Considering that he has tried to cooperate with a PLP, a significant faction of which has done nothing but drip feed negative stories to the press, throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him in the hope something sticks (alleging everything from racism and anti-Semitism to physical intimidation, authoritarianism, and misogyny), and trying to topple him at every turn, incl. trying to stack the deck in their favour by manipulating the election process, I'd say Corbyn has been extremely patient and conciliatory (not to mention pragmatic and realistic in appeasing this wing of the party).

It's pretty brazen for the MPs who have continuously tried to undercut Corbyn to cry about how terribly he is and extrapolating every simple restatement of the CLPs' authority under the party rules to (re)select candidates as threats going beyond the pale. Especially when it was these MPs who chose to play internal party politics at a time when the Tories were reeling after Cameron's failed Brexit gamble. Even worse, these Labour MPs not only allowed but actively assisted the Tories in offloading a large share of the blame for losing the referendum onto their own bloody Labour Party, and for what?

For no loftier reason than to obtain a short term excuse in which they used the "Blame Corbyn for Brexit!" narrative to try to force their own party leader to resign without having to bother with such petty details as actually challenging him in an open leadership contest less than a year after he had decisively won it in the first place.

Excuse me if my level of sympathy with such politicians is rather... manageable... Phrases such as cutting off your nose to spite your face or pissing your pants to keep warm springs to mind as the most apt description of their party political acumen.

As for Corbyn being "on the same page" as UKIP, that's definitely Poe territory. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Labour is coming to grips with what the Tories already know. Corbyn is going down hard in 2020. If they can distance themselves from him, Trump style, then maybe they can pick up the pieces. And this is not a self fulfilling prophecy. Everything that's come out about the guy paints the picture of a old pamphleteer who is, at best, out of his depth and at worst uninterested in leading. He played no small part in Leave's victory. Whenever the Tories overreach, he is nowhere to be found. He spends more time rallies than in meetings. He treats Britain (and indeed the west) vaguely as the enemy and the underdeveloped world as his true constituency.

Eh, look. I've been following politics in the United States very closely, and I've seen this movie before. The U.K. isn't as savvy, because by and large, their candidates are up front about what they stand for and want to accomplish. There's a new breed of lefty out there, one who poses as the progressive left, but is actually a closet accelerationist. They aren't interested in playing the politics game. Opposition and coalitions are the furthest things from their minds. What they want is to see it crash; either by helping it along or by defanging the "centrist" parties. Plutoniumboss (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, PB, are you also falling for the "blame Corbyn for Brexit"-nonsense? Look at the actual data, will you? Corbyn delivered practically the same proportion of Labour voters to Remain (63%) as the SNP (64%), beaten clearly only by the extremely Europhile LibDems (70%) and Greens (75%) and contrasting sharply with Cameron who managed to deliver 58% of his voters to Brexit. Also, it's pretty hard to see what Corbyn could and should have done differently during the campaign. He argued that yes, the EU isn't flawless, but all things considered, Remain is to be preferred. The claims that he wasn't "passionate" enough abound and are seldom explained, but they seem to amount to no more than the suggestion that Corbyn should have followed Cameron's Project Fear tactics - you know, the strategy which failed to convince even half Cameron's own voters... Are we seriously to believe that such a scare campaign would've tipped the balance? Or that an "All about the EU is sunshine and light" approach would've accomplished this feat?

As for the claim that Corbyn "treats Britain (and indeed the west) vaguely as the enemy and the underdeveloped world as his true constituency." I have no idea where you get this idea from. Sure he sees the trend towards a neoliberal jungle capitalism as undesirable, but he has held these views for decades and it chimes with the increasing concerns about inequality. Indeed, Theresa May is borrowing heavily from the same rhetoric, though this, rhetoric (i.e. hot air), is probably all she'll borrow, making speeches about how terrible the increasing inequality is and how Britain must "work for everyone", but I'd be dumbfounded if she actually starts to address these problems with more than words.

The reason Corbyn is so shocking is that he has reminded a lot of people that Labour was once a social democratic party, rather than a social (neo)liberal one. This is uncomfortable for those who are unable to grasp the concept of practical politics being more than a few millimetres to the left of Blair and they simply don't even want this to be an option. This is why the so-called leftist newspapers, The Independent and The Guardian, have essentially teamed up with the Tory press in trying to attach any unsavoury epithet to Corbyn they could think of. It reached such absurd proportions during this latest leadership contest, that the commentaries began to ridicule the papers' approach with such sarcastic remarks as "Corbyn ate my hamster!" and "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it's Corbyn's fault". I'm not optimistic about Corbyn's chances at a general election, but the alternatives are arguably even worse. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic about Corbyn's chances at a general election'.... Certainly not now, since he's let a once-in-a-generation chance slip through his fingers. His chances are now dependent on how hard the Tories squeeze the middle class, and they're not dumb enough to alienate voters to that degree.

