Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator elections: Read the campaign slogans here! Voting begins 19 November 2018.

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive266

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 20 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>, <265>, <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>, (new)(back)

Contents

So, what kind of universes could be out there (not sure if it would be Theoretical Physics or Philosophy oriented, maybe it is both?)[edit]

Maybe there are existences of everything people have imagined or extraterrestrial beings have thought of. As for where, maybe there are infinite universes outside our universe or our universe is a tiny bubble in another universe and there are countless little universes within our universe. I am not saying it is indefinitely as what I said is pure speculation and there is no real way to prove it; I am just saying it could be possible.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There's one other universe. It's the one where the photon went through the other slit. No, not one per photon. Just that one photon in 1801. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

For an introduction to the physics side of things — or, more specifically, to;

The interested are advised to watch all three videos! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Copenhagen interpretation is where it's at, though. Let's be real. Many-worlds is 100% "Wouldn't it be cool if?" conjecture territory. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I admit, the idea of a multiverse is fascinating to me. I wonder what other things exist; could there be a universe where the laws of physics is radically different or if there is a universe where the divine beings we thought of as species exist or where there are beings that can transverse dimensions. The possibilities may be endless and it is very exciting to think about! I am just wondering what could be out there or what universes exist within our universe. There may be lifeforms that we cannot even wrap our heads around on how they exist?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Space is really, really big! Gadzooks (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A documentary for Gadzooks[edit]

Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You made my day :-) God I feel loved right now. Thankyou RBP. Gadzooks (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's looking at you, kid. (Everybody gets one) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I need advice on a mental health issue[edit]

I did something wrong today (I thought I was doing the right thing out of worry but I won't go into any detail out of respect for privacy) and I felt guilty about it. However I felt so guilty that it was messing with my thought process and I was hearing the voices really bad (I am Schizophrenic) and I wanted to hurt myself because I felt like I should not have existed. Is there any way to deal with such emotions when I get very upset? I know I should talk to a mental health professional but I don't see my therapist for a few weeks. I do need advice and if anyone can help, I am very grateful.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What CBT techniques has your therapist taught you for coping? I really have very limited knowledge of psychotic disorders and how they effect mental state, so I can't speak to the particular problems that Schizophrenia might induce, but self-loathing and self-harm are something that is supposed to be aided by affirmative re-framing. And feel free to send me a direct email if you just need someone to talk to, Please email me, I'll be happy to chat. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I really appreciate you reaching out to me :). My therapist did teach me coping skills but I did not learn how to cope with the voices when I get upset/worked up. It feels like a tidal wave of emotion that I cannot escape.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
A lot of the time, it's the same thing. And seriously, if you ever need someone to talk to, I'm available. If you need someone not acerbic to talk to, I'll see if I can find someone else. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I am fine now but if I need to talk I will send a message. I tried also getting advice on a support page but when I posted only two people gave me advice and the rest only clicked like. Doing something like that is like finding someone who is out of gas then say "I will pray for you" then drive off. ikanreed, you are an actual friend on the internet. I know you got annoyed with me about some previous posts but at least you did not out right mock me. I am glad there are people like you out there who will lend a helping hand. I am really grateful for the help.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

RationalZombie94, I just wanted to say that I read what you wrote, and I think you're very brave and wise to reach out to people and inform them of your woes like you did now. I truly admire your courage. Now, I'm certainly not a mental health professional, though I'd wager I'm more read up than the average person is on schizophrenia. Like with Ikanreed, if you ever need someone to talk to, I'm here. I'm not going to "jolly you along" and give you instructions, but I'm going to just say that it might be good idea for you to take up contact with your therapist again, and/or get in contact with mental health professionals generally, e.g. via calling a toll-free help line or the likes. Reaching out to professionals and getting their help in reviewing your options is the thing to do if you feel locked up in doubt. All the best buddy, take care. We're here for you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am VERY grateful for the compassion. I admit I was dealing with my emotions in the wrong way (overreacting to the issue that was taken care of before hand, I guess it was an anxiety attack though I have not been diagnosed) and the voices in my head were clouding my thoughts which led to an overreaction. In any case I owe you all a major debt; not many people have shown compassion on the internet. If the time comes and any of you need help just ask. All we can do is support each other, Rational Wiki is like an internet family.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey RZ, talking here is good. Reaching out is good. You're doing really well. You're able to know what's you, and to recognise the part of you that needs your help. I'm a fellow traveller, just on a different bus :-) I have been surprised as heck to find some incredibly supportive groups online (OMG would you believe there's even goodness on Reddit? lol). Being able to talk to people who have shared experiences can be really soothing, to know that you are not the only person who deals with this, and to know that there are ways to get through it and feel OK. In particular, to know that even when it feels like you've got everything wrong, that even that's OK too. We shouldn't call ourselves the Human Race, we should call ourselves the Human Experience, there's no competition to be normal, you are, in a very literal way, an individual normal, an individual experience. You here, talking, looking for solutions is rational as fuck and you have my respect and support in a conceptual and text based way :-) Zounds! Gadzooks (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Fellow broken brain here. I would first of all consulting a professional is always the most prudent thing to do. I'm bipolar and even though the medication really helps me I still occasionally get these "flash depressions" where I get so irritable, depressed and angry. It pretty much consumes all my energy just to not smash everything around me or hurt my self. But the method that works the best for me is to do the whole ACT thing. Just to find the strength to take a few deep breaths and acknowledge that the feelings that I'm feeling are irrational, that usually calms me down for a while. I also try to do something to distract me from my thoughts, I have found that tetris really works great for me :p

My other big tip is to watch Wim Wenders film Der Himmel Uber Berlin. When I get suicidal or really down I watch that movie and get reminded that there is an inherent beauty in all life. Before I watched that movie I was certain that I would kill myself one day. TheGrandmother (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I may have anxiety, I will bring it up at my appointment when I go in two weeks and see if I can get a prescription. I see a Nurse instead of the actual psychiatrist (he does a lot of work at the hospital, primarily in the Behavioral Health floor) but I still get meds because the nurse forwards medication request to the psychiatrist.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you know that if you support western (evidence based) medicine you are a cult member?[edit]

I came to this conclusion after I made a comment on a Pfizer post saying "I am shocked that the Big Pharma Conspiracy Theorists have not commented" (My exact words) then a few minutes later someone replied saying "Why bother, drink the Kool Aid, it is good for you" (the other person's exact words). So for those of us who support evidence based medicine (almost everyone within our internet family known as Rational Wiki) we are somehow cult members? If anyone knows why we are then reply as I am metaphorically scratching my head.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

in reply to Rationalzombie94, this user asserts the fact that name-calling the followers of evidence-based medicine as blind zombified followers of a cult, the cult here being of the science that is funded by big pharmaceutical companies which can influence results by controlling fund amount and direction, is a form of ad hominem that has been utilized since bbs era.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 04:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I get it. However, Welcome to the Cult of Science! All hail Pfizer, our Lord and Savior! (Smirking)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thankfully, I was recently informed of being a cult member, so this doesn't come as news to me. Though, one can't help but notice the odd fact that I'm still going on to act normally, as if the charges of cult membership were somehow baseless (!?)... Suspiciously, just like a brainwashed cult member would be expected to... Oh well — that only proves the theory further, I suppose! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, as a joke I made a FB page called the "Cult of Science" where the pharmaceutical company Pfizer is God. Holy sacrament is a handful of pills (The body of Pfizer) and cough syrup (the blood of Pfizer); sacrilege includes alternative medicine (it cuts into profits), creating a cure for a disease as it cuts into profits and letting a disease resolve on its own. If you live a holy life then the souls of the departed will be united in the Holy Pill Bottle; when all souls are united at the end of time then Pfizer will swallow our souls like pills and we will be reunited with our Lord and Savior (smirking)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Study: Atheist argumentative style comes off as aggressive[edit]

Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue.

The premise: Atheists are seen as angry, because of "moralized rationality":

Advocates of science have also been accused of being strident, angry, and intolerant of their opponents. For example, all of these attributes have frequently been ascribed to the so-called “New Atheists” [17, 18, 19]. At the core of the argument put forth by the New Atheists is the idea that it is important to embrace a scientific world-view, to rely on reason and evidence when evaluating the quality of ideas, and to reject faith-based claims [20, 21, 22, 23]. To the extent that there is any truth to accusations that these promoters of science are angry and intolerant, what do their strong emotions and intolerance stem from? Contrary to the general image of the scientist as objective and value-neutral, we suggest that advocates of science are frequently anything but value-neutral or amoral in their convictions about the superiority of beliefs based on rationality and scientific evidence. More specifically, we suggest that people can come to view it as a moral virtue to form and evaluate attitudes and beliefs based on logical reasoning and evidence, and to view it as a vice to rely on less rational processes, an inclination we refer to as moralized rationality.

The measurement: Moralized Rationality Scale (MRS), which they tested and found valid:

Based on earlier theoretical work [39, 40], we generated a number of items that measured the moralization (and perceived importance) of the reliance on rationality in the formation and evaluation of belief compared to the reliance on less rational methods (i.e., tenacity, tradition, authority, and intuition). The total number of items was then brought to 44 through mutual discussion. Twenty-two of these items measured moralized rationality, the other 22 measured the perceived personal importance of rationality (for a list of all items, see S1 Text). Study 1 was designed to serve two purposes. First, this study served as a first exploratory test of the underlying latent structure of our set of items. We expected the moralization of rationality and the perceived personal importance of rationality to be correlated, but nonetheless distinct. Second, Study 1 was designed to help us reduce the number of items in each scale by allowing us to select those items that most closely correspond to the latent variables underlying both scales.

[....]

[W]e should expect individuals who score high (vs. low) on the MRS to judge acts that violate (vs. uphold) rational principles of forming and evaluating beliefs as less moral. Expressed differently, the MRS should moderate the extent to which people view an act that violates rational principles as less moral than an act that upholds rational principles.

The results: Yep.

These findings may have important implications for our understanding of conflicts revolving around the validity of specific beliefs, such as the longstanding discussion about the teaching of creationism in science classes, as well as clashes between traditional beliefs and science more generally. The present results suggest that it is not only defenders of traditional beliefs that are spurred on by their moral conviction, but that the motives fueling advocates of science may be moral in nature as well. More specifically, these results suggest that they may be motivated by their conviction that it is morally wrong to rely on beliefs that are not backed up by logic and evidence. To the extent that this is the case, it could also help explain why their argumentative style frequently comes off as angry and intolerant. Numerous studies, including Studies 6 and 7 in the present article, have found a strong link between moral motivation and indicators of intolerance [12, 16, 49].

[....]

More generally, it seems plausible that individual differences in moralized rationality affect individuals’ openness to social influence and attitude change [88, 89]. For individuals high in moralized rationality, the moralization of specific beliefs depends on the rationality of the method that was used in the formation of that belief. This suggests that those who moralize rationality should be open to change their attitudes and beliefs, even those they moralize, when reason and evidence point them in another direction. Thus, whereas it is generally very difficult to change the mind of someone who has taken a moral stand on a specific issue [90, 91], individuals high in moralized rationality should be willing to change their attitudes and beliefs, even the moralized ones, when logic and evidence indicate they have been wrong. Examining how individual differences in moralized rationality affect attitude change, the processes through which attitudes change, and the susceptibility to engage in motivated reasoning, all strike us as promising avenues for future research.

Once you've processed all that, look at our logo.

I, for one, would gladly support a rename to "Gentle Socratic Examinations of Your Beliefs Through Thoughtful and Not Aggressively 'Rational' Methods Wiki". FuzzyCatPotato of the Puce Losers (talk/stalk) 07:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

"We suggest that people can come to view it as a moral virtue to form and evaluate attitudes and beliefs based on logical reasoning and evidence, and to view it as a vice to rely on less rational processes,"
This brings up some interesting topics in my opinion. Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought that this was more-or-less implicit in all secular moral philosophy. Surely it is better to have evidence and reason on your side rather than ... well... something else which does not. Equally, as the same conclusion points out, secular moral positions are consequently amenable to argument and correction if the are shown to be wrong - as opposed to faith-based moralities which are (claimed to be) unchangeable.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly true that relying purely on abrasively leading the argument via logical syllogism, a barrage of thought experiments and accusations of irrationality on the part of the faithful (however true) will make you come off as an Objectivist, a Praxeologist or indeed a "fedora'd Atheist" — basically; as a sophist who just wants to "win" the discussion. Peter BoghossianWikipedia's W.svg points out in his book A Manual For Creating Atheists that one must remember that the skeptic's whole routine of judgement-proportional-to-the-evidence is taught behavior, not innate to humans, and Michael Shermer also points out (as a former evangelical) that even the fundamentalist world-view "seems" or "feels" perfectly logically consistent to those "in its bubble" — accusing them of being irrational right off the bat because they don't quickly comform to your self-evident something something big words makes you sound irrational, ironically. Thus, the message is to not leverage evidence against those not taught to appreciate evidence, nor give axioms and syllogisms to those not taught to infer logically, but to help people think — in Boghossian's view, not by attacking the specifics of people's religion, but by dissecting faith as inherently absurd in contrast to reason. His point is that what you should argue for isn't atheism, per se, but that your goal should be to just disturb people's faith while leaving their specific religion alone. This will cause an unravelling in them as they continue their outwards religious observances while internally pondering how faith really is different from reason. And the truth is that the religious are plagued by recurring moments of doubt. Once they learn the folly of faith, they'll start asking questions, but questions will only worsen the doubt (that's the trick). And so, with any luck, the walls of the prison of faith become apparent even to them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine- Playing the Devil's Advocate[edit]

While there is no concrete evidence for effectiveness but here is an argument for (possible) effectiveness (not saying I support CAM 100%, there is a little support)- I could argue if a group of 250 people had AIDS and each took an herb for symptoms. Lets say out of the 250 people 40 people reported symptom improvement; my argument here is that someone's physiology could be different from another person resulting in a different effect ranging from no improvement to seemingly be healthy.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the power of experimental controls. If 40 also report symptom improvement with a placebo, you can be fairly confident that there's no meaningful changes going on there. If 230 report improvement with standard-of-care treatment, then it's especially irrelevant. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
To confirm the results, I would run every medical test I could (Blood test, urine test, stool test, CT scan, MRI, spinal tap and anything else I may have missed). The point, to document the physiological effects of the conventional treatment (anti-retroviral drugs) vs. Alternative treatment (Herbal remedy). I am not saying you are wrong nor trying to be rude, just engaging in a friendly debate.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
More tests != more patients improved. Rather than running an incredibly expensive barrage of medical tests, real studies just increase the sample size. (Increasing the sample size allows researchers to avoid the need for those tests, because with more people there's a higher chance that the control and experiment group will be comparable in most respects other than the treatment. See "Rule of Large Numbers" for more.) And with a large sample size, if placebo does as well as herbal, then there's no reason to believe that herbal is effective. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
While I have a fair understanding of natural science (observation, hypothesis, experiment (if it fails to produce your hypothesis then redo hypothesis then experiment again), theory and what not) but actually doing the technical stuff, in this case a medical experiment I am clueless as I do not have the best understanding of medical science.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It can be a little bit daunting, jumping from the scientific method to an in-depth understanding of the different kinds of research studies and quasi-experiments, what each value contained within means, and what those values are worth. We had a whole course on research and experimental design that required passing before you took any other courses in my Psychology degree because of how complex and important it is for anything else you could learn to matter. I'm trying to find an online resource to refresh me since I'm hopefully going back to school, if I find someone who has figured out how to explain two-way analysis of variance in a fun way I'll be sure to share it with everyone. Diogenes of Wilmington (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
When I was in the 12th grade we were learning about the physics of astronomy in astronomy class and the teacher had us use these machines (I guess that what it would be called?) to measure muons. Anyways I wanted to see the effects of muons on microorganisms but I was told by the teacher it would take too long. However I probably would have not have understood the logistics to do such an experiment.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Who else qualifies as a 'strong' atheist on Dawkins' atheism scale? - Long-winded narrow-minded atheist rant.[edit]

Grade 7 (or 10 in other variations) is defined as being '100% certain that God doesn't exist' and that's where I personally stand. That seems to be a rather small minority among atheists. Most prefer a 'median' view which can be summarized as follows:

"accept the evidence contravening religion but other than that make sure not to go no further in being 100% sure in claiming 'God doesn't exist' but instead indulge a healthy kind of epistemological skepticism until we can actually prove what's going on beyond the limitations of the human mind."

I disagree wholeheartedly with this perspective. In my view, it can be demonstrated 'beyond any doubt' that all religious variations are constructs of the human mind and couldn't possibly be anything further than that if we wish to apply logic consequently and abandon socially and psychologically-induced reservations or other considerations. Of course when I mean 'apply logic', I imply that the mechanisms underlying organized human intellectual production are fairly well understandable and fathomable by the human mind providing thorough study and education. In other words I imply that history, man and society have a inward 'logic' that motivates them although that's not the same as saying that man and society have 'meaning' to them.

Imagine natural selection; it's a process that follows certain mechanisms that reproduce and re-assemble (in infinite and irreproducible variations) themselves ad infinitum but the process doesn't have any 'final' or 'deeper' meaning to it and therefore, contrary to conciliatory and diplomatic language by Dawkins when dealing with the common theistic worry over what natural selection entails for the 'meaning of life', the answer should be a resounding and 'shrill' NO! In fact we should boldly remark that not only is natural selection irrelevant to the meaning of life but that's it's furthermore at odds with a meaning of life. In order to bridge this unbridgeable gap, certain anemic constructs like 'theistic evolution' or flirtations with Buddhism, Hinduism etc. have popped up. But these are nothing more than efforts to derive or rescue out of the Ought and Is and merge the two in sanctified matrimony. This is reasonable, practical, useful and understandable in certain anthropological and social respects.

But it is logically inconsequent i.e. it is a refracted, abridged, particularized image of human reality and its (unwitting) function is to dissipate and disseminate objective falsehood. Of course, whatever argument we use to the end of disproving God, no matter how advanced or how insightful, it could and would still be fought effectively (from the social NOT the logical perspective, because if falsehood 'provides social cohesion' (cf. the RW article on the persecution complex) then it is no wonder that skeptics have been an untidy minority in history. E.g. while Plato's works survived the storms of the ages, the volumes upon volumes of works by relativists and skeptics like the Sophists were lost. Why?

Because fewer people saw fit to copy them and that can't have been a simple coincidence) by opposing arguments no matter how false or blemished these are. The case could really be made that the human mind and by extension the human social world cannot do without metaphysical substances and hypostatizations. But just because our reality functions this way doesn't mean at all that the reality of existence as a whole obeys the paradigm of spiritual meaning. In fact, because the human world itself has no meaning (this can be proved) that can only mean one thing: existence doesn't have a meaning to it either which also means that the universe itself came into being ex nihilo i.e. out of pure chance. But not only 'existence' itself but each and every human being too is the result of pure chance. But still, we were made in the image of the world we inhabit.

