RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive265

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 December 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>
, (new)(back)

Is treating combatants of either side in a hospital an act of war against either side?[edit]

This discussion was moved to Talk:Israel.

Unblock Request[edit]

I have been told to post this here. It has been 3 weeks since I was vandal-binned, and I have done nothing but make helpful contributions to the wiki ever since. I have not inflamed or started any arguments. If I am unbinned, I promise to only help the wiki and not hurt it, and I will avoid starting time-consuming arguments. Thank you for your time. PB (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Cross your heart and hope to die? What say ye, mob? nobs 03:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, why not? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Because the mods were fucking sick of this bullshit. So no for now, we're not starting this shit all over again if avoidable - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, sure but Pb has been fairly responsible so far and hasn't created a sock account unlike the resident concern troll has.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
He is? Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
(Edited my comment above) I am quite certain Avenger has created another sock account.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I have not made a sock account and I will not make one if I am let out of the bin. I don't see a reason why I should not. Even Mona is being welcomed back with a red carpet. And she tried to tear this wiki down for months through Twitter. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That trashcan must be delicious because all I see are snide remarks about her and an immediate reversal of her sysop privileges once they were granted to her.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Election predictions[edit]

What it says on the can. What do y'all think is gonna happen tomorrow? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump narrowly wins. Then again, I'm telling myself that so that I won't be disappointed either way. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. I should think like that too. The anxiety is too high. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 20:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you want some different and more fun than the common hackery or depressing class analsys, then Cracked had an article on weird things that seemingly predict the election. The only one that has been proven wrong outright is the Red Skin Rule.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
What will happen tomorrow is I'll alternate between playing computer games, listening to music and dozing off in bed to distract myself while they're counting the votes for the Demopocalypse. (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Gary Johnson will win, then decide presidency is incompatible with libertarianism, disband the government, and sell the country to a Mexican trillionaire. Annquin (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The FBI fucked up again, making FBI corruption an issue. This works against Hillary. nobs 19:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
According to the RCP electoral map polls, 171 electoral votes in play, 95 lean Trump, 76 lean Clinton. But some of these polls can be weeks old. [1] nobs 19:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Right. Let's just forget the fact that FBI Director Comey is a Republican. While there are some legitimate criticisms of the FBI to be made (like all government agencies), this isn't one of them, or is more likey off the wall loco. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 22:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If Trump & the GOP do not do something in the first 100 days about that fucking corrupt FBI & Justice Dept., and I don't mean appoint a few stooges or get the FBI to investigate the FBI, I'll consider Trump failed president by June. nobs 06:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

US Presidential Election 2016[edit]

The polls are opening. If the US doesn't make it out of this, tell Canada it can have our guns. It'll take some prying, but they shouldn't have too much trouble with the cold. (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer Hillary to win, because let's face it, it's either going to her or Trump. But, let's not fool ourselves into thinking Clinton's is going to usher in an era of progressivism. Remember "Change"? For true progressives, the outcome of this election is going to be depressing. However, one outcome will be more depressing than the other.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking forward to an end to the long political horror show. But let's face it, Trump won't go quietly, so this shit could go on forever. Leuders (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Progressivism probably won't gain much ground under Hillary, but it stands to lose a lot under Trump. (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've much faith in Hillary to fix the innumerable small problems that prevent progress in this country. As 538 and others have noted, the problems America now faces are structural and long-term: educational shortcomings, infrastructural decay, innovation and productivity slumps. Clinton might be more centrist than I'd like -- but she's also an avowed details wonk. I wish her luck. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I will admit my opinion of Hillary is much higher now than it was at the beginning of this election cycle. I'm still skeptical of her on certain issues (mostly foreign policy-related), but I do hold out hope for a new Clinton administration to bring about some positive change. (P.S. Just voted. See you all on the other side). (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I wish to moderate my previous comment. I do think progressivism will gain some ground under HRC. After all, it gained some ground under Obama notwithstanding his, shall we say, "impotence". Case in point: Obamacare (Sure, it's not Single payer. But it was conceived by a right-wing think-tank as a response and possible compromise to the proposal of single-payer), gay marriage (Thanks in large part to his appointment of two liberal Supreme Court justices), Cuba and Iran deals. Politics, as much as people hate to hear it, is the art of the possible. These things happen in stages: evolution, not revolution. Like Herr Fuzzy, I too wish HRC luck. I just hope she shows more "balls" (Yeah, I said it!) than her predecessor, who seemed more interested in being liked than getting anything done at times.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a question about the process. In the american political process at some point the defeated candidate accepts defeat, makes some gracious speech and the king is crowned.

But what happens if the losing candidate simply does not accept the result and never concedes? Does the process carry on regardless or is this a necessary step?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Concession is a formality, not a requirement. (IFAIR) Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
(E/C) It should be completely irrelevant whether or not they concede. The electoral college (which is what people are actually voting for) sits in December, and in January the President of the Senate (=the Vice President) formally approves the result of that vote and names the new president. (Wikipedia.) In 2000, Gore finally accepting the result means he dropped his legal actions, and in theory Trump might be able to bring legal actions for recounts, but he'd need some kind of legal basis and to find some exceptionally stupid and partisan judges. If Trump manages to persuade the armed forces or police or something to occupy Congress, then maybe there will be a problem, but short of that, he can't really do much if he doesn't like the result. Annquin (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
[EC] I can't recommend Frontline's The Choice 2016 enough. In response to Ackerman: Clinton was once a 70's girl who cried when MLK died and fought against politics as "the art of the possible" at her commencement speech:

We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have viewed politics as the art of the possible. And the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible.

And then her "East Coast woman" outspokenness cost Bill his reelection as governor. Her (pretty damn radical) health care plan elected a Republican Congress. I think Clinton's career path is a tragic one: one of a woman, beaten back from the forefront of what she could do. She's preferred compromise to failure, every time -- out of necessity. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Bob. There is no legal requirement the losing candidate concede, or issue any kind of concession statement at all. For the record, I think HRC will be no shrinking violet. I always got a good laugh out of people simultaneously painting her as a weak leader but also a relentless criminal mastermind responsible for dozens of murders and extortions. Leuders (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
@Bob: I remember reading an article about this issue recently - I think it was this Guardian article but a quick Google search shows there were dozens of articles about "what if Trump loses and refuses to concede" written after he started talking in those terms. The Trump campaign draws comparisons with the 2000 election, but it's rather different since Trump has been calling the election as rigged before it's even happened. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks guys. Radio here in Spain was just painting it as a big issue.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is only the start of a national disaster, no matter who wins. It's like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, only everybody knows in advance the shit is about to hit the fan. nobs 19:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

[citation needed] Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, nobs, this is exactly what was said in 2008 and 2012 by many people, yourself included (correct me if you were pro-Obama in '08 or '12 and I simply missed it) and has been proven wrong on every measurable level. Unemployment is sub-5%, the market's chugging along, the dollar is strong, Bin Laden's dead, we're pasting ISIS from 3km up. The extreme rhetoric is poison for any manner of debate or discussion. What is it in the conservative mind over the last twelve years that has to make every election a holy war? Why does any opposition have to be the Devil himself? Semipenultimate (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Social conservatism in the US has been dealt two major blows in recent history: the election of a black president and then the legalization of same-sex marriage. Each one drives them deeper into desperation. They're now on the verge of a third - the election of a female president - and they know it. They're acting like the world is ending because THEIR world is ending. (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Semipenultimate:(a) the unemployment data is "rigged"; (b) Obama invented ISIS; (c) killing bin Laden was a mistake (as US intlligence toldboth Obama and Baby Bush - it only multiplied the number of willing martyrs, to wit, the 30,000 ISIS jihadis. nobs 15:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The extreme rhetoric is poison for any manner of debate or discussion. What is it in the conservative mind over the last twelve years that has to make every election a holy war? You seriously think this is something that only conservatives do? Hmmph (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All[edit]

From Business Insider. The graphs might've been made in Excel, but their contents are gold. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 14:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact that just from the headline I knew instantly that this was from 2012 is a bad sign. And this is the follow-up study. The first one only reflected badly on fox news, but this one, this follow up, showed that MSNBC viewers also knew less about international news than people who got no news at all.
24 hour news delenda est. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” - Maybe Mark Twain Vulpius (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Don Henley covered this already, and that was in the 80s. How prescient it seems. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier Hmmph (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Pretty ballsy of theguardian to publish that considering they're a new outlet themselves.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

An Anti-German Blog[edit]

Volksverrat is a blog that tries to deliver introductions into the "anti-German" current of leftism in the English language. It might be interesting for some here to read this and would bring a welcome refreshment from debates about SJWs. I could answer more questions you might have if I were let out of the bin. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oooooh...Avenger's back!-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
w00t. Avenger! Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 04:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised when the entire readership and the blog's author were all of the socks you maintain. NameThatNobodyTakes () 12:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Election results thread[edit]

-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Currently Trump is ahead, because the Republican states handed in their results earlier. Still looks like it's a Hilldog race. On the plus side, GayJay is getting about 4% of the vote. So... yay? CorruptUser (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Florida seems to leaning Clinton right now.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Florida is a very close race. (Ominous anyone?) Texas is astonishingly leaning Clinton, for now. (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, surprised not more people are voting third-party in the congressional elections. Despite the hugely unpopular presidential candidates, the coattails effect seems to hold. (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
My district didn't have any third parties listed when I voted early so I doubt there were very many third parties running in the state legislatures, let alone any others.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a big missed opportunity, then. (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Drinking Pepsi is a "missed opportunity" to drink RC Cola. The Libertarian Party aligns with the Republicans on 99% of issues, but they don't have the numbers to influence stuff people really care about, like the Supreme Court.Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Only saw a Libertarian for Governor and county comptroller, no Greens, and no one else. I hate that I agree with Castaigne, third parties are vanity projects.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
A missed opportunity for the third parties(plural!), I mean. For the individual voters of the present, no matter how revolutionary a third party's platform is, a few congressional seats aren't gonna change anything of substance. But it'd be huge progress for third parties, since finally they'd have any influence at all, which they could use to gain further ground in consequent elections. (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump is listed as 1/5 ON on Paddy Power.--Mercian (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm just waiting to see how many votes there are for Harambe, even if it's an incredibly stupid meme. I don't regret my Giambi vote for a second. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
We're seeing some Brexit-like fluctuations in the market. (Obv. Obama's fault.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Barring a huge upset in Michigan, it looks like this is the end of the line for HRC. Sorry, Earth. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Virginia and Florida are really close now. PA is close too.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Virginia is Clinton but Florida and Ohio went Trump. I hate being right.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Canadian immigration site just crashed. Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Comparing the current results with what happened in 2012, loses on the East Coast are pretty damaging. Without Florida and Ohio, Clinton would win with a maximum of 285 provided there are no further swings. If she loses Washington or Pennsylvania, it'll be over.-- Forerunner (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Liz Cheney won in Wyoming. Just fascinating. Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Joe Arpaio lost? What in the fresh hell? Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck are you doing, Americans!? ~ Aneris 04:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

She's won WA and PA.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
WA is only 1/3 in and is split by a few percent. Could still go Trump. Watching CNN, wish they'd just call GA for Trump already. That puts him at 232, with 38 to go. He'll probably get IA (6). He might get NH (4), and a bunch more lean his way right now... CorruptUser (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Keeping us in suspense, it seems. >.> (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
New York Times has the contest at 209-216 in Trump's favor. Are they counting my state's 55 Electoral votes or is this election seriously playing into Trump's hands at the moment? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 04:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Everyone's ignoring California because their electors voted Democrat every election for forty years. -- Forerunner (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, it looks like McMullin stole more Hillary votes than Trump votes in Utah. (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

So all climate deals are gone, ACA is done, Senate gone, House gone, WH gone, we got a man in the Oval Office who is an open racist, who said he wouldn't honor NATO (and let's face is, is a Putin appointee), who wants to ban immigration, and is surrounded by a flock of crazies—some of them from the Nixon years. The Democratic Party is broken for the foreseeable future, the GOP has abandoned the center-right. Soon to be followed by Marine Le Pen and, quite possibly, Boris Johnson (or god forbid, Farage) in Number 10. Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillary might lose :(-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
From what I hear he's allowing his Vice President and Secretary of State to run domestic and foreign policy. So we're looking more at anti-science and warmongering if he wins. Clinton's not having any luck with swing states so can only succeed if she wins the remaining electors who voted for Obama in 2012. The Democrats were clearly not going to take over the House, anyway, but at least they're lowering the Republican majority there. In the Senate they still need maybe four to win it. -- Forerunner (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Goodbye USA...-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Where the hell did everyone go?-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Finishing my homework and applying for triple citizenship. Aren't Mexicans able to apply for Spanish citizenship? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 05:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
My sources show Clinton's at risk of losing Iowa from 2012. I'll drop my "Clinton victory at 285 votes" prediction down to 278 accordingly. If the Democrats lose anywhere else it'll be over. WI; MI are lingering to Trump for the time being, and PA is still neck-and-neck with 95% of precincts accounted for. -- Forerunner (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Clinton's taking a lot of loses in Pennsylvania, so if Trump wins PA he's won the election. She seriously can't afford to lose it since, outside of maybe Colorado, she's not winning over red-states.-- Forerunner (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump's gonna win... I didn't expect America to be this racist!-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You know a different America than me. What I didn't expect was for polls to be this far off. Welcome to totally-fucked, population 350 million, plus whomever we invade. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 05:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm guess I'm too young and naïve, has America always been this racist?-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not racism, it's the blatant manipulation that people are upset with. It was pretty clear that 2016 would go Republican bar some stupidity. So the media went into overdrive to literally create that stupidity, in order to convince the public that the Republicans were a bunch of clowns. There were no stories on the decent candidates like Kasich or Pataki, it was Trump, trumptrumptrump TRUMP! People couldn't even name half the other candidates. So what happens when his face is everywhere? He starts winning. Then the media goes into damage control too hard, and it's nothing but negative stories on the guy. There is a finite amount of stupid in the American public (however large that supply might be), and everyone realized just how much the media was manipulating them against Trump. So every story became a booster shot against his sheer awfulness, and when real stories broke people just rolled their eyes and saw yet another smear tactic instead of "holy shit this guy should be castrated for the good of the human race". And the worst part is that the media will never admit it, it's always someone else's fault (ok, a bit ironic for me to say that). All the media had to do at ANY point prior to a few months ago was NOT REPORT ON HIM. CorruptUser (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Guess it's back to pretending I'm Canadian.
And CorruptUser is right. Who produced The Apprentice? Jeff Zucker, the current head of CNN and longtime Trump supporter. This was just a naked power grab by disaster capitalists. Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Were the polls really that wrong? They consistently showed the 2 candidates hovering within the 40%-45% area with but a couple points between them. And in most states, including non-swing states, what you see is a pretty close race between the 2. With just a few percents more, Hillary could've won Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan and suddenly we would've been talking about a decisive Hillary victory. When you have a winner-take-all system, you can have huge fluctuations like that in a tight race. Maybe instead of showing the people poll after poll showing Hillary in a slight lead, the media should've educated the electorate on what a wonky system you have that ensures nothing is safe in a tight race. (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Well the turnout appears to be low. No one wanted to vote for her and so they didn't show up at all which surprised my cyncism. Those who did show up, loved Trump and voted R down ballot.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The Democrats were also dumb enough to partake in pre-election euphoria about railroading towards victory, thus discouraging their supporters from bothering to go vote. Sure, they had a lot of votes locked up through early voting, but that's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot with hubris and excessive optimism. (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I certainly have come to fear for my Muslims friends and I hate that it has come this but I will likely nees to abandon my pacificism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm personally very devout about peace, but I've never seen myself as a pacifist. If you're serious about peace then you have to face the fact that peaceful protest usually won't suffice. (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Well I have always struggled with the idea that I shouldn't ever use violence to protect others but I have been satisfied with not using it to protecy myself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I mean...--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing him fester in his juices in the coming weeks. Oh, he's the media darling now, but soon he'll be in the attic with Nader. Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hahahaha! Fuck off with the neoliberal bullshit about Nader. al Gore was a bad candiadte and Hillary was far worse.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I've triggered him, everyone. Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice mental illness meme. Regardless, that you unironically brought Nader as the great evil certain makes you one of the biggest jokes here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Look, nimrod: Nader takes money from the same "neo-liberal" scum you voted against. He is an appalling man who did more to damage the credibility of the DNC than Assange ever did. He even torpedoed his own dream of climate action in return for destroying the New Left, in particular Al Gore (whom he has an irrational hatred for). Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice try moving the goalpost but your original hope was to that Sanders would end up like Nader and the only reason people hate Nader is because he hurt poor, conservative Al Gore. I don't see any reasons why any should love 2000 Al Gore. I also lke the idea that Assange is now to blam, as if the DNC didn't have a structural problem.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
um, are you American? The reason I ask is twofold: Gore is a centrist southern democrat, not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. The main issue on which he differed with Nader was soft money influencing elections...I think Nader said he welcomed a Bush victory because he wanted an anti environmentalist president. An environmentally friendly president who was sponsored by rich donors is worse than an anti environmentalist with rich donors. Basically he had a giant bone to pick with the Democratic Party, and he didn't want to share credit with them for using his initiatives through. (He gave lots of interviews to that effect. ) Second, you're starting to sound like Some Canadian kid on reddit, who only understands US policy in broad caricatures... (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Al Gore supported charter schools, NAFTA, and censorship of video games; his wife supported the Parental Advisory stickers on music. That sounds fairly conservative to me. These days, though, he is far more progressive and I give him credit for being one of the few to be openly against Bush's Iraq War.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I presume you voted Nader, and helped the Iraq invasion to happen. I'm sure history will view your kind as heroes. (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You people never get over you hatred for voters, do you? Al Gore picked unpopular conservative Joe Lieberman, lost his hime state, and lost plenty of Democrats to Bush; he ultimately won but was denied in by the Supreme Court. Now if you voted for Hillary, then you literally voted for someone who made the Iraq war happen. But I don't expect much from liberals whi never dare criticize those who actual hurt people.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, I was too young to vote in 2000 but I knew people served in Afghanistan and died in Iraq, I doubt you do.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Who told you guys? Who told you people Trump would win? Who? PBfreespace (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Nate Silver? CorruptUser (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I think he means from the beginning.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Making controversial predictions is easy, but if you really knew the threat and failed to stop it that's nothing to brag about. (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, fuck you, PB! It's your god damn fault! Wait... B) talk 14:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I can predict something: Wall Street is gonna have a funny day (note the irony) when it's opened. And I prefer not to imagine what can be going on at Conservapedia now. Panzerfaust 9:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You did...Yeah. We fucked up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Covering your bases like a boss, you actually also predicted that Trump wouldn't win. But that's none of my business. Still, the doubters were indeed proven wrong. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In case this goes like Brexit[edit]

Should we keep an eye out for increased instances of hate crime, like what happened after the EU referendum?-- Forerunner (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As such cases have already been growing, yes we should.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
RW will have its work cut out for it. (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes; if nothing else, the US election outcome has certainly gifted us with a massive shot in the arm regarding our raison d'être. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

First Atheist President![edit]

One good thing came out of this horrible election: for the first time an atheist has been elected to our highest office! While Donald is a closet atheist and often pretends to be a Christian, nobody is fooled for a minute. Donald Trump doesn't care about God. He is his own God. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/sam-harris-donald-trump-would-be-our-first-atheist-president/ --TeslaK20 (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mere minutes after Trump is declared winner, a piece appears which make [EDIT: old news] it seem as if Harris was endorsing Trump, while in reality he found strong words against him, which he expressed several times. Why aren't Harris Anti-Trump views mentioned at all? Because such is the very nature of the Regressives. ~ Aneris 08:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately he is one of the few "Atheists" (that I have met) who do not believe in human-caused global warming, instead the shitwit thinks it is a ploy by China. Probuscus (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait, Sam Harris is a climate change denier now? I'd love a source on that. If true, he's clearly fallen off his rocker. I mean, appearing on the Joe Rogan Experience is bad enough, one would think. But I can't find any sources indicating that he's ever doubted it. Even the Sam Harris subreddit wasn't able to find anything at all on him being out of line with the scientific consensus. Regarding his stance on Trump, it's just a Google away. Spoiler: Harris has consistently been a very vocal critic of Trump (for which he is worthy of recognition). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Aneris, you are interpreting circumstance as intention. I am in no way suggesting that Harris supports or endorses Trump. I think Trump's victory signals America's imminent doom, but I am merely pointing out an interesting fact. Mind you, I would much rather have a sane, logical, calm, and decent religious person be president then have a bigoted angry clownish atheist. --TeslaK20 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
So basically you want a fictional character from sesame street? jk Probuscus (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Assuming Harris is right is Trump is an atheist: Does this give him a better attitude to religious & cultural tolerance than he would otherwise have? A better perspective on feminism, civil rights & human rights causes? Does it make him more supportive of policies based on science, truth & evidence? More likely to encourage these values of tolerance, progressivism & critical thinking in others? Obviously an emphatic NO to all of these. So where is this "one good thing" you're looking for? Is it anything other than entirely abstract? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Just as Hillary being a woman doesn't erase her love for Kissinger, Trump's possible atheism doesn't erase his racism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
And Bernie Sanders being a socialist doesn't erase his support for Chavez... See I can do false equvilencies, too. (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Um..., when did Bernie support Chavez? [citation needed]. As a matter of fact, Sanders described Chavez as a "dead communist dictator". Hardly seems like praise to me. Does it to you? Do tell! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice red-baiting, BoN, but supporting Chavez isn't comparable to vacationing with a guy who allowed 3 genocides to occur. And Levi is right, he didn't even support him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you've got your definitions mixed up; if Trump worships himself as a God, then he's a Trumptheist, not an atheist. :P (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd guess Jefferson was more atheist than Trump. You don't get to be that big an asshole without believing you're God's representative on earth (or the representative of History if you're a Marxist, but it's all vaguely theological). Annquin (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sam is still pushing the "Trump is an atheist" narrative as if it means anything. https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/796256049950924800. Further, I don't think Trump is an atheist. He strikes me more as an agnostic or a skeptic. I would lean more towards the former. But, what's more important is why Sam is so keen for Trump to be an atheist. It's like those Muslims who used to claim on social media that Cristiano Ronaldo was a Muslim. And here I thought there were no similarities between New Atheism and organised religion. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess Harris is trying to point out the hypocrisy of (most of) the religious right in supporting Trump. But there are much better examples of this than Trump's hypothetical atheism, like the many crude & lecherous things he has said & done.
Anyway, it must be about time for a Hitler comparison: someone else who was quite possibly a closet atheist, or at least had very different private beliefs about God than his public declarations, & who cynically exploited religious conservatism in his rise to power. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Though, Hitler was actually a Christian. The notion of a closet-Atheist Hitler was manufactured by creationists. (What he actually did say and write is quite overtly Christian, however). You're welcome. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm disappointed with that first article, because while that's a great documentation of his process at addressing historical revisionism, it doesn't describe the details of that historical revisionism, so I have no better understanding of which quotes were fabricated or intentionally misconstrued or how than before I sat down and read a lengthy article. The scienceblogs link seems pretty serious, though. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems pretty one-sided though. If you're interested in this subject I recommend reading the relevant parts of Mein Kampf & Table Talk in full + forming your own opinion rather than a bunch of cherry-picked quotes. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Now, now — no need to give the courtier's reply, old bean. And "one-sidedness" isn't automatically bad. This articleWikipedia is fairly comprehensive as a starting position if you want an NPOV. Moving forward, I'd also recommend God and the Fascists: The Vatican Alliance with Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, and Pavelic by Karlheinz DeschnerWikipedia (the first German to win the International Humanist AwardWikipedia, among others). Hitchens covers the topic as well, as do we. Regardless, the suggestion that Hitler was an atheist (never mind a secret closet atheist) is absurd. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I've got so many better ideological books to read before I ever think of Mein Kampf. My current one is The Wealth of Nations, and all I'm really learning from it is that the father of capitalism would probably be considered a socialist by today's standards. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Really? It has 14 entire pages on the need to eradicate STD's — especially syphilis, which Hitler refers to as the "most Jewish" of diseases. Fun fact: Hitler possibly (or even likely) suffered from syphilis himself. Regarding The Wealth of Nations: yes, Smith has been highly misrepresented by the free marketersWikipedia. And the fact that he's recieved flak from Rothbard only sweetens the deal. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