True, he's not squeaky clean spin machine. But he's an obstinate roadblock to everything that Labour needs to do. Why did he refuse to say whether he would help a NATO member in need? (He would think any aggression would be the West's fault anyway.) What's he doing at a May Day rally? Why is Trident still a thing? Who cares about trains? The man has no sense of perspective and gives every issue the same (undue) weight. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the UK is going somewhere with this. Jokes aside, with all of this Tory BS will Northern Ireland leave? I feel like this is a very hard right swing that many of them wouldn't like but I am probably wrong.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like talk of NI leaving was a bit premature. Depends on how much lunacy is coming out Westminster. May has been handed unprecedented power and there is a real temptation to fuck with voters for their naivete, but she's a cypher, so your guess is as good as anyone's.. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So...

we all know that Mexico is undergoing a big, giant and amplified series of undending Headless Chicken Modes right now. How long has this been going on? Since Luis Donaldo Colosio got ganked? Since the beginning of Spanish conquest? The end of the Mexican Revolution? The frigging Drug War? Irredeemably stupid politicians? RatWiks, how do you think began, and what are your hypothetical solutions to the unending barrage of death and economic collapse? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 20:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Spanish empire did no favors for law and order. Same in Greece and Italy. They're aren't criminal by nature, but there is a sneaking regard for the sort of person who defies the law. Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

PB that's kinda racist-y. IMO: The endless power struggles within Mexico are to blame. Mexico has barely been a democracy for two decades; it and Nigeria (another resource-rich emerging democracy with dictatorial past) share many problems. The culture of rule of law in the US, Britain, Europe is substantial. Hence why we have sovereign citizens -- law has, in its own way, become so powerful as to become magic. Mexico, Nigeria, many other developing nations have usually not had this luxury. </armchair sociopolitics> Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree that incidents like Waco (and to a greater extent prohibition) changed the way we looked at authority figures.

Let me just add that Americans are head over heels in love with organized crime figures. In fact, I'll never forget one story. There was this famous sex symbol in the nineties, Linda Forgethername (she was in The Last Seduction). She was blacklisted because she and her G-man boyfriend (another Italian-American) bugged some private dick's phone so she could do research for a role. It's just silly stuff like that. I live in NYC and see it often with our city officials. They like to believe they're goombas even though they're small-time and always get caught very easily.

This is anecdotal stuff which sprang to mind when Zex mentioned Spain. Not trying to offend anyone, hope I didn't. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems in Mexico imho (besides its shitty politics) is the extreme inequality between the richest and the poorest. Now Mexico is by no means a "developing country"; it is on that weird step between "first world" (like its Northern neighbor) and "third world" (like Central America excluding Costa Rica and Panama). But in Mexico you will find wealthy oil CEOs that fly to meetings in their private helicopter to people who are working three jobs and are still hit incredibly hard when the metro-fare is raised from 3 Pesos to 5. Now the French revolution may have been caused by an inflexible regime and a largely dispossessed and put upon peasantry, but what was at the root of very close to every single radicalization of that revolution were the urban poor of Paris. Unlike most urban poor in history, those were well read and they cared a lot about who was in charge and what the constitution said and without them, the National Assembly would have likely produced a constitutional monarchy with guys like Lafayette in charge and that would have been it. But the Parisians would not let that happen. Now in Mexico there are several armed conflicts, some of them related to drugs and some related to poor peasants without much perspective, but the current PRI-led government will not fall because of one of those things. They might lose the next elections (if those are even half free and the opposition does not split the vote as they so often have), but the likeliest cause of a PRI downfall imho is a dissatisfied urban poor mob calling for bread and the likes storming the presidential palace. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 18:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Racialist BON: The irony

This discussion was moved to Talk:Racialism.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird spambot

Y'all need to look at this FB account https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011317243864

It appears to be a spambot, whose sole purpose is to post RW tallkpages. 197.89.55.18 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

She/it's using If This Then That (IFTTT). Maybe it's just a badly programmed script. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Activity

I sometimes wonder just how many registered, active users wander RationalWiki as of the day that is today. Say "here" in response to this if you're in fact "here" (and sign). Just like I'm about to do. If you feel like it, at least.