Our structure is programmed by the impersonal machinations of natural selection to 'help' us be. Your puny biological structure has evolved to accommodate the ever-present force of gravity. Your dewy eyes have evolved to process ever-present light. The universe itself appears neither 'chaotic' nor 'ordered'. It is a tug and tango between both aspects. This can only mean one thing: In the beginning, there was neither a supreme chaotic nor an ordered aspect. There was 0. Existence is non-existence inside out. The 'existence' of either is relative matter and can only seem as 'irrelevant' because it is relative. But 'relative' is not the opposite to 'absolute'. It is the opposite to 0. For indeed, what number is neither infinite nor finite? Let's answer briefly and curtly with 0. Gewgtweg (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if you could give an executive summary on this as I'm finding it a little hard to follow.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The question is basically this: where do you stand on Dawkins' atheism scale? How 'sure' are you of your atheism? Here I tried to briefly elaborate my own stance on the matter. I am 100% certain of my atheism meaning that I find 'agnostic' arguments like 'we can neither prove nor disprove' untenable and safely refutable from a logical point of view. In case you want me to explain something more specific: specify. Gewgtweg (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty close to the end of the scale but, for the same reasons that Dawkins makes I'm not there.
The thing is that there is a difference between "belief" and "knowledge". Here are some things that I don't believe to be true: gods exist, the Loch Ness Monster exists, homeopathy works, fairies exist, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world.
Can I say with absolute certainty that these things will ever be proved to not be true? No, I can't, as my knowledge is not absolute. But do I realistically believe that we are going to find evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Obviously not.
Apart from this there is the added complication that "God" is almost never properly defined. Some gods are obviously less likely than others and it is certainly possible to define "god" in such a way that it does exist.
For example, I might say that "God" is the keyboard upon which I am typing this message. The keyboard exists - wow God exists!
Don't believe people use this logic? It's the same line used by the people who say: "God is love" or "God is the universe" or "God is energy".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I can say that the Loch Ness monster can be proved to be an urban myth or what we call 'folklore', just like fairies. You can't call the monster's nonexistence into question without also questioning our conviction that folklore is fiction. Do you know of any other folkloric story that turned out to be true? Why should we give the Loch Ness monster in particular the benefit of the doubt?
Also I can prove that homeopathy demonstrably (see RW article) doesn't work and that it's impossible that a teapot is in orbit around Saturn because teapots are universally human-made objects and because we haven't ever let any teapot out into space.
We can also be certain that no flying spaghetti monster exists because monsters also don't exist. Instead, this creature is a figment of atheist imagination and demonstrates the point that the creations of human imagination (like Gods) cannot have material existence. They can be created and re-created at will, therefore they have no empirically identifiable material substance. On the other hand 200 Ibs gravel is 200 Ibs gravel. Gravel is a material substance that we can express in quantity and quality confidently and reliably i.e. universally.
The same however cannot be said for Gods and that's why they're vague and never 'properly defined'. To expect that they ever could in the first place be 'properly defined' is a leap of faith. Therefore, until a divinity appears before me and gives me a handshake I am 100% justified in 'believing' or 'knowing' (words do NOT matter here) that divinities are 100% non-existent.
Why do you say that some gods are more likely than others? What makes the Christian God more likely than Zeus or Jupiter? And to put it another way what makes the Roman God (Jupiter) more likely than the Greek God (Zeus)? What makes the Arabic God (Allah is the Arabic word for God) more likely than the American God which is just the English word for the same thing? What makes Spinoza's pantheistic God more likely than Washington's deistic God? What makes the theistic God more likely than the atheistic God? Just joking there. The fact that these things are, as you see, vague doesn't make it more logically difficult to disprove them, in fact it makes all the more easy to strike them down and smoke them out like the sophistries and feeble falsehoods they are.
Those who defined God in such a way wish to insinuate that: 'God is in all things', 'God is the principle of existence' or that 'God sets everything in motion' etc.; A kind of pantheistic or panentheistic, mechanistic belief. That's really not so different than the belief of some occultists or New-Age followers that quantum mechanics somehow makes magic possible or the older belief of mystics that 'magic is a natural thing not yet understood' or 'magic is a natural thing we're not quite able to rationally understand'. Caricaturing these beliefs just like you did doesn't prove them wrong. It just proves that they're vague or self-referential.
You want a definition of the Christian God? It is this: a merger or marriage or identification of the true On (Sein) with the true Deon (Sollen) where the ultimate objectiveness, the ens realissimum is a function of ethical reason and vice-versa. How do you prove that wrong? You show using historical evidence that (the binding definition of) 'ultimate objectiveness' is a function not of 'ethical reason' aka moral absolutism but instead of moral relativism. In other words you need to show that 'objectivity' is not 'ultimate' and 'reason' is not 'ethical' at all. Moral objectivity is only apparently moral and ultimate reason (essentially 'Der ultimative Geist' of Hegel) is only apparently ultimate.
So did I convince you that God is 100% unreal or do you still stand lower on the scale? I can guess the answer with 100% certainty! .)
From an epistemological perspective, I think you're confusing "very very likely" with "can be proven demonstrably true". It's easy to prove a hypothesis false; just find a counterexample, provided there is one. It's very difficult (some would argue impossible) to prove a hypothesis true, and that's what you're trying to do when you say "there aren't any teapots in orbit around Saturn" or "God definitely does not exist". Until you've examined every single inch of space within Saturn's gravitational well, you can't say with 100% certainty that there aren't any teapots floating around there. You can say it's so unlikely that for any realistic purpose we can assume your hypothesis is true. There's a difference there, though. B) talk 20:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying 'It is very (how much really?) difficult to prove a hypothesis true but easy to prove it is false'. How does that principle work? How can it be easy to swim 10 meters but very difficult to swim another 10 back? Really? The only way to prove batman doesn't really exist is to check out every nook and every cranny of every rooftop and every dirty alley in every city? If you CAN prove something as true you automatically prove something else false and if you CAN prove something is false you automatically prove something else true. The question then becomes, what you CAN logically do and what you CAN logically not do.
In other words, the issue is whether you remain on the level of hypothesis or conjecture or have justifiable reasons to move further than that (though still I think people just make conjectures in order to express what the instinct or 'sense' has already decided. Put otherwise, safe limits cannot be placed, between hypothesis, experiment, conclusion etc.).
On matter of whether pixies, ghosts etc. exist there are justifiable reasons to rule them out. I cannot rule them out by 50% of the way or just 90% of the way. Either I rule them out, or I state that I am not able to tell whether they exist or not or state I don't care (as in:let's have a change of subject, let's talk about chicks and rides and pizza). Nobody really entertains the position of 'uncertainty' in real life. Either they believe in some sort of spiritual realm or spirit (regardless what exactly) or they don't. And let's face it. Positivists don't. So the reason they insist in epistemological skepticism or what I call 'self-defeating doubt' or 'irrational doubt' is because they understand religions etc. as illiberal and dogmatic by nature and so they understand, in stark contrast, the nature of their own philosophy as lacking any sort of check on freedom. Indeed, it's so free it's ritualistically obliged to put itself in doubt. Ancient brands of skepticism did much the same thing.
'There's a difference there though' Uh... no there isn't. If something is 'unlikely for any realistic purpose' then it simply just ain't true and that's the end of that. Shit or get off the pot. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Associated with the difficulty of not being able to prove a negative is the point I make about the distinction between knowledge and belief. I do not believe any gods or fairies exist - but without absolute knowledge I cannot say I know this with 100% certainty.
With regard to some gods being more or less likely than others. Imagine that a person claims they have a God they speak to daily and who always carries out whatever prayer they put to it. Here we have a clear testable claim of real-world intervention. We can ask the individual to pray and view the results. The more that is claimed for god the more its existence becomes testable.
At the other end of the scale we have the deist god who is claimed to have created the universe and then somehow got lost or died or whatever. Nothing is claimed in respect of this god as far as real-world intervention is concerned and thus it is impossible to detect and test.
Perhaps ironically, the more that is claimed for a god the easier it is to actually disprove the god exists. Meanwhile, the less that is claimed for a god the harder it is to actually demonstrate its non-existence - though it becomes increasingly less relevant the further it is moved from the real world.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
So knowledge is certain and beliefs are uncertain? 'Difficulty of not being able to prove a negative'? Ok, so here's a few negatives: 'Evolution never happened', 'Global warming ain't true' 'The Holocaust never occurred'. 'Aliens never visited the earth'. 'Blacks were never any good for society'. 'Hitler had never wanted war'. So are these things difficult to prove or are they difficult to disprove? If I said 'Evolution happened', Global warming is real' etc. then would it all suddenly become easier to prove? These logical dead ends prove that obviously your assertion has no practical logical value. It's just meant to fight against my assertion that 'God doesn't exist'.
If however you want to really contest my assertion then you will have to try to show that indeed there are concrete, I repeat, concrete (not just rhetorical or 'epistemological' or 'methodological' proofs) reasons to think that God does exist. You have to offer a plausible counterargument. You must say that there are reason to think that deities DO answer prayers (even if selectively) or that indeed they made the world. In the absence of such proofs atheism is logically invincible. If you have reasons to be 'skeptical' about my claim then try to beat it down and cast actual doubt. But you will never manage to actually do that if you just use the words ' I doubt it'. If you can't score, don't move the goalposts. In other words: shit or get off the pot.
'The more it is claimed for a God the easier it is so disprove they don't exist'. So for example is Zeus easier to disprove than Thor because we've been on the summit of mount Olympus and found no deities (perhaps they moved out?) while on the other hand Thor is harder to disprove because 'Asgard' hasn't been explored yet? Every serious study of theology knows how much has been claimed about Christianity too. We'll never be able to interpret the how and why that awesome diversity came to be exactly if we used your crude terminological tools. The scientific study of religion, (just like the scientific study of language for example) is actually a thing. And because we study religion, a part of the 'real world' of human society, we're able to explain it in a way that it can't explain itself. In doing that, we disprove it. So how much a given theology or philosophy is 'distant' from the real world doesn't matter. Religions are always distant from the real world in an ontological sense.
Your individual would never do that. What kind of God with a bit of self-respect would carry out 'every prayer I put to it'? Even the Genie gives you three wishes. And after all the individual might claim that his God is shy when it comes to strangers. But jokes aside, if someone claims God speaks to him and does whatever they ask, then that's no proof of the existence of some God. It is rather proof of the existence of mental facilities. About Deism, it is claimed that God crated a self-sustaining universe with its own 'laws' to govern itself and then wanted to have nothing more to do with it. He just went off to 'rest' (as in the Genesis) and take a nap apparently. And yes it is possible to test this God. Just shake the deist's head to check if any God is clinking inside. You can't explain the deist God. What you can historically (i.e. scientifically) explain is how, when and why deism arose. History provides all the answers and I'll give them in a 'The Grand Synthesis of modern-era rationalism and the Enlightenment in it' which I will be posting as an essay (de facto volume) here. Let the RW community mark the words: The Grand Synthesis. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Life is short. Could you give me the executive summary?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Life's short indeed but understanding human social reality (of which the intellectual/spiritual endeavor is but one facet) requires an enormous deal of labor. In other words it demands a longtime commitment of our pitiably 'short' life. Nevertheless you might want to have a preferably short look at the introductory chapters to the work here: (the one on 'rationalism and irrationalism' is not complete) (The Grand Synthesis). It has not been extensively edited yet so there might be a few grammar or spelling errors. Should you find one, feel free to correct me. Gewgtweg (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a topic they want to see in Fun:The world as a RW talk page?[edit]

-DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thirty Years War. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't know if it is a good Idea, but GamerGate maybe? There is some Comedy Potential there that i couldn't tap into.--Benaresh (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Haiti ca. 1780-1810, unfortunately we don't have many experts on that here. Worzelpete (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, how about a light-hearted subject? The Middle East conflicts for instance? Worzelpete (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

15 things to NEVER say to an atheist[edit]

A good video by an atheist.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 06:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Addiction Initiative[edit]

So this may be a dangerous conflict of interest, I'm still reading up on the official policy and style guides after being a reader over the years, but I figured one interest and passion to pursue while recovering from addiction could be doing research on the harmful pseudoscience and crank ideas surrounding addiction/recovery. I'm already doing research for my own personal benefit and found that our resources on here are a bit lacking, which is fine, it provides a large canvas to work with. I do not want to be fucked over by investing time or money in potentially harmful practices, and if I can spend twenty minutes a day typing up what I find to help someone else then I'm happy to.

My reason for posting is that I don't know if addiction, something I currently struggle with, is something to avoid because of my personal connection to it- the last thing I want to do is potentially harm the integrity of Rational Wiki. This could be even more dangerous if I'm taken up by some snake oil salesman and begin trying to promote bullshit on here. Pretty confident I would be banned, which would be the right course of action.

Anyhow, in some capacity, I look forward to working with all of you.

Diogenes of Wilmington (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I always found the concept of addiction to be confusing. I say go for it. I noticed that the drug section of the site is quite lacking. By the way, can I ask what you are recovering from. If you don't feel comfortable, you don't have to answer.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 06:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me if I mess up formatting, code has never been my strong suit. So basically I was on Methylphenidate since I was around six or so and began taking the short acting Dexmethylphenidate when I was around thirteen in the afternoon as a 'boost' for doing homework, all of this prescribed by my former neurologist who is one of the most respected in the state. So shit goes fine, peachy even, up until junior year of college which is about the age of 21 if your country has a different school system. I start missing classes for reasons other than anxiety, I start sleeping for up to twenty hours no problem. Thirty hours even at times, only getting up to go to the bathroom. I feel drained from what we then called my sleep disorder, and we upped my Methylphenidate and Dexmethylphenidate to compensate because without them I just slept all the time.
It seems obvious in hindsight that my body was dependent on Methylphenidate and Dexmethylphenidate to function but at the time a few factors obscured this- primarily that as my grades started slipping the pressure to do well and do whatever it takes to simply function rose. I don't blame my parents for the effect this had, but looking back, I probably would not have pushed myself dosage wise as much if I did not want to get those D's back up to C's. We also suffered a death in the family of one of my mother's sisters, and a week later suffered the death of my mother's last remaining sister causing my depression to worsen- and what pushes up those dopamine levels? Drugs. Drugs that you can mentally justify as for studying when really they are just to let you focus and care about something. I was also triple cast that semester doing theater, and learning those lines and staying up for those rehearsals is demanding.
So two years pass, my friends graduate while I gradually took less and less courses each semester resulting in me having an unfinished degree. I tried to navigate the university's incredibly obtuse bureaucracy to apply for retroactive medical cancellation of the courses I bombed and in a different department apply for medical leave. Turns out, I did not get medical leave, but I did return home to live with my parents and focus on figuring out my mystery illness.
Went to a new psychiatrist, he changed up my medications, nothing changed- but it became clear that I was not functioning without some sort of stimulant. My therapist, who sometimes dips into the woo more than I would like, suggested the Amen Clinic due to their use of the cutting edge SPECT scans. Bit of a mixed bag with this because while the data is incredible, the solutions suggested are lacking. Seeing the blood flow of my brain match someone with brain damage validated that something was wrong and that I was not lazy. Good. The fact that we glossed over the suggested diagnosis of heavy drug abuse in favor of Lime Disease bullshit? Very bad. All the cutting edge data in the world is worth jack shit if the proposed solution is an organization called Internal Medicine of Northern Virginia. They are a little weird, as they seem to promote evidence based care while also having many doctors who take unconventional stances on lyme. I was not taken in by hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) but did have many tests done, went on many antibiotics, and ultimately wasted time.
So I'm financially well off, this sucked but did not ruin us, and we got lucky/unlucky when my concierge doctor mentioned a patient with idiopathic hypersomnia treated by an antibiotic as part of a study by some incredible doctor. I'm cutting this story a bit short but basically this guy found a type of hypersomnia caused by a transmitter fucking with the GABA receptors and has an antibiotic to treat it. I got a spinal tap, the results I don't think we ever got, and he decided to let us try the antibiotic. It did not work, but his actual study is very well done and for people who have the rare disorder the successful treatment rate is about 70%. Fascinating guy and very refreshing after coming from Cronin Lime Controversy land.
Months passed, and eventually my parents just figured it out. I went to rehab for five days, slept non-stop, and left early because I was basically just using the room and not the very expensive programs. I'm on Modafanil now, which I'm already struggling to control, and now have to figure out what path to take. Do I attempt to gain self-control while on the drug, building it up and unlearning my behaviors alongside changing my environment? Or do I go cold turkey, which so far has resulted in me being non-functional? The answer probably should not come from me, and will likely come from my new psychiatrist. Anti-depressants are helping a good deal, and while I'm in a shitty chapter of my life I'm accepting it and trying to work towards a better one.
Long story, but for the past two years it's been my whole life trying to figure out what is wrong and how to get back to living life. I also am a huge fan of movies.
Diogenes of Wilmington (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the lime place had brochures for Morgellons disease which was an instant red flag for me. Even as someone who subscribed to The Skeptics Society's magazine at the time, I just finally wanted something to fix me badly enough that I ignored it and justified it as being only one of the doctor's pet quackery. My mom just looked so tired, so in need of our medical mystery to be over, and I now understand more than ever how normal and even skeptical people can be taken in by snake oil.
My therapist insisted that IGeneX, Inc., Reference Laboratory be specifically requested as the center to do the testing, or maybe the Internal Medicine of Northern Virginia proposed it. I came back as negative on Lyme for what had to be the fifth time, but did test positive for having once had the tick-bourn infection known as human granulocytic anaplasmosis. I'm of the belief that this is only evidence I've been bit by a tick, something almost guaranteed by growing up in the Northeast, but they saw it as a rallying cry to begin a pulsing treatment with antibiotics.
Diogenes of Wilmington (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I, for one, look forward to new addiction woo pages. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 09:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Wowee, what a story. I'm glad to see you are alright and fighting strong. I read up on Dexmethylphenidate and the drug can "stack" (it stays in your system for a while) and you can get dangerously high doses by "stacking" the doses. Stimulates are not something to mess with. I am not a doctor, however, I would recommend going cold turkey while you're in a mental health facility (it's basically prison) or under the care of someone. You'll have the worst month or weeks of your life because of withdrawal effects, but it will be out of your system.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, looking into things now and there is so much debate since evidence based approaches to addiction are so new. Cold turkey is probably going to be what I need to do, is definitely going to suck, but will get better. One interesting thing was on how many state funded public centers perform better than expensive and world renowned rehab centers because they have more appropriately trained staff and an understanding that addiction goes beyond 30 days. The tricky thing is going to be what to do about having an underlying mental health issue, moderate to severe ADD, and how to treat that without enabling the addiction. Elimination of environmental triggers will help, and it makes me wish Atomoxetine had worked for me. CBT once again raises it's proud head as the solution to yet another problem.Diogenes of Wilmington (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Well thing is, no drug is going to cure your ADD. You have to either a) cope with it or b) use an ADD drug and then stop using it once you build tolerance instead of increasing the dose. It's worth noting that prolonged aderal usage actually "decreases [brain] abnormalities" in ADHD (not ADD) subjectsWikipedia's W.svg.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk)

Speaking of woo — I'd just like to point out that it's not possible for "the body to become dependent" on methylphenidate in any real sense (nor on or dextroamphetamines in therapeutic doses). Worth pointing out is also that, in therapeutic doses, while "tolerance" (used loosely) may indeed develop, stimulants will continue to excert an effect in a way that makes it dubious to suggest that dose escalation will have to be undertaken. Sure, for euphoria, but even very low doses are known to excert a neurological effect that is always relevant to the ultimate capability and mood of the patient. Thus, it's never "without effect", per se — unlike (for example) benzos or painkillers, which have actual physical depletion-dependence mechanisms inherent (after sufficient dose escalation).

Also, CheeseburgerFace, you're completely right to point out that amphetamines in therapeutic doses are indeed proven promote long-term neurological health in ADHD patients. This is one of many reasons why long-term amphetamine administration in therapeutic doses is vital to promote the underlying cognitive health of otherwise healthy ADHD spectrum patients. On the contrary however, the idea of a "stacking effect" is disproven (and, in fact, chemically impossible due to the way kidney PH works) as long as therapeutic doses are maintained. To the extent that there is a "stacking effect", it's in a trivially true way — meaning, if you keep adding something faster than it is eliminated from the body (be it marshmallows or amphetamines), that process obviously can't go on forever.

Note also that ADD is being phased out as a separate diagnosis (and should no longer be used), as it is now considered a part of the ADHD spectrum (specifically, ADHD-PI or "predominantly inattentive"). Very interesting discussion, anyways — I also have much knowledge on the topic, both from my history of addiction, my adult ADHD (ADHD-C) and from my autodidactic, yet highly meticulous, understanding of pharmacology, psychology, physiology and related factors. I'm currently really tired (and on alprazolam) so I won't be adding more to this discussion tonight. But thanks for bringing it up guys, great stuff.

An example of one of our "drug articles" that I've been trying to improve is the one on nootropics, but didn't get past adding some of the essential sources here. Please read through it as an example of a drug article where we've got sources compiled, but have yet to implement them into the text. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't bold or stress in therapeutic doses enough. My doctor, who is highly respected, based a lot of his higher dosage on research articles and studies I now wish I had formally requested- because while I don't want to doubt his due diligence, I believe somewhere between the researchers, him, and myself the potential risk for addiction was not stressed. The cost, benefit, and risk of this was not discussed- somewhere there was a failure other than my gradual slipping into higher and higher doses. Someone should have caught this given all the doctors I saw, and to me that illustrates an ignorance of addiction, dependence, and related issues on my part and the doctors.
I'm glad you caught the ADD misstep, when I was diagnosed it was a seperate disorder and I should have clarified that I was diagnosed with ADD at the time. I'm going to get new testing done to see where I am on the spectrum, but even before then I would love to talk to you more on my talk page about your experiences with adult ADHD and how you manage to apply yourself and function. If you're too busy or not comfortable, no worries. I think one thing is I crave hyperfocus because with my depression/addiction I've lost most of the passion for things I once had. Getting them back though!
Lastly, thanks for the example article. Hard learning without an example, but I'm likely looking at nootropics for personal reasons while focusing my writing on non-pharmaceutical addiction treatment since my education in biochemistry is lacking. My psychology background is pretty strong thanks to a few great teachers that showed me how Psychology is not just a soft science, it is a highly detailed science when research is done correctly.Diogenes of Wilmington (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that lovely reply! I'd very much be interested in taking on your questions (and just generally discussing) ADHD, drugs, medicines, addiction and all that comes with the diagnosis. I'm also in love with my hyperfocus, and after a long and arduous path, I've learned so much more about it — on how medicines can help it, and on how it's not really dependent on medicines either. It's all a complex topic, but there is some "method in the madness", I've found.
On the topic of nootropics — if you're just getting into it more seriously (and all the same if you've been into it for long) — you should (re)affirm a skeptical overview of the topic.
Regarding addiction, both to illicit substances (and alcohol or tobacco) and to medicines, it's important to remember that it may not have been the drugs or medicines themselves that actually constituted the entire cause, nor entire effect, in relation to your addiction.
Further, regarding psychology, it is a field in which it's very important to take in the relatively recent development known as the replication crisis and considering the implications that it has (just as generally overviewing the current issues in study publishing).
Science is still (read: always) the way to go, and there's no alternative that comes near, but it's important to take in that psychology in particular is a bit contentious. Largely, this is inherent to the field, as psychology is where science tries to do its best to make sense in a realm ultimately belonging to the (most vexing) field of philosophy known as philosophy of mind. I just tossed up some general content on it on my talkpage, and I advise you to dive into any and all of the links that pique your interest. And just for the record, I posted some other links on psychology on another talkpage just the other day. Anyhow — all the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Anti-MRA slogan I just thought up[edit]

