RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive268

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 17 January 2017. 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>, <266>, <267>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>
, (new)(back)

Maajid Nawaz continues to prove that he is a garbage human being![edit]

This is especially for you, Reverend. You thought I was trying to manufacture this dude's dickishness? Please visit his Twitter page and read how he embarrasses himself vis-a-vis the UN resolution against Israeli settlements and Obama's refusal to veto said resolution. Bear in mind, if you do, this is a guy who criticises the whatabouttery of some on the Left.

For those of you that cannot be bothered to visit his Twitter page, here's the gist. Nawaz argues that Iran nuclear deal (which is meant to cut off Iran's path to a nuke) empowered/strengthen the Iran theocracy (this guy is meant to be a liberal remember?), and that Obama instead chose to make an example of Israel (despite the fact that Obama just gave Israel $38 billion and this resolution being the first of such a resolution against Israel in 8 years).

Everytime someone, like Rupert Myers, like Kyle Kulinski, would point this out to him, he would retort with "whatabout Iran's actions in Syria? Whatabout Saudi Arabia?"

It's such a weak line of argument,that you almost feel as though he doesn't really believe it.

When his whatabouttery is pointed out to him, several times, his response is:

No,it's not "whatabouttery" to comment on US / Mid East alliance from Israel to Iran.It's commenting on a misguided regional strategic pivot

In other words,there are other people in the region breaking international law. Go after them instead! Leave Israel alone!

Just how powerful are the pro-Israeli lobbies? Even the ADL criticised the resolution!

Also, Reverend, if you're reading, I'm not done editing his (Nawaz's) page. I am committed to ensuring everyone who visits his page knows that he is a dick; and possibly a Israeli settlement expansion apologist now too, or at the very least, a neocon useful idiot. –--Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you have an axe to grind with Maajid Nawaz and if you have to molehill mountaineer to do it then by God you're going to mount those molehills. You're not going to get very far, there's hardly even a concensus on this very wiki about Israel/Palaestine situation beyond a rough agreement both should exist in one way or another, though we have had a handful of fanatics on one side or the other cough cough. I mean I'm even willing to cede the claim of "whatabbouterry" to you, even though it's somewhat questionable because it has more to do with (according to Nawaz) choosing who to appease and who not to already complicated Middle East foreign policy instead of actually absolving Israel but regardless it's still not exactly a smoking gun. ClothCoat (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have an axe to grind with him. I just think his page ought to reflect his "asshattery". After all, Sam Harris' does; Glenn Greenwald's does; Noam Chomsky's does.
Also, in what way am I molehill mountaineering? He has a page on Rationalwiki. Ought not it reflect that he thinks the international community should turn a blind eye to Israel's breach of international law?

Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

lol, someone call Mona Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
1) I'm surprised you're still here. I thought you would have taken your ball and bat home after your sidekick (or what it the other way around), Aneris, was sent packing; and 2) why don't you call Mona yourself? Why are you deferring? Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
??? I just made a saloon topic a few days ago. You Westerners are insufferable, a shame the USSR didn't win to put you in your place. Hopefully, China still will. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Please explain what exactly makes us Westerners insufferable. I'm sure there's been some sort of communication failure somewhere along the line here and I'd like to understand your point of view better. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
RE: Lord Aeonian, lol. Someone call nobs.Levi Ackerman (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's assume for a moment the demographic argument - that Palestinians at some point will be 50% in a Greater Israel - is inevitable, wouldn't continued infrastructure improvements be beneficial and work too the Palestinians advantage? nobs 13:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@nobs, you know what they say about "assume". It makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be, nobs, if that's what Israel was actually doing. Israel is not improving the infrastructure of Palestinian people's lands. Also, the idea of "we're just benign occupiers trying to improve the infrastructure of the land" is bullshit, the same excuses the French made in Algeria, the Japanese made in frickin every East Asian country ever, etc. Did Cecil Rhodes's plans for great African railway and telegraph line justify Britain's occupation of Africa? I think not. PBfreespace (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, in 30-50 years Palestinians will be living in those houses Israelis are building now under various demographic scenarios. And that's a big improvement from the shitholes they live in now. And aside, you don't believe the French or British brought any economic benefit to the indigenous people of Africa? Japan however, is quite a different matter. nobs 05:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Damn that man known as Nawaz. He must be the Imperial Guard Captain Al'Rahem in disguise! Maim!Kill!Burn! 03:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


Maajid Nawaz and Kyle Kulinski got into it on Twitter over this same issue and well, it was just glorious. I wouldn't do it any justice if I described it to you, so I recommend you check it out for yourselves on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/812748504795934720; https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/812744492365316096

Is the 'World of Lucid Dreaming [WoLD]' woo?[edit]

Somehow on my travels across the Internet, I've stumbled across this http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com. Now, I have a difficult time to decide if this is woo or not (I am currently working on enhancing my skepticism skills) and it does seem to contain woo in its articles, additionally, them selling courses to learn how to lucid dream seems very fishy to me. I just need some help to conclude if and how woo it is and the evidence for either position. Thank you in advance.--WMS (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Lucid dreaming exists as a measurable phenomenon. That's... about as far as you should trust that site. It's otherwise bullshitty dream anecdotes. Which are okay. That's harmless woo. More harmless even that dream interpretation, in that it doesn't replace real psychological treatment with bullshit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Lucid dreaming is certainly a thing. I know because I've done it often - it's pretty cool. There is also scientific literatures which backs it up. But it's also a great opportunity for woo-merchants.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Now having read a few of the articles on the site it's not that bad. Its suggestions on how do reality checks while dreaming, what to do about false awakenings - where people dream they have woken up multiple times - along with their description of sleep paralysis are all pretty good. Just don't buy any supplements or machines.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but also, dreaming won't enable you to suddenly understand 5th dimensional math(there's deffo some bullshit there). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
nth dimensional mathematics is mostly just taking the same equations to produce desired results (say, a shape in space) and running then through some functions to convert them into n dimensions. It looks very messy but fundamentally nothing is changing and it's easy to understand, just not visualize. The flip side is that there could very well be applications and concepts in higher dimensional space that we can't see because we can't comprehend and visualize upper dimensional spaces. For instance, an entity which exists and can only comprehend in one dimensional space would be unable to imagine something like a curve, or a circle, or any of the other things we can draw on a two dimensional graph besides a straight line. In turn, ideas like calculus, which are based on curves and rates of change, would never be discovered by entities unable to comprehend two dimensional space. There could well be many fields like calculus in 4+ dimensional space that we don't know about because we can't comprehend those types of spaces, but that doesn't mean anything for the present. Anyone claiming to use higher dimensional-anything, and making some novel breakthrough or learning something because of it, is talking BS. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is woo — you were right to be suspicious. I mean, lucid dreaming exists — it's one of many, many intermediary states that occur in the borderlands between wakefulness and sleep. But the site you linked to is a woo nest. Took me one click to reach here — a mishmash of new age-inspired folk psychology, Jungian symbolism and unfounded claims. They also peddle lucid dreaming supplements, lucid dreaming books, lucid dreaming products and the likes. The woman running the site, Rebecca, also offers an expensive lucid dreaming course, which she uses the site to advertise for. The entire site is a nonsense recruitment tool — all the claims are spurious, all the articles are ads, all the evidence is anecdotal... This is classic bull. If you're actually interested in the topic lucid dreaming, stick to thisWikipedia, this and this (and use those three to expand this). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, thank you all for helping me with this website- I'm glad that my 'skeptical senses' tingled to decided to post the website here. Thank you all :). Also, thank you RBP for providing links to actually reliable sources on lucid dreaming :D.--WMS (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Lucid dreaming is a real and awesome thing... although it has been pretty much hijacked by the woo people. It is an awesome "brain hack" but not much else. TheGrandmother (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Heck, I had a lucid dream just tonight! It was fun, but that's about it. Again; it's just yet another fuzzily bordered area along the spectrum of altered states of consciousness, not unlike wakefulness, "regular" dreaming, or indeed sleep itself. Certainly nothing magical about it, and I would actually caution against woo that claims you can "transform your life" or "live your life better" by literally trying to live more in your fantasies. That's risky reasoning, fam — the human creature is solipsistic enough without overtly emigrating into a dream world. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Falun Gong[edit]

Anyone with knowledge of Falun Gong might care to weigh in on the talk page about it: Is it a cult, a religion, a pseudoscience, or something else? A newbie (Deepthought) has been pushing for a revision. Bongolian (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

In my view, Falun Gong qualifies as all of the above. Worth nothing is that the "revision" being pushed for by Deepthought appears to be a classic whitewashing attempt. Let's not forget that the missionality of Falun Gong stems directly from it being bullshit. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Have to agree with the Rev., Deepthought's edits have all the hallmarks of apologetic whitewashing: Longwinded posts with examples of this or that professor using this or that term other than religion or cult, meandering arguments of the "not really a religion variety" that either don't define what a religion/cult is or adopt obviously flawed definitions (see Christianity is not a religion), alternative designations that are either ludicrously specific ("cultivation system", indeed...) or so broad and vague as to be useless as categorisations, oh, and trying to get Falun Gong relabelled via its RW talk page is literally the only thing Deepthought has done around here so far (although going to the talk page and not simply starting to change the article is one thing that I'll give Deepthought credit for). I may be jaded from my prior to encounters with similar apologetic/whitewashing "rebranding" around here, but I really don't think there's much merit to Deepthought's case and the arguments presented so far for removing the religion/cult designation from our Falun Gong article are rather underwhelming in my eyes. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Fisher is gone[edit]

I'm not good with fancy words but I hope ya'll can cut me some slack for Carrie Fisher. The original badass space princess. She was open and proud about her struggles and anyone who didn’t like it could go sit on a cactus and spin. An inspiration to women and folks struggling with mental illness everywhere. You’re getting up to mischief with the angels now Carrie. I’ll miss you. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Good post!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 19:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh no :C I just found out... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

She drowned in moonlight, strangled by her own bra. It's what she would have wanted. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

God damn it now her mom's gone too. She must have passed away from grief. Fuck this shit. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read that the loss of Carrie had apparently been very stressful on her mother in the hours leading up to her fatal stroke... I have no words. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

With respect....[edit]

Why is news about Carrie Fisher's death and that of her mother on the "...in the world" page? I get it, Carrie Fisher was a cultural icon. I'm not a fan of Star Wars myself, but news about her death doesn’t exactly fit in with our mission statement. Furthermore, it's not exactly news flying under the radar. You'd have to be living under a rock not to have heard about her death, so widespread news about it was. It hardly needs to be repeated here. Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

RW did it for Lemmy too. I don't think it's so cut and dry that the passing of a cultural icon goes unremarked in the WIGOs. If folks here think it's significant it's not going to get downvoted to death. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I could look it up, since I'm on the internet, and thereby preempt the need to ask this question, but who the hell is Lemmy and why was he/she/it so important to RW's mission statement as to warrant being featured on RW's newspage? Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind. I looked him up. I wasn't a member of RW at the time of his death, but if I had been, I would have taken the exact same issue. It's not news worthy of RW. I'm sorry. Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
If you see something you think doesn't belong in a WIGO just downvote it dude. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks. :)Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@MyNameIsMudd Good post! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This discussion should really be on the WIGO talk page. Personally I'm not really a big fan of the non-mission-related death/obituary entries as they seem to just arbitrarily reflect the pop culture tastes of the editorship rather than their significance as news items (hence Carrie Fischer is on there but not George Michael or Richard Adams). Meanwhile we don't usually WIGO other pop culture stuff (e.g. new film, book, album releases) unless it relates to regular RW missions & themes. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Though, keep in mind that the denizens of RW — being socially conscious skeptics — are all part of the rebel alliance and a bunch of traitors. And we just lost our princess. ;__; Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Cry.gif She was taken from this world too soon, it was very unexpected :,(.--WMS (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
What RBP and WMS said. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

On the dire need for resources like RW[edit]

So I stumbled upon this old gem (from 2014), with results from the National Science Foundation. You can take the quiz yourself and see where you place — I was a bit disconcerted to see myself place better than 94% of the American public, based on that quiz.

"But it's so simple", you might argue. Yep — though, apparently complex enough for most. Anything harder than these questions is argued to be a luxury afforded to just 6% of the American general populace. As I understand it — within that 6% slice, the full range of science educations (ranging from that of Carl Sagan to that of those who just barely nailed all 12 quiz questions) reside. So if you thought that that quiz was utterly basic, congratulations — but imagine the gaps in the science education of the average American citizen.

