RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive263

Axe to grind

Here's a quote that's sure to appall anyone with a basic knowledge of physics:

“”While in its natural state, bentonite clay has negatively charged electrons intact, most toxins and heavy metals have positively charged electrons. This allows the two to bind together easily and stay united while the toxin removal process happens.

Axe is a doctor of chiropractor/doctor of naturopathy (not an MD) who's following in Dr. Oz's footsteps. Axe is well worth an article for anyone willing to wade into his cesspool of coffee enemas. His vanity article seems to have been deleted from WP, but a ghost of it can be found here.[1] Bongolian (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That quantum woo word salad just gave me a migraine. In the order of his claims:

• Define "natural state".
• You mean, positrons? Also, "bentonite clay" does not "have" positrons.
• "Intact" electrons?
• "Toxins" is classic pseudoscience terminology.
• "Most heavy metals" do not have positrons, no.
• The presence of positrons "allow the two to bind together easily"? Dude, positrons are antimatter. Just to name one simple interaction; in an electron–positron annihilation, gamma rays are created. "For your health!"
• Is the suggestion literally that you can consume heavy metals in order to remove toxins? What is this, Ayurveda?

What a grade A ass clown. Great find, Bongolian. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, heavy metals occur in nature so they can't be toxins. Big pharma apologists are so dumb. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait... Positively charged electrons? Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 15:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's why RBP said "You mean positions?" Which are, for most intents and purposes, positively charged electrons. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

But positrons do not bind with electrons... they annihilate them. Any material with intact positively charged electrons is antimatter, and you do not want antimatter anywhere near you, unless you want to find out first-hand that E=MC^2 is definitely not "liberal claptrap". --TeslaK20 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, positron/electron bound states do occur, but they are short lived. Furthermore, positron annihilation created gamma rays are how PET scans work. DarkAngelCryo (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, positrons are useful for a wide range of "scans"... For example, in positron annihilation spectroscopy. Though, in such cases, the question is always what the positron source will be; generally a radioactive isotope of some kind. Positrons don't exactly "hang around" (anymore). And since bentonite (suggested by the above crank) isn't radioactive... Yeah. Regarding positronium — interesting! Though, "short lived" is no exaggeration. Even in an excited state (which slows down annihilation) the lifetime is measured to around a single microsecond in a vacuum. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Narky @Ikanreed Clarified my phrasing above. And the guy is indeed talking about positrons, without even understanding that he is. Positrons have the same mass and charge as electrons do, but the charge is of the opposite polarity (positive instead of negative).

@TeslaK20 Indeed; as I already point out in bullet point number six. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion; I added this to the big list. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It seemed to me that he doesn't know the difference between electron/positron and anion/cation, and believes that because heavy metals are adsorbed by clays at lower PH levels, that his clay is therefore an effective chelation agent in the human body.

The FDA doesn't approve any over-the-counter chelation agents, nor are any of the 11 by-prescription compounds which were approved (in 2013) clays.

If I'm reading the FDA GRAS Opinions correctly, Bentonite/Kaolinite is Generally Regarded As Safe only as an ingredient of paper and paperboard products used in food packaging; causing possibly growth retardation, possibly fatal bowel obstructions, etc in very high doses. The opinion also points out that Food Grade Standards for Bentonite should be established, as heavy metal cations may be present in commercial bentonite.

Remediation of Metals-Contaminated Soils and Groundwater

Review on Remediation Technologies of Soil Contaminated by Heavy Metal; Section 2.2

Questions and Answers on Unapproved Chelation Products

Unapproved Chelation Products

see Table 1:FDA-approved Chelators)

Daev (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

re-edited 'cause I did the signature wrong.

WIGO non-English

Sometimes something is going on, but there is no good English language source for it. Should we a) create WIGOs for a handful of important languages? or b) allow WIGO entries in non-English? or c) simply accept that some stuff will not be shared here? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 23:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Even fandom wikis have made versions in other languages. Wikipedia have articles in other languages. I may only speak a few words in other languages, mainly some German, but I say we should follow Wikipedia's example. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

C), essentially. English is the language that unites us. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

But there should be more debate beyond the Anglosphere. Plus, we have some non-English articles already. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 00:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of those articles, to be honest. And I'd rather say, we need to introduce more debate into the Anglosphere. Translating interesting stuff to English is worthwhile, for example. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are non-English skeptics out there holding out for the dim light in the darkness that is our page. Or so I hope. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 01:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to eventually expand a great deal of RW content into Arabic and Urdu, I take offense to the fact that some editors think knowledge should be 'English-only.' Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I would love to see that. Though unfortunately, I am rather limited in those languages. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 01:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that knowledge should be English-only. Most of the users here can't use any other language than English.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Aeonian Speaking of taking offense — I hope that's not you providing us with an anal bleached parody of my views on the topic. Because I certainly never said "knowledge should be 'English-only'", whatever that even means. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

RW is an excellent site for the numerous counter-apologetics it has, I would find it deplorable if I was barred from translating content because some people are "not a huge fan of [non-English] articles, to be honest." This site has the very large advantage of being hosted in a free speech area, as opposed to the average Arabic site which tries to host anti-religious content and it is taken down by government order. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As i understand it, the main problem with languages other than english is that there is not enough users of a particular non english language for effective quality control. I believe that was the issue with that brazilian chap. No one knew what it was he was posting and it turned out to be questionable. You could guarantee anything lauro posts without oversigbt is going to be all kinds of bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The only way to solve a community being too small is by growing it. If reports of edit wars and the like come in there is still google translate to get a rough overview of where the problem seems to lie and we can always shut the whole thing down and nuke the ashes. As Aeonian said some languages - Arab among them - desperately need a good skeptic source. Not least of all because of government crackdowns. And it might be wise to give them a different URL or at least some way to jump between different foreign language links without having to jump back to English. I am not the Ombud's man 13:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've got a pretty good grasp on latin too, if we want a different, older trade language. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Erare humanum est. I am not the Ombud's man 15:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Imagine this: You go to a non English page and see at the top a highly visible box containing the warning "this page was created by Translate Bot by feeding text from the English article here into Google Translate. If you are a human who would like to write the article, leave a message on the talk page."

The message would have some other stuff in it about how messed up the following content probably is, and the article would be protected until a critical mass of suitably lingual editors show up.

Obviously some of the paragraphs would be gibberish and some of the bot's attempts to put the lines and formatting from the original article onto the correct words in the new article would be wrong. 94.7.162.215 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And I realise now this section was about sources, not articles.94.7.162.215 (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I am with you on the article front. I am not the Ombud's man 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I really don't thank that, as a bunch of 99% English speakers, there's much point in us posting non-English links, and the idea that "there are non-English skeptics out there holding out for the dim light in the darkness that is our page" is ridiculous. It might be better to find rationalist websites in other languages and set up some sort of mutual translation arrangement. Bicycle^wheel 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Things happen that fly under the radar of English language media. Especially when they concern e.g. the latest insanity of a crank. And there are not exactly many Chinese or Arab skeptic sources, so we could very well be the shining light or the city upon a hill or the metaphor I am too lazy to make up. I am not the Ombud's man 18:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Attention all who speak Mexican!

Hi! Since you’re all talking about pages in other languages, I’d like to propose translating a particular article into Spanish, since it’d be a very nice contribution to this language that has a few articles on RationalWiki. I’m willing to begin the translation, but first, I'd like to know if there’re other Spanish-speaking RationalWiki editors who want to participate. --Ander Garin (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That article? ¡Ay, Dios! Demasiado dificil para mí. Spud (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, Mexican? Do you mean Nahuatl? I am not the Ombud's man 17:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I think he means Zapoteco. On the other hand, it'd be amazing to translate to Spanish. I have a question though: Do we find Spanish-language sources for the translation or straight up keep the solely English translations? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 18:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No entiendo. No hablo "Mexican". Hablo español y inglés.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have created a draft here-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Deport them!-President Donald J. Trump^{Click here to go to Mexico} 03:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop donald trump

I was taking a stroll today along the embankment, when i passed an open top bus adorned with banners and full of people chanting 'stop donald trump'. Am i missing something? Do i as a britisher get a vote in the us election? Im no history buff but i am sure there was a war or some sort to stop us having a say in that circus AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the only people in England legally allowed to "stop Donald Trump" as it were are double oh agents. I am not the Ombud's man 22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(EC) I hadn't heard of this but a few seconds Googling confirms the point of the campaign is get Americans living in the UK to vote (against Trump) in the Presidential election, as ex-pat voting rates are usually very low but they could make a difference if motivated to. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

i discovered this literally the second i posted - my friend googled. I just assumed it being a group of students high fiving as they stuck it to the man AMassiveGay (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Off topic, but I always did find it weird that there are second and even third generation Americans who have never set foot in the US, due to being the descendants of soldiers deployed overseas. CorruptUser (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not that weird. A lot of Americans are probably fourth or fifth or tenth or twentieth generation Europeans who have never set foot in Europe. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am a European trapped in an American's body, so I can confirm this. Also, stop Donald Trump. PB (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@PB Goddammit, another one got trapped. Listen, you might be tempted to squeeze through the intestines and out the other end, but don't do it; it's a trap! Keep punching towards where the liver would be, and eventually you'll be vomited out! CorruptUser (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weaseloid Except those Americans aren't citizens of European countries. We have voters over in Germany who have never been to the US. CorruptUser (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wanna stop Trump?

Trump put up a survey on his website. Now I am not asking you to fill it out with your opinion (there is "other, please specify" quite often), but I am also not saying you shouldn't... Just don't give him your real E-Mail address. Apparently the survey does not filter by IP. I am not the Ombud's man 23:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I just answered the survey exactly how Trump should behave if he wants to win, that is, from a liberal perspective. Let's see how long it takes me to be put on the GOP email list. PB (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to put in troll-ish questions? --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it me, or is every question in that survey numbered 1. ? Worm (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but mine are all numbered 0... 124.171.139.146 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If half of Trump's enemies fill it out idealistically with liberal positions and the other half fill it out sarcastically with stupidly right-wing ideas, then Trump will effortlessly triangulate through the middle to victory. Annquin (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt he will triangulate: TLDR is his M.O. Faux opinion polls are a common tactic for fundraising on all sides of politics. Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think whoever created that survey missed a few obvious questions:

"Should Trump criticize Hillary for her tendency to eat children?", "Should Trump criticize Hillary for her proven responsibility for the outbreak of WW2" and "Should Trump criticize Hillary for personally creating the AIDS virus?"

I can't understand how they missed these.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this survey is. Everybody knows that Trump only listens to himself and the little imp that tells him to burn things. Vulpius (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

She's never released them. Refuses to release them. Can you believe that? Refuses to release her emails from when she was prefect of Judea. Now I'm not saying she personally ordered Our Lord and Saviour to be nailed to that cross, but a lot of people are talking about it. A lot of people. They're very worried about it. Robledo (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Question three was interesting. He's asking voters if he should be polite, respectful, and deferrntial to Hillary, unlike he did to Lyin Ted. I voted to not use it. (But if that bitch uses the term 'racism', flatten her with a crowbar, rhetorically speaking),nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 02:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Since he hears "string her up" at his rallies he'll probably just go with that. Leuders (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This'll be a good test, to see if he listen's to the voters.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 21:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It asks for donations afterward. Typical Trump.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm poor...I only have a small loan of a million dollars.-President Donald J. Trump^{Click here to go to Mexico} 03:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I hear Mark Cuban would be glad to help you out in that department.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about Pepe

So there's kind of a controversy over whether Pepe the Frog is (nowadays) an explicitly racist meme or just a meme which some racists & trumpies have appropriated. I haven't been following it very closely, so can anyone shed any light on this issue? I have to say I don't find the alt-right associations at all surprising & am most baffled at the write-ups claiming that the Pepe meme was "once so universal" or "universally loved". Hasn't it always been primarily a chan-meme? Based on a comic that was mostly just crude toilet humour? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK it has always been a chan meme. The only non-racist memes I have seen have been its use to make fun of ancaps but it is usually used to make suicide or mass murder jokes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I've usually seen it as a representation of Trump himself. L's Ideology (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You guys are way off. Sure, Pepe's always been chan meme, but the meme was "feels good man" (and later "feels bad man"). That was the whole joke; that something felt good (ironically or not). Sure it was sometimes NSFW, like with most btard nonsense, but keep in mind that the original comic — dating back from 2005 — is relatively graphic. Pepe was also made a meme in 2008, yet any Alt-Right association is only revealed in association with the Trump campaign of 2015/2016. Now Pepe has become an Alt-Right symbol, but his origins had no specific connection to that at all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

(EC) But that narrative suggests that it's some sort of accident when chan culture ends up associated with the alt-right, whereas I would suggest that the former has been an precursor, or even an incubator, for the latter. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I liked some of the Pepe memes. I think Weaseloid is right, a lot of Pepe was used to make NSFW jokes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

And also because Clinton's team picked it up that way, like they picked up Brianna Wu, much to the delight of the other side. People tend to forget that while there are genuine controversies, or even “wars” (if you insist) — the SJW side is also a massive laughing stock, trolled hard by 4chan and others, because their histrionics, bizarre views, and “feed the trolls” attitude is downright inviting. ~ Aneris ✻ 02:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton turned Pepe into an alt-right totem. Just like how she launched Birtherism, bombed Iraq, caused 9/11, and signed the 1994 crime bill into law as First Lady. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

(Mandatory Godwin post) ...and the swastica was originally a symbol of prosperity and luck. Leuders (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget Glass-Steagall and the global financial meltdown.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 05:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Glass-Steagall is overrated. I am not the Ombud's man 16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm so glad Aneris has an asterisk in his sig, so I can quickly look for it first and then skip that crap when I get there. Bicycle^wheel 12:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

- David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought Pepe was used to represent a wide range of things. Just look up Pepe Magic The Gathering.Teurastaja (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I don't think the Pepe meme started with any political affiliation whatsoever, what is clear today is that Pepe has irrevocably become an Alt-Right symbol. TIL Donald Trump himself actually tweeted Pepe. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I tweet the best Pepes, the best.-President Donald J. Trump^{Click here to go to Mexico} 03:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

What I find rather fascinating is the worship of Pepe as the incarnation of the ancient Egyptian god Kek. Of course, I understand that it is mostly meant as a joke, but I am left wondering if some people actually take it seriously. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Richard Carrier

Dr. Richard Carrier Has Sued Several Atheists and Their Blogging Networks on Charges of Defamation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I added this to the Richard Carrier page. Bongolian (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. This has got all the free speech advocate attorneys salivating over the ass-kicking Carrier will get when it reaches the court. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Any idea how the salivating free speech advocate attorneys feel about wild slander accusations like these? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, they typically laugh. I mean, shit, their entire amusement comes from people who threaten you with LIBELSLANDER in violation of the Logan Act resulting in RICO CHARGES!

Why do you ask? Do we care about rando's threats? Who is this guy anyway and why's he angry? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Trent informs about the lawsuit here. To get a clue about who this guy is, read the talkpage linked prior and this admittedly short essay draft for starters (note the quotes). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooting analysis

It's happened again, people! An American decided to shoot a bunch of people in a public place. Why did he do this? Well, let's take a look at the available evidence right after the shooting.

• He appears to be a Muslim

This is rather broad, and there are quite a few problems with this identification right off the bat. If you take a look at his public postings online, he makes one post praising the Sunni leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and right in the next post praises that Shia leader of Iran. What the fuck? This would lead me to believe that he knows next to nothing about Islam, as he would not be praising the leaders of both the Shia and Sunni sects if he did. It is most likely some forgotten part of his Turkish heritage.

• He has some kind of problem/obsession with some women

This is probably the trait that's going to get him the most heat from the feminist crowd. In a lot of his online postings, he'll either praise some women, or the opposite. When he was doing the shooting, there was one eyewitness claim that he was shouting the name of some woman. Also, 4 out of the 5 people he killed were women, and this was in a Macy's makeup section. This leads me to believe part of the shootings motivation was, if not a hatred of all women, a serious hatred towards at least one woman in particular.

• He was in ROTC and had a fair deal of experience with firearms

The online postings in particular mentioned rifles, but there's a good chance that if he was good on the rifle team that he could handle pistols quite well too. Maybe I'm going a little too far into armchair psychoanalysis here, but many young people join ROTC because they are confused and lost in life, and feel like they need a sense of purpose to get moving.

• Whatever politics he has is lost and confused

He's made some posts which appeared to praise Hillary Clinton, but other posts which decry Obama as a communist. Whether or not he actually believes these things is up for grabs, and it's still possible that he's a generic conservative, but with all of the available evidence it seems like he's just a really confused guy who doesn't have one political viewpoint. As such, it is unfair to blame a particular political viewpoint for the shooting, which is sadly something that many people online have done.

All of the previous evidence is shamelessly derived from what I must say is a brilliant Heavy article. If encourage you to read it. Please discuss below what you think of my summary. PBfreespace (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you want us to comment on? Do you think the shooter is a sock of Avenger? Jagulard (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I want you to talk about the shooting, not bring up personal disputes because you are a disgruntled editor with an axe to grind. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My irony meter just overloaded.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

See the main article on this topic: The pot calling the kettle black. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, it is unfair of you to focus on my disgrunteldness. I was born without a gruntle; it's not my fault. Jagulard (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that praising al-Baghdadi and praising (I assume you refer to) Sayyed Ali Khamenei are not mutually exclusive, not all Muslims are sectarians. I can easily see a Western Muslim who agrees with conservative, religious social positions - such as banning gay marriage - applauding Muslim leaders in the Middle East who enact religious social laws. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I found a picture of the exact gun Keith Scott Lamont was pointing at the police officer that shot him.

Here's a super-rare exclusive pic from yours truly, TheMyon! TheMyon (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Whiny comment

This discussion was moved to Talk:Racialism.