While Donald is a closet atheist and often pretends to be a Christian

I'm sure he's not the first president in this category. Hmmph (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Election 2016- Stupidity prevails[edit]

Now we will get four years of Trump the Chump. I cringe at the thought.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I cringe too. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
People get what they ask for. ShabiDOO 12:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I take comfort in this feeling I have in my water that he won't last the full four years. I reckon he'll resign after a year and a half when he finds out that the system of checks and balances means that he can't get everything he demands. Spud (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You take comfort in the feeling that Mike Pence could possibly be POTUS! Are you insane?--Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No kidding. Pence could almost be worse. B) talk 13:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Luckily Democrats didn't create a vast, unaccountable surveillance state, fail to close the American Gulag, use drones wherever they wanted, and militarize the police... of wait.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. I didn't think that through. But I've still got a feeling that (for better or worse) Trump won't do the full four years. Spud (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What I finally realized is that I'm never voting lesser-evil again. Not only is there an unserendipitous outcome, I also have to live with the ignominy of voting for a failed candidate whose diametrically opposed to 99% of my values running a campaign which resulted in the most humiliating defeat since McGovern, which says much because he didn't win shit. NameThatNobodyTakes () 12:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Better than having to live with the ignominy of having wasted your vote on a third party rather than stand up against Trump. Lesser-evil is, unfortunately, the way to go in a two-party system. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The irony is that this mindset is why the two-party system cannot be broken. It is a vicious cycle. Vote for only two of the parties every time, so only two parties will ever be relevant which again causes people to only vote for two of the parties. Why not just be honest and ban all but two parties from having the right to exist? Because ideally more than two parties should gain a chance at relevance if they can build support over the course of multiple election cycles, that's why. (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Weasel I think US third parties have faultered but you aren'twasting your vote by voting for them. If we all absolutely knew Hillary would lose, would people votin g for her be wasting heir vote?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of valid reasons for voting for somebody you know won't win, but you have to weigh them against pragmatism, especially when as much is at stake as it has been in 2016. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't blame anyone for voting for Clinton even if they criticized her. The thing I have hated most about this election has been thet whitewashing and handwaving of the status quo which continues to kill people as we speak.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The irony is that this mindset is why the two-party system cannot be broken. It is a vicious cycle.
No, that's not at all why. The two-party system can't be broken because the electoral system itself perpetuates it:
  • Plurality voting excludes centrist candidates from winning.
  • wp:Duverger's law: FPTP perpetuates a two-party system.
  • Party primaries ensure that candidates are always somewhat extremist and never centrist.
  • Winner-takes-all state laws for electoral college exclude third parties from ever winning.
If you want to fix the two-party system, you need to fix the election itself. Get rid of party primaries, get rid of electoral college, and use something like approval or range voting instead of plurality FPTP. In a close election in a broken system, voting for the lesser-of-two-evils is the most rational thing you can do. In a safe state (like mine), voting for third parties doesn't spoil the vote and can help them get federal campaign funding. Hmmph (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If only everybody entered a write-in vote for themselves, everybody could hold their heads high that they did their best for America. Annquin (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This section header would have worked regardless of who won. Perhaps the most scary part of it all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Post mortem assessment. Before you Trump-haters make more of fool of yourelves, time to look at some facts: (1) Hillary was the consevative in this race, Trump is the liberal; Trump is not the monster you think; (2) Trump is a RINO, in the tradition of Rockefeller Republicans; (3) Trump is an idiot, incompetent, and unqualified, but no more than George W. Bush or Barack Obama when they got elected; (4) two RINOs, Rudy Gulianni & Chris Christie will be running the country while Trump spends all his time on the golf coarse;; (5) Trump probably won more Black votes than any Republican in 50 years; (6) get off the fucking race card, it's complete bullshit; Trump just demolished the coalition of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans; no one is more anti-immigrant in America than Native Americans, followed by Blacks who've been here 400 years and passed up by every immigrant group that followed; (7) the immigration issue is now dead; (8) Trump won spending less money, far less money than anyone in recent memory. And he did this deliberately. He rewrote the rule book, an I suspect we'll be hearing much more from him about it in the near future. nobs 14:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I know it's hard to get reception in your sewer, but your guy won because he is anti-trade and pro-gun. Rockefeller was neither of those things. Now, I suggest you take your "independent voter" schtick elsewhere else before I say something kind of mean. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I posted this in the heat of the moment, I take back what I said.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

T-minus three... two... one...--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 15:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The high potentates and princesses of the Democratic Party are wholly responsible for the loss. Before the first primary was held, they had already decided to anoint as their chosen one a candidate so predictable and uninspiring that she could not motivate people, and as a result lost to that guy. No excuses that third parties existed or were in play this time around. Those third parties were in the game because people couldn't hold their nose enough to vote for her. The people who chose to ram Hillary Clinton down our collective throats bear full responsibility for losing. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. ~ Aneris 15:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm done with the idea that we need to rally around the center-left candidate in order to win. This election has demonstrated that when the GOP goes right, we need to go left. When they go low, we should go low too. As Roose Bolton said, "The high road is very pretty, but you'll have a hard time marching your army down it." RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but keep in mind that Trump didn't invent this strategy. Right now he's whipped into shape a powerful coalition which is keeping the grassroots parties isolated. TPP as a policy plank was a stroke of minor genius, as it captured the middle ground (it's the economy, stupid), and convinced a lot of liberals that he may be the progressive choice (similar to anxiety over EU federalization fueling Brexit). As for his broken promises, he can shirk some of that onto President Obama for a while yet. UK Labor's been out of power for a decade (5 years in Australia), yet the "Labor Waste" meme is as strong as ever. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Meh, I feel Hillary lost because she seemed to appeal overwhelmingly to the "privileged" white middle-class, rather than the working lower-class, who were really what this election was about. People were fed up with the system, and Hillary just seemed to represent it. Media depictions of her just before the election seemed to (at least to me) give off the idea that she's more worried about millennials and social justice than any of the poorer working class. Not saying that that depiction is correct, or that Trump will do any better, just saying, that was all up Trump's ally from the beginning. Not to mention, she's not a new candidate, people know what she is, and what she's about, Hillary wasn't exactly bringing anything "fresh" to the table most of the time. megalodon (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump won with some people who voted for Obama twice & Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Trump won without the GOP apparatus, ground game, and GOTV effort. Trump not only swept Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, Trump flipped Blue states to Red with no effort or money at all. Trump won Wisconsin which he carried only 30% in the GOP primary. For the first time in his life, Michael Moore was actually correct about something and nailed it back in July. Those of you who think Trump is a hardcore rightwing conservative, or isolationst paleoconservative, you've been brainwashed by Andy Schlafly. nobs 20:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I wish he was a paleoconservative.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I am mildly optimistic that he may well turn out to be one. Now that he is effectively the leader of the Republican party, he no longer has to pretend to respect Republican orthodoxies. He has already broken with the marketroids on trade, and questioned our overseas military commitments. Both of those things are improvements over Republican orthodoxy on the subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You say this but Trump recently came out in support of NATO. I would likee to believe most of what he said was for the cameras but I doubt it. I also have a hard time believing he wants to govern so it looks like Pence will run the country.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
He didn't have much choice, did he? It's true, Trump understands jackshaft about NATO, and will have to turn it over to others, which presumably will national security establishment types. But I am not convinced, despite 24 years Washington experience, Hillary understands anymore than the two rookies, Obama and Trump. Trump gave voice to what typical voters in either party really think about NATO. nobs 00:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

--Cms13ca 22:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As unhappy as I am with the result the sun did rise this morning, which some people (including several of my family members) believed would not occur if the election went this way. That tells me the world hasn't ended yet, so as long as that's true I behoove everyone to act like it. Figure out what went wrong and work the problem, so that in 4 years we can toss the Orangeman and the Robert Shaw body double (I specifically had Shaw's portrayal of Red Grant in From Russia With Love in mind) out; screaming apocalyptic nonsense, just like teh evul Republicans did (with an equal degree of accuracy, that being zero) after Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012, won't do anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well if the Dems can't get their act together to retake Congress in the midterms then the party will be worth less than dirt. When it comes to the 2020 election, though, keep in mind that the US re-elected a B-movie actor and a bumbling baffoon.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hence the exhortation to work the problem, after all the country did have the good sense to toss H.W. after one term (my first presidential election was 2008, so all the aforementioned was before my time). It can be done, and the sane section gaining control of Congress can only be beneficial. The sane section can also include the odd Republican too, here in my section of CT we had Chris Shays for many years and did just fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dump Guantanamo on Trump's feet[edit]

Can President Obama shut down Guantanamo or give it back to Cuba through executive order? Because now would be the perfect time to do it: Let Trump deal with the fallout. Worzelpete (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but he won't.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
He could pardon a whole lot of people. But I agree, he won't. Annquin (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
We are all to blame for the amount of state power we have given Trump. Our only hope is that he is too incompetent to realize it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Change the record, Owlman. You are fast becoming the left's version of Rob. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
He won't, if he did, he'd be in jail with crooked Hilary Clinton, unless he was smart and took a bunch of presigned pardons or something with him. Ghost (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Pence probably won't be too incompetent to notice it, though. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 11:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Clinton won the popular vote but still lost[edit]

Sound familiar?-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

low turnout, fam. Some states are a few percentage points apart. (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
See #Just an observation just above. (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to repeal the Electoral College?-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
See #Proposed constitutional amendment and #An amendment won't happen – here's what you can do instead, just above the earlier-linked section. (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Having every state similar to Maine and Nebraska, where each electoral vote is split up by congressional district and two for the overall winner of the state would be a fairer system (depending on the gerrymandering). Tbh this is generally likely to happen in a system like the electoral college. No point in having every man and his mexican house maid voting for you in California and New York and winning them by miles when you ain't getting many votes in Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio. Ghost (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Americans should push to equalize the size of the states, then they wouldn't have these problems. Most countries when trying to set up political or electoral divisions try to make them approximately equally-sized. Annquin (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Chopping up states and sticking odd parts together solely to balance the electoral college is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would make the electoral college irrelevant. I think there'll be more of a push for that in future, especially from Democrats who have now been denied two presidents. Smee Hee (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was not aware of it but it's good to hear that some sort of solution is being proposed.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
And what would politicians do in a 70% white country if all that mattered was winning the popular vote, hmm? Think about that for a sec. (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
In the current system the vast majority of all Latinos live in states where their votes don't matter (Texas, California and so on). And while the majority of Americans is still white, white racists are not a majority any more. Worzelpete (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
And their votes still won't matter if you go towards a popular vote system, because then you'll just have populist candidate after populist candidate winning the elections. (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
What makes you think that? The fact of the matter is the most openly racist Presidential candidates thus far have been sectional candidates who received a bigger share of the electoral vote than their share of the popular vote. The most famous of them of course being George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. However, the two notable non-sectional third party candidates (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996) were not more openly racist than the two major party candidates in the same race, yet they received a smaller share of the electoral vote than the popular vote. In short, your point has no evidence in its support. And once again: I know white Americans. I even know white Americans married to Latinos. Not all of them are racists. And even today winning every last white vote ensures an electoral college landslide. I think the only states you would lose when every last white person votes for you are Hawaii and California. Worzelpete (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, splitting the electoral vote by congressional districts would make it almost impossible to elect a Democrat as president. Democrats can carry states like Illinois and California only because the pure weight of population centers like Chicago and L.A. pushes the whole state into the blue column. Divide the votes, and substantial numbers of their electors will be voting Republican. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
If you really are seeking a system where the alleged "most popular" candidate wins, start with what you control and can change - the parties - not some dream of Constitutional Amendments that will never happen.
Both parties are angry over the nominating process. The Democratic establishment forced an unpopular candidate on the party, the GOP establishment was marginalized as a popular candidate with cross-party appeal hijacked the party. Both parties are out of touch with their most loyal supporters. We need to get back to focusing on the nominating and convention process which both parties share the same problems and have an interest in reforming.nobs 13:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


Just thought people should see this video, it is a perfect representation of what just happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buiv3_uVHSA Probuscus (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This might be a pretty good sample of what we have to look forward to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-gSJW3sHXE RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As janitor, my first act will be...[edit]

...Coining the official term for apologists for Augusto Pinochet, Operation Condor, Jorge Rafael Videla, and all that other crap that happened in South and Central America that was connected to the U.S.: choppie (plural form: choppies). Etymology: portmanteau of "tankie" (Stalin apologist) and "chopper" (helicopter).

This was done because I have to deal with a surprisingly high amount of Pinochet apologists IRL, and I presume that there are even more on the internet.

This has been an official proclamation from TheMyon (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC) . Goodbye for now, and Goat bless RatWiki.

What are you, a goddam communist? nobs 13:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy at least[edit]

I'm glad Hillary Clinton won't be able to continue the Salafi revival with American force in the Middle East anymore. I'm glad there is a possibility that Russia and the USA can work together with Assad to put down the ethnic and religious factions which want to turn Syria into a primitive hellscape. I'm glad that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has lost the opportunity to have yet another sycophant at the head of the USA. I think you get the idea. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would like it if Assad fell out his window and get sodomized by Puddin'. Probuscus (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm enjoying how much crow liberal comedians and luvvies, the likes of John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Bill Maher, Lena Dunham, America Ferrera, Seth Meyers and Stephen Colbert, are eating right now! Not to mention, Neoliberal hacks like Paul Krugman, who had a full-blown twitter meltdown. It was glorious. Feels good. I won't deny it. I'm petty. Sue me! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
ahahahahahahaha who's ready for the worldwide uptick in Islamic terrorism as previously well-integrated communities are ostracized and many members seek solace in the welcoming embrace of extremist groups? Not me. That shit will suck giant balls, and people like Aeonian learning their lesson will be basically no solace for the lives lost (let's be honest he won't learn a thing, regardless). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Ikanreed, try again. The worst terrorist activities come from groups in MENA and mostly target other people in their immediate areas of operation. These groups are funded and supplied by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and their wonderful allies in the West. Some of these groups, like al-Queada and ISIS, have occasionally managed to make localized attacks in the West, which are for propangda reasons more than anything as they don't change the situation for the groups on the ground. Without the outpouring of money and weapons to Salafi states, everyone will be much safer. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Your opening statement is very well put, thanks. But it also means embracing Iran "as is". The US is increasingly not able to influence Iran's conduct, like in Iraq or Yemen.nobs 06:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Please state your bullshit in the form of a testable hypothesis, and, hey, why not dump it here so we can all enjoy some nice red background on that page in a couple years. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The Electoral College is not the problem...[edit]

The problem is the the number of Representatives has remained at 435 for over a century. Since then we've added four states and the population rose from 75 million to 325 million. What we end up with is a system that is disproportional. California, with 39 million people (12% of the population) has 55 electoral votes, or 1 per every 711,724 person. Wyoming, with 586,000 (.18% of the population), has 1 elector for every 195,369 people. That means one vote from Wyoming is equal to 3.62 votes from California in a presidential election. In Congress, the average representative ranges from 1 per 500,000 to 1,000,000. This is no longer equal representation. The number of Representatives should be raised to 466 and the the average representation shouldn't exceed 1150 per 1000 of the least populated state. It would slightly close the gap and still leave the smaller states with an advantage in the electoral and give more equal representation in Congress. I don't know its late and I'm sure I could do a better explanation. Thoughts?

Current Distribution http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Electoral_Distribution_(current).png

Proposal http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Electoral_Proposal.png

Velenah (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

1: This would be an improvement over the current representation gap in Congress. 2: Unless Dems can win big in 2020 (redistricting year), it's damn unlikely anything like this will happen -- hence why I'm putting some hope on the NVPIC above. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Edward Markay of Massachusetts proposed bullshit like this when Massachusetts kept loosing Congressional seats due to reapportionment. He wanted to grandfather in Massachusetts seats and just keep adding more overall seats. You guys are still back to the fundamental problem: you need a Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention to fix this, and their ain't no fucking way liberal progressive Democrats will ever have the requisite number of states or votes to do it. Unlike the passage of Obamacare, you would have to respect the rights of others and work with the opposition to promote change. Welcome to the real world. nobs 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, reading your above text, you are translating population figures into Electors, not Congressional Representatives, and refer to Electors using the phrase "equal representation". Electors have one function: to elect a president. A president is an executive, not a representative of a district or a faction that voted for him. The bottom line, Electors represent states, not individuals or voters. If you truly are interested in fixing these problems, I suggest beginning by focusing on the delegate selection process for national presidential nominating conventions, and find a system or workable solution more satisfactory than what exists now. If such a model could be developed with tangible improvements, both parties would be amenable to use it as a model to amend the Constitution for Electors. nobs 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is bullshit or how this is a partisan Democratic issue, Country before party. Many of the states that would benefit from this are small, red, or swing states; Texas would gain four. My proposal is quite modest, and doesn't even attempt to create a 1:1 ratio across the States. Furthermore Congressional apportionment is dictated by legislation not the Constitution so I don't see how an amendment is necessary. Electors are based on the number of a states Representatives plus two for the Senators; so yes the Electoral votes are tied to Congressional allotment. The fundamental problem IS equal representation, or lack of; the electoral college is just one symptom of this.

Velenah (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Electors are not Representatives, they are Electors for the purpose of choosing an Executive, not a representative body. Delegates to a convention serve a similar purpose. Party rules, in fact parties themselves, are outside the Constitution. There is no Constitutional basis for parties. Yet the US Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions for the rights of national political parties over State Law. So, as way to make federal electors more representative, the short-cut route ( short of Amendment or Constitutional Convention, where your reform would probably fail anyway) would be to tweak the convention and nominating process first, to make it more representative of the voters wishes. Both parties were fairly dissatisfied with what the existing process produced this time. If you can find a way to make it more satisfactory, I'M m sure you'd have more listeners. Bottom line, the nominating process should be addressed first. nobs 18:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The house has no business being this small anyways[edit]

Opinion: every committee in the house probably should be as big as the house. At most 1 representative per 50,000 population. Make elections you and your friends can swing by canvasing. Create representatives who have a strong compunction to actually talk to their own constituents. The technology exists to take votes on bills digitally. Gimp the power of national parties on house elections. Sure we might lose a bit of our precious "meritocracy" that isn't working, but I'd wager it's more than worth it. (Also you'd need to cut each representative's wages enough that they'd probably need a second job) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This would be interesting, to say the least. Given 320 million people and 1 representative per 50 thousand people, we'd need 6,400 representatives. Maybe if we forced the chamber to be this large, it'd force them to make everything electronic (as Ikanreed suggested) and not all live in that hive of villainy, DC? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Now you're trying to transfer the function of state legislatures to the federal government. Each state is a sovereign republic, not a AAA bush league for the big time. nobs 18:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Or, you know, fix a broken federal system that has serious defects. If you've gotta twist everything to suit your ideology, it's your ideology that's wrong, nobs. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No, you guys aren't in serious discussion about anything. To even dream about changing this current system, you will need a very very large, enduring over many many year, bipartisan consensus that (a) there is a problem in need of reform, (b) appropriate measures to fix it, and (c) the solution or new law in itself. You guys are simply bellyaching and pissing in the wind. You need to address the problem you guys created for yourself with the passage of Obamacare, an utterly, complete disregard and disrespect for your fellow citizens rights. Did that buy you any good will to arrive at a bipartisan solution to the problems of the Electoral College. No. Now you're only conspiring to violate people's rights, again. nobs 20:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not vote for Hillary Clinton nor am I suggesting abolishing the Electoral College. If anything I am defending it. You keep insisting someone is trying to take away rights, when in actuality it's about making everyone's vote equal. The lower house, the House or Represenatives, is supposed to represent the people and should have roughly equal populations for each district. The Senate represents States. I don't know what the hell Obamacare has to do with is but I would imagine more Congressman would have changed the passage of it. And you keep bringing up party rules and superdelegates, what does that have to do with it. Nor do I see the requirement of a Constitutional amendment. Hell if the Supreme Court would allow this to be heard the matter could be solved judicially, but with a less favorable outcome to conservatives. My suggestion is very generous to small states. Many people are upset that the popular vote has subverted twice in 16 years, but what they don't understand is the electoral college is not at fault, it's equal representation in congress.

Velenah (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The people do not elect the president, the states do.
The Constitution mandates each state to choose a slate of electors. It says nothing about how those electors are to be chosen. The parties in each state run competing slates of electors in a winner-take-all contest (except for Maine and Nebraska). As the system has evolved, it is very similiar to the delegate selection process to party conventions, and it is run by the very same people who allocate delegates, also nominate their slate of electors. To reform the process, you must start here.
There is no way by an act of Congress will the House be enlarged anytime soon. The last time it was suggested-in 1994 when the Dems wanted to give Representation and two Senators to DC-they were swept from office. And such an action most likely could not survive judicial review.
I cite Obamacare cause it's a good example. Much of this "reform" is about to collapse as just another House of cards, as most all single party actions without a national bipartisan consensus do. nobs 22:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a legal question and I tried finding information on the internet but I have not found anything[edit]

Can someone incorporate a solely online church in the State of Michigan?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I could give you an answer by reviewing the relevant laws, but I'm not a lawyer, and you really ought to ask a lawyer. Why do you need to know? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason I need to know is I started an online ministry and I want to incorporate it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Talk to a business lawyer. The free legal advice you get from the internet is worth every penny you pay for it. Nowhere Man (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, nowhereman is right, but I'll still tell you the things you could have found out for yourself. No. You can't be strictly online, your articles of incorporation must include a business address, even as a non-profit. You must also specify the name, basis(whether stock driven or membership driven), and duration.
And articles of incorporation don't even meet the bare minimum for legally running a non-profit. There's a lot of up-front and annual due diligence required as well. At the very least you're going to need a lawyer to draft your initial bylaws, since that needs to be an enforceable contract anyways. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
After talking to someone with a background in business law, I will wait on incorporation.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
It depends what your intent is, if it's to start a fraud or a scam, probably better to wait. nobs 02:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, once Nobs' favorite fraudster-in-chief is in charge of prosecuting the crime, you'll be a lot better off(assuming you cross state lines). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention of scamming people; I do have morals. I just want to bring all faiths together under the goal of tolerance and equality.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How long until a revolution happens in the US?[edit]

And by that I mean any of the following: Violent overthrow of federal or state government, violent death of one or more Supreme Court justices, constitutional convention or major amendment targeting any of a)the electoral college b) the Presidential system c) the existence of the Senate d)the first past the post voting system e)the over-representation of dipshit states like the Dakotas nobody gives two fucks about?

I think the US are slowly but surely inching its way towards either being taken over by an authoritarian *cough* Trump *cough* and if and when an authoritarian falls, you can be damned sure there'll be a new constitution, or the people right now notice on their own how dire the need for reform is.