And to pose one small sampling against another — a Russian state poll (from 2011) concluded that 1/3 of russians seem to subscribe to geocentrism.

Moving beyond small polls and quizzes, I Googled (ever so slightly less) lazily and ran into these two studies — one American study from 2004 ("Science & Engineering Indicators") and one European study from 2005 ("Europeans, Science & Technology").

In both studies, I've decided to bold the text that seems particularly relevant to the mission of RW, and to our implicit role as science popularizers by extension of our overt role as pseudoscience resisters.

The American study concluded that:

Most Americans recognize and appreciate the benefits of S&T. The public is also highly supportive of the government’s role in funding basic research. By most measures, American attitudes about S&T are considerably more positive than attitudes in Europe.

In both the United States and Europe, however, residents do not know much about S&T. The percentage of correct responses to a battery of questions designed to assess the level of knowledge and understanding of scientific terms and concepts has not changed appreciably in the past few years. In addition, approximately 70 percent of Americans do not understand the scientific process, technological literacy is weak, and belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread and may be growing.

Although Americans generally have very positive attitudes about S&T and high regard for the science community, some harbor reservations about S&T, and 70 percent believe that scientific research does not pay enough attention to moral values. Although Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to human cloning, they are more evenly divided about stem cell research.

Americans continue to get most of their information about the latest developments in S&T from watching television. However, the Internet has made inroads and is now the leading source of information on specific scientific issues.

The European study concluded that:

The results of this latest Eurobarometer on “Europeans, Science and Technology” have shown us that there is a latent interest among European citizens for science and technology, as well as an implicit demand for more information. Indeed, we have noted that Europeans consider themselves poorly informed on issues concerning science and technology, and we can observe a link between low interest and the feeling of lack of information.

Nevertheless, progress has clearly been made since 2001 in terms of basic scientific knowledge. The “science and society” action plan put into place by the European Commission in 2001 seems to have had a positive impact. However, the gap between science and society still exists. Efforts must namely be made in order to bring science and technology closer to certain categories of people who are less exposed to the scientific field, and who therefore have a more sceptic perception of science and technology. These categories are more often women, older people and those with a lower level of education.

In spite of the existence of this gap and the lack of information there is however a very positive and optimistic perception of what science and technology can actually do for humanity in terms of medical research, the improvement of the quality of life, as well as the opportunities for future generations.

Although such strong confidence in science and technology subsists, a somewhat stereotyped vision seems nonetheless to exist, which bases itself on the classic image of “machine against man”. We can notice this especially where the economic and spiritual dimensions of individuals are concerned: the negative effect of technological developments on employment and the distress scientific and technological progress causes in the daily lives of individuals is reflected in the results of this survey.

This duality is also valid for the image Europeans have of scientists: on the one side, there is the recognition of the positive role scientists play in society, and also the wish to see policy-makers take more into consideration the expertise of these scientists. On the other hand, we can note a criticism towards scientist’s obscurity concerning the results of their achievements and the way they handle information towards the public. Furthermore, a certain fear of scientists is expressed in two manners: in a more open way concerning scientist’s excessive power (due to their high knowledge), and in a more implicit way concerning the risks of scientific research going beyond the limits set by ethics and morality.

As a matter of fact, in the opinion of Europeans ethics must play a crucial role in scientific research. Citizens request a certain harmony between the methods as well as the goals of scientific research and the moral and ethical principals. Even though citizens draw such a limit for the boundaries of scientific research, European citizens nevertheless want to allow scientists to work freely without letting the apprehensions of potential risks deriving from further research slow them down. In this sense, it seems that Europeans would like to impose a balance between ethics and scientific progress, which will certainly demand much effort on behalf of the scientific community as well as the public authorities who are expected to impose the legal basis of such a control through ethics.

Europeans are also a clear majority wishing to see more women implicated in the field of science and further integrated into the scientific community, which should reflect more equal opportunities between genders.

Results also make clear that Europeans’ hopes for future scientific and technological development lie in the hands of the younger generations who should show more interest and participate more intensively in the field of science. It seems therefore that action must be taken by public authorities throughout Europe in order to make this possible.

Finally, the report also shows that Europeans have a rather critical perception of Europe compared to the United States when it comes to fields related to research: the deficiency in the education of scientists in Europe has probably lead Europe to take up a position behind the United States in scientific discoveries and technological advances.

Keep up the good work, everyone. From creationism to water fluoridation to cryonics to GMOs — and everything inbetween (pun intended) — at our best, we're like a breath of fresh air on a crowded subway train. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Great find!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 02:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This would be a great addition to Essay:Why we need RationalWiki. cough. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Religious gibberish, apparently this is a big deal in the era of Trump[edit]

So apparently someone who does not believe in the Nicene creedWikipedia as dictated by Constantine will pray at Trump's installation as supreme leader. This prompted this gibberish (especially the weird video comment on the initial gibberish). Can anybody explain to me why this seems to be such a big deal to some? Oh also, the video ends with "wake up America". (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Nicene creed basically established the Trinity as a requisite belief for Christians. Denial of the Trinity is a big no-no among most fundies and all Catholics. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The hypostasis of the Trinity formalized the the Nicene Creed is foundational to all branches of mainstream Christianity, and Christian denominations that deny it (like Mormonism), are seen as "other", and outside the fold of Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox ecumenicism. But, at the end of the day, 99% of Christians would have a hard time distinguishing the theological differences between Arianism and mainstream Christianity anyway, so yeah... The normalizing of the Prosperity Gospel, which isn't exclusive to Arianism, should be far more troubling to mainstream Christians. Petey Plane (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I made a poll on a talk page[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Jean-Luc_M%C3%A9lenchon If you know a bit about the politician, please vote.

What category should Mélenchon be in.

Left of reason



Authoritarian Moonbattery



Insufferable assholes



All of these categories are meaningless



Feel free to argue about it. Diacelium (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

When writing an article, should I use Qur'an or Koran?[edit]

-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It's preferable, but not required, to use "Qur'an" because that's title of the RW page. Bongolian (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The romanization can be "quranic", "koranic", and "qur'anic" and can be capitalized. There's no official rule to romanization besides sounding close. I guess use the existing article title. You can use whatever spelling you want in an article so long as it is consistent within the article.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Qur'an, afaik. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Koran was the preferred spelling before 1945, and in fact usually prevailed before 1980s. In matters of usage like this, it's best to let pre-WWII usage be the guide. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

To whoever posted the Glenn Greenwald article alleging that the Guardian manipulated an interview with Assange to make the latter seem more pro-Trump...[edit]

...your link has been relocated from "WIGO...in the world" to "WIGO...in the blogosphere", as it is an op-ed. It's not "news".Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice of you to alert people! However;
1. This belongs in Talk:WIGO
2. Please don't go for topic headlines that rival your very post in symbol count. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Duely noted. Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The radical right has won[edit]

We call the era after ca. 1500 'modern period' as opposed to 'middle ages'. It's not that for at least 3 centuries after that the life of most people changed in any conscious way. It is we who retrospectively focus our attention on the historically novel elements to distinguish them from the old even as the former are still found to be for a long time numerically inferior and yet absolutely decisive for the future. Apply this to the radical right. It is still not found as often as the more orthodox right but trends are pointing towards a (near) future where it will dominate. The reason for that is not the 'foolishness of the establishment' as some intellectually robust yet socially anemic and dying remnants of the left say or the implacability and intransigence of SWJs as some elements of the up-and-coming fascistic right have it.

The true reason is found in the socio-political shifts occasioned by the crash of 2008 marking the end of wall street domination and in parallel the steady emergence and significance of hungering titans like China. Pluralism and values tolerance can only exist where goods exist in abundant supply. This is precisely what's changing. If these conditions are lacking tolerance will cease to be the officially-championed doctrine and ideologies will flourish which will legitimize stringent hierarchies along social and racial lines. This is logically unavoidable. The only idea that can combat the universalist idea of tolerance is the relativist idea of natural incompatibility between 'different' peoples and cultures and the support for intolerance to remedy the world's problems. In the west racialism and various forms of xenophobia will inevitably prevail. In the rest of the world anti-western sentiments will become more and more common.

Regardless what global-warming denier imbeciles tout in their (un)willful blindness global warming is very real and very serious. On the other hand however, and this is where I break with most of you folks, there's no feasible alternative to fossil fuel energy and there's no realistic future model of mass production despite what a few utopian visions suggest. Energy Skeptic illustrates the reasons for that very well. The logic of resource scarcity, state ownership, energy dependence and forceful requisition, territorial dispute and all-round ecological degradation still stands.

Karl Marx predicted a utopia for western societies and this came to be in a certain sense although it is a caricature of what was envisioned in the perspective of then-current classic liberal educational ideals. In the minds of the fathers of communism Utopia would resemble a place full of small and great Shakespears and Goethes and not exactly the massive multi-colored and multi-patterned triviality and idiocy of life in a mass democratic society. Regardless, we were the first societies to extinguish through mass production and technological innovation the endemic scarcity of goods that had haunted all previous societies thus introducing in the masses a never-before-seen hedonistic live-and-let-live attitude. After a utopia was realized on a western level expect a dystopia to be realized on the global level. Expect the 'global order' and 'stability' you have experienced for so many decades to degenerate into a world where only constant brutality and irrationality can maintain a semblance of an order and stability always seemingly teetering on the edge. Expect the fluidic and aerobatic disorder of tolerance to be succeeded by a hardcore, iron order. Expect hedonism and hope to become an endless nightmare. Expect 'reason' and 'consensus' to succumb to the monolithic theory and the practice of witch-hunting and scapegoating.

Don't be disheartened that the 'irrationals' and the 'cranks' have won. Do not curse at them, do not lament them, do not deplore them. Understand them. Look upon their puerile fears and superstitions with the compassion we see them in a child who will one day grow to be a man. Their world will not be a better one and their actions won't have the consequences that they hope will have. The heterogony of ends is the law governing history's Werden. There will be no cleaner and no whiter world. On the contrary civilization in the 21st century will face complete annihilation and 'western civilization' will succumb too.

Skeptic friends, do not expressly or implicitly treat skepticism as a moral value to advance the good of society. Give up on the notions that Popper has popularized. When skepticism ceases to be a moral value it simply becomes nihilism. Give up, give in. Lay down your prejudices forever to experience the world without hope, without fear. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