This website is a disgrace

You people manage to grasp the high-school tier refutation of creationism and you think that you are scientists. You are publishing lies. Your articles are full of Frankfurt School/Colombia University anti-White hatred and slander. You should absolutely be prosecuted. 193.61.21.186 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sadly publishing a disgraceful website is not yet a criminal offence, but as soon as it is, we'll pass our names on to the appropriate authorities. Annquin (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Inciting hatred against a racial group is a criminal offence. It shouldn't be, but it is.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racism#Major_historical_examples

Your website is transparently anti-White. Why do you only list White racism? Where is the Arab slave trade? Jewish genocides? You people are disgusting. Are you Jews or traitors? 193.61.21.186 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure why the slavery article lacks mention of the current practice in Arab countries. Feel free to add it as long as you cite your sources. I'll see if I can't find time to hunt down some myself, as that is an on mission issue and a flaw in the article. As for the other one, can you clarify what you mean by Jewish Genocides? If you mean the ones in the old testament, that is covered. As for racism, our article on it contains numerous example, in their own sections on racism in Hinduism, Judaism, Japan, etc... Arawn Emrys (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

[2][3] 193.61.21.186 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Liars. I am not trolling I am absolutely serious. What a childish way to avoid addressing your bad behavior. 193.61.21.186 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I am very interested to know what crimes we should be prosecuted for. Care to elaborate? --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Our crimes are being too damn cool! OBVIOUSLY! Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 16:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If the FBI won't prosecute Hillary, I doubt they'll prosecute RW.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 16:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. RW is only ideologically connected to the totalitarian globalist NWO single world government push she's currently spearheading. She's got the prosecutors in her pant suit pockets, but we're defenseless if something serious comes along. B) talk 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, it's not like it's our fault that white people are so inherently terrible in a way that can only be fixed with the careful oversight of our lord and master Karl Marx. It's definetly not the case that this website skews heavily white male well beyond what a random sample of internet users would imply. There just aren't enough white men looking out for white men's interests here. Oh well. Try not to come from a terrible race of people that deserves genocide (other people having babies counts as genocide, FYI). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, m80s! TheMyon (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

HAH. Well, also, Bonnie needs to realize that this website is old and most of the people here weren't here when it was founded and many things were written, and combing through to look over every page would be prohibitively time-consuming. Now Bonnie makes his biases fairly clear with his word choice, particularly 'anti-white', so I feel comfortable suggesting that he could go do something productive and useful with his time, like go drop off robes and slippers and several decks of cards at a nursing home. If he sticks around and and plays a few hands of poker, he might pick up a skill or two beyond 'whining on the Internet'. Once the local card shark takes his money a few times.

I happily call myself anti-racist. Racism and 'racialism' (which is 'racism with an L in there'), is sloppy thinking: in this case, it's believing correlation equals causation. I gotta head to work, but I'll be back later. --75.44.82.99 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read the Zionism article and still think this page has a pro Jewish bias? Also, how can Jews be both white (when Arabs complain that the not-white Arabs are oppressed by the white Jews) and not white (when racists complain about Jews). That's a logic bomb right there. I am not the Ombud's man 19:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, thinking that a well-documented historical event actually happened is more than enough evidence of bias. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Conflating Zionism and Judaism attacking someone for Anti-Semitism, smh.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This website has a (racial slur) bias because they hate White people. They always bring up White crimes and never mention (racial slur)/Arab crimes. What the fuck is this? Ditches for Bitches. 193.61.21.186 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think Jews and Arabs are not white? I am not the Ombud's man 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Which white nationa...er, which website do you suggest RW should be more like? Leuders (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, just look at the way our genocide article only lists white perpetrators and non-white victims. No wait... Maybe how our racism page only... uh... No you're fucking delusional. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should censor racial slurs on talk pages. I am not the Ombud's man 20:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I guess I was projecting a personal preference by doing that. I'll refrain from doing so in the future, I guess. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a half-breed, half Teuton and half Sclav. The biggest race war on the planet, World War II, was between Teutons and Sclavs. But in America I'm full blooded White. Isn't there somebody I can go bitch to about something or other I don't know what?nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 22:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not inclined towards Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!I am much more inclined towards . By the way, can we be sure "fight" is not a +++Nordic+++ template? I am not the Ombud's man 23:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop giving IPs a bad name - or create your own wiki/website. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Post-Debate Reactions

Overall, I think it's a *mostly* clear Hillary win. At the very least, I am of the opinion that this will boost her in the polls.--A mere peasant 02:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I spent the first five minutes thinking "At least the tone of Trump's voice is presidential for once." Then the shouting began... Vulpius (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I got my hopes up a bit too much for that. There's an infographic on FiveThirtyEight detailing the number of interjections/interruptions for each candidate as well.A mere peasant 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I could feel the moment Trump dropped the decorum his campaign manag- let's face it, they're his handlers - put so much effort into saddling him with before they went on air. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The best Twitter description I saw was someone who said it was like watching an argument between a schoolteacher and the class bully. Also I felt bad for Trump fans who were forced to look at a woman who is not hot and does not try to be hot for a full 90 minutes. Leuders (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Best tweet I saw. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the best I've seen. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump won. He was very energetic, fiery, and alive, as opposed to calm and boring Hillary talking points. He seemed far more human, making Hillary seem like the Romney in this debate. He also had a ton of valid criticism of her. PB (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Finally a voice of reason! TRUMP 2016!!!!-President Donald J. Trump^{Click here to go to Mexico} 03:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Sean Hannity! Nobody wants to call him!" I couldn't stop laughing after that. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You do know that not even the Freepers are saying things like that this morning? I mean, you can kid yourself all you like, but not even Trump's blood-and-soil white warriors are in agreement with you.

(Although I admit to admiration for your commitment to sour grapes.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

My vaguely liberal coworkers seem to think Hillary was way too slack on Trump. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't bother watching, but I heard she could have zinged him more. *shrug*

Not that it matters. The percentage drops have already begun. No one really understands the implacable, inevitable victory of level grinders. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Never have I seen such a simple, straightforward idea restructured so badly to pander to a specific audience. "Getting elected requires goal-oriented steady effort" is something that could be wrapped in 100,000 different metaphors, but that particular one makes me cringe. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Modern gaming idioms make you cringe? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The notion of trying to package something so basic and gaming-unrelated in a "hardcore" gaming wrapper makes me cringe. It'd be like discussing the idea of wearing a seatbelt through the lens of using cover in a cover-based shooter. There's something about being that far out of touch that really puts me off. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the author tried to connect to the hip youth of today. With their Bernie votin' their hip-hop listenin' their pants droppin' and of course their gamin'. Yo. I am not the Ombud's man 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump looked like an ass. Attacking Rosie ODonnell & Miss Universe. Like Theresa Heinz Kerry in 2004, you never shoot down, you shoot up. It's a fundamental rule of politics.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 01:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

thats never been a rule. Politicians are constantly complaining about dole scroungers and immigrants. You cant shoot much lower than that AMassiveGay (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

and deplorables. I mean when attacking individuals by name. Trump has only proven that in America, any idiot who inherits a million dollars can turn it into a billion dollars.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 11:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Did he pandered as hard as Clinton did ("Pokemon Go to the polls")?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 16:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm from Mexico, so can you guys please explain why is this even a choice?

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

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

It is known across the world that a significant portion of republican voters live in a somewhat alternate reality, but it can't be this bad, right? While far from perfect, I would say that any country would be lucky to have a candidate as qualified as Hillary Clinton. So yes, the rest of the world is thinking "WTF is wrong with you people".Danoso (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1)The hagiography of Bernie Sanders. We've collectively declared him to be the Second Coming of Jesus and Hillary Clinton to be Pontius Pilate. People saw Bernie as a blank canvas on which to project their own opinions, regardless of whether he shared them. Of course this idea of Bernie as the "best" candidate was helped by the fact that he is a nobody, whose stock speech was big on promises and light on research (he doesn't know the difference between social democracy and *democratic socialism*) and policy. It was the political equivalent of ink blot tests. When he (finally) made his stances known it pissed a lot of people off that the real Bernie Sanders disagreed with the imaginary Bernie Sanders. That's why the so-called "Bernie or Busters" have disavowed him and are working hard to elect Donald Trump.

2) The 'dey derk er jerbs' contingent is growing, and will continue to grow as the global economy contracts and wages in the unskilled and semi-skilled trades decline. That makes them a valuable voting bloc, and counter-weight to the growing Hispanic voting bloc. That "angry white male" bloc is overwhelmingly socially conservative and even reactionary. I also believe this is why Clinton supporters are few-and-far-between in places like England and Australia. Those places were hit hardest by the recession and the War on Terror, destroying their once-mighty Labour parties. Bill Clinton is blamed for the first. Hillary is shouldering some blame for the second. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for Australia but your suggestions about England are way off. Trump supporters are few-and-far-between here, not Clinton supporters. People of all political stripes see him as a laughing stock. Opinions on the Clintons mostly vary from positive to lukewarm, but people don't blame them for the recession or war on terror, nor either of those things for the slow decline of our Labour Party. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I defer to your view. I read a lot of UK newspapers and visit the European subreddits, and the comments I found were hotly contesting a Sanders loss and a continuation of globalist policies. Maybe they've got the same problem with spammers as we do. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well many on the British left were pro-Sanders, but I don't there's as much anti-Clinton feeling among them as there is among some Sanders supporters in the US. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

In this election, the most qualified person has the worse views and opinions, and has done a lot more bad things. That's how bad it is. The person who has the most experience has wrecked many nations, hurt our economy, and even more. Even though the other candidate is really bad and has lots of bad ideas, I still can't make this election it to be as clear as you do. PBfreespace (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

...has the worse views and opinions...' What kind of refried bullshit is that? Are you trying to make Rob sound sensible? Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead, I say; just as the Obama presidency set back race relations about 40 years, before Hillary's term is over there will be a national consensus that a woman's place is in the kitchen (I'd add bedroom but everybody knows Hillary is sexless).nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 13:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

nm, Rob, your throne is secured. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Trump's candidacy

I think we are starting to see what motivated Trump to run. Trump thinks to himself about these sex scsndals and treatment of women, "You know, I'm twice the gentlean and just as smart as that pervert Bill Clinton. How come he gets away with it?" It's basically Clinton-envy. And as noted before, Trump us using entirely the Bill Clinton strstegy of 1992, coarsening the rhetoric, divisiveness, vague plans, etc. Only Trump lacks the organization and political experience. Trump relies on himself too much, whereas the Clinton's have always had a cohort of trusted co-conspirstors to build their success on.nobs 01:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Gadolinium Gallium Garnet

Can someone with a better knowledge of minerals clarify new page on Gadolinium Gallium Garnet? The current author of the page seems to think that Gadolinium Gallium Garnet does not exist. The WP page seems to imply that it does exist (Gadolinium gallium garnet), but describes it as Gd₃Ga₅O₁₂, which according to WP is not a garnet because it is not a silicate of the form X₃Y₂(SiO₄)₃. Bongolian (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no shortage of scientific papers about GGG. I wouldn't take Wikipedia as the scientific authority on the naming of minerals especially as the page seems to have about 3 different definitions of garnet. Annquin (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

GGG is a form of synthetic garnet (see that section of the WP article) like YAG and YIG, where some other atom takes the place of the silicon. If you rewrite the formula Gd₃Ga₂(GaO₄)₃, this becomes more visible. At any rate, I think the RW page on GGG is going on about the mythical data-storage possibilities of GGG, rather than the mineral's existence. What it has to do with RW's mission, I don't know. I can tidy it up a bit more (the names and formulae of GGG and GGO are swapped, I think). Nowhere Man (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC).

Don't ask me how I found this crank youtube video

Simpsons are Illuminati. I knew it! The only thing that amazes me about that video is its number of views and its upvote/downvote ratio... I am not the Ombud's man 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I love how the cranks literally cite material from the Stonecutter episode as part of the "illuminati symbolism" — hello? That whole episode is a gag on masonic conspiracy theories (among others)! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ikanread took away my mop

Can I have it back? I am not the Ombud's man 21:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"May I have it back?" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

May, June... Thanks. This can be archived. I am not the Ombud's man 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Never! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As you like it I am not the Ombud's man 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The moral of the story

Blocks longer than 0xn seconds are to be considered acts of war. Block nicely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no 0xn block. Don't you mean 0xπ?-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 21:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning the source in WIGO

Vote on the issue here.

With regards to this edit war Owlman is engaging in, can we please get the following compromise formula going:

"You may add the source to any WIGO entry (including your own) and correct them if they are wrong. Please do not remove correct source attributions". Any serious objections? I am not the Ombud's man 22:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm partly to blame for this. I tried to add some consistency to the entries, and challenged Owlman's reversions on the grounds that the reader should be able to judge for him/herself. Unfortunately, Owlman disagreed on the grounds that he knew which sources were objective. As other editors challenged his reversions, Owlman once again refused, claiming that labeling each entry somehow makes labels useless, which begs the question: what does he the labels do? When I asked him to state his criterion, he hid behind an unstated set of rules.

Tl;DR: The edit war is partly my fault, but I still want to know why he rejects everyone's attempts to clarify the entries. What's wrong with letting the reader decide which links to click? Jagulard (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your points fit perfectly with the GMO arguments that "Consumers can decide" and "Why would they oppose "transparency"; the WIGOs are community owned and consensus has to be reached in order to change community standards. I have asked for objections to sources linked by myself and other users; since we have only labeled sources that aren't generally objective so it would be problematic to label every single one since it would appear that all the sources are unobjective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no such thing as objective sources. Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Not true. Owlman knows which sources are objective. He just refuses to tell us. Jagulard (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll say this much — either we name the source for all, or for none. And in my humble opinion, it might as well be all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

For what reason besides Jagulard's concern trolling? Of course, there are no perfectly objective sources but it is ridiculous to assume that all sources are equally unobjective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me say that I'm not convinced we should type out the name of the source at all. I'm just saying; we shouldn't type out the name for some but not others. Either we do it for all of them, of for none. I phrased myself a little clumsily above. Also, naturally there are sources, the individual subjectivities of which are qualitatively different from that of other sources (in ways we can identify — e.g. almost anything compared to InfoWars). That being said however — as a student of formal logic — it's likely not incorrect to still argue that they are all equally far from objectivity, despite being qualitatively different in their subjectivity. But that's a very academic angle, naturally. I hope you don't misunderstand me here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake no. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And so, we enter... Endgame

The vote is on! Play nice now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You're being trolled. Please stop being trolled. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come now, friend. Don't hate — participate! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is trolling whom? I am not the Ombud's man 18:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

This dicussion was moved here.

Voice actors lampooning Trump

Two pieces of comic genius y'all should check out if you're not already aware of them: Billy West's Make America Brannigan series, with Zapp Brannigan doing Trump quotes, and Peter Serafinowicz's Sassy Trump series (also including Cockney Trump), again all Trump's own words. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for these links, my friend! Just yesterday I actually thought to myself that Trump is essentially Zapp Brannigan. Also, when Kif started to sigh in the background, I lol'd out loud. And Zoidberg reading the doctor's note was pure gold. ...You know, it's actually beginning to dawn on me that there's even a shot in hell that a guy like this could be ELECTED POTUS by the American voters. That is... Wow. I mean, I- It's... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yep, it's alarming that a Trump presidency is even a viable option, let alone a likelihood as some are now predicting. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

TRUMP 2016!!!!-President Donald J. Trump^{Click here to go to Mexico} 03:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay thinky time

I have a friend online who was recenty diagnosed with ALS. (He never went to doctors ever, so he found out alot later than he should have) He has become a bit more of a jerk than when i met him, he lacks restraint and basic social skills. There are many problems i have with this, including the fact that i did not expect this level of trust or social responsibility. Not to mention he is being increasingly toxic. Is it my responsibility to deal with him, especially if i am uncomfortable with where this friendship is going? Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 15:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No. You ought to be supportive of him as you would any stranger suffering a terrible disease: not needlessly cruel or make light of his condition, but you're under no obligation to pretend they're the kind of person you like. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

An ALS sufferer will need FAR more care than a person could every provide over the internet. What is your role here? Are you two dating or something? Or are you literally internet aquaintances and he's become a douche? Because if your role is as a friend in a friendship, that means that the other person is changing the nature of the relationship by not being a friend. And if he does that, or has already done that, then he's solved the issue for you. He's not being friendly, so you're not friends. You walk away scot free from this thing that is no longer a friendship, due to his actions. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me (with my all-seeing internet-o-vision) that your friend's bad news has sent him off the rails. You need to let him know, and at least try to bring him back. Do you know anyone else that he knows? A joint effort would probably work better. Bicycle^wheel 19:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The simple answer is NOPE. If he gets annoying enough, time to do the cut direct. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Is you friend an atheist? perhaps if you could offer him some hope about what lies ahead could help out with his present disposition.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 13:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Punch Martin Shkreli in the Face

Ever wish you could punch that bastard in his smug mug? Well, he's willing to sell you the opportunity!. CorruptUser (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a brilliant PR move. It reminds me of when Shia went off the deep end. Rather than disappearing as so many ex-child stars do, he decided to own it and released a goofy Youtube motivational video. By literally lining up his victims to punch him in the face for charity, Martin is framing himself as the undeserving victim of a braying mob.

I have feeling we will be hearing a lot from Shkreli in the decades to come. He loves the limelight. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Could we please crowdfund recruiting the closest real-world equivalent to Ivan Drago's punching power and have that guy do it for all of us? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Or just give it to Mike Tyson. CorruptUser (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Shkreli willl follow in Trump's footsteps after he kicks the can. There's something sleazy about this project. He's presumably rich enough to fund the kid himself without any personal pain, but he prefers to enter into a quasi-legal situation to get someone else to fund the kid while getting credit for it. Is it boxing (possibly legal) or more likely inciting mayhem (not legal)? Bongolian (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you add VisualEditor to the site?