After all, a President who got less votes will govern with a Congress that got less votes and be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice that by right he should not be able to appoint. This is what in some countries would be called a coup d'etat, yet too many estadonunidenses are taking it with a "lie back and think of beisbol" attitude. Worzelpete (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it'd have to take more than that. Look at Mexico. It's about time for something to happen and still no Revolucion. :/ Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 21:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if Peña Nieto is succeeded by another doofus whose only "qualification" is being the head of the PRI and who gets roughly 35% of the vote, who knows what's going to happen. Worzelpete (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hasn't that been the SOP of the PRI for the last 70 years? The other priista before him was Zedillo, and that guy was a barely mediocre President. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 21:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the PRI has no stranglehold on power any more. At least not like they used to. A PRI candidate losing is a distinct possibility these days. And if there were a runoff he would surely lose. Worzelpete (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So here's a fun challenge: name a revolution that didn't coincide with a major famine and food shortages. There aren't that many. The only one that comes to mind immediately is the American Revolution. People rebel when they're going to die anyways, or when the military power center is very far away. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Worzelpete, yeah that's a distinct possibility, keeping in mind the fact that we (not so much I as I was born/live in the US) elected Fox and Calderon, but outside of that I can't help but feel like nobs whenever election time in Mexico comes around. Ikanreed, you're right. Outside of the American Revolution, not many other revolutions in recent memory actually took place outside of famines. The French Revolution comes to mind. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 21:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Starvation is actually only very rarely a trigger for revolution. A starving person will beg for food. A person who is just above starving will do a lot of other things. The Haitian Revolution, the English Revolution(s) (whichever one you want to count, either the one with Cromwell or the one with the House of Orange), the American Revolution, the Latin American wars of independence all happened without major famine as a trigger. Food scarcity and dimwitted economic policy did play a role in the French Revolution, but French GDP was actually bigger than British GDP at the time and the national debt of the English crown was higher than that of the French crown. France just had the misfortune of a severely fucked up ancien regime with just enough power and privileges spread out over just enough pillars of governance to make reform almost impossible. And many did indeed try to reform the French system throughout the 1780s. One of those reform efforts was and end for price controls on grain and there was even discussion of getting rid of all salt taxes and internal tariffs. But the system had institutionalised its own defects. Just like the US system has. What is wrong with the US system? Gerrymandering, money in politics, the electoral college, the military industrial complex. What is unfixable in the US system? Gerrymandering, money in politics, the electoral college and the military industrial complex. Revolutions do not come out of a clear blue sky. Revolutions happen when those in power are unwilling or unable to reform. And do not forget that there is a very real possibility that Trump turns into an autocrat. And the only way to remove an autocrat from power is force. Franco, Salazar, Somoza and Trujillo all did not step down after losing an election. They either died in office or were removed by force. Let us hope it will not have to come to that with Trump. Worzelpete (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that would make better sense than summing it up to starvation as the deciding factor in a revolution. But I have another question: would cultural aspects decide how revolutions spawn depending on the area where they could originate (American vs. Mexican vs. French)? I have no knowledge of this so I'm essentially relying on last year and this year plus the scattered outside reading I have. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 23:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think culture has actually less influence than is commonly assumed. Certainly factors such as literacy and religiosity influence the course of a revolution and whether or not the church is seen as a (potential) force for change, but geography has a much bigger influence. When the US declared independence, they had an ocean between them and their only opponent and they soon gained not one but two European allies (France and later Spain). The Mexican and French revolutions meanwhile both took place with the background of at least one powerful enemy right across the river or a small ride in a medium sized ship away. The initial stages of the Mexican Revolution were, if I recall correctly, protests against the blatant manipulation of yet another election, to give Porfirio Diaz yet another "mandate". A revolution, for sure, but those kinds of revolutions are a dime a dozen. Similarly, the French Revolution started as a struggle between two empowered actors (the king and the nobility) until the wealthy bourgeoisie butted in and with some allies from the lower clergy managed to "double the third and vote by head", essentially ensuring a share of the power in a new constitutional monarchy. Why the Mexican Revolution makes for such good spaghetti Westerns and why the French Revolution turned into a thirty year nightmare engulfing all of "old Europe" can be summed up in one word: War. French radicals knew that Austria, Prussia and England had an interest in seeing a weak France and seeing them lose militarily. So they were always convinced war was just around the corner. And ultimately France itself declared a war that would only end decades later when Napoleon was finally deposed. All the cruel and brutal things that happened during the French Revolution happened with the backdrop of war and a war that France could not afford to lose and might have possibly lost a dozen times over, had Prussia and Austria not lacked any capable officers. Meanwhile in the Mexican revolution, the countless rebellions and counter-rebellions all have to be understood with the US as background. The US did indeed intervene (briefly) in the revolution itself, but even the threat of intervention was enough for some to settle with a "revolution half done" and with others to drive even further and what began as a struggle to avoid infinite reelection ended up as a fight over what Mexico should look like in the 20th century. So if you want to write a book about a revolution (fictional or real) and give it some oomph, throw in war or the threat of it.
Another thing that made both the French and the Mexican revolution spiral out of control was the attempt to secularize faster than the people wanted. In France there was an attempt to make all priests swear on the constitution above their duty to the church, which turned the somewhat sympathetic delegates of the first estate into the screaming rabble of counter-revolutionaries we saw in the Vendée. Now thankfully the US has a very strong tradition of federalism, but any prospective revolutionary can get himself a lot of unneeded headaches there as well by trying to go against churches in what is largely still a nation of Christians. Worzelpete (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, Ataturk and Stalin managed to secularize faster than people wanted. Sometimes you just have to be willing to put the ignorant in their place. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to mention the sheer difficulties of a violent popular uprising against a major power in the 21st century. Revolutionary leaders and demagogues can easily be assassinated with drones and smart bombs, there are overwhelming technological advantages between trained military forces and civilian militias, all backed by mass surveillance in the age of the internet. It's no longer a matter of "we can get a bunch of muskets and overwhelm the guys who are using the same things we are, because there are a lot more of us." Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You guys are all fucking nuts. nobs 01:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
In a modern well-functioning mass-society like the US a revolution in the sense of a coup cannot really happen without the active and coordinated participation of key elements of state and federal agencies. Even bold acts of civil disobedience cannot achieve any kind of bottom-up successful revolution. Of course a state of ongoing and permanent unrest is possible and already a reality in many places in the Mid-East and Africa. But even there, we don't have 'guerilla warfare'. We have terrorism. Modern Jihadis are essentially poorly-equipped and disorganized criminals who are trying to wrestle power from exceedingly corrupt and disorganized puppet governments. It's maybe worth noting that whereas past power struggles in the area had come prepackaged in secular narratives, today there's a trend for competing religious interpretations. That's another signal that with the end of the cold-war came the end of European modernity itself (which produced European colonialism and as such also colonialism in the Mid-East) and that today actors rely in fact less on traditional secular ideologies than on religious and sectarian/tribal narratives. The destruction of centralized state authority in the Mid-East by the US (though it had already been undermined during and shortly after the cold war because of the geopolitical importance of the region) produced a world marked by terrorism, i.e. a world where competing warlords fight for control over land and populations. I want to emphasize strongly that the era of insurrections and partisan conflict during the cold war is over. But even then, partisans had no serious winning chances against organized armed forces that weren't already in disarray. Where partisans won, it's because they had managed to become a organized army like the army they were fighting and controlled half or more of the country. Under advanced urbanization (no bush or jungle to hide), I just cannot see guerilla-type insurrections as possible. To destroy a modern society what you really need to do is disable the energy and telecommunications infrastructure. But this will just kill the majority of the population and make the country that the putschist aspired to rule, ungovernable and unlivable. This is not an exaggeration at all. Reliance on energy and telecommunication centers is absolute for mass survival. Don't forget that 'civilization is three meals away from anarchy'. The reason we fear terrorism so much, is not because some racists are afraid brown and black people will impregnate their wives and sisters, it's because terrorism does have the capacity, if carried out in sustained and concerted way to annihilate a modern society.

P.S The French revolution was actually not a single revolution but a complex of upheavals developing independently with different goals. It produced a dynamic that eventually led to Robespierre and Napoleon; because at some point, someone had to rule anyway. You can't really have a power apparatus of equal participation etc., even though all revolutions in history were marked by prominent utopian elements and happened almost where nobody expected them to occur (cf. Desmoulin's saying that 'before 1789 you couldn't even find 10 republicans in France'). Remember revolution in that sense is something different than mutinies over the throne such as those that happened frequently in such places as the Byzantine/Turkish/Russian/Mongol empires. Amazingly, Napoleon defeated all his enemies and had essentially conquered both Germany and Austria as well as Spain and Italy. His real demise came exactly at the place that sealed Hitler's fate: Russia.

Excursion: To be honest, Napoleon came even closer to world domination (until 1945 however ruled Europe ruled the world) than Hitler because the former, the French General, unlike the latter, the German dictator had not vastly more powerful adversaries even though Hitler appears to have been much more powerful in our collective imagination than he really was owing to his murderous extremism (largely shaped by his own and his country's traumatic experiences in the WW1), in addition to other factors such as Soviet underperformance in 1941/1942 (in turn chiefly because Stalin had massacred the majority of experienced officers from the Red Army and had failed to anticipate the invasion despite no shortage of clear signs) Even if Hitler had defeated the Soviet Union, with his country's severe economic setbacks and manpower shortages, he would have most likely succumbed to the US. The reason we invaded Europe in the first place (releasing only a tiny fraction of our astonishing economic and military might) was to stop the Soviets from conquering all of it. If we had not intervened, there's no doubt that the strong communist partisan/resistance movements in all of Europe, including France, Spain, Italy and Greece, would have swept to power, bringing the entire of the continent under the control of the dictator from Georgia, surpassing the previous record of domination still held to this day by the Romans. There are some of us in America who are shocked to see how profligate Stalin and the Stavka were with the lives of their soldiers, smugly remarking that we would have never done that because of our lack of totalitarian leadership. But if we were facing such an existential threat as they were facing and a third of the country was occupied, I figure we'd have done whatever it takes. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So here's a fun challenge: name a revolution that didn't coincide with a major famine and food shortages. "
LOL what a fucking retard. (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggest mentioning the username of who your comment is aimed at (Ikanreed) so that nobody thinks you're targeting the comment above (mine). But I agree, that's very misguided to say. Gewgtweg (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A more historically-oriented view of recent events[edit]

Karl Marx once wrote that: History is like the sphinx of ancient legend, it swallows those who don't manage to solve its riddles. The democratic party failed to solve the riddle and lost. Not only are the Republicans not going to collapse as many were prophesizing a couple of months earlier, it basically reigns supreme in DC. Those destined for extinction might actually be the democrats. This is my personal opinion and you can call it a hyperbole but in my view we're not going to have elections in the US again, at least legitimate elections that are not parodies like those in Russia and China. The US will become a de facto dictatorship like the other two superpowers and Trump will only step down from power when he dies. I also predict that all European countries will sooner-or-later get home-grown dictators too. In Greece, the first country to break after 2008, an unmistakably and unashamedly Neo-Nazi group is the country's third political force and rising. In a parliamentary system, third parties are not as insignificant. To put this in context imagine if tens of millions of Americans were voting David Duke. The problem with the 'left', (I use the terms 'left' and 'right' conventionally because of the modern ambiguousness, variances and cross-pollinations surrounding them), at least the moderate 'left', is that the post-60s era has severed its wings. The LGBT rights and the feminist movement have progressively after that era evolved from radical powers contesting the 'system' to powers actually either petted or instrumentalized by the 'system' of consumerism and consumerist politics, otherwise known as mass-democracy. The masses do participate in the political process (in that their voice is being co-opted by the powerful and those who seek power) but they do it in the caricatural ways that this website so finely documents. In such a way we have the modern parodies passing as feminism, the 'shop-till-you-drop' slogans and the freak parades by the gay community. But only a caricature can directly oppose a caricature. This is how Breitbart and the Alt-Right was born besides astroturfing.

Chris Hedges wrote recently that the 'ultimate aesthetic experience for the fascist is war'. Actually things are quite opposite. War was aestheticized in Nazism and Fascism (basically the same thing) because the era was too ahrimanic. Contemporary Italy and Germany were revisionist forces. War was seen as a the trial of history that separates winners from losers; that separates the subjects from the objects of global politics. Yet if Germany lost in the Great War, the cause wasn't supposed to be that that it's a loser itself but that political adversaries and the insatiably evil Jews were weakening the people from within. In Fascism, social security and welfare reforms served to tie up the masses to his party. The nationalism and the Roman-like Imperial Standards and pseudo-Roman salutes (both adopted by Germany) was supposed tie up the nation to the free rule of the world, or at least to signal a revisionist and radicalist stance. Social Darwinism and biological racism (which already universally belonged in the way of thinking of liberals before 1914), were given a nationalistic twist and hailed as forces of progress that will help the nation extinguish its inner weakness (caused by others) and re-assert its power in the world.

America today faces challenges from middle-powers and from two superpowers: China and Russia. The collapse of world street in 2008, in other words the end of the era that followed WWII is succeeded by an era of renewed multi-lateral global competition. After WWI, some powers fought to reclaim (the losers) and some to expand (the winners) their position in multiple ways. For example, the economic exploitation of German capitalists by (foreign) capitalists made the moderates of the right like Stauffenberg support the Nazi party for tactical reasons. The extremism and arrogance of the Nazi Party itself was more or less an unwitting reaction to national humiliations by their former enemies. But we must also not forget that it was also for some time a coalition of the radical right (nationalism) and the radical left (socialism).

The post-2008 era is an era when many powers on a global level (including the former colonial objects of politics) are rising and demanding for themselves a share on the global market large enough to feed and entertain the masses. The mission of the US it to counter that threat and in turn adopt styles of governance resembling more those of foreign powers. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My predictions: Trump is an incompetent, corrupt president who spends time at rallies and attention-getters. Trump accidentally helps to restore more power to Congress. The Republicans in charge of the House and Senate seize power back from the president, fearing his incompetency. Either Trump or the Republicans destroys some voter-crucial provisions (privatizes/reduces Social Security, rolls back gay marriage, rolls back abortion rights, etc.) that mobilizes even more voters against him. The "establishment" wing of the Democrats is weakened, the Dems run a populist candidate and win in 2020. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I am praying for a merely incompetent Trump every single day. Worzelpete (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Question: When all the sources and media that have influenced our perceptions for the past 18 months have been proven unequivocally in error, how do people continue with such assumptions and drivel based on all those lies and bullshit you see posted above? nobs 01:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
what are you referring to exactly by 'perceptions for the past 18 months', 'drivel', 'assumptions', 'lies' and 'bullshit'? I just made a prediction. Trump has not even stepped in office yet. Don't be in such a hurry to declare the prediction to be bullshit because he has made some tactical remarks calling for unity. In this past 18 months, he's given plenty of clues of what he's made of. Just as plenty of us wished to see in Obama what we wanted to see and not what he really was (a social climber that wanted to be integrated into the establishment and not oppose it. Cf. the fact that he employed Summers and Geithner, the very guys that had removed the last checks from wall street, to fix wall street after 2008). Similarly, 8 years later, plenty of us, for obvious reasons of psychology, wish to believe that Trump is just something stupid but benign and not the dangerous, mentally unstable, narcissistic and megalomaniacal buffoon that he actually is ('I love war in a certain way'). 'The Art Of The Deal', which portrays a more appealing human being was in fact written by a ghostwriter and not by him. Plus, this is NOT Reagan. He was a buffoon too, but not vile. Yes, the world when he governed was dangerous too, but today even more so.Gewgtweg (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If the masochistic Marxist fantasy of a fascist state in the US would have come true, it would have done so under Reagan and Dubya by now - and there was no shortage of people saying it would with mountains of historical materialist dialectic behind them. The difference between Trump and Hitler should be obvious to anyone who listened to either - Hitler always had a plan, Trump never did. Hitler gave us Mein Kampf a decade before 1933 which outlined a clear, internally consistent line of reasoning and proposed implied solutions to the issues. What has Trump done besides predictable populist rhetoric? Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I must make clear that I am neither a Marxist nor a masochist (Marxists btw. didn't really need to argue that the US will become a totalitarian state, plus the notion of totalitarianism is itself essentially American in origin. All they needed to say is that the US is all about 'imperialism' which isn't entirely inaccurate in a certain way but let's leave the details of that discussion for now). I never compared Hitler to Trump. For God's sake, Hitler has not been the only dictator ever to exist, he's just the most famous one. Putin and Erdogan are also de facto dictators. You know who else didn't have a plan? Mussolini. And I wonder, do you really need a 'plan' in that sense to go to war? Bush didn't have a plan. Nobody had planned nor expected WWI either. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
They had a plan for WWI. That's why it started in the first place. Vulpius (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Nobs, please stop deleting saloon bar comments. Worzelpete (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Current signs point to a spectacularly incompetent president, e.g. one who did not realize he would have to replace the entire presidential staff upon taking office. Leuders (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Vulpius, the senior staff of the US military must already have composed detailed plans as to what to do in case of a confrontation with China or a US invasion of Mexico, or a US occupation of Canada. That doesn't mean that if any of these happen, it had been specifically predicted or specifically wanted. The causes of WWI, are more complex than you imply here. WWII as well, while it is true that Hitler had wished for a revanche against the western allies and a conquest of Russia many years before coming to power, that didn't actually make war in Europe inevitable in 1933, 1936 or 1939. Hitler stated, after it had got messy in Russia, that if he had known Guderian's estimates of Soviet armor were so accurate, he might have canceled the proposed invasion. In any case we must stress that he was only one factor among many others that led to global war on two theaters. Gewgtweg (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Leuders, Trump run not because he knows or cares about anything in particular, anything of substance other than just cultivating his own celebrity. Being ignorant doesn't prevent you from exercising power effectively because you have a whole lot of people working in the administration. Trump himself has stated that he'll leave 'the boring work' to others and focus on the terrific stuff. He will not be a president that follows the book on almost anything. He'll definitely not visit small countries. He'll prefer to deal with the world's strongmen only; preferably in Trump tower, in Washington or a place like a Hotel where nobody else is the host. Humans not having an idea what they're doing is the reason why history and politics progresses. As we enter a new era of uncertainty, ushered in by 2008, Trump will do things (because he must be doing something to get attention) but will have no idea what he's doing. The point is that he always has the leading role and that it's his decisions that count. This is not Reagan, this is not Bush. It's much worse this time and one should not rush to conclusions when the guy hasn't even stepped in yet. While I had happened to predict Trump will win, I never said that life would immediately cease to follow it's normal, goofy, conventional ways. What I personally predict now is that the world Trump's inherited to lead the country in, as well as Trump's actions will conspire to result in a different America and a different world than his naive supporters expect. The changing situation and the growing instability will force Trump to respond in his own reckless manner. A vicious cycle that will definitely breed a de facto (at least) dictatorship. The ultimate irony will then have been realized. The don't-tread-on-me people, those who never tire to warn of evil liberal conspiracies to bring about a totalitarian regime, those whining all the time about their 'freedoms' and 'rights' (when it's about guns for instance), will have helped in producing a dictator themselves. How am I so sure? Well, 'Takt des Urteils' as Clausewitz would have called it. Gewgtweg (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Should I donate to the ACLU?[edit]

In the wake of Trump a lot of people will need all the help they can get and I always thought the ACLU was among those standing up for civil rights even when they were unpopular. Is there something about the ACLU I need to know? And is there something or someone more worthy of my money? Worzelpete (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any strong reasons not to donate to them, though I've never dug into them very much. Here's Last Week Tonight's list of recommended charities post-election. Personally, I don't know much about any of them save for the PP. https://twitter.com/LastWeekTonight/status/798021320810360832 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
If you donate even once they send you a nice card. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 01:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't find it wrong but I would rather donate to the Defending Dissent Foundation or Constitutional for Center Rights. Besides historical reasons, the ACLU tends to pick cases that set precedent rather than provide marginalized individuals with support; they are also quite close to corporate interests and help to overturn campaign finance laws in the Citizen's United case.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
They do defend everybody's civil rights even very unpleasant people you (the OP) would probably disagree with.[2][3] So it might be better to pick a more specific campaigning organisation depending on what you think is the most important issue facing America. Annquin (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Do I disagree with the KKK? Of course I do. Do I think they still have a right to protest? Yes they do. Free speech does not mean speech I like should be free, but all speech should be free. But on the money in politics thing... I should do some more research on that. And I do absolutely think that civil liberties, the concept that could be described as "everything besides elections that makes a country a democracy", are the most important thing to defend in the next four years. Worzelpete (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Historically, no, the ACLU hasn't protected the speech we disagree with. They have had no problem protecting crossing burnings on African American lawns and Neo-Nazi marches in Jewish towns, they did not protect Civil Rights leader, Julian Bond. If you need more evidence of their terrible selection process, compare their defense of the KKK in Brandenburg v. OhioWikipedia to their inaction on Dennis v. United StatesWikipedia or their inaction on ag-gag bills and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to United States v. StevensWikipedia.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a typo in the name of one of the Supreme Court cases? I don't get any result for it. Worzelpete (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Alt-Right Bot[edit]

A facebook friend of mine has created a Twitter bot that helps you gain an understanding of the Alt-Right and how they are like. I think this will be very useful for research, what kind of points they bring up etc. Here is it: https://twitter.com/altrightrobot ~ Aneris 16:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

But Aneris I thought you were alt-right regressive neocon neonazi pro-Trump because you don't worship intersectionality? Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
</aeoneris circlejerk> It's pretty funny, for about 60 seconds. A bit repetitive. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the comic edit that is the bot's avatar makes the joke better. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Too much cuck, not enough white genocide.Teurastaja (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders[edit]

I vaguely remember a few of the more notorious editors here saying Sanders was 'unelectable', which is particularly funny under the circumstances. But what's the general opinion, would Sanders have won? Better to lose with Clinton than win with Sanders? (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe he would, because it looks like this election was about 1) anti-establishment and 2) making America better in some way. Trump's slogan clearly hit a nerve, but Sanders-FDR programs struck a similar chord. As I argue on my talk page, Clinton was a figure of an identitarian movement that is detached from reality, and in substance represented Wall Street corporatism. ~ Aneris 07:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I see a few people on Facebook posting that Trump won because of PC culture. It's a fatuous argument, just shoehorning their personal crusade into the US election.
If you think that 'safe spaces', 'cultural appropriation' or 'feminism' where what caused Trump to win the election then Sanders, who describes himself as a feminist, supports BLM and rails against systemic LGBT discrimination, would surely have lost too. (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I'll say that I find it hard not to apply the anti-PC/anti-SJW crowd's criticisms to themselves when they whine about being triggered by social justice jargon. But the argument that Hillary lost due to PC culture isn't as far from the truth as you might think. Trump won by championing himself as the (white) common man's Erdogan (i.e. a candidate representing a large yet politically ignored electorate) when anti-establishment sentiment was at an all-time high, while managing to not scare away minorities as severely as everyone'd thought. Trump catered to white voters (particularly angry, crass ones) like no Republican before him (cf. political PC culture). Though 'the white vote' didn't swing Republican as bigly as Trump might've anticipated, evidently it was still enough for him to win. (Though there were also other factors at play, of course.) (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not making that argument, and don't think it was solely responsible. I also disagree, because that's the common framing again. It's false. Case in point, how come the “Bernie Bros” could be first okay with these things you mention (BLM etc), but then are allegedly Trump bigots? How come, atheists polled overwhelmingly progressive, have generally accepted progressive opinion leaders but were suddenly deemed the opposite? Because, that is demonstrably false. Very related to that, this stuff is one major aspect of the utter weakness of the American Left, and that is one aspect next to others why Trump won. ~ Aneris 08:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he could've won. All the opinion polls showed it. He did very well with Midwestern white voters during the primaries, and he would've won over enough during the general to stop Trump from getting in. Instead, the Democrats picked the corrupt insider and they got their asses kicked. Hopefully this will be a lesson to them. Also, Aneris, it's not the American left that's the problem. They're doing just fine. The corrupt Democratic establishment is the problem. They weren't letting the left win. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's eerie hearing the same phrase in a new context. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
As a non-American, I think there are several problems: The electoral college, your two-party system which leads to a polarization of opinions, your skewed political spectrum (I'd consider Clinton, your "left" option, to be right of european conservatives like Merkel or Cameron), your near-reverence of your constitution as a holy text which is pretty unhelpful for achieving any fundamental change whatsoever, your tendency to redbait everything left of the center-right (also, the insistence of your right on the free market), your overpresence (is that a word?) of religion in politics which leads to progressivism (which correlates with atheism) not being taken as serious as it should, your rampant patriotism/nationalism which leads to a certain level of blindness how well some countries which are not the US run and your focus on the military. Plus, everything that was said before. Nothing personal and most of these issues mostly apply to the republicans (really, I don't think that that party platform should exist at all in the modern world... your democrats would make somewhat decent conservatives for a modern democracy, but the republicans should be fringe), but that's my subjective opinion. -- (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This won't be a lesson to them because word has it that CNN contemplates (TYT video) the preposterous unlikely possibility that totally unlikeable annoying ass Tim Kaine can beat Trump. American progressives are doomed with these imbeciles running the left's vanguard party. NameThatNobodyTakes () 13:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The opinion polls showed Sanders ahead of Trump by a wide margin during the primaries. Trump won in spite of, not because of, his racism/homophobia/ablism etc, which is what Clinton/Kaine focused on. He won on the economy, and that is where Sanders would have presented a better option to voters than Clinton. Also, people loathed Clinton for the email thing, while Sanders had no such baggage. Just my thoughts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hindsight is 20/20, so I can't say with certainty that he would've won, but there definitely is a case for it, and it will sadly be debated ad nauseum in the coming years. Remember though that Trump would've probably been a lot more respectful towards a male opponent and his misogyny wouldn't have become the issue it became now, meaning that it would've been easier for the establishment to get behind him. Vulpius (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sanders got easily played as a chump by Trump towards the end of the primaries, so I'm rather doubtful that he could have won against Trump. Sanders repeatedly said something like that wanted nothing more than to debate Trump. Trump agreed to a debate on a talk show, then a few days later said that he doesn't debate losers… it was just a joke. Furthermore, there was a rather large area of exploitation Sanders' weaknesses that Clinton did not take advantage of but Trump almost certainly would have: his past coziness with Marxism (honeymoon in USSR, etc.), which still has a lot of negative resonance in the areas of the US where Trump did well. Bongolian (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Sanders v Trump would've given us President Sanders; Sanders v Kasich would've given us President Kasich. Look at the weakness of Hillary. Trump was the weakest of 16 candidates; Virtually anyone in Clown car could have beaten her. nobs 13:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