there's no feasible alternative to fossil fuel energy
Uh. Nuclear power. Google "generation 4 reactor" if you're still unconvinced. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Nuclear power is a great alternative ... if done right; it can create a massive amount of energy but has major consequences for a screw up (don't build reactors along a coast *cough*fukushima*cough*). Solar power is another good alternative. After all, the sun is free and oil is just converted sun energy.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Are euro-centric Marxist diatribes which reduce every conceivable social movement or ideology to zero sum economics (which describes pretty much every Marxist diatribe, now that I think about it) supposed to be understandable? Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gewgtweg You're deluded. The radical right's victory is not all powerful and all consuming. Clinton was an extraordinarily weak candidate, hamstrung by thirty years of scandal both real and imagined, with a horrible ground game and she still won the popular vote and lost in the Rust Belt states by only about eighty thousand votes. The Republican's primary base is dying off, my generation and the youth is increasingly liberal. Technological breakthroughs are still happening, progress is still happening. The next few years will be tough, there will surely be struggle, but we can see it through. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mudd, except on the weak-candidate point. Clinton got as many votes as Obama did in 2012 -- as Mudd notes, about 80k votes in three states made all the difference. And, though this is rarely remembered, Clinton was running as a third-term Democrat. It is extraordinarily rare for a party to keep the White House for more than 8 years. I do think she could have been stronger (eg, if Sanders hadn't run, the "corrupt Clinton" meme would never have started; if she had fucking released the emails, it wouldn't have been an issue; and so on) but I think it is a mistake to call her weak. (One might respond by noting that Trump is a weak candidate. I think that would ignore the Mitt "47%" Romney and Sarah Palin catastrophes of '12 and '08 for the Republicans, when the performed similar to now.) oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I say she's a weak candidate because she had precious little charisma, has made numerous documented gaffes over the years and didn't reach out to the Rust Belt voters enough. Again, I point to the horrible ground game in Michigan where they were so convinced that their win was idiot proof (har har) that they turned away people offering to canvas votes for them and didn't have the usual pamphlets and info tracking paraphernalia that you're supposed to. Maybe she wasn't exactly weak, but she was weak enough that it allowed the greatest threat to democracy in our time to slip right on through to the White House and that makes all the difference in the world. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton was chiefly hamstrung by carrying the name of and being married to the Democrat president who abandoned the New Deal in favor of deregulation and free trade, and threw the Democrats' labor constituencies under the bus. Enough people remembered what the Clintons stood for that she failed to carry key Rust Belt states, and all the enthusiasm was on the Trump side. She was weak and she was exactly the wrong candidate for this cycle. If heads don't roll at the DNC, we're going to need a third party. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thankfully Sanders has been given a position, Warren is moving on up to shore up her lack of foreign policy chops and Ellison is lining up endorsement after endorsement, a full list of which can be found at this article. If anyone has any other good news on the progressive Dem front feel free to share. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
To say that youth is "increasingly liberal" is wishful thinking on your part. I (a millennial) went to numerous Trump rallies, and met tons of fellow millennials there. There were tons of girls there, who didn't seem bothered in the least about the controversies the Clinton campaign attempted to drum up. They weren't just white-trash or spoiled little rich kids, there were state college kids there. There were black and Hispanic kids there. This was in a swing state, not some deeply red state full of rednecks where the Dems had no chance. In 2008, I think it's fair to say most of my peers supported Obama, but many of those same people no longer support Obama, many now supporting Trump. In 2008, some kids were begging their parents to vote for Obama, but in 2016, kids were begging (and sometimes successfully convincing) their parents to vote for Trump. Conservative colleges like Liberty University and Pensacola Christian College are rapidly expanding, and so is the homeschooling movement. Members of Anonymous, who are mostly youthful individuals, are actively attacking the Democrats. Snowflakes will always be snowflakes, and there will always be some gullible youth who take liberalism hook, line, and sinker, but I would say my generation is moving away from liberalism rather than moving towards it. The youth were very liberal in the 60s with the hippie movement, and today's youth are nothing like the hippies. They don't even have to draft people to staff the military anymore. Youth are becoming annoyed by dumb celebrities like Kim Kardashian, which means the liberal entertainment industry is having less influence on young minds. Liberal newspapers and television news broadcasters are also having less influence on a generation turning to the internet for its news, while online sources like Breitbart and Info Wars are appealing to a tech-savvy population. (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Gee, anecdotal evidence much? As for the "snowflake" thing...I'd rather be a snowflake than a proto-fascist, you ass. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
One of the interesting things about the phenomenon is that the "liberal" (anti-White) tactic of name calling isn't effective anymore. Like when you get called a racist fascist Nazi for supporting your ethnic interest like everybody else and you're just like "yeah, so what?". (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
"Anti-white" huh? I'm white, jerk. Load up your disgusting philosophy with as many pretty words as you like, identitarianism, ethnic interest, cultural pride, whatever. If it looks like a jackbooted thug and talks like a jackbooted thug...you get what I'm saying? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It's entirely possible and in fact common for Whites to support anti-White policies and sentiments. We call them cucks, race-traitors, shitlibs, brainwashed mindless sheep, etc. We can do name calling too.
"If it looks like a jackbooted thug and talks like a jackbooted thug...you get what I'm saying?"
No. (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Whatever prick. Go cry about it on 8chan, or maybe Stormfront. I don't give a shit. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@LordAeonian Euro-centric? Only in the sense that Marxists are really, or at least were the last remnants of the bourgeois legacy (yes it sounds paradoxical but it's true) and the bourgeois era, an era that was really Euro-centric. But the bourgeois period is long, long dead and after WWII, the Euro-centric period is permanently dead too. Marxism in the philosophic-historical/utopian sense passed away with the Soviet giant forever. The modern utopia is represented by right-wing and left-wing liberalism with their emphasis on technology and innovation and their global social promise, the promise of a post-industrial utopia with boundless and 'clean' energy. The terrifying resource conflicts of this century will bury this vision.

A more economic state of affairs will be necessarily enforced in the future but it will be done using hierarchical and not egalitarian criteria. Thus the world will be equalized and made more egalitarian in a reverse, brutal fashion. Advanced mass societies will slowly eat its own insides and less advanced societies will break down and fail (as it happens in the Mid-East and Africa) or be eaten up by more powerful neighbors (In Eastern Europe, Russia and the Franco-German economic axis (the EU) are the predators while in the Balkans it's Turkey and the EU that are the predators) and the most vulnerable groups like minorities in the US will perish or suffer persecutions and severe discrimination which they're already suffering. War might not even be the real threat at all. Growing global unrest is equally dangerous. This is already reality in some areas of the planet.

The two parties represent two sectors of the establishment. The Reds represent capital and the Blues banking. Clinton represented a dying establishment that was fatally wounded in the crash of 2008. People like Obama are the cute faces of that establishment and I fear Sanders would have been the same. Someone elected on a progressive platform but who failed to deliver (for objective reasons). It is nevertheless true that other members of the party didn't trust him.

After the Bush experience when the GOP lost political capital, the Tea Party especially after 2008 become a platform for safeguarding plutocratic interests in the wake of the crisis of global finance in 2008. The rhetoric of the Tea Party itself (essentially establishment republican) forced other elements of the outer republican sphere to move further to the edges of the right. But it wasn't just emerging macroeconomic instability and the inability of both sectors of the establishment represented by the two parties to remedy it that made identity resentment widespread again. The experience with ISIL and terrorism was psychologically catalytic in instigating existential, animal-like fears in the western public. The fact that we had a black president serving two terms made identity rhetoric a very effective tactic for the GOP again.

An unexpected consequence of all that was the likes of Trump, Farage, LePen and other such figures arguing in favor of protectionism and an economically and politically more sealed-off world. These figures can be called the radical right, or anti-establishment right. I don't believe that there is or could be a left-counterpart to that that's of social significance. At best, it gives the radical right its targets or its nourishment. Some of you here have wondered, 'why is the left blamed for everything'? The answer is simple. It's easy to target what's half-dead and incurably weak. The modern left is just too decent, too benign, too honorable and too vegetarian to survive. They are a disgrace and thankfully Lenin is not here to see what has become of them.

Many of you don't want to understand it, but it's true. The end of the Soviet Union essentially crippled the left. You also don't want to understand that there's no alternative to fossil fuel energy in order to sate the demands of the modern past-paced world. Go tell India to give up on coal. Tell China to shut down its coal-fired power plants. Tell Russia to stop selling its natural gas. Have a 3D printer create water to irrigate the world's crops. Have the world's great military mammoths run on batteries. Finance massive geoengineering to halt the rapid progress of global warming. Do all that, and then we'll talk.

If even Germany can't pull off its Energiewende, then it's not looking good for the rest of the world at all. Gewgtweg (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Lenin was a bad guy. I don't give two shits what he'd think about the modern progressive movements. You remind me of an old "friend" of mine that was always riding Lenin and Stalin's rotten dead dicks, bleating about communism being the One True WayTM and the inevitable downfall of filthy capitalist civilization. He wrote just like you do too, using ten words when one will do and producing diatribes far in excess of what it takes to make your point. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Before you move to declare me verbose and redundant, idiot, at least pretend that you understand what I am actually saying. You're writing as if I'm advocating for communism here. In fact I'm not even a leftist; I am not political at all. I am a nihilist; straight and simple. Tell me right here, right now where in my text you found any suggestion that I am championing any cause at all. When I call modern progressive moments weak and feckless it's because they ARE not because I personally despise them. And by the way, capitalism will collapse too, just like feudalism collapsed. Nothing is here to stay forever, if history is any guide. I do not believe it will survive the century. If the 20th spelled the end for the communist utopia the 21st will annihilate liberalism and no left and no right wisdom will help ease the crushing burden of disaster to befall the good earth. Gewgtweg (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh joy, a person hiding behind a philosophy that gives an excuse to lay down, uncritically accept one's fate and die. I've never seen the like/sarcasm. No, no we will not go passively into that dark night. If everyone thought like you we'd be a listless, hopeless and meandering species until we all passed away of apathy. "The arc of the universe bends towards justice," to paraphrase MLK Jr., and I believe that with every fiber of my being. If they're so weak and feckless, why do the people of my generation have more rights than the last? Hm? And the people of the generation before mine had more rights than the ones them. Progress isn't a straight line by any means, there are trips and fumbles and struggles, but it's human nature to strive towards goodness and fairness. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, Mudd is right about your verbosity. Try to condense your posts. Walls of flowery text are difficult to read, difficult to interpret, and difficult to respond to succinctly. Regardless of your opinions, it'd make it easier to have a conversation with you. B) talk 20:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Reading both of the posts by you guys has left me wondering if my posts are too simple despite being long or if they are too complex because they're long thus making response difficult. If I am simple I am already comfortably dense; if not I need condensing. Which of the two is the case? At any rate, my post wasn't simple enough for Mudd so as not to misunderstand it. As for you Shaw, I wonder, do you never read books because they're too long and too complex? Do you still read children's books instead? Be that as it may, don't worry about being unable to contribute your precious opinion because of your difficulty to 'read', to 'interpret' and to 'respond'. If something is uncomfortable and painful to read, just don't read it and by all means, do spare us your response.

You folks have to decide sometime. Is nihilism about 'laying down and dying', 'fatalism' and 'depression' or is it about 'living life to the fullest' about 'being the best you can be', and 'hedonism'? The idea that the life, the universe, man etc. lack any objective meaning to guide them, that they lack a fixed objectively discernible value is not just a 'philosophy'. It's not just a man's version of the truth; it's not just a 'way to see things'. It is the truth. It is a necessary frame that makes up the framework of reality and it is indispensable to any understanding thereof. You talk about 'goodness' and 'progress' as if these are the most obvious things in the world. As if different people do not have different ideas about what it means to 'truly' progressed and to 'truly' do good.

A white supremacist for example has entirely different ideas about how society can finally move forward and get rid of what's keeping it back or what it means to do the good, decent thing 'for your people'. Of course they wouldn't use the slogan of 'progress'; they have other slogans. But whoever uses slogans as a way of measuring social reality doesn't understand social reality.

Sure your generation has even more material and social rights than the previous one. But have you ever wondered if that has anything to do with the fact that you live in one of the world's most affluent regions? That you live in a pluralistic society where hedonistic and emancipatory social stances inevitably prevail? More importantly, do you have any idea how the pressure of communism was instrumental in changing western societies themselves and making them more liberal? Read my essays on marxism and communism and you'll learn. Gewgtweg (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I say this sincerely and not to antagonize you: you'll probably gain a more receptive audience if you 1) reply to specific points individually where they are made, instead of in a dislocated block, 2) revise your posts to make them more concise before you submit them, 3) avoid absolute statements like "it is the truth" when speaking of propositional attitudes, 4) stop acting like your presence here is an undeserved gift to inferiors, and 5) lay off the ad hom. B) talk 04:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gewtweg Aren't pluralistic societies largely the norm throughout history? I mean occasionally one nation or another will veer off the deep end into ethnic cleansing but by and large civilization has always been more or less multi-ethnic and multicultural. I also question the effectiveness of communism as the law of the land, since every time that's been tried it has ended in blood to my knowledge. I don't know everything under the sun and make no claim to that, I'm white trash from Alabama that barely graduated out of high school. I just want to do right by folks and stand up where I see injustice, not abandon skepticism and everything I believe in because of some cosmic mandate from on high about society's inevitable shift into brutal blood spilling tyranny. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bshaw My replies do reply to specific points made by previous commenters. Show me a concrete example where I didn't do that. In this post I briefly outlined some reasons why I believe the radical right will win because of favorable conditions. The space I take and the way I express this (and I admit that I'm not every enjoyable to read) is something that I partly can't really help. It's the nature of my writing and of my thought structure and in the final analysis it's my own business. I have the tendency to keep it long and if this doesn't conform to your aesthetic ideal I'm sorry. Unless I have to rent space off of you in order to do that which we are after all supposed to do here in the first place, i.e. to write, I will continue following my natural inclinations and ignore you totally and provocatively.

Oh you are not antagonizing me? Sure when someone is accused of 'acting like his presence here is a gift to inferiors', when he's guided to 'avoid absolute statements when speaking of propositional attitudes (sic)', when he's told to reply to 'specific points individually' as if I'm replying instead to some mysterious black hole, when my post is called a 'dislocated block', then sure that's 'sincerely', like very 'sincerely', not a bit antagonizing at all. Well my friend, keep your 'sincerity' to yourself and save your replies and your obviously precious energy for the posts you deem worthy of replying and the reading of which is easy and digestible enough for you to stomach smoothly.