• Here - Converted From Conservatism^{doesn't give a fuck, probably} 02:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Here - (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not here. I'm somewhere else. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Here - Dustandshadow13 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Hi! TeslaK20 (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• buh David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yup –Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• I like the taste of penis - Ghost (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• I cannot think of a witty comment. - Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 15:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Witty comment PBfreespace (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• (Manhattan Beach surfer voice) Yo, dude. Totally tubular. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• I kind of always have sooooooo ye I hella wander yo'Legion^{what do you want from me} 17:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Ditto: I always find new examples of possible suspects that may need investigating such as: Doug Casey, Sovereign Man and Nomad Capitalist. Some of such sites claim they have a solution before hitting you with a paywall. It seems conspiracy theories are having a field day recently. --User4501 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• (insert snark here) Arawn Emrys (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• I doubt that anyone is surprised I'm here. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm here ^{[citation needed]}--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 20:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Adsum. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Linoleum--Cms13ca 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oh I'm here. I'm always here. I don't edit (who needs teh dramaz), but I lurk and watch..... MyHatIsBread (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Bongolian was here. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Some of us don't pay much attention to the Saloon Bar. Is this vote rigged? I love winning. I always win! NeverTrump! (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• I pop in most days, though I often avoid the bar. Ayzmo^Cheers 12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Here on the days I've nothing better to do. nobs 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Still check in every few months in the hope that things have gotten better. Tab back out when I see the same stuff happening. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 02:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• I am here for now. I am not the Ombud's man 02:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Othgard son of Sigurd carved these runes 81.145.153.190 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, check a couple of sections up. There are #Stats on wiki activity & active users. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that this tally is on registered Saloon bar readers who bother to reply. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere in the multiverse. I'm a first time wikiist, be gentle with me. Obi-Jon (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My plan for parody book covers

For fun, I've decided to make a series of parody book covers, about books which could have been written by fundamentalists, wingnuts, or extremists. Here's an early prototype of my first cover. It's still in a very primitive stage, plus it was made in GIMP (a software I am less skilled with) rather than Photoshop. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. I need a better subtitle too. TeslaK20 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks pretty awesome. My suggestions:

• Alex Jones: The Globalist NWO Plot to Take Over Our Lives and Make us Steeple
• Glenn Beck: Holy Nation: Taking America Back for the Righteous
• Rush Limbaugh: Barry's Bad Brain: Why Our President is so Dumb PBfreespace (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Grab 'em by the pussy" - a dating advice book by Donald J. Trump. I am not the Ombud's man 21:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Donald Trump: Fixing Things: How Having The Smart People Will Get Government To Start Working Again Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Broccolini - how liberals force Americans to eat kale, broccoli and other fascist food I am not the Ombud's man 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• David Icke The Zoo Keepers: Exposing The Satanic UN Link To Terrariums Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Murdering McKinley - hey you read "my" other two books about Presidential assassinations so suck it up by Billo the Clown I am not the Ombud's man 22:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Bananas and other evilutionist nightmares by Ray Comfort-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

So I'm guessing the long game here is getting a wingnut media icon to sue you for intellectual property theft? 173.71.121.36 (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? I am not the Ombud's man 01:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I was joking that if you make up enough satirical wingnut book premises, eventually you'll come across something that a wingnut will try and make a legitimate claim to. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You can tell this is fake because she's not mentioning Mexicans, global warming, and Democrats in the same sentence. —Oh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 07:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

My next one may be "Unnatural: The Liberal Plot to Destroy the Family". I haven't decided on an author yet. Who should it be written by? I also want a book by Sir Doctor Professor Kent Hovind, PhD, MD, JD, DD. TeslaK20 (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Great book. I like that it takes their assertion and exaggerates them ever so slightly to become silly, yet plausible. I once also made a parody book, but of a different nature. Aron Ra's Manchurian Candidate. The context three years ago was that he unwittingly promoted some dictionary belief hardly anyone questions, while the actual dispute was about the ideological fine print. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Rapists: How the Mexican Aliens are Driving America Into a Third-World Welfare State Under Obama by Donald Trump and Pete Wilson, with a special introduction and foreword from David Duke, and Rush Limbaugh. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 20:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Abducted: Jehovah's Alien Descendants and Their Plot to Enslave Us, as shown by eyewitness evidence and ancient Turko-Sumerian texts, by Zecharia Sitchin.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My guilty secret : the more crazy she talks the more attractive I find Anne coulter. I find her both repelling and compelling, like having a Christopher Hitchens crush on nagged thatcher :) bat shit crazy right wing chicks are smoking hot. I am so conflicted right now in my sjw Magic undergarments. God bless amurruca and my personal kink. Now argue for ridiculous right wing positions, yes, yes, rub your vitriol all over err....um...oops Gadzooks (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Clowns