This is scapegoating after a major loss. Bernie did well when polled against the Republicans in the primary. That's not at all the same thing as polling well against Trump in the general. Unless someone here has more polss to add, this is just wishful thinking. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Good post! Bongolian (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Here you go, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html. A spread of polls showing Sanders whooping Trump in the GE. Interestingly, even in the polls where Trump beats Sanders, he is within the margin of error, whereas, Sanders handily beats Trump in those mostly non-partisan polls where he does beat him. It would seem those who preferred Clinton from the beginning and saw Sanders as offering "pie in the sky" are in denial about this. I don’t blame them. I too would be too embarrassed to admit I erred after Tuesday. But, what is it they say? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?--Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
He didn't come close to getting the nomination, so whether or not he would have won is irrelevant. There was a window in September, when Hillary could have dropped out of the race, during the fainting episode. Then Sanders would have gone on to win. But he'd be the "placeholder" candidate with no clear mandate, so I don't think it be a pretty for him. I actually think the Clinton loss worked out much better for him. He is effectively the leader of the party now. (Ironically because he isn't a Democrat.)
Do you still think Clinton was a good candidate? (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
He didn't come close to getting the nomination cause the primary elections were rigged. These are simply facts that can not be denied. nobs 14:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The thing to keep in mind is that Sanders is an orator. Not a politician in any sense. He doesn't play well with others, his interest in the process is minimal, the few times he fell in with the Democrats have been accidental. He wasn't elected to govern, he was voted in as a gadfly, a part he regularly fulfills.
His "brand recognition" is astronomical, and he is excellent at getting out the vote, so our hopes for 2020 are pinned on him. But if he decides to make it all about him, only supporting the Democrats who endorsed him (Tulsi, Warren...and that's it), and quibble over purity tests...it would probably be the death knell for the party. The GOP is a goliath and we'll need a bigger voting share next time. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
A guy whose been winning elections every two years since 1981 is not a politician? nobs 14:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Scapegoating/wishful thinking at worst. Idle speculation at best. In any case, sort of tiresome speculation. B) talk 20:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton should have picked Sanders as running mate. Together maybe they would have stood a chance. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

And kiss Virginia goodbye. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It appears that winning more votes than the Republican candidate is not enough for a Democrat to be elected. Apparently a Democrat who wants to become President has to come close to a landslide. Worzelpete (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
We cannot know, but Clinton and DNC are certainly to blame for this outcome. Absolutely. Her unpopularity was indisputable and was carelessly neglected, because the Democrats elites even more underestimated Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders would not have had such disadvantages, and such scandals around him as Clinton had. Not all scandals around her were trumped up, and identitarians and their denial have helped brew resentments against such obvious and blatant media corruption.
      The only defense you can bring up is that it was not technically illegal to take millions for a foundation and from speaking gigs gained from regimes and political actors, while also being in an office that deals with such actors. You can say that the Podesta leaks didn't show any wrongdoing, except that the mail scandal did show circumventing FOIA. You might downplay it, except that it makes her grey activitiy seem even dodgier. Sanders doesn't have all this, and legacy scandals (true or imagined). He also had momentum and despite his long career in politics was perceived as fresh and as an outsider with convictions, and the low turnout was the reason why she didn't win.
     I'm acutely aware of confirmation bias and the allure of patterns, but I can't help to see the same thing over an over again. The identitarian get into control, and it goes downhill. And Clinton's campaign was heavily geared towards the identitarian streak, where the best method to "social justice" is accusations, smearing and declaring the other side racist, misogynist, basket of deplorables and more. It's such an evident shit-activism that I sometimes wonder if people who do it are mentally struggling with reality. See the soaring success of Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus, Reason Rally and — in tendency — RationalWiki. This is a terrible fad, and I hope the American left buries it, quickly. ~ Aneris 05:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The soaring success of Atheism Plus? Eyebrow.gif ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
FTFY. ~ Aneris 09:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Insisting HRC was a good candidate is a triumph for ideology over results. She lost to the biggest clown in the circus. (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

An Epic Rant.[edit]

Yep. ~ Aneris 06:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That was actually quite an epic rant. I've no idea about this person or anything else he does, but I've never been one to endorse the genetic fallacy. Regardless, he makes a good point on the cult of outrage — to make a parallell to Sweden; guess whoWikipedia literally made the insufferable far right muppet party known as the Sweden DemocratsWikipedia get anywhere at all by accusing everyone who didn't simply undemocratically no platform them of being racist, sexist scumWikipedia? Worst of all, they directed this criticism equally towards those that actually embody and promote feminismWikipedia but who just don't weep hysterically at Foucault's grave. The radicals figured that if you appropriate use the word "feminism" in your party name, that must mean you're the only real feminists out there. And, by the way, guess if the FI supporters were completely shocked and confused when they got crap results in the 2014 election — and SD depressingly did really well (Facepalm) — following a campaign climate that could easily be likened to a kind of minature version of this past year's US election climate (90% of the FI platform consisted of treating the entire electorate like Zarna treats Hugh Mungous). Anyways, thanks for posting this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I entirely agree, and as you know a few things especially ring true. I hope this Trump situation wakes people up, because the terrifying thing is that this climate appears to help the Right Wing everywhere, not just in the US, UK and Sweden, but also in France, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Politics becomes increasing identitarian, on both sides, and it's the natural territory of the nationalists and racist. They of course embrace that. The Left orders the landscape along identity lines, and makes that fashionable (as I see it), and the right says: “thanks a lot! those 'Fucking Whites' can come to us!” And too many follow the call, because this framing is pervasive now. It's horrible.
      And if you look into the manual, as we've discussed it before, it's even more disconcerting, because the impression is not unfounded, that many of so-called “Academical Left” actually hate western Enlightenment (btw, Chomsky doesn't consider that left, and neither do I, but that aside). This kind of self-sabotage makes it easy for the bigot united on the right to disguise their crypto-fascist movement as being concerned with the western democracy and values. This in turn makes it acceptable for unwitting normal people to join their course, and that's how they catch souls, and stuff like Brexit and or Trump suddenly happens. It's quite difficult to reject entire framing and hegemony of interpretation and hold your ground, I must know. Btw, you seem to critically occupy yourself with Foucault lately, and I've taken your request to write an essay and currently read up on Habermas. It's in the works and too big already, though and I'm a bit stuck, but it's coming. ~ Aneris 22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Honestly I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, a wake up call was needed for the left, but on the other hand even he(and I know he's playing a character here)blaming trigger warnings and safe spaces seems very disingenuous, he overlooks the popular vote compared to the electoral college, doesn't seem to realize that there were debates going on, they were just crappy debates. This why I feel iffy about criticizing other countries when it comes to certin sociological factors. Also, Sander's would have beat Trump? Does he have an alternate reality portal that he show us that?Ryantherebel (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing "epic" about this rant. The person in it, whose name I cannot remember, is just spouting a bunch of lazy talking points; "we have to listen to each other". Spare me! You really think that's why the blue collar worker in Michigan who lost his job because of NAFTA voted for Trump; because the SJWs didn't give a platform to Aryaan Hirsi Ali. By the way, his point about Louis Smith was just silly. British Gymnastics were not upholding "blasphemy laws". They were upholding their own by-laws, which Louis Smith, when he joined the association, AGREED to be bound by, and that by-law includes, and I quote, "Make offensive or abusive remarks/jokes, derogatory comments, sexist or racist comments, suggestive comments, or using unnecessary aggression or intimidation, or carrying out unwelcome flirting, sexual advances or unnecessary touching, malicious gossip or calling people by offensive nicknames." I just wish these people who pour opprobrium on BA and other organisations when they uphold their own internal "laws" (i.e. standards of conduct) do a little - just a little - research before engaging in these lazy, uninformed, defense of free speech. There is no issue with regard to free speech here. An issue vis-a-vis free speech would arise if the police had come knocking on Louis Smith's door for that video. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sanders' chances, an honest accounting[edit]

Honestamente, I think that Sanders would likely not have chosen a VP from Virginia, so you have to move Virginia out of the blue column. He would however most likely have done better among working class whites, so you can move Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the blue column. Sanders underperformed Clinton among older African Americans and it is likely he would have had a hard time turning them out. He however outperformed her among younger people of all races and genders and would have likely turned more of them out than Clinton. With Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in Democratic hands, Sanders would have needed any one of Arizona, Florida, Ohio or Virginia to win the election. I am not saying it would have been guaranteed, but it would have been not unlikely. But remember, Clinton won the popular vote and it did not look likely she would lose until she did. And you should also remember that Sanders' ideas are opposed by the vast majority of political donors and media owners and they would have brought down his numbers (the last scientific general election polls including Sanders were done in May) considerably, so this is all guesswork. The last northern white liberals (Dukakis, McGovern, Mondale) all lost the election. Worzelpete (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the general consensus among political scientists is that vice presidential picks can only ever cost you votes (e.g. Sarah Palin), but even the most charismatic shiny golden VP will get you bupkis, because people vote for POTUS, not VPOTUS. Tim Kaine did not "win" Virginia for the Democrats, and Sanders wouldn't have "lost" it.
Virginia is drifting into stalwart Democrat territory, due to the rapidly growing (and relatively liberal) Washington, D.C. suburbs. Its blue collar population is, quite literally, dying out, while the socially liberal well-to-do white collar and economically-liberal working-class minimum-wage service workers populations are exploding. Democrats lost Pennsylvania because Pittsburgh and Philadelphia weren't enough to counter the weight of its neglected blue collar communities. This is also what happened in West Virginia, though the party switchover for them was a while ago. Virginia, like New York, is avoiding that problem because it has one hell of an economic powerhouse D.C. (much like New York can never turn Republican thanks to NYC). Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
VP picks, on average, add +2.2%, according to 538. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
How much credibility does 538 have left? Marginally more than the other pollsters I guess. (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump wants to deport three million people[edit]

Trump has just announced his intention to deport three million people. That is ten times the population of Iceland. If it were spread out over his four year term, it would be roughly 750 000 per year. A bit over two thousand every day. Now let's just leave out morality for a second and let's focus on the logistics. Trump would first have to round up those people (who most likely do not want to be either rounded up or deported). So he would have to either mandate an existing police force to do that or create a new police force for that purpose. Maybe this police force would also have intelligence capabilities, so it would be some sort of "secret police". He would most likely also have to rely on snitches of some sort to find out where illegal immigrants are. Of course the snitches would be paid for their "services" to motivate them to come forward. Then those people would have to be processed. Obviously you cannot just leave them where they are while processing is under way, because they could run away or get new (fake) documents. As the existing prisons are full, some new prisons or dare I say camps would have to be built while someone or something ascertains whether those people are indeed in the country illegally and where they are from. Then from those places they would have to be transported to their country of origin or at the very least to the US border (most likely that with Mexico). Now doing that via airplane would be extremely expensive and there are probably not enough buses in the US to transport that many people, so there would likely be trains. So you would round people up with the help of a new or reinvigorated "secret police" force relying on paid snitches to put them into camps from where they are loaded onto trains to be put somewhere. And people seriously complain about Hitler comparisons? Worzelpete (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You're getting way way ahead of yourself. First he has to get funding from Congress for a force large enough to do it. Not just the grunts who make the round ups, the lawyers to handle the legal cases, etc. nobs 23:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Today I learned that there are 11 million illegal immigrants living in the US. So that's 3% of the US population? And Trump only wants to deport 1/3 of them?
I've always ignored the illegal immigrant debate, but now, looking at it, as a generally left-leaning person, I don't understand why in the world left-wing people tolerate/promote this, other than conflating opposition to illegal immigration with racism.
Is there an actual argument in favor of tolerating illegal immigration other than "Look how not racist I am"? Hmmph (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
El obrero no tiene patria. Las naciones son una idea burgues que la burguesia global creó para dividir la clase obrera. Por eso yo estoy en contra de termino "imigracion ilegal" y en favor de la imigracion libre. Worzelpete (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. You desire anarchy, and allowing people to immigrate without papers will lead to anarchy? Hmmph (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
It's mostly about what deporting people means: Targeting people here legally and abusing humans. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 02:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Illegal immigrants actually do more to help our economy than hurt it. We would take an economic loss if we actually deported all these folks. American people typically aren't hard-working enough to want to pick crops for several hours a day in the sun, which is why illegal immigrant labor is such a gift. You pay them under the table, which means none of them have to be paid minimum wage and a good deal of them aren't. The situation isn't pretty from a humanitarian perspective, which is why I support lessening immigration restrictions and creating a path to citizenship for undocumented laborers.
Isn't this an argument against a minimum wage? Hmmph (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice Trump didn't give any time frame for the deportations. Deportations by Bush (2.5 million) and Obama (2 million) were done over 8 year periods. Naturally he's assuming he'll be in office for two terms. So, by saying "What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million" he can keep his promise to base voters - by simply doing exactly the same as the last two presidents. Pretty good scam. Leuders (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't argue right now because I'm in class, but all I can do right now is recommend this column - Ask a Mexican - that touches on this question from that perspective. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 00:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Incidents after Trump's election[edit]

I find it interesting that most incidents occurred in CA, a notably blue state.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's also 38.8 million people -- almost 2x the size of NY. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Turns out more people do things when there's more people to do those things and more people to do those things to. Huh. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 02:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
That thing you do where a member sees his/her username - i.e. "Levi_Ackerman is paranoid", that gets me every time. Lol.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably NorCal. Those people over there are bringing the lot of us down. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 00:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably SoCal. The red counties are there.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, the only places that went Red were Inyo and Beverly Hills/Pasadena. Surprisingly San Bernardino stayed Blue. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 02:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

From what I've seen in NoCal, people are downright mad that Trump got elected.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Does the "Trump" bar mean "attacks against Trump supporters"? Hmmph (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


See the main article on this topic: Law of exclamation

Fuck you to the Sanders supremacists. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The writer of this article has serious anger issues and needs to see a specialist now. No one should text that harshly. Regarding the content, note that Trump received about the same number of views as Romney did in 2012. Why'd Hillary lose? She got far less votes than Obama, even with a population increase. She couldn't rally the same liberal base that got and kept Obama in office. If Democrats want to win in 2020 or 2024, they need a strong liberal like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. That's if there isn't a giant economic crash under Trump's watch, in which case the Democrats might be able to get away with running a centrist prick. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The author can go fuck themself; Stein and Johnson voters have every right to be horrified at a Trump presidency, and Hillary supporters have no right to bitch that their candidate was unable to attract those third party voters. After, had all of Hillary's voters instead gone to Johnson, he would've won too, so maybe Hillary voters should be blamed for not voting Johnson? CorruptUser (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I assume you are being ironic, Fuzzy. Yeah, Eichenwald can fuck himself, IMO. The guys an avowed Republican who voted for both Bushs and Reagan. He claimed, without evidence, that a "large number of Russian émigrés" were helping Russia spy on the US like some xenophobic moron. Damn, is anyone going to get fired because they are shit at journalism?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Lol, everybody was brainwashed by Russian propaganda that there was collusion between the DNC & the Hillary camp. Why did Wasserman-Schultz quit then? This sounds like DNC CYA propaganda for the idiots responsible for loss who wanna keep their jobs and avoid a thorough house cleaning. nobs 15:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
All of the apologia for the Clinton candidacy and the DNC start with the assumption that Hillary somehow failed to get votes and voters that she was somehow entitled to. Truth is, the pros at the DNC who got in line early for Clinton, and the Clinton campaign gurus themselves, did a poor job. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

tfw nobody focuses on the fact that Sanders/Stein supporters are still pushing bullshit Russian propaganda about the DNC, about the debates, and about a million other things -- and about how those utterly negate any nonsense about "not attracting 3rd party voters". Fuck you. Trump underperformed Romney; Clinton performed close to Obama 2012. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 06:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Lovely to see how the US elections are bringing Americans together. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Target of rage: everyone Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Burn the US to the ground and salt the earth you say? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a rubbish article. People like him gave the impression early on that Clinton was a surefire president, and entitled to your vote when you dislike Trump enough. Even when I can see the argument, and it's not without merit, there is still this thing called democracy in which a majority is supposed to vote for someone, and be supportive of politics this person attempts to make. This is vital, or you have, as it is suggested by the Clinton strategy a representative nobody wanted. As you see, if the meaning of your vote is used up to preventing a worse candidate, you have actually elected nobody. You have a candidate just fewer people disapprove of. That's not democracy. The problem is that casting a vote has not enough information. By redefining vote as strategical only, you keep a rotten system in place, because seemingly people vote orderly. Not voting is information, too, and tells the political class that they need to do better. ~ Aneris 16:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election.

Those of us who voted for third parties in safe states had no effect on the outcome of the election, while increasing the likelihood that they will get public campaign financing. Author can go fuck themselves.

A certain kind of liberal makes me sick.

Indeed. Assaulting people is a perfectly rational and productive response to them not supporting your shit candidate. Hmmph (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hillary lost because the deplorable Democrat racists left home and voted Republican. nobs 17:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This little beauty got linked to me, and I think it's very useful for the site.[edit]

Here is a non-exhaustive, in-development compilation of webshites that produce false, misleading, and/or clickbaity headlines and articles which are frequently shared on Facebook. A list like this is needed more than ever now that Zuckerberg has removed the "liberal bias" from the feed algorithms. Blitz (Complaints Box) 05:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ikanreed is working on User:Ikanreed/Fake news, inspired by that list. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A question from left-field[edit]

Is there anybody here who knows something about the history of violins? I'm trying to find out when the modern 30:1 taper for pegs started being used as standard. Can't seem to find anything on the webs and it might help me date a Stainer copy that I have. Thanks. Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 00:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A quick check of the wiki page on tuning pegs suggest the current 1:30 taper came in the 19th century with the transition away from gut strings, and prior to that they were a 1:20 taper when using gut. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Twitter purged the alt-right; they went to gab.io[edit]

Who remembers voat? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO centralised social media is a phase. It's like everyone being obliged to use hotmail for email :) decentralised client to client stuff always seemed the end game to me, maybe this sort of stuff starts to push users towards a peer to peer social media. Also 'boo' alt right. Boo I say. Egads! Gadzooks (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I say your optimism is unwarranted. Just because you know how to run software in a decentralized way doesn't imply that that many people both do and wants to enough to do more than start their facebook app, and talk to the friends. There's a reason net neutrality ended up needing to be government enforced, in spite of it being in everybody but the ISPs' best interests. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Facebook is effectively decentralised (except that it actually runs on a centralised system but your feed is local to your friend-group). But on the other hand, some people want to get on that big Twitter trending top ten and tweet abuse at their enemies, so there's space for both approaches. Annquin (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Well gosh darn my silly optimism. I probably did deserve that IK and yes Annakin, I get ya. I offer additionally: if we're all still logging in to one system and then they set rules/access/chokepoints/filters it's not really decentralised? hmm? Also, no one needs to know how to code to run an email app and have peer to peer connections without having to go through hotmail! I posit that it starts Brand Name and ends Generic, thus starting at Facebook (ICQ LOL) and ending in 'Social Media' at a peer to peer level is my guess. To me, FCP's mention of groups moving from one platform to another supported my contention, and where better to have it challenged than by you lot! I await your commendable lambastions of my utterances! Onwards!Woof!Gadzooks (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Twitter at this point is just a home of cucks, self-haters and SJW's against TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC) freedom of expression.
Puh-leese, if you're going to Label, then at least Hashtag that sucker! Then it'd be ironic, no? Yoinks!Gadzooks (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

My vote for biggest medical quack ever.[edit]

My vote goes to "Doctor" Oz.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news: the Grand New RW project[edit]

If you'd like something just as tedious as normal wiki-work but a little more light-hearted, feel free to add to Fake news. Especially helpful are any crazy articles you can remember. </shill> FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news? Like the New York Times? nobs 12:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Dumbest creationist argument[edit]

Me: According to the Bible, Noah's Ark is implausible, since the flood has to cover Mt. Everest. If it did, the people on the Ark wouldn't have enough oxygen since the air is too thin at that altitude.

Creationist: According to the Bible, mountains didn't exist before the flood!-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Even though what they're saying is indeed dumb, your own assertion is scientifically faulty. The variation in atmospheric density as you increase altitude above sea-level, as the weight of the air layered on top of your current strata of air goes down, not because of differences in gravitational force. If you were to "fill" the earth up with a few extra miles of water, keeping the same current number of moles of oxygen, nitrogen in the atmosphere, etc, the difference in air pressure at the new, higher sea level would be... about 0.002 atmospheres, not accounting for the increased gravity of the extra water. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Correction. The cross section of a spherical shell is 2 dimensional, not 1 dimensional, my calculus was off. 0.004 atmospheres. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. I shall learn from this mistake.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

How long until Trump's goons try to shut down our website?[edit]

Do you think it will happen? And if so, when? I mean Trump has proven that he is petty enough to stoop so low and hates free speech enough to try it. Worzelpete (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think prescription opioids, government funded psyche meds, legalized marijuana, or old fashion street drugs have destroyed your mind. nobs 12:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I propose a Poe entry on his awesomeness. He's likely to consider any listing as Pro, by virtue of mentioning the name, thus ingratiating ourselves with our new Orange overlord whilst untangling his particular hairball of logic. I say Yay/Boo, just to keep both points of view Fair & Balanced. May we live in interesting times indeed. Zounds! Gadzooks (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


Lately, if using this crappy mobile browser, I find that half the time the captcha will redirect me (before I even type anything) to a "congratulations you've won some shit" page. Advertising in the captcha is no big deal, but this specific behaviour kind of is. Unless this is a new initiative to encourage people to log in before editing. (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Whoops I should have put this on the tech support page instead.