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Portal

(or whichever other extensions Wikipedia has that allow you to just paste a link into the box and it automatically generates a reference for you.) Hmmph (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They can't even update the site software, remove bugs or add features even Andy's fucking Conservapedia has, what makes you think David will add this?!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 05:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 05:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Why can't they? Take a look at this. It's the upcoming design for a new video game wiki. RW looks downright ugly compared to it. Maybe the time has come for RationalWiki 3.0? --TeslaK20 (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And you think that wiki looks good? Beauty must be in the eye of the beholder. Spud (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the way it takes about a minute to load on my PC. Is there a MediaWiki plugin for that? Annquin (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In all seriousness, we've updated Mediawiki in a sandbox and got the site basically working. The only thing that doesn't work is the voting systems. So your WIGO and Suggestion boxes all are inoperable. When I've got that fixed, expect an update to this site. Cheers. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Update for Mediawiki? (starts salivating) Can you give an indication as to new features? I am not the Ombud's man 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Some guys on Youtube with relatively high production value say Democrats are screwed

are they right? I am not the Ombud's man 23:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you label that link?! Jokes aside, I don't see how they would be wrong. The Dems can't win the House and will likely lose the Senate in 2 years on top of gaining nothing in hte states so all power is lost.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The headline kinda took care of that, didn't it? But if you wanna label it, be my guest. I am not the Ombud's man 01:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That was a joke but no, the headline did not tell that that was a link to a Vox video.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Who or what is Vox? I am not the Ombud's man 01:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are you playing so stupid?

To give my thoughts on the video, I think most of the analysis here is good, but the point about going back to the left hurting the Democrats is totally wrong: going away from the left in the first place demotivated many voters and hurt Democrats in elections. PBfreespace (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not playing. I really am so stupid. I only know that Vox is the name of the channel that published the video. I don't know anything else about them. That's why I asked. I am not the Ombud's man 01:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

But we've had progressively-liberal presidents since Carter. Unless you're one of those dudes who thinks picking Humphrey over McCarthy was the original sin. (Funny: Chomsky did not like McCarthy, because he was too far to the right. You can't please Americans.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This has been in the making for decades, snd is an outgrowth of the Reagan & Gingrich small government revolutions. Since Reagan (a) the Republicans have had a string of weak presidential candidates because of their focus on state and local government, whereas (b) Democrats have had a near obsession with presidential politics. Another factor has been the Democrats relying on the courts to win issues, abortion and gay marriage for example, rather than state houses wh–ere the real power lies. The Koch bogeymen have been big in pursuing state control rather than federal.

At the grassroots, the union labor hall used to be the center of Democratic party activity in neighborhoods, but they don't exist anymore. Whereas churches have performed that function in the GOP. So the godless commies swearing off God only fucked themselves, it seems.nobs 10:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone adjust Robs antennae, he's started making sense again.

I would add that the Democrats were banking on two things. A safe voting block, in the form of immigrants (as I mentioned), and the decline of organized religion. Unfortunately, the "New" Atheist movement turned out to be far more regressive then some expected... plus, religion has a habit of regrowing like a weed. It's baked right into theJudeo-Christian philosophy, it offers a good product to people who are down on their luck. Plutoniumboss (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing churches massively fucked themselves by tying their entire identity to opposition to abortion, evolution, gays, and environmentalism. Fred Clark over at Slacktivist has spent years talking about this. You will notice that several of those are things they are increasingly, painfully out-of-step with even to moderates. The religious right is hemorrhaging young people because of this. It turns out, churches only outlived their liberal equivalents, the unions, by a few decades. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

At the sametime we've seen a resurgance of liberal churches and the Christisn left. Look at Pope Francis among Catholics, for instance. The differance being however, while liberal churches may take part in organized demonstrations or faith in action and hunger programs, they are not known for political organizing like voter registration and taking over local caucuses and conventions with a slate of delegates.

The church has long been the key to Democrats holding the black vote. Why blacks support atheism and homosexuality at the ballot box but condemn it vehemently from the pulpit is something I've debated with my black friends for years; the best they can come up with to defend it is diversity. Atheists and gays are people too with equal rights, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one, they say.nobs 16:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a problem

One session I'm on RW, I'll enable a gadget or two. The next, the gadget disappears!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There are gadgets on this wiki? I am not the Ombud's man 23:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a wiki? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It says wiki right in the URL. I am not the Ombud's man 01:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem! Where did my gadgets go!??!!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Our gadgets have been on-and-off for a very long time now, sadly. I share your frustration. Bicycle^wheel 09:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For me Rationalwiki sometimes fails to load even though other websites are fine. Usually the problem is resolved after a few minutes, though. I am not the Ombud's man 23:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That'll be because the goat hadn't been fed yet that day. Bicycle^wheel 11:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't get these goat jokes, but ok.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

We need a neutral voice on an extremely minor detail related to Palestine

I am so very sorry for bothering anybody with this, but I am doing it for the best of intentions. I am posting this here, because stuff like this tends to move rapidly and I want to avoid an edit war over something as trivial as this. The point of contention seems to be the word "Arab". Please see here there and here. I am not the Ombud's man 23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify my reasoning: the word Arab is often used by many in the West (and Israel for that matter) to decry Muslims and Palestinians. To say that "Arab nations" did this or that (with regards to Israel) is also misleading. There was one line of the article that said "The Arabs, refused to recognize a Jewish state and war broke out almost immediately afterwards." This was a misleading statement. The neighboring countries were the ones who attacked (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt) Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc. didn't engage in the war at all. It is for reasons like this that I made these edits. And now they were reverted.PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please archive this discussion to talk:Palestine once this issue is resolved one way or the other.

At any rate, I do not think what you say is accurate. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and so on are often called Arab states/nations including by their own leadership. I think in some of those countries "Arab" is even part of the official long form name. I am not the Ombud's man 23:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying they aren't Arab. I'm saying that using the term "Arab" to describe a nation in this context is just inaccurate and inappropriate. Would we call European colonial nations "white nations"? Also, it is laughable to say "Arab nations" did anything together. The actual 1947 war itself is a prime example of this. Each army was interested in itself and failed to help out the neighboring country's army, which helped lead to Israeli victory. They can't even coordinate military operations or stop wars with each other. PBfreespace (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

They are most certainly Arabs. Although khaleejis look down on levantines and magrebis :D Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Am I a neutral voice?-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I just don't want an edit war and I also don't want the more aggressive side to win by default. I am not the Ombud's man 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want an edit war, why did you revert my edits 5 minutes before and literally 60 seconds after you made this post? PBfreespace (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I also don't want the more aggressive side to win by default —quoting myself

. Does that answer your question? I am not the Ombud's man 19:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No. You said you didn't want an edit war, but you also wanted me to lose the edit war. Seems slightly contradictory, seeing as you went against your own statement. PBfreespace (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, buddy, I wasn't born yesterday. And we all know that appeasement does not work. Do I want war? No. Will I back down just because I prefer peace over war? No. Will I give peace all reasonable effort? Absolutely. What's so hard to get about that, buddy? I am not the Ombud's man 23:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

One of your talented and diligent tech staff broke the CSS for mobile viewports

The main container is highly compressed. 73.22.173.161 (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Is that what is happening? I thought something was wrong with my new phone.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Nah, somebody/something changed something last week, and that greatly reduced the already limited mobile compability. As someone who edits daily from his phone: feels bad man. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This will be my fault, attempting a quick fix - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Try now, should be better. (I tried the MobileMeta extension to put a viewport tag on, but it appears to be not entirely great.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid is now removing all sources from all WIGO entries

Even in cases where the source was initially added by the original author. I don't want an edit war over this, so I am trying to gauge community opinion here. I think there was no consensus on never mentioning any source ever, was there? I am not the Ombud's man 19:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh my God! Oy Vey! Evil Weaseloid is doing a bad thing! Ahh!

In all seriousness, I don't care at all. People can just mouse over the fucking link or click it to see that the source is something they don't like. We don't need a trigger warning behind every link that "oh, this is The Itercept, so maybe you can draw some conclusions about the article from that". In fact, what you want to do (put mandatory source names after all posts) further increases bias against certain sources and drives people further into their own opinion bubble. PB (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I never advocated for "mandatory sources after all posts". That is something people obviously misunderstood. I argued for letting people add sources and providing them as a way to be nice to people. If you don't like people knowing where the link is coming from, it indicates that you might think the link is fishy rather than that I am thinking the link is fishy. I am not the Ombud's man 19:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I was confusing your view with Reverend Black Percy's proposal. Regardless, the naming of any sources is still a relatively trivial matter, but is still bad in my opinion. If you think the source isn't good, you can downvote the story, as I've done many times. If people keep reverting you over it, it's a waste of time trying to fight them over it. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did advocate for labeling every link and stop with the shitty GMO-esque argumentative points.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the consensus was fairly clear: it's not a big deal, label sources if you want, don't if you don't want, but don't revert them. There is absolutely no harm that comes from adding a label, but the "new guard" appears to be suffering from sour grapes. The Present King of France (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I am weary of making this spin into an edit war, but maybe someone could revert the edits that removed the sources? I am not the Ombud's man 20:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Hey, I don't want to be directly implicated in exacerbating yet another edit war, so could you someone please revert for me?" -Avenger Laurogeita Ombudsman

It takes two to foxtrot, buddy. Also, read my signature. I am not the Ombud's man. I am not the Ombud's man 21:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

On the bright side, petty disputes like this are probably a sign that we don't have much else to tear each-other up over. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 05:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Race

Nobody defined it by skin color. Darwin defined it by ancestry. 149.56.133.174 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong! "Negroid" by some definitions included both African and the unrelated dark-skinned Pacific Islanders (now called Melanesians for lack of a better term). Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Mongoloid was applied to Down's syndrome (by Dr. Down himself, no less) and used right up into the 1970s. Seems science keeps changing its mind or just can't get the facts straight. Or worse yet, caves into social pressure and political correctness too often.nobs 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Mongoloid as a term for people with Down's was never intended as a racial category, unlike Mongoloid as a term for East Asian peoples. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"Seems science keeps changing its mind..." Yup. That's how it works, actually. 71.206.170.24 (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Darwin said racial classification is arbitrary: "The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake." (Darwin, 1859). Yet the clown Mikemikev spamming this website on countless IPs/accounts claiming this is false and that race is not arbitrary. His own sources disagrees with him.Gorgonite (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 21:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Mikemikev's been hitting Wikipedia again too. His new term is "Stalinist Lysenkoist" for non-racists who tell him to fuck off - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Darwin is there referring to Linnaen varieties which are not defined by ancestry. 87.75.64.95 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so that they can be classed in groups under groups. This classification is evidently not arbitrary like the grouping of the stars in constellations. (Darwin, 1859)

Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure [i.e., physical features] of each race of man were perfectly known – grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known – grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if allocated by structure alone. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together. (Darwin, 1903, letter 204) 87.74.12.114 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Colombians Reject Peace Deal

So, what's the deets on this? It seemed liked the Colombian-FARC peace deal was gonna be a solid approval by the public voters. So what happened? Was the analysis all wrong? Some factor between the Colombian people that a lot of analysts and papers just didn't bother in considering? What happened? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

My hunch is that (Group X) has a lot of built up animosity towards (Group Y), due to actions in the past, or (Group Y) has abused prior attempts at making peace, therefore (Group X) is unwilling to commit to peace. StickySock (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, was there a referendum on the peace deal with AUC, the right-wing paramilitary group?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

My question is why the government even put this to the people, unless of course, it (the government) knew there was a chance the people would reject the deal, which then makes the entire thing a bit of a sham. That is to say the government was never interested in peace - not truly, because if it was it would have gone ahead and made peace. Interestingly, the results revealed that the parts of Colombia hit hardest by the five-decades long conflict voted in favour of the peace deal. Make of that what you will. Personally, it reminds me of the fact that it was those areas within the UK that have seen relatively low levels of immigration that voted to leave the EU. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Between this and a Brexit, 2016 seems to be making a strong case against direct democracy.166.137.244.28 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Harrassment

For anyone interested, a now-blocked BoN posted a harassing message on my talk page very shortly after I added the latest sex crime allegation to the Julian Assange page. Bongolian (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC) The harassment itself was not specific to Assange. Bongolian (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in the sense that I care about the wellbeing of our editors (in this case, you). Can't say I'm the least bit interested in the specific ravings of any vandalous BoN, however. I revdeleted the rant; hope this helps! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Percy! Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, champ. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone here going to an evangelical haunted house?

There's this Hell House where "Parishioners portray scenes depicting issues such as abortion, suicide, and school shootings." That would be so unintentionally comical. L's Ideology (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What is this I don't even Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

See Hell House, my Swedish friend. Spud (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I went to one of these yesterday. There was a room where there was a surgeon operating on a fake body, and saying, "I'm going to extract some brain juice..." Then as we were leaving, he said, "Thank you for supporting ObamaCare!" So it was actually more of a fundamentalist conservative haunted house. L's Ideology (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So basically, it's the real-word equivalent of the Max Payne 2 "funhouse"? (Don't miss the surgery). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't seem scary!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 22:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I know of no man who doesn't fear the Pink Flamingo. (Ignore the gunfire in the beginning). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, it might be hilariously bad.I would pay to get in for a good laugh.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Pigeon Speaks

This guy seems to deserve an article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Should we have an article about every neckbeard with a shitty webcam?'Legion^{what do you want from me} 08:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

goodpostemojii.gif Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, based on his recent videos he receives at least 30k views and he just about has 130k subscribers so I think that would should make an article based on his audience size.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

He also shat on Sargon. (Check the bottom of that article.) Good man. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fuzzy I actually meant that we should have an article on BLS and not Shaun and Jen but I am aware of his Sargon video, that is how I found the channel. Shaun has also done videos on Thunderf00tas well as a breakdown of racial comparisons which are worth a watch.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Should have his article, not just because he's an infowars type of crank, but also because he has plenty of subscribers and documenting what's going on without strong notability is a strength of the RationalWiki. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialist Rants did a pretty good job ripping him apart on YouTube.- TokenSkepticMagician talk 12:16, 21 Oct 2016 (JST)

Der Führer Drümpf Ist Kaput: An Outsider's View

Before Trump gets his arse kicked (by a girl!) I'd like to thank him for a couple of things

1) For showing that the Klown Kar Kavalcade of self-described tough-talking, two-fisted, Nascar-loving Republican he-men were nothing but a bunch of limp-wristed pantywaists. As soon as Trump barked at them they showed all the toughness and resilience of a wet paper bag, even Tom Cruise's evil twin Ted ended up kissing Trump's arse after Trump insulted Ted's wife.

2) For showing that Right-Wing does not mean Conservative.

3) For showing that the 'Moral Majority' is neither moral nor a majority

Trump is a typical paranoid crank with delusions of grandeur, combined with the sense that all his opponents do not have a legitimate difference of opinion with him but are out to get him, because he is so right, and therefore all his opponents are evil:

It is easy to understand, however, that a strong sense of personal greatness must be involved whenever a crank stands in solitary, bitter opposition to every recognized authority in his field.

There are five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited.

(1) He considers himself a genius.

(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself. Frequently he insults his opponents by accusing them of stupidity, dishonesty, or other base motives. If they ignore him, he takes this to mean his arguments are unanswerable. If they retaliate in kind, this strengthens his delusion that he is battling scoundrels.

(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. It springs solely, he is convinced, from blind prejudice on the part of the established hierarchy— the high priests of science who fear to have their orthodoxy overthrown... etc. Martin Gardner - Fads And Fallacies In The Name Of Science

The rise of Trump is not without precedent in the US the supporters of George Wallace in 1972 have an uncanny similarity to Trump's, though of course this was long before the current 'reasons' for their anger: "Political Correctness", "Nafta", and "Globalisation" etc.

'The typical Wallace voter... was far less committed to Wallace himself than to his thundering general appeal to rise up and smash all the "pointy-headed bureaucrats in Washington" who'd been fucking them over for so long.'

'The root of the Wallace magic was a cynical, showbiz instinct for knowing exactly what issues would whip a hall full of beer-drinking factory workers into a frenzy - and then doing exactly that, by howling down from the podium that he had an instant, overnight cure for all their worst afflictions: Taxes? Nigras? Army worms killing the turnip crop? Whatever it was, Wallace assured his supporters that the solution was actually real simple...

The ugly truth is that Wallace had never even bothered to understand the problems - much less come up with any honest solutions, but the "fighting little judge" has never lost any sleep from guilt feelings over his personal credibility gap.' Dr. Hunter S Thompson: Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 ^{— Unsigned, by: Wodenoz / talk / contribs}

There's a flaw in your argument: Trump's appeal is not, nor ever has been, limited to party label. In fact, the traditional party base and its establishment opposed Trump from the beginning. nobs 11:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That explains all of those Democratic nominations he picked up. Give me a break. Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominations? I don't what you mean by that but if you mean endorsements, then yeah obviously the opposing party wouldn't endorsement him. Regardless, I think RobS is stating that Trump was considered an "outsider" and that he has cross-party appeal; my only disagreement with this is that Trump became established within the system he was supposedly railing against once he became the nominee.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, Trump has so much cross-party appeal that the only demographics he's doing well with are the ones Republicans always win anyway. Vulpius (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have some doubts about your claim but he did have cross party appeal at one point.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I meant that he's winning the white male vote and not much else. Haven't uneducated workers been consistently voting Republican since Reagan?Vulpius (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Uummm, Wallace was a Democrat. My point was that this 30-40 percent right-wing/redneck/racist vote is nothing new, and that Trump is too dumb to get enough votes from the centre and Hilary-haters to win, but someone a lot smarter might have won this time, and the next election...

GOP voter registration is up more than 2 million from 2012, whereas Democratic participation has declined. IOW, Trump success in the GOP has been based on people who voted for Obama. And there is nothing unusual about this. In both cases, voters selected the outsider.nobs 01:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly not quite sure what to say about this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

There's something odd going on in Cape Town. --Lola Lazerface (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

They want to decolonize science from a Western perspective. What's so odd about that?nobs 11:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Already have that in WIGO. And in the Saloon bar above, in the section "science must fall".