As there is an ongoing infestation of 'creepy clowns' and my goats are on holiday [4], can someone do a proper RW article on them. Anything which draws the ire of the Clowns Association [5] #and# Wikipedia [6] #deserves# a mention here. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly missional. If you wanna whip up a well-sourced, well-written non-stub article, please feel welcome to. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as especially missional. It doesn't appear to relate significantly to science, religion or politics, & most likely will be an odd fad largely forgotten in a few months time. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Give Template:RationalWiki MainPage/About its own page

IMO the mission deserves its own page and some accompanying discussion. It's easy enough to create a new template to transclude. FuzzyCatPotato of the African Nitrogens (talk/stalk) 04:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, why not? Mission is certainly misssional. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 21:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Great!-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Mission. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. Not one to be undertaken just because you had it, though. Mangling the CS page and creating yet another template because you feel like it and three people say "cool" is not the best way to do things. ħuman 04:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

mangling

Right. Moving the fully 50 words of the RW:CS that refer to the mission onto a page about the mission = "mangling".

The RW:MISSION page is literally just a compilation of what RW already said about the mission, and the mission template is just a more precise way of transcluding the mission. Nothing substantial has changed -- hence why the support of four seemed fine. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Boys, boys! You're both right! Now kiss. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's only 50 words, why even transclude it? It just makes the page harder to edit, chasing templates. But I'm glad you are personally capable of deciding how much support any given whim that occurs to you needs. ħuman 17:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of Styxhexenhammer666's analysis?

Trump Will Probably Win if the Clinton Leaks Continue (Not A Final Prediction)

Basically he's saying, Hillary probably not having a lot of major bombshells left to drop against Trump + WikiLeaks continuing a steady drip-drip-drip of increasingly damaging leaks that work against Hillary = 90% chance of Trump winning. L's Ideology (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's problem is, the emails are not really revelations, they only corroborate what everyone suspected and the naive have been in denial of. nobs 06:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The sexual assault admission put Trump squarely in front of a bus with no need for someone to throw him under it. Clinton doesn't need more bombshells; that big one is still exploding around Trump. It's four weeks to voting election and every response and defense Trump has made to his current troubles is making it worse. He threatened to sue the New York Times for libel, and their response was "Bring it on, sunshine". And he's got another debate to go, and there's no reason to think he won't flounder along especially if it comes up that he may well have walked into the dressing rooms at beauty pageants and the like. His campaign hasn't opened any voter centers or made any particular effort to rally the voters, and the RNC isn't going to spend money on his behalf when they've got the House to look after. His news is dominating the airwaves, so any Wikileaks docs are getting second billing if that, and that's demoralizing to a conservative voter (on the upside, you could probably make a killing by scalping whisky. Buy now and then hang out around a liquor store on Election Night. No matter which side loses, there's going to be boozing happening to deaden the pain). On top of that, Wikileaks has some credibility issues to sort out, rightly or wrongly, so not too many people are believing them until they can show they're not being backed by Russia or something. --Maxus (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if WikiLeaks is being backed by Russia, Hillary isn't disputing that the leaked documents are authentic. I guess they could be holding back some documents, but Hillary is free to release whatever extra documents she wants in order to give a more balanced disclosure. L's Ideology (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary actually knows how to do damage control, just look at her response to Cooper's inquiry into her speeches during the last debate. Meanwhile, Trump's first response in a crisis is to shoot himself in the foot in front of a national audience, then - with the smoking gun still in his (tiny) hand - try to blame Mexicans, Muslims, and women for it. 166.216.165.55 (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is little more than a Russian propaganda outlet to help get Trump elected. And they don't even do that very well. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it the same people who brought you Iraqi WMD now claim Russian hackers are responsible for the leaks and not DNC insiders like Seth Rich? nobs 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think a Hillary win will be a blessing in disguise for the anti Clinton folks. A gargantuan media industry will spring up to stoke anger against the POTUS, welcome the disenchanted, and feed the conspiracy narrative with a constant barrage of rumors and Wikileaks. And with Trump no longer running for anything and therefore criticism of him irrelevant (imagine the subject of Trump no longer dominating all news coverage), the mainstream media will turn to analysis and critique of HRC's administration in order to fill the news cycle. Leuders (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