Nah, I think it's a good idea to have a debate about this here in a forum where more people see it. Worzelpete (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

What does everyone think? An article on Immunology[edit]

I was thinking we could cover the basic sciences behind it and any potential woo with it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Worth a shot. If not an article, then a section under biology would suffice. Maybe I'll create the section tomorrow, but I need to go to bed. Night, y'all! RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Catoegry:Bad sources [edit]

I put 'Bad sources' at death's door because there doesn't seem to be much of a point to it if it's not used. Any discussion on if to keep, delete or goat can be done on the deletion page as usual.--WMS (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

call for vote on an issue[edit]

This discussion was moved to Talk:Nikolai Vavilov.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Fox News' stopped clock moment regarding John Miller[edit]

Just five minutes of your time. Shit gets real at 2:23. And to those of you wondering... Yes, this is actually a thingWikipedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You know why many religious people get angry at Anti Theist?[edit]

You can't spent ten minutes in a message board without being called a terrorist, an idiot, a rapist, a bigot, a war monger, a crusader, etc. They make it as though we don't know what terrorism is (even though I have a military lineage), they make it as though we don't know what science is. Because if we don't believe in evolution, we can't possibly know how -anything other form of science- works. They don't care about our underlying interests or our education and occupation.

That isn't a strawman argument, that's my experience with them. All of them.

— Unsigned, by: Breadbasketbomb / talk / contribs

That certainly doesn't sound like productive discussion. Part of the reason antitheists are hostile towards theists is that theists (on their own messageboards) are often hostile to antitheists. It's a vicious cycle that helps nobody, IMO. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll say that if the only bit of information I have about you is that you claim to adhere to a religion, likely in a moderate sense, I would not confuse you with a "terrorist", an "idiot", a "rapist", a "bigot", a "war monger", "a crusader" or with "etc". Just based on knowing that you adhere to a religious faith, I certainly wouldn't try to infer that you "likely don't know what terrorism is" — especially not if I also knew you to "have a military lineage". Furthermore, there's no necessary reason that your failure to accept evolution would have to derive from a failure to understand it — other, incompatible views (e.g. religious views) could simply weigh heavier for you personally, and the need to reduce our cognitive dissonance is part of being human, for which I wouldn't blame you anyways. I do care about your underlying interests, your education and your occupation, and I'd want you to know that I fully see you as a human being, just as full-fledged as myself or anyone I love. But that's me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Anti-theists can be very unpleasant people. Here are some quotes from a YT anti-theist: "Why, on earth, do you ever think you can defeat an atheist in a debate?" "Dave55, I have debated thousands of theists and never lost." "Fucking Christians." but making sure to also attack Muslims when told something about leftists loving Islam, all while claiming to have a higher IQ. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm an antitheist, inasmuch as a view religion as a net negative for society. But antitheism very very very easily goes off the rails in the following ways
  • Many, many antitheists lay far too much blame for far too many problems on religion. This includes people like Richard Dawkins who views raising a child with a religion as more abusive than pedophilia. It also includes people like Thunderf00t, and his whole "creationists are retarded because of religion" shtick.
  • Too many people think that removing religion would remove the tribalism that underlies many of the "religious" wars. Anyone who thinks that the Palestinian/Israeli identity violence is tied up entirely in which holy books they believe has not examined the motives for individual actors very carefully.
  • A lot of antitheists seem to turn the idea that a religion has problems with its portrayal of facts or morality into a caricature of an identity that they write onto all members of that religion without recognizing that people are individuals and that they often make up their own minds about each and every point without falling into the umbrella of their religion. This drives things like Islamaphobia or r/atheism type posts about how much they hate Christians.
All that means, when everything is said and done, the benefits of disestablishmentarianism towards religion is usually not worth allying yourself with other antitheists to achieve it. So while I identify as an antitheist, I've yet to find an antitheistic movement that deserves support. So I stick with educating people on skepticism. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the above, though with one objection — I seriously doubt that Dawkins ever said that "raising a child with a religion is more abusive than paedophilia is" in the context you present here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, to be fair, that was a personal synthesis of two distinct things: here where he says pedophilia isn't abuse without coincident violence and here where he says raising a child in a religion is abuse. He never explicitly stated that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
No, that it is not what he said. Not even close. He said nearly the opposite. ~ Aneris 23:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I would be lying to call myself a fan of white bourgeois anti-theism. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


What could be more fun than adding Quantum Woo to Trump! My first work of Snark, gosh, it was only yesterday that I was just a bleary eyed optimistic 400 pound Russian shut in with a love of elongated pointing devices and a high speed cable account. Now I'm a 6'4 cross dressing Gilla Monster with a tentacled headdress! ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! Thank you Rational Wiki, now I can await the coming of the messiah with a clear conscience and a spring in my step! All Hail! Yikes! Gadzooks (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Good post!-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Need Help Debating a Creationist/IDer[edit]

Dear RationalWiki,

I was talking with the father of a friend during my brothers birthday, and eventually the subject turned to whether or not evolution is real. I put forward the standard arguments (radioactive decay, intermediate stages of the eye, irreducible complexity doesn't require explicit design, etc.), but I haven't studied pro-evolution arguments in a long time as I already had accepted it, and my performance in the debate was lackluster (there were some questions that tripped me up). I was wondering if someone could assist me by providing a compilation of arguments that can be used to support evolution, or at the very least assist me in coming up with powerful pro-evolution arguments. However, I would prefer the arguements to be purely scientific and not antitheistic, as I feel as if they would be counterproductive and I am not an antitheist myself. Gutza1 (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It's unlikely any person can argue another person into changing their beliefs, but here's some reading that may inform your future encounters. Leuders (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Resources are everywhere, you have to assess on what “level” your interlocutors are. From what I saw, Creationists tend to fall into two camps.
  1. The common Creationists is incredibly misinformed and doesn't even know what evolution is. Their views are such fraught with misconceptions, that kids' education is just the right level for them. There are videos on YouTube, some a short, well made and good.
  2. The second type, typically presenting themselves as ID-proponents have a better idea, but seems crippled by a map-territory confusion, selective nitpicking and more such things. They confuse taxonomy with species, theory of evolution with evolution (as a fact, like gravity) and more. They may benefit from more sciency material, but the single reason people refuse to accept this knowledge is fundamentalist religion.
Check out this talk by Jerry Coyne that walks you to most key points. The book “Why Evolution is True” is a standard, and his website has plenty of indepth material, too. ~ Aneris 03:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good argument against polystrate fossils being used against evolution?-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
In a nutshell: cycles of rapid sedimentation.
The gist of the polystrate fossil (closest scientific terms I found: 'in situ trees' or 'upright fossils') point seems to be that the phenomenon is problematic for geologists to explain and that it is claimed to be evidence against deep time or for the Flood.
The first point is incorrect, John William Dawson's 1868 interpretation seems to differ from the modern view mainly in terminology.
Arguments against the second point boil down to the layers such fossils are associated with being subsiding coastal plain/rift basins or nearby volcanos which periodically erupts, both situations resulting in stretches of rapid sedimentation.
the same Wikipedia article and its talk page
Don Linsday Archive
Unusually good Yahoo Answers response (with own sources)
Cristian viewpoint Proof Of Evolution site
National Centre for Science Education: Common Creationist Attacks on Geology (page 14)
TalkOrigins Archive
What I googled
Daev (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Calexit for real...[edit]

...or is it just the Silicon Valley millionares talking? This has come up again, this time on Yahoo.Oh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 05:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope it is. We need a liberal state now. AnonASP (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's really being proposed, and all kinds of strange things get on the ballot in California (condoms in porn?), but it's highly unlikely that California will secede from the union. Firstly I don't think most Californians want it (the Quebecan or Scottish IndyRefs are probably a better model than Brexit; the last was based on decades of populist anger). As far as these things can be settled constitutional issues, it seems clear that states can't unilaterally secede. It's unlikely that even a referendum for secession will be constitutional[4]; there are a lot of lawyers in California so maybe they'll find a form of words that stops short of secession; but certainly it'll be litigated to the Supreme Court, and even if the court is stuffed with states-rights Trumpees, I don't think they'll be too keen on Calexit. Annquin (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Viva la revolution?-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump & co. wouldn't stand for it, especially because they knows New York would be next. By the way Trump lost most of the "economy vote", 36% to Hillary's 64%. This is in large part due to California, but also the New York City metro area, and believe-it-or-not, major Texas cities.[5] Bongolian (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's real and it's not going to happen. Secession as a response to a locally unpopular president winning an election without even giving him time to take office? Where have I heard that before? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The only way this could get even close to majority support is if Trump were to become fascist. But a fascist Trump would not even allow a vote on secession. So no, ain't gonna happen. Worzelpete (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

click me[edit]

I have a friend that I can't classify politically. He is:

  • pro-life
  • supports gun control
  • an atheist
  • a Trump supporter
  • anti-war
  • against gay marriage

-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Is he tall and short, too? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The only really consistent trend I can see here is authoritarianism. Not a single one of the above political positions is libertarian. If he is willing, have him take this test and publish the results. PBfreespace (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"Atheist" and "anti-war" are not libertarian? Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"anti-war" may be too broad. There's a big difference between an isolationist and a pacifist. Both are anti-war, but an isolationist can flip on you and become a rabid hawk and patriot when backed into a corner. This historically has dominated American foreign policy. nobs 10:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Would many people state that one of their fundamental beliefs included being "pro war"?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton is a great example. To hear her tell it, she went from being a Goldwater-war hawk to a Gene McCarthy-peace dove in four short years without any major transformation of her fundamental underlying beliefs. The extremes are very near. It was the broad mainstream at that time that was isolationist and flipped to diehard victory at all costs, including needlessly sacrificing their children and tolerating domestic upheaval. nobs 20:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Against gay marriage as in "straight people only" or "just against marriage in general because it's religious"? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 03:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Reality can't always be categorized into a simplistic binary? Gosh, who'd have thought. (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there will always be people who have their own pedantic reasonings for why they hold views that are not traditionally associated with the same political stereotype as their other views. To understand them we would need to know what those reasonings are, not just what positions they are taking. (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. For example, I'm strongly in favor of gun control, but that's only because controlling guns would allow us to focus on more important things — like sword fighting, and how to kill a man with a single punch.
Paleolibertarian. Supports maximum individual rights, including the right to force others to conform to your own sense of morals. Also note that none of those stances listed are mutually exclusive; it's actually quite bizarre that, due to the two party system, if you support the death penalty you automatically oppose abortions.CorruptUser (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

There's lots of different reasons for being anti-war, ranging from believing killing people is always wrong, to not giving a shit about foreigners and wanting to preserve American youth in their shiny pristine bodies to look at (a lot of soldiers claim to be anti-war). He could be a conservative whose mother was shot trying to protect a fetus causing him to lose his religious faith. Annquin (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing unusual about these positions. This is the emerging Bluedog-Mainstreet coalition which is coming to dominate American politics (slightly center-right, as both presidential candidates were). This is where the public is, leaving the Congressional Republican Study Group (remnants of the Gingrich revolution), the Tea Party, and Progressives on the fringes. nobs 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that his anti-war position is attached to conservative propaganda about the Clinton being an obsessive hawk and what a danger it would be to America and the world if she'd been elected. Many indeed did manage to twist their minds around the belief that Trump would guarantee peace much better. Your friend's atheism might be associated with typical Alt-Right positions and hide behind it a brand of anti-Christianity because of its Jewish origins and almost certainly some form of Social Darwinism. His support of gun control is not very typical for Trump supporters but it is sometimes linked to a xenophobic reasoning about limiting access to guns by minorities and/or criminals in general. A preoccupation with crime, security and 'order' is not strange for people who lean towards an ideal of 'social conservatism' as your friend probably does. In response to user Pbfreespace3 I contend that it is a capital error to understand 'liberalism' as the opposite of 'authoritarianism'. In the gilded age, liberalism was very oligarchic and cared next to nothing (unlike socialism) about material equality beyond the basic position that men should all be equal before the law (and not the monarch). Bourgeois liberalism went in decline before 1920 and we don't really have a class society in the old sense since mass consumerism appeared. The conception of liberalism as synonymous to 'freedom' and orthogonal to 'authoritarianism' is derived from cold war era propaganda. And it was later applied to the Fascists/Nazis because 'national socialism' had 'socialism' in it and we got the 'horseshoe theory' which apparently many here take seriously. In response to the naive commenting by nobs I must state his distinction between pacifism/isolationism is pretty much useless here and his history a bit myopic. Does he have any idea what we did in Latin America along our history? The US has neither been strictly 'pacifist' nor strictly 'isolationist'. We wouldn't have become the world's most powerful country if isolationism historically dominated our foreign policy. But I must make a distinction of my own that nobs obviously is unaware of. The image the mass media, superficial textbooks, journalism, politicians etc. have portrayed about our foreign policy doesn't describe the reality of our foreign policy. But in any case, what could I expect from a person like nobs who thinks American manufacturing will return under Trump? Will Jesus return too? Gewgtweg (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz for SCOTUS? America you is fucked![edit]

If this lunatic is appointed to the SCOTUS, y'all are fucked! I exclude myself, of course, because I live in Britain, where gay marriage is codified law. I think people underestimated and continue to underestimate just how powerful the judiciary is in a democracy! In fact, it can be argued that in a democracy the judiciary is the most powerful of the three powers, the other two being the Executive and the Legislature. So, "Supreme Court Justice Ted Crux"! LOL. How's that for a silver-lining, Bill Maher, Asra whatever-her-name is (the liberal muslim who voted for Trump), Dave Rubin, and all of you out there who are at least happy the that the PC police, the SJWs and the liberal honour brigade "got theirs"? Just so you know, in case you didn't, the Supreme Court can overrule itself: so Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges....--Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Does Ted have no self-respect? I imagine/hope Trump would make him do it not in judicial robes but in a little, brightly colored-romper suit with "LYIN TED" crudely embrodiered on the front. America, u iz grate agen! Annquin (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It's called "genuflecting at the altar of power". None of them have any self-respect: not Romney who called him a "con-man"; not Ted Cruz, whom and whose wife and father Trump expressly besmirched and insulted; and not Jeb Bush, whom Trump bullied and berated like a bullied nerd in a teenage drama on the CW.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Authoritarians are like this. They fall in line hard. They unite behind any stupid idea that they perceive as having a united force behind it and being vaguely on their side. As long as Trump was "the other side" from Cruz, he was the worst thing ever and needed to be destroyed. As soon as they were "The same side" it became everyone else who needs to be destroyed. You can see how much less this holds on the democratic side, where Bernie tended to have a nuanced reasonable disagreement with Cliton(even if supporters here probably went a bit authoritarian for each side). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Kinda like Bernie Sanders? nobs 13:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
If you're saying it holds less on the left in the current environment, yeah, definitely. That applies equally to all authoritarian politicians though. I feel like that's what you meant anyways, but maybe this'll save you a "you're such a filthy elitist leftist prick" reply from someone (also, this is not to say the sides are comparable in the current American situation). B) talk 18:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I know, leftists can definitely be authoritarians. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Levi, you take elections too seriously. Everybody knows candidates talk out of their asshole, well, everybody but the idiots rioting in the streets who are too fucking dumb to see Trump ain't the idiot he played in the election. nobs 07:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I "take elections too seriously!" LOL. Forgive me if I assume you were being ironic with that comment. Also, re your point, "the idiots rioting in the streets who are too fucking dumb to see Trump ain't the idiot he played in the election". First, why do people keeping saying he "played the idiot"- or something to that effect - during the campaign. I hear the same thing from close acquaintances; "oh, how could people vote for such a fool?", "he said so many dumb things", "he is so dumb", "the guy is such an idiot", et cetera. "Playing the idiot", as you say, won him the fucking election. If he played the idiot, look where being "smart" got Hillary, Jeb, Marco, Ted, et al. Lastly, it must be so good to be able to see into the future, seeing as you've seen the future and are thus able to know that Trump's campaign was entirely rhetoric and posturing, which is what I infer from your claim that he was playing "the idiot". So, could you go ahead and give me next week's UK lottery numbers? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This is really quite simple. Trump is a novice at electoral politics, but he's showing himself very politically savvy. Trump courted, and won, the so-called "blue collar" "working class" vote on the immigration and trade issues. The real agenda is starting to appear: cut the corporate tax rate to make America globally competitive. IOW, old fashioned trickle down, end trade agreements, bring back some manufacturing through a reduction in the corporate tax, and encourage small bank lending. Jobs and income will eventually trickle down to workers. But in his first 100 days, the GOP will be called the party of business and the rich, etc. He couldn't win campaigning on corporate tax cuts, but he's got the ear and trust of the workers now. nobs 18:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
"Jobs and income will eventually trickle down". Oh sweet Jesus, you believe in trickle-down economics - especially in this age of increasing robot-manufacturing? I asked you once if you were an adult during the 80s and you answered that you were. Well, it would appear you weren't paying attention. No wonder you think I take elections too seriously. If you had taken Reagan's seriously, you might have learned what we now know: trickle-down economics is bullshit! Further, even if you are right re Trump implementating trickle-down economics volume 2,100 (which you probably are, that doesn't rule out his implementation of other reactionary policies re climate change, abortion, and appointing a reactionary like Ted Cruz to the supreme court - which was the topic of this discussion in the first place. Implementating trickle down to assuage the plebs and appointing the Zodiac killer to Scotus aren't mutually exclusive. Lastly, Trump did win campaigning on lowering corporate tax. Besides the wall, the ban, and jailing Clinton, it was one of his flagship policies. How did you miss that? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I missed nothing. The racist scumbag Hillary ran on finishing the Clinton border wall, too.
The US has two exports, weapons and agricultural products. Everything else we consume, from the clothes we wear to the cars we drive, are built by ferners. That leaves quite a large gap, or opportunity, for a rebirth of manufacturers. By 2019 the US can be enjoying quite an entreprenurial manufacturing boom, something few Americans have witnessed in their lifetimes. nobs 20:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You're trolling me, right? You've got to be trolling me? Help me out guys. I'm kind of new here. Nobs is trolling me, right?--Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No, he probably isn't. Sorry for speaking for you, Rob, but it's been a few hours and I figured you may have stopped replying on purpose. B) talk 05:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay then; I'll bite. So, nobs, which of Trump's policy proposal seems to you likely to usher in this new era of manufacturing? Just because there is a gap in manufacturing in the US doesn't mean the opportunity is there. In a pro-capitalist country like the US, manufacturing opportunities are dictated by the free market and globalism. If it would be cheaper and more profitable for companies to manufacture outside of the US, guess what, that is exactly what they will do. Any tariffs Trump imposes on them in an effort to curb outsourcing will either not work (as they didn't when Reagan tried it with the Japanese and several other countries) or hurt the US's own economy. For example, manufacturers will simply pass the cost of these extra burdens down to the consumers. How's that for trickle-down? Also, goods manufactured within the US tend to be far more expensive, resulting in less consumer expenditure, resulting in less economic growth. As much as I hate parts of globalism, the fact is, - and this is a fact, it cannot be stopped. You can decide not to play along "globalism", but there is only one loser in that game: you! Like it or not, manufacturing within the US and the UK and other Western countries is a dying trade. It just is. Which is why things like TPP, which Trump has just promised to pull out of, are needed. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Good post! When consumers discover that the cheapest flat screen TV they can buy costs $2500 there will be hell to pay. Leuders (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Cruz has a distant chance, given that Trump probably has real enmity for Cruz for his performance at the convention. More likely would be Judge Judy Trump's sister, assuming she can prove her loyaltyen. Bongolian (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A "History" Channel show that is ripe for a RW article[edit]

It is called "Hunting Hitler", basically they are trying to find Hitler alive. Here is a link- http://www.history.com/shows/hunting-hitler. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

He would be only ~127 years old by now. The sequel will be called Hunting Atilla. Bongolian (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
To complete the trilogy, have "Hunting Alexander the Great".--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Have a fourth: Hunting Genghis Khan.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
"Hunting Ashurbanipal." What? Everyone knows he escaped to Nubia! The truth is out there! RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

ITT: The following premise is actually getting a TV show. Way to go, pseudohistory channel! (Pardon the dub — couldn't find the original version!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

At first I though you were talking about the next book of Billo the Clown. Worzelpete (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Psuedoscience and pseudohistory were the precursors to pseudonews. Leuders (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hosted by Lord Lucan on Shergar, with the Princes in the Tower as sidekicks, and seeking clues to find the Crown Jewels lost by King John in the Wash. (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop the Presses![edit]

It is possible a recount will happen in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Relevant articles here and here. Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I think of the 2000 election and it doesn't make me feel any better. (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Jill Stein, in a massive show of hypocrisy, is the one pushing for the recounts, despite the fact that she is the one responsible for Trump's election. Had she endorsed Clinton instead, the 1.5 million people who voted for the Green Party would have prevented a Trump presidency. --TeslaK20 (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think these recounts are going to result in anything useful. However, I think we can all agree that Jill Stein is the real asshole here. I mean, have you guys realised what her VP pick actually believesWikipedia? I mean, his entire repertoire of beliefs is reflected on globalresearch.ca. The guy makes Mike Pence look like a scientist for chrissakes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
How on earth is Jill Stein the bad guy here? How is she the real asshole? It doesn't even compute? People are allowed to vote for whomever they please. That's how democracy is supposed to work. What's the difference between a two-party state, where people expect you to vote for only one of the two parties available, and a one-party state. Stop being silly and grow up. It's no one's fault, other than Hillary's that she lost. Maybe y'all ought to start confronting that, instead of blaming Jill Stein. And even if you want to blame someone, shouldn't you be blaming the people who voted for Jill Stein. Again. This was democractic. No one pointed guns at people's backs and marched them into the polling booth to vote for Jill Stein. If people want to vote for an idiot, you blame the people, not the candidate. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Plus one. In addition, its sloppy thinking to blame Stein or other candidates. It's only that (a) her voters are imagined to be okay with Clinton, too, and (b) her voters form a category, whereas the set of persons that stayed home, switched vote since last election etcetera are more difficult to picture, but they as real of a “problem” as Stein voters. ~ Aneris 14:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course Hillary and the DNC fucked up in a big way. They thought they had the election in the bag. They didn't. But there's a contradiction between "it's no one's fault, other than Hillary's, that she lost" and "if people want to vote for an idiot, you blame the people, not the candidate". What exactly are you trying to argue here? I think RBP and Tesla's point rests on the fact that Stein has political clout. That she didn't use it to push for the clearly more progressive candidate with a chance of winning, when she had no chance of winning herself and when the other candidate with a chance of winning was Donald Trump, doesn't reflect too well on her. B) talk 20:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Teslak why would Jill Stein endorse Hillary? If that was the case, she might as well not have entered the race. Hell, the Green Party might as well dissolve the race. You're also forgetting the Electoral College. Popular vote does not equal Electoral College majority. So, thag 1.5m may not have eveb made a difference. It's time you all stopped blaming Stein. I actually admire her and Johnson for staying in the race, if for no other reason, than to try to end the duopoly of the Dems and the GOP. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait; you clearly misunderstood me. I'm certainly not one of the people who aren't accepting the results of the election — I stand with h3h3 since the night of the election. Did you miss my earlier call for nuance? Like I said, I doubt those recounts will result in anything useful. But I ask you, have you read what her VP PICK actually believes? I'm not "blaming" anyone, especially not the voters. But what I'm saying is that Jill Stein is (if not "the real asshole", whatever that means) an asshole — in a sense impossible to ignore. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I misunderstood nothing. I never claimed you were among those who aren't accepting the results. Why would I? I know how the Electoral College works - and I even like it. It prevents tyranny of the majority. It may be slightly outdated and in need of reform, but overall I like the idea. But, I'll read those articles - even though most of them are published by heavily pro-Democratic outlets who would have wanted Hillary (or the Democratic candidate) to win the election; not exactly fair and balanced reportage. But, I'll read them anyway, and then I'll look into what Ajamu Baraka actually believes. But back to Stein, why single her out? Didn't Johnson win more votes than she did? Why not blame Johnson? Why not blame Clinton? Why not blame Bernie Sanders for his "red pill" campaign? Furthermore, if her VP is as bad as you claim, should you be please she only won 1.3m voters over. For crying out loud she won 1.04% of the popular vote. Don't you think you people are giving her little more credit than she is due? For that matter, why aren't you aiming some ire at Evan McMullin or Darrell Castle?--Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It's laughable, the length the Democrats are going through to explain their failure as anyone's fault other than Hillary Clinton's ego-trip campaign, and the DNC lining up behind her as the inevitable candidate before the first caucus or primary was held. Those people held themselves out as consummate pros at electoral realpolitik. They totally misread the play and threw the game. The prospect of electing another Clinton thrilled no one. Their constituencies didn't show up. Selling Trump as a bugbear didn't motivate people to turn up to vote for Clinton, while Trump's people were motivated. Heads need to roll, and so long as the Democrats don't figure this out, expect the Republicans to remain in power. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, a statistician and a computer scientist who are both advisors to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission have both called for an audit of the election based on evidence of Russian election hacking.[6] Bongolian (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the recounts are happening/going to happen, but recounts without an audits could just validate Putin's Trump's apparent victory. Only an audit is likely to detect fraud. To her discredit, one of the first outlets that Stein contacted regarding the recounts was the Russian propaganda channel, RT. Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A bit of shameless self-promotion[edit]