When Richard Dawkins famously said 'Evolution by natural selection is not a version of the truth. It IS the truth' was he merely just being strident and shrill about it? Was he being 'absolute' and not 'prepositional' about it? If you believe that I'm wrong and nihilism is not in fact empirically-founded truth and that objective values beyond the human perspective do somehow exist, then show me, fool. Don't you people always argue against nihilism or the postmodernists that we supposedly 'ignore reality'? Well by using the expression 'it is the truth', I am definitely not ignoring reality. Yes, I am antagonizing you. Prove to me that I am wrong. Reply to these specific polemic points I made, right here, right now. If, as I suspect, you will not or cannot say anything on the matter, go and amicably advise somebody else about what and how they should write.

@Mudd No, pluralistic societies are not the norm throughout history. Multi-ethnic empires have existed, lords and subjects have lived side by side but pluralism was never before considered a value to safeguard nor was hedonism the dominant social stance in any past society before western mass democracy. In other words no previous society was as socially mobile as our own. The plethora of cultures, civilizations and beliefs throughout history and the definition of each culture, each civilization and each ideological system as pluralistic is two different things. Before the European modern era when globalism started to make its advances, cultures divided their borders using violence such as it happened for example with the Frankish and Arab cultural greenhouses. Today material, intellectual and cultural goods have created a global culture. The championed ideology is a mixture of tolerance, universalism and relativism void of any overarching principle such as Reason or God. I will post an essay on that matter very soon. Maybe you'd be interested to have a look. About communism I have written a couple of essays that address your points. You could reach them through my page. You could maybe have a look and I'd be happy if you commented on the talk page.

I don't believe that man is incurably 'bad' or something such and contrary to what many people believe misanthropy or anthropological pessimism are neither logically nor historically (necessarily) connected with relativism and nihilism. But I definitely don't believe that conflicts, including lethal conflicts between humans could ever cease or that they could at least become unlikely or less as harmful or less historically as decisive. This is not a 'mandate from high above' but it is based on a complex set of anthropological reasons, at any rate secular and immanent reasons. The victory of every sort of 'justice' is therefore only temporary. I don't want to deprive people of illusions that give their life meaning. This sounds condescending of course but I really don't. Not only don't I see people with opposing views as more or less mutations of humans beings (and most people basically just do that to be honest) but instead I feel compassion about man's efforts to create meaning and to fight for that meaning.

Aye, I feel compassion for the agony and pain humans experience in their pursuit to address existential challenges. In that way, not only we nihilists aren't numb to people's suffering throughout the past and present but we're in fact the only ones that are really willing to show selflessly, impersonally and solemnly, a degree of genuine understanding to them. I find it interesting and astounding that atop this planet, matter or energy, whatever you like, became aware of itself, that there are beings who produce meaning and who destroy others and destroy themselves in the name of that meaning. Gewgtweg (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. B) talk 06:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As a follower of Khorne, I am happy that I can get more bloodshed and less of these weak cowards from Tzeentch and Slaneesh. We as Chaos followers were hoping for the radical right to help. Race wars and ethnic conflict=more sacrifices for the Blood God Khorne, for he cares not from whence the blood flows, only that it flows. As a Chaos Marine, I shall collect more skulls for the skull throne to make America great again. Maim!Kill!Burn! 02:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Skeptic friends, do not expressly or implicitly treat skepticism as a moral value to advance the good of society. Give up on the notions that Popper has popularized.

Serious.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Something that adds to the stigma towards the mentally ill[edit]

When people say religion is mental illness. That really steams my beans because I do not see believing in a higher power is insane. While it is true that there are some people who take religion and twist it around for irrational purposes, it does help some mentally ill people stay sane (In my case anyway). For people who do have religion but are mentally ill, it probably makes them feel worse about themselves; the American Psychiatric Association does not list religion as mental illness, I guess people who do say that must have never heard of the scientific method--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be that wide-spread a belief and I think most people would agree that having irrational beliefs is not necessarily a sign of mental illness. Is there some context as to why you bring it up? If there are pages here they imply that religious belief is a mental illness, then those should be changed. Petey Plane (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
oops, forgot "not" there, completely misrepresenting myself. Petey Plane (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
No, not any of the pages. Someone on Facebook said it. I do agree that taking religion out of context to fuel psychiatric delusions is mental illness but saying religion in general as a mental illness is just wrong--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
As someone suffering from Depression and formerly believing BS, i can get where they come from but the similarity is at best a superfically odd behaviour(and only if you know Mental illnesses from Movies and TV). A lot of these new Atheist are the same kind of Atheists that adhere to the MRA and anti Social Justice mindset, they like to diminish other People they percieve as wrong. And they don't give a shit about the innocent bystanders they hurt.--Benaresh (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Religion in general provides inspiration, comfort, explanations, an ethical system, etc for many people, and can provide a means of stability for at least some people with problems. Whether one is of a particular faith, believes 'that there is more to heaven and earth than purely scientific explanations' or atheist one can accept that 'religion in some form' can have a positive role.
However some people use religion in negative ways (as a means of control - whether or not in cults; or to justify their destructive tendencies etc) and in some cases religious beliefs can interact with mental health issues in a destructive way.
A simplification of the two extremes perhaps (but not necessarily invalid as a result). (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing but empathy for your basic position; that accusing religious people of being mentally ill is both wrong and negatively adds to the stigma of mental illness. That being said, however... It has to be possible to philosophically explore any possible overlap between belief and mental illness, as with Carrier's talk "Are Christians Delusional?". And I do believe that these kinds of explorations, which enter into the territory of what may or may not be legitimately considered psychopathy or delusion, are actually quite relevant. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is what your post had, dear reverend, and many discussion regarding this matter lack: nuance, sources and a tone of consideration. I agree there is a psychological component to the more extreme of religous people that rarely is talked about.--Benaresh (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you! About the one thing I consistently try to do is to prevent myself from falling headlong into splittingWikipedia. "There's nobody so good there's not some bad in him, and there's nobody so bad there's not some good in him" and all that (and the same goes for ideologies/movements/theories/etc). That being said however, the ratios of "bad" to "good" when it comes to most ideologies/movements/theories/etc is not anything like 50%/50%, and we need to keep that in mind as well... Anyways, I'm ranting (and I suspect I'm off topic already). So regardless — thank you for your kind words. I'll try my best to earn them in the future as well. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Religion is not a mental illness, but as a fundamental Baptist, I can appreciate the fact that sometimes people who are mentally ill use religion as a front. Case in point, people who hear voices, claiming that the Christian God is telling them to do things that contradict the Bible. (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

So you agree with the old adage; "If you talk to God, you're religious — if God talks to you, you're psychotic"? Worth pointing out is that I certainly wouldn't equate religiosity with mental illness or anything of the likes (which would be doing a disservice to religiosity and mental illness alike) — though admittedly, were it not a direct product of our apealoid neurology, the religious impulse would still basically constitute a form of widespread "neurosis". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on Rent Control[edit]

Like does it work, should it be implemented, etc. Just curious. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Quoting Wikipedia- "Rent control is part of a system of rent regulation, administered by a court or a public authority, which limits the changes that can be made in the price of renting a house or other real property. The objective of controlling the prices of rent is usually to counteract the inequality of bargaining power between landlords and tenant, as part of a minimum set of rights to make the market fair. Controls on the price of rents is used in residential housing, agricultural tenancies, and business tenancies. It may function as a price ceiling. Rent control laws are used in approximately 40 countries, although they often vary from one country to another, and may vary from one jurisdiction to another within some countries."--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Rent control is commie bullshit. Moscow had rent control from 1928 to 1992. When a window got broken, the landlord (in this case, tbe government) never had enough money in a fund dedicated to maintainance, upkeep, and replacement costs. Same as broken plumbing or electrical fixtures. If you wanted to keep living there, it was your problem. And apartments generally have common areas that must be maintained by the collective rents paid by all tenents. These generally are the first to go unrepaired and unmaintained, making the whole property a shithole to live in. In short, the property value deteriorates (as does the tax base consequently). But commie city councilmen woukd like you to believe they really care about you, to get your vote. nobs 05:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
"Rent control is bullshit. *Long, winded strawmanning because almost all rent control isn't Soviet by definition* Damn commmmies!!!!1!1!1" - Robert Smothers
Really? Let's actually talk about what rent control would do. Part off the reason Soviet landlords didn't have enough money to repair their apartments is they were dirt poor Russians living in 1953. Kind of a big factor you ignored there Rob. Look, you could do a whole five-part podcast on why Soviet Russia failed as a society, so I'm not gonna be able to cover it all in a forum post, but suffice it to say there are a metric FUCKTON of reasons why rent control wouldn't have worked in a poor economy like that of old Russia. Where would a system of more equal rent payment and thus more even wealth distribution work? Oh I dunno, AMERICA, the richest fucking country on the face of the goddamn EARTH? A country where no landlord in New York is every gonna have to worry about feeding the kids or repairing the apartment?
The annoying thing about Rob's position on this is that as a capitalist, he should absolutely LOVE rent control. Reducing the costs of tenants gives them more purchasing power, in turn boosting the local economy, creating jobs, and increasing tax revenue. It's a little price control that can go a long way. PBfreespace (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Fundamentally it's a wealth redistribution tactic, but an incredibly imprecise one that operates in a capitalist system and often fails to account for many of the side-effects that a free market will push: reduction in incentive to create more housing and/or cost control in other places leading to run down buildings. On the other side of things, if there is an entrenched landlord class, the loss of income from rent control could actually push them out of the game and increase overall competition, relaxing the need for rent control. My biggest problem with it is it's often done by people who don't put in the research on how to enact their goals, but instead purely as a symbolic, populist measure. Democratic socialism can be hard to do, if done incorrectly. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is rent control commie bullshit? Like the minimum wage, it sets up a strawman argument - that the greedy evil businessman-landlord-employer is out to fuck the little guy, and only the politcal class of government bureaucrats can protect the strugglng masses. Never mind the fundamental facts that landlords and employers supply something mutuslly beneficial that people want and need - housing and jobs. The bureaucrats, government, and ideologies sure as fuck cannot deliver jobs and housing. nobs 13:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
here's some commie bullshit, feel free to ignore it: houses should be built to house people, not to sit empty because it wouldn't be profitable to house people who don't have any money. we've got more empty houses than homeless people, at least in the "developed" world. why should shelter be a commodity when the people who need it most will never be able to afford it? and please don't use something like "property rights" as your answer, especially when you decry "ideologies". Frederick♠♣♥♦ 08:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Public housing isn't rent control. Public housing subsidizes rents at market prices for indigenous persons. It's been practiced for decades already. nobs 14:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
In theory, rent control can serve to internalize the externality of community destruction through gentrification and allocate the friction inherent in the rental market to short-term rentals from long term rentals. In practice, rent control schema have resulted in substantial rent-seeking behavior by both owners and tenants, and do very little to inhibit the negative impacts of gentrification (though often doing a great job of inhibiting the positives). Hipocrite (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
With rent control, improvements aren't done, the property deterioates,and its value goes down. Since landlords can't make money, new construction stops. Then you're faced with a housing shortage, which ordinarily would make properties more valueable and put upward pressure on rents, the only housing stock available are cheap, unimproved units that continue to deteriorate. Additionally, there's a stampede among landlords to get out of the business, which puts a glut of unimproved rental properties on the market simultaneously and further depresses real estate prices.
And look at it from the taxing authority's perspective: a municipality is dependent on property taxes for its revenue. By limiting their revenue through rent control and artificially depressing real estate values below market value, the municipality can't deliver the services to the same people they supposedly were trying to help. nobs 04:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong about this, but I heard that NYC's housing issues are partly caused by rent controls/rent ceilings. For instance, one elderly woman was able to own an entire floor and a half (!!!) do to a rent ceiling. The idea seems to be, first of all, that people may buy more than they need or otherwise would because they can, which removes housing and further drives up prices in non-regulated housing, and second of all, that developers are discouraged from building new housing despite demand because of the lack of profit potential. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's being dicussed in San Fransisco right now where average rent is $3500/mo - about three times higher then cities of simi!iar size & demographics. Why this is so I'd speculate due to two factors: (1) limited space. San Fransisco has no where toO grow but skyward; and (2) California's high taxes. But you're absolutely right. When the government caps your income, you are going to pull your money out of the investment and go elsewhere or a different business. Because the property as an investment doesn't return its full potential, it will sell for less now. This attracts a different kind of buyer, not someone who is looking to provide housing to tenents, rather a bargain hunter willing to wait for conditions to change. The new owner, getting screwed cause the tenents aren't paying what the poperty is worth, has no intention to maintain or improve the property. He'd just as soon bulldoze the place rather than deal with the headaches of being a landlord, and wait for the inevitable repeal of the law as demand for housing rises. Then with his bargain basement investment sell for a big return, or once again, get the tenents paying for maintainance, upkeep, and improvements through their rents, rather than dumping a ton of his own money into a property he already owns to bring it up to standard. nobs 04:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
California has some high taxes, but property taxes are the exact opposite of that thanks to Proposition 13, which doesn't allow year-to-year property taxes to rise proportionally to property value. Prop 13 restricts property taxes to 1% of a property's value AND caps annual property tax increases at 2% relative to land value. What results is effective property tax rates in Los Angeles County of 0.79% and in San Francisco of 0.68%, and falling as property values continue to rise. Since taxes are re-assessed at sale or when significant construction occurs, there is a huge financial disincentive for property owners to develop and increase the density of development. Combine that with general NIMBYism and conflated with rapidly increasing property values are what has led to the death spiral of increasing rent costs we're seeing now. "Rent Control" is treating the symptoms, not the underlying problem: if you think you need rent controls, you have a shortage of housing. Start building. TheMayor (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a very good way to put it. Rent control results in the exact opposite: rather than new construction and improvements to older properties, you get a decreased supply of housing stock consisting of older, unimroved, ramshackle properties. nobs 21:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)–
Of course, nobs' apocalyptic scenario depends on such a draconian/idiotic rent control system as to remove any profits from improvements/new construction. It's basically the same argument that Republicans are using to argue against taxing "job creators" at all: Start from a reductio as absurdum (if not allowed to profit, no one will invest) and then jump to the conclusion (which does not follow) that any reduction in the profit margin will have a significant, negative effect on investment. Also, rent control can address the potentially extremely lopsided bargaining positions of tenant and landlord by limiting the latter's ability to arbitrarily raise the rent or threaten to do so to force concessions from the tenant. Unless there is a huge excess of housing, it will always be harder and more expensive for a tenant to move than for a landlord to get a new tenant. Also, any law limiting arbitrary eviction would be pointless if not accompanied by legislation limiting arbitrary rent increases as these can obviously be used as de facto evictions ("No your honour, I didn't evict the tenants, I merely quadrupled their rent which they were then unable to pay"). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Buildings have a limited useful life. They depreciate over time. The cost of maintainance, upkeep, and improvements, which is a constant variable, is paid by the tenant (in his/her rent), not the landlord. The cost of building materials and contractors wages are not regulated where there is rent control. Over time, the structure falls into disrepair. It's tragic, when at a time of high demand, and improvements would make the property appreciate, a governing authority mandates ghettoization of its own property tax base. nobs 13:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On the other hand, rent control could be the solution to Israeli settlements and building an integrated Greater Israel. People of means will move elsewhere, while a lower class element (in this case Palestinians) move in and fail to maintain the properties, lowerng their resale value. nobs 01:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the solution to Israeli settlements is any combination of BDS, a withdrawal of all US military aid, and a trade embargo and travel ban. PBfreespace (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
US miltary aid to Israel is not a bi-lateral agreement. It us a tri-lateral agreement. Under the Camp David AccordsWikipedia the US pledged to give Eygpt the exact same dollar amount in aid it gives to Israel. Reneging on the pledge would be (1) withdrawing from the peace agreement and tantamount to reinstating a state of war on the US part; (2) violating our pledge to help the Eygptian government keep the Eygptian Islamic Jihad in check. Al Qaede for example, despite its noted Saudi financier bin Laden, has always principally drawn its manpower strength from exiled Egyptan jihadis whom the government chased out of the country in compliance with the Camp David peace agreement and with the money given in US aid (see RW article on Al Qaeda and its current leader Zawahiri for more information). Keeping jihadi elements within your borders is dangerous, as Gadhaffi and Assad can attest. (3) We could not cut aid to Israel and continue funding Eygpt, as that would then violate the agreement we have with Israel, and would be tantamount to declaring war on Israel. nobs 04:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
nobs, you're still assuming a rent control regime that removes any profit from improvements/new construction, rather than putting a ceiling on the profit margin. And no, the US is not forced by the Camp David Accords "to give Eygpt the exact same dollar amount in aid it gives to Israel", or at least I'm unable to find any such wording in the text of the Accords. So I'm wondering what your source is for this claim? Also, the US currently provides Israel with markedly more military aid than it does Egypt, although both subsidies are huge in and of themselves. As mpires this 2015 CNN story reported, annual US military aid to Egypt is huge, being around $1.3 billion in 2014, but at a whopping $3.1 billion in 2014 the military aid to Isral still far outstrips that to Egypt and the numbers are similar in terms of foreign economic aid ($1.5 billion for Egypt in 2014 vs. $3.1 billion for Israel). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
It's quite simple. Israel itself is also an arms producer and supplier to the world market, and the IDF has quite different objectives than the Eygptian military had. Eygpt's military exists primarily for one purpose: to defend against an internal enemy. It had no design (prior to the Obama era) to carry out military actions on neighboring states, and doesn't feel threatened by any foreign power such as the US, Israel, Russia, Nato, or the Britsh and French empires (like during the Suez crisis). Yet it is the Eygptian military (not a people's democracy or religious theocracy) that runs the country. The figures to look at is the amount of US aid to Eygpt, the size of Eygpt's government budget, the size of Eygpt's mi!itary budget, and the proportion of Eygptian government spending to GDP. The conclusion you'll reach is without US sid, there is no Eygptisn government, military, or GDP. nobs 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