We will not go quietly into the night. (But you're right, Democrats recognize this is only delaying the inevitable. The GOP has successfully co-opted their labor base.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

If Assange can't get back on line quickly with another big dump to hurt Hillary, and Wikileaks alleged Russian sponsors are incapable or unwilling to help, this would tend toward a conclusion that it was not Russian hackers in the DNC mess and Seth Rich was indeed the inside source. nobs 17:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a whole lot of wishful thinking to me. If WikiLeaks is trying to get Trump elected, they're doing a remarkably shitty job at it, seeing how his numbers have been consistently going down ever since the first debate. If, on the other hand, they're trying to sell books to the far right, they could be doing worse. Vulpius (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully expect more firebombings of RNC offices featuring amateurish notes attributing them to Hillary/Democrats to appear in swing states like NC, FL, and OH. Leuders (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, is that ever a special snowflake edgelord username. Why trust evidence-based statistical analysis from 538, when the contrived narrative of someone who names themselves for apocryphal satanic elements of Christianity exists. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Science Must Fall

Social justice, erm, "activists" state that the whole science project must be "scratched off". One "activist" talks about some african conception of lightning strikes, and apparantly someone in the audience has the temerity to microagress by disagreement. The perpetrator is then asked to apologize and it is reminded that there are house rules: "this is not an antagonizing space [...] this is a progressive space", she explains (Safe Space). Another "activist" adds what's the problem with modernity. "Western knowledge is totalizing". This comes in quite handy, since war on science & antiscience are currently under scrutiny. Science Must Fall, Oct 13 ~ Aneris ✻ 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

append "some" to everything Aneris says Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone asserts that there is no antiscience/war-on-science from the left. The problem, Aneris, is when you imply that this is more than an academic exercise. (How many people identify as postmodernist antiscientists on the daily?) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

How many people, you ask, and seemingly presume to answer: "zero"? This sort of thinking is rife in the world outside academia, too, and this is where it starts. ħuman 18:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is surely an important enough topic for us to cover. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this nonsense; ivory tower academic as it may be (read: is). Regardless, useful to mention for some article, indeed. Textbook nuttery. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Steven Novella's response. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You could have left it on the subject. Now I must conclude that you live in your own universe. Not only do you and others deny nearly everything I write about the subject, you then have the audacity to deny that you deny this. Let's leave out the older things. Just in this one case, all contemporary references were removed from the article, were they not? More was contested on its talk page, earmarked with typical personal insult, or isn't this the case in your version of reality? And don't you think that this situation is rather characteristic, even though we are now “down” to completely trivial common knowledge, so trite and common that I felt it would be acceptable to document? (and it was still heavily disputed!) ~ Aneris ✻ 18:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this straight — are you in actuality contending that the fact that this entire section, originally drafted by you has been left in the article is a sign of a conspiracy to keep you out? Also, Steven Novella's answer said about everything that needs to be said on in reply to the original nonsense. Notice how he doesn't have a super-sappy tone like you do, either. Much nicer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, you fall into the typical pattern of associating all your enemies together. Must I answer for everyone you dislike's actions? No. So don't bitch at me about your damn edits being reverted.