Hi folks, I know it's been forever since I've hung out here so sorry about that. In any case, I wanted to pass on a link to the story I posted earlier today, We Build Yesterday, which I think is pretty relevant to your interests. It's my first attempt at satire, with creationism as the main target. Hopefully y'all don't mind me just dropping in to tell you about it or anything. --Kels (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Very well done! I really liked the part at the end. So THAT'S what the nuns covered up in Catholic school! Great work! RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It passed the six laughs test. And I loved the twist ending. Very enjoyable. Spud (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Excellent! It would a good external link for YEC make. :) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Well hey, don't let me stop you! --Kels (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Intelligent right wing New media outlets![edit]

Are there any? I can't seem to find them. I'm someone who tries to avoid echo chambers. I do it relatively well when it comes to reading. I read the Telegraph and the Guardian; Spectator and New Statesman; Greenwald and the Intercept and Harris/Nawaz; Chomsky and Oborne. However, I can't find right wing or even centrist counterparts to something like Secular Talk or the David Pakman show that are worth my time. By "worth my time", I mean people who actually know policy and history and are thus able to use them to frame and back up their positions. I mean intelligent people; people who read or know what they are talking about. Any recommendations? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Besides the Telegraph I frequently read the American Conservative, a paleoconservative blog: anti-war, anti-big business, and anti-surveillance state but also anti-immigrant and quite religiously conservative on social issues.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll look into that. Thanks. I suspect the writings on there will be, for me, reminiscent of the writings of our (by "our", I mean British) Peter Oborne and Peter Hitchens, both of whom are conservatives, but I find myself agreeing with on many issues. Who said radical centrism was bogus? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest you read their article on the new class war which talks about how capital is now controlled by a managerial class highly embedded within government. This eventually would lead to the neoliberalism we have today.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 10:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Commentary magazine is one of the best. nobs 12:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@LeviAckerman You find yourself agreeing with Peter Hitchens (of all people) on "most many issues"?! :/ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I said "many" issues. Many. Not most. I agree with him on mass surveillance; Western intervention in other countries (to the extent that his nose isn't all the way up Putin's backside); and his opposition to ID cards. That's about it. I think. Point is, I didn’t say "most" and "many" might in fact be a bit of a stretch. Let's say I agree with him on "some" issues. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry — my bad. I genuinely thought I was rendering it correctly. It was not an attempt to straw man you, just an honest mistake on my part. Th hug.gif Regardless, I'm happy to hear you've nuanced the position to "some". The fact that he's an ADHD denialist, for one, actually saddens me. As a lifelong sufferer of said neuropscyhiatric disability who wasn't diagnosed until adulthood, I now realise better than most the utter harm that the completely unintentional glossing over the facts of my condition actually did, both to me and those around me. I can't honestly report feeling anything but a knot of sadness forming in my stomach when I consider the callousness of actually advancing the position that even those proven to suffer from this empirically verified condition deserve to be actively disbelieved. Thank you for the clarification, anyhow. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Levi, I recommend Chris Ladd's new site. His old site can be found here, which serves as an archive from before he abandoned the Republican Party. Blitz (Complaints Box) 06:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

French wiki of "liberalism"[edit]

You know the French wiki of "liberalism"? A real gem! I put the link to their article on global warming. Original: http://www.wikiberal.org/wiki/R%C3%A9chauffement_climatique Translated: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikiberal.org%2Fwiki%2FR%25C3%25A9chauffement_climatique&edit-text=&act=url — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs How can they be this dumb ? Diacelium (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Castro's dead.[edit]

Somebody tell Schlafly. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Cool!-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

this user has updated the section of the article regarding the person on rationalwiki with the time and date.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 06:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Correction. Castro is STILL dead. Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow. Velenah (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm split. While I like the man's revolutionary spirit and his brave standoff against American terror and imperialism, his domestic policies weren't very good and hurt Cuba in the end. At least their healthcare system and cars are in amazing shape. PB (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Depends on what you are looking at. The economic rights are astounding and the high amount of educated people, on the tertiary level, is undeniably amazing. They are a great example to compare the human rights and economic progress of Latin American countries with long histories of US imperialism, like Honduras and Haiti. Castro was fairly benevolent as a dictator with no death squads, no mass execution of landowners, and an eventual move towards democratic reforms; unfortunately, his fairly to include queer people into the revolution and his treatment of political dissents will always leave a stain on his rule. He also improved the lives of Afro-Cubans by combating White supremacism but didn't go far enough to eliminate racism in Cuba.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Fun:The world as a RationalWiki talk page[edit]

What do you guys think? Please read and edit.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, do you guys think it's funny?-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How likely is a civil war to break out under the Trump presidency?[edit]

I think Trump would be a brutal tyrannical dictator.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
What are you suggesting, the Left abandon its anti-gun stance? nobs 17:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
TrollHamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Why, of course! Crime, tyranny, and pesky birds nesting at the airport is the disease. A (largely defensive) weapon of gun in every able hand is the cure. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
nobs, are you talking to me or Reverend Black Percy? If it is me, I never said abandon the anti-gun stance.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, RZ — I think nobs is talking mostly to himself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Americans are too much pussies to be actually willing to fight each other over politics. Instead the most that happens is angry arguments over the Thanksgiving table and some nutso gun-toters holding their Bibles and threatening people in YouTube videos. I'd love to see an actual conservative uprising/ civil war scenario here though. It would greatly improve the rest of the world due to decreased US dominance, and I'd like to see which groups would win. In other words, not likely. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
What about the Cliven Bundy case? That's probably the closest thing you'll ever see. It wasn't that large, but people came from all over the country. And in the end he was exonerated. It's hard to e visage anything larger, other than the GOP sweep of states (which has been ongoing for decades) and the Trump election. nobs 19:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Last time there was a conservative uprising/civil war, over a million people died. I'm not being snarky here, truly curious; do you think the time for incremental change has passed and another civil war would push the US and the world in a better direction? B) talk 20:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I find it funny how "A ton of conservatives winding up dead" is synonymous with "push the US and the world in a better direction". I also find it fuuny how it is automatically assumed that the "right side" will win. I assume that killing off the children and taking the women would "push the US and the world in a better direction", after all, the US and the World are better off with less of them and a higher body count of them apparently. (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Krashlia
As usual, PB, the toughest guy in the universe, calls everyone else "pussies" and is all for massive quantities of blood being spillled for his fucked-up utopia as long s it's not his own. Sociopathic cunt. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I am not the best person on RW but PB, you are fucked up in the head. How about you get into a battle to the death and let us know how that works out for you.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@NewFrenchHotness @RationalZombie94 Good post! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Also PB, you should consider looking up something called the American Civil WarWikipedia before contending that, (quote): "Americans are too much pussies to be actually willing to fight each other over politics". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Lmao it's true, you westerners are cowards. That's why the world laughs at you. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It is yet to be seen that being "brave" has done the non-western that much good. (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Krashlia
The only thing you're good at is strawmanning people across the internet and calling everyone else pussies when they disagree with your fascistic means of curbing the society to your view, you fucking idiot. Shut the fuck up. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Who counts as a westerner in your not-at-all-sweeping generalization? Could a "westerner" emigrate to "somewhere brave" and cease being a coward, or is his inferiority inherent biologically? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's just astounding how much everyone freaks out over a silly backhanded comment. Do you really think Pbfreespace3 was endorsing an actual civil war on America? You're crazy if you think that's his intent it that he'd want that. It was clearly intended as a sarcastic screed mocking those who think a civil war will actually happen. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

See the main article on this topic: Poe's Law Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
That's why I asked whether he really meant it first. B) talk 14:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

in reply to the user who used the ip to perform the enquiry, whether user Pbfreespace3 supports or opposes the said method of warfare is unknown until the user displays the motion. this user enquires to Reverend Black Percy as to the policy of rationalwiki regarding keeping or banning users possessing supportive intent for such acts of warfare.FAMAS (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It is not easy to tell sarcasm on the internet--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

(In response to user FAMAS) "Ban Pbfreespace3 because he supports violence!" Come on. As if FAMAS hadn't done enough to damage their reputation. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

this user enquires to user Pbfreespace3 as to which people are being referred to by the pronoun "their".
FAMAS, please sign your entries. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This user suggests that "their" refers to you, FAMAS. @PB/Aeonian, if you're willing to answer, I asked out of genuine curiosity, not to start the kerfuffle that followed B) talk 19:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
in reply to user Bshaw, this user asserts the fact that it is unknown to all as to which people user Pbfreespace3 is referring to with the pronoun "their" until the user reveals it by self. proxy replying as seen in this example of user Bshaw replying for user Pbfreespace3 is not conclusive and counterintuitive. in reply to user RoninMacbeth, the signbot can sign all unsigned comments and is much more productive to utilize it over sign templates and requests.
This user wishes you could stop your stupid fucking bullshit before I fucking kill you or you get banned (either being acceptable). Also, learn to fucking format and use proper grammar, you illiterate fuck. (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
in reply to the user utilizing ip address, this user advises utilizing the rules of civility if rationalwiki possesses any and this user will take to the last possible measures for any violations of civility.
Sounds like a concern troll. Troll Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 19:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone else seeing this shit?[edit]

Liberals are losing their minds because Bernie said liberals and progressives should stop playing identity politics. Here is the full quote, in response to an audience member who asked him how she could become the second Latina senator in U.S. history, Sanders said her gender and ethnicity don’t entitle her to votes (BTW, don't you just hate that? When people who take issue with people judging them on the colour of their skin as opposed to the content of their character, make the colour of their skin their defining quality - i.e. play the race card? I know I do.):

Let me respond to the question[of identity politics] in a way that you may not be happy with. It goes without saying that we must end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process, Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans-all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen

But it is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘Hey, I’m a latina vote for me,‘That is not good enough. I have to know whether thatLatina is going to stand up for the working class of this country, and is going to take on big money interests.

One of the struggles that we’re going to have right now, we lay on the table of the Democratic party, is it’s not good enough to say, 'Okay, well we’ve got X number of African Americans over here, we’ve got y number of Latinos, we have Z number of women. We are a diverse party, a diverse nation’ Not good enough. We NEED that diversity, that goes without saying. That is accepted. Right now we’ve made some progress in getting women into politics-I think we got 20 women in the senate now. We need 50 women in the Senate. We need more African Americans

But here is my point, and this is where there is going to be division within the Democratic Party. It is not good enough for someone to say 'I’m a woman! Vote for me!’ No that’s not good enoughWhat we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the fossil fuel industry.

In other words, one of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics. I think it’s a step forward in America if you have an African American head or CEO of some major corporation. But you know what? If that guy is going to be shipping jobs out of his country and exploiting his workers, doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot if he’s black or black or white or Latino…

Now, what exactly is wrong with the statement above from a Liberal perspective? Yet supposed liberals are losing their fucking minds over it (http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/reactionary-democrats-trash-bernie-sanders-for-challenging-identity-politics/). Check out this triggered exchange. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with people? Is there something in the water? Is there a full moon out? People have lost their ability to be rational and nuanced. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You just figured this out? The segment of the Western "left" known as SJWs, regressives, etc - easily represented by your Salon and Twitter links, add Buzzfeed and Huffington Post in as well - long ago diverted their efforts from any coherent ideology to meaningless demagoguery and "feel good" issues for young financially stable white people.
As for the topic in question, I would argue that elected representatives would probably follow a distribution that mirrors the make up of the population. So in a population with two main ethnic groups, one 70% and the other 30%, you would have a 70/30 ethnic split and a 50/50 gender split. But this assumes complete equality of qualifications and a rational electorate. Imagine the case of a rational electorate in a world where the smaller ethnic group receives the best education and is the most qualified - the electorate will vote in mostly people from that group. You can also imagine equal qualifications and an irrational electorate - say, one interested in group loyalty, which would vote in mostly the majority group. This means that, given unequal representation in government, it's hard to distinguish the cause between identity politics and other racial/ethnic motivations or disparity in qualifications. In societies with disadvantaged groups, those groups will usually receive inferior education and experience and thus be less qualified on average - a rational, non-racist electorate would vote in a majority of the advantaged group just as a prejudiced one would. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
— Levi, welcome to the club. It's quite fascinating that this thing seems to escape many liberals or leftists. It's one of the few things that still astonish me about it. I always thought it is obvious, as Aeonian expresses with his first sentence. But apparently it's not. What's more, and that's the crazy part, many liberals or leftists not only deny this is a thing, but also deny controversy that arises out of the mismatch of perceptions. I have an idea why, but that doesn't make it better. Maybe this finally comes to an end. The SJW movement also begins to name itself as “Woke Culture”, but only time will tell whether this name is adopted, or whether it goes like Atheism Plus. I wonder at which point we have a mob together to finally clean up articles, like SJW which still insist it's a conspiracy theory, snarl word, or describes a few nutcases at best. It is obviously more to it, something is in the water. ~ Aneris 21:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
What is it with you two (Lord Aeonian and Aneris)? The reaction to Bernie's statement which I refer to is objectively absurd from a rational POV; so, please, whatever club you and Lord Aeonian are part of, do not include me in it. I'm not about to join you in the SJW witch-hunt.
By the way, Lord Aeonian, I have no idea what your second paragraph is about. Seriously, what are you talking about and what does it have to do with the issue at hand?--Levi Ackerman (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It's about how to tell whether representation for minority groups is actually achieved or not. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
— You see it, you read Sanders' characterisation, you see the kind of responses, and yet something in your brain prevents you from simply adding one and one together. It's such a bizarre condition. ~ Aneris 22:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Lord Aeonian, what does that have to do with this issue? In case it wasn't clear, the issue here is irrationality of some liberals, not how do we calculate fair representation of minorities.
@Aneris, what is it I am missing? What conclusion would you like me to have reached that I haven't? What am I failing to add together? Pray tell! Or is it the case that if I don't agree entirely with you, there's a problem? Isn't that the issue here? The lack of nuance. I can disagree with Sanders' critics on this issue whilst disagreeing with your general position. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. But you see, you're just as intolerant as the SJWs at the end of the day; which is why I refuse to join your club. The fact that you reduce my refusal to subscribe to your school of thought to a "condition" on my part says all there is to know about you and people like you: the "anti-SJWs". --Levi Ackerman (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The condition is a kind of blind spot that makes people utterly unable to see the influential identity politics on the left, that is a mirror image of far right wing and which looks, walks, and quacks like a form of postmodernism (great new section), which, in addition is also a fully recognized, fully known, described, self-explained movement of sorts. Not only that, there's also an academical movement called Critical Race Theory which — curious and curiouser — by mere happenstance includes intersectionality, non-white-minority separatism and nationalism (safe spaces, and this is also where critique of cultural appropriation is from), strong identity politics, microagressions et cetera: typical SJW talking points. All by mere accident, I suppose. Their own introduction says verbatim it's based on postmodern and radical feminist thought, and has intersectionality as a cornerstone. Amanda Marcotte explained once that radical feminism is now mainstream feminism, and others say it's — surprise surprise — intersectionality / 3rd wave feminism. The only denial left at that point is to pretend this was somehow all underground and nutty fringe, but here is where Sanders and a rainforest worth of paper comes in, which demonstrates how this is anything but fringe. Denialist on board here can sweep it under the rug forever, but it just looks more comical with every day. Fun fact, tomorrow we're arguing whether the denial took place, and the denial is denied. Been there with five other people who also suffer from the condition. ~ Aneris 00:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
What in God's name are you talking about? I think you should plead the fifth now, as you and Lord Aeonian's streams of consciousness have nothing to do with the issue of this thread, which is, what is wrong with Bernie's statement? Nothing is wrong with it, is my contention. What critical race theory, intersectionality, radical feminism - all of which I am already familiar with (thank you very much) - and all of which you seem to be obsessed with (you always seem to bring at least one of them up regardless of the premise of the conversation) - has to do with this escapes me. I didn't start this thread to bash the left. Sorry if that disappoints you and Lord Aeonian. Try Sargon of Akkad or the Drunken Peasant's Youtube commments section or Maajid Nawaz or Sam Harris' twitter feeds; I'm sure you'll find people more than happy to join you in your circlejerk.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This is easy. Silly things first, “regardless of the premise of conversation” is ridiculous. This is (a) a narrowly political topic, (b) it directly concerns “identity politics” and the backlash (c) is a good example of the very conflict on the Left. So, I see you complaining about people who don't accept evolution (“nothing is wrong with it”), and other people, myself included, know of a movement called “Creationism”. For us this isn't some random, perplexing opinion popping up, but we have some idea why people find issue with evolution, what the basis of their beliefs are and so on. In other words, we don't see weird examples over and over again and are astonished day after day, but we know there is a source of Bible literalists, which produces believers that act in a certain way. When the issue comes up, I have the pragmatic idea to approach it from the Creationist angle, because that's useful and I can learn something, for I have a concept to work with. You can gain some idea how people tick. You don't want that, because I suspect you are a juvenile leftists who strongly identifies with the label, and who hasn't the confidence or knowledge to keep your ground. That's basically what happens around feminism, too. Many want to be on board, collect the sticker, but are afraid to actually debate or have a solid opinion, so they are protective of labels, which is — as it turns out — all there is. And here we come back to SJWism, which by the original definition are shallow virtue signallers who never developed deeper thoughts than most shallow, idealistic claptraps of the “racism is bad, m'kay!” variety (where through paranoia, mass hysteria, warriorism and hoaxes believe they are some sort of moral elite that entitles them to be moral crusaders). ~ Aneris 11:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

That's basically what happens around feminism, too. Many want to be on board, collect the sticker, but are afraid to actually debate or have a solid opinion, so they are protective of labels, which is — as it turns out — all there is. And here we come back to SJWism, which by the original definition are shallow virtue signallers who never developed deeper thoughts than most shallow, idealistic claptraps of the “racism is bad, m'kay!” variety (where through paranoia, mass hysteria, warriorism and hoaxes believe they are some sort of moral elite that entitles them to be moral crusaders)

Lol. Every conversation is just another opportunity for you to have a rant at SJWs and feminists, isn't it? You wouldn't happen to be a fan/subscriber/occasional viewer of the Rubin Report and the Waking Up with Sam Harris podcast, would you? Now, reply with something about intersectionality.

I suspect you are a juvenile leftists who strongly identifies with the label, and who hasn't the confidence or knowledge to keep your ground.

Well, I suspect you are a judgmental idiot, who is unable to be nuanced on issues you don't agree with, be it Islam, religion in general, or a fucking reactions to reactions to a statement by Bernie Sanders. Now, this is something that might be considered ironic - and hypocritical - given your penchant for ranting against SJWs - or, as your "prophets", Harris, Nawaz, Rubin et al, refer to them, the "illiberal left". But, I won't hold it against you as you appear to hold my leftism against me.
Conversing with you, as always, as been a massive waste of time. More fool me. But, you have a good day!--Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
That's all very nice, but you managed to keep it very light on substance. So your thesis is that I probably listen to Sam Harris podcast: killer argument right there! I am indeed subscribed, but have missed like seven or eight by now. As you know, I also like Chomsky a lot, and think Greenwald wrote a few good things recently. There goes your stereotype. You cannot even distinguish between several left wing flavours, rather typical for the teenage social media “activists” ~ Aneris 15:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
"Teenage social media "activist""? Lol. And you accuse me of stereotyping. Pot, this is kettle. You're black! Also, you didn't disprove my "stereotype", because, frankly, I never reduced you to a stereotype. I simply claimed you were probably a fan of Harris's podcast, because everything you say can be traced back to someone of his school of thought; another testament to your unoriginality. I also didn't claim you didn't like Chomsky or read Greenwald, but the fact that you felt you had to tell me that you do reveals more about you. So, thanks. You see, I wouldn't claim a person dislikes Chomsky and/or Greenwald because they like Harris. That is something I suspect you would do; classic projection. It is in fact you who is incapable of distinguishing between several left wing flavours. For example you have placed me in the SJW camp simply because I don't subscribe to your school of thought entirely. Unlike you, I am capable of believing people can like Chomsky and Harris; just like I am capable of believing some of the liberal reactions to Bernie's statement is ridiculous without subscribing entirely to your SJW-bashing school of thought (or as you put, joining "the club"). I said it once, I'll say it again: it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. You should try it. Now say something about intersectionality. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
You are mistaken yet again, you are obviously not on board with the identity politics crowd, which was already the starting point. It's not that important to me, and the mob concept isn't my idea. It's how it works, and there are of course camps on polarizing issues. Not my idea either. I also actually disagree with Sam Harris in this very matter. To him, Chomsky is the pope of the Regressive Left. I don't even find the Regressive Left concept very useful (I don't view them as Left, and regressive is not useful for people who are in an anti-progressive tradition, but the corner exists of course). You are merely exposing your ignorance. And didn't you drop names as a means to poison the well: Sargon of Akkad, Drunken Peasants, Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris? Curious how you started it, and when I add a few, to break your stereotype to say I don't actually agree there, it's suddenly “classic projection” on my part? Ooops, nice try! That's called Theory of Mind, and second order intentionality. I see that you drop names, I anticipate what you are trying to do, and respond to that. Besides this hominem shift is what always follows. Weak tea, indeed. ~ Aneris 18:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Whoa! Calm down, dear! Looks like you're letting a social media teenager trigger you. Lol. All you've got is buzzwords you've likely picked up online. I get the idea you don't even know what half the terms you use mean. Case in point: theory of mind. It's a theory, genius. Stop trying to affect an intellectual aura and stick to the issue. You're failing at both. How's that for weak tea?--Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Why so shy, Levi. Stellar comeback! You ask, I deliver: here's the original take. You mean it as a joke, but it's also topical! Kimberlé Crenshaw “saw the shit”, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence against Women of Color”, 1993. Got that, “identity politics” right there in the headline? It's good discussion, very good also in context of Sanders' argument, and my critique there is nuanced. Making matters more complicated, the common Tumblr “intersectionality” is nearly the opposite of Crenshaw's take, which means, as I pointed out before, this original take has similarities with the critique of identity politics and the “Regressive Left”. Like Sanders, Crenshaw is critical of identity politics, hence she proposes intersectionality as a way to fix it (instead of looking at identity categories, she wants to shed light on the intersections, hence the name!) This is lost on SJW who think it means stringing together identity movements in the name of “diversity”. Well, read it. The quality of argument can only improve. ~ Aneris 19:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Lol. You seem triggered, Aneris. You let a social media teenager trigger you? For shame. Alright then. Since you really want to, tell me more about intersectionality. I would so love to read more. Tell me more.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Aneris! Where you at, son? Tell me more about intersectionality. I'm done reading your previous (most latest) comment. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