How likely do you think Californians would be to vote for Calexit?[edit]

If it got on the ballot. I personally think a lot of Californians would vote for it.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Practically none of the Republicans would vote for it. Let's give an optimistic scenario though. Let's say that all Green and Libertarian voters would vote for it. Take the percentage of Democratic votes in 2016 (a good ideological indicator) and divide that number by two-thirds (perhaps the number who'd vote for secession). Then add the percentage of Libertarians and Greens to get your final number. Your vote is gonna look something like that. In this case, it's 47%, which is close, but not enough. PBfreespace (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
If only California had its own mini electoral college that gave LA and San Fran disproportionate representation. The downside here is that Democrats would lose any hope of regaining control if Cali left, but maybe they'd have to appeal to the working class to get more votes, which would be a plus. Applesauce (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably not many, & those who do will do so for shitty reasons. "We hate Trump" & "we're the bit with all the money" are the main arguments I've seen. Meanwhile are there significant numbers of people who actually view their national identity as Californian first & foremost rather than USA? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, Texas v. WhiteWikipedia exists.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
IT. IS. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN! Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
In the case Texas v. White, as mentioned above, the Supreme Court held that "the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States". This ruling technically gives a state the right to secede but they would have to get the approval of the federal government. The process would probably look a lot like Scotland's with a referendum and since the US states have more autonomy, approval by the state's legislature. It is unlikely that the federal government would approve a process for secession because it would embolden other secessionists and hurt the overall economy if California were to leave. I would also be wary of voting in favor of secession since I believe that the techno-libertarians of the Silicon Valley would try their hardest to turn the new republic into an Ayn Randian-y "utopia".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd hope that if California were to succeed, that taxes would be high enough that they would all leave, but then our economy would be relying pretty much on nuts, berries, and weed.'Legionwhat do you want from me 05:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
California leaving would be great if they took all $20 Trillion of the debt with them. Then we conquer California. CorruptUser (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
If CA left, then we'd be okay until we screw up or we run out of water.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 05:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I still think you are underestimating the power the Silicon Valley has; they would use their influence to craft the libertarian paradise of their dreams.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably true.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 19:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Are Google and Apple and Amazon super-libertarian or something? I'm missing something here. Google records all of your search history and gives it to the government. Apple does the same and ensures the NSA has constant access to your webcam and microphone without you knowing. There's a case going on right now where a court is requesting Amazon release recordings from one of its "smart speakers" to help with a murder case. In that last case, the Amazon speaker is literally recording audio continuously and saving it to an Amazon server by default. Though these companies are typically socially libertarian on issues like freakin marriage and weed, they're way against laissez-faire capitalism on issues like paid family/sick leave, mandatory overtime pay, and copyright law. The notion that Silicon Valley would somehow override all the liberals in LA and San Fran to turn the place into an Ayn-Rand dystopia is a false one, and likely a planted idea by right-wingers who want to prevent Cali from seceding and becoming even more of a successful model for progressivism than it already is. Liberals shouldn't fall for this argument. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not going to happen. California is a big place, but we'd have our own problems if by sheer chance we somehow became our own country. Los Angeles has some problems of its own, so to speak, so I can't bear to think of other cities like our brethren up north. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 00:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It's quite bizarre to see this "Calexit" crap doing the rounds on the interwebz, not least because it's a mirror image of the "secession" BS from certain "red" states prior to Obama's inauguration and just as (un)likely and serious. Hell, 'muricans fought a civil war over whether states could just up and leave if they didn't like the president, remember? It seems to me to be a laughable, immature and petulant reaction and I doubt it would be supported by a majority in a referendum in California anyway. Sure, plenty of Californian voters probably loathe don Trombone Trumpone, bit I seriously doubt they despise him enough to essentially quit their country (same goes with practically all, the "I'm moving to Canada!" yammering). In the end, I'm solidly convinced, Californians are more attached to the Stars and Stripes than they are put off by Trump. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


I just read the Telegraph's (pretty awful) "Snowflake Awards", & this Guardian article (which the Telegraph links to but seems to have missed the point of) about current usage of "snowflake" as an insult for people who are offended or concerned, which is increasingly used across the political spectrum.

RationalWiki defines "snowflake" (within the Manosphere Glossary) as "a female who considers herself special and different from other women", which is oddly specific & I think a long way out of step with how the phrase is used, including within manosphere circles which obviously over lap heavily with the alt-right, Gamergate, etc. where it's often used like "SJW" & similar terms.

There's also Essay:Special snowflake which says "a special snowflake is a member of a minority group who inadvertently (or in rare cases, intentionally) furthers their own societal oppression by pandering to a majority group". Again, that's not a usage I've encountered, or not commonly.

Does anyone have a clear picture of what "snowflake" is supposed to mean or why? I always thought that a "special snowflake" was supposed to mean somebody who places undue emphasis on their own views, feelings & experiences, viewing themselves as unique - like the saying about no two snowflakes being alike, and possibly originating in the line "you are not a beautiful or unique snowflake" from Fight Club. But it seems like "snowflake" is now just being used to mean somebody who is fragile & afraid of conflict or controversy, which also makes sense. Any thoughts? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Urban Dictionary, it pertains to the "triggered/safe space" crowd:

An overly sensitive person, incapable of dealing with any opinions that differ from their own. These people can often be seen congregating in "safe zones" on college campuses.

Its example of use is (and I roll my eyes at this):

Those social justice warriors are just a bunch of snowflakes.

Even as an opponent of "safe spaces" (per se), I've never used the word myself (nor found reason to even once). I rarely see the word used "in the wild", but when I do, it's generally used by assorted asshats like alt-righters, antifeminists or manospherians.
Perhaps worth noting is that the Online Slang Dictionary defines it closer to the RW Essay meaning:

A person who thinks they are perfect and unique when in fact they are not and are like everyone else.

My two cents is that the Urban Dictionary meaning might be the one that's really taken root these days — like The Telegraph seems to argue. The Spectator chimes in as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Snowflake is a word used by people criticizing SJWs. It originated among exclusevely middle-class Western people who were minorites in some fashion, who want to feel special about themselves so they would feel better. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Growing up in the 90's, I had hippie-like teachers that insisted that each child was special and unique, like a snowflake. Now, it's used deragotarily towards anyone who is perceived as wanting to be special. CorruptUser (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The meaning that I've seen used most often is describing someone who is easily offended and overly sensitive, like the Urban Dictionary meaning. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 00:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna go ahead & delete the bogus definition from our manosphere glossary page. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
PIDOOMA, but I have a hunch that there's a direct correlation between using 'snowflake' as a insult and considering yourself more intelligent/logical than average. Vulpius (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a page on the pseudoscience promoter David Dewitt[edit]

He is a creationist with actual qualifications in Biology and is a professor at Liberty University and is on the List of Creationist Scientists.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Go for it! Bongolian (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd help if you do, if only because I really don't like Liberty. Also make it clear that he and this guy are different people, cause the latter dude is pretty cool. B) talk 04:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
They are two totally different people, the guy I mentioned is the "Liberty" University guy with credentials in Biology and not computer science--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep, just saying we should probably make that distinction in the article. B) talk 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I made the article and to distinguish the creationist and the computer scientist I added the middle initial of his name--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


It's almost cringily bad.