Call me when it's more than just a handful of idiot teenagers. CorruptUser (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As the one who added it to WIGO, just putting it out there that I was unaware of the discussion here. I just thought it was hilarious and nothing more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they were idiot teenagers, I think its a faculty meeting. But more context is needed. In South Africa, nobody is going to argue Science ended aparteid, and nobody is going to deny the role of the Christian church among blacks and whites in getting it done. So to "re-colonize" South Africa with a Western notion that Science is God and dictates facts and truth, they ain't buying it.nobs 02:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wow. Looked into this. The "fallist" movement is against high tuition fees, known as the "Fees must fall." There have been violent protests, including take over of classrooms, tear gassing, arrests, expulsions, and at least one shooting of a protester. In the above video clip, students are complaining how the science department is dominated whites (supported by high tuition fees). Hence "science must fall" really is a call for affirmative action. Jesus, amazing how an idiot blogger rable-rouser impugns blacks for intruding on the sacred ground of the marriage of science and politics.nobs 18:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

How does one become more rational?

I have always considered myself a fairly rational and logical individual, but ever since I discovered Rationalwiki, it has become clear to me that I overestimated my own ability to reason. The ability shown by some of you (I do not wish to name names) to construct and deconstruct arguments and topics is something I aspire towards. Having said that, how do I become more rational as a human being? What should I read (books, magazines, blogs, etc)? What should I watch (channels, programmes)? What media outlet should I follow? Whom should I trust/distrust? Advice is welcome. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If RationalWiki talk pages are anything to go by, it involves a lot of drinking.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 18:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aw shucks! I'm a teetotal. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A good place to start would be looking into the list of cognitive biases. Remember it is best to ask yourself: "Do I do this?" rather than to say "YES! Person X is really guilty of this!!"--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. Cognitive biases are, perhaps, the ultimate verdict on all human thought. Disregard them at your peril. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Good post Reverend - but I used less wordz.:-) --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To me, one of the most profound tricks to being rational is that you can't just "be rational". Humans are made of biases that helped our ancestors survive and reproduce. Useful, powerful, functional biases: confirmation bias is hella powerful for a hunter looking to find prey, bandwagon fallacy is powerful because being socially rejected got you killed in tribal cultures.

So to be rational is pretty damn difficult. But to recognize what defines a rational thought process, and apply critical thinking to ideas you want to be right about. One thing to try is to build a syllogism for the idea you want to examine. See what assumptions you feed into it. Ask yourself how valid the deduction is. It won't make you more rational, but it can help you sort out which beliefs you have that are more or less rational than others. (And don't worry, I don't drink either) ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Factcheck. Be glad to be proven wrong, because then you can correct and be better than you were five minutes ago. Put argument to critical analysis, find some way of informal science education. Develop your bullshit detector, learn who isn't trustworthy for information and then don't trust them. Look at content over form--plenty of my favorite science/rationalist YouTubers swear like sailors and throw around insults, but underneath that they're supported with facts and reasoning. --Maxus (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Study critical thinking, cognitive biases (+ psychology, generally) and logic (+ philosophy, generally). For starters. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty good advice so far. Here's one I've found useful: Remember, there's always a possibility that you've gotten something wrong, either in terms of assumptions or your conclusions. After all, you're only human. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and whatever you do — don't miss Hume on the downsides to reason alone. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

But by the same token, don't miss Descartes on the importance of deduction from first principles. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

LessWrong. Just watch out for the Wyvern 81.145.153.190 (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Joey Salads is a fraud

So this guy Joey Salads who does racist "social experiments" about how aggressive Blacks are got caught staging one of his "experiments".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And in other news, the sky is blue. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone here would've believed him but that video of his All Lives Matter sign "social experiment" (briefly shown in the video above) has over 5m views on YouTupe right now; it appears he took down his Trump Car video so I don't ho wmany views he received. Arguably, this guy may be missional but even if he isn't, I am sure someone will find the above video useful since they are bound to encounter this guy's BS on social media.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yea, he's been exposed as someone who uploads a lot of fake content for a long time now. Yet the YT community continues to view his race-baiting clickbait and sex-predator tutorials. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's great that Ethan takes the time to warn people about this bullshit, especially the race-baiting part. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess Joey Salads is like Trump; until you find an audio tape with him admitting that he is a sexual predator, people will continue to rally around him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

God I love h3h3 (the guy debunking Joey Salads, in case you're wondering). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're just as bad as him. I literally can not tell the difference between yous. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

H3h3 is probably one of the best people on YouTube, not even the people he makes fun of dislike him 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 01:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

True that! Ethan and Hila are some socially responsible 'tubers, tbh. And I respect that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Breaking News! Investigative journalist Ethan, from h3h3, has just interviewed Joey Salads.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You know what really saddens me about this? Despite the fact that Salads has been revealed as a fraud, racial arsonist, and a demogagogue - with bad grammar (he kept saying "what I should have did"), there are those who remain unconvinced. These are the people who, despite the revelations made by h3h3 and others, will continue to say, "it doesn't matter that it was a fake social experiment. The message is still true. I don't care what you say.". In fact, I would go as far as saying these people know, deep down in the depths of them, in that part of their mind that is called "reason" - that part which they never or fear to go to - that these stunts were manufactured. But they didn't care and still don't. They are more angry at h3h3 for blowing the lid on this than they are at Salads for manipulating their prejudices for some views, likes and YouTube dime. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

h3h3 asks the hard questions to Joey Salad about his race-baiting hoaxes

Credit goes to Owlman (see above). But this deserves to be an embedded video as well. Please discuss, and Goat bless Ethan for chasing these racist fucks as hard as he can. Proud of you Ethan, keep it up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there an article on Dave Rubin?

There are articles on TJ, Kyle Kulindki, TYT and other new media talk-show hosts. Is it worth creating one of Dave "Mr-I'm-a-classical-liberal" Rubin (even though Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are one and the same. I doubt he knows that. He isn't quite as erudite as he would like to think he is)? Anyway, I think we should have a page on Dave. He is big among the brogressives. He and Milo are also best-buds. I think it's important Rationalwiki has a page on this guy, because so far no one is scrutinising him and his positions, even though some of them are complete bullshit, and he is rapidly gaining ground in terms of influence. People talk about him as if he's taken the red pill or something. The guy is a walking example of in-group bias. On one hand extols the virtues of libertarianism - lower taxes and legalisation of marijuana. What he fails to grasp is that in their ideal world, Libertarians would repeal every single anti-discrimination law, including ones the LGBT protection laws which Dave is so in support of. On a lighter note, take a look at Dave's most recent video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxPNGNM3zEo. Every time he asked for donation for his "new home studio" which will have, inter alia, "awesome lighting" or something, he reminded me of this great South Park moment, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_K6FG703nk--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

FDA warns against homeopathic teething gels

https://nccih.nih.gov/health/teething

An alternative to homeopathic teething gels: place your child's mouth beneath the sink faucet, turn it on.

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

How about homeopathic parenting for believers in homeopathic medicine? You just take the kids away and let the parents see them 5 seconds every few years. Since the human body is 80% water, the water memory of your children will retain the imprint of your parenting skills. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 17:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I love you, Ikanreed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Another conspiracy theory for the books: The Berenst(e/a)in Bears

http://www.vice.com/read/the-berensteain-bears-conspiracy-theory-that-has-convinced-the-internet-there-are-parallel-universes

Mandela effect, conspiracy theory, and lovable children's book all in one. FuzzyCatPotato of the Vigilant Arcades (talk/stalk) 19:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I never once considered the possibility that anyone took this seriously. I always thought it was a humorous, parody of a conspiracy theory that everyone could kind of empathize with. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ta-daaah! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There should be a template for whenever there's a Poe...-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 22:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. See, the problem with that is that such a template would be used as often as we interally link to the Poe page... Which is to say: in the thousands, likely on most talk pages. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

On Trump's refusal to accept results

Is it likely that, given that he waffled during the debate on whether he would accept the results of the election no matter what, is it possible that Trump is truly capable of advocating for insurrection against the Federal government simply because he might lose the election? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it's really a question of whether he's truly a narcissist with an extreme case of NPD or just plays one on TV. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My concern with him not accepting the results is that he has proclaimed that the election is fixed and his followers probably believe him. He and other Repub politicians have already asked supporters to intimidate people at the polls and that Boston Globe article in WIGO:E shows them bringing guns; the article also covers that these people believe that their patriotic duty is to lead an insurrection against Hillary with assassination not entirely out of the question.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's so over for the Trumpster. Even Pbfreespace3 has taken the sign down. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, which is why I said that I am more concerned with his supporters than with him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump is going to scream "RIGGGGGGED!" when he loses in a few weeks. Someone needs to change his diaper. CorruptUser (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like it depends on how badly Trump loses on the 8th. If it's by a very large margin, his more "ardent" supporters may be discouraged from violence as it will appear as though they don't have numbers on their side. If it's very, very close then they may feel emboldened and more likely to break out into open violence. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump has been dog-whistling about violence for a long time, as well as feeding the bigotry, hatred & paranoia of his supporters. When there is violence (which there will be) he will of course wash his hands of it & deny all culpability. I doubt there will be anything amounting to an organised insurrection: more likely isolated incidents of Trump supporters assaulting Democrat voters & suchlike. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's victory was rigged, there's no denying. Wasserman- Schulz was fired because she rigged Hillary's nomination. The FBI whitewashed the emails and destroyed the American people's confidence in government. Hillary's not even sworn in yet and their trying to hang the damage caused by these two historical facts on Trump. This is Clintonism.nobs 14:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, then Hillary and Goldman-Sachs leaned on or bribed Ecuador to shut off Assange's internet service, threatening to throw him out in the street so they can drone him if any more emails get leaked. There won't be any more October Surprises.nobs 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I... think you have the wrong wiki. This is the one where we debunk unhinged loonies. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Then you need to start a page on Clintonism, which WP's stub describes as "a lack of commitment to a set ideology."nobs 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey nobs, you say Clinton destroyed our confidence in the American government? Because we lost it the minute those conservatives bombed and rigged elections in Guatemala. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 15:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think most Americans lost faith in their government after the Guatemala "intervention", but I don't think the Clinton's are the sole source either. There i s a great Cracked article on this that I will post shortly.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

9/11 Truthers already have their alternate reality. Why can't 2016 Election Truthers? I predict reams of "scientific evidence" being passed around the kookosphere showing how Trump really won by a landslide but vote tabulation was altered by microwaves beamed from satellites. Leuders (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You already see a great deal of that about the democratic primary. These people who can't grasp that in spite of the fact that every middle class white they know voted for Bernie, Hillary still won, and they started seeking "objective" "evidence" that the election was rigged, and what do you know, they found it on the Internet. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

With Michael Cheroff backing her, I don 't see how anybody can say it's rigged.nobs 19:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobs, buddy, you get that making tenuous connections through relationships to arrive at predecided conclusions is exactly how the conspiracy theorist mentality works, right? You don't want to think this way. It's not healthy. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, the idea disillusion voters may engage in armed insurrection is a Trumpism put out by Clintonites, appealing to fear and scapegoating a minority.nobs 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Appealing to fear in voters and scapegoating minorities? Kinda rings a bell, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

1. The word you're looking for is "delusion." "Disillusion" describes anyone who looks at this election for more than 5 seconds at a time.

2. No, no it's not. It's pretty directly attributed to the things Donald Trump has said, in public, on record.

3. Even if that part were delusional, it does little good to bring it up as if it's been a point of contention for me. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me say what convinced me of Trump's total ineptitude. In the first debate when he defended "Stop and frisk". Stop and frisk is an anti-gun measure that basically says, 'people don't kill people, guns do'. And his fellow RINO, Rudy Guilliani, also living in the New York media bubble and corrupt political milleu, defended it. Neither have a clue about federalism or what the rest of the country thinks. I'd like to write a small section on that for Trump article.nobs 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Rob, Hillary did not invent Trumpism. You claim to be a classical liberal, a neutral observer of this election, and yet you spend hours upon hours denying that the Republican Party has shifted to the right. Not an inch! It's the Democratic Party which has shifted to the right! And Trump is a Clinton plant! Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty of time for post mortem later. My only issue now is, 'Should th GOP adopt some form of Superdelegates to insure this doesn't happen again?'. After election day, its all down hill for Hillary. You won't have Trump to kick around anymore, and she lacks the charisma of Bill & Obama. Nobody can think one good thing to say about her. She's another Bush Jr., and will be as popular as him leaving office - barring another war to help get her re-elected.nobs 02:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @nobs: Yeah, the fact that Hillary has run a successful campaign and has always been in office for 100% of the past 16 years suggests that she's at least as competent as our other politicians. For the record, all of your charismatic Republicans failed to stop Trump in the primaries. Perhaps "charisma" isn't a defining characteristic of a successful politician? Hmmm? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 11:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No one loves Hillary, not even Bill.nobs 21:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Scapegoating a minority." Right. Because it wasn't the KKK racists threatening to murder us Mexicans, but those pesky, liberal Clintonites. How did I never see this?!?! Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 21:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's a POS, even the Democrats know it. They are ones who will be saying it was rigged after the election. SNL is already on this with Hillary in last night's debate asking "Who do you trust to be your president, the Republican or Donald Trump?" (@ 8:18 on video) nobs 16:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the stupid. It burns. Jeez, at least provide some more substantial evidence than an SNL sketch about the debate. Your claims about Clinton being corrupt rings extremely hollow considering the fact that Donald Trump hasn't even paid any taxes whatsoever in 18 years or used peoples' money to buy a portrait of himself. Either we get the District 13 leader or the President Snow, and I'm betting on the smarter and saner leader. Take your conspiracy-theories and gibbering blathering to Infowars. I'm sure they'll appreciate your creative mind. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 04:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Score for libertarianism/classical liberalism!

No one wants to buy Twitter! Why? Because of all the trolls. "There is a sharp difference too between the type of content pushed out by Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat users, and that on Twitter, which can be encapsulated in one word: positivity." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/19/twitter-has-a-negative-vibe-and-a-nebulous-purpose---no-wonder-n/)

Remember when campaigners against racism, bullying, sexism petitioned Twitter to review and reform their free speech policies and they pretty much responded, "fuck you!"? Well, here comes the market to fix them and their problems.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 06:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tory MP filibusters 'Turing Bill' in UK parliament.

I thought my contempt for the Tory party couldn't get any higher, then this happened. "A private members bill aiming to erase the criminal records of gay men convicted of now-defunct sexual offences was talked out by Tories in the House of Commons this afternoon. MPs shouted at Conservative minister Sam Gyimah to sit down as the cut-off time for SNP MP David Nicolson’s bill approached. However, the justice minister continued to speak, a vote was not called and the bill fell. If passed, it would have cleared the way for a pardon of nearly 50,000 men living with convictions for consensual homosexual activity. " https://leftfootforward.org/2016/10/tories-filibuster-turing-bill-denying-pardons-to-50000-living-gay-men/ Obi-Jon (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"They broke the law" --every social conservative from every nation trying to support convictions under unjust laws since forever. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"YOU BETRAYED THE LAW!!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty crap that this would even still be an issue 50 years after homosexuality was legalised. Old convictions should have been nullified at that time or soon after. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, a slim majority of Conservatives were against gays marrying? It got pushed through thanks to the efforts of the Lib-Tory coalition.Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This filibuster doesn't even seem to be about principles (as you could argue that some coherent ideological homophobia might be), but rather that the Tories want the bill that addresses this issue to be their bill. So, they quickly type up a quite similar bill, claim that the SNP bill being currently debated might exonerate sexual abusers, molesters and paedophiles (spoiler: it doesn't, it quite explicitly and deliberately excludes such cases). Then an effin' cabinet minister filibusters the original SNP bill, using these false claims about the possibility that actual sexual offenders might be pardoned as well (kudos for the brass balls of claiming you're fighting for gay rights while not so subtly parallelling one particularly odious homophobic talking point). And finally, the Tories will launch their own bill and try to take the credit for addressing this historical problem (well, look at how much mileage Just Call Me Dave got out of his gay marriage legalisation). That's almost worse than out and out bigotry. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

They don't miss a trick, do they? Nicola should take it as a good sign, I suppose. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I salute the good intention behind this bill, but I thought its premise was flawed. A pardon suggests forgiveness - as in the state is forgiving this people for being gay. What they deserve is an apology. Much like Germany apologised for the Holocaust, and London, for its part in the slave trade, the thing - if anything - to do would be to apologise. Although, I must say, at this juncture, I'm not so keen on these apologies for historical "crimes" - including the one for slavery, holocaust etc. I would much rather see actual, tangible forms of restitution and reparations. Also, I don't think this was thrown out because of homophobia on the Tories part. I think there is more to it than that. The government is committed to this (the Gay pardon (you hear how silly that sounds?)), and the MP who talked it out, Sam Gyimah, is part of the government. I think this was a political decision (political maneuvering), as opposed to an ideological one. I suspect the Tories did not want a Bill introduced by the Opposition to pass through, so that they can claim credit for it themselves.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen- The Irony Meter has just exploded.

Just read Donald Trump's statement on the government- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-calls-washington-leadership-losers-babies/story?id=42969787&cid=gma_fb --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd assumed that, at this point, they'd been upgraded to Atomic Quality Irony measurement levels. Assumption wrong, I suppose. FuzzyCatPotato of the Dead Sweet and sour chickens (talk/stalk) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Michelle Obama says Trump rigged election talk threatens the 'Idea of America.'" Which America? The America she never was proud of until Obama was elected? or the America of Hillary Clinton that Michelle Obama now calls 'boss'? nobs 21:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzycatpatato, how did you get your username to be upside down? I am not being stupid here but I have not figured out how some things on the wiki work--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A pre-stats post

22 days into the month, we have just 7056 edits. Assuming linearity, we're in line to get 9943 edits. Last month we had 12839 edits -- and it was catastrophic. The month before, we had 17143 edits (a good month).