'Men's rights are for pussies!'. Gewgtweg (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering that they think they are sensible promoters of equality, they'd probably point the finger at you and say : " See! Thats a misogynist, we are on Your side!" (well maybe 30% of them the rest will be "triggered")
How about "MRA's hate Pussy!" ? Anyway you don't need a Slogan to fight them, call them SJW and tell them to man up if you want to set them off. Heck insist that they are Cucks and Fags and you can start a Flame war between Trolls and MRA`s.
Theoretical you could try to debate them, but i rather bash my Head against the Wall. I tried that once when i voiced my Opinion, that Sonya Blade in MK vs. DC was dressed to slutty for my Taste. Hooh Boy! The mental Gymnastics these People are capable of. It went bad enough that they attacked each other. Anyway that was the story, on why i deleted my first Youtube account.--Benaresh (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Because that seems confrontational and doesn't rightfully acknowledge the reasons why someone might oppose the MRA movement such as it is: that it mainly exists as a vehicle for opposing measures for gender equality. Divorced of that aspect and the pernicious misogyny that seems to follow in its wake, it would, in name, be a positive movement we could all support. Being directly antagonistic to that name and the implied positives seems counterproductive. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 05:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That is quite levelheaded and rational ikanreed. And i wish i was calm enough to debate them rationaly. Usually i try to trick them to expell their shallow Cover of civility, to expose the seething rage below the facade, and now i feel like i am part of the Problem, fueling their persecution complex. :( --Benaresh (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh you don't need to tell me about being excessively confrontational. There's a reason why my signature says "You probably didn't deserve that". Very human of you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WE NEED SSL[edit]

I know I brought this up a few months ago, but since the snoopers charter passed us Brits need to secure our internet. Having a site of this size with no SSL is unacceptable, especially with the anti-surveillance position this site takes. With letsencrypt/certbot anyone with basic command line knowledge could do it in 10 mins. THIS IS VERY LONG OVERDUE. Threadnaught (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hear hear. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
As the above fundraiser draws to a close, the board will continue exploring how to best go about updating the mediawiki software to a current-gen version, with all the fixes and improvements such an upgrade implies. Alongside better mobile support, SSL is certainly among the very top priorities in that software shift. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Here here. I've been delaying bringing this up, but I am glad somebody did.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 23:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's actually been on the to-do list since atleast 2013, but with our fundraiser succeeding and with the dedication from the members of the current Goat Squad RMF board of trustees, we'll actually be moving forward with it all in the coming [X UNITS OF TIME]. (Read: ETA is "when it's done") Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I have previously noted "this shit is doing my head in, I'm keeping the lights on for now". I considered Let's Encrypt, but that would only be feasible terminating at the Apache servers and we really need it at the load balancer, and that means asking Linode to add it and that means LE is a pain in the arse as you do this every three months. So it should be the longest term cert we can get and then put it on the load balancer - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
(I made https://rocknerd.co.uk SSL today and it took 10 minutes to make it SSL and another 50 to work out which images on the page were being served as http:// . It's piss easy if you directly control putting the cert on 'cos then you can auto-update. If you have to ask your provider to put your cert on, it's a goddamn PITA and you totally don't want to do that.) - David Gerard (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Certain images will be served as HTTP? Why not have it all encrypted?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
There's http://rationalwiki.org hard-coded in a shitload of places, and that would all need changing to protocol-neutral //rationalwiki.org URLs. (That's a job a bot could and probably should do, and could do right now - all current browsers do protocol-neutral transparently.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Would you like me to run a bot sometime that switches links to //rationalwiki.org style? Test 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 11:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You would need to know what you're doing, where and why - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
http://rationalwiki.org --> //rationalwiki.org for all pages for SSL purposes is pretty damn simple. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I strongly advise you to proceed with great caution, there's dependencies of dependencies that are fucked up in all manner of ways. It is possible that overconfident application of a bot would be stupid - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Starting a (legit) interfaith seminary[edit]

I am curious on how someone could start an (accredited) interfaith seminary? The main issue is there is no (real) precedent for a school like that. I know a Seminary generally offers Master of Divinity, Master of Theology, Master of Arts, Master of Ministry, Doctor of Ministry, Doctor of Theology and Doctor of Philosophy degrees. Now the pressing question- how would a seminary like what was mentioned gain actual accreditation? There are plenty of accredited schools that offer degrees based on religions other than Christianity. I would assume the best way to start would be National Accreditation.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

First questions should be things like what would be the purpose, how would it work, how would it be funded, who would it recruit, etc. etc.? Accreditation would be one of many factors to consider if it seems a feasible proposition, but really shouldn't be a starting point. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I feel stupid, I know better yet that was the first thing to come to mind. For having a campus, I would say buy land seized by a bank or go to an auction to buy land, then start a fund raiser to build the classroom buildings, financial offices, admin buildings and leisure areas plus dorms. Then the school would need a good marketing strategy to let people know the school is out there, raise money via fundraiser for supplies and salaries for staff (people do not like to work for free and people need money to pay bills), then comes hiring the staff, if it were me I would try to hire people fresh out of seminary or graduate school (grads fresh out of school would probably take the job on the spot to pay off loans), after getting staff I would come up with a curriculum then come up with a reasonable tuition to attract students; if a school is affordable then more people would come. Also I would set up meetings with other accredited schools for an articulation agreement so credits would transfer making potential students want to enroll. Okay, I came up with this on the spot and chances are this plan does not have enough detail. Feel free to correct me and criticize the (poorly) thought of idea. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Something confusing about Fundie schools[edit]

Why is it that some will not allow non-Christians to enter yet for others it is perfectly fine to enter? By enter I mean enroll. For those who do not allow non-Christians, did they not stop to think they could potentially convert potential students by teaching them about their beliefs.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"did they not stop to think"? I would remind you that we're talking about fundie schools here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I had a moment of stupidity. Of course they don't think at all! Maybe they should take a minute and actually think but that won't happen.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
To take your question a bit more seriously, Christian schools can be open to non-Christians for a variety of reasons, like the potential for conversion, it giving them the appearance of tolerance and openness towards others, a genuine interest in cross-religious/cross-cultural dialogue or simply them not bothering to put students through a religious litmus test. Some schools care about some of the former reasons, some don't. Religious people, like any other people, can vary greatly in the things they care about. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And tuition fees. It's great to get people to pay you to proselytize them. nobs 07:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Could increasing automation and mechanisation be the cause of THAT conflict between humans and AI?[edit]

On Monday, 5 December 2016, Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England revealed himself to be socialist by endorsing the redistribution of wealth. See video.

Haha.

Seriously though, he said, in a wide-ranging speech, "every technological revolution mercilessly destroys jobs well before the new ones emerge". His speech brought back this idea, (I'll admit, not an original one), that has been swirling around in my head for a while now. I envisage a future conflict between humans and machines caused by something as simple, yet as complex, as blue-collar jobs. I which envisage a future where robots, as they are beginning to, replace the blue-collar worker, thus causing a schism between the two, much like the schism between native blue-collar workers and outsiders "who come in and do the work for cheap" (undercutting wages). Inevitably, there will be a backlash against the robots, much like there has been against immigrant blue-collar labourers. I imagine blue-collar workers attacking robots - criminal damage, vandalism, etc. All it would take in response to this is for corporations to either create robots to defend other robots (creating a further schism between the security workforce and robots), or programme robots to defend themselves, which will require some sort of central or individual AI and...Armageddon. I'm just spit-balling here, but think about it: self-service, mechanized car-manufacturing factories, Amazon delivering via drones, hell, Amazon just launched an operation with no human workforce. Point is, if anything leads to a conflict between machines and humans, it's likely to be economics and labour (both of which are inexorably linked), and humans are likely to be the instigators. And the tragic thing is, it's inevitable. You can hate free trade, free market, globalism, supply and demand all you want, but they are, in their own way, forces of nature. This isn't to say, however, that there is no solution, and simple as it may sound, the solution is this: redistribution of wealth - aka socialism--Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Instead of Robots vs. Humans id rather go with Pro Tech vs. Luddites for the lack of a better Label. It seems to be all but certain that Labour itself is on the way out, in all walks of life. Post Work Society? idk that whole buisness isn't looking very clear to me yet, but it seems that we have seen the consequences of the increasing automatisation, all around the World, in the form of rising unemployment. So it isn't really a us vs. machines and more of a wtf are we humans supposed to do now? --Benaresh (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. @Levi, redistribution of wealth as a possible solution is where I think you're right, as is growing unrest as automation takes over more and more jobs. And it's probably not just going to be blue-collar workers. I'd be willing to bet AI will start writing code soon, putting developers out of business; AI will be a better, more precise surgeon than a human hand (though other medical positions may take a lot longer to go); really, I think computers are coming for all the jobs, except for some precious few for which human emotions/interpretations are strictly necessary. This is all just assuming better and better weak AI, too; strong AI would be earthshaking, much more quickly. Like Benaresh, I'm a lot more skeptical of any human-machine direct conflict like you describe, though, at least in terms of Hollywood "robots vs. us" scenarios. I think humans fighting humans is much more likely. B) talk 14:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The Swiss voted over 76% against the introduction of a Guaranteed Basic Income in a referendum earlier this year.

The effect of continued job losses due to robots and automated production was one of the primary issues cited during the debates. The mere fact that the idea, which could have seen every adult Swiss citizen recieve a tax free monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs($2,555 ; £1755 at that time), even made it as far as a public vote should probably be regarded as a sign of progress. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060 not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Right!THAT was on the back of my mind when i was writing my comment. That referendum was the Reason i read up on the whole Post-work discussion in Germany, that was started thanks to the Swiss. And yet i alomst forgot about that. o_O --Benaresh (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

forum vs saloon bar[edit]

this user enquires the reason for maintaining the saloon bar when rationalwiki possesses a seperate forum section on-site.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 13:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

oh Hey ! So you are the Guy who talks about himself in the 3rd Person huh? Well i think a Saloon sounds nicer than a Forum. I feel like a Pleb when i have to go to the Forum in fact soemthing funny happened on the way to the Forum --Benaresh (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A fundie school that could make a (potentially) good RW article[edit]

I was thinking of adding the Seventh Day Adventist school known as Andrews University in Michigan. They are Young Earth Creationist and Homophobic yet considered a good school. Thoughts and opinions? Link- https://www.andrews.edu/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Idea

A second idea I had is have a list of Christian colleges and universities and their stance on evolution/age of the Earth.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I personally like to hear more about how a school like that works, or in the infamously inspiring words of Shia LeBouf: "DO IT! JUST DO IT!"--Benaresh (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I will go with my original idea about Andrews University then--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend against creating another stub article for a college or university that simply parrots what's on their web site. RW already has a discussion on education in Seventh-day Adventism. This is where anything unique about Andrews should go, at least to start. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
How do I delete a page, I just read this and I got started on it already. However it is not a stub per say but I can delete it. My bad, I didn't see this till after I actually created it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Update- the page is deleted, I deleted it myself--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate[edit]

What the hell is pizzagate ? Diacelium (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/5/13842258/pizzagate-comet-ping-pong-fake-news Hipocrite (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Ask nobs, he's a full-throated believer. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
From what I gather: hare-brained alt-right conspiracy theory claiming that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta ran a child sex traffic ring out of a local pizza restaurant in Washington D.C. Came to prominence in the media recently due to a believer attempting to "investigate" the pizza place while toting a firearm. Think the Planned Parenthood shooting, but thankfully nobody was killed this time. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
All you need to do is take a relatively innocuous, common foodstuff, declare it to be a code word for child rape, and then magically you find all the "evidence" you could ever need out of any primary source that includes casual conversation. I'd call it "classic conspiratorial thinking" except that it's actually a special kind that only works in self-reinforcing communities, because you need someone to tell you that X secretly means Y. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Which probably answers(again) why resident "Conservative" Aneris was banned. Did he try to push that stuff as real?--Benaresh (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I was not sure myself but thanks for the info.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"All you need to do is take a relatively innocuous, common foodstuff, declare it to be a code word for child rape," The term pizza has been a code term used by pedophiles long before Pizzagate. It came from the fact that Child Porn and Cheese Pizza share the same acronym, CP. I used it on the Derp web adventure page which was written before Pizzagate was even thing. Despite this, Pizzagate is speculation and only speculation about an email thread from the Clinton leak. It's possible but there's no evidence.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Benaresh That is not why Aneris was banned. Reconstructing his statements accusing multiple people of pedophilia isn't a healthy topic for discussion, but suffice it to say it's unrelated to this incident. But this incident does show how defamation on discussion boards about the subject is not to be treated lightly, as it does have real ramifications.
@CheeseburgerFace, Let's be honest, that's obscure internet bullshit. That it's genuine obscure internet bullshit doesn't make it any less perfunctory and arbitrary. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a pedophile term, no shit it's obscure. When the last time you've talked about pedophilia? The term is mostly used on chans like 4chan and 8chan and on deep web documentation, how discovered the term.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Benaresh nobs is much more the resident conservative than Aneris was. I think a few others poke their heads in every once in a while too, despite the site's general tilt to the left. Aneris fancied himself more of a "classical" liberal from what I can tell, but still, most of his politics seemed center-left even by today's standards; at least by my interpretation. There were a few rather glaring inconsistencies, though. B) talk 23:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Sooo.... Did the FBI clear the pizza place after looking into Hillary's emails found on that guy charged with a sex crime involving a child who Bill Clinton married? Rest assured, if the FBI cleared them, we can have full confidence. nobs 07:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Dale-gribble-conspiracy-theories.jpg
WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFace CP: Clown Porn, Captain Picard, Cartesian Plane , Castrated Penis, and many more all found here look if that is the best you can do for why Pizzagate aint a really really really stupid Conspiracy then i am afraid you are not trying hard enough.
@Bshaw I realised that we have proper conservatives here. Instead of "Conservative" i probably should have stated Reactonary but that is kind of a fighting word. What do you mean by "classical" Liberal? Libertarian? those are conservatives who like Anarchy but not the Leftist Lingo that comes with it, like less extreme AnCaps. --Benaresh (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"Classical Liberal" = Libertarian who doesn't want to use the L word - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, if you're not going to bother reading the whole conversation and strawman, then don't bother talking. My argument was that Pizzagate has no evidence and that the term "pizza" is a pedophile term that wasn't a term pulled out of thin air for pizzagate. Because pizzagate has no evidence and the fact that the conpsiracies have become full blown stupid, there's no reason to believe it's real. For Christ sake, READ before talking out of your ass.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 16:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFace Sorry it wasn't intended as personal attack. but the way i understood it CP and Cheese Pizza was the thing the Conspiracy hinged on and i pointed out that it also could mean Clown Porn. I am not even sure why Pedos need secret lingo when Freenet and TOR offers them an Retreat. Are they still on TOR ? I think a lot of their big sites were taken down like Silkroad but yknow like Herpes they are hard to get rid of.--Benaresh (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It's okay. The term "Cheese pizza" is more of a joke from 4chan and 8chan than an actual term used by pedophiles, though from my research on Tor, the term is used, sparingly. "Pizza" just happens to be one of the real terms that the conspiracy gets right, all the others like "sauce" and "map", totally out of thin air. And yes, pedophiles do unfortunately exist on Tor (not TOR). I have documented them on the deep web page. Torland needs to focus on activism and surveillance circumvention than a place for illegal activity.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If Hillary had just used a State Department server, the Dems never held fund raisers at the pizza parlor, and Bill didn't ride Epstein's plane to fantasy island, none of this ever would have happened. nobs 18:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you seriously implying that a bunch of seriously random events are all somehow corralled into an entire nonsensical conspiracy theory? Are you gonna rope the Illuminati into this, too? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 18:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
After the FBI clears Hillary of wrongdoing because a guy charged with pedophilia has her illegal emails found on his server, a gun-totting nut parades into a DC pizza parlor and fires off a round. Mainstream sources would have us believe it's caused by their fake news amatuer competitors reporting on the facts mainstream news sources themselves report on. Honestly, I don't know what to believe. Even if the pizza parlor owner himself is DNC contributor who hosts DNC events, either. If I were him, I'd rethink some of my past associations and practices, as well. And the sources of my information. nobs 19:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry i am lost here. Do you blame the Owner of Pizza parlor for assosiation with the DNC as incitment of this incident? And no one but 4chan pushed the #pizzagate heck memecenter has a fucking timeline of that whole shit including the "Evil Hillary" Youtube Video that pushes that kind of shit. Don't even pretend that it was made up by the Media --Benaresh (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Troll --Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, answer me this: Which was a fake news story carried by mainstream media sources which may have impacted the outcome of a US presidential election?
(a) the Benghazi attack a spontaneous demonstration prompted by the Innocence of Muslims film, or
(b) child sex trafficking allegations in Hillary Clinton's stolen emails.
This us a relevant question because of the trending story Michael Flynn Jr, alleged to have spread fake news, was about to receive a security clearance. Hillary and the DNC's complicity in fake news with mainstream media outlets is well documented. nobs 20:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris I know i should stop this but i really really want to understand the line of reasoning here.
@nobs i take c) Stop deflecting please, #Pizzagate was now circa late for the Voting Party and Benghazi is as important to this discussion as Goat. I asked if you think the Owner is at fault for getting a gun nut into his Shop for being affiliated with the DNC and your Sentence "Hillary and the DNC's complicity in fake news with mainstream media outlets is well documented." has no basis in reality. Unless of course you can provide sources.--Benaresh (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
As Mark Leibovich of the New York Times Magazine recently put it, commenting specifically on the Hillary and Podesta email revelations, "there are in fact collusive aspects to these relationships". And what I heard about the owner's DNC connections did not come from Breitbart, Infowars, or WikiLeaks. It came, in explicit telling detail, over the CBS Radio network on a talk radio program. nobs 22:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you nobs. But i asked about sources on the "Hillary and the DNC's complicity in fake news" part. All you posted here was how the reporter that wrote the Article got treated for being in the leaked E-mails "Sarah Palin tweeted about me, Trump himself derided my actions in a stump speech and I’m pretty sure Bill O’Reilly just called on me to resign, if I’m reading the barrage of Twitter mentions correctly — and it is a barrage (or was before I stopped reading Twitter)." and Podesta was named twice sure but nothing else but named. In addition did i never doubt the DNC connection i asked you if the Owner is thusly at fault for the Gunman. --Benaresh (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No. I'm not saying he's at fault. I'm saying the day before the incident, I heard a quite detailed account over the CBS radio network about Comet Ping Pong, owner's, employees, and DNC fundraising activities. I don't recall which show it was, so finding a transcript at the moment is difficult. But I'm still willing to bet the owner, if he has any good business sense and judgement about the lives and safety of his employees and customers, is rethinking who he's willing to get involved with in the political sphere publicly. And why he needs to exercise such judgement. nobs 01:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A warning(particularly to nobs)[edit]

To quote David Gerard above:

You might think that "don't persistently use the wiki as a platform to try to make out living people are paedophiles" was a simple and obvious rule that anyone could see was a good idea and would have no problems following —David Gerard

Don't fucking do it. If you think people are being unfair by arguing against you when you do this. It doesn't matter. Cut it out. Not an okay use of the wiki. I really want this warning to fucking stick this time. Guilty until proven innocent is not a thing. Unless your exact framing is "Respectable Source Says Ycitation" call no one a pedophile please. Please. I'm begging you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm trying to stick to the fake news aspect and peripheral gun violence, which are important topics. nobs 23:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

While I (respectfully) disagree with Atheism, I don't see why other religious nuts mock them[edit]

I believe there are an never ending amount of Gods, people have to choose their own path. Wither you find your own beliefs or choose no belief, it is up to the person to find their own path. Even if atheists could be wrong (just a conjecture) and Christianity is right, I am sure God would be forgiving as long if someone was a good person and helped others unconditionally then they would get rewarded for living a good life. We must choose our own path.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that — in the hypothethical scenario that a theist designer God exists — there's no way that he would disapprove of us utilizing the very reason and doubt that he so thoughtfully endowed us with in the first place. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Then I hope your hypothetical God is as forgiving as you RZ. Many (perhaps most) deities are a somewhat less understanding, but with luck you have chanced on the right one.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just thinking — based on the premises that God loves us, wants us to be our "fullest selves", and that he designed us with foresight. He then proceeded to fake an old universe, hide all evidence of his involvement in its creation, and here we are — self-aware, doubtful, querulant, and with the ability to reason (somewhat). I mean, come on. For all I know, he's testing us — to see which of us will squander the gift of reason he's imparted on us. *shrugs* You can't disprove it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
On the subject of the origin of the universe (off subject, I know), it could be possible that the big bang occurred without divine intervention but on a different timeline where humans evolved to the point where they could go back in time to create the universe that we exist in (much like Godly beings).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Though, not as interesting as this article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

{reset) Or the Isaac Asimov story that can be summarised as 'computerdidit.'