Headline: "Sweden: est 77% of rapes committed by 2% Muslim male population – Crime statistics"

Article text: "The foreign rape figures at 77.6% Muslim has been anonymously confirmed by Swedish police in a phone conversation."

Sigh. They then display a graphic from 2011, which doesn't classify by religion -- only "foreign" or "domestic" -- and which came far before the major influx of refugees. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

They can't classify by religion because Swedish law and hate crime legislation explicitly forbids it. "Foreign" and "domestic" are the only classifications the government statisticians release and journalists can use, leaving its meaning to the imagination of readers. A Swedish legislator was convicted of a hate crime for posting factual statistics in Facebook. The fact his numbers were factual was irrelevent to the case. nobs 03:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Except "foreign" includes "Finns", who are the reason Swedish women get pregnant (Finnish joke).
I do, however, think the law is stupid. It may be irresponsible to publish the stats, but it should damn well be legal to collect the information rather than burying your head in the sand snow. CorruptUser (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Gotta love ethnic jokes and the stupidity of their premise.
I love how people cite police statistics to justify their racist views, when the stats they cite don't even support their opinions. PB (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
That reminds me of a Shaun and Jen video that covered a map migrant crime created by XY Einzelfall. TLDW: Most of their sources ddon't state that the crime was caused by a migrant or the criminal wasn't arrested.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

David Pakman wrecks Gad Saad on the death penalty.[edit]

Kind of an oldie, but still a goodie. Seriously, this guy (Gad Saad) is an academic? Wow! The bars to the academia of whatever his field is must be really low. Pakman absolutely thrashed him. The fun begins at the 37:08 mark.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl1YUgJVNOs Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope the scientific community will be able to stand against Trump[edit]

Chances are that he will get "experts" for hire who follow his ideology. But we have to stand for science.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that US administrations have a lot of appointees in significant roles. Could he put one of his tame lunatics in charge of all the major federal scientific programmes? How many would that be? How much impact could they have?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Trump is putting a climate change sceptic (Rick Perry) in charge of the Energy Department & talking big about ramping up the US's nuclear warfare capability. So that's the way government science funding is likely to shift. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I find it more likely that we'll see giant tax cuts and major research allocations destroyed along the way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Scientists are already pulling global warming research off government servers in the fear that it will get deleted under a Trump presidency.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 20:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully he'll do something about the century old stacking of American anthropology with Marxists, which started with that charlatan Boas. Drain the swamp. (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you think that Trump knows what anthropology is?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ikanreed: what makes you think a private sector boom in private research and funding isn't possible with a slash in the corporate tax rate? And it would be done much more effectively, with less waste, and more direct practical application. Why the religous belief that only government, like only Jesus, can provide the way for the betterment of humanity? nobs 13:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
"lol the right r stupid we r so smart". No, you aren't. You're just liars. (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
And what's the lie, exactly? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Lol, "race does not exist except when we blame Whites for everything". Talk about Orwellian Jewish POV. You even named yourself "RationalWiki". How cute. (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Note how you focus on the minor issue, and not your anti-White pro-Semite POV. And look for lame excuses to remove my comments. (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, someone takes a non-racial issue and manages to turn it into a race issue. God people can be so fucking stupid. Nothing like taking a science issue and turning it into a race issue.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Going back to Nobs' point - why can't the private sector finance research? The short answer is 'profit'. The private sector is there to create profit. Full stop (or 'period' if you're colonial). As such no private sector entity would finance CERN, for example. Or the research into DNA that was way back when. Only now is that becoming profitable. Or practically any anthropology/zoology/climatology (where's the profit in them - in fact climate science is anti profit). So, yeah, some research needs to be funded in a non-profit way. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To remain competitive, corporations spend a huge amount of money on resesrch and development. True, some research is too expensive for a single entity and needs to funded collectively. It's not beyond the realm of possibilty for an industry trade group, say Big Pharma for instance, made up of "competitors" such as Phizer, Merck, and G.D. Searle, to issue foundation research grants. Why the automatic assumption only the US Treasury and taxpayer must fund this bullshit that ultimately always ends up in the hands of some private sector, profit making entity? nobs 14:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Private-sector research tends to favor things with near-term applications. Occasionally you get something like Bell Labs (seven Nobels in physics and one in chemistry), but for the most part, research that can't be turned into a product within a decade is the realm of public funding. -- (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This will remain a subject of discussion. If when the corporate tax rate is slashed from 35% to 15%, corporations certainly will have the cash to do their own R&D, and the federal government will be running massive massive deficits for a few years. But as I pointed out, people think of companies like defense contracts, pharmacueticals, technology, etc. as competitors; in Washington they are just another trade association lobbying group with common interests as concerns. I'm not saying what's likely to happen is good or bad, I'm just saying this is not the end of science & technical R&D. The arguments for it will be (a) less waste and more practical, direct application; and (b) cut out corporate cronyism.
And of coarse the gubmint can always encourage research in a certain area with special tax considerations, which in a way, some will argue, is a direct government subsidy. nobs 01:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
nobs, you are yet again pretending that a cut in the profit margin is making corporations hold back on investment. Isn't it curious that back in 1950s when effective US corporate tax rates were twice what they are today, US corporations were actually doing research?
The thing is, as other editors have pointed out, that private sector R&D is about making gadgets or services, but basic research is hardly ever conducted by the private sector because any benefits are extremely long term and tend to be diffused over the entire society, rather than as a direct return on investment for those who conducted the research. Sure, even if a Trump administration savages public sector research we'll still get new gadgets, drugs and services, because research into applied science will continue unaffected in the private sector. Instead, the downside will be a decrease in basic research whose effects will largely be long term and thus effectively invisible, not to mention that it's difficult to predict or identify what is not being discovered or delays in scientific breakthroughs through lack of funding for basic research.
I quite agree that corporations should indeed pay for their own R&D (and they already do, although they also receive incentives, such as the Research & Experimentation Tax CreditWikipedia), but I'm simply unconvinced that current corporate tax rates are what is preventing this. The idea that being able to retain only 70% of your profits, rather than 85% (and that's based on the nominal rates), discourages corporations from investing at all is dubious. Do you really think that a CEO is looking at a proposal for R&D which will, say, be expected to generate $100 million in gross profits and then goes "Oh, well, since our company will end up keeping only $70 million I'm not going to bother. If only we'd been allowed to keep $85 million, then it would have been worth the effort"? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
In the immediate short term what you say is abdolutely true. In the long term, if a 15% corporate tax rate were to hold for years into the future, theoretically a large trade association can pool its resources and fund outfits such as Los Alamos National Labs or give foundation grants to colleges and unnversities for basic research. Tax laws would have to be tweaked. And the US government wouldn't totally withdraw from funding research. Call it a way of diversifying risk by calling on the private sector to contribute, rather than solely be a beneficiary and exploiter of publicly funded research. nobs 13:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like rather than the government funding basic research directly, your idea is (and I'm simplifying here) that it should effectively incentivise (read: effectively pay) the private sector to do it, or rather set up a framework and then hope that private businesses will suddenly start thinking on a multi-decadal scale without any likelihood that their investment will yield a return directly to them? I admire your optimism and faith in the societal consciousness of US corporations, nobs, but that's a bet I wouldn't take. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I look at Trump's campaign as his approach in microcosm: Hillary spent $1 billion, Trump $300 million. Conventional wisdom says Hillary should win, and Trump couldn't raise money due to lack of popularity. But Trump took a risk here, and was making a statement, to prove conventional wisdom wrong (its similiar to the famous Central Park ice skating rink back in the 1980s which was Trump's first foray into politics). Trump considers himself more of an economic conservative, and a more successful economic conservative than Ronald Reagan. Whether that's true will be debated both in and outside the conservative movement in coming months and years. nobs 13:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Predictions for 2017[edit]

For something lighthearted - What Rationalwiki orientated topics will be significant in 2017? (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump, Trade War with China and strained relations between the United States and Israel.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody else felt whiplash at the connection "light hearted" followed by a list including Trump and Trade war? Anyway i think a lot more of "Pizzagate" and other really stupid bullshit in addition to fun elections in 2017 (Germany and France).--Benaresh (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering Trump has no experience in politics, it's a crapshoot. Considering pizzagate, yes, expect to hear more alt-right nonsense.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that RationalWiki will focus on dumb conspiracy theories, on Trump, China, Israel and unpredictable stuff. I'll probably focus on French elections, since it's a ridiculous, illogical mess, and translate pages in french since we might have a very small influence on the elections, and it can bring more people. Diacelium (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
How about the blunders of Trump political appointees? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 02:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Since trolls and the tea party essentially jointly won the White House, I predict there will by more cyberhysteria like Pizzagate, but rather than dismiss the latest crazy unfounded rumor, the government will spend a few billion dollars investigating it. Leuders (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Predictions: Tillerson, Trump, and Putin conspire to raise gas prices to just under $3 a gal. 12 months from now & get fraking a US export technology globally; Japan increases its defense spending and starts fucking with the Chinese near the Spratly's, relieving the US burden; Trump renegotistes to lower the $4 billion cost of a new Air Force One with Boeing so Boeing can keep its $16 billion deal with Iran. nobs 02:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
There will be a notable uptick in the suicide rates in the western world as the reality of how fucked we are really starts sinking in. Trump supporters will tie themselves in knots trying to convince themselves that they didn't fall for the most transparent con since Ponzicoin. Paul Ryan et al will age a decade having to defend the indefensible every week. Conservapedia will continue its slow, slow death. Vulpius (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Another prediction: Alex Jones will become one of Trump's biggest critics and the deplorable Rust Belt Democrats who voted for Obama and later Trump will never return to the Democratic party. nobs 12:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Jones turning on Trump would be hilarious to watch happen, but I reiterate that Rust Belt voters didn't go Trump, they just stayed home because of Clinton's bad messaging and terrible ground game. If a left populist with an actual vision other than "at least we're not that guy" runs, boom, they'll turn out in droves. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Listen to what Jones says about Reince Priebus and Paul Ryan. Jones loathes them. Jones predicts Priebus to be gone in 90 days. But the truth is without Priebus & Ryan, Trump will have no success. A new president has 100 days to pass his program. After the summer break, Congress is too busy running for re-election, and nothing gets done in even numbered years (election years). After 100 days, the establishment bureaucracy takes over. If Priebus is gone in 90 days as Alex Jones hopes, none of Trumps's program passes, and he's a failed president. If Trump passes these two landmark pieces of legislation - Immigration and Tax reform - the most ambitious reforms of both in 50 years, he'll owe it all to Priebus & Ryan. But Jones is too stupid to know how Washington works. nobs 12:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
God I hope you're right. My ideal situation is Trump and his team of privatizers and kleptocrats completely bungle everything and there's a huge pushback from frightened, enraged leftists of all stripes. Then when Trump's popularity goes down like a lead balloon (he's already historically unpopular before he's even sworn in remember) it costs downticket Republicans big time in the midterms. Then we can run an actual progressive in 2020 and have some semblance of sanity in this country again. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's how he's gonna build the Wall: he's gone add 20 miles of fence to the existing wall at a cost of $200 million over 8 years; he's gonna impose a 25% surcharge on money orders and wire transfers Mexicans send home and designated for a fund to build the wall. The surcharge is gonna net about fifty bucks, and he can say he kept his promise. Meanwhile, he really only scapegoated the Mexicans to get votes, his real target being Muslims, and to re-impose idealogical tests for immigrants, which is already in the 1952 Immigration law written at the height of the Red Scare. Then he's gonna push for a $15 minimum wage and conservatives will see him as the big spending liberal panty-waist he really is, but liberals and progressives (at least those who believe in working for a living) will love him. nobs 05:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to believe you on that last part, really I would, but somehow I don't think the guy that appointed someone who doesn't think workers deserve breaks is going to push for a fifteen dollar minimum wage. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
He's really not a stupid politician as many think, he's just a bad inexperienced campaigner. To get re-elected, which is his sole focus now, he must reach out to people who opposed him (to break 51%) and he must betray people who supported him. All presidents have done it, with varrying degrees of success and failure. nobs 06:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm high as shit off of Alprazolam right now for please forgive me if I start sounding zonked out but he's not a good or bad politician. He's not any kind of politician because he's never held any kind of governing office before. I'm of the view that since these are the twilight years of his life he's made on last big shot at having his name stamped on history forever and it, god help us all, succeeded. Reelection doesn't matter. Bringing America together doesn't matter. All that matters is his brand going down in history and his friends making out like bandits while the nation and possibly the world are brought to its knees by corruption and regressive policy on an "unpresidented" scale. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The world was going to hell before Trump, I don't know if speeding it up or slowing it down really matters when you know what the end result is. Trump says he's a negotiator. One of the intricacies of negotiation is, you are always trying to get your antagonist to act. A negotiator must be a motivator. Trump never worked for the minimum wage, so $5 an hour or $15 an hour really means nothing to him. He sees his role as motivating people to be ambitious, and think big. So he really has to sell the minimum wage to penny-pinching employers and get them to believe its beneficial, and in their own self interest. This is different from tossing poor people a bone and calling it compassion. But the country has grown quite lethargic, it may be an impossible task. nobs 07:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Some 'politicians' will do something stupid, and several will be unceremoniously dumped.
  • Some poor infant of 'celebrities' will be given a stupid name.
  • There will be a leak that nobody is interested in. (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Fun: Favorite memories of 2016[edit]