I still hope that this is just election fervor pulling people from RW. If not, we're in serious trouble. FuzzyCatPotato of the Unpopular Beagles (talk/stalk) 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Or it's just a lull. It's not like this is our living, we can have quiet patches and busy patches. Hopefully things will pick up now we've put a stop to the constant edit warring and griefing and sealioning. Bicycle^wheel 06:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fair. Fewer edits, in my mind (as in I don't have stats on this), has always seemed to correlate negatively with article creation and RW's coverage of emerging pseudoscience. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 11:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What exactly was catastrophic about last month? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Trouble so serious, we're likely to go... bankrupt! (Dun dun dunnnnnn.)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 12:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the fundraiser is going pretty great. The worry about edit counts has more to do with the fact that content is king. And I, for one, am betting that the election is pulling everyone away right now. I think most people tire of politics around this time, and those who don't likely seek bigger outlets than RW for the time being. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that it seems strange to say RationalWiki is in "serious trouble" just because there are fewer edits.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 21:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered that constantly going on about how RationalWiki is dying may not be the best way to encourage new contributions? Annquin (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that the idea is to nip it in the bud, while we've got considerable steam. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I bring this up so that people know it's happening, and we can try to coalesce around solutions if necessary. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The good news are, we've still got a lot of trial-worthy cards up our sleeve when it comes to recruiting people and advertising the site. Never mind the user-friendly mediawiki upgrades we've got in store for the future. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We might have to be proactive in getting new people in. There are certainly people who have left because of the recent shit. Bicycle^wheel 15:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We will need to, yes. Especially us at the RMF; it's even part of our job description. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm busy actually writing a short book on Bitcoin. It's fun! and a hell of a lot of work. 500 good words a day, after a day at work, is amazing. At 10k, looks like it'll be 20-30k - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you are divabot. Wasn't sure until now. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard and myself are the only RWians also on SomethingAwful, Tumblr, and Twitter. You already got two out of four, ikanreed. Join us now in the quadfecta! (Especially Tumblr. Ignore the shit interface and bad reputation, it's great.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Does gay marriage undermine the institution of marriage as a whole?

After the Supreme Court forced states to treat gay and straight couples equally, some states (e.g. Alabama) considered legislation to abolish all marriage licenses, for both gays and straights. Does this prove that gay marriage undermines marriage (since if these proposals pass, no one will be getting the state's blessing to marry)? My logic is as follows:

1. SCOTUS-mandated equal treatment of gay and straight couples leads to states abolishing marriage licenses.
2. Abolishing marriage licenses undermines the institution of marriage, unless an alternative way of recognizing the validity of privatized marriages is developed.
3. Therefore, SCOTUS-mandated equal treatment of gay and straight couples undermined the institution of marriage as a whole.

L's Ideology (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure — in the same way that a crazy stalker ex might say "if I can't have you, no one can", proceeding to murder you. In that sense, it's certainly true that your unwillingness to just stick with your crazy stalker ex was the ultimate cause of everything going to hell in a handbasket. It clearly had nothing to do with your crazy stalker ex' apparent willingness to hurt even those he loved just because it couldn't be his way or the highway. So it's all your fault, see? (See what I'm getting at here?)

Here's another syllogism;

1. Democratic rule led the people to the courts to seek equal rights for gays.
2. Religious officials were threatening to throw a tantrum and spoil the fun for everyone if equality justly prevailed.
3. Equality justly prevailed.
4. Religious officials throw said tantrum, spoiling the fun for everyone.

Whose fault was this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Alabama has a lot of marriage hangups. Interracial marriage was fully & officially legalised there as recently as 2000, 33 years after laws against it were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Prior to that, much the same stuff happened in relation to interracial marriage as has happened more recently with same-sex marriage: courts refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples or ceasing to issue them altogether if they couldn't get away with that. By L's Ideology logic, all this would be the fault of the Civil Rights Movement rather than the bigots who opposed it. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"If they'd only rolled with it, there'd be no problem. But oof coourse, they haad to seek equal rights..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My question would be, what does “undermine” mean and what does it mean in practice? Also keep in mind that marriages exist that are not what traditionalists would consider ideal. In other words, such comparisons of heterosexual couple and homosexual couple seem to include romanticized or idealist assumptions, which however are not true in all marriages: partners who don't love each other or cheat all the time; where partners married only for tax and other reasons (e.g. greencard) but are only planotic friends; marriages with frequent domestic violence; marriages between two elderly who are way beyond founding a family etc — why aren't they also “undermining” marriages, or if they do, why is nothing done about it? Is this kind of “undermining” worse than the “undermining” done by gays? Couldn't it be that marriages are an entirely symbolic battleground, a contested flagpole that stands for culture wars type of ideologies that clash, i.e. it is not really about marriage at all, but about defending that hill just because losing that ideological battle signifies a major defeat in the culture war? I don't know, and cannot understand the reasons why anyone would be against it at all. ~ Aneris ✻ 19:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Originally, marriage was a covenant which a male entered into to take care of a female beyond her child baring years (see NT Matt. 22:30 for example; only males married, females were given in marriage). A civil government has little, if anything, or nothing at all to do with the "institution of marriage". The "institution of marriage" was designed for one purpose: to protect women's rights from a POS husband who would dump her.nobs 04:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow. So marriage is a Christian thing? It's from the bible and all? Other cultures don't get married then? What a surprise!--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A "covenant" is a contract, i.e. something civil authorities would have quite a lot to do with upholding. & It had several historical purposes, creating obligations between husband & wife, parents & children, creating family alliances, & providing clear kinship structures for inheritance of property & rights. Marriages in the modern world don't have to involve all of these things. If religions want to adhere to a traditional understanding of marriage & the family rather than a practical one, that's up to them, but civil authorities shouldn't, especially in a country whose laws & authorities are explicitly secular. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The "institution of marriage" was around long before there was the State of Alabama, and the institution of marriage will be around long after the State of Alabama is on the dust heap of history.nobs 15:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No shit but what point are you trying to make with this comment? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The original question was, Does gay marriage undermine the institution of marriage, predicated on an action a state legislature is considering. My point is (a) marriage is a covenant relationship (see above link to WP for good explanation of this), (b) state actions do not define marriage (geeez... I'm starting to sound like a Salafist now, denying the validity of man-made law...);. and peripherally (c): There are many marriages today, including common law marriage, intergender and same sex, with or without state issued licenses, that are nothing more than contract law. These in themselves are not 'marriages', in the traditional sense of the word.nobs 00:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In short: No. Also, this is mid quality bait 4/10. Worzelpete (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to nobs: The first marriage in the bible was a man (Adam) marrying a trans-gender clone of himself (Eve). This looks like a gay marriage (or masturbation) and is Jehovah's template for the "institution of marriage".^{— Unsigned, by: Wodenoz / talk / contribs}

And multiple subsequent biblical marriages were one man to several women.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yah, but the whole point is to understand the difference between contract vs covenant. Any shmuck with legal capacity can enter into a contract. Always has, always will. Look at point 5 in the above link; because God regulates the covenant, and with the separation of church and state doctrine, no US state has ever been able to issue a legal marriage covenant licence. But if they could create a loophole to make issuance of a marriage covenant licence a revenue source, I'm sure they would. nobs 04:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The Crystal Grid

Here's a product that's just jam-packed with woo for "protection" against cell phone radiation: orgone, zombies (well, the image only), quantum woo, gold, aether, vibrations, and common sense. Joseph Mercola recommends The "Gold Orgone Cell Phone Radiation Shield" by The Crystal Grid. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Woo alert!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Forgot the link: [4] Bongolian (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Muslim kid cuts off his own hand

A Pakistani teen presented his hand on a plate to a local cleric after being accused of blasphemy (mistankely). He is being hailed as a hero.TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't the saying about cutting off the nose to spite the face? Worzelpete (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

God bless him. But in the US, unless I'm wrong, not sure that woukd qualify him for Social Security Disability Benefits.nobs 21:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

?? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The next big anti-SJW thing:

Ugh. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What's ugh about it besides the person recording the video? Forgive me for not immediately understanding what you're saying. By the way, it would be nice if I could edit more than once every 30 minutes. PBfreespace (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Videos like these are always the same. Lots of yelling, lots misunderstanding, and always a free-market "libertarian" loudly proclaiming "just as bad" narratives and how discrimination must be protected. No offense, Fuzzy, but I don't know where you find these videos or why you watch them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm tending to side with the psychologist here, despite the fact that this is supposed to be a competition of arguments and ideas rather than camps. It makes me sad to feel this is something that's happening in Western culture these days. That's not to say it wasn't predictable. I wonder if we can predict which of these camps is going to triumph over the other, or if either one will at all. PB (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you mean, Pb. I am going to assume you mean this social divide that appears to have been created when it comes to hate speech (as well as due process among other rights) and discrimination against minorities. Like I said before, this video appears to be more of a misunderstanding between these "camps" when it comes to this specific legislation.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure I'm angry at the social divide, but I'm also angry at the self-described social justice warrior camp you see in the video. I disagree with their general support of certain portions of the proposed Canadian law in question. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The West deserves whatever it gets. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you trying to say Fuzzy? My interpretation, which might be wrong, is that we you have found this weeks' “SJW being SJW” episode, and that anti-SJWs will make hay out of which you dislike because they might have a point? There are btw whole compilations with original footage of SJW behaviour. Just search for “SJW compilation” on the Tubes and stuff should present itself. Can we haz a better SJW article at some point? ~ Aneris ✻ 04:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You really don't think that "just search[ing] for "SJW compilation"" would almost certainly flood the results page with a bunch of Alt-right/manosphere/anti-feminist/internet troll bullshit? I'd be more careful with giving out specific search recommendations, personally. But that's none of my business. *sips tea* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Original footage is the exact opposite, as it shows the subjects themselves making their case. Nice smear job, though. Here you go. ~ Aneris ✻ 10:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Smear job"? Oy vey... People always seem have some ulterior motive to you, don't they? See, I'm an old memester. When you said "the Tubes", I thought you meant the tubes. Not YouTube, specifically. And just putting that in Google obviously differs from putting it in the YouTube search bar. You really have to add hanlon's razor to your checklist prior to replying; it's why pencils have erasers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Saw this video earlier. Surprised that we barely have anything on him. At the moment, he's in a total of 2 of our articles, as a guy to quote.

Also, I kind of stopped listening to leather jacket dude as soon as he said he was an anarchist. Sorry, come back when your worldview has developed beyond the "why can't we all be equal in everything" naive manchild stage. CorruptUser (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, you mean the professor ought to have an article as a crank? I haven't seen the vid so I don't know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit: one article mention, the quote at the beginning of Emotional intelligence. As for having as a crank or not, no, I honestly don't know enough about the guy to say what kind of article we'd have on him. We have plenty of articles on people that are mostly sane. But we barely have anything involving him, if he's a major player in protests or something. CorruptUser (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The above.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 23:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@CU Really, that is what got you to stop listening to the video? That seems quite petulant to disregard that guy's opinion because he is an anarchist; I may hate when people say that they are "the most X you will ever meet" but I wouldn't just dismiss their opinion entirely. Also, that seems like quite the strawman to reduce anarchism to "why can't we all be equal in everything" and then bash it as a "naive manchild stage".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I watched the whole video; I just couldn't take leather jacket dude seriously after that. As for Anarchism in general, oh please, there is a reason you don't see it much after academia. CorruptUser (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I won't get into a debate but I wouldn't fall into the idea that because an idea is not accepted in academia then it must be bunk; that logic reeks of argument from authority.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

...except it is accepted in Academia. And I didn't say that he was wrong because he's an Anarchist, only that I stopped listening. CorruptUser (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I used to be an anarchist, but that's when I was still young. There is a reason humans tend toward self-organizing groups. Humanity just hasn't advanced far far enough for anarchism to work yet. Right now, people are too stupid to rule themselves, they need powerful, enlightened rulers to guide them. That's why social democracy is a much better, practical system that we should adopt. PBfreespace (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The society that's "advanced" enough for anarchism to "work" is one that terrifies me. Go ahead, just imagine what it'd actually take for everyone to agree on where to build a single bridge, let alone decide what the school curriculum should be. CorruptUser (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CU I apologize for misinterpreting your statement since you meant that there was a reason that anarchism is widely accepted, not that it wasn't accepted. I wouldn't say that a school of thought is accepted, though, if that school of thought is chastised and sneered at. I don't think that there is a difference between not listening to someone because of their political beliefs and believing that their beliefs cause them to be automatically wrong; even if there is, it is quite petulant. Imagine that someone stated that they were a feminist or an evangelical Christian and a speaker immediately dismissed their statement(s) because they stated their beliefs; would the speaker not be acting in bad faith towards them based on their ideology?

@PB I want to avoid getting into a debate about anarchism but I think most anarchist, if not all, aren't against self-organization; most of them are against coercion and hierarchies which tend to include the state and capitalism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Umm... I meant that there's a reason that anarchism is not accepted outside of academia, but you do see it in academia.

As for good faith vs bad faith, no, just no. The proper response to someone spouting bullshit isn't to eloquently respond to each nonsense response, but to simply ignore them and not waste your goddamn time. When someone started on about anarchism, every single time, it was an endless torrent of bullshit rhetoric. Call me biased, but my first response to that is to assume the person is a bunch of nasty epithets, and do something more productive. It's up to the person with the belief mostly held by crazy people to prove they are not crazy, not for me to prove they are not sane.

If you want to get into why I believe anarchism is yet another 19th century pipe dream crafted by people with no understanding of reality, but somehow still supported by academics who should know better, I'd be willing to discuss it. Though if we do so, we should probably move to the proper talk page. CorruptUser (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well my confusion stems from your use of after when you wrote, "As for Anarchism in general, oh please, there is a reason you don't see it much after academia". ::::::::::Regardless, I am not saying that you, as an average person, have to take someone who spouts bullshit seriously but I wouldn't call anarchism bullshit just like I wouldn't call evangelical Christianity bullshit. "When someone started on about anarchism, every single time, it was an endless torrent of bullshit rhetoric", by this I assume you mean the protestors in the video but I would argue that you should dismiss not because of their political ideology but, rather, their bad faith and general assholish behavior.

I will take you up on that offer to discuss on anarchism but sometime later.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

curcumin Tumeric woo

As a newb I'm not rushing to add a page but wondered if anyone was up for a woo page on the woo-nders of curcumin. I read the superfoods entry and it gets a small mention but they are advertising the shit out of it atm near me and I'd feel better if a Senior Snarker added something that I could point to for my gullible friends, unless of course it's omg a cure for warts/microcephaly/bad hair. I'd be happy to edit or seeks citations but y'know. Shy ( awwww). Gadzooks (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Curcumin enjoys a wide variety of proven medicinal properties (based on Examine's meta-review of 259 unique scientific papers on Curcumin). Curcumin also enjoys multiple human studies — double-blind and placebo controlled, no less — for a variety of claims, and some studies show quite remarkable positive effect. That being said, Curcumin isn't a panacea. Nothing is. But the starting point of any debunking attempts has to be integrating and understanding the science I just linked before going after any specifics. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to incorporate modest amounts turmeric — the source of curcumin — into one's diet (e.g. curries which use tumeric). Both turmeric and curcumin are known to have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Like Percy, said, it's not a panacea; nor is it a miracle cure. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}

Also worthy of note is the fact that you need piperine for curcumin to have an effect orally. Almost all cases of conflicting results due to some studies lacking effect have been due to those studies not using piperine for enhanced bioavailability. These absorption issues have proven solved when the curcumin is co-ingested with piperine. See the link to Examine for sources. See here for more info. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

So ... Oral cumin is best?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oral curcumin, yes. With piperine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What about chili, though? Is chili good for you or is it a dangerous addiction? Worzelpete (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Capsaicin, the active ingredient in chili, seems to have rather lacklustre effects. Still tasty though. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Chili can be dangerous in high amounts, [5] and is not advisable for those susceptible to IBS. And, just to clarify: cumin does not contain curcumin. Turmeric is the main dietary source of curcumin, and black pepper is the main source of dietary piperine. Bongolian (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Woot, it's a wonder food! Bugger. Lost that bet. Shoulda googled more googleyness. So. Sounds like instead I should now go find a delicious recipe for (no autotext this time, btw up yours rev, with love) 'curcumin'. MMM! Gadzooks (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Check Examine.com before betting next time Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Google quotes Conservapedia as authority

Google's "featured snippet" for Poe's law is currently from Conservapedia's article. Irony much? --91.7.8.175 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's intentional. Liberal bias in Google much???? nobs, where you at? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fuck Google. After I added the James O'Keefe stuff to my Hillary Clinton article two days ago, they dropped it from #22 to #33 and today #67. Fuck those assholes.nobs 02:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it is horribly dishonest? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I could get it back up to #15 if I wanted to, but it's an extremely competitive environment right now. Already working on Phases 2 and 3. Got the instruction booklet for Phase 2 today.nobs 05:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right radio host Matt Forney predicts ‘white baby boom’ because ‘women are having sex dreams about Trump’

Best headline. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I pity those poor hypothetical women. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I wish these alt-righters would stop projecting for even just a minute. Vulpius (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well they can have sex dreams all they want as long as they come home to José el plomero isntead of Joe the plumber. Worzelpete (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Related. Omfg, it's hilarious. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I would call someone's fantasy of right-wing insurrection "funny" especially with the amount of racial hatred in the atmosphere.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Some serious William Luther Pierce vibes coming off of Mr. Forney. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm always surprised that we don't get a screed from Aneris supporting this guy whenever he pops up. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Aneris doesn't like religious people, though. He's crafted this world-view centered around blaming the post-modernism boogeyman for all but most benign of tolerance and egalitarianism. Forney is a fundie, even if all the rest of his views are utterly indistinguishable from alt-right cruft; that means that he's diametrically opposed to Aneris-style "modernism".

(And I suspect if it wasn't me posting this, and it wasn't for the emphasis, word choice, and scare quotes, Aneris would probably agree with all that) ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just got called liberal trash on Facebook. Who else on this wiki was called liberal trash or something similar?