For those so inclined Jesus said 'My Father's house (or possibly domain) has many mansions' - and how many people would see 'Purgatory as a sort of school detention equivalent where we "dealt with" all our little acts of naughtiness' (leaving hell to the really bad persons) as reasonable? Doing 'little acts of helpfulness and amusing others' in real life would lessen the detention. 86.191.127.2 (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What exactly did user Aneris do to get himself banned?[edit]

He seemed, you know, what we call 'rational'. But people are unpredictable aren't they? Gewgtweg (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The reasons behind Aneris' ban had nothing to do with his personality or qualities. He was a human being, just like everyone else here. Not worthless, not perfect. But, again, that's all irrelevant. He got himself banned because of the content of some of his discussions on RW leading the site into a legal gray zone, and indeed potentially hot water. One of the objectives of the board is obviously to prevent the site from being sued out of existence. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand that but what piqued the interest of the gossiper and busybody in me was what exactly the content you refer to was. But I see this is obviously inconvenient to discuss. I don't want to put anybody in a difficult position so I'll leave it at that. Gewgtweg (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Trying repeatedly to use RW as a platform to call a living person a paedophile. You'd think "oh, that would be a really stupid and damaging thing to do, I'd better not do that" would be a pretty obvious and sensible thing not to do, but it appears it wasn't for him - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm new here but in my short while I hardly saw any positive contributions from Aneris (I'm sure there's some selection bias going on, but I honestly can't remember). I'm heavily biased on the topic, but much of his time seemed to be spent trying to turn any issue into a personal crusade against regressive feminism or w/e other social justice movement he didn't like. It wasn't just that he was annoying, but that he was consistently stubborn and accusatory in his style of arguing. He did provide citations for some of his claims, but they were often low quality and relied on broad stereotyping and he consistently refused to acknowledge criticism or refutation. I know Hanlon's Razor probably applies here, but a lot of his arguments seemed to eventually devolve into disingenuous tu quoque psychoanalysis and accusations of bias or ignorance. His tendency to insistently repeat the same talking points (even when explicitly told to stop) wasn't really that big of a deal until he started with the accusations of paedophilia. I admit I could be way off with my judgement of him, but this is what I saw over the last few weeks.
Honestly, I'm legitimately worried about the possibility of ideological oppression on this site, and I really do want honest criticism of the zeitgeist here, but personally I'm relieved he's gone. MVHVTMV (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I was annoyed to shit with him, but I'm not really glad he's gone. What I wish had happened is A. He stopped accusing his ideological enemies of being pedophiles and B. He calmed down a bit in general. Thinking postmodernism is inferior to modernism is a pretty damned reasonable viewpoint. But, he... went too far, and he wouldn't stop with A. And he had to go. That's life. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Pretty damn reasonable to think postmodernism is inferior to modernism? Interesting. I'm not a postmodernist myself but would be happy to find out why you think this way. Give me the reasons and let's better continue this discussion on my talk page. For the record, nobody should be worried about 'ideological oppression' on this site. On the contrary, it's really quite liberal when it comes to free expression and perhaps excessively so as the example of Aneris illustrates. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Any skeptic worth his salt on this site should be sorry for the fact that a unique (though, repetitive) voice had to be removed, even — as it was — by virtue of that user's own actions. This is why the board bans people very rarely — only when their actions threaten to take away the entire site from all of us. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Unique AND repetitive? Interesting combination. I guess you, an old-timer here, know the guy better than I had the time to get to know him though folks were, I hear, surprised he went so far as to behave the way he behaved notwithstanding his previous known record of being quite vocal with his... let's just say his whining. I also guess you will know exactly why 'he didn't have much love for the site' as you put it. Was it, mind you, some alleged 'ideological oppression' of sorts? I invite you to inform me. Also, I invite you on my talk page to perhaps contribute your informed viewpoint on the post-modernist discussion there. Isn't Smerdis though the wiki's go-to person on the issue? Gewgtweg (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Moved from DG's talkpage[edit]

This discussion was moved here from User talk:David Gerard.

I admit, I'm a little nervous that Aneris was banned by a board vote rather than by the mob. Does that regularly happen? Oh, and should we worry about potential retaliation? I know Smerdis and Aneris were friends, and goat knows how many others would come out of the woodwork. I don't disagree with Aneris being banned, I'm just concerned with how he was banned and the potential fallout. Thanks, RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The only action the board takes these days is to ban people; which was pretty much the only thing they were not meant to do when we set it up. Pathetic. 202.89.161.226 4:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
BoN, take in the coop if you don't like it instead of whining here about it.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ronin: Brxbrx was banned by the board for a similar issue about Kevin Martin; there is precedent. It happens very rarely. Retaliation is possible, but that's independent of Aneris' actions. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@FCP: OK, good. Less worried about the board now. Still, I thought I should mention the possibility of retaliation to DG, regardless of whether or not it is connected with Aneris' comments. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A reminder that David Gerard can take back his ban as a precaution in the case of an unhappy mob.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 05:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, most people didn't like Aneris. (Smerdis, an exception, has been here since 2013. Lord Aeonian, another, has accepted the ideological biases of RationalWiki.) There may not be much retaliation -- or acknowledgement -- at all. For me, that's also a concern, because it indicates that RationalWiki is ideologically homogenous. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 05:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Given my pessimistic/cynical nature, I expected one of those two to retaliate. But you're right. Hell, I kind of agreed with Aneris on some issues, and I thought he was an asshole. Perhaps Smerdis and Aeonian will do nothing. The homogeneous part is kind of a problem, I agree. I think Nobs and Aeonian are our resident devil's advocates at this point. Maybe we should start a recruiting drive in some other parts of the internet? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we could drag a net evenly enough to merit any sort of active recruiting. I do agree that we could use more diversity of opinion, though. Not sure there's a solution besides not treating dissenters like living shit (hard not to be guilty of this - I definitely am). To quote RBP, "less splittingWikipedia's W.svg and more Web Love." B) talk 23:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Also, the diversity of opinion — reflected just as much in the "passing of the old guard" as in the current mob's take on some of the older articles — is one of the things we should be most proud of on this site. Nurture it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If anyone expects me to 'retaliate' or start editing disruptively because Aneris was banned, then I somehow have made a poor impression without intending to do that. I will miss Aneris because I appreciated his take on things, even if he could be a bit of a bore on his favorite subjects. Not nearly as bad as a vegan, though. And I'm not going to start tossing around allegations of sexual misconduct against anybody, because I tend to be at least initially skeptical of such claims generally, and find them a cheap way to generate moral outrage, which never improves anything. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a fine line between "ginger" and "persistently being a huge asshole" that Aneris wasn't quite clear on. You might think that "don't persistently use the wiki as a platform to try to make out living people are paedophiles" was a simple and obvious rule that anyone could see was a good idea and would have no problems following, but it turns out ...

And fundamentally, if you look at Aneris and think "am I next?" then you could always not use the wiki as a platform to do that. YMMV, but I expect it'll be not so difficult - David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

For all this talk of "retaliation", let's not forget that the action was taken not out of spite towards any individual editor, but because there was content repeatedly submitted to the wiki that itself risked generating a legal retaliation. The action of the board was taken — after repeated warnings — in order to prevent retaliation, and that stands even in the face of people who have nothing better to do deciding to mess with the site. The theory is simple — there's a net loss, ceteris paribus, to the entire site being sued out of existence. Anyone who gives a damn about the site or the community would adapt their actions to that reasoning. Again; anyone who cares if the site tanked more than they cared about finding their eleventh outlet to crusade on. It's not a question of being right or wrong. It's a question of putting up the site itself as collateral or not. We're under the impression that that is a terrible fucking idea to do, and that regardless of which goals we're trying to achieve here, all of them are defeated if the site itself is sued to oblivion. Never mind if so, due to the actions of a user who hardly had much sympathy for the site itself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

How, exactly, are the mythical Aneris supporters supposed to "retaliate?" This isn't Jordan lol Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Another poor decision from the board, under the guise of preventing RW from being sued. Everyone knows Aneris was banned for ideological reasons. Well done to the dissenting board member who is the evidently the only member who takes the pledge to encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.
At least with Brx there was actually the risk of being sued, and professional legal advice was sought. This instance is clearly just a case of DG trying to stifle discussion of a particularly uncomfortable topic for him and his friends; and a weak, compliant board. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You literally don't know what you're talking about - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure David, some of us remember your actions on TOW and why your rights were stripped there. I may not know as much about trying to sue wikis as you, given your history, but I do know there was no danger in this case. You simply took the chance to ban a member who was unpopular here, then ran to twitter to gloat about it. Very seemly behavior from an allegedly senior member of the board. 202.89.161.226 (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The 1/5 was an abstention, not someone valiantly standing up for the "free speech" to commit wanton libel. I need to remind you that my first pass at this was trying to get a mod to warn him "Don't do this particular thing" which was followed up with doing more of that thing to prove he was right. I've emailed Aneris and let him know that if he can leave his outside quarrels at the door, I'd personally appeal his ban to the board. What you're missing is what Aneris did is serious. It doesn't matter how liked or disliked he is, throwing around accusations of pedophilia is incredibly inappropriate. BoN, you can think as little as you want of David, but I instigated the claim, and I instigated the request for a ban, so if you want to blame someone, blame me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I essentially hold Ikanreed's position. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Allow me to express the opinion that I think very little of the moral ideal of unchecked freedom of opinion. Of course, freedom of opinion exists in social reality because continuous diversity of opinion also exists. But we're not supposed to accommodate every 'opinion' here in this space as well. Of course this site is biased. In social reality, as in nature, 'birds of a feather flock together'. Each of us might well be more or less different just as birds of the same family might differ somewhat in their features. But if you belong to a different species, then we are natural enemies and have nothing to speak about.
We should distinguish between constructive, good-willed proposals and suggestions as to how to enrich the content and quality of our site but we cannot 'enrich' it indefinitely without allowing this 'richness' to be plundered and spoiled. Go express your alt-right views or your ego elsewhere. If you want to come here to indulge your self-pitiful feelings of martyrdom and suppression and prove how unique and special you are then I must make it clear to you that if I were in charge, would openly and happily boot you at will rather than inconvenience my peace of mind and that of the honorable editors with cleaning up your apostolic poop. Go and indulge your wonderful, revolutionary, cutting-edge views with those that share them. Our job here should be abundantly clear: to relentlessly, mercilessly, snarkily, sardonically and sadistically annihilate superstition (to put it shrilly, gutturally and hoarsely (Ausrotten!). Skepticism, relativism and nihilism were never seriously champions of the idealistic silliness of 'free expression'. They are the worldviews of constant and constant insurrection against human error and human idiocy from ALL directions. Gewgtweg (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You guys never answered me. How did you think Aneris supporters would "retaliate?" How does one "retaliate" to a banning of someone from a wiki? Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Trolling, vandalism, sockpuppetry. That's what I thought might happen. Like I said, I'm very pessimistic. You're probably right, there won't be a "retaliation" as I said. Sorry if I was too panicky. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Like a bat outta moon[edit]

I think the new James Corbett article revisions are great though ex-FBI whistleblower Sibel EdmondsWikipedia's W.svg is likely Corbett's most frequent guest and they pretty much agree on everything but she was omitted. I commented at further length on his talk page but think it's worth bringing this idea here. (Full disclosure: For what it's worth, as with Corbett, these people are my faves and rarely disagree with their ideas. I also really like Rational Wiki. Why not have both?) You may also wish these folks to get their goat on:

  • Sibel Edmonds and her Boiling Frogs Post and growing NewsBud alt-media news network
  • Lionel (LionelWikipedia's W.svg) who often featured on RT and elsewhere
  • Richard D. Wolff (Richard D. WolffWikipedia's W.svg). Marxist emeritus economics Professor Wolff frequently makes appearances and tours while his radio shows are growing rapidly in popularity since the 2008 crash and with the now worse crash looming. (FYI: Marxism, as defined by Wolff, a freakin rare Marxist economics professor, is the critical analysis of the pros and cons of capitalism. Too many people equate Marxism with socialism, communism, voluntaryism, agorism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-veganism... None of these ideas are the same, or even close.) Similarly I also like Yanis Varoufakis (Yanis VaroufakisWikipedia's W.svg), Greek ex-finance minister who would not sell out his people to the EU banksters so they fired him.

Like it or lump it - take this with a grain of my avowed fanboy salt. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's cool, nothing wrong with having a different opinion, man. And thank you, for the list of People. But instead of doing an Article on Sibel Edmonds herself i'd rather have it to be about her site Newsbud. I don't know if Lionel himself warrant an Article on his own considering that he seems not influental nor unique enough. I could be wrong tough... --Benaresh (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
While Lionel is a character, you're probably correct. His Wikipedia page is basically his CV with extras, and there may not be much else to add other than to cover his views that Wikipedia won't allow (ie, 9-11 skeptic, Pizzagate, etc).
I agree Sibel Edmonds recent work is worth notice, but it's worth noting that she was an ex-FBI whistleblower about 9-11. That alone is noteworthy, perhaps not for RationalWiki, but in general. Especially when so many people who trust the "official account" say "If 9-11 was all a conspiracy then why doesn't anyone say anything?" Many have. And many have suffered for it. Anthrax threats and murders, "suicides", careers axed, bankrupting lawsuits, thrown in Carswell military prison for years, threatened with chemical lobotomy, etc. Anyway, she got through, wrote a couple books and BFP and NewsBud. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You can post suggestions on RationalWiki:To do list, along with why you think they're important, summaries or descriptions, good sources, or general rambling. People do occasionally look at it and create articles. And ideas will be visible for longer there than here. Annquin (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I didn't think about that. I may have learned about the todo list when I first joined but never really thought about it, nor often make suggestions like this. I'm just excited about the new JC article. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Crap the Problem of going with the flow! You are right, this wasn't the best place for that.I have only 12 Tabs open so i can take a look on what i can do to contribute... --Benaresh (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand.
I've already made the mistake of posting this section here. I don't want to make another mistake, so I'll ask first: Is it okay if I cut/past this section on the RationalWiki:To do list? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of James Corbett[edit]

You guys should head over to the James Corbett article. It's rather whitewashy, currently. It needs a skeptical eye. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Puns[edit]

Hello everyone, not long ago, I told FuzzyCatPotato my failed and unsatisfactory escapade for puns on Yahoo answers. FCP then noted that people on RationalWiki may have some spare puns that they could unleash. If you know any puns, please, be my guest and write it down- come, we all know we love puns :D. ikanreed has already started.--WMS (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a webcomic I used to read, but got fed up with, that was full of puns. Many of them were quite elaborate. Plus if I remember right it sort of predicted Steve Irwin's death - try to explain that with your so called science. 2.126.236.207 (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you mean by "try to explain that with your so called science" but I feel like you're trying to put down some sort of mystical agenda? I'm sorry if I'm inferring, what you wrote, wrong but even if it "sort of predicted Steve Irwin's death" I'm sure there's a logical explanation (which would probably boil down to coinceedences) for the alleged prediction.

Well coming up with pun's when lurking on RW is kind of PUNishing don' you think? And considering this is the Goat to Source for critical thinking, can't find this request for humour quite reich. (I am too tired atm for better puns i am afraid.)--Benaresh (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, well, as long as there are puns I'm happy. Thanks for contributing.--WMS (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey we all could use a laugh from time to time, eh? --Benaresh (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Why, then, do we speak of puns? A form of "humor" crafted by twisted versions of mankind from a mirror universe who are simply unable to understand and empathize with us Earth Prime folks. They couldn't recognize the difference between laughter and agony, and so, to bring us the vague concept of "joy" they understand, the went deep beneath the earth and hammered upon words making torturing homonyms into their crude reflections of jokes that we, in our ignorance, call puns. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
All hail the pun originators!--WMS (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I went to the zoo recently. I thought they'd have loads of different animals from around the world, but they only had a bunch of empty cages & one small, long-haired Chinese dog. It was a Shih Tzu. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice on Weaseloid!--WMS (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Yahoo Answers[edit]

How is babby formed, after all? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the biggest problem Rationalwiki faces?[edit]

Either now or in the foreseeable future? Worzelpete (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Why d'you ask? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Curiosidad, nada mas. ¿Xq? Worzelpete (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The rise in conspiracy theories being propagated by Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit along with a President who not only makes baseless claims, but also believes in them.Diogenes of Wilmington (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I know what would help whilst we contemplate our DOOM! A bit of Gordon Lightfoot! It's cheerful, folksy and DOOM! [1] Gadzooks (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The greatest problem is Jesus coming back and sending ya'll to hell. nobs 07:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I was more referring to problems inherent to the site and the community, rather than what is happening in the world at large. But that is also una pregunta interesante. Worzelpete (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't help with that i am kinda fresh. But the Problem i see that Trump already Emboldens Alt-righters. Online comments of recent events ( Pizzagate incident in the News, or the Muslim woman shoved down a flight of Stairs.) Gets flooded with comments that range for apologetica to rabid mouthfrothing bile. I currently use Cracked and Web.de Comments to learn about all possible fallacious arguments you can possible make. There is seemingly no escape to them on the INTERWEBS. It is even worse when a "Tranny"-bashing unpopular Opinion Puffin hits FP on Imgur. I browse imgur for funny Animals and stupid Jokes not a Circlejerk complaining about SJW. Rant over --Benaresh (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem rationalwiki faces is one of two things:

  1. Making a wiki will never eradicate woo, pseudoscience, and authoritarianism from humanity, and we all are spinning our wheels and preaching to the choir in the vain hope of making a small amount of difference in the world, ultimately achieving nothing.
  2. We will be replaced as is the life cycle of websites. Communities come and go, roles shift and change, and eventually, this website, through natural processes, aided by both the community and the leadership, will eventually hit a point of no return and decay into a relic a la citizendium.

That's my take. Both kinda long view problems, and both defraying all responsibility away from myself and other editors by making things into cultural forces with an external locus of control, but still what I think, in spite of that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think one of the biggest problems for RW is just gaining exposure. I really wish that I had heard about RW a loot sooner than I did. I fucking love this page and i know there are many others out there who would! TheGrandmother (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

in reply to users @Benaresh, TheGrandmother, Worzelpete, and Gadzooks, this user asserts the fact that this user wrote an essay [the point of view of self regarding the matter], this user is requesting an admin rename the essay to "the problems of rationalwiki" so that it becomes an essay compilation where all users can post their opinions.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 14:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Buddy but your link seems to be the not working type.--Benaresh (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, it's the lack of goat. It needs moar! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Demonic Possession- Playing the Devil's Advocate (I know there is irony in this sentence)[edit]

Okay, I know it is near universal on the wiki that Demonic Possession is considered bullshit but I will toss this out here. How do we not know that a demon from another universe (assuming the Multiverse Theory holds true, I know it has not been confirmed by physics (yet)) could not enter someone and alter somebody's brain chemistry to make it look like there is just a regular neurological disorder. To the religious nuts that may be lurking on the wiki- don't cherry pick what I said as this hypothesis (keyword- HYPOTHESIS) has not been proven by physics and chances are it may never be confirmed (Citing Gödel's incompleteness theorems (Okay, this might not be the right thing to put (I am terrible at math and this might not apply)). I will repeat that this is a hypothesis (a tentative explanation with no proof yet)that has NOT been proven by physics.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The short answer: 1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 2. Occam's razor 3. Unless your hypothesis is testable, it is not a hypothesis and not worth talking about. Bongolian (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
What you suggest here seems to be a very messy version of the genius malignusWikipedia's W.svg. Keep in mind that the purpose of the concept of an "evil demon" is not that there's actually any reason whatsoever to believe it exists or is real — the point is to demonstrate a virtue of systematic doubtWikipedia's W.svg. To postulate what you suggest here as anything but an exercise in what Bongolian links above is to misunderstand the very concept itself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Poll- What is your favorite branch of science?[edit]

My vote goes for Biology--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Necromancy. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I said SCIENCE, not pseudoscience--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure magic doesn't even count as pseudoscience. It doesn't cloak itself in the language and styles of science. You don't have to so strenuously object to a joke. As for me, my answer is physics. Oscillating bodies. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Marine gastronomy. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously theology :p No, seriously my favotie sciences are psychiatry, sociology, and psychology.Diacelium (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I overreacted here--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


I should change my original vote, I say Biomedical Sciences (medical microbiology, Immunology, Physiology, Pharmacology and so on)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I made it a poll on pointless polls. Diacelium (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Physics is where it's at. If Necromancy were a working true science i'd study the Shit out of it tbh.--Benaresh (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If Parapsychology was actual science I would study it. I find the idea of the paranormal interesting.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The University of Edinburgh, a highly-regarded Russell Group university ranked 27th in the world by THE, has a Parapsychology research unit (someone gave them a lot of money to set it up). Annquin (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Math, specifically information theory and formal systems. B) talk 19:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I had an introductory course to ethnic studies and sociology and I loved it. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 02:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Exobiology, martyrology, oenology, scatology, and psychoceramics. Annquin (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

ProctologyWikipedia's W.svg, hands down. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't the democratic electors just suck it up?[edit]

Why don't the democratic electors just suck it up, and accept that their candidate lost because her campaign was terrible. (especially since those same electors were the ones who pushed hard for her nomination)'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, what does that mean? Who should they vote for at this point? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
(EC)Did you get anything right in your post?
  1. No they're not the "same electors" who pushed for her nomination. They're typically allocated by state law, and the only thing they have in common is party affiliation and being delegates.
  2. No her campaign was not "terrible". You don't win the popular vote by several percent with a "terrible" campaign.
  3. Never "suck it up" and accept fascism. Never. Fucking. Again.
ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. They're still members of the elite of the democratic party, which pushed for her nomination
  2. Her campaign was terrible, her campaign arrogantly believed that there was no way that she was going to lose to Trump, and barely campaigned in the states she needed to campaign most in (I.E the rust belt states).
  3. Saying that Trump's presidency is going to lead to "fascism" is extreme hyperbole, while it's absolutely going to be a shit 4-8 years it's not going to lead to the creation of a fascist state. It'll just be an even worse Bush presidency.'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. "Oh they're vaguely similar to these other people you have to ignore reality to blame for her candidacy". Great. Okay. They are.
  2. Pointedly untrue.
  3. It's not going to lead to fascism, it was built on fascist ideologies. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If the Trump campaign was built on Fascist ideologies, then that almost certainly means that it will lead to Fascism in some form (and I don't mean the bullshit Liberal Fascism crap). Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 21:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. I thought the faithless electors issue was kind of an interesting development, but I guess apparently not, so I withdraw my comment. Have fun going over the same tired old ground. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Aww come on! This is a touchy subject for a lot of People, i think you did a good thing brining it up. From the way it looked from here, Hillary lost due to a combination of Factors: Post Truth fake news, Bernie Sanders conspiracys(he endorsed her himself didn't he?)which cost her dem votes, her being Establishment (tying into The Bern and also not helping when people want change) and the Rust belt stuff. Hmm However i always find the poor working class angle lacking, how do you adress the Rustbelt Problems without lying? Your Jobs will never come back due to Demographic and Technological changes. (doesn't sell well does it?) It is impossible to deduct the reasons for this clusterfuck without the 20/20 offered by an Historian perspective...--Benaresh (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It is the business of sovereign governments to control technological changes, and to forbid them if necessary. Technology must not be given the power to obsolete people's skills, make their jobs redundant, or disrupt human communities. If it threatens that, ban it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a very Trumpian, anti-free trade, protectionist statement. nobs 18:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If it's the political right that wants to bring back nation states and make them powerful enough to control capital and tech, hooray for them. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hillary lost to Trump for the same reasons she lost to Obama. There's a very wide swath of anti-globalizers in the Democratic party. As Secretary of State, Hillary thought her globe trotting on behalf of the Clinton Global Initiative made her look like a leader. The trouble is, those same high school educated idiots now know when they vote Democrat they're called "blue collar workers"; when they vote Republican they're called racist. If Trump delivers on his promises to address the economy, the Democrats and media cannot info the damage they've done to tnemselves. nobs 06:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