Oh, and you claim that I asserted there is no war on science from the left? Doubtful. At its closest, I've asked you for one shred of statistical evidence to back up the scope of your "SJW" foe, and you failed oh so miserably. That's not the same thing as saying leftists can't be antiscience or that SJWs don't exist -- as your superior anti-postmodernist logic should surely tell you. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The word you're looking for (or possibly this). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• The word you want is gaslighting. Astute readers can see also that you two have moved the goal posts. My assertions remain true. Links are above, and available in countless other fossil records, other articles, and externally on “Kiwifarms” and the reddit “Wiki in Action” (Fuzzy raised attention to external discussions; he participates there; he knows what is going on). In addition, editors who paid attention know of COOP cases, glitches and other kerfuffles that seem to never end.
• There are also no enemies. The RationalWiki calls its system a “mobocracy”, which does not distinguish who exactly joins the mob at any one time or subject. In addition, I have stated my position numerous times. It doesn't help to misrepresent it over and over again (and then whine when I restate my view again). On the contrary, SJWs are famously jonanists who regard every opposition to their nonsense now as “Alt Right”. I however, reject the Culture War framing as simplistic and wrong (also an old hat, how often do I have to bring up Chomsky, Sokal or Levitt?)
• The contemporary authoritarian movement around Safe Spaces, Trigger Warnings, Cultural Appropriations etc is becoming well known, despite your constant obscurantism and feet-dragging. The so-called “Social Justice Warrior” exist as much as the “Troll” exists, and despite possible misunderstadings what is meant by it. If one term is polluted by idiots and obscurantists alike, another term will take its place. “Regressive” is already the second term on the treadmill.
• King Crocoduck now offers a new word: The New Lysenkoist, and his criticism is even more serious. It's directly on topic, but I want to also draw attention to the fact that he also mentions Critical Race Theory, as did I repeatedly. Another nice thing about it is that he makes use of Real Peer Review, too, the very source that got quickly axed from the article here (of course), together with the contemporary relevance, which Percy was denying through goal post shifting. But hey keep doing it. At some point you only have gaslighting left.
• PS: thanks for the placard, have added it to my page. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, just to get your claims straight — what was it exactly that I was tactically denying by the fallacy of moving the goalposts? Mind you, I've already given you the thumbs up to Real Peer Review on my talkpage, and above (in this very discussion), I wrote (to you, Aneris): "Thanks for drawing attention to this nonsense; ivory tower academic as it may be (read: is). Regardless, useful to mention for some article, indeed. Textbook nuttery." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What a pity. I watched the video, rapidly became disgusted with what passed for comments at youtube, and came back here hoping for an excellent discussion of the topic. All I see is infighting over what must surely be other battles won and lost elsewhere on the site. Has this place descended to the level where personalities/messengers are what information is judged by? ħuman 18:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The good news is that the problems around this subject are not ordinary. If they were, the rather unpleasant things would be commonplace, and luckily they aren't. But it is the case, at present, that the “mob” defends the intersectionality “social justice” movement, despite its often cited authoritarian nature and despite that the foundation of this movement should make people cautious: “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006). Of course, that sounds rather scary. I guess most people have never looked beyond the “trivially true” concepts offered to them. Other reasons are sociological rather than ideological. When you are presented with a manichean worldview of either with, say, nasty comments on YouTube or the Alt-Right, or against them, then every decent person would go against them, and be in favour of the good sounding idea of “intersectionality” of progressive values. SJWs themselves sell their idea as “generic left”, but arguments over “Regressives” show that others think “not so fast!”. There are countless more possible reasons why people join in, but none of them make the dubious (vulgar/Tumblr) postmodernist ideas true. Of course a decent literate alternative that is both left, and feminist is available. But you have to step away from the framing offered by the CTRL-Left and their newer Alt-Right opponents alike. I'm actually entirely fine when the RationalWiki wants to endorse this intersectionality movement, as it does now. I just want this to be transparent then. If there was Mission Point 5 “intersectionality social justice is our thing, leave it alone!”, I would heed the rule. But pretending to be against authoritarianism and anti-science, but then being blind on this subject is dubious, and does a disservice to actual good causes. ~ Aneris ✻ 22:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

But how are we "blind on this subject"? (Like "we" are any type of coherent group — but I digest). You seem to conflate Gerard reverting you with everyone on this site acting in ideological unison or something. Do I get any points from you for what I wrote just then, next to Human, in response to you? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Though he is fairly controversal, which is not exactly a secret, I don't actually have a problem with Gerard. I don't hold grudges anyway. He's probably an okay person and we probably agree on great many other things. I don't even know whether he is the AronRa/Moriarty type of blinkered follower; just a committed tribesman; or a true believer. I actually doubt that veteran skeptics are true believers, but who knows. Many of them are by happenstance and flamewar stuck in some tribe, and that then informs everything else (do you see harassment from anti SJWs, or from SJW, then the dynamics of confirmation and reporting bias can go on autopilot). By “you” I meant the mob, as per RationalWiki's explanation somewhere, as I wrote above. I also don't think, nor did I claim that anyone was acting in unison. I don't have an issue with you either. You are mostly nice and positive for the Wiki, though I feel you were unreasonable in this case. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Though I will gently lampoon your pathos, occasionally — and no ill will in that (a developed sense of irony is indeed a treasure) — I try to make qualitative edits, and I upvoted the witch thing in RW:CLOGS (read: my understanding of up/downvoting RW news items is that you vote on the missionality of the post, right? So my upvote meant "Yes, this is nuts"). Just to name two recent things off the top of my head — for what it's worth. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to need to see more evidence than just some idiot kid in a university spouting a bunch of nonsense (like none of you had your heads up your ass when you were teens) before I believe this is actually a widespread thing. CorruptUser (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the point - we fight to prevent it from becoming widespread. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And/or document its existence, at the very least (in an effort against denialism). Regardless of spread. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Slow-ish wiki today