I commented on one of my Facebook friends posts and I was called liberal trash because I said I was voting for Hillary Clinton. So lets see who else was called liberal trash or a similar insult.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh... what you're called by actual fucking fascists shouldn't have much impact on you. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This just in: the Alt-right doesn't really like everyone else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I could give a shit about being called liberal trash, I was just asking who else was called liberal trash?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about "trash" specifically. But general insults from people whose political thought is not what I'd call reality-based are pretty common. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well unless your Facebook friends are commies, I wouldn't worry about it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just gonna link this: Fun:Cuck-o-tron 3000 Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone want a good laugh?

http://www.signs-of-end-times.com/the-last-days-end-of-world-signs.html. I came across this and I just had to share for those who are rational who want a good laugh.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, those poor people. Yesterday was the end times. Now we're in the start times again. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

End times propaganda and no mention of drug legalization in South America or peace (well almost) in Colombia? And no reference to the Cubs or the Second Avenue Subway? They're not even trying. Worzelpete (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Latest Installment in the Parody Book Cover Series

I put "Unbiblical" on hold and instead created this. Only my fellow Jews and/or Israelis will likely fully understand it, once they finishing translating it from German. (If you "get" my paraphrased quote at the top, the image takes on a much more sinister meaning) --TeslaK20 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The computer will protect you from commie mutant traitors. You can trust the computer. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm neither Jewish nor Israeli, and I got it within seconds. Just saying ... --91.7.8.175 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Moderne Lösung der Mutantenfrage". You had one N too much there.

Yes, but few people will get the significance of the quote I included at the top. Allow me to explain. Every baby in Israel knows about Herzl's famous quote: "If you wish it to be so, it will not be just a fairy tale", referring to the existence of a Jewish state. However, my paraphrased quote says "With telekinetic powers, it will not be just a fairy tale", giving the image a more menacing undertone. TeslaK20 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Atheists now tied for most distrusted group in US

We're losing our lead to Muslims, guys. (yarr, sci-hub link to full study). The interesting thing here is that for this follow-up, they asked why people distrusted atheists. Interestingly, thinking that we're elitist had a -0.30 correlation with hating us, whereas thinking we're immoral had a 0.68 correlation with distrusting us.

That suggests to me, that whatever negative image the Dawkinses and Harrises might give us are only negative to the kinds of people who are tolerant and respectful of our right to exist. Dunno if I have a point, just thought it was interesting. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It actually really sucks that anti-atheist screeds like these (and others) are being put forward by alleged concerned progressives at a time when people's minds are already poisoned with fearful bias and bigotry against atheists. And that's just in the western world; in other parts of the world, atheists risk getting brutalized or even murdered for their non-beliefs. And to suggest that the rallying cry against (New) Atheism is "really" a response to how contemporary atheism (allegedly; often falsely so) "aligns itself with the far right" is a highly peculiar proposition, in and of itself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dustandshadow13 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You're missing something. The notion that religious people can and frequently are really shitty does not grant special any immunity to atheists as a group against the same. That there are outspoken atheists strenuously arguing against the ideals of the enlightenment out of an authoritarian, bigoted mindset is kinda beyond question now. Anyone that sees a user named "The amazing atheist" with hundreds of thousands of followers, presenting overtly racist screeds will get a moment of pause from it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I certainly am missing something, in the sense that I'm not presenting a complete view by making a small comment on trends which I find to be divisory. Now; as you no doubt know, I will agree whole-hearteadly with you about people like TAA and Thunderfart. However, I certainly don't think that they represent atheism. Likewise, I'm sure you're not questioning the fact that European fascism translates historically to "the activist arm of the Catholic church". It just bugs me enormously when people who themselves are not to the political right brandish their philosophical illiteracy by trying to carry off Hitchens or Dennett and appropriating them as having been some kind of deplorable salesmen of modern islamophobic hate movements, like the (afaik, largely Christian) Alt-right. These accusers are people who end up utterly misguided by an unexamined belief in belief. To the Christian right, atheists come off as cultural marxist communist feminists. To the regressive left, atheists come off as islamophobic antifeminist paleoconservatives. And — on the topic of studies showing universal distrust in the US against the atheist minority — my point is precisely that two wrongs don't make a right. I mean, we can all agree that just because someone identifies as a muslim and has read the Qur'an, it's asinine and hateful to assume they're now the worst ilk of ISIS. That they now have to agree with every single word in it. I mean, that's just dumb — it's a hate-filled prejudice against their beliefs that is required for the process of othering these people. Conversely, just because someone identifies as an atheist and has read The End Of Faith, let's please not commit the same fallacy of kneejerk-accusing them of secretly being in love with Sam Harris, Pat Condell and The Amazing Atheist. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I love how people here just knee-jerk dismiss Sam Harris, TJ Kirk and Phil Mason. I feel much of it is because they're part of the wrong tribe. I often enjoy listening to these people, as they have much stuff of relevance to say. I think it's unfair to dismiss them and call them names like I've seen here. They're no more or less legitimate. PBfreespace (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no knee-jerk to rejecting a bigotted fuck who mocks rape victims and hates black people(let's not forget celebrating a young teen's suicide). That's not tribalism. That's TAA being a giant piece of shit as a person. I know, I know I'm "just rationalizing away someone who disagrees with me" by pointing out some o their intolerant, shitty behaviors, and views. He's a piece of shit, and I hate to tu quoque, but the only reason I could possibly imagine going to bat for someone that awful is because you think he's on your side. And it's not incidental stuff. He did a whole video spewing pseudoscientific racialist garbage. Re-evaulate your life, PB. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"Re-evaluate your life"? Jesus Christ you're touchy. I can tell you really can't stand people who disagree with you. At all. I don't go around talking to people who watch FOX News and say "they're a shitty channel that spews garbage, you shouldn't support those fucks, re-evaluate your life". That's just not how I react to other people. I don't think someone should reconsider their entire life just because they like one person. It's a crazy way to react, and that kind of hatred of one person that's so strong as to prompt a comment like that is cultish behavior. PBfreespace (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You really don't get it. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with them. Let's put it bluntly: people who listen and follow shitty people - and Harris, TAA, and Thunderf00t ARE shitty, with some shitty fucking opinions - have shitty opinions themselves. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessarily the case. I can accept that a user can go "What? That makes no sense, and is pretty damn shitty" about the worse things TJ or TF or whoever has said. But they're pretty pathetic excuses for public figures for any sort of movement that wants to claim they're decent people. That's kinda where we are, though, as a culture. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

*normal user hat*

Hey can you guys try to be nice to each other? Topic: Sam Harris, TJ Kirk, and Phil Mason (and possibly TAA and others) should not be rejected as bad elements of the atheist movement. Discuss. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem with individuals like Ikanreed is that truth doesn't matter, only "sides". The technique is always the same with this flock. The world is divided into Team Good and Team Evil. It's allowed to say anything about Team Evil, and reality is untethered from the subject matter. If anyone disagrees or just appears to be not totally on Team Good (through "virtue signalling"), they're Team Evil, too. This is how nothing can be discussed on a subject-matter level, but as you'll surely have noticed, it's all “meta” – all the time. Correcting falsehoods of the wrong people is a signifier of Team Evil membership, and that's the chief reason why falsehoods accummulate over time in their spaces (sometimes leading to a completely bizarre alternate reality version). The effect is that I cannot even write this, without ALSO spending some time explaining that I'm not a fan of TJ Kirk and that I'm ALSO not too fond of his loudmouth and insensitive attitude. But this is what it does. Also note Ikanreed's dehumanizing language. The sad part is that Ikanreed has apparently no problem with people like Sarah Nyberg (officially retweeted from the RW account), an actual paedophile. This is where the "sides" mentally really kicks in. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I apparently have no problem with (person I've not referenced once in my life). Go. fuck. yourself. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 23:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, what you've just done is textbook Bulverism. Stop. Try to discuss what's presently occurring without also discussing the state of the world. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I also dispute the claims Ikanreed made. I know of two situations.

1. was a spat with Greta Christina who spread the misdeeds of TJ Kirk far and wide (they were almost a decade old at the time). He then made a video, apologized for his old views and clarified more. I know this, because this gave me a particular sour taste, since Greta Christina's flock made similar extreme remarks for years, and even had sexually brutalizing memes ("go fuck yourself with a rusty knife" type etc). That's when I thought that she's a hypocrite extraordinaire.
2. Very similar is the alleged “celebrating a young teen's suicide” case, which simply didn't happen. The RW page actually explains what this was really about “I am the other hundreds of thousands of people who died today other than Amanda fucking Todd” (and who are supposedly forgotten). This also shows the kind of double-standards I often mention. Because when PZ Myers makes a similar case, but instead of Amdanda Todd it's Robin Williams, who's white male suicide distracts from more important manners, the RationalWiki is (of course!) completely cool with it. I find both of these comments in bad taste and insensitive, because they raise an issue at the wrong time. Otherwise, see Paul Bloom's case Against Empathy (video) or here. ~ Aneris ✻ 00:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My question is this: why on earth are TJ(TAA) and Thunderf00t being mentioned in the same sentence as Sam Harris? These two are nothing more than YouTube personalities! They are not intellectual. Frankly, it's an insult to Harris (and I don't even like Harris) to just casually drop their names alongside his as if they were equals. Why are you elevating them to such undeserved status - pedestals? Furthermore, this entire discussion encapsulates my problem with NA. This is where it has gotten atheism. As Michael Ruse predicted, the constant antagonism and evangelism of these atheist "prophets" (among whom I include Harris) and their disciples and followers has put atheists and atheism in the spotlight it really shouldn't be in. Where people should be indifferent to us (at worst!) they now actively despise us. They treat us like a movement. Atheism shouldn't be a movement, but NA turned it into a movement. At most, atheism should be a philosophy, not the political ideology it has now become. It's almost difficult to distinguish it from political movements. Moreover, one of my major "beefs" against religion - Islam and Christianity especially - is their proselytizing nature, which NA seems to have adopted, in addition to the factionalism/tribalism and a sort of (intellectual?) supremacy. (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh good, an objection that actually lets me get back to the original context. So why they're in the same sentence is because they relate through the attribute of people who view atheists as elitist or condescending, as described in the linked article. It doesn't matter how well structured, intellectual, or scientific ones views are as far as perceiving people to be condescending or elitist. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

But it's not purely perception. Some of the most prominent atheists - regarded as the face of modern atheism - are indeed elitist and condescending. Prime example, Richard Dawkins and Hitchens, who go around deriding every theist as, basically, "stupid". It's hard to get people to like you when you have contempt for them and don't even attempt to hide it. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, true, but contextually, appearances are particularly relevant to a survey of who people dislike and why. It's unfair to categorize Muslims as violent and dangerous on the basis of a few media personalities, but people do anyways. It's unfair to categorize atheists because of a couple of condescending jerks like me or Dawkins, but people do anyways. And again, viewing atheists as elitists is correlated with positive views of atheists compared to the general population. That sure as hell says something about the status quo. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally surprised that Trump supporters aren't the most distrusted group.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, you could find more distrusted groups, but this survey only examined things people classically discriminate on. I doubt trump supporters would be less trusted because white people gonna white, but certainly murderers, congress, and the KKK would beat us out. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar: although not its aim, this study shows how much darker America has become, how less tolerant it is becoming as a society. Which is ironic, given that folks on the Right (and Centre Right) love to whine about political correctness. In the study, in 2003, only 4.6% of those surveyed thought African Americans as a group do not agree with their vision of American society. In 2014,that percentage rose to 16.9%. It's the same pattern for every minority group: Jews, Asian Americans, Conservative Christians, Muslims. It's actually not bad for homosexuals and atheists - all things considered. Their percentages rose from 22.6% and 39.6% to 29.4% and 41.9% respectively. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My theory: the right wing finally hit the new media. Please like and share this racist meme disguised as uplifting comparisons about cops. It's going to take for-fucking-ever to detoxify our culture. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As an atheist feminist cultural marxist communist leftist sexual bolshevist, I find this to be triggering. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard of Nylon eating bacteria?

Have you? Worzelpete (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes; have you heard of the Lenski experiment? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the hyphen in the title of the WP article makes the story more believable. Because if nylon actually ate bacteria I would indeed be surprised.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Potato, patata. We should have an article on them. And yes, I have heard of the Lenski experiment. Very fascinating. Worzelpete (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:To do list has included nylonase (the active ingredient of nylon-eating bacteria) for quite a while. But nobody's yet got around to it. Annquin (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Idea for a project (It would be a pretty big project)

Have an general article like the Fundie schools article but have it talk about alternative medical schools (i.e Naturopathic, Homeopathic, ayurveda, Chiropractic and so on). Before I actually start something like that I would like input from the other users and or suggestions on how we could make an article like that.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that it sounds like a great idea. --TheGrandmother (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great! May I suggest creation a draft at User:Rationalzombie94/Altie_schools before putting it in mainspace? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a small draft but I think it looks like shit. I am not sure how to improve it but I did give a general background of alternative medical education and I did list two schools. Here is the link to the draft (keep in mind that I already know it looks like shit, I cannot edit worth a damn)- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Rationalzombie94/Altie_schools

Derek Black's journey from son of Stormfront founder to Clinton voter

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html

A beautiful story, to my mind, of actually being able to think skeptically about one's beliefs. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So the ultra-conservative ideological bubble formed through his insular, white supremacist upbringing rapidly began to erode he moment he set foot in the real world? It's almost like reality has some kind of... liberal bias. 173.71.121.36 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't heard of Flora Jessop, you should look her up. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I just looked up Flora Jessop, and I can't really figure out how she is relevant to this particular topic. Perhaps you could connect the dots for me? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You must not have looked very deeply, you smug shit. She was an escapee from the FLDS who ran her own underground railroad. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Levi Much to our collective dismay, Plutoniumboss doesn't get along all that well with any of the other children. Please be generous in your interpretation of his/her choice of words. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, sheepfucker . Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"That's goatfucker to you, pleb!". Jokes aside — atleast you don't write about yourself in the third person. Like Arnold used to say... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It must be Bob Dole's sock account. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(Reference game on point!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 04:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, PB! What's with the aggro? I wasn't being smug. I was being sincere. I really couldn't see the link between Flora Jessop's journey and Derek Black's. Derek Black's change was brought about by external influences (a life time of living in a echo chamber), whereas Jessop's was (arguably) motivated by internal struggles. What is it with the internet and people thinking everything someone says which can't be translated into "I agree with you" is an insult? Jeez, dude. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I was being sincere. I highly doubt that. I checked your talk page. You are a pedantic dickhead. Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're a miserable, thin-skinned, arsehole, who needs to calm down, and I didn't even need to check your page to discover that. It's just an objectively, observable fact at this point. Also, seeing as the adjective "pedantic" means "excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous", I fail to see how anything on my talk page proves that I am pedantic. But, hey, that's just me being pedantic again, right? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Don't try to reason with it! COVER YOUR HEART!!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bundys walked

I have no words .DarkAngelCryo (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Source

I love this logic. To the Bundys, "peaceful protest" involves takeover of federal buildings for over 1 month -- but god help the people who don't stand during the national anthem. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Especially, if they're a minority.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, other than the presence of guns in this case, I'd rather not see any protest result in people getting convicted on federal conspiracy charges. Ever. Even if it's by entitled dicks. And other protestors are being punished(they shouldn't be). The one person who gave indication that he was going to attack with his gun was killed. Cliven Bundy still has charges to face in Nevada, which... I don't think he's getting out of, since they involve more specific violation of federal ordinances. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know enough about the details but their armed takeover of a federal building is different from Native Americans seizing their town to evict a corrupt tribal leader or African Americans legally, openly carrying rifles into a state legislature. There does appear to be a double standard when it comes to the DAPL protests, but I'll just leave this here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Found not guilty in federal court by a jury of their peers. Not surprising. What is surprising is the same US Justice Department not allowing Hillary Clinton the same opportunity.nobs 02:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Good news everyone!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

God answers prayer.nobs 05:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

One of my students is a very active Efukt member....FML

When this semester started i saw that one of the new students had a Efukt sticker on his laptop, I later saw him with an Efukt t-shirt as well, and then i saw that he had written "Efukt API is now public beta. Try it out!" on one of the whiteboards in our cafe.

For those of you who don't know (article forthcoming) efukt (Seriously NSFW bordering on NSFL) is a website dedicated to "adult humor" by which they mean: porn bloopers, shock porn and extremely offensive things in general.

So as you can imagine this made me less than super happy about his existence. I then went to the forums (login required and seriously NSFW) to see what the general opinions of the more active users are. This was not a good idea. Apart from just next level shocking stuff (I can not stress the NSFW enough.) and some political posts that may not exactly be inline with my -and the sane portion of the population- political views. Some of the threads on the forum are:

• Sticky: How to Block Faggots You Hate
• Trump: A Frightening or Exciting Opportunity?
• Why Are Democratic Women Such Clams? (Arguing why Conservative women are sexier than liberal women)
• Serious question about Black Lives Matter (General hate on black lives matter)
• Shot that gay motherfuker!!!!
• Reddit is absolute shill leftist garbage.
• The Racial Stereotype Picture Thread
• Weird things the the Vag/Butt

So i think i found this guys account and it looks like he has over 600 forum posts! And as such he has made it onto my list of nemesises(Or what ever the plural of nemesis is). To make matters worse, he will be my student in several classes in which I am a TA and thus I will be grading his labs and assignments :/ And I am a firm believer in academic honest and objectivity... So I can't just fail him on the grounds of him being a horrible person.