My favorite memories include- Getting a microscope, buying a carton of Newport Menthol 100's, new TV for Christmas, planning for a new ministry and going forward with it, doing odd jobs for various neighbors, getting a PS4, getting my therapy cat named (Doctor) Friskies, creating new articles on RationalWiki, getting my clergy shirt and having a nice Thanksgiving with friends and family. Post your favorite memories! :)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

My favorite memory was watching the numbers in Michigan and Wisconsin go to Trump and seeing everyone collectively lose their shit. Granted I hate Trump, but as a social phenomenon it's always fun to see people's reactions. Also, the red-baiting the Democrats did and me realizing Trump would be able to do whatever he wanted in office if the Democrats kept doing such a stupid strategy. PBfreespace (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
My favorite memory was when the Wisconsin GOP & Reince Priebus handed Trump a 30% - 70% loss in the Wisconsin primary. We got that sonofabitch by balls now, and if he doesn't do our bidding, we're gonna squeeze 'em. nobs 03:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Pbfreespace thinks Clinton redbaited Sanders. She barely touched him in the primaries. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what's directly from the Hillary campaign, but a ton of pro-Hillary rags have used similar arguments. PB (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I will say this- Both the Republican and Democratic parties have become a joke. The democrats are a joke because they were claiming Trump rigged the elections when these same people stated before that Trump should accept the election results; as for the Republicans, they complain and whine when they don't get their way and snuggling up to Vladimir Putin like horny teens.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If you owned Exxon stock, you'd have a big hardon for Putin, too. nobs 12:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Seeing Zootopia multiple times. Other than that, this was a thoroughly worthless year in every way. Vulpius (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Getting a flat and a dishwasher, seeing some of my students graduate with top marks. Unfortunately, not handing in my thesis, though, it's still on my to do list. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@nobs, if I did own stock in Exxon Mobile, I would be pulling out my money. I don't trust Russia in any way shape or form.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
But you said "pretty much every nation lacks responsibility" so why trust any of them? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@RZ, hmmm, sounds like you need investment advice. I'm available for a fee. Or are you just another indignant indigent wanking my chain who sucks the gubmint tit and your fellow citizens for your subsistance? nobs 12:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I should rephrase what I said, I meant that pretty much any nation has done something that was not responsible at one time or another.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Jack Chick finally going to hell where he belongs, watching us liberals spout conspiracy theories about Trump just like conservatives did about Obama, watching Darth Vader get the moment he's been waiting for since 1978, etc... --TeslaK20 (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ya'll[edit]

Hey RW dwellers. I hope you're doing okay. I can't exactly say I'm doing so well myself right now, what with my anxiety flaring up and so on, but I've got my girlfriend over with me and if there's one person that can keep me hanging on it's her. As we approach 2017 I encourage you to not wear yourself down to a nub over the bad things that have happened, are happening, and will continue to happen. In all likelihood I myself do this too much. Please always, always look for the good. Look at your friends, your family, continued scientific advancement, achievements in human rights. Growth and renewal is happening, and will happen here too. The progressive movement is large, diverse, pissed off and getting organized to fight. Despite everything that's happening I have hope that we'll make it through this with a fairer, kinder, more equal America and world. Happy New Years. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hear hear. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Amen to that brother (or sister, well it is not like I know anybody's gender on this site)!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Th hug.gif-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@RZ Haha, it's sister for me. On this site at least I want to be openly and proudly trans.
@All have a good one you guys. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@MNiM, be loud and proud of who you are! I am proud of being a Bisexual man! Kudos to the LBGT community! :)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess Papa Bush was ahead of his time as a Prophet of Progressivism in pushing for a kinder gentler America. nobs 12:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
[Holds zippo in support of MyNameIsMudd's words] Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome 2017!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 08:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't think "zippo" is the correct word there, RBP. ;)-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
And nobs is a right wing nut job--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@DD Well, I meant lighter — Zippo should be fine, no? You know, like at a rock concert? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@RZ Now, what in the world makes you say that?!?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Going by nobs's homophobic and racists statements it would not be far from the truth. But it is possible he or she has been sarcastic the whole time.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

About the elections in France[edit]

Who do you think should win ? Le Pen, Fillon, Valls, Mélenchon or Bayrou ? Diacelium (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mélenchon, obviously, but it is unlikely that he wins. If you want change, then Le Pen would be the only other person proposing it from that pack: anti-NATO, anti-EU, anti-austerity. Also, before anyone says she is Islamaphobic, so is everyone else listed excluding Mélenchon; ironically, her anti-Islamic views are what makes her status quo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
...What. No, no one on this list is islamophobic the way MLP is. In fact, I kinda wish the French left, after giving Catholics the middle finger, did the same with Muslims rather than suck up to them in the name of "diversity". The French left's values are diametrically opposed to those of Islam, and that's a thing they should be proud of. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing more homophobic about Le Pen that about Fillon or Valls. It's all the same bullshit about the veil, the burkini, etc... Diacelium (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Diacelium pointed out something important, and that is for the talk about "The French left's values are diametrically opposed to those of [religion]" and laïcité and so on, there is no discussion of real solutions or state anti-theism. There is no talk of better education to dismantle the superstitious and irrational worldviews required for strict religious adherence, no proposals for social support services for non-religious people in religious communities to make apostasy easier, no conversation about anything that would actually address the root problem. Instead, there is bullshit like banning hijab, banning minarets, deporting people, etc. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Good post! Diacelium (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

From one faulty walnut to another[edit]

(PS. This all applies to you as well — yes, you!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we can all relate to when our genitalia jumps up and sits on our frontal cortex :p TheGrandmother (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a "dickhead" joke in there, somewhere! :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"US Govt Data Shows Russia Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware"[edit]

Apparently I found this re-posted on infowars of all places. The website wordfence.com allegedly traces back the Russian hack to sold Ukrainian PHP malware. The website also has an FAQ on the matter now. I don't really know what to think about this at this point. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

According to some Redditors, the headline is misleading according to the author himself. He allegedly commented:

Glad someone finally realized it has a secondary meaning. It's not really sarcasm, but yes, the intended meaning was:

"US government data, which was released at the same time as the whitehouse expelling 35 diplomats, and is therefore assumed to be attribution and uses language that implies attribution, surprisingly includes malware that appears to be old and of Ukrainian origin according to our research."

That didn't fit. So I shortened it.

Just FYI. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not eligible to vote in the Moderator Election?[edit]

I want to vote in the Moderator Election, but when I tried to enter my vote for candidate(s) of my choice I was told "usted no esta eligible a votar" - que es eso? Cabrónes. Worzelpete (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well whatever it is, it's not that the system is rigged to secretly prompt us when people don't put "David Gerard" in all 15 boxes. So forget that theory, that's a crazy theory. So then... Case closed, gentlemen? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Since how long have you created your account ? You need to have created it 3 month ago to be able to vote (I can't vote too, and I was prepared for the elections). Diacelium (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You also need atleast 75 edits. Nobody is forcing you to vote for David, either — certainly David isn't forcing anyone to do that. Certainly not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Your account was only created on or about the end of October 2016. You're ineligible to vote this time because you need to have been a registered account holder for at least three months. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Bikram Choudhury (of Bikram Yoga) just lost everything.[edit]

Choudhury just lost a huge sexual-harassment lawsuit brought by a former employee. He's going to have to turn over nearly all of his assets to the plaintiff, including all of his 700 yoga studio franchises. Strangely, his fleet of 43 luxury cars disappeared the same day as the decision. Those cars were also to be turned over the the plaintiff. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4078878/Find-yoga-guru-s-Ferraris-British-woman-wins-control-yogi-Bikram-s-empire-43-luxury-cars-sex-case-ve-vanished.html

I beleive that sexual harassment and rape is wrong and that Bikram Choudhury should have been sued for his actions. I would say that roughly a million in compensatory damage is too high (the punitive damage of 7 million seems good though). If Bikram Choudhury was poor, hi Jafa-Bodden wouldn't have gotten that amount and she would never bothered suing. People should come forward all the time about rape, not just when there's a big reward.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The United States should just cut its losses and dump Israel as an ally[edit]

When their government is spreading anti-American propaganda then we do not need to be their ally or bail them out of conflicts they started. While America is at it, take back all financial and military aide. Let them fend for themselves. Just my thought, feel free to post your thoughts--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Dumping Israel" as you put it would in effect tell the world that the US does not give a crap about democracy. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East that can even begin to be called stable. In Israel, the Prime Minister sends greetings to gay pride parades - in other countries in the region, gays are hung from cranes. Israel may not be perfect, but it sure beats any possible alternative - and as long as the US wants to be a global power, the goings on in the Middle East have to be of concern to the US. (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
If the United States wants to be a global power, it needs to not have it's economy implode on itself. I don't see that debt clock stopping anytime soon. Maybe the US should tend to that instead of going to conflicts for "justice". Wars cost money, you know. What good is one country being democratic when the United States is in the gutter?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 16:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering that the US toppled democratic Countries for going against US interests, i'd say this argument is hypocritical, in addition Israel has a badass military and Nukes so they are safe and sound. I think Israel should reconsider it current policy of pushing for new settlements and instead push for peace and maybe stop to alienate their allies. Not that Iran and Saudi Arabia is innocent in fanning the flames...--Benaresh (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Not trying to be an asshole but tell me this, lets saying you were in school and someone spreads rumors about you then turn around asking for help, would you want to help? Think of what I said as an analogy for U.S-Israel relations. Again, this is just constructive criticism and not meant to be rude.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't treat international diplomacy like a schoolyard, for starters. Vulpius (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@BoN The US doesn't give a flying shit about democracy. Israel iRatjonals also not the only democracy: Turkey, Kuwait, and Lebanon have elections as does Iran and Syria even if the leave much to be desired.
In general the US won't completely abandon any of the countries it is currently aligned within the MENA because they serve its interests; the Saudis control the global oil prices, the Gulf states willingly wage proxy wars with Iran, Israel provides a buffer to the Arab states, the Kurds provide a useful proxy in Iraq, Turkey, and now Syria, and we are now pushing Turkey to challenge Russia. For a more in-depth look at the attempt to sustain US global hegemony, I recommend looking at The Next DecadeWikipedia written by George FriedmanWikipedia, the founder to Stratfor.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@RationalZombie: the US can't simply cut aid to Israel, it would have cut aid to Eygpt as well, as that is part of the agreement written into law. That would not only mean terminating the Peace Agreement between Israel and Eygpt, a state of war resuming, and the government of Eygpt would soon be broke and incapable of restraining the Eygptian jihadi movement. Radical fundamentalists and jihadis would be strengthened and soon overtake the most populuos country in the region, sitting on the doorstep of retaking Jerusalem from the Zionists, Mecca from the takfir Saudis, and completing the Islamic conquest of the US's European Nato partners. You wanna risk that over what a minority of discredited and rejected American Progressives consider an insult? nobs 02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

Please try to keep this discussion civil. Debate Wars: Israel and Palestine, volume 38908589 has an unfortunate preferrence for insults and ad hominems. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

International relations is like a school yard. Trying to be friendly here though. Think about it, kids are like countries and they trade various things on the playground much like international trade and kids will stick together like global alliances. Plus kids will fight each other like war against other nations; my analogy is accurate.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I see your point, however, I do not see analogies as a valid argument but rather as a means to illustrate one's view on a subject. If you are going to talk politics, I suggest talking about policies and actions instead of using vague analogies.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I honestly wish both sides would just get their heads out of their proverbial asses and come up with some peace agreement. But I know that won't happen because there are extremists on both sides. Israel has the Jewish Home which will refuse any compromise. Palestine has Hamas which will also refuses to compromise. I honestly do believe that there is a middle ground here on this issue. S.H. DeLong (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I am just used to using analogies is all and I was using a schoolyard scenario as international relations is a lot like a schoolyard.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The counterargument is that it actually isn't. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 03:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I think Owlman and DeLong comments sum up the complexity and problems as short as possible, so no need to add anything to it. The schoolyard simile is flawed in that it implies a certain lack of responsibility and childishness that doesn't reflect the reality of global politics.--Benaresh (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree respectfully, pretty much every nation lacks responsibility--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What US should do:

  1. Urge Israel to halt settlement construction and occupation
  2. When they don't do this, threaten/implement sanctions, trade embargo, travel ban, weapons shipments ban, etc.
  3. Vote for and actively support Palestinian statehood
  4. While we're at it, cut aid to Egypt unless they stop the authoritarianism and blockage of Gaza

This should do loads to help the current situation in that part of the middle East. PBfreespace (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Egypt should stop blocking Gaza? But they need to keep blocking it, lest more IDF sharks get into the Suez!</sarcasm> TheMyon (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@PB, you forgot to add the US should let the Muslim Brotherhood take over Eygpt. Oh, wait a minute, we already tried that with Morsi and it only led to to sending Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Progressive movement packing. nobs 12:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Israel an "ally" of the US? If you mean "allies" in the sense of states that help each other mutually then I'm not sure Israel is an ally of the US. It's clear what Israel gets out of the situation. It's also clear that some US politicians can make political capital out of being helpful to Israel.