Connectivity gotten me so upset. 404 made me lose my rest. And everybody knows about root GODDAMN Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I know of at least one fork that was justified in part with outdated software... another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 20:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Been acting up for me too, today. Never fear; the ravenous pandas of tech support are on the case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

RedPanels

Has anyone seen this reactionary shitty webcomic? Its name is derived from the redpill "philosophy" and has a ton of racist and sexist strips. (Look at the anti-Semitism.) I have never seen so many straw arguments in my life.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Try the Iron Pill sometime. It's hilariously bad. --Maxus (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does that even exist? It reminds of this alt-right video called, The Last Son of the West.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And it's pro-Trump! What's not to love cringe? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Something worth mentioning in the article on Pepe the frog? The fact that this pro-Trump, Alt-right comic is very true to the program (as it consistently uses Pepe to bash Hillary)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think he is using that meme because it is now associating with the alt-right.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not wrong; this exact state of affairs is what I alluded to in the first place. Thus cometh the missionality of our article on Pepe, for the record. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Those Pepe cartoons you link to all postdate the mainstream discussion of Pepe prompted by the Clinton campaign's statement on the subject, i.e. probably jumping on the bandwagon. There are far more canonical examples of the Pepe meme's role within the alt-right. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Maddox shits on "alternative news site[s]"

Would this be worth inclusion on an article? If so, which one? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The comments are a concentrated form of altie tears:

Madox ^[sic] doesn't like being called a Cuckold ^[sic] therfore ^[sic] he shills for the MSM.

Great video, Maddox. I'm sure your wife's son is very proud of you.

member ^[sic] when you weren't a shill ...ahh ^[sic] the good old days

Jeeze, this is just sad. Rachel Maddowx ^[sic] needs to take a few months off, maybe go camping, maybe go on a retreat and suck off a guy in blue linen pants. Just anything to clear his mind up. He can't deal with the stress of being flat out wrong and constantly fighting off logic. Take some time to heal, and come back when you are ready to apologize.

Shitbart tards on suicide watch

Ahh, so good. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if those are comments posted below a YouTube video, my suggestion is no let's not include them in a RW article. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What in holy hell...? So now we can't cite any videos that upset Alt-righters!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@FCP Great video, I'll add it somewhere relevant. Maddox is becoming an SJW cuck as of late, and it's starting to upset the internet hate crowd who thought he was on their side. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I'm pretty sure FCP only wants to link the video to an article, and the comments are schadenfreude fodder (schadenfodder?) for the saloon bar. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@RBP, Maddox? Hardly. He doesn't like the SJW's and Regressive Leftists, but the Alt-Right didn't seem to understand that those words weren't originally dogwhistles... CorruptUser (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Add it to Maddox' article (which needs a lot of work anyway) as a showcase that he can be pretty reasonable inbetween his day job of pretending to be an alpha male on the internet. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 08:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Blogosphere

Are we allowed to post our own stuff there or does it have to be posted by someone else? TY,Threadnaught (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean like a Tumblr post or Twitter thread or do you mean an actual article or blogpost you did?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I don't mean to belittle your post if it is a social media post. I, personally, don't see anything wrong with it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Tag it with {{sp}} if you do - David Gerard (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

Performance problems have been resolved for the time being. Please thank David Gerard and his fiddling with apache. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Neato! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking up the term on Wikipedia page there is mention of 'A Patchy Server' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I prefer Hank Marvin's guitaring on Apache. Bicycle^wheel 20:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

quantum rubbish

You need to creat a place for QUANTUM RUBISH: i.e.quantum healing, quantum touch therapy, quantum mind.....etc ^{— Unsigned, by: 200.23.6.133 / talk / contribs}

We already have. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Password Cracker

Does anyone know of a reliable password cracker that can be downloaded on Windows 10? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A vital question — among many, and this is without even touching questions regarding the legality of the issue — is what type of password you need cracked? An encrypted archive, a Windows login, a WiFi password...? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

John the ripper is generally the password cracker of choice for reversing just about any hashed password. Though if you want a windows password, just use the install media to bypass it... or if you're trying to crack some online service... er, don't? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. I needed it to get my own password. Now I have it. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary was supposed to control her husband?