While I accept you're criticism of argument 1., as I was mostly rambling, and venting on that one, I still think that her campaign was terrible especially since you didn't offer anything to back up your statement that argument 2. was "pointedly untrue". Trump's presidency won't lead to full on fascism because not even the republicans in the senate would allow something so ludicrous, what is likely, however, is a hybrid style government like Russia.'Legionwhat do you want from me 02:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smerdis. I have to disagree on that. The only time i know a Tech Ban worked was in Japan with Gunpowder. Considering the nasty Suprise when American Gunships showed up, id say that technology Supression has an nasty habit of biting your ass. In addition, due to Globalisation a tech ban has to be universal and i simply cant see that happen worldwide.
Bullshit. Should we have stopped electricity from becoming a thing because it'd have put the candlemakers out of work? Vaccines from becoming a thing because coffin makers would have gotten less work? Same thing with modern medicine? Your approach is so cowardly, no technological progress will ever happen and humanity will always be stuck with the same shitty problems forever. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Legion That point about "won't lead to full on fascism because not even the republicans in the senate would allow something so ludicrous" the thing is People said they would "frame" Hitler with People that would keep him from Power (Spoiler Alert: didn't work) and the Rep do not seem to be against Trump anymore. Considering that People already defending his appointment of Goldman Sachs Personell with "If you want to stop a thief hire a thief" they`d possibly help him happily help him Turn America "Great" again. Anyway all this is speculation and i get the point that it wont be as bad as i think it would (I tend to be Paranoid after all). Let's all hope that the next 2-8 Years wont be a Catastrophe and that People prevent the worst from happen. After all it isn't like it is 1933.--Benaresh (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@ikanreed: given that the mainstream media, the fake news sites, and the polls have all been proven solidly wrong for the past 18 months, and that Hillary Clinton maybe is not the greasey-haired bull dike she's been portrayed as, isn't there a danger of proceeding on the assumption that what Trump has been portrayed as over the past 18 months is true, as well? All the evidence of his life's career suggests he is not a fascist. Meanwhile, the real Trump story slips away: his opportunism and manipulation of the birther movement; his collecting fired Generals from the Obama administration; he probably bought-off the Eagle Forum with donations to win the Schlafly's blessings, etc. With Trump, a real-estate developer, you are dealing with a visionary, a man who looks 20-30 years ahead before committing himself, his money, or other people's money. Visionaries are a rare thing among Presidents. nobs 16:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@nobs But what is his mission? I can believe that he was using right-wing Talkpoints to derail the GOP in his favor, but long term planning? He is barely able to hold a conversation and dont say: "well all part of his plan." I dont build a House on Sand if i have a long term goal, and sounding like an imbecile is building your whole Presidency on Sand... unless His plan is to discredit not only Americas current Political System but maybe he is also holding up the Mirror to all of us like Till Eulenspiegel? Nah This whole Buisness is that kind of fucked that those People lost the Election too. --Benaresh (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The speculation over who will be Secretary of State masks the underlying activity going on now, the formulation of a coherent foreign policy. He's announced two incompatible (in the long term) goals: destruction of ISIS, and reformulation of the Iran nuke deal. Which side does the US come down on, the Putin-Assad-Iranian axis, or the ISIS-Saudi alliance? Romney stands for the strong anti-Putin push, whereas Bolton offers a mid-course negotiated approach more in keeping with Trump's own flexibility and reputation as a negotiator (all the other candidates are 'yes men' who do what they are told by the White House, which is increasingly dominated by the military). Trump needs a non-mlitary policymaker in that job, not an errand boy like Corker or others. Romney may be too confrontational at a time the US-Russia relations need some restoration if goodwill. Saudi Arabia's puppet, ISIS, could be destroyed, but like al Qeade, another would soon take its place. IMO, getting tuff with Iran is more of a priority than destroying ISIS, Assad, smoothing relations with Putin. nobs 17:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
He also seems to want to start something with China. That may be a scarier prospect than anything coming out of the Middle East. And it's probably inevitable anyways. If that gets serious he's going to need the Russians on his side as well. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly right. All the money Americans spend at Wal Mart (something like 150 million Americans shop at Wal Mart once a month) is being used to build and modernize the Chinese military, which threatens the US daily at the Spratly Islands. America's war on terror distracted the US attention and ability to compete for 10 years and allowed China to catch up economically and militarily. Trump's saying to China the gravy train is over. nobs 06:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it time to maybe get a bit authoritarian?[edit]

Why are unregistered users authorized to edit and blank our pages? Worse still, why is it against RW policy to ban them permanently? Why the hell do we make it easy for wandals?

What are users, like nobs, moronic enough to believe in 'Pizzagate' or who believe that Trump will bring manufacturing back just doing here? What are people who constantly complain about our 'biases' doing here? I know that we're supposed to be encouraging 'constructive dialogue' but where's the 'constructive' in all of this? It's just a bunch of other-minded people who are here to provoke, to scare and to feel 'special'. I think we should take ourselves a bit more seriously as a wiki and accordingly take the idealistic notion of 'diversity of opinion' less seriously.

I love this site but when I see BoNs harassing us all the time (and it's mainly Alt-righters and reactionaries) you just don't feel as proud of it as you could feel. I propose to the authorities here to take the notion of AUTHORITIE seriously and the idealistic notion of 'freedom of opinion etc' less seriously. Freedom of the opinion exists already because this is the internet which means that if you have something to say you can say it. It's not and should not be incumbent upon us to further 'improve' upon this state of affairs. I hereby propose that we change some of the more liberal statutes governing this wiki and initiate cleansing operations against reactionaries, irrationalists and assorted moaners who have already infiltrated our idyllic cyber society. Heil Gerard! Gewgtweg (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Who are we? Who are you? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It's easy to revert blanked pages. It's also easy for vandals to circumvent a block. Crude edit filters can play a role in combatting vandalism (and are used here) but they can be circumvented without much knowledge or effort and may intensely annoy people making legitimate edits.
As to pogroms: there are certainly users here who annoy me intensely, and there are many other users who annoy other people intently. Do you have a proposal for differentiating who should be banned? Is lame half-assed trolling worse than childish vandalism or stylistic oddities or sloppy editing or failure to cite anything? Are you confident that other people would share your opinion? Annquin (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I get where Gewgtweg is coming from. I feel the same way about all the Alt-right Zombies invading and trolling anything with a dissenting opinion to their own. But that is exaclty why we, as RW, shouldn't wield the ban Hammer and at least read their stuff and consider the points before refuting the bullshit. Aristotle wrote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." It makes us as a communitiy bigger when we do that instead of sinking to their level. Remember we are the ones that try to challenge our Bias so reality and truth are with us. If they want to live in their made up World it is their Problem. Again I really really get why you are tired to have the same Shit again again again and again posted. --Benaresh (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You guys have (ostensibly) been here literally a few days. You could at least make a token effort towards not seeming like concern trolls before you start pontificating about the ban hammers "we" should be using. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It was abundantly clear that I suggested ousting not those people who happen to 'annoy' you or me but a contrarian group of people (wingnuts and moonbats although the former case is far more common) with no particular contributions to make other than provoke the rest with their supposedly smart and deep bullshit. Whether someone likes it or not, this IS indeed in many crucial respects a biased website and this is what I mean by WE (clear? There should be a WE). Basic positions on the Right, on Feminism, on Communism etc. will never ever change in their essence. Should someone fail to understand this, they should go away. Should someone, on a site promoting skepticism etc. be found to be stupid in terms of beliefs (like nobs, there you have an example) and excessively naive (and the majority would agree) then they should go and be stupid elsewhere. Those that defend stupidity on an idealistic basis e.g. 'freedom of speech' have not in my view understood what skepticism is about. By not engaging in sufficiently strict quality standards or by lowering down our defenses and being excessively liberal in our editing rights, we lower the quality of our pages. And I suspect that if we eliminated a few common bickerers editing conflicts might be less common.
My humorous tone might have given you a different impression (the impression one might desire to have) but I take intellectual and scientific matters very seriously. They're fucking hard in the sense that they require not only painstaking education but actual talent and both of these things are, I assure you, much harder to come by than editing skills. Knowledge and talent is not a democracy. I repeat that I love this site, I would never leave it and I resign myself to whatever the 'powerful' or 'influential' people here decide. But I feel compelled to express my view that the kind of liberalism that exists with lightweights and stupid people as well as with intruders here is neither beneficial nor a particular sign of self-respect as a wiki.
To make you understand, let me be clear again: if people repeatedly engage in such a serious error as not citing their work or writing redundant things then their editing rights should be restricted immediately and their proposals expressed on a talk page until they learn to exercise caution and take our work seriously. There should be disciplinary measures. If the offense is repeated or if they 'annoy people intently' then they might actually have to take a hike. Gewgtweg (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@weasel.Dude i say refute them not shut down anything resembling dissenting Opinion. If i fucked up when trying to be nuanced sorry about that, but seriously there is a difference between let them talk here in the Saloon and Talk pages and another matter of Wandalising. If you are concerned that i am here to Troll the shit out of this site then please go on and check my Contributions. I am fairly new to the whole skeptic thing and I'd rather have not concern troll thrown at my fucking head. --Benaresh (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I'm a whale biologist.
My advice to act less like a concern troll still stands. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Go check my Contributions. If you still have the feeling i am a troll then i Implore you: Ban me! I know i have made my point poorly but i take FUCKING offense to be called a troll( i used to worship ED. The delusional People that come here to bother us need professional help (probably) or someone they can vent their impotent rage on. Super annoying but their BULLSHIT wont change Scientific Fact. All i want is you consider that someone might be salvagable despite spouting Nonsense. But fuck me, for trying to reach out to confused assholes like me. --Benaresh (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem with permanent bans on unregistered users (BoNs) is that the IP number is not permanently associated with a person, so after a while, it is often reassigned to another computer, usually another person. Bongolian (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We have always taken a very tolerant attitude to people who disagree with us. There are a number of linked reasons for this. Here is an incomplete list.

  1. If you wish to persuade people it is necessary to have a dialogue with them.
  2. Many of the old-timers who created this side saw how counterproductive efforts at stifling dissent were at conservapedia and wished to avoid the same mistakes.
  3. It is very easy to slip into groupthink and allowing, or even encouraging, other voices can mitigate this risk.
  4. Confirmation bias is probably the most common of the cognitive biases and having it challenged is healthy.
  5. Echo chambers where everyone is saying the same thing get boring quickly.

Obviously this can cause problems when there are users who abuse the liberal policies. But I would say it is better to listen to and refute critics rather than to close the doors to them. And if we cannot refute them then we should consider their ideas.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, with the only real caveat being that free speech isn't a suicide pact. You can and should remove people who make the site worse and less able to serve its function, but parsimoniously so as not to completely destroy all the advantages of diversity. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bob_M for making the point i tried to make. I know i could really improve on my line of reasoning, but i try to get better at it. I didn't even take Free Speech in my mouth(It tastes like ash and Holocaust denial ) so please believe me when i say i did not intent to troll. --Benaresh (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The answer to the initial question - by their deeds shall you know them. Some IPs only contribute once or occasionally (and why sign in and out just to correct a typo?); others contribute regularly and are mostly positive... and some registered users are 'right pains and worse.'
Perhaps there should be restrictions who think that there should be restrictions upon 'persons not being trolls, flamewarrers, users of #excessive# bad language' and similar nuisances. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. The majority of unregistered editors are ideologically-motivated cranks. And if you 'contribute regularly' and are 'mostly positive', what you do is you actually sign up. If Wikipedia didn't secure certain articles all the editors would be doing all day was clean up incoming turds falling like meteorites. In my view, the same policy should be enforced on a number of articles here too that happen to be the focus of crank attention/fixation. You know what has happened to most nuts who have joined to engage in 'constructive dialogue'? They got blocked or binned not very long thereafter. Gewgtweg (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

How to stop hanging out on RW[edit]

Hello, my name is TheGrandmother and I have a problem. I have shitloads of assignments to write and other assignments to grade. But yet again I find myself here. Reading around on RW, editing RW and looking around the manosphere for interesting things to add to RW.

I really need to get some actual work done? What is your best tips for closing the RW tabs and getting some work done? TheGrandmother (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Idk what works for you but after a while i just get sad about all this stuff, so i rather do work than to think about the People who really believe that 9/11 was an iside job. Just imagine how fucking lost people must be if that gives you hold in life.--Benaresh (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That happens to me a lot. You keep researching around and after 20min on some MRA page you just want to crawl up under a blanket and die a bit. TheGrandmother (talk)
edit more RW, obviously - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
But David! That way only madness lies...--Benaresh (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There's a reason why one of the ban options is "By user request: usually for having no life". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif
Self-bans work. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
how do i ban myself?--Benaresh (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Same way you block anyone else ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I get an Error so i presume i cant block myself? Anyway could you do it, please?--Benaresh (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That's b/c you're not sysop: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/Benaresh αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain, I'm at school, and I'm supposed to be doing a U.S history essay but instead I'm listening to Pink Floyd and spamming Alt+X'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Omg. Fuck you... I did not know about that. Is it cool if i send you the bill for my student loans since I'm never going to graduate now. TheGrandmother (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Going in for one minor edit and staying all day[edit]

Sons of bitches! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The Rational Awards and other Propagandistic User Numbers Increase Strategies[edit]

Marketing #101 says 'start an awards night' RW has an article on the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize Ig Nobels. What about an similarly styled, RW hosted award for Debunkery, and Least Rational/Woo stuff. It needs a catchy name like the Irrationals? The Rashies? Woohoo?s Then you can hashtag that stuff 'wow , 'X' thinks earth flat? #irrationalaward'. It communicates the chief RW function in a friendly, short easy to digest manner. Think of the amusing Award names you can (and will) suggest! OMG. The Snarkies!! Gadzooks (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

How about RW's Snarky! Any proper Skeptic can debunk Grown up Fairy Tales, only People who do it with the proper pizzazz, or flava if you will, should get our spicy Snarky. --Benaresh (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
My Snarker! word! Gadzooks (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

For now, I'd suggest no. It'll look overblown and overgrand unless done well, IMO, and I don't have high hopes for excellent awards on a wiki. An alternative would be an article creation drive. I was going to suggest that RationalWiki have an "crazy website of the week" banner somewhere, encouraging users to find the strangest quotes they can. It'd also be something nice for DG to blast on Twitter. FuzzyCatPotato of the Shaky Daydreams (talk/stalk) 02:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Awww :( I already hyped myself for the Snarky! Well maybe next year.--Benaresh (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A good way to avoid Overblown and Overgrand or Fail is to discuss it :-) I don't generally commence with Failure in mind, but it's always an option. If not, work harder. We can fail if we really try! Reticence because 'Variable Indefinable Concern' and/or 'wtf noob' is ok with me. Statement of fail prior to discussion of even content and structure is still valid part of discussion, but feels fearful rather than creative. I interpret your core message to mean resources should be directed towards content. Fair call. Content is good, I'm down with it and slowly trying to figure out how to contribute in that manner, but the main thrust of this week has been about working in the Attention War, and not all of that is about content. Creating small, clickbaitable, easy to transmit stuff has benefits. That's why the Ig Nobels and similar. Gives legacy MSM snappy content that they can disseminate. No harm, no foul.What me worry? Gadzooks (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Remember Keith Olberman's Worst Person In the World Awards? He got blamed for creating an atmosphere of partisan bitterness and mistrust and had to abandon it.nobs 02:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but to be fair, he was (and still is) really angry and kind of ranty. But this is me not being fussed with an idea not gaining ground :-) I like figuring out how to sharpen a stick to get those little fat grubs out of the log and I've had a little practice so I'm not so cautious about how I chew my sticktool anymore. I've already made so many mistakes in this area that I am happy to fail in new and different ways. Experiment, Fail, Learn, Smile, Repeat. Imma let me finish, but no i'm not. Meep! Gadzooks (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

in reply to users @Gadzooks, Benaresh, and FuzzyCatPotato, this user suggests creating a seperate page on rationalwikispace named policy poll which will be exclusively for nomination of various modifications of policy with poll system.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 15:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That's... not a bad idea. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A page on bras[edit]

No seriously. I found a page on bra fallacies. Despite having no medical benefit, many women wear bras because it's expected. Can this be on RW?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It could be. There's an erroneous belief that bras cause cancer.[2] Mercola believes it.[3] Bongolian (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Dressed to Kill (book)Wikipedia's W.svg by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer is the lodestone/epicentre/nipple of dubious "bras cause cancer" claims. It was on the TODO list but the idea was archived. But I agree it's a good topic. Annquin (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
[surprisingly high percentage] of women wear the wrong bra-size. Also, this is probably not true for bras, but most of women's clothes have "size zero" today that used to be "size five" in the 1960s. Worzelpete (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on bras? I'd better write something creepy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

urgent things to do on the part of the sitemasters[edit]

Opinion by this user. Priority is based on numerically descending order

  1. upgrade mediawiki to latest version in order to enable most forms of templates, pinging and other features
  2. moving various language version rationalwikis to their respective language code subdomains. en.rationalwiki.org, ru.rationalwiki.org, es.rationalwiki.org, fr.rationalwiki.org etc
  3. shifting focus from saloon bar to the forum section of site, preferably as a hub for discussions. diverting most of manpower towards the to do list and articlespace
  4. providing opportunity for opposing views in the forums and talkpages by performing a quarteryearly clearing of banlist as to allow debating with cranks and nonrationalists with no holds barred
this user welcomes others to edit the board.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 08:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Can we delete things? Seriously, it's a big horrible graphic and if your intention is to drive people off the Saloon Bar (for some reason you've never adequately explained), nice try. It's heartwarming all this enthusiasm for change though.
I'm sure there was a good reason for not doing more foreign-language subdomains but I forget what it is (maybe to do with admins/board/mods not being able to understand forringers.) For mediawiki upgrades see here, here, or RationalWiki:Technical support. There's already procedures for people to be unbanned if they want to contribute; they usually involve wheedling. Annquin (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I've got a request FAMAS, cut out the "this user" shit, now! Spud (talk)
Stop the this user bull, FAMAS. Now. Things won't go well if you don't. PBfreespace (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Overreacting to annoyance. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The country of Malta strikes a blow against pseudoscience and religious quackery[edit]

Gay conversion therapy is now illegal in Malta. Here is the article- https://www.yahoo.com/news/malta-bans-gay-conversion-therapy-first-europe-165248644.html --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that that law will be struck down if it proceeds to either the ECtHR or the ECJ on religious freedom grounds. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll take you up on that bet. Or better yet, make your prediction here. when do you think it will be struck down?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Libertarians are going to whine that they can't use social pressure to make someone go to a therapy that'll leave them with depression, anxiety and drug addiction.Diacelium (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Levi Ackerman: Why do you think the ECtHR or the ECJ will strike it down on religious grounds?
The law does not interfere with religious practice, but targets self-proclaimed "therapy" which claims to be able to "cure" what is not generally viewed as a disease (homosexuality) in either Malta or the other European countries over whom these courts have jurisdiction. I really can't see the legal argument here, unless someone will try to claim that the "gay conversion therapy" is an integral part of religious worship.
The only problem I can see is a rather different one: It is the underlying assumption of a fixed sexual orientation that never can or should be changed. However, since so-called "gay conversion therapy" (GTC) is not about an honest exploration of a person's sexual orientation and development, but a blunt homophobic mental repression circus (GTC might as well stand for "Go To Closet"...), the issue of sexual identity is not particularly relevant to the specific phenomenon of GTC. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@ScepticWombat, I will moderate my previous "will" to "may", although I still lean towards "will" because, a case could be made that this law contravenes Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely, "freedom of thought, conscience and religion". There is also the Equal Treatment Directive 2006 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, religion or belief.
Here is a scenario in which I think the court would be well within its interpretation to strike down this law: Imagine a man or woman from a conservative religious background. This isn't hard, especially given that Catholicism is the dominant religion in Malta. Imagine such a person - devout in his belief or faith - who cannot accept that homosexuality is natural, and believes - BELIEVES - it is a sin and no good [insert religious follower] can be gay. So, this person decides to try out gay conversion. However, gay conversion is now illegal. Such a person could bring a case against the state, alleging that this law is incompatible with his/her right of freedom of freedom of religion and/or conscience under the laws cited above. This ban, this person could allege, is an infringement by the state of their religious and/or conscientious freedom. This ban - the crux of their argument would be - means they, as devout followers of a religion in which it is a sin to be gay, are forced to be gay, and therefore not free to be good [insert religious follower].
It would be like if a state passed a law requiring doctors to administer blood transfusions in every case where it is needed, regardless of the patient's religious objections. I know one group that would object and would likely bring a case under the same law. I would have no objections if the law made these conversion therapies illegal for under 16s, but a blanket ban? I don't think I'm okay with, from a right to self-determination point of view.
It's a lot like the gay cake case, or a blanket ban on the face veil, both of which I massively disagree with.
@Bob, I guess it will be struck down when it comes before a court. I can't predict when that will be. It could be next month, it could be next year, it could be never. It has to come before a court.
As much as I dislike religious quackery, it is not for the state to legislate against them, except where they affect other people's rights, national and/or public security concerns, or where minors are concerned etc.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I rather think that the EU would put secular values before religious ones in this case.
For example the institution has spoken out strongly against the teaching of creationism. See here.
As far as FGM is concerned no religious argument in its favour would be accepted. OK, you can argue about whether FGM is a driven by religion or not - but you can also argue about the religious basis of "Gay Conversion Therapy".
I honestly don't think the legal challenge would work. But if you are really prepared to bet on it - I would suggest a bottle of single malt?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Truth[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Tankie