So many good triggered jokes! You shitheels are really compassionate! And those twitter usesers with litteraly 10s of followers! Hipocrite (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

lol Levi you got triggered by Aneris, and all because you won't admit that the "liberals" who are attacking Bernie Sanders are the same (well defined and consistent) SJWs who do the same stuff everywhere else. Why not just admit it's a thing? Is it so hard? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
That may be the first thing you've ever written that I've understood. Nice of you to drop the intellectual facade. Now to business: I think you'll find I triggered Aneris. But whatever you say. You're his sidekick. Or is it the other around? Now to the real issue: there's nothing to admit. What else ya got? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
In reality, Aeonian and I rarely argue both on the same thread. It's almost always the other way around, as here are generally far more people who disagree with any of us. Aeonian and my views are minority opinions here, which you know of course. I don't mind, but I noticed you care a lot about it. Don't worry, you certainly get Community Points for being seen disagreeing with me or Aeonian. You'll be fine. Another thing you do, again, is the metadiscourse sidestep that is standard maneuvre on the RationalWiki. This will be seen with approval, too. You did great. Poisoning the well, trying a bit of guilty of association, pretty good. The bingo card is almost full. Temper tantrum and blocking is missing. You can also try the old goldstandard of feigning amusement, being annoyed, or something else. What worked in 1996 and 2006 will also work 2016. I'm not hostile here, stop being a retard and engage to figure something out (this is what discourse is about) or leave it alone. We agree on the situation, you are worried about the Left and I am, too. But do you know what exactly bothers you? Or do you just want to rant a bit and wanted other people to rant a bit, too? That's fine, just say so and things get a lot easier. ~ Aneris 21:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
But do you know what exactly bothers you? Or do you just want to rant a bit and wanted other people to rant a bit, too? —Aneris (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Poor Aneris. All this because I refused to join his "let's bash SJWs" club. The guy goes on a rant because I won't subscribe to his views. Remind of you of anyone, any group, in particular? The irony and hypocrisy metres are through the roof. Lol. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
My perspective on this is that, yeah Sanders' comments are totally reasonable, and the reaction against him was largely unfounded but I still think there is room for nuanced criticism. I personally feel like identity politics are important to the progressive cause. Honestly not just for political utility, but in service of creating a more egalitarian society. There are legitimate criticisms of identity politics, and I think the most glaring example of it's failure was probably Hillary being selected as the candidate over Sanders (Obviously there was more to it than simple identity politics, but I'm just using it to illustrate my point). Hillary was a mediocre centre to centre-right woman with very few real standout policies, and she ended up being selected over the (IMO) significantly better centre-left Sanders who had a strong progressive history and was a vocal supporter of social democracy.
The thing is, I think most criticisms of identity politics ignore that we're starting from this incredibly unbalanced position where most senators are already relatively mediocre straight white dudes. When it comes down to the choice of a mediocre straight white dude or a mediocre black/asian/hispanic/gay/trans/woman/whatever, identity politics become legitimately meaningful. A move towards true egalitarianism isn't about forcing equality in the best-of-the-best, real equality means that mediocre minorities have just as much opportunity/representation as the mediocre white dudes. Identity politics are important, it's not only mobilising for previously disenfranchised demographics but by it's very nature it injects meaningful new perspectives into the system.
I'm someone who generally gets called a SJW a lot, so I'm probably pretty biased here, but in my experience it's almost always used to handwave away uncomfortable arguments without any attempt at consideration. It's doled out so often without warrant that it's essentially nothing more than a vapid snarl word at this point. I 100% accept that the left has a lot of problems, and even lacks rationality on quite a few issues, but I run in a lot of progressive circles and only a small fraction of people ever actually deserve ridicule, and most are willing to change their mind when presented with a rational argument. I've found that a much more prominent problem than the shrill reactionaries are the mediocre "brogressives" who generally side with progressive policy, but make no effort to self-critique and are often unwilling to agree to any real action for fear of being labelled an SJW or a feminist. Anyway, what I'm saying is Sanders' comments were reasonable but I still think nuanced identity politics are important and I wish he'd acknowledged that more broadly. --MVHVTMV (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A challenge; a bit out of left field[edit]

So there are certain people - who now seem to have been swept into power in the wake of Trump - who blabber about a "white genocide". Now here is my challenge.

Name any event in history that has the following characteristics (and I am going to be lenient here)

  1. White people targeted for "being white" (as opposed to e.g. "being from country X")
  2. Deliberate campaign of murder and/or mass mutilation
  3. More than 1000 victims
  4. Perpetrated by people who both saw themselves and were seen by others as non-white
  5. All or most victims were civilians, POWs or otherwise non-combatants or the event took place in a time of peace
  6. Really happened.

Did any such event ever take place? If so, can you name one? Can the people blabbering about white genocide? I could find half a dozen events that fit this bill where the words "white" and "non-white" are switched out. Worzelpete (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Whilst I hate to presume, I must do so here. My presumption is that you take issue with persecutory delusions or persecution complex of some on the Alt-right, and even the traditional right and some Trump supporters. I am wih you there 100%. However, whilst I realise the above post was meant to expose the aforementioned persecutory delusion, I can actually name one example of genocide perpetuated on whites by non-whites. Are you ready for it? The 1804 Haiti massacre. Sorry to be pedant. However, I still subscribe to your overall sentiment.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Strange how that is never brought up by the same people blathering about "white genocide". It's the one time in history something that would meet a generous definition of "white genocide" happened. And nobody seems to talk about it. Not even those afraid or supposedly afraid of a supposed future white genocide... Strange. Maybe it is because the perpetrators were mostly self-freed slaves? Worzelpete (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe basically fulfills the criteria as well. Just because the Alt-Right are paranoid racist assholes doesn't mean it's categorically impossible for whites to be the target of hate/genocide campaigns, even if it's on average less common for them to be victims of it than it is for people of other races. Downplaying that actually feeds into Alt-Right propaganda. ClothCoat (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Mugabe did not perpetrate a "deliberate campaign of murder and / or mass mutilation". Yes, whites lost property and political rights, but that's not the same as a bonafide genocide. Also, in the case of Haiti an argument could be made (though note that I am not making it) that it was not whites who were targeted but Frenchmen. American merchants and Polish mercenaries were explicitly spared on the orders of the same guy who ordered the massacre in the first place. Worzelpete (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
He pretty much did exactly that. The regime targeted white civilians and it's recorded that well over 1000 of them died and the guy who ordered it (and his political party) is pretty explicitly racial supremacist and anti-white. Admitting this does not empower the Alt-Right. Not admitting it allows them to become the loudest voices in the room on these issues, which gives them completely undeserved free propaganda. That said while it meets the definition of "genocide" by your generous definition I'm not sure it technically meets the definition of genocide as given by other sources, such as the UN or Amnesty International. ClothCoat (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a source on that? As far as I was aware all Mugabe did was take away the land from the whites (which to be fair the whites or their ancestors probably had not acquired by legal or legitimate means in the first place; but two wrongs don't make a right). And yes, Mugabe's rhetoric is pretty much "blame the whites (and the west) for everything" Worzelpete (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page for it has plenty of decent sources actually, but whether Mugabe actually ran it or just gave the go-ahead/encouraged it it still fits your criteria and was carried out by the racial supremacist (not "just" nationalist mind you, full-blown supremacist) ZNLWVA. Also some Robert Mugabe quotes: "The only white man you can trust is a dead white man." | "I am still the Hitler of the time, [...] This Hitler has only one objective, justice for his own people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people, and their right to their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for." Likewise he's been denounced as a racist by John Sentamu and others. ClothCoat (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
What Mugabe did to Whites in Zimbabwe does not meet any definition of genocide. So, no, he did not do "exactly that". Yes, he waxed lyrical about killing "Whitey" and he actually persecuted "Whitey" with his land reforms, but, he hasn't done anything that could be considered genocide. There is no "pretty much" to genocide. If you disagree, @Cloth, set out for us how Mugabe's treatment of Whites meets the universal criteria for genocide. I don't deny that Mugabe is a racist, and has implemented racist policies, but at the same time, racism does not equal genocide.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It can be said to have happened during some phases of the decolonization era, as it happened in Zimbabwe. But in any case, not having happened yet at least on scale doesn't mean it's inconceivable to think it could happen in future under different circumstances though that can hardly happen in the foreseeable future in America. The US is the only majority-white nation featuring such a large proportion of peoples of African descent but if we included other groups like Latin Americans, Asians etc. which are not exactly favored by Neo-Nazi types either (let's not fool ourselves, that's what the 'Alt-Right' ist, I mean is. Let's not do them the favor to call them what they call themselves for reasons of tactical cover. They're a radical racist and anti-feminist/anti-social justice/reactionary group. The latter component attracts elements in the movement that in several cases aren't strictly racialist or are minorities themselves. But none of that should fool you. The primary and most important focus is the race focus.) - there are in absolute numbers some 130.000.000 people in the US today that they consider racial undesirables and eligible for expulsion or the chamber. In their hysterical and barbaric mind (I'm not exaggerating at all, you know which website has been called 'the murder capital of the internet', right?) all these millions of people could conspire (at the behest of the Jews of course) to carry out a white genocide. But apply some projection psychology here and you see it's they that actually desire to commit genocide. There is of course no way blacks could carry that genocide because they're too few and 'caucasian' is demographically projected to remain a majority based on current trends. Neo-Nazis however, do not identify 'caucasian' with 'white' as they tend to use white in more or less a 'Celto-Germanic' or Western European sense. Roosh V for example doesn't qualify as very white for them. And there is sometimes an enmity against Slavic people too despite their looking very milky and pretty (because they have to identify for obvious reasons with historical German anti-Slavic sentiments although ironically no other country other than Russia has more Neo-Nazis today), and at the very least they wish to maintain with them a racial (though hardly political) distance. Be that as it may, many white Americans have Slavic origins. A few of the original Nazis themselves like Globocnik or Lischka had too. Gewgtweg (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
As long as whites enjoy colonial power, how can you really say that people were killed because they were white, rather than because they were colonial oppressors? This applies as much to modern Africa as to the various massacres of British civilians during the Indian Mutiny (in one of the worst incidents, there were around 1000 killed following the siege of Cawnpore, mostly civilians). What about the Auspicious IncidentWikipedia of 1826: a massacre of thousands in an attempt by the Turkish government to dispose of a bureaucratic class largely comprised of Christians from the Balkans, so they could be replaced by Turks who were seen as more trustworthy (many victims were soldiers, but many were civil servants or administrators). Depending on your definition of white, there's the Guangzhou massacreWikipedia when it is claimed around 100,000 foreigners mainly of middle-eastern, Arab, Jewish or Parsee origin were killed in China. Annquin (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@OP: “White” never was a consistent category. It is often synonymous with colonial Europeans in charge. Slavic peoples, mediterraneans or the Irish were not seen as “White” at one time. There is no way to disentangle this. We also know that Europeans were colonial, which is the kind of setting where people of different skin colour came in conflict, with Europeans usually on the upper hand. But it's a distorted view on history. So you either go with the correct historical categorization, then it is almost tautlogical (because colonial powers are by definion the invaders who rule over differently pigmented people), or you go with the ahistorical conceptions, and conceive of “Whites” as people of white skin colour, then most of them were oppressed, and the largest genocide in history (the holocaust) targets “them”. But it's unproductive to render it this way. This why this approach is obscuring matters rather than enlightening. ~ Aneris 12:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a rather lengthy reply, but some software bug ate it. Worzelpete (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Just one thing: Turks are white (or as white as people from the Balkans) and they did not kill those people for being white. And even in the case of Haiti, the victims were at least in part targeted for being French (next to no white Haitian at the time was born in Haiti) rather than for being white per se. Worzelpete (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Turks are caucasoid, but they aren't white. Just as Iranians are caucasoid, but are't white. Also, I think you're splitting hairs, somewhat pedantically and desperately, with regard to the Haiti Massacre. It was for all intents and purposes "white genocide". I agree with your premise and Herr Fuzzy's conclusion below, but let's not dilute history with pedantry. The Haiti Massacre was white genocide; white people, nationality notwithstanding, were targeted by the Black rebels because they were white. The rebels weren't killing Black Frenchmen as well as White French, were they? No. They killed discriminately, based on colour. I also doubt during the massacres - in the midst of a frenzy - the mobs would stop and say, "Hey, are you French? No? Okay, you're free to go." --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Well under the US census Turks were never considered anything but "white" as were the original Aryans from Iran. Regardless, the concept of "white" only ever makes sense as a social category and thus only has meaning when people give it meaning. And you seem to be under some misapprehension when it comes to Haiti. The massacres perpetrated by Jacques I were absolutely not spontaneous and they were highly coordinated. In fact, in the first days of the massacre his underlings deliberately let some people get away, mostly because they personally knew them. The usual way it would work was the following: Dessalines would enter a town and issue his orders. The French whites (excluding non-French whites e.g. American traders and often also "useful" whites like doctors) were marched out of the city where they would be hacked to death both to save ammunition and to not alert towns within earshot. Women were sometimes raped, sometimes spared if they married one of Dessalines's officers (in order to give them legal title to the land). The "Colored" (descendants of slaves and Frenchmen) soldiers were mostly disgusted and feared they might be next, so Dessalines forced them to be front and center among the perpetrators in the hopes that complicity in the massacres would ensure their loyalty. When some white Frenchmen had managed to hide, Dessalines would issue "pardons" to draw them out only to have them killed later. Then he would go on to the next city, rinse, repeat. By that time the majority of all whites in Haiti were French (and "black French" was not a category that existed in Haiti at the time. Many officers in Dessalines's army had been educated in the metropole, but those were almost universally "colored", I know of no black person not of Haitian descent or recently brought in from Africa that lived in Haiti at the time and if they existed, they were a minuscule number). Another group of white people that was explicitly spared were the Polish soldiers the Leclerc expedition had brought onto the island. The whole war did have racial overtones and Saint Domingue before 1789 was obviously organized along racial lines, but to characterize the massacre exclusively along racial lines would not be 100% exact. White French people were targeted. Probably both because they were white and because they were French. And it was never popular to do that - despite the widespread hatred towards the slavers of yore - and Jacques I ultimately remained the last emperor of Haiti because of that. By the way, Dessalines also never ceased to send letters to the US about his policy only being aimed against the white French and him having no enmity towards the other slaver societies or white Americans. Worzelpete (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
You know nothing you have stated immediately above refutes the point that the Haiti massacre was genocide, right? In fact, apart from your first three sentences, your entire comment above supports my position, and that of many others, that the Haiti massacre was "white genocide"; a position, it seems to me, you disagree with. If I am wrong, and you do consider it "white genocide", then I apologise for my mistaken assumption. If however, I am correct, and you are positing that it was not "white genocide", then you are, as I claimed, splitting hairs. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, genocide would imply a minimum amount of victims. I would not know of any specific figure, but "a few thousand" somehow seems to fall short of the mark. Furthermore, while you could squint real hard and say victims of the Haitian massacre where killed (also) because they were white (although arguably their being French took precedence) and it was a "genocide" insofar as it were ethnically targeted killings, so you could use the term "white genocide", but unlike the "white genocide" fantasies of the alt right, it was very much caused by very real grievances (most perpetrators were self-freed slaves or people who had suffered under the openly racist caste system of pre-revolutionary Saint Domingue) and even then the genocide was not popular (as can be seen by the attempts to tip people off and by the fact that Dessalines had to be personally present to ensure his orders were carried out. So, if you have a laughably low threshold for the number of people to be killed for something to count as a genocide. It was a crime. It was targeted at an ethnic group. This ethnic group was white. The perpetrators were not. Both sides saw the concept of race as meaningful. You could apply the term white genocide. But it is the only event in recorded history that even with a lot of stretching meets the definition of "white genocide" - and less people died in it than were killed by those yelling about "white genocide". And most of those yelling about "white genocide" could not even name this one historical incident of something even approaching their fantasy... Worzelpete (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's be real[edit]

People who whine about white genocide aren't actually worried about white genocide. They're worried about "brown" people with "brown" traditions coming into their country. That's why claims of white genocide are tied closely to Sharia law fearmongering and Eurabia fearmongering. It's not really about demographic change; it's about cultural change. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ding! Ding! Ding!-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
In most cases I think you're right. In some maybe not, at least to the extent that the person views "brown" people as violent, warlike, i.e. actually likely to turn to violence against them (maybe positively correlated with that person's willingness to do the inverse?). I'd argue there are quite a few white people who go that step further. B) talk 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

splitting of the bar[edit]

this user is suggesting that the saloon bar be split into multiple subpages based on subject topics and links to them placed in main saloon bar. the idea is inspired by the wikipedia reference desk and the size problem of having a single reference desk for all topics.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 19:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The saloon bar doesn't run into organizational issues and edit conflicts frequently enough to warrant adding subdivisions. It's useful to Wikipedia because they have a massively larger userbase and rate of edits, not so much for us. (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't split the bar. It's not as if we're a really popular site that gets so much traffic and discussion that we must split it. We're fine the way we are now (regarding the bar, not other things). PBfreespace (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Curious as to what sub-pages you propose. The bar is claimed to be for anything that doesn't belong elsewhere so that would have to change. But discussions about news, elections, etc can already go in the WIGO talk pages (but often don't); and you can create forums to host debates on specific topics. Annquin (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Besides me, who else is sick of hearing about the election?[edit]

I voted for Hillary but she conceded. Even if she got the votes it would not matter because she conceded. It is over, it will be bad enough that some of the states will have to deal with the election of governors. So people in favor of a recount, give it up please. She conceded and you should move on with your lives.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. It will only be the last election the US will ever have, so you can bear to hear about it for a few more weeks. Worzelpete (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If all 3 recounts are successfully completed, and we find out Hillary won 2 of those 3 states, and there are just a few faithless electors that go for her, then she'll have won, just like that. So much so, that the Clinton camp has actually backed the Wisconsin recount. PBfreespace (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Jesus bastard CHRIST, here in CT the people I know still won't stop wailing about it and screaming about racism and sexism and similar, when I point out that wailing about it didn't stop him from being elected and certainly won't stop him now I'm apparently the bad guy. Dealing with the reality instead of bitching in a massive circlejerk about how "I hate the Orangeman and if you dare deviate one bit YOU RACIST MISOGYNIST (insert snarl word)..." is the only way to get anything done, yet almost everyone is interested in the latter because "have some college so know better what Drumpf voters really want". Bonus points for them identifying with the pain of minorities due to marginalization while utterly refusing to consider that rural Americans felt the same way (whether it's justified is entirely different, but one can't deal with the upcoming situation if one doesn't understand the opponent's mentality first). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I know a couple people with that mindset too. It seems really counterproductive to actually mitigating the harm Trump might cause. B) talk 02:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If the Democratic Party really wants to win, they should first win big in the midterms by making a left-wing tea party movement that runs really left-wing candidates who break from establishment economics. Once they secure a Senate majority, they should block everything Trump wants to do, then run a progressive candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders against Trump. They should focus their money and effort on the rural white vote in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. In addition, they need to boost turnout in all groups by nominating the least shitty candidate possible (aka not Hillary Clinton). Then they govern well and keep control for a decade.
1. Get Keith Ellison elected as DNC chair.
2 Organizer large left-wing protests in the vein of Occupy and Tea Party in the late 2017 and 2018.
3. In 2018 midterms, cause a large progressive tide that sweeps the Senate and maybe even the House.
4. Elect a progressive left-wing candidate.
5. Beat Trump in the general.
Are we clear? PB (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If you never paid attention to it in the first place, you won't get as annoyed once it's brought up.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
IDK who Keith Ellison was so I googled him, | this was the first thing I saw Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
1. Daily Caller is a right-wing inaccurate biased heap of propaganda garbage designed to make the Democrats even easier to beat in election than they already are
2. If Ellison did say all those things, I don't care because he's still better than the sellout lobbyist traitor Howard Dean
3. I honestly wouldn't mind if blacks had their own country in the south. It would probably improve the place as a whole. I wish it could've been done at the end of the Civil War rather than now though, as it would be incredibly difficult to successfully implement PB (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
In this new world where a man, endorsed by the KKK and Neo-Nazis, and caught on tape bragging about sexual assault, can become POTUS, I don't see why Keith Ellis can't become head of the DNC. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
PB the white separatist pro-civil war tankie. We've seen it all, folks. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I obviously believe all black people should be killed and the great white race should rule the nation. *eyeroll* PB (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
No, what you obviously believe is that blacks should have "their own country" in the south, which will logically lead to whites having "their own country" in the north, which is the fucking definition of white separatism. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't you know? Telling people the truth about their shitty racist views will make them vote for the shitty racist candidate! That's the extra special "moderate" hot-take for 2016. You have to pretend that there aren't preexisting words to describe exactly the kinds of shit people believe. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe black people should have their own country in the U, NewFrenchHotness. That is not a position of mine. It was a mere hypothetical and for you to construe it as anything more is a dishonest representation of my views. PBfreespace (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on PropOrNot[edit]

So recently the Washington Post has an article about a website called PropOrNot that claimed that Russian propaganda helped spread fake news throughout the U.S. election. But Alternet and the Intercept have called PropOrNOt shady, and not trustworthy. Now I know that Aletnet and Intercept are considered to be on the moonbat side of the spectrum, but I decided to use the WayBack Machine to find out the history of PropOrNot. This is what found: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html What do you guys think?Ryantherebel (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous story. I highly doubt the many accusations there, and Washington Post is guilty of a lot of bias in favor of Hillary during the primary and of course in the general. There was absolutely no contesting they were in the tank for Hillary, and vehemently opposed whoever she did, right or left. Evil Russia isn't trying to get Trump president, and even if they were, why should we care? They aren't that bad anyway. PBfreespace (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The authors are completely unknown and very shady. I have a lot of doubts about it as well as all the other baseless Russian meddling stories.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Um... PBFreespace? What exactly do you mean Russia isn't "that bad anyway"?RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
In Vietnam, America used napalm and intentionally destroyed hundreds of peasant villages in order to scare off people from joining the Viet Cong, ignoring evidence that it actually furthered their cause. Entire ecosystems were destroyed by chemical weapons. In Cambodia and Laos they carpet bombed areas with mines that still blow kids' legs off today. In Cuba they used unidentified airplanes to bomb ports, factories, bridges, and other nonmilitary targets after Castro took power. I needn't remind you how Afghanistan and Iraq went. Today, the US bailed out criminal banks with utterly no popular support, it does indefinite military detention without charge, tortures innocent prisoners at a secret base in the Caribbean, monitors and records everyone's communications, and is as we speak helping Saudi Arabia to bomb poor starving Shias in Yemen.
Russia has done a ton of bad stuff in its history. Spying, gulags, purges, shelling of Grozny, messing in other countries' politics and affairs. But it is beat by the US by a pretty significant margin.
1. Accomplishes utterly nothing
2. Wouldn't matter if they were doing it because it would in practice help Hillary a ton by making people vote against the Russian candidate
It's an absolutely ridiculous story that's the pinnacle of clickbait disguising itself as respectable journalism. I have no respect for the publishers or the outlet if they're willing to print this dishonest redbaiting garbage. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
And in Afghanistan, Russia carpet bombed Kandahar, the 2nd largest city in the country, into rubble. They indiscriminately slaughtered Afghan civilians in retaliation for supporting the mujahadeen, which was a standard practice for Soviet forces during a blatantly imperialist occupation of Afghanistan. While we're at it, how exactly did Russia treat its neighbors during the Cold War? There were two invasions of Warsaw Pact countries that attempted to leave. So...imperialism? Or how about Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia? Doesn't that qualify as imperialism?
To clarify, I am ashamed by all those deeds America committed, and still commits. I also agree that Russia probably played no active roll in Trump's victory. But don't even dare tell me that Russia isn't that bad because America is worse. To quote Howard Zinn, "To state the facts, however, and then to bury them in a mass of other information is to say to the reader with a certain infectious calm: yes, mass murder took place, but it's not that important..."(A People's History of the United States, Chapter 1, p. 8)
tl;dr We agree about the lack of Russian interference, but your intellectually-dishonest rebuttal to Russia being bad is that America is worse....well, that was interesting. Same time next week? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I've just kind of had a shitty day. Sorry if I was rude to you. No hard feelings?RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Corbett Report[edit]