This article was saying that some of Hillary's critics believe she should've controlled her husband better. But if she tried to control him, wouldn't that make her a domineering wife, which would've gone against the traditional norm that the wife is supposed to be submissive? So she loses either way. L's Ideology (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This old saw? Yes, I remember the Democats losing the women vote in 2000, because a lot of voters felt Gore "should have done something" e.g. physically restrained his boss' monster cock, losing an eye in the bargain. By all accounts Gore was in the dark about the Lewsinky affair, but it didn't absolve him come election time .Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A lot of manosphere commentators say that a good wife should let her husband have affairs, especially once she's no longer in her 20s. According to that theory, it was her job to NOT try to control his sexuality. For example, Roosh says, "As long as I'm physically attracted to her, I don't see why I would go and stray actively, but I think it's also unreasonable to expect a 50-year-old or 60-year-old woman that you've had sex, that you've been having sex with for 20+ years, to remain physically attractive. I think that's an unreasonable demand to place on a girl. So if in that case a man decides to stray once in awhile, I don't think it's the end-all, be-all of the marriage. But I think the one thing, the man shouldn't do any actions in public or flaunt an affair that could later humiliate his wife. I think the wife shouldn't be harmed by what a man does on the side. But I'm not gonna say I'm gonna do it. I mean, there's no way to know, but I don't, I wouldn't go into a marriage with a plan that I'm gonna cheat on her soon." L's Ideology (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand how that line of attack is working on Hillary. You would think that people would more sympathetic to women who are cheated on especially if they are conservative; usually this line of attack only works with guys as long as you don't bring up Hillary's statements about Lewinsky. I mean no one blamed Jackie Kennedy for JFK's adultery but, then again, no one seemed to really care about his affairs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There's two reasons for that. Hillary didn't seem particularly fazed by any of this; she had weathered Bill's adultery before. She called Monica a loon, Gennifer a failed cabaret singer or something like that, and probably helped with Bill's legal briefs. So she was not acting as his spouse, she was his attorney. And nobody likes those. This fed into reason #2. People are quick to assume the worst about powerful families. What began as a "marriage for the cameras" became a conspiracy casserole. Hillary is a dyke, the Clintons are swingers, Bill isn't Chelsea's dad. And as we know, repetition always wins out over truth, so a substantial number of people (including fans of a wildly-popular Netflix shows) believe that Hillary is using Bill as a launchpad to attain power, at any cost. Plutoniumboss (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I think it was a poor decision to have mocked Monica so there is a good reason to criticize her there but I have some doubts that you can expect her to control her husband and still believe it was wrong for her to mock Monica. Secondly, I don't think there is anything wrong with assuming the worst of powerful families but I think that is why she has so many conspiracies theories against her, at least when it comes to sex. These conspiracies certainly feel like a modern version of the aristocrat's joke.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Creep Clown Origins Theory

I have been wondering if the original intent of the recent rash of creepy clown appearances is to show how society gets into a moral panic over perceived threats such as the Muslim women wearing Burqas. --Cms13ca 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing so rational or well thought-out, I suspect. My opinion is that it's a combination of false reports, mass hysteria, and possibly-drunk high-school/college guys doing it as a prank, all pumped up by 24-hour-a-day news channels and people posting reports on the intertubes. Nowhere Man (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yeah: Cecil Adams weighs in. Nowhere Man (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it started as a viral marketing campaign for the upcoming movie reboot of Stephen King's IT, that then got seriously out of hand. Obi-Jon (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone wish to create the article - and is there an overlap with the Slender Man meme? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To add to the Wikipedia page and the 'annoyed Clown Association' mentioned above can add the London Dungeon representative #and# Batman. Needs slightly more snark than I can presently devote to the topic. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

NatWest freezes RT(Russia Today)'s UK bank accounts.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37677020

I don't really know what i'm doing so maybe one of you lovely(but quite scary) people can do something with this and put it in an appropriate place. Obi-Jon (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: a bank has told one of their customers to take their money and get out. Arawn Emrys (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Now it looks like I was booing this answer. I was trying to scare Obi-Jon. And I got that wrong too by the look of it. Better get back to ghost school for some last minute revision before Halloween. 94.1.169.89 (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If we learn the lessons of history we're still doomed to repeat it anyway! Scared yet?

Boo! 94.1.169.89 (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

...Putin?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well done, NatWest! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)