Coming as it does on the heels of the Brexit vote in June, Trump’s victory is another blow at the imperialist system and the so-called liberal order. As such, it should be greeted with enthusiasm by the revolutionary proletariat and progressive humanity everywhere. — Unsigned, by: Franciscomaciasnguema / talk / contribs

That's bullshit. Trump will nuke the working class so hard that communism will seem reasonable in USA after he's done. There nothing to be enthusiastic about. Also, could you sign your post ? you have to type four ~ Diacelium (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh my God, by deporting millions of innocent Laitno immigrants we can usher in Communism! Pfft, yeah right! Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 00:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Accelerationism never works and never worked and will never work. Worzelpete (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Communism rises when poverty rises. Trump's labor pick is against minimum wage. Trump wants to abolish Obamacare, and a member of Trump's staff wants to privatize medicare. The list goes on. I'm exegerating when I speak of Communism, but a more authoritarian left might rise after Trump. Or maybe an even more authoritarian right. Diacelium (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There won't be an after Trump until Trump is under the earth. And we have to pray to all seven gods that Trump won't have a biolgical heir when he dies. Worzelpete (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Um, Trump does have biological children--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Does he? No, what I mean is that we all have to pray Trump will not be succeeded by his son or daughter. Worzelpete (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The Trump dynasty? Uh oh...-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It already seems like he is grooming Ivanka. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in more ways than one (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html) MyHatIsBread (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

An page on Pierre Bourdieu ?[edit]

I've written some pages here, and I'd like to make one on Bourdieu, but it's a too big subject. Would anyone else be interrested in writing, or beginning it ?Diacelium (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not that it's not an interesting topic (I've used Bourdieudian concepts frequently in my work), but why does RW need an article on him? Is it due to "I find him and his ideas interesting" or because you think the man and his ideas are missional and if so, why (because they have to be debunked or because they point out errors in certain crankery)? ScepticWombat (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Bourdieu has got a lot of hate from the right-wing, and sociology is starting to be hated by politicians here in France. Bourdieu also developped many concepts which explains the class system, cultural capital and many concepts that debunks beliefs that are still accepted by politicians. He also analysed domination of man on woman, the oppression of gays... Symbolic power/violence also seems to be an interresting concept for RationalWiki. He also opposed the Rational Choice Theory. Also, Bourdieu used epistemology to explain how sociology is a science, which is important for RationalWiki since we analyse pseudoscience. And also because he made great contributions to sociology, and we don't have many pages on social sciences. Diacelium (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Is the Dunning-Kruger Effect Recursive?[edit]

I have a question. When I started studying computer science I was a colossal cunt-muppet. I had done "a lot of" programming in my spare time before I started and, as any other idiot, I thought that I knew everything. I complained and whined about the fact that we had to take elementary courses and that the program should not accept people who didn't know how to program so that we, the "smart" kids, could start learning more advanced things right away.

Now 4 years later, I know that I was just a colossal twat sitting on the peak of the Dunning-Kruger graph ferociously wanking to my own perceived my competence. I now know that I wasn't any good at all when I started and I learned tonnes of stuffs from the elementary courses. And the new kids who show up here and think that they are Gods gift to CS just because they can write "Hello world" in Java drives me fucking mental.

So one might say i have gained some insight. But have I? Or have I gained real insight and I just perceive that I have grown some even though i haven't. Have i just moved to the peak of a different Dunning-Kruger graph? TheGrandmother (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You have achieved the correct insight, which is that one is always a dumbarse. Hopefully one at higher levels of achievement - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The Dunning-Kruger effect is that you overestimate your own proficiency in a particular field, especially when you don't have any significant experience in it. It's essentially a lack of awareness. Now you have enough awareness to recognize you're more knowledgeable now than when you started, and that even though you're experienced there is still more depth to the field for you to uncover. You're at the "I know that I know nothing" phase. I don't know if there's a proper name for, but it's effectively the polar opposite of Dunning-Kruger. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that one of the ways that the Dunning-Kruger effect was proven was via observing that people who are actually good at the topic in question consistently ranked themself way below "10/10" — and that, conversely, over-enthusiastic amateurs ranked themselves near-best or indeed best. The fact that you no longer rate yourself as best, despite having gained insight, seems to mean that you now rank among the actual professionals in the Dunning-Kruger scale. In other words, you're starting to comprehend the many various ways in which one may both fail and succeeed at the subject. And the antithesis of the Dunning-Kruger mindset is the plain realization; "It's not that simple". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed what's going on re "fake news"?[edit]

It would seem some people are now using it to smear tactic. Basically, they are labelling any piece of information published that doesn't sit right with their prejudices, regardless of veracity, as "fake news". Seriously, CNN is now being accused putting out "fake news". For instance, there are now actively people saying Obama's reported approval ratings is fake news. [face palm]. Others are using it to label news outlets they do not agree with, smearing them as purveyors of fake news. We're in scary times. "Fake news" is soon to become the 1950s equivalent of an accusation of being a communist for news outlets. This will destroy the mainstream media. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing.

How do they fight against this? And the weird thing is, the outlets that are ACTUALLY frequently guilty of fake news, the Daily Mail, Fox News, aren't being accused of fake news.

What I'm trying to say is, it is the most (comparatively) trustworthy news outlets, the ones that are arguably the most impartial, e.g. CNN and the BBC, that will suffer as a result of this. People are beginning to label facts - FACTS! - "fake news".--Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering this attitude is exactly what allowed fake news to proliferate in the first place... I'm not surprised. Protecting the belief system > knowing what's actually true. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

in reply to user Levi Ackerman, this user asserts the fact that the phenomenon of confirmed news, regardless of source, being labelled as fake news is something that is "older than computer networks" and mainstream media being labelled as fake news source is nothing new. the user Levi Ackerman is inflicted with paranoiaFAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The latest rumor or fake news is that the European Union is already acting on blacklists of alleged fake news sites. nobs 16:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If a (major, first world) government moves to ban it, you can pretty well expect the rationalwiki article to take a heel turn from "Oh god this shit is so terrible" to "Sure it's pernicious but this is dangerous precedent" in about 5 minutes flat. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I, for one, am in favour of a crackdown on fake news. Fuck free speech absolutism. I don't play that shit. It's why I'm glad here in the UK we have IMPRESS, the IPSO, Ofcom and numerous other bodies for shit like this. The Daily Mail hasn't come out and labelled any fact "fake news" - yet, but you can bet if it does, one of these bodies will come down on it like a ton of bricks! --Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic. I'm still very much in favor of "free spech absolutism", but that doesn't mean I think it should be legal to knowingly fool people via fraudulent news reporting for the express purpose of misleading the public (or financial gain, e.g. via ad revenue or malicious code). Outside of that, however, fake news isn't something you'll be able to fight on the "supply side". What you have to do is actually teach your citizens to think skeptically and critically. In the end, you can't rely on anyone but the citizens that make up society to take care of its ills. Besides, "alternative media" just isn't that good at anything but whipping up frenzies on social media (though, most often, in various Internet echo chambers). Just like alternative medicine wouldn't magically start working if evidence-based medicine was to take some major PR hit in the future. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@RBP, I guess the logic behind my support of attempts tackle fake news and tying it to my dislike of free speech fetishism (or free absolutism) is that there are some (many, in fact) who will see any attempts to tackle fake news as an attack on the oh-so-sacred-principle of free speech or a step/preparation towards such an attack. "It sets a bad precedent", they will say. "This is Orwellian 101", they will say. Case in point, Kyle Kulinski (whom I am generally a fan of, except when it comes to protectionism and free speech fetishism). See here:

Levi Ackerman (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC) I'm not worried. The same people who screech about "fake news" were those screeching about "mainstream media", before "liberal media", and so on. They already didn't trust shit; it probably can't get much worse. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the people screeching about "fake news" either. I'm worried about the people who they are screaming fake news to. Let's face it, most people have too much going on in their lives to verify the truth of a news story. However, if an Alex Jones, or a Paul Joseph Watson, or a Sean Hannity, whom let's face it, a lot of "average working class" people listen to, or the Daily Mail, which a lot of "average working class" people buy, tells the average Joe or Josephine that something is "fake news", they are likely to believe it. I'm not sure how many of you have seen this:
That is kind of thing I'm worried about; people beginning to regard facts as "fake news" because some lunatic they trust, like Hannity, or Jones, says it is. It's as bad as Fox editing Obama's speech so it seemed like he was telling "illegals" to vote and people believing it; believing the commander-in-chief expressly, not implicitly, expressly, sanctioned criminal acts. For all of its flaws, you cannot be okay with the MSM losing complete credibility, because they are, even if some of them have abrogated that post, the fourth estate. In case, I'm not being clear, my fear/worry here is not the proliferation of "fake news". It's the proliferation of the usage of the term to dismiss actual news. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Well you're already engaging in that yourself when you describe the Daily Mail & Fox News as fake news outlets. They may be guilty of sloppy, one-sided, irresponsible journalism with a certain amount of disinformation, but the stories they cover are real events which the rest of the media also covers. They're completely distinct from sites like the Boston Tribune & Baltimore Gazette which exist only to propagate false stories about fictitious events. This is the kind of fake news people are talking about in the recent controversies about fake news trending on social media & potentially influencing the election. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif this. Fox News is the MSM of the right and thusly can't outright fabricate bullshite. Bend the truth intepret it their way, yeah sure. but outright lies? Rare. I never tought i would say this but, considering what was spread on FB Fox News doesn't seem so bad anymore... --Benaresh (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Weaseloid and @Benaresh, seeing as you concur with Weaseloid, what do you call this, if not fake news:
They literally fabricated the story of the president encouraging illegals to vote. Or how about the time the Daily Mail published the story that the mother of George Clooney’s fiancee, Amal Alamuddin, opposed their match because her faith forbade marriage with outsiders, which, as it turns out, was completely untrue. When I say "completely", I mean not a scintilla of the the claim was true. In other words, it was "fake".
Also, I didn't describe the Daily Mail and Fox News as fake news outlets. Here's my quote:
"the outlets that are ACTUALLY frequently guilty of fake news, the Daily Mail, Fox News, aren't being accused of fake news."
It might seem subtle to you, (it doesn't to me), but there is a difference nonetheless between me saying Fox and DM are frequently guilty of fake news and me flat-out calling them fake news outlets, which I didn't and I wouldn't. Please, I know it's easy to do, but try not to fatuous inferences. Thank you. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. Though, Weaseloid's distinction should hardly be a problem for you then, if your point was that the Daily Mail and Fox News are not fake news outlets. They're not (like you concede). Like Weasel said, they may angle and spin real events beyond recognition, but they don't outright fabricate news of mass shootings with dozens of victims that never actually took place. That's what you imply that they're doing when you say that they've been putting out a faked news story, even once. They don't deal in faked news stories, and the times they've misreported things (or been led astray themselves due to lack of critical thinking), it's certainly not been an intentional scam that they've perpetrated. Again, they twist, they cherry pick, they spin, they quote mine, they sound bite... All the dirty tricks in the book, like in the clip above (filmed by some really heavy breather, btw). But they don't just make up mass shootings. That's the difference. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait What? Sorry Levi, i didn't hear about that, that is disgusting. And i didn't catch your nuance in your original post for which i apologize.--Benaresh (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, dude. Th hug.gif--Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

An article somewhat relevant to this discussion. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I am reminded about the idea of "Junk Science" which turned up a few years ago. It was not long before the idea was co-opted by Fox News to refer to any genuine science with which they disagreed. Legitimate climate science quickly became "Junk Science" to their reporters. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to writing science fiction.[edit]

I came up with a really weird setting. A very unlikely one in which three planets in the same solar system are all sporting civilizations at the same time. The degree of development will vary from country to country. The real kicker is that the leading planet is ours, in particular during the last days of the cold war to modern times. For obvious or not so obvious reasons, the United States wants to survey those civilizations. First with a satellite, then a probe. And much later, humans on a suicide mission to meet the locals. We can see the problem, as even for the sake of discovery, no one would be that crazy. We can wait until we are advanced enough to make it not suicidal, but that would be boring. — Unsigned, by: Breadbasketbomb / talk / contribs

Perhaps if you ask on a relevant [Althistory.wikia] talk page you will get some ideas. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ has a lot of discussions about how to develop an imaginary world. They normally prefer a slightly more specific question. Annquin (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Something confusing about Pensacola Christian College's education programs[edit]

I know PCC is weird and confusing to begin with but here is what confuses me- after someone graduates, the alumni get certified as teachers through the Association of Christian Schools International yet the certification is recognized by the U.S Department of Education. If the certification is recognized by the USDE then why would they not be able to get certification to teach public school? Hell, even BJU education graduates can become certified for public school teaching.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That's nonsense. From pcci.edu: "Our education program is not designed for public school teachers; however, in 2000 the Governor of Florida signed legislation that permits PCC graduates to apply for teacher certification in Florida. If a graduate teaches outside Florida, he may apply for a Certificate of Eligibility from the Florida Department of Education to submit to his state Department of Education, assuming his state has reciprocity with Florida." Beyond that, it boils down to accreditation. For many years, PCC was unaccredited (then again, so was BJU). PCC is now accredited by TRACS. Not everywhere recognizes TRACS accreditation. Based on what their website says, their program is geared towards teachers in Christian schools, and, in their eyes, isn't as suitable for public school education, but as someone who spent time at public, private, and charter schools, including four years at an elementary school which used textbooks from A Beka (PCC's press), I can tell you they teach evolution in those books (albeit in a very critical manner). With that in mind, without having direct knowledge of the teaching courses there, it doesn't seem that a graduate who would be qualified to work in a particular type of school would be unqualified to work in a public school. Ricky's Wiki (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversial question re transgender[edit]

Really! I'm about to ask a controversial question. You've been warned; some might say, trigger-warned!

Okay, here goes, is transgender a disorder? I think that it is. I'm no psychologist, but there is evidence to suggest that it is. However, this is not to say I think it is unnatural. I don't think it is unnatural. I think it's perfectly natural. But so are many disorders, physical, behavioural, mental, etc: bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, dissociative identity disorder, cleft palettes, that thing where your heart is on the wrong side. However, there seems to be a taboo against describing transgender as a disorder. People seem to take offence at the suggestion, and I suspect there is an element of political correctness in the scientific community's refusal to describe it as such. Or maybe it simply doesn't meet the criteria for being defined as a disorder. But surely, being born with a brain that is the opposite of your birth sex is a disorder? I realise this may be a gross oversimplification, but it's something that has always puzzled me. Help me out here. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think your question is "controversial", per se. You learn by asking. Regardless, gender dysphoriaWikipedia's W.svg is classified as a disorder both by the ICD-10 CMWikipedia's W.svg and the DSM-5Wikipedia's W.svg. Another way of putting it is that dysphoria is seen as the pathology, regardless of gender identityWikipedia's W.svg. Indeed, identifiable causes of transsexuality seem to vary quite a lotWikipedia's W.svg. I think the American Psychiatric AssociationWikipedia's W.svg sums it up the nuance quite well:
"Gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."
This should be understood in light of the decision to entirely remove the old diagnosis "Gender Identity Disorder" (much like "Homosexuality" was removed in the past), instead adding a modern and accurate diagnosis to take its place (one lacking the shortcomings of GID) — "Gender Dysphoria". There's much nuance to take in on the topic, of course. But the TL;DR is that one can be mentally ill in various ways regardless of gender identity (just as lacking a particular interest of, or take on, gender identity isn't a predictor of freedom from mental illness). Regarding any possible influence from the brain — of course it's related to the brainWikipedia's W.svg. To anyone — except for a woo-pushing immaterialist — the brain is, ultimately, responsible for all of our behaviours, "well" and "unwell" alikeWikipedia's W.svg. Note that this is a separate issue from asking "Is there an over- or under-representation of mentally unwell people in the transgender community compared to the general populace?", and that the answers to such a question — whatever they may be — vary with numerous factors. As we've seen, and continue to see, in regards to the abhorrent treatment of the LGBT community — persecution, for one thing, doesn't exactly help foster general mental wellbeing in members of sexual minorities (never mind considering the threat to their physical wellbeingWikipedia's W.svg). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A wild nobs appears![edit]

IOW, the question all comes down to being comfortable with your sexuality. A transgender who is comfortable with their sexuality won't get a diagnosis of a disorder. Anybody of whatever sex who is confused about their sexuality may have a disorder.
Here's another controversial question: Is the DSM-5 and the field of psyciatry quack science? nobs 08:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The operative phrase in the DSM-5 is clinically significant distress. What this means is a bit fuzzy but can be explained as the difference between getting a slight headache every three days that annoys you slightly and getting severe migraine attacks that renders you incapable of functioning normally. Determining if a condition is clinically significant is a very hard thing to do and is one of the many reasons that laymen should not play psychiatrists.
And to answer the other controversial question: DSM-5 is not infallible and every psychiatrist knows this. And psychology is a science. It's just an incredibly hard science.TheGrandmother (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Typically today, a multiple choice questionaire with about 30 questions, each having 3 to 5 answers, is "scored" to arive at a diagnosis. Questions such as "Do you have nightmares?" There is is little human or emotional interaction between the patient and questioner (one does not need to be a doctor or medical specialist to arrive at a diagnosis; a Nurse Practicioner or Masters in Pschology can administer tests). It reminds me of automated underwriting in mortgage lending which removed the human subjective element of mortgage underwriting out of the lending and approval process. nobs 16:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You are correct in that a multiple choice questionnaire is used but it is not just the "score" that determines if there is or isn't to be a diagnosis. The questionnaire serves more as a "checklist" of things that the psychiatrist needs to ask about in order to get a fuller picture of the patients mental state. I think you might be confusing the questionnaires from the DSM-5 with the regular assessment tests (which can be administered by a nurse), these assessment tests, are as they name might suggest, a tool to assess the current mental state of the patient. They are primarily used to keep track of changes in the patient s mental state. These assessment forms are not the same kind of questionnaires defined for the DSM-5, the questions for the diagnosis procedure are asked by the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist takes note of the answers. It is not the one you fill out your self.
If your psychiatrist lets you fill out the form and then just looks looks at the number I suggest that you find a better psychiatrist. TheGrandmother (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not hard for the patient to figure out how to be diagnosed with a disorder and qualify for an entitlement check. Simply make sure your answers all fall in the 3-5 range to get a higher score, and avoid 1 and 2s which drag it down. These tests are true science among professionals at work. nobs 17:00, 10l December 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
But the thing is that you don't get to fill in the answers, and any semi competent psychiatrist ill be able to test that you are lying. And also I'm a bit confused here. I have been provably insane for the last 4 years yet I have received no entitlement check? Should i call someone about getting one? TheGrandmother (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You can qualify and recieve a check without ever seeing a psychiatrist. A psychology PhD can rubber stamp the assessments of a Nurse Practricioner or Psyche Masters. You need a lawyer now, who can protect your rights for what you are legally entitled to. Oh, and the more years your lawyer can drag it out, the bigger the lump-sum back pay and attorney's fees will be. Many lawyers specialize in this area. See the Yellow Pages. nobs 17:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
*Pssst* There's a world outside of America Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
America, unlike Greece and elsewhere, has not yet added kleptomania, pedophilia, and pyromania to the qualifying mental disorders for a disability check. But as word gets out, I suspect lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians will form a movement. nobs 17:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
...But it says right in the article you link that, quote: "Greek authorities have said that the document is just to help with assessment, and not for benefit entitlement.". You also say "and elsewhere" — but your link makes the controversy appear very local to Greece? And let me get this straight — by saying "not yet", are you implying that America will be "adding kleptomania, pedophilia, and pyromania to the qualifying mental disorders for a disability check"? And what's the "movement" you predict will form, as word of what "gets out"? Sorry if I seem a little confused; it's because I am. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I am no longeer confused. I now know exactly what Percy was trying to tell me. TheGrandmother (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The Associated Press reports the proposal became law. A New York Times Op-Ed came out in favor of the same treatment in the US. Other movements and sentiments have been exlressed in Germany, Italy, elsewhere. nobs 17:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
...But here too, the first source (which isn't AP, but Yahoo! News) states:
"The Labor Ministry said categories added to the expanded list — that also includes pyromaniacs, compulsive gamblers, fetishists and sadomasochists — were included for purposes of medical assessment and used as a gauge for allocating financial assistance."
In fact, the news articles on the Greek bill you cite are both from 2012, and both include statements from the Greek government that debunk the fears. Surely something more recent should be avaliable if this is a current, ongoing situation? The other op-ed you cite — from 2014 — doesn't exactly imply that society should be rewarding paedophiles or anything. It clearly states:
"A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction.".
The point of the op-ed (which isn't a news item, btw) is that, as it was being written, no paedophile could even seek treatment without being blacklisted in the US. Thus, it argues that no self-preserving paedophile would risk seeking help and informing society of his existence, no matter how conflicted he was over his attraction. The arguer in the op-ed concludes that:
"Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm."
Regardless of any pros or cons of that particular, random op-ed — nobs, I still don't see how this all ties together. Though, I would like sources (and specifications) on the "other movements and sentiments" (?) that you claim have been expressed in Germany, Italy — and, again — "elsewhere" still. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The NYT OpEd is just that - not a news item but a fairly high level call for a movement to reconsider social policy regarding this group. No doubt discussions in Germany & Italy are along the same lines here. In fact, the suggestions in the US is to adopt a pilot program in Germany that set up hotlines, similiar to suicide prevention hotlines, for potential offenders. But you will notice in reviewing this literature, the underlying argument is that pedophiles are born with a nuerological brain disorder, that pedophiles are born, not made. nobs 04:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"Regressive right" navbox[edit]

There's something that connects Stormfront and The Right Stuff and The Daily Stormer. It's the same thing that connects NaturalNews and Before It's News and PrisonPlanet. It's the same thing that connects Bold and Determined and Roosh V and the Men's Rights Movement. They don't just reject modern feminist movements, modern antiracist movements, modern LGBT movements, "globalism", government-run economic programs -- the conservatism of the 1980's did and does that. Conservatives have, for the longest time, painted their programs as pro-minority, pro-feminist, and so on. These people don't -- rejecting the need for equality of sexes, races, orientations. They further reject many tenets of liberal democracy -- criticizing freedom of speech, advocating for violence, and the voting rights of all citizens. Their rhetoric is (even more) overtly conspiratorial and outraged -- focusing on small incidents of liberal stupidity and turning it into a globalist conspiracy. In short: they are anti-"modern".