Sorry for the OT rant but life is hard some times. --TheGrandmother (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nemeses. The plural is nemeses. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Grandmother: Does your class touch on any social issues? (Race, sex, income?) The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. It's computer related all of it. His opinions does not affect his ability to write decent code.... unfortunately --TheGrandmother (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say that that's probably a violating of school dress codes to wear anything advertising an adult site, then I saw the word "TA" and realized this is university-level. Sorry buddy, you just gotta treat him the same way you treat the dumb kid excitedly reading Ayn Rand in the back corner: denial. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I make no effort to interact with him and he will not get any pedagogical bonus questions or fun-facts from me! --TheGrandmother (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The plural of nemesis is nemessiah. But if you have more than one nemesis, you have a problem. Worzelpete (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you create/assign projects? Make him make a page for something feminist, antiracist, etc. Maybe an "atheist ex-Muslim" page, to triple-trigger him? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. And they are all programming rellated. So even if I did it would be kinda hard to work social issues in to it :p --TheGrandmother (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably best not to track your students' online activities, especially if the outcome is that you can't grade their work impartially. Such are the perils of life in the digital age. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are very right about that. And I can still grade him objectively, non of the courses even remotely touch upon social issues. But he has an efukt t-shirt and an efukt sticker on his laptop so that was a bit of a factor. --TheGrandmother (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Real talk: Does he think that wearing a shirt reading "efukt" will gain him social status? FuzzyCatPotato of the Doubtful Homotopys (talk/stalk) 20:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he does it to gain social status. I think it's more of a very misguided "fuck the establishment" thing. --TheGrandmother (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Try asking anyone if they think their T-shirt slogan will gain them social status. Very few people will say "yes that's what I'm wearing it for". Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There will always be scum in the world. Don't be so concerned about it. They would exist whether you met them or not. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunatley that is very true :/ --TheGrandmother (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fucking Duterte

Looks like Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte wants to join the No Cussing Club.[6] Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In hopes that Duterte is one of the handful of Filipinos who speak Spanish: "¡Chinga tu madre, cabrón!" Worzelpete (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

He's swearing off his sole positive distinguishing feature? Dang. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right cringe, again

MEET THE DAPPER WHITE NATIONALIST WHO WINS EVEN IF TRUMP LOSES (Mother Jones)

Richard Spencer uses chopsticks to deftly pluck slivers of togarashi-crusted ahi from a rectangular plate. He is sitting in the Continental-style lounge of the Firebrand Hotel, near his home in the upscale resort town of Whitefish, Montana, discussing a subject not typically broached in polite company. "Race is something between a breed and an actual species," he says, likening the differences between whites and people of color to those between golden retrievers and basset hounds. "It's that powerful."

We are well into our third round of Arrogant Frog, a merlot that Spencer chose because its name reminds him of Pepe, the cartoon frog commandeered as a mascot by the "alt-right" movement that has been thrust from the shadows by Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Spencer says Pepe could also be seen as the reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian frog deity, Kek: "He is basically using the alt-right to unleash chaos and change the world," he says, looking slightly annoyed when I crack a smile. "You might say, 'Wow,' but this is literally how religions arise."

Reminder: this man literally founded the alt-right. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That Trump's rise is a win for neonazis is beyond question for me. The overton window shifted all the way to where they're hanging out on one side of it. I'm still kinda struggling with the question of "At what point does it become moral to kill Nazis?" It's not an easy question to answer. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you hate such a small group so much, a group with no real political power, while you describe yourself as an "accommodationist" above regarding the Abrahamics (a majority in very many parts of the world) who continue to wreck things left and right with their regressive ideologies? No doubt you will say "not all Abrahamics" and I could respond by saying "some racists only want peaceful segregation between continents, with no violence if possible." Your priorities are, in a word, misplaced. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I question your characterization of the alt-right as being "small" and having "no real political power". Taken over the Republican Party in the USA, using Trump as their figurehead? Check. Responsible for Brexit? (Yes, UKIP was the alt-right.) Check. Responsible for the majority of the anti-EU political movements in Europe? Check. A significant control of the more populist sections of the internet? Check.

And surprise, they're mostly Abrahamics! After all, one of the premier goals of the alt-right is the primacy and re-establishment of "Christian Western Culture". Check the 16 points. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the alt-right and similar reactionary movements - even if composed of atheists - are using moral systems derived from the Abrahamic religions. If you wanted, you could probably put the majority of regressive movements in the Western hemisphere under the archtype of "Abrahamic"...which just proves my point further, why not focus on the root of the problem? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't prove your point. Your "point" was that the alt-right is small. You got rekt and changed the subject. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It annoys me that Pepe is self-evidently a quasi-religious totem, yet whenever someone mentions it on RW, it gets deleted by some channer. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Lord Aeonian: Ah the "Tolerate my intolerance" shitheads are back. Any "Abrahamics" who says things as shitty as the alt-right do are also dangerous dipshits, but people like you who literally distinguish the overwhelming majority of a religion's membership for the dangerous fundies are worse. Sorry your ideology and beliefs suck, but circuitous arguments that hide the underlying bigotry like the one you've just made don't help. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Being passive aggressive doesn't make your strawmans any stronger. But you keep living in your coddled little bubble, you stupid gharbis wouldn't survive a day anywhere else. Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"strawman". I dare you to tell me what I misrepresented about your stupid beliefs. Truth be told, the fact that you can't understand or comprehend the difference between "vague collection of people loosely grouped by a wide variety of barely related belief systems" and "specific group of people identified specifically by being bigoted hateful permutations of a belief system" just makes you a shit at first order logic.

Screaming about logical fallacies doesn't make you win arguments either, FYI. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We need an article on this website

Folks, I finally found it - an alternative to Wikipedia for conspiracy theorists. Amusingly, it calls conspiracy theories "deep politics" and its logo looks like it's trying so hard not to be an Illuminati eye. It's called WikiSpooks, and its URL is http://wikispooks.com. RWNoob (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

From the article on "Deep politics":

To say that there is no official narrative about deep politics would be incorrect since Wikipedia has a page about it[1], although that page is by no means clear. The phrase 'deep politics' occasionally has been used for over a century to indicate levels of intrigue beneath the immediately apparent facade of party politics, but were ad hoc isolated references until Peter Dale Scott took a more systematic approach. Professor Scott used the phrase to describe goings on that are so at odds with the public stories about what is happening that they are collectively repressed. If what is generally referred to as 'politics' is the 10% of an iceberg that is visible above the water, Deep Politics is the 90% which underlies it.

Ahahaha. Unfortunately, the wiki appears to be really small -- only one dude is churning out all of these articles. If it gathers steam, might be worth writing on. Thanks for the find! :) 16:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh. I remember coming across this a while ago. Was looking up the term "deep state" (In a nutshell, from an outside of WikiSpooks perspective, it refers to a coalition of various groups - typically government officials, the mob, and the rich - that are secretly pulling the strings behind a country. Usually, deep states are not democratic.) after hearing about the Susurluk scandal. Interesting read, but I don't know if it's on-mission. TheMyon (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia gives too much time to the official narrative and thus suffers from bias. (Gee, I wonder where we've heard that before...) Read the impressive evidence here! RWNoob (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Their article on Inslaw has more cites than sentences. Their Nixon article is one of the least slanted you'll find anywhere.nobs 21:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The model tends to work best when there's actually some shady stuff going on, rather than the wiki resorting to drivel such as simply going off on how the Jews did 9/11, as they do here (they literally say "Israeldidit"). RWNoob (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That is some sick shit. nobs 05:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to know how insane someone is politically, ask them about Israel. Worzelpete (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Turns out, they have more people than we thought. There's Peter and Patrick Haseldine, who was banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. And a new user registered today named Billstew. *puts on tinfoil hat* Coincidence? I think not! (Oh, and Urban pops in from time to time.) RWNoob (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hate rising: What we're up against

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

WIGO blogosphere is that way. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of current threads of racialist nationalist rhetoric is this way. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Embedding a 50-minute video without comment isn't discussion. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

But a 50-minute video might spark a discussion! --TheGrandmother (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

So might anything posted in the WIGO pages. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yea, IMO it should be part of forum etiquette to provide your own thoughts in the OP of a thread rather than simply dropping a video and waiting for others to open discussion. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, especially when it's something space/attention-hogging like a video embed or large image. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is hate on the rise, or are all the nice-goody people finally looking inwards at their society (cuz'v Trump) and discovering all the nastiness lingering/festering inside it? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Those "neo-Nazi"/KKK groups are run by the FBI, southern poverty law center. Its why they never do sensible nationalism that can win at the ballot box but are dressing up in robes or doing Nazi salutes. Compare these freaks and clowns to the Front National who are showing how sensible nationalism can win elections with mass support.Apso2 (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No evidence presented. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on a the study I linked above: hate is definitely on the rise in a measurable sense. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with what this guy is saying... except he uses children to make his point. Don't do that, it's a stupid gimmick. CorruptUser (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A project I mentioned above

I came up with the idea of starting a page that lists alternative medical colleges and I posted a link to a draft I made in my earlier post (Yes I know the draft looks like shit, so go ahead and point everything wrong with it) and because no one replied to the link I thought I would make an update. Here is the link- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Rationalzombie94/Altie_schools. Go ahead and critique it because it looks awful (At least I think it does). I won't make the actual page until I get opinions and keep in mind I only listed two schools so far. I want to add Naturopathic, Chiropractic, Ayurveda, Homeopathic, Acupuncture, and Oriental/Traditional Chinese Medicine (I might be missing some subjects). Also I planned on having a description of each school and wither or not it is accredited plus I want to list international schools also so the project will be massive. I will thank those who offer constructive criticism but there is no reason to be rude if you disagree with the draft, all I want is constructive criticism. Thank you --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please try to include sources for all your assertions in the article. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I know how to make external links but not foot notes. I was given the instructions to do so but I ended up screwing up. So I will need help with footnotes.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How to do references:

== Footnotes ==

{{reflist}}

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering too, thanks.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Np. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A slice of Naturopathic propaganda

I know I said a few months ago that I was in favor of naturopathic medicine but my views have changed. Anyways here is a slice of naturopathic propaganda- http://www.naturopathydigest.com/archives/2006/aug/editor.php. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, which of the many naturopathic treatments were you in favor of? Was it imprecise doses of radiation by any chance? Bongolian (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I was mostly in favor of someone's right to choose but like I said, my views have changed I now I am against Naturopathic medicine.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't attending an AA meeting for a substance abuser or addict a naturopathic treatment?nobs 04:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say AA is more along the lines of faith healing--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm bummed Dilberts creator has clay feet

Oh bummer. I just bought the dudes book after seeing some seemingly logical media stuff, Then read the rw clogo sphere link, spent some time reading his blog and now I'm super bummed. The draining the swamp dog whistle and the link to his super hot neighbour/ girlfriend/model/ oy vey. (Sigh) are you only crazy when you don't know you're crazy? I mean I know I should be made of sufficient snark to not be bummed but oh fart he's as nuts as Michele Bachmann. So ironicGadzooks (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC).

If opening the Pandora's box of his alt-right leanings sours your view of the Dilbert comics too much, there's always this: http://mradilbert.tumblr.com And for the record, being aware of your own craziness doesn't make you not crazy. It just helps you deal with it and not come across as a delusional asshole; two things Adams has a lot of trouble with. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Lifetip: Everyone who does anything major is an asshole^{[citation needed]}. It's just the way the world works; the successful people that do stuff are not just the ones with the talent to do the stuff but also the ones with the ego and confidence to do said stuff. This means that, while not all assholes do big things, only assholes do big things. CorruptUser (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No need to despair. I can still appreciate Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos despite having encountered (but not being able to finish) his awful 2011 book Flashback which is nothing more than a ham fisted crackpot Obamunism dystopia pulp novel replete with global warming denialism, Eurabia and various white extinction scenarios straight out of the most paranoid GOP fear mongering. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope that achievement doesn't demand Assholeness. Maybe it's just an optional extra. That'd be nice :-) I still think his art has some insight, but his arguments in his blog post started to fail the scratch-n-sniff test. Sad face. Gadzooks (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@SW, Oh I never got around to finishing that series! I only got Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion, then maybe 1/4 the way into Endomyion. Syfy said they were going to make a miniseries on it; they definitely need some actual decent scifi to undo the damage that one executive began when he said "hey, most of the people watching this channel are young males, and since young males like professional wrestling..."

@Gadzooks, achievement requires high amounts of confidence, and overconfidence leads to assholish behavior. Achievement doesn't require assholism, but the very thing that enables achievement also enables assholism. CorruptUser (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

More (fake) legal threats from troll Rome Viharo

This discussion was moved to Talk:Rome Viharo.

--JorisEnter (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The video Twitter doesn't want you to see!

Behold! Gaze upon the video which is so powerful, Twitter is trying to destroy the very service it's on! Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 01:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The fools! Don't they know that the power of goat is impossible to contain? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

MWAHAHAHA!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz Are “Anti-Muslim Extremists”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/10/27/southern-poverty-law-center-ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-maajid-nawaz-are-anti-muslim-extremists/

If you know anything about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, maybe it’s that the Somali-born activist was the victim of faith-based genital mutilation. Maybe it’s that her friend, director Theo van Gogh, was murdered by a Muslim extremist who then stuck a knife in his body with a note that said Hirsi Ali was next. Maybe it’s that she’s been on a mission to reform the religion.

She understands that there’s a direct connection between a literal interpretation of the Qur’an and the terror we’re seeing in parts of the world. She knows that a non-trivial percentage of believers feel that violence in the name of Islam is sometimes justified.

Maajid Nawaz is another activist working to reform the faith, most recently with his book Islam and the Future of Tolerance (co-authored with Sam Harris).

Both of them believe that Islam is uniquely problematic compared to other religions and moderate Muslims have a role to play in helping steer the ship in the right direction.

And both of them were just named to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of “Anti-Muslim Extremists” alongside actual hate-mongers like Walid Shoebat (who once said “All Islamic organizations in America should be the No. 1 enemy”).

Read the article. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem here. It's well known that both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are in the Harris/Hitchens "Islam is the ultimate threat and we need to nuke all the Musloids." camp of atheism. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Mehta. No surprise at the article at all then; he's well embedded in the Harris/Hitchens camp. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

When have Nawaz or Ali uttered anything close to that statement? (And arguing "Islam is worse than any other religion" != "nuke all the Musloids".) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's then go straight to the horse's mouth and see what SPLC considers concerning

In her 2007 interview with The London Evening Standard, Hirsi Ali “advo­cated the closing of Islamic schools in the West and said that ‘violence is inherent in Islam,’” according to a later account in The New York Times.

In her 2007 Reason interview, she said, “There comes a moment when you crush your enemy” militarily, and added, “There is no moderate Islam. … [T]here’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it.” She also told the journal that she had sought to “get rid of” all Islamic schools in the Netherlands while living there.

In a July 11, 2009, essay for the online World Post, Hirsi Ali criticized President Obama for denouncing “Islamic extremism without once asso­ciating Islam with extremism.” She threw cold water on the idea of the U.S cooperating with Muslims in order to battle jihadist extremism.

In an Aug. 18, 2010, Wall Street Journal op-ed, “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations,” Hirsi Ali said that Islam “is at war with America” and wrote that Western civilization “needs to be actively defended” against Islam.

Appearing on the March 23, 2015, edition of “The Daily Show,” she said, “If you look at 70% of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible.” Experts said the claim appeared to be bogus, and she later amended it to say 70% of fatalities “were in wars involving Muslims,” including civil wars.

--Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I'll be honest... that all sounds pretty bad, not like... "kill all muslims" bad but pretty damned unreasonable and tarring 1.5 billion people with the same brush uncritically bad. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

We might get rid of such stereotyping tricks altogether and announce there are no “Muslims”, just individuals who have nothing in common at all. That would stop this tarring everyone with the broad brush. When will fucking white males (and those married to one) understand? ~ Aneris ✻ 18:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Oh woe is me" sighed the bigot, "It's just so unfair that you ask people to treat billions of people as something other than a monolith." Tears welled up in his eyes. "But those cruel post-modernists want me to accept that people are human beings defined by more than one superficial aspect of themselves".

The tears were beginning to flood the room. "I am doomed if this continues, for my tears will not abate as long as people ask basic human decency of me, and others, as a condition of taking my thoughts seriously in a public venue." But of course, nothing could be done. The "post-modernists" were just too evil, too unconcerned with the feelings of Aneris, who, even when the person being criticized was or Arab descent, could not pretend for a moment that it was anyone but white males who were oppressed.

So ends the sad tale of Aneris, The Oppressed, the saddest not-racist-butt to ever roam the internet. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

For a more serious reply to our favorite concern troll: notice how I used the word "uncritically"? That's an important word. Tarring all murderers as people with a disdain for human life is probably pretty fair, because it's definitional to the act they take, though even then, there are probably murderers who didn't take their crime lightly when doing it. Doing that for people who all happen to share a holy book, prophet, and deity lacks what might be called "critical analysis" wherein the idea ("There is only one Islam") isn't subjected to any scrutiny for validity(spoiler, it's full of shit). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

EDIT NOTE This is what Ikanreed want's to make disappear (against the rules). To be fair to Ikanreed, they want you to knnow that “And... fuck you. You can't stop stuffing words in my mouth, and i see no reason anyone else needs to see your drivel.” /EDIT END: ORIGINAL COMMENT: Do you really regard Nawaz and Hirsi Ali as racists (and those who appear to doubt your assessment)? But if you think you can gain "Good People" points by throwing around such terms like confetti, go ahead. Have you considered that Muslims indeed have shared properties by virtue of identifying themselves as Muslims, and by virtue of sharing a set of beliefs? It goes without saying that they are not all the same, and it is obvious to everyone here that there are obviously different denominations, and obviously not all Muslims are all like the IS or Boko Haram (or like your frienly neighbour, for that matter). I mean, I can't think of anyone here who doesn't know this. Nobody. I even include you among the people who I assume know some basic facts of the world, and you made clear that you are an illiterate imbecile. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

1) Islamophobia is [...] fuelled by racism. 2) "sighed the bigot" 3) "the saddest not-racist-butt". The reader should decide if I misrepresented Ikanreed, and whether another round of histrionics are justified (removal of comment, change of user rights). Also, what's worse, my misrepresentation (if it was), or Ikanreed's serious accusations. Again, the reader can decide. If you want to see more impotent rage-tears of a bully, see here. ~ Aneris ✻ 22:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You know, if Hirsi Ali really wants war with Islam, I'm tempted to oblige her. To give her exactly what she asks for. I mean, I was raised Catholic and the Catholic Church knows how to do "war with Islam".