I thought it fair to bring this to your attention, since it peripherally involves an article on this site, James Corbett, and I've documented a brief history on the talk page summarizing recent events. Regardless of whether you care about or even agree with "fake news" or not, it might be interesting to see what traffic differences, if any, occur due to whatever attention this may or may not get. I am posting this on Main Page talk page and the Saloon Bar because I'm not sure which is appropriate. Feel free to delete one of them if necessary. In JC I trust (but verify), ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I created a new article (Though there is more work to be done, mostly adding sources)[edit]

It is called "Academic Degrees", it is an overview on college education and professional education--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And I created an article on Doug Stanhope. Worzelpete (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be summarising your own country's education system specifically (presumably the USA). A lot of these statements about types of degrees, their duration, teaching & assessment don't apply to universities in my country, nor many others around the world. Overall this kind of article is something I think is better left to sites like Wikipedia, as it would take a lot of detail to give a more comprehensive overview & its relevance to our site missions is pretty tangential (really only the stuff about "diploma mills" which we've already got covered in other articles). €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not like I know the educational system of every other country, go ahead and edit it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalism[edit]

Anyone interested in Ukrainian nationalism, might want to take a look at this transcript from NPR's On The Media show about Volodymyr Viatrovych.[7] Viatrovych has taken over control of the state archives, and has been accused of whitewashing Ukrainian history, specifically with regard to the Holocaust and nationalism. There's a fairly detailed WP page on him as well (Volodymyr ViatrovychWikipedia). Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Just remember not to read anything about the dangers of Ukranian nationalism without having understood the propaganda campaign of the next-door world power that wishes to consume UkraineWikipedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

KT tape (athletic taping)[edit]

Is this woo? I engage in a lot of physical training, including long distance running and skipping. As a consequence, I have developed shin splints. I will be honest, I tried KT tape once and I felt better. So, I did some research into the science behind it, and there isn't a consensus as to its effectiveness, even though many prominent athletes use it. You may have noticed it during the 2012 and 2016 Olympics. Some claim its effects are minimal, while others claim it is a placebo. I only ask here because we have an article on cupping, used by Olympic wunderkind, Michael Phelps, and the general consensus seems to be that it is woo. So, is KT tape woo? --Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it doesn't become woo until we identify individuals or groups that definitively declare its effectiveness (better yet, its extreme effectiveness) in spite of the lack of evidence. The first article you linked makes its claims tentatively, and admits the exact method of action has yet to be identified. I'm fairly sure some digging in the athletic industry would yield actual examples of woo-sters (I'd start with the manufacturers and sellers of the tape). (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page (KT tapeWikipedia) reports meta-analyses that it is slightly effective for pain relief but not better than standard methods. It may be a placebo effect. Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Update on Ghost's Page[edit]

The sandbox page is open to public editing. Now, go forth and scribble! TheMyon (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Neat! Did you know there's a True Capitalist Wiki? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. That's the source blocked on my school's internet that I mentioned, by the way. =v= TheMyon (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ivanka 2024?[edit]

By now, everyone's heard the meme that a Trump presidency means 2016 is "the last election we'll ever have" (i.e. cue the jackbooted thugs, martial law, and full on dictator mode). The inference is that Trump's authoritarian megalomaniac personality would lead him to suspend the Constitution in order to hold onto power indefinitely. However I think a more likely scenario (at least in his mind) is a form of "royal succession" where the presidency is kept in the family for several decades, enabling the Trumps to become defacto rulers (and, at the same time, the richest family in the world). Already, Ivanka has gained traction among the uber faithful and I could envision the voting population of the Idiocracy of 2024 being easily convinced that Ivanka should take the throne as "the first hot President". Leuders (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And I thought Owlman was joking when he mentioned "Keeping Up With the Trumps." I guess that's what our elections will be like from now on. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't they have a conflict of interest? Most Trump supporters are also uber-sexists and I'd like to see the Alt-Right break down if that happens. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The recent talk of "Ivanka 2024" or "Kushner 2024" or "Palin 2024" or "Barron 2032" is premature.
It's hard to predict right now, because Trump has lots of balls in the air. He's gone after the Fed to appease the libertarians. He cracked down on immigrants to please the alt-right. He's starting a trade war, to the delight of unions. He's striking down Roe v. Wade to get the religious vote. And he's flailing around with Medicare, trying to reform the ACA while somehow keeping costs down. If he can stretch himself in all directions and still maintain power, then we might have ourselves a dynasty. Shit, he's earned it!
But the wheel turns so quickly these days that the Tea Party could roll him and find some other golden boy. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I am still holding out for King Charles III by the grace of god of England and Wales and his American realms, Lord of Rockall protector of the Falklands and savior of the crown fidei defensor &c. &c. Worzelpete (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Nobody can predict 2024 or even 2018 but it's fun to speculate all the same. Agree that Trump seems to be stretching in all directions at once. In a world where you can choose your own truth, he could well be the first mass-customization President. - Leuders (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I tell people, it's as if Joe Kennedy was elected President instead of the son. Imagine if Jackie were reduced to a stalking horse at the DNC. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Will political assassinations become more common?[edit]

I mean polarization is increasing and more and more weapons are held by the public at large. Will we see an uptick in high profile political assassinations? Worzelpete (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

...what, you mean, in the world generally? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Depending on how you define "political" and "assassination", they've already been at obscene historic highs since the 2006ish systemic drone bombing of Al Qaeda ideological leaders started. Now why do you gotta bring terrorists into this? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean assassinations like those at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. A high ranking political figure is killed by "private citizen" acting alone or as part of small lose groups and for political reasons. So for example Viktor Orban being killed by a radical journalist. Or Theresa May being killed by a radical Scot. Or Marie Le Pen killed by a radical secular Arab anarchist. Worzelpete (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I think political assassination is getting harder, through a mix of electronic intelligence gathering and better physical protection/security. Why haven't Muslim terrorists killed any leaders in the west lately? They're picking the softest targets instead. The IRA in the UK weren't very successful at killing politicians especially after about 1980. It's maybe different in developing countries, but even there leaders can be more ruthless. Anyone fancy doing some kind of graph, assassination per year? Annquin (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
As a matter of fact the total amount of dead through terrorism in Europe is lower now than it was in the 1970s. Worzelpete (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait, why would Le Pen be assassinated by a radical secular Arab anarchist? Maybe Arab secularists/non-religious like the Western right because it's isolationist and anti-Islam. The left is associated with people like Hillay Clinton and the close support of Saudi Arabia, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and other Western pro-Salafi and anti-Marxist actions in the Middle East. Arab nationalists especially tend to be socialists. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe because Le Pen is a racist. Worzelpete (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the murder of Jo CoxWikipedia yet in this thread. It's the most recent example that I know of, & occurred very much in a context of misdirected rage & hatred stirred up by the right wing parties & press (who even appear to sympathise with the murderer). WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Make humor great again![edit]

plis! Worzelpete (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Must Debunk Immediately[edit]

Ran across this. Someone who isn't me needs to write an article about it. I'm too tired and busy. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, would love a simulated universe woo page prominently featuring these images. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The anti-semetism is the least of its problems (and why only the bible?). (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


this user is asserting the fact that due to the gravity of the situation, this user is double posting this matter in the saloon bar and chicken coop. this user calls all to look into the contrib log of user 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 13:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

this user is asserting the update that while the user 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 was stopped by user weaseloid, the user JorisEnter lost admin and edit privileges during the hack incident. this user is calling all to the issue at hand.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Both matters have been dealt with, it seems. Judging by his first edit FDS was a sock of TheAmazingSkeptic, who was binned 18 minutes earlier by RBP.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Scientology is like a burrito[edit]

It has a cult filling wrapped in a scam Tortilla.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


this user enquires the reason for the gadgets tab not being displayed in user preferences of this userFAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Man, if only someone asked this question in a way that wasn't obnoxious as hell. I so want to answer this exact question, but a magic spell prevents me from answering questions written in the self-referential third person. Especially in this case where the self reference would be extraneous even if using traditional personal pronouns. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This user inquires as to why this user (who is not this user that writes this comment, but rather an external user (external to this user, of course)) refuses to explain to this user (this user being the internal "this user" referenced thus far) why this user cannot use this user's user preferences. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, FCP! Bongolian (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The topic of our next board meeting: can we please make writing talkpage posts in the third person a punishable offense? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Singular or plural - and what about first person plural, not being a (hive entity/multiple personality) and the impersonal voice? (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Stances on capital punishment[edit]

Heyo, if it's okay to ask, I'd like to know people's general opinions, thoughts and feelings on capital punishment. If you could also give a reason for why you feel this way about it, that'd be very much appreciated. Thank you in advance :).--WMS (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It achieves almost nothing in terms of furthering the cause of justice, and really only serves to address the basal desire for punishment. I've yet to see an evidence-based argument for how it helps society, and as such, the remainder of the arguments don't hold much sway for me. Purely hypothetical deterrence isn't worth actual killing to me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd be fine with capital punishment in an ideal world where we could know with 100% certainty who the criminal is, but then again in an ideal world there wouldn't be any crime. In practice in America there is a disturbingly high false-positive rate, so much that I support the abolition of capital punishment on the state level. I really don't care if it's implemented in cases where rehabilitation is basically impossible, such as Dhokhar Tsarnaev, and I'd prefer whatever is cheapest, life imprisonment or death. In retrospect, our use of chemical cocktails to kill people is stupid; you're killing them, of course it's inhumane. For the few federally-convicted criminals that can't be rehabilitated, if we were to kill them, is just have them dropped off high buildings since it's the quickest and cheapest way. But I tend to oppose capital punishment, and if I were president and an abolition bill was put on my desk, I'd sign it without much thought. PBfreespace (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It should be reserved for people who commit murders for causes. There seldom is any doubt about their identity. I have zero issues with executing people like McVeigh, Tsarnaev, Roof, or Breivik. It should not be used as a routine punishment for routine murders. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I echo Ikanreed's sentiment. Ironically, many of the states so gung-ho for the death penalty in America are "Jesus Lands"!--Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Against it, categorically.
  1. Perpetrators couldn't have done otherwise (follows from determinism).
  2. Justice might kill an innocent person, which of course, can never be undone.
  3. Does not deter more crimes than other forms of deterrence.
  4. Officials of the state are burdened to kill someone (definite, not possibly, or circumstancially as with military). This is an inhumane request.
  5. Death penality is even far more expensive. Not even this argument works.
  6. Abolishing of unusual punishment and death penalty correlates with more progressive, humane societies.
In sum, there is no compelling reason for the death penalty. ~ Aneris 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It should be reserved solely for treason, in my opinion, and even then it should be used very sparingly. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I like how some people think treason is the worst crime that deserves the worst punishment. Such a laser would have people like Manning and Snowden killed. What about mass murderers, serial killers, and school shooters? It's all subjective anyway though. But still. PBfreespace (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. It is a weird thing now that I think about it. I wonder why. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Logically, if capital punishment 'worked' it would not be used. (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Fallacy of the excluded middle. It doesn't work. But it doesn't work in an empirical measurable way, not under some logical certainty. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Very few of those executed have gone on to murder again.
It works, but today it's far more brutal and barbaric than necessary. It's sort of like cauterization of wounds; all well and good if you live in a primitive society that doesn't know about germ theory, but if you have access to antibiotics and modern medicine, you'd be crazy to use it. So yeah, I think we could live without the death penalty. CorruptUser (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Only if your definition of "works" is "same individual doesn't commit another crime" rather than "implementation functionally reduces crime rates of the relevant kind". That is to say, no, it really fucking doesn't work. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 00:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Are there really any punitive policies -- i.e. things done to convicts -- that can be shown to reduce crime rates? We know that abortion on demand works, of course; but that's pre-emptive, not something done to criminals after the fact. "Deterrence" doesn't seem to work, ever. The death penalty, like much else, exists to slake a need for revenge that is a part of the human condition that can't be wished away. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
As a Swede, I never could understand the American focus on deterrence and punishment (in contrast to assistance and rehabilitation). I have to admit I'm under the impression that your approach isn't really working out all that well. But what do I know? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes Smerdis, here's a nice summary paper. It doesn't get much play in legislative circles, especially in the US, but there absolutely are evidence based elements to criminal justice research and a few trial(ha) programs here and there. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think liberals should support capital punishment in the cases of TERRORISTS just so that conservative news has one less thing to shit themselves about. Eh, eh? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely think there are people who would deserve to die, but a court of law is no place to determine who those people are. So no, I do not support capital punishment. And I think few countries that have it get anything positive out of it. Worzelpete (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Against it in every case. Ikanreed's reasons mostly cover it. Plus there's some compelling evidence in social psychology that the acceptance of aggressive/violent behavior in a given society correlates with the prevalence of violence in that society. Not that that seems at all surprising... B) talk 03:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Against it. Even when we're 100% sure (e.g. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev), "eye for an eye" justice is morally wrong (and is ineffective). Let them live with the guilt of what they've done.

I'm also against the death penalty, for the reasons given above, and other. Even a wingnut Christian ought to atleast show the sincerity of belief to pay attention to the ten commandments in this context. I'm also suspicious about granting the state the authority to kill subjugated captives — a war crime, if done to enemy combatants. Furthermore, the executée himself isn't the sole source of potential future crime. Indeed, as the execution of Lenin's brother shows, all that did was radicalize Lenin — who might otherwise have never entered history — with dire consequence. Regardless, the "societal benefit" gained from executing someone who would otherwise spend the rest of their life in solitary confinement (never to be let out) is not only 0, it's negative (since solitary confinement for 30+ years followed by death in old age is definitionally worse than instant death with no jailtime), while the "societal loss" incurred from even risking to execute an innocent person is truly massive. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Breivik presents an interesting case. Here there is no doubt that he committed the atrocities for which he's incarcerated, and I imagine we can be reasonably certain that he won't ever walk free again. With this in mind, is there not an economic argument for capital punishment - ie: 30k per year to keep him in a box vs a few quid to cave his head in with a brick? I guess arguments can be made that in 10 years he may write some world-changing treatise on politics or save the life of a choking prison guard, but he may equally spend his days eating and pooing on the taxpayers dime. My opinion on this is fairly fluid - I'd be interested to hear the viewpoints of others. MyHatIsBread (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that human rights can be rationalized away with reference to the economical cost of upholding said human rights. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for responding and giving your opinions on the matter. It was very interesting reading the different and similar stances and the reasons for them. It was also a breath of fresh air to see that majority of people that responded are against capital punishment as people I encounter on a daily basis think otherwise. Anyhow, thank you again for (all that did) throwing in the two pence :).--WMS (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Keep in mind that none of us above rely on the one counter-argument almost always given by death penalty supporters — that us death penalty opponents are being somehow "soft" on the criminal or his acts, that we forget the harm done to the victims, or that we're "such bleeding hearts" that we just don't want him to be punished or anything of the likes... One of my arguments is that I literally contend that being kept alive and fed — forcibly, if need be — by the state, all the while kept in a little box for decades is a punishment far worse than death. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone find it weird that I would want to go to a Young Earth Creationist College?[edit]

Not that I am Christian or a Creationist but wanting to experience what the other side is like. It is just a curiosity of mine.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it might be interesting for a day, but years? They'd probably be defensive about anything that contradicts them to maintain their safespace. Also, depending on what country the college is in, you can get really bad education that consists of lectures. Just do Online schools. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Which college? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I got an Aunt who works at one and managed to get me a couple of classes in one day. Im telling you right now it is not worth it. Trust me. I understand your curiosity as I have it as well, but its best pursuing a real degree. The amount of circlejerking even by the professors there is stunning, along with the ignorance of the students--Pokefrazer (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight, like I said I was just curious.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If you want to do it, it is your decision and your decision only. It strikes a nerve with me to see biased people on either side of the picture try and talk someone out of going to the school they want to go to, because I see kids who give up on the idea of college all together because they got turned down by the college their parents wanted them to go to, then I see kids from fundie families whose parents try and talk them out of going to college at all because of the "liberal bias." Some of them, like Liberty University, are regionally accredited, so you could spend a year there and then transfer somewhere else, or you could just stay there. Other colleges will recognize your credits, and employers will honor your degree if you actually graduate from there. Some, like Bob Jones University and Pensacola Christian College, are only accredited by TRACS, and good luck transferring out of those guys. If it were me, I would avoid the ones like Patriot Bible College that aren't even accredited by TRACS like the plague, but again, that's your decision and your decision only. Bear in mind, if your intentions are to pick fights with the professors, it's "your" transcript that will suffer. Ricky's Wiki (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It is not my intention to fight with professors, it is very easy to pretend to believe what they say till you graduate and get into graduate school. As I said before going to a fundie school is just a curiosity of mine though I do not believe in creationism (Though I am in favor of theistic evolution).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I should go back in time and get myself sent to a gulag so I can see what it's like to be Ivan Denisovich.Teurastaja (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump is right re opening up the US's libel laws.[edit]

If you know what the legal definition of libel or defamation is, then I don't see the reason to oppose it. Defamation, as defined under English common law, occurs when there is publication to a third party of words or matters containing an untrue imputation against the reputation of individuals, companies or firms which serves to undermine that reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society generally, by exposing the victim to hatred, contempt or ridicule. An example: there are many News outlets spreading the information that Keith Ellison is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, even though, he is has time and time and again denied this. Surely, that's defamatory! The American press is out of control. They say whatever they want, without care for whether it is true or false because "FIRST AMENDMENT!", "PRESS FREEDOM!", et cetera. It's about time the press was reined in. They have responsibilities. If they won't live up to them of their own accord, they ought to be forced to. That is why I have no sympathy for much of our press here in the UK, complaining about IMPRESS the first truly independent press regulator in the UK. Anyone who knows about the hacking scandal, know they had it coming. They tried to get around this by setting up the IPSO, which basically allowed the press to continue regulating itself, like its predecessor, PCC! SO, I think opening up the libel laws would be a good thing, because as I much I value a free press, I also value an accountable one. This is why many in the American press are hoping Trump backtracks on his wish to open up the libel laws, because they know plenty of the time, they are spreading unsubstantiated rumours as facts, damaging people's reputations in the process. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Internet rumors spread too fast for libel laws to be used against any site that promotes them. They also have Poe's Law as a defense, as many of these "fake news" outlets read like self-parody. Also, the Supreme Court has said that for public figures, the information spread has to not just be defamatory, but constitute "actual malice". So sloppy reporting (up to a point) from real news orgs isn't considered libel under the First Amendment. Qscgy (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump's version of "opening up" the libel laws is removing "truth is an absolute defense". He wants to be able to sue people for saying things that are true but harmful to him. Arawn Emrys (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Arawn. The the opening of libel laws have more to do with people saying any bad things about Trump, whether they are true, false, or even just opinion.Teurastaja (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see if Trump can propose anything concrete. His talk about libel reform has so far just been campaign bluster from a guy who's spent most of the past year spreading false rumours and defaming his opponents. Any plan for libel reform will run into the problems that firstly libel law is currently a matter for individual states not federal government, and secondly the Bill of Rights. Maybe he could build a wall around the Wall Street Journal. Annquin (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Walling stuff in, in New York City? There's atleast a few defamatory Snake Plissken jokes within reach... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Libel law[edit]

Libel laws would hit the RationalWiki hard, which has earned itself a reputation of a mud-slinger (of unsubstantiated and false claims). Be careful what you wish for. ~ Aneris 14:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh sure. "False claims" are totally why we get sued. Not modestly inaccurate phrasing on exactly what kind of tax dodge a creationist committed to land them in jail, or calling someone who sells fake cures to desperate cancer patients a quack. Yep. Sure. It's definitely all about "mud slinging" at undeserving targets. You're right that the kinds of changes to defamation laws that Trump was implying would end this site. But mostly because it would end the truth as a valid defense. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Good post! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The remainder of this section has been nuked by unanimous board resolution. No, you can't use RationalWiki as a platform to call living people paedophiles, allude to claims of them being paedophiles, link to claims of them being paedophiles, etc., or you will be banned. You'd think this was a simple and well-understood rule which made obvious sense in every way, but it appears not - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Something I wonder about students at Fundie schools[edit]

How many do you think might be secretly Pagan, Jewish, Islamic, Atheist or whatever? I think it is very possible as many parents have control of their child's college finances.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC) I think only Atheists would be represented. Due to the demographics of where specific political/cultural/religious groups live and the location of the fundamentalist colleges, I doubt almost if not no people from the other groups would actually be present.Teurastaja (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dammit.Teurastaja (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I am just saying it could be possible, where I live (it is a very conservative county in Michigan) there are Pagans through out the area. This is in a place where there is almost 40 churches.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The larger ones get people of all shapes and sizes. Some of the smaller ones outright won't admit people who don't profess to be Christian. Pensacola Christian won't even hire someone to work in the kitchen if they don't agree to subscribe to their worldview, much less admit them as a student. I will say a lot of these "fundie schools" have a lower bar for admissions than their secular counterparts, and I can imagine there are some who would rather go there than a two year college, or a for-profit college like DeVry who will rape them with the tuition. Ricky's Wiki (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If I had my choice between DeVry or Bob Jones University, I would rather go to Bob Jones University. At least BJU doesn't bleed you for your cash unlike DeVry. I am not sure about the rest of you. Not that I would want to go (mostly because the faculty credentials are very questionable).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
As a strong proponent of college in general, I probably have views on this topic non-reflective of the views of most people on this wiki. Every student learns in his/her own way, and if so-called "fundie schools" is one's preference, I'm all for it. If someone who is okay with following a strict, Christian code of conduct wants the experience of living on campus, but can't get into UF because she has a 2.4 GPA, and doesn't have the money to go to Keiser University, I see nothing wrong with her choosing to go to Pensacola Christian. Then there's the question of what exactly classifies as a "fundie school." Being a religious school? Being specifically a Christian school? Being a right wing school? Do we classify catholic institutions like Notre Dame and Saint Leo University as "fundie schools," or just far right-wing schools? Are non-religious institutions with a right-wing view, like Hillsdale College, considered "fundie schools," or just religious right-wing schools? Are large, respected, regionally accredited universities like Liberty University which hold a firm Christian viewpoint considered "fundie schools," or just small nationally accredited or non-accredited schools? Are military schools like Westpoint considered "fundie schools"? I think different people would define "fundie school" differently. Ricky's Wiki (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

TPP article.[edit]

Having read the full text of articles of the TPP, I have begun rewriting the TPP page. Just a friendly heads-up to all you TPP-haters out there. By the way, if you thought Trump had a broken clock moment pulling out of the TPP, think again. I just wish someone would get that out to Kyle from Secular Talk--Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Good for you for reading the whole thing. I'm looking forward to seeing the rewrite. Bongolian (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
But TPP is literally corporatist fascism, like Obama has always wanted! :( Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)