Admittedly, all of these elements were elements of the conservatism that came before. But it is clear that something has changed. These groups are not united by anything positive -- they are united by their rejection of the modern. Their positive ideas are constradictory: Stormfront would love an authoritarian Nazi government; NaturalNews prefers something close to survivalist libertarian anarchism; Bold and Determined would probably support something "masculine", but certainly not genocidal. And yet they are unified in the material they promote: Pizzagate is a wonderful example of this overlap. Hillary Clinton health conspiracies and white genocide conspiracies are other examples of massive overlap. In short: These groups are anti-modern, not pro-conservative.

I suggest we call these people (and those like them) "regressive right". As before, they aren't unified by what they promote. "Alt-right" doesn't fit; they aren't all white supremacists or Neo-Nazis. "Neoreactionary" doesn't fit; most of these people don't want a fucking monarchy. "Masculinist" doesn't fit; it's more than just gender relations. "Traditionalist" works well -- but it already has a definition. Instead, they are merely "regressive" -- anti-modern and pro-not-very-much. (The parallel to "regressive left" should also be apparent.)

As a first step towards this recognition, I'd like to put together a navigation box (navbox) for these articles. (Not all of them, obviously. NaturalNews is better served by the alternative medicine box, Stormfront by the Nazi box.) What symbol(s) would be appropriate for this modern regressive movement?

TLDR: I want a "regressive right" (anti-modern conservatives of the modern era) navbox.

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Come on dude, even Aneris agreed that the concept of a "regressive right" was oxymoronical, as the right has always been — at the very minimum — conservative, and somtimes (often in the context of movements covered on RW) outright reactionary. If you want to make a nav template (which is great), why don't you make one for the mall ninja/paramilitary woo/soldier of fortune type pages? Something with katanas cutting milk jugs, flying shuriken and fedoras, spinning nunchucks with night vision laser sights, acne and fingerless gloves? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I call bullshit. Two reasons: First, this response smells of continuum fallacy -- just because they share exist on the same scale of "pining for the past" does not mean that they *are* the same. Second, they do not pine for the same past that mainstream conservatism did. A past of "less government regulation" is hardly the same as a pro-white or anti-globalist or pro-male government. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I think what he's saying is that so long as this kind of outlook is trendy in the right, to the point where they got a president elect out of it, we don't really need a special category to separate it. This type of behavior is frustratingly common enough that to do so would be to miscategorize it, and quite simply, there hasn't been any effort from the right to separate this stuff from itself, so I don't see why we should be the ones to make that effort for them. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 06:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I can recognize that. I can also recognize that we need a navsidebar for people like Common Filth. They aren't predominantly anti-anti-racist, anti-feminist, or anti-LGBT. Any better suggestions? FuzzyCatPotato of the Pocket-sized Classified ads (talk/stalk) 10:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

How is this distinct from the neoreactionary movement? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ideas having to do with social darwinism, biological racism etc. belonged largely in the way of thinking of liberals already by 1914. During and after the era of decolonization and globalism they were deleted from official rhetoric. Few people know that socialist critique on capitalism was loaned off conservative critique on modernity. The socialists were representing the proletariat while the conservatives aristocratic interests. After the end of the cold war, politics has shifted universally to a liberal rhetoric and the radical attack to the establishment comes from an update of the same kind of radicalized and modernized conservatism we saw in the late 19th century and from an update of a radically egalitarian anti-establishment liberalism or social democracy of the same period. They are post-modernist variations of the same thing.

In the West, a reboot of fascism under far-right movements and parties (their differences in preferences, whether paleolibertarian, monarchist or Neo-Nazi, or merely just incoherent fearful moaner is irrelevant, their historical role is the same) will eventually win as a I believe. To be honest, they have won already. In the rest of the world, a radicalized anti-western ideology will take root. Russia will play the two for its own benefit. It's interests stretch both west and east.

The world will shortly be broken down into economic spaces: An American, a Russian and a Chinese setting the stage for a global apocalypse that will make WWII seem like a high-school brawl. Meanwhile the heat of global warming is cranking up. Maybe civilization is one step before the grand finale. We need to ask ourselves: what are the issues of the modern period? Gewgtweg (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

& What's the deal with the creepy clowns? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
A typical feature of Anglo-Saxon culture. Theoretical naivete that tries to pass for humor. You didn't answer the question though. What are the issues that drive the modern period and as such define its intellectual and cultural production? What do modern trends indicate for the future? What does all this tell us about the nature and the function of the Alt-Right phenomenon? Of course trying to gain such insights is too distracting from someone busy tarting up his username and page, right? Gewgtweg (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr no, and I concur with the objectors - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK there isn't even a navbox for ordinary conservatism. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Good luck with that, since conservatism, liberalism, et al just got merged into the political spectrum article, AFAICT with no prior discussion. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
What does anybody know about the traditional conservative movement in Sweden? As I understand it, it is the traditional conservatives - businessmen who brought in immigrants as union busters and fundamentalist Christians showing compassion - who are blamed for Sweden's immigration problems. nobs 08:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
[train_of_discussion_being_violently_derailed.png] FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 10:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Take a gander at this, First Cologne, Now Sweden: How Left-Wing Apologism Is Fueling Right-Wing Populism. "All over Europe, merely condemning right-wingers as bigots will neither quell popular fears nor win the argument. Liberals must look in the mirror. And then we must make some concessions." nobs 15:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
How come every goddamned ill in the world is the Left's fault? Brexit. The Left's fault. Trump. The Left's fault. Home-grown Islamic Radicalism. The Left's fault. Palingenetic ultranationalism. The Left's fault. The rise of the populist right. The Left's fault. The rise of the regressive left. The Left's fault. I could go on. It seems to be a thing with the following groups, blaming the Left: so-called "classical liberals", right wing populists, neoconservatives and conservatives. The irony is the blaming the Left for all the world's ills is starting to lose its sting, kind of like calling people "racists" has. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Or, in short: DARVO. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal advice needed![edit]

I'm kind of being half-sarcastic here, but you people should be experts at this kind of thing. One of my professors is an anti-vaxxer, because both of his boys have autism and got vaccines. He saw fit to bring this up in class. He's also Baptist Christian and a Republican who supported Ben Carson in the primary (wtf?). It really pisses me off and I've taken some BB-gun-level potshots at him at times.

Several of the other students genuinely believe in horoscopes and astrology and are gullible (I did a Barnum test on one and they were shocked). Three others also subscribe to chiropractors. One has back pain from a car accident and she just saw the chiropractor yesterday, and thought it was amazing. Her mother put her on a DAILY treatment course, indefinitely.

I fear I already know the answer, but I'd there anything I can realistically do to help these people? My optimistic side says yes, the pessimist no. PB (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

He's a professor of yours who gives you a grade. Keep quite and happily get an 'A' from him.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If you do argue, use Dennet's rules:

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.

You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Not because you care about kindness, but because it makes you seem credible rather than antagonistic. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Whatever happened to just accepting and respecting people for who they are? Why the urge to proselytize in the name of god knows what? nobs 08:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif ... because bigotry.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 08:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Nobs, the conservative essayist, the Trump apologist, the evangelical Christian, the conspiracy-sniffing anti-Democrat, asks: "Whatever happened to just accepting and respecting people for who they are?" Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 10:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 17:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I call strawman. The point is that even if somebody knows they're right, they don't need to go around correcting everyone all the time. Correcting everyone doesn't do justice, it just makes someone an asshole. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey at my school, not only is my math teacher an anti-vaxxer, he's also an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists who believes that Israel did 9/11'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please Help[edit]

I've been a fan of RationalWiki for years but this is my first edit here. I'm a barely out of high school trans girl that has struggled with anxiety and depression for a long time but Trump being elected has kicked those things into overdrive. A lot of people are saying a fascist police state is coming to America and it makes me want to kill myself just to avoid seeing it. Is there any hope left at all to keep America from falling into dictatorship under Trump? What should I do? Any advice and hope you can offer to give me some peace of mind would be enormously appreciated. Thank you. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There is hope, yes. Trump is part of the executive branch. This is one of the other three branches in the American government, the other being the judicial and legislative. Each branch performs checks and balances to make sure the others don't overstep boundaries. While it is arguable that the executive has too much power, the president is just one person out of a system. There are people who don't like Trump and will shoot down his ideas the best they can. As for you being trans, do not fret, pansexuals exist who love you for who you are.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thankfully I have a partner that's helping to keep me safe from myself and my medicine is helping too but honestly I've never been so scared in my entire life. It took me days just to process it and people like Chris Hedges are saying the police are going to start mass arresting and killing protestors. This doesn't feel like the place I grew up in anymore. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
1: If you ever feel suicidal, please use the links at the top of Suicide.
2: I cannot recommend /r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns/ enough.
3: If you're worried about Trump, advocate for changes in your own state. If you live in a blue state, Trump's tax plans will probably help you, because blue states pay more federal taxes than they receive. You can advocate for state antidiscrimination policies, first amendment protections, environmental regulations, labor laws, and so on -- and your state will have more money to do all of it. If you live in a red state... I don't have much solace for you. :/ αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I live in Texas but I want to move to Seattle or somewhere. Anywhere me and my partner can be safe. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If you can afford it, Cali or Oregon might be best. They have Democratic state house / governor's house trifectas, which gives them the highest likelihood of reversing/ignoring/counteracting national Republican actions. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
My partner says the costs of living in Oregon are too high plus we have a business here we can't move away from. I guess we'll have to weather the storm out here. Do you think Chris Hedges has any merit when he says Trump can start criminalizing, silencing and/or killing whoever he doesn't like? 173.175.43.44 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair point on both counts. No, I'm not afraid about Trump killing people. If he did, I have faith in Congress to shut him down -- or the nutty conspiracist fringe to assassinate him.
Another note: violence is more likely to occur between family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers, in that order. If you are genuinely worried for your own health, hiding your personal political beliefs to those physically near you might be in order. The Internet is a safe place, though. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that makes me feel a lot better. I don't share anything about myself outside of a close circle of friends so I should be safe. Thanks a whole bunch. I might be able to sleep well tonight. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The separation of powers notwithstanding, that doesn't necessarily prevent Trump from conspiring and prospectively succeeding in acquiring (at least de facto) dictatorial powers. Regardless of what happens, it is certain that the social and political climate will shift further to the right. In that case, the best defense is giving up your current social identity and trying to cater to society's perception of normality in line with your biological sex. If that is impossible you should seriously consider moving elsewhere, particularly the European Northwest. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily true...I hope not. Clinton won the popular vote and Trump has the lowest approval rating of anyone entering office, plus he's already started betraying his own base. I know there are some hardcore and scary Neo-Nazi people out there that support him, plus that whole Bannon thing, but I think anyone to their left is ready to fight back just like when Reagan and Bush were in office. I don't think we can move out of the country so I have to keep telling myself that we can bring America back from the brink just to keep my hold on sanity. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Jeez. Many people think that Trump is going to blow up the entire world. A president is not a dictator. If you think being a president does give dictatorial powers, then Trump is not an issue, the American system is.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I hope China or the Russians with their nuclear drone thing don't hit us. This feels like I've traveled back in time to the Cold War almost. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
When I was growing up, the Cold War was in full swing. To be honest, there was something liberating about the prospect of global thermonuclear war. It put things like planning for the future into perspective. Since the missiles might be launched any time now, may as well live for the present. It increasingly occurs to me that this is what's wrong with kids today. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean? What's wrong with my generation? I try not to think about it too much but since a lot of my time is spent alone in an apartment it's just me and my thoughts. I know it's bad but I can't help it. My medicine and what CheeseburgerFace along with FCP said helped though. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Have you considered stop listening to fake news from mainstream sources? nobs 04:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to vent about the current status of the world. Honestly, the world needs to calm the fuck down. People are acting like Trump is going to trigger a WWIII, kill all the gays, and make white men the only race on the planet. Remember when communists were a threat? Remember when Russians were a threat? Remember when gays were actually a fucking threat? Remember when people said they would leave America because of Nixon?
Guess what happened after all these scares? NOTHING. Communists never took over America, Russians never took over America, and well gays DID conquer America (LOL). But you know what? After all these scares America and the world has not blown and toppled over. And what do you think will happen in terms of Trump and Muslims? Nothing will happen, just like the other things Americans were afraid of. Twenty years from now, Americans will just go back to another thing to be scared at and forget the times when the panics were not justified. People need to grow up and stop panicking because history has shown that these panics were not fruitful and that the things Americans were scared of actually weren't a threat. Sure Trump is a loudmouth but as of now, he hasn't even gotten his feet wet in presidency. If he does do something Americans don't like, Americans should actually do something about it and stop bitching on social media thinking that's going to solve something. Do protests, participate in local politics and get involved with your state representative, you actually have more power locally than you do federally. //rant end—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@nobs I'm not totally perfect in filtering out b.s. but I at least try to verify that something is true before believing it. I was in elementary school during the Bush years so this is my first time really "experiencing" a Republican president I guess.
@CheeseburgerFace I at least agree that Twitter hastags and leftist memes need to translate into real world action if anything is going to actually get done. Luckily it seems that's already happening going by how many protests there have been and all the money that's been donated to progressive organizations. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Not to sound disrespectful or anything, but recently a man walked into a pizza parlor and fired off a round because of b.s. he read from fake news sources. Now, if a person were to actually commit the violent act of killing themselves because of the b.s. they read from real world news sources, how much real world news do you suppose that would generate? nobs 05:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it would generate any news. It would be reported as a suicide in the local newspaper and/or cable show and then be forgotten about. It's not like I'm entrenched in the community here, I just recently moved. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I imagine you're right. They're quick to point accusing fingers, but they would not take responsibility for their own actions. I hope there's something to be learned here about which sources a person allows to affect their attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. nobs 05:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that news is a business. The business makes money. Like any other large business like McDonald's, it doesn't care about the wellbeing of its customers so long as it doesn't interfere with getting a profit. Capitalism is ruled by personal interest. General news doesn't care if it inflicts depression on viewers, it just want ad revenue and a way for people to keep watching and reading their content.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 06:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I can see why my dad gets nostalgic for when news had actual integrity like when Cronkite was around. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@ChessebergerFace Do NOT be a retrospective prophet. People worrying during the Red Scare and nuclear annihilation wasn't just idiocy that you now retrospectively are able to scold. Avoiding conflict with the USSR had a lot to do with just luck. Do you know in how many instances we came close to the nuclear buttons being pushed? Trump is a mentally unstable individual and pathologically narcissistic. That is the truth and people are damn right to be scared.
How do you know nothing will happen? Disasters have had a long tradition of occurring in history, I tell you. If you have reasons to believe the future will turn out basically just fine for humanity then start talking in the language of economics, geopolitics, and concrete interests that justify optimism. Your wishful thinking and your assurances you can keep for yourself. We shouldn't lie to people when the danger to themselves is REAL because we're not really protecting them that way but instead make it more easy for predators. Do you realize just who is Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor? It's even worse than you think. We shouldn't just say what people want to hear. I want to make it clear to our friend that her identity puts her at risk and that there are no assurances we can give to her, to you or to ourselves for the future. Being scared can save your life. If Albert Einstein had returned to Germany in 1933 because 'nothing will happen' and 'it's all exaggeration' he would have lived the rest of his days in misery before finally dying in misery. Gewgtweg (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif. I'll admit I am apathetic towards world issues, presumably as a defense mechanism; however, some points still stand. Doing something is better than being scared, participate in local politics.
Also, keeping to yourself and never putting yourself out there is the best defense one can have. Also FuzzyCatPotato has stated that the Internet is a "safe place", this is not if you don't protect yourself. Reddit has handed over logs to the NSA in the past. Researching computer security and commuter forensics will reveal just how vulnerable someone can be to surveillance. Create a threat model. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'll just go to ground and keep as quiet as possible for the next few years while hoping that everyone about to be adversely affected by this administration pulls together and mounts an effective resistance. Thank you all again for your advice. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well you can still be open on the Internet so long as you don't use your real name or IP address. I see you are using a proxy, though I recommend using Tor Browser.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. My only online presence is on tumblr and I don't use my real name or post any personal information there. I don't have a Facebook or anything. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well Tor Browser is good for security as well. Sure, not revealing information Online is a good idea, but I think you should consider attacks and exploits as well.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:35, 12 December 2016 (:
What do you mean by "attacks and exploits?" Like being hacked? I'm not well versed in this computer stuff so please forgive my ignorance. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, correct. Pages on the Internet have scripts that give you fancy features but can be used by hackers to get your location and other information you don't want revealed. Tor has the option to disable scripts that make you more secure but can make certain websites unusable. It's your choice how secure you want to be about this. One day, being trans might be illegal, who knows? With good security you can be openly trans without worrying too much about hackers using your information against you. Tor is a great tool for activists; however, the Operating System tails is a privacy oriented OS that has Tor Browser on it that can protect you even more.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your tips. I'll make sure I'm invisible and secure online. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Trade war with China[edit]

I know we owe China about $6.2 Trillion but even if we paid every last cent of debt, they would still be screwed as they make hundreds of billions of dollars a month. Lets say we bought $300 billion worth of product a month then in a year it would be $3.6 Trillion in profits for China. So if we paid them every last bit of debt they would still be screwed over in the long term. Even if South America and Africa started to buy from China, the thing is that their money is of low value or (almost) worthless; so China might want to be careful on what it does.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I am kind of surprised that nobody wanted to discuss a current global issue like this? I am not saying this to be rude, I am just shocked that nobody wants to talk about a global economic issue like this. (Shrugs shoulders in confusion)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's the misuse of the word profit. The profits China enjoys wouldn't be anywhere near what is suggested. Profits would be $3.6 trillion less the cost of shipping and manufacturing. But I agree, it's a key topic we'll be hearing more about and be discussing in the very near future. nobs 16:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind, I was just guessing. I tried to find out how much China profits but go no real information on it--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The actual "profit" is likely less than 8%. But that matter - the financial gain to the owners of capital - doesn't really matter here. You are right using the aggregate figures, just don't confuse yourself and the rest of us with a discussion about end profits. It's a discussion about the gross volume of trade, which affects the lives of many workers. Here, the manufacturing "cost" includes the financial gain to workers over their own work related expenses. Each labourer is a "profiteer" as well, but most consume their profits in annual living expenses. Trade discussions use the terms suplus and deficit rather than profit and loss (IOW, the $3.6 Trillion figure would have to be offset by what China purchases from the US). So just leave the idea of profit out and proceed with your basic premise. nobs 12:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Gold apathy[edit]

Shakespeare authorship and Holocaust denial were nominated for gold several weeks ago. There have been no serious objections to either of these after clean-ups. The engoldening instructions say, "You should probably give it a week." but nothing much else procedurally, really. This is your last chance to object before they are moved to cover stories. Bongolian (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