Of course, she'll probably object to all the menfolk and in her family being put to the sword, her women made my rapeslaves, and the remaining children becoming my serfs on my new Crusader-given feudal territory, but eh, it's what she asked for. Oh, and she'll need to be imprisoned and given enhanced interrogation techniques until we've been assured that she has lost all Muslamic sympathies. I'm sure she won't object.

Sometimes, to teach people, you need to give them exactly what they ask for. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the SPLC is doing nobody any good in this. Those people that think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is dangerous know her already. Those that think she is not dangerous will not be swayed by the SPLC and instead they will be inclined to not take the SPLC seriously when it warns of actual serious threats like white supremacists or Trump. The SPLC should stick to designating hate groups, not splitting hairs what you can and cannot say about Islam. For example I think all religious schools should be closed and homeschooling outlawed. This is not what Hirsi Ali said, but it is ultimately what "closing Muslim schools" would mean in a liberal secular democracy. Worzelpete (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A shame the Soviets didn't win the cold war, their methods were brutal and unnecessary by anyone's standards by at least they acknowledged the problem! Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an extremist. That's just objectively clear. The officious bystander (who didn't have a hang-up about Islam) would say she is. Nawaz, on the other, notwithstanding his constant need to be in the spotlight (the man is a narcissist, with delusions of grandeur. Seriously, he thinks he is more important than he is. He is also a sanctimonious twat), is not an extremist. He is just your run-of-the-mill liberal. He is also not anti-Islam. He is anti-Islamism. I don't know why the Patheos article is so outraged about the inclusion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, though. It's just unwarranted outrage. I mean this is a woman who said "we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars." If that's not extremism, I don't know what it is. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

One of my biggest beefs with Nawaz is, he plays to a crowd: White, often college/university educated, types with Neoliberal leanings, who are, and this is crucial, NOT MUSLIMS! Go to his Twitter feed or his Facebook or Goodreads, most of his fans are of the class I just described. He talks about trying to reform Islam, without proposing any method of doing so. Worse still, he just points out the current problems within Islam, which most people already know. The only difference is, most people have never heard or seen a mainstream "Muslim" (I doubt he really is a Muslim) saying these things, re-tweeting cartoons of Muhammed, ratting out other Muslims to the government in the name of "anti-terrorism". He is sort of a Magical Negro. And if there's something post-modern, liberal, white folks love, it's Magical Negroes.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If that was the case you wouldn't have people who left Islam being referred to as "race traitors," "native informants," etc. by "liberal" whites. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If what was the case? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing Aneris' comments

Annoyingness != justification for *actually literal* censorship. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, Aneris: Please stop being annoying. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

He will never stop concern trolling and you know this. Stop pretending otherwise. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahem!--Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's safe to say that the difference between being a troll and a sincere obnoxious twat are not always obvious, but either way, that Aneris adds nothing meaningful to these discussions is pretty obvious. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The particular nature of the annoyingness was to attribute false claims to me and ask me to defend them. I specifically asked him to say it again without doing that one thing. I wasn't removing every Aneris post for being annoying, though, oh god, it's tempting, just that one particular brand of dishonesty that actually adds negative value to a discussion. But as I said on my talk page, "ugh fine". I will not do it again. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@ikanreed:attribute false claims to me and ask me to defend them

Now you must know how Donald Trump feels.nobs 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Give me an example of a statement Trump did not make but was asked to defend. All I know of are statements he made but denied - despite them being on tape Worzelpete (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll answer this, but I'm gonna ask you to be honest about it. I don't want to get into partisan nonsense over this, but I think the facts bare me out. What Trump has said about immigrants - legal and non-legal - is disgusting. But that does not translate into anti-black sentiment or anti-black racism. Yet there's been a concerted effort to make that part of the GOTV among blacks, which appears to not have worked out to plan.nobs 00:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Update

https://www.change.org/p/southern-poverty-law-center-remove-maajid-nawaz-and-ayaan-hirsi-ali-from-the-splc-s-list-of-anti-muslim-extremists?recruiter=2508359&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

LOL. This link is currently being retweeted by the likes of Mr Solidarity Maajid Nawaz himself and the poor misunderstood Sam Harris. Unsurprisingly enough, Hirsi Ali doesn't seem to give a fuck. On one hand, these people, Nawaz, Harris et al, argue that the inclusion of Hirsi Ali and Nawaz on this list shows, inter alia, how little credibility the SPLC has. On the other hand, they are on a campaign to get SPLC to take these two commentators off the list. It's the kind of question their followers who have signed and are promoting this petition don't think to ask themselves: is SPLC credible or not? If it is your belief that it is not, why do you care that they have labelled Nawaz and others as extremists, and why would you go to the trouble of petitioning them to revise their list? Also, why just Nawaz and Ali? What about the others included in the list? Are the signatories conceding that the SPLC is right that those people are anti-Muslim extremists? Lastly, why not just bring a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC? I mean publicly calling someone an anti-Muslim extremist is pretty serious allegation and the piece of Nawaz in the report - notwithstanding my personal opinions of the man - offers no justification for labelling him an extremist. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Accommodationists

What are your opinions on accommodationist atheists? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that religious views must be accepted even in a secularized society. I fundamentally disagree with people who are anti-religion and believe that religion should in some form or another be banned. IMO this does not differ from any other form of religious persecution. I believe there to be nothing wrong with having religious beliefs, science and reason are not sufficient to answer all of the problems regarding the human condition and some philosophical "leaps of faith" are always required. Morality and ethics for example lye far beyond the scope of science and any form of logical reasoning.

I believe that people should be free to choose whatever philosophical framework the so choose but that no one should be allowed to force their philosophical believes onto anyone else. I believe in a secular society where people are allowed to believe what the fuck they want. But I do also believe that the state should try to act in a pragmatic and utilitarian (to a sane extent) when it comes to certain issues, like medical care. I find it preposterous that the government should sponsor alternative medicine for example. People who believe that putting rocks on their chest heals them should be allowed to do that. But they should not be allowed to deny anyone real medical care based on their belief. --TheGrandmother (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much am one, except inasmuch as I think that nonsense beliefs shouldn't really inform public policy in any way, and beliefs that hurt others should be countered specifically for the ways they hurt others. Human beings get things wrong. Human beings stick to ideas that are wrong. I am a human being. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that beliefs that hurt others should be actively counteracted but I am hesitant to say that it is the governments job (Oh shit... i almost sound like a libertarian which I am not). But in direct cases such as active discrimination and parents denying their children the correct medical care that the government should be able to intervene with a great deal of authority.

And i also believe that the best way to counter the harmful fringe opinions is to counteract social inequality. There will always be idiots, but these idiots get a large following when there is little to no faith in the government, and large groups that gets (or perceive to get) no support from the government. --TheGrandmother (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Harmful beliefs should be countered, yes, but let us take a moment to consider the other side of that coin. By the same token, do helpful beliefs deserve support? To give an example, many modern-day Christians believe that their gospel preaches the moral values of being humane, of keeping respect and dignity intact for other humans, that there is a basic equality of all people, etc.. Basically in line with modern-day Western "good person" values that I personally would support. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The fuck is an "accomodationist atheist"? --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

this very wiki is the top search result for that term ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A silly idea. Either you tolerate others with religious beliefs or you exterminate them. It's really that simple. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's silly. There are things I affirmatively oppose(and therefor don't truly tolerate) as being distinctly inferior to an alternative without necessarily viewing as requiring eradication, e.g. "Broken Windows" policing. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I still prefer simplifying as much as possible and treating humans just as I treat possessions. If something breaks, doesn't work, is useless, I discard it. If I don't need a program, I delete it. If people with religious beliefs are obsolete, well... --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you gotta live in the same universe as other people, and they, you know, can get together and "delete" you too. Maybe I'm just an unfolding deontologist and falling into a Kantian trap, but a world where no one does that is better than a world where everyone does that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick google fueled followup. "Kantian Trap" is a term I thought I made up, but apparently means something related to the transcendental and supernatural elements of his philosophy. I was only referring to his views on morality being a tad simplistic. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is why it's my personal opinion and I'm not trying to impose it on others. I keep waiting for my deletion; I assume it will happen after I hit 40 and am considered disposable by the corporations. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Castaigne2: I find such a view of other humans despicable. Old people and sick people are completely useless, keeping them alive costs money and resources. Should we therefore dispose of them as one would throw away a cheesedoodle that has been on the floor for a week? Who defines what constitutes a useful human? My existence has been of limited benefit to society should I jump of a bridge? --TheGrandmother (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Since there's no universal criteria to govern it, that's up to the individual at this time.

You're free to find my view abhorrent, of course. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion, just like racism or homophobia should not be more space than absolutely unavoidable. We can't kill them and we sure as hell should not censor them, but we should not encourage them or fund them either. Worzelpete (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

NOMA is balderdash, religious truth claims are demonstrably wrong, theistic evolution is rubbish, ergo accommodationism is complete unmitigated bollocks. I'm a Discordian anti-theist, which means that everybody can have their little crazy ideas, and there are many, religious, non-religuous, quasi-religious, and somewhat religious – you get my point – as long as they don't interfer with other people's own ideas. And this includes especially those of children. It also means that while everyone can have their crazy beliefs, everyone else should be able to mock, laugh at, and criticize those ideas, and do that often and plentiful. This also includes that people with crazy beliefs can have their own Safe Spaces, to use a modern fancy term, as long as they voluntarily and willingly want to hang out and go along with those crazy beliefs. I make no distinction between a Roleplay Gaming Store, or a Mosque or a Church (which is anyway mostly the same: people immersing themselves in fantasy stories and occasionally dress up funny, and take this very seriously, indeed). TL;DR: Accommodationism is bollocks. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

How dare you insult fifty million role playing gamers? You have offended me and my faith. Take that back or I shall riot in the streets! Worzelpete (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's great that you tore that strawman of a concept to shreds. Accommodationalism includes none of the following: NOMA, theistic evolution, or accepting religion as a valid source of truth. It's quite simply living in the same world as people who believe in something radically different than you do, without necessarily viewing them as dangerous or villainous as a result. Have you ever, even once, argued against something you actually bothered to understand? Also, you don't need tl;dr's. You need to actually read things yourself occasionally. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

+1 on ikanreeds rebuttal.--TheGrandmother (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading things himself would interfere with his screeds against social justice. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm interested in how you reconcile your support for social justice (reading a bit into your statement here) with the "people as disposable objects" view you mentioned above. Or was that not serious? I can't tell. B) talk 20:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

'* I'm in favour of social justice, but I'm against the current wave of postmodern so-called "social justice" of cultural racialist identitarians. I'm also against Pro-Life, which doesn't mean that I favour murder. Just because some group gives itself some good sounding name, doesn't mean they actually do something good. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

They were referring to Castaigne2 and his usual tough guy BS, not to you. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I know :) I wanted to clarify my view. I removed one indent, which makes it clearer, perhaps. ~ Aneris ✻ 22:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out how having a functionalist view of humanity is "tough guy BS". Would you like to have a go at explaining? Or are cosmicist viewpoints just naturally "tough guy BS". --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bshaw: I support social justice insofar as it supports my goal of the furtherance of law/order and technological/industrialized civilization. And no, I do not consider a human or humanity as having inherent "worth" or "virtue". We're just replaceable and disposable biological computers. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion, like racism, is inevitable given the way human psyches are hardwired. People need an 'other', someone who by definition is 'not us' and not a part of our society. There have been societies like the Soviet Union founded on official atheism. They still ended up with apocalyptic beliefs, and also with ritual: mass parades and venerated cult images, inquisitions, and even incorrupt bodies of Lenin to visit on pilgrimages. If you're stuck with that mummery what's the point of getting rid of God? Tell people there is no god, and No God will become the object of official veneration and the mainspring of persecution of dissenters. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If accomodationism means "not being a total dickbag that attacks other people for their religion", it's cool. If accomodationism means "letting people harm themselves with their religious beliefs", it's not cool. I actually like Aneris' video games analogy for a different reason. If someone plays video games in their free time and live a normal life, that's probably fine. If someone plays video games at the expense of their real life, that's probably not fine. Same goes for religion. Notably, the "total dickbag" line is what differentiates Hemant Mehta from The Amazing Atheist: neither is very accepting of religion, one of them manages to communicate that without pissing sane people off. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne is associated with the accommodationist wars. Russel Blackford reviewed his recent book Faith vs Fact, and wrote:

“”The most famous, or notorious, rationale for accommodationism was provided by the celebrity palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould in his 1999 book Rocks of Ages. Gould argues that religion and science possess separate and non-overlapping “magisteria”, or domains of teaching authority, and so they can never come into conflict unless one or the other oversteps its domain’s boundaries.

Emphasis mine, and non-overlapping “magisteria” in short is NOMA. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pfft! "Accommodationists"! Is there some committee somewhere that decides, "ooh, you know what word we haven't made into a catch-all term? "Accommodation!"." Why don't we just call "accommodationism" what it is, "tolerance". And let's stop adopting new terms to simplify rather complex themes, especially when words that can describe these themes already exist! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ikanreed claimed in response to me: “Accommodationalism includes none of the following: NOMA, theistic evolution […] Have you ever, even once, argued against something you actually bothered to understand?”, followed by “+1 on ikanreed rebuttal”, followed by “Reading things himself would interfere with his screeds against social justice”. I then explained that these Dunning Kruger subjects are obviously mistaken, again. You can of course argue why we need a term at all, but that's yet another question. Also Hemant Mehta is probably not an accommodationist. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a take from the other camp, from Massimo Pigluicci: In Defense of Accommodationism: On the Proper Relationship Between Science and Religion. Pigluicci and Coyne have some sort of friendly spat over this and other issues. ~ Aneris ✻ 20:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Claps hands a little bit

This discussion is mostly free of ad hom. Yaaay. How rational we're getting. FuzzyCatPotato of the Overwrought Clocks (talk/stalk) 20:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point raised

“”Why don't we just call "accommodationism" what it is, "tolerance". And let's stop adopting new terms to simplify rather complex themes, especially when words that can describe these themes already exist!

—Levi Ackerman

It's true, why don't we? Why don't we drop the buzzwords and euphemisms and just ask "should we tolerate superstition and ignorance?" What I see above is hypocritical, people saying we should "accommodate" them but then saying the government should have a strong hand when they give their children alternative medicine or try to legislate things. What are you saying? We should tolerate their views...but deny them power over their families and the political process as well? "Tolerate" them by making them second class citizens? Someone who accepts scientific medicine has the right to decide their child's treatment, but not one who doesn't, etc? Pray tell, instead of dividing people into classes of rights behind an assumption that they're wrong - albeit an assumption that is never explicitly stated - why not just state it and work to educate people and eradicate ignorance instead of, literally, shoving it aside and leaving it to fester? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, this term has context, and I provided links above. For one, there is the assumptions that New Atheists were intolerant in a way that they want to forbid religious practice, ban religion or any such things. That is a strawman too. It comes down to "respect", not tolerance of religion. Pigluicci and others (e.g. Karen Armstrong) downplay the issue. By saying that religions aren't in the business of truth claims, they hope to draw the carpet away underneath Coyne et al. The argument provided by them are often exercises in obscurantism or playing obtuse. Yes, yes, Creationists, they say. But what's the harm done aside of that. Most people don't really believe in truth claims of religion. Pigluicci mother didn't and she was a Catholic. Checkmate, New Atheist! I know it's often difficult to name some position (SJW *cough*) but when you find it often enough in the wilderness, you can as well name it. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The only people I've seen advocating for outright bans on religion - how one would enforce such an absurd thing is another story - are Marxist-Leninists and other tankies, and even then many of them now seem to make an exception for Islam, at least until it's time to justify the People's Republic of China's actions again. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Important question asked

“”"should we tolerate superstition and ignorance?"

—Lord Aeonian

Well, if they (these superstitions and ignorance) do not harm anybody - publicly or privately, undermine the values of the chosen society (I'm thinking face veils in Western societies now), the public good, the greater good, national security, the rule of law, etc, why not? It's NOT called tolerance because you agree with it! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no problems in giving religion as much respect as I give homeopathy.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You're assuming tolerance equals or even necessitates respect. It does not. Surely, I don't need to tell you that "tolerance" ≠ "respect". It's not "tolerance" if you respect it. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think I am making that assumption?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Because the only alternative is your comment just being a non sequitur jab at religion? *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

--Levi Ackerman (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. (Shrugs)--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"It's not "tolerance" if you respect it." That's a great point. In this discussion one should keep in mind where this kerfuffle comes from. Richard Dawkins and others were perceived as too strident and militant. Other people, including some atheists, didn't like this and that's where the accommodationist wars began. It is also a dispute about tactics. In other words, it's not a dispute about tolerance. Accommodationists for example dislike God Delusion, and generally dislike mockery of religious ideas, characterizing believers as mentally not right (e.g. delusional), and as you see above maintain there is not really a conflict anyway (cf. NOMA) since religions and science don't overlap in their view. The New Atheist position however maintains religion put forth a “God hypothesis” and New Atheism is generally quite natural science oriented (some might say scientistic).
      The newer dispute between “social justice” atheism vs New Atheism has similar subcurrents, but this time it's not around Christianity, but with Islam. The stridency charge of old is now known as Islamophobia. The inherent philosophical dispute also shines through, where New Atheists are accused as reductionists and scientistic (or polemical as “STEM Lords”), or perhaps labelled as positivists (I've seen Thunderf00t's PEARL idea criticized as positivistic). The traditional other camp is idealistic or relativistic (postmodern), even when of course most people are not necessarily aware of the names of their positions. Some of these disputes are an old hat, really. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, Aneris making up beliefs for his opponents then destroying those made up beliefs. That's a new one. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that toleration would be less of a tongue twister than accommodationist and it has the benefit of a historical pedigree (i.e. religious toleration with limits to which belief systems and practices were tolerated). Of course, if some atheists want to invent new labels for themselves by all means do. However, I don't really see what the salient distinction between accommodationism and toleration is in this context, but then this is the first time I've encountered the former term. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)