These articles are ready for gold, their problems aside. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The holocaust denial article still suffers from the problems which I & other editors flagged up six or seven years ago:
"Holocaust deniers might use the confusion around the term Holocaust..."
"Deniers might use the one single proof gambit..."
"Revisionists might claim that Sonderbehandlung meant delousing and disinfection..."
"Deniers might claim that the government killed Baer behind locked doors..."
"Deniers might claim that this makes established history self-contradicting..."
And about 20 or 30 more unsubstantiated "might" phrases. Huge chunks of the article are focused on refuting these hypothetical assertions, & it's not until the bottom quarter of the article that we find information about actual holocaust deniers & examples of what they actually say.
It needs work. I suggest purging the article of the various "might" claims & counterarguments against them, unless real examples of these arguments are provided, & bumping the info about the holocaust denial movement (i.e. the subject of the article) up to the top of the article where it should belong. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I think all of these are fair points -- but I don't think the waffling needs to be purged, or that the article shouldn't be golded. TBQF a lot of other gold articles have serious flaws -- this one is not worse, by far. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I easily think the Shakespeare article at least is front page worthy, well referenced and comprehensive. I'm also going to blow my own horn here and suggest that English spelling reform, pagan survivals, and Margaret Murray ought IMO to at least get brainstars. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree and have made all 3 bronze. I think the first 2 might be silver, but I will leave that to someone else. Bongolian (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As 2016 draws to a close, let us reflect on the best, worst and stupidest moments of the year[edit]

In no particular order:

  • Ben Carson saying the Egyptian Pyramids were corn silos (Stupidest)
  • Pennsylvania regulating Naturopathic medicine (Stupidest)
  • Ebola Epidemic (Worst)
  • Bill Cosby Sex Scandal (Worst and Stupidest)
  • The 2016 Presidential Election (Stupidest) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Brexit vote (Wrong question, wrong response by those in charge, nobody knowing what is going on) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Mississippi Anti-Evolution Bill (Stupidest)
  • Malta making Gay conversion therapy illegal (Best)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Leonard Cohen and David Bowie died TheGrandmother (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What do these numbers signify? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The numbers used to signify a lack of faith in the future... Now the numbers are gone... But their significance is not lost. TheGrandmother (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Threads can now be stickied[edit]

Use (sticky) in the title, as seen in the top two threads of this bar, to prevent archival. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Being able to sticky important topics does not mean that one is now free to start stickying garbage. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Question for fellow inhabitants of the golden state.[edit]

Would any of you actually support succession? Because this organization is apparently trying to make it an issue in 2019.'Legionwhat do you want from me 18:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean 'succession' as in royalty or secession (as in withdrawal)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Secession as in withdrawal I cen't speelll'Legionwhat do you want from me 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Petitions for secession have happened before, most recently with Obama's second term triggering a number of 2012 state petitions for secessionWikipedia's W.svg, and tldr; typically nothing ever comes of it. However if Trump's administration actually succeeds in legislating the equivalent of human rights abuses, then no doubt California will be in the vanguard of serious secession movements. Leuders (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds pretty screwy if it is sincere. Cessation needs a bigger & better reason than "we don't like the current President". WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It does give a lot of reasons for secession besides ¨fuck Trump¨ such as economic benefits, and California simply being to big to be a state anymore, as well as a growing divide between CA and the rest of the union, signified by Trump getting elected.'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sucession is illegal. The Civil War determined that. nobs 07:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

As a non-inhabitant-of-the-golden-state, I'm all against it. It would doom the rest of the county to 20 or 30 years of Republican national power. Now, if you were willing to have the West Coast, Great Lakes, and New England secede, and maybe offer a little "rehousing" money for anyone moving from the USA... FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk)

I bet you that the West Coast states on their own (plus Nevada) could be more successful than the South on its own. Especially if they actually succeed in throwing out "Mexicans"... Worzelpete (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
In principle, I'd support it, but in reality not really. If everyone else would leave us alone it would be great, but of course they wouldn't. Bongolian (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I wish it was possible, but it is very unlikely. But it would be great for California to be its own country, considering how different it is from the rest of the U.S.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 22:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Same as FCP - secession is something to think about and daydream about but if it happened in practice I'd be freaked out. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 23:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

French elections[edit]

I'm planning to make a page on 2017 french elections, as it is a depressing festival of stupidity. Any advices ? Diacelium (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Like Nike says, Just Do it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. It lacks some références, i'll finish it later.Diacelium (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Call me paranoid but......[edit]

What on Earth happened to that few hundred million dollars donated to help with the Flint Water Crisis? Hell, even twenty million would have been enough to replace every pipe in the city! Am I missing something here or am I just paranoid? — Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs

Replacing water pipe costs about a million dollars per mile (source: my local water system's capital improvement plan). Ballpark estimate is that Flint has around 500 miles of water pipe, not counting connections between buildings and the under-street mains. And if you tried to replace all of it in a single year, just imagine what the construction would do to the traffic flow. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't remember how much was given to Flint in the past year but still, many of the pipes could have been replaced. I am sure the health and safety of the people would be more important than the costs — Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs
Replacing the water pipes of a small city would cost $500 million? That just seems a bit high... Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Well you have to remember that those types of investments are usually never made all at once. So usually you'll replace a couple of meters every year and end up replacing all of them over their design life... Unless of course you fuck up and lay all new pipes to begin with and then do nothing for fifty years. Of course lead pipes should be replaced yesterday. Worzelpete (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Extra History had an episode on the Sewers of London and how Chicago got lifted 4ft for their new Sewers.The Link is here. In short in case you dont want to watch a 6 minute video is this: The Pyramids ain't got nothing on Sewers.--Benaresh (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
That would explain why in Civilization II, a sewer system took a similar number of production units to build as the Pyramids. CorruptUser (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd still be skeptical of realism regarding the Civilisation Series. All hail Nuclear Ghandi!--Benaresh (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So, uh... what was up with that nonsense getting spammed everywhere?[edit]

Some crank named "DMFanboy" spammed crap about a "Dick Masterson" in a few places, and also made a page consisting only of a quote and an embedded video. I cleaned it up and blocked who was responsible, but, well... Yeah. Any explanations, anyone? TheMyon (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A young troll (young for the use of "Rekt" ) who probably was bored.Or Dick MAsterson himself vandalising everything where anti-feminism was even mentioned."Chauvinism isn't Misogyny" LOL--Benaresh (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep, young rekektionary troll. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sweet Circlejerk they have over there.--Benaresh (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Not half as sweet as the one we've got going over here! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

whole body cryotherapy woo[edit]

trying out my first attempts at a useful article. Whole_body_cryotherapy. Balancing Snark VS Citation hard. Still learning. greetz. Gadzooks (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers to Ikanreed and Bongolian for learning me to do gooder for edit making article thing. Gadzooks (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You made a good effort on the article, Gadzooks. See if you can fill in some references. Bongolian (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I've had another go at editing out unsupported statements and connecting statements to original supporting data. Cheers to whoever added the footnotes and fixed up some formatting. You guys are much kinder than wikipedia LOL. Gadzooks (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Good. I've moved the references to the end. You might want to try this style of references in the future; it's cleaner as it alerts readers as to what the reference is without having to click on it. Bongolian (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Muchas thank you Bongolian, that's a much better way to do it. Will assimilate this knowledge and improve next attempt. Probably. I have been impressed by the clarity of writing here and it makes me want to work harder to get my own arguments into a slightly less chaotic state whilst maintaining an overall air of silliness. Many thankings. 05:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

ISIS bandits suck at desert combat[edit]

Look at this new video that ISIS published (not graphic) showing their assault on Syrian Army positions west of Palmyra. They are terrible! They can't shoot for shit, they are barely able to hit targets and have no concept of cover. For their firing they are using the "spray and pray" method, thinking Allah will guide their bullets. They're also totally exposed in the desert. If serious Syrian and Russian air power were committed to this area, ISIS would not stand a chance! Comments? Applesauce (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that particular operation of theirs was just a photo op to generate more propaganda footage. It was probably a low-risk engagement they could dick around with to look intimidating to the general public and impressive to prospective recruits (i.e. laymen). They certainly aren't as trained or disciplined as more formal military forces, but if their entire army fought that badly in practice ISIS never would have gotten as far as it has.
Also you're getting very hung up on infantry tactics, which has little to do with DAESH's military success. They've mainly managed to outlast and overwhelm other forces in the area with good recruiting logistics and well-sustained morale both based on a very strong propaganda machine (see above). Even if they don't win individual battles, they'be proven incredibly capable, resilient strategists on the larger scale.71.188.73.196 (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a composite of two or three clips taken over time. There is one kill of a tank or armored vehicke from a shoulder-fired weapon. But attrition often happens to a tired fighting force after several years of non-stop combat. Their best fighters have already been killed (the Pentagon estimates more killed - 23,000, then its original estimate of total strength - 15,000) or have deserted. They end up with a rag-tag band of ill-trained, ill-equiped, misfits, rejects, and children as their last line of defense. nobs 03:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It warms my heart to see nobs and RW united in the distaste for these filthy Monsters.Fuck DAESH sideways!--Benaresh (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
DAESH is a CIA front, haven't you heard? No wonder Trump has vowed to destroy them. nobs 07:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Look, the West did a lot to contribute to the struggle going on in the Levant, but they didn't make Daesh. USA fight Daesh long before they stormed Iraq. I sincerely hope you are joking. Applesauce (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It's mostly a joke, he's our resident expert on the Mid-East and is just being snarky since he's also a wingnut. But he's our wingnut, now. CorruptUser (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

On Climate Change[edit]

Hey guys it's me again. I hope you're all doing as well as you can given the current circumstances. Now that I'm reasonably assured that Trump and his Cabinet of Horrors won't be able to set up an actual, literal murderous dictatorship in the US I've hit another roadblock to my mental health. In the past few days I've read articles that run the gamut from "Trump can't actually effect renewable energy much" to "Repubs, Trump and Putin will literally kickstart the global climate apocalypse." An example of the former is here and something leaning towards the latter is here. I'd like to think that the situation will be rough but ultimately salvageable for the entire human race. Which of these viewpoints do you think is most realistic? I'd love to hear projections from the RW community since you guys have your heads on your shoulders. Thanks as always. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The world might suffer for a while but may recover, hell the world survived the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event which killed 90% of life on Earth. I am sure we can survive the Trump Administration. Germany survived Hitler and Italy survived Mussolini so I am sure we can survive Trump though the U.S will (probably) be in a tight spot for a while.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The main thing kicking my anxiety up now is what kind of world today's children and especially our grandchildren will be living in. I don't think it's necessarily enough to guarantee raw, basic survival. Surviving isn't living. I hope the global pushback on this situation is enough so the kids of today's kids can live in a society that's more or less stable. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Federal money for climate change research grants would have been cut by a GOP Congress and any other of tne GOP candidates, so don't lay this one on Trump. Sure, Trump is more active in pro-business job creation, and wants to do this very quickly. His appointment of an EPA administrator is a guy with list of projects being held up in the pipeline already. Trump's number one objective right now is reelection, building bridges to groups that oppose him. That's Ivanka Trump's job with global warming advocates. Trump may act swiftly to free Julian Assange for two reasons: one, before Assange starts dumping crap about him, and two, to win over free speech and open government advocates. Remember, Trump is a New York liberal, and not the fascist monster and conservative redneck that the mainstream media tried to portray him as. nobs 05:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I hate to resort to ad hominems, I really do, but you do seem to talk out of your ass sometimes, nobs. It is not at Trump's discretion to "free Assange", because 1) Assange is not in prison; and 2) Assange is wanted by the Swedish authorities for questioning, so even if Trump "frees" him (even though, as aforementioned, it is not in his power to do so), that doesn't mean the Swedish authorities will drop their desire to question, especially since if they did, it would undermine their claim to sovereignty (i.e. self-governance, determining their own national affairs, including the prosecution of crime, et cetera) by proving to critics that the whole thing (i.e. trying to bring Assange in for questioning over rape allegations) was a pretext for extradition to the US, and thus a sham, and that they (the Swedish authorities) are not really interested in the pursuit of justice (i.e. whether or not there is really a case of rape worth investigating) but rather kowtowing to the whims of their American overlords. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Assange claims Obama and particularly Hillary are behind the bogus charges against him. Even the British government, which has stricter laws than the US on the disclosure of national security secrets, recently changed it stance, claiming Assange may be the victim of arbitrary detention. nobs 13:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Once more, you let your ass do the talking. The UK government has not changed its stance on Assange. Yes, it has removed the police from outside of the embassy, but its position remains the same: take Assange into custody if he exits the embassy WHICH IS WHY HE HASN'T EXITED THE EMBASSY! Moreover, it was a UN panel, not the UK government, that ruled that Assange may be under arbitrary detention. That's just a fact; easily fact-checked. Yet, you have soomehow managed to twist it to suit your position. You have turned a fact into an un-fact. This, people, what nobs has just done, is how fake news is born; minor tweaks to facts here and there. I would tell you to do your research, nobs, but something tells me you aren't as interested in facts (i.e. reality) as you are in how you feel. Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how stacking one's Cabinet with climate change deniers and people otherwise totally unqualified for their position while getting into Twitter feuds counts as building bridges. Whatever hopes people might have had of him somehow getting the smartest people, the best people to surround him and mitigate the damage have fallen. I don't see him as having any values at all, fascist or liberal. He's just doing this for his own glory and to make money, just like every single thing he's ever done in his entire life. That's a bit besides the point, anyway; I was trying to inquire as to whether the damage wrought by climate change can realistically be contained by humanity as a whole. If not, I'll resign myself to being part of a generation that's largely powerless to watch a final decline and total collapse wrought by the selfishness, willful ignorance and greed of the folks that came prior to us. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Climate change is moreless a dead issue, just as it was for the past year in the election campaign. Virtually no one, that is no candidates at any level or advocates and groups, spoke up about it for the past year. Not until after the election. We were more concerned about building the wall, sex allegations against Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, or Clinton emails and Foundation corruption. Nobody gives a shit about climate change. nobs 05:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That still doesn't answer my question, I'm not even talking about just the US at this point. Do you or don't you think that the worst effects of man made global warming on the entire planet can be mitigated, and if so why or why not? If "nobody gives a shit" here, will China step into the gap? Who's going to stop this? Can anyone stop this? Those are my burning questions 173.175.43.44 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
China is about to have more pressing problems than survival of the planet - the reduction in one thousand million dollars per day exports to the United States. This will create fwo new, more pressing problems for China than its concern over destruction of the planet - a reduction in the speed of growth of its military budget, and a loss of msnufacturing output. The flip side is, China's carbon emmission will fall as well. nobs 06:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you pretty much encapsulated all of my concern with "more pressing problems than the survival of the planet." We don't have a backup planet. But, less carbon emissions. Yay. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh hush. The worst case scenario of climate change is not the doom and gloom, but a worldwide food collapse which results in a billion people starving to death in the Third World, but more horrifyingly, Americans and Europeans will be forced to eat only half as much meat as they are used to.
Oh, and the worldwide economy will tank, but the shortage of people will reduce the value of real estate and drive up the cost of labor, undoing decades worth of income inequality. So, umm, yay? CorruptUser (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That breaks my heart. I never in my whole life imagined that a couple of generations down the line from mine would bear witness to a mass dieoff like that. It's horrible, horrible. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Cheer up, Lad! See the Upside is that the US may be the Climate Change Denial Capital, but the rest of the World takes the whole issue somewhat serious. Who knows, maybe we can lessen the worst side Effects in the Future! Geo Engineering will get a priority funding, maybe we will live on Claud Citys on the Venus and Colonys on Mars and Moon and thusly Unicorns and Lolipops for everybody! We're proper fucked aren't we? --Benaresh (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
At least other places on the planet aren't entirely clueless. As for being properly fucked, I can't decide one way or the other. I think I might have a mental problem in regards to drawing conclusions entirely by myself. Some people are saying they're confident we can minimize the damage, others are screaming to the rafters about Russia drilling oil out of the melting icecaps and everything going down the tubes. Meanwhile I'm stuck in the middle watching helplessly. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh, i have a similar Problem. I tend to get paranoid about stuff, and i have the feeling that (besides the US who pretends nothing is happening) most Countries are aware this is a problem but are unwilling to spend the proper amount of Money and Time on it. The "proper fucked" part is the general apathy of Goverments and People on this mighty important matter and lack of proper plans to counter this. But there is always the possibility that what we do at the momemt might suffice in the end.

EDIT: Also proper fucked doesn't mean "we're all GOIN TO DIE!" It is rather : "We going to have a very bad time!"--Benaresh (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope you're right. And thanks for your clarification. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So a food shortage would lower US agricultural surpluses and subsidies, and declining population would be good for wages while lowering the tax base. Things have a way of evening out. Falling real estste values may lower the Trump families net worth, but this might not be the actual case with a loss of population; restrictons on automobiles could lead to an agricultural boom wbere each individual needs several acres to do their own farming. Look at the positive side, climate change may bring about change you can believe in. nobs 12:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather if people weren't starving to death and whole species weren't dying out to make any of this happen. But if anything at all positive comes out of these tragedies I'll take it. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The big problem with the problem of climate change is that most proposed 'solutions' sound like more austerity proposals from a technocratic elite. They want to make you pay more for gasoline. They want the media to start scolding you about your "carbon footprint", which means that your thermostat settings and other personal choices come under unwelcome public scrutiny. They've even emboldened the wretched vegans, who ought to count their blessings if we don't have them rounded up and caned. This isn't going to work in any system with elements of basic democracy like a secret ballot. It can only be imposed on people against their will, and to the extent that they're give anything to say about the matter, expect it all to be rejected. We ought not to concentrate on plans to reduce the world's "carbon footprint" because that is inherently unworkable. All you'll get is cheats as governments everywhere try to force the burden of economic damage somewhere else. Our only real option is to plan for the inevitable, and think in terms of harm reduction. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you think should be done in terms of harm reduction then? 173.175.43.44 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Seawalls. Mapping out optimal areas for new crops and new weather patterns, and keeping farm workers informed. Industrial farming is actually a major advantage under these conditions. Human preservation of picturesque or culturally significant polar species to the extent possible. Forcing nuclear energy into people's back yards, making litigation impossible, and creating the infrastructure to cope with the waste it generates. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Those all sound good, although I have to ask what the difference is between a technocratic elite forcing people to reduce carbon emissions and that presumably very same elite forcing acceptance of nuclear power. Is it just because one works and the other doesn't? 173.175.43.44 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A world government with a spine that forced carbon emissions down, like Stalin or Mao's five year plans, would solve the problem just as well as one building nuclear reactors next to your local school. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Stalin and Mao were bad guys though. I don't think a world government enforcing this stuff is a realistic solution. I also don't equivocate "having a spine" with bulldozing through people's rights. It seems to me these days having any sort of conscience or humanitarian goals whatsoever takes a lot of spine, which is sad. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Have the navy build (and guard) the nuclear power plants, so that the locals don't even get a say. CorruptUser (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a pretty disturbing point of view to me. People not having a say in what gets done is the root of a whole lot of tragedies in human history. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Carbon scolding and restrictions are culturally obnoxious in a way that simply removing local obstacles to wider use of nuclear power is not. One gives people something to judge and feign moral superiority over their neighbors. The other just seeks to remove 1970s era irrational fears. (Let's face it, the automobile is integral to the culture of the United States. Tolerating the automobile as technology was probably a mistake. The only mistake I can think of that seems comparable is tolerating commercial activity on the Internet; and I remember the golden days when it was not tolerated. We might have gone with something different if we had planned otherwise; we did not.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I see your point about the carbon stuff. Why do you think commercial activity on the internet is bad? 173.175.43.44 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I also remember when, for instance, local bookstores were more viable propositions. You could browse in them, pick up things in unexpected areas that piqued your interest, and otherwise broaden your horizons in them. Amazon.com has put major stress on this as a business model. The world would be a better place without that. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I do like brick and mortar stores a lot better than ordering online, but when I lived in a rural area before moving I had to drive an hour and a half or more to go to an actual bookstore. The more rare stuff was just more convenient to get online. That's just my personal experience though, and I hate it when I hear about bookstores closing. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
But we're not murdering trees like in the old days with print media and books. nobs 06:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Deforestation is still a big problem beyond newspapers and books. I'm not sure how much printed media contributed to it though. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right. Toilet paper is the big culprit. Did you know, women use 5 times as much toilet paper as men? (Women wipe everytime they pee, whereas men generally only on No. 2). Now, given the facts, is it fair to men that they should have to pay a higher price for toilet paper than necessary, since it is women responsible for the large demand, bidding the price up? Women are destroying 5 times as many trees as men do. nobs 07:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Good luck charging women more for toilet paper. Anyway, I happened to watch the live Obama birth certificate TV press conference held by Joe Arpaio yesterday and was surprised at the how much the presentation of the evidence resembled that of a UFO-conspiracy nut presentation ("...independent experts from 5 countries testified that the signature on the MJ-12 documents was genuine and that the angle of the blah blah blah..."). Leuders (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Arpaio proves that Trump is a fraud. The fact Arpaio was passed over as Secretary of Homeland Security, or not even considered for the lesser position of Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement proves Trump's cynical manipulation of the immigration issue. It's either that, or mainstream media fake news outlets decieved us about Trump's racism. nobs 16:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It's almost like the candidate you voted for was lying and making false promises on order to get the fickle nationalist crowd like you to vote for him. Imagine that! How do you feel? Applesauce (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I almost forgot, the best part of the press event was Arpaio loudly insisting "this is not about Barack Obama, it's about the document" and then calling for a congressional investigation, criminal charges, etc. Leuders (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Applesauce, that may be the case. I still think Bill Clinton put him up to it, telling Trump whatever candidate took a hard line on immigration would have an automatic 40% bipartisan base. And Trump scapegoated Mexican immigrants, but his real target is Islamic migrants. And Congress opening the US floodgates for the first time since 1927 to white European refugees of the Islamic hordes ravaging Europe will insure the survival of Western Civilization, in North America at least. nobs 02:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)