But I wonder how helpful the relationship really is to the US as a nation.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

White Americans should stay out of Semitic squabbles whether they're "democracies" or not. Why the hell should we care about any of those hook nosed primitive parasitic bastards? Let them kill each other with rocks and if we need the oil just go in and take it by force. (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

" Radical fundamentalists and jihadis would be strengthened and soon overtake the most populuos country in the region, sitting on the doorstep of retaking Jerusalem from the Zionists, Mecca from the takfir Saudis, and completing the Islamic conquest of the US's European Nato partners. "

Lol wut? Has it occurred to you that the so called "Islamic conquest" is a bunch of retards with nothing more than a shirt walking across the border because for some crazy reason the European governments have decided not to machine gun them, as any other country would. Hopefully that changes very soon. (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The German birth rate is 13 per 200 breeding pairs; the Muslim birth rate, depending on country of origin varies between 35 and 60 per 200 breeding age adults. 2.5 million Muslims have migrated to Germany in the past 3 years, about half of them children. Germany's standing military is only 400,000. Translation: in 20 years German soldiers primary alligiance will be to the Caliphate, not Germany or Nato. nobs 12:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, so they all have to be sent back or killed. (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It's too late. The Atlantic Ocean is now the border between Western Civilization and Islam. Ask Gen. Michael FlynnWikipedia, he'll explain. nobs 13:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Nobs, your argument is based on several ridiculous assumptions.
First, you say that the birth rate in Muslim countries is going to be the same as the birth rate of Muslim refugees living in Germany. This is crazy: those countries are poorer, undeveloped, and have no birth control or contraceptives to speak of. This is like saying the high birth rate in Catholic countries means Americans will all inevitably be pledging their allegiance to the Pope. The Muslim birth rate won't be nearly as high in Germany.
Second, even if I grant you your first argument, that doesn't mean Germany will become an Islamic state. You're assuming most of the refugees coming over are devout Muslims that also have an agenda to implement political Islam. That's not the case. Most of them are moderately religious, with some extremely and some not very much. That's not a recipe for a caliphate in 20 or even 2000 years.
Third, you think that even the really religious ones are going to hold onto their religion after enormous cultural pressure not to do so. Most of these folks are going to meld into the culture after a long while. You act like cultural assimilation isn't a thing. Take the Somalis in Minnesota for example. They came there decades ago, war refugees from one of the most religious countries on Earth, with a birth rate of 7 children per woman. That's higher than all Muslim countries. Do you see Minneapolis/St Paul becoming a caliphate? No. In Ohio they drive taxis. Big deal.
I really am genuinely surprised your reasoning is this stupid. Normally appeal to fear and appeal to disgust is enough, but now you people are just resorting to factually false arguments. PB (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
And this is why I think nobs is a right wing nutjob. Using fear and paranoia to get his point across--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This will never happen[edit]

There are two kinds of American foreign policy:

  1. Overly dramatic calls to arms that destroy nations to protect them, a la Vietnam and Iraq
  2. Hideously Machiavellian manipulations to create and maintain puppet state and proxy powers with little consideration for what's right, a la Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Cuba.

Actual non-interventionism is not seriously represented anywhere in the American political spectrum, when it comes to the real political structure of the United States. Ditching an "Ally" like Israel would be unthinkable to the middle-managers of the state department and intelligence branches, and top down instructions for reform will go about as far as Obama's have: nowhere. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the alt-right is bad for the acceptance of science[edit]

One of my worries about the alt-right is their Darwin-thumping scientific racism will result in many Americans rejecting evolution and embracing creationism due to the former's association with the alt-right. I say this as a fervent supporter of evolution and the works of Darwin, which, just like the Bible, have been twisted to support a reactionary worldview. Just like the liberal religious community had to distance themselves from the fundamentalists, so too will the rationalist community have to distance itself from the scientific racists. That is why RationalWiki should devote itself to refuting the psuedo-intellectual arguments of the alt-right. Gutza1 (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that and they also got the most anti-science president in the history of the country elected. One who seems poised to dismantle scientific establishment in order to shield himself from dissent.
The sad truth to your own claim is that "rationalism", as an ideology, went off the rails, and probably can't be recalled safely for at least a generation. And honestly, it's just as well; the biggest problem has never really been people valuing rationality in the abstract in the same way people value liberty or kindness in the abstract without ever giving a second thought to how to pursue them. The biggest problem is the unwillingness to apply a critical lens to their own ideas while proving perfectly able to apply one to others'. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
First of all, the Alt-right can't and won't ever represent science. Far too many of them subscribe to antiquated bullshit notions like racialism, and far too few — if any of them — trust the scientific consensus on climate change, etc. Keep in mind, also, that the Alt-right actually plays on quite overtly Christian themes. See, for example, Theodore Beale's "Alt-right constitution" here — notice #4:

The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

There's also some ideological overlap between the (Christian) KKK and the Alt-right, etc — just to name two examples from off the top of my head. Don't allow yourself to be derailed from the simple fact that most popular fascist movements in history have been overtly aligned with the Catholic church. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
True, but on the other hand many alt-righters are calling belief in racial equality the left-wing version of creationism, and many prominent scientific antitheists like Thunderf00t and TheAmazingAtheist have been leaning towards alt-right ideas. Then there's also neoreactionary beliefs about "the Cathedral" and how Protestant Christianity created Progressivism. Mencius Moldbug even said that "the belief in that all men are created equal" is a "theological proposition." I suspect that the alt-right is "Christian" in the same way that Richard Dawkins calls himself a cultural Christian. Gutza1 (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I expect there to be increasing tension between the alt-right & traditional conservativism, but I don't think much of it will be directly about science or religion. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; probably not in the friction between the Alt-right and their conservative elders. The Alt-right will continue their crusade against science, however — just note #8 on Beale's "Alt-right constitution":

The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

Don't expect that a movement which right off the bat tries to redefine gut science as carelessly as the ICR will ever be able to recruit anyone on the basis of said movement having any particularly coherent "science-mindedness". On the other hand, expect that they will recruit pseudoscientists with pillars like the above — "Finally, a political movement that recognizes the plight of the free vacuum energy cranks race realists!". I mean, even if you were as rich as Markus Persson and donated a billion dollars for actual Alt-righters to do science with, it would all devolve into Lysenkoism pretty quickly. And yes, analogies to the pseudoscientific misadventures of the nativist, cultural purist, nationalist far left are actually more apt than one might think. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"Scientodific"? "Scientody"? "Scientistry"? The mind boggles. Nowhere Man (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Not content with just committing the odd, unintentional equivocation, Mr. Beale has instead taken said fallacy under his wing as full-time tripartite calling card, speech writer, and soulmate. Or has he? See, now — that's the genius of it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"And yes, analogies to the pseudoscientific misadventures of the nativist, cultural purist, nationalist far left are actually more apt than one might think."
Occam's razor would suggest it's just you Marxists pushing out the Lysenkoesque genes-don't-exist/race-doesn't-exist crank pseudoscience. "Horseshoe theory" doesn't mean you get to blame your crap on your opponents. Look at your race articles: what transparent dishonesty. John 82 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure you know what Occam's razor is? B) talk 23:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Lol yes. It means one doesn't posit a complex convoluted theory when a simple one will do. In this case there's no need for "horseshoe theory" when "no it's just you theory" fits the data just fine. John 82 (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Another razor comes to mind when looking at your posts. Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The alt-right would probably run a study like this and solve the issue. Much better than your "we're all equal because race does not exist" contrived Marxist nonsense. John 82 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Serious.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, appeal to ridicule. Seems like a common theme of "Rational" Wiki. Why didn't you call yourselves Pravda? John 82 (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I can understand why you would need a drink to take away the pain of writing for an Orwellian-named Communist pseudoscience website, while constantly showing how "science" you are by fitting your entire vocabulary into each sentence, casting vague aspertions on your opponents logic while not identifying any errors, and being unironically "wacky" and irreverent while just coming across as a sophomore. And all to push a Jew/Communist agenda. John 82 (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Laid it on too thick there. Pretty amateurish trolling. (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh I'm "trolling". Of course. That means all of the things I'm saying aren't really true? John 82 (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, you're incorrect -- RationalWiki switched from pushing the Jew-Commie agenda to pushing the NWO-lizard agenda years ago. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't "lizard" code for Jew? Do some people actually think lizards are the problem? John 82 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
It's kind of had to take anything you say seriously when you drop phrases like "Jew/Communist" agenda. Also, being so obsessed with race is a little unhealthy, no? People who spend their lives obsessing over perceived racial differences usually don't have the most objective views on the subject. Since racism almost always serves as a cover for scapegoating others for your own personal failures, objective reasoning isn't usually a priority. Making yourself feel better by diminishing others seems to be the priority. Petey Plane (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Lol wut? Please explain why this site is eager to fallaciously sweep the race concept under that carpet and why it was constantly brought up in this very thread? You Jew/Communists are obsessed with denying the race concept to weaken your competitors. Thanks for the Freudian/Adornonian "you think that because you're a loser" psychoanalysis. Let's all pretend the races are equal and given up White nations to the third world or you personally are a loser. Talk about kindergarten psychology.
Do you kikes ever get tired of lying? John 82 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Troll Petey Plane (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a "proud to be ethnic Englisc (Anglo-Saxon)" user-box and similar proud to be ethnic/culture user-boxes; Rationalwiki has never denied ethnicity or culture, nor does it have a problem with people identifying with them. Ethnicity and culture however is not race. Furthermore, few people today identity with race, but ethnicity/culture. I've also found that denying race is in the best interest of ethno-cultural nationalism; for example lumping all ethnic groups and cultures from Europe together into a silly "white race" blurs their separate ethnic identities and promotes mixing between them does it not? Its seems to me that denying racialism is in the best interest of ethno-tribalists or ethno-nationalists. (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
You're pushing the strawman that there's some "preferred" level of racial analysis. The White level may be valid vis a vis solidarity against the Turk, whereas the Nord/Med level may be suitable for breeding. John 82 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Troll And what about us Mexicans, then? I heard someone say that we're technically 'white." >.> Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 22:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think most Hispanics are. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
"White" is scientific in regards to skin colour, i.e. skin colour classification in dermatology (still in use). However having white skin doesn't match the pseudo-science of a "white race". For example, Southern European populations on average are not white, but light brown (and they are scored differently in skin colour classifications to Northern Europeans). So "White" can only accurately describe Northern Europeans in a strict pigmentation sense. This is at odds with white nationalism/"alt right" politics that considers Southern and Northern Europeans part of the same race. (talk)
Not to mention Koreans would win this whole "white" thing. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh my god, I'm white. Gotta tell the Sith Lord about it then. Wait a minute... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 06:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A Confederacy Of Dunces[edit]

Anyone ever read the book? Wondering mostly out of curiousity. Also cause some of the characters are pretty interesting in light of recent politics, especially given that it was probably written sometime in the 60's. Regardless, highly recommend it. B) talk 17:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it a few years ago. Pretty funny as I remember. It's mentioned in our article on the neoreactionary movement. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who's suffered neoreactionary blogs will cackle with glee as they read it. All the section header quotes in the neoreactionary article are from it - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's a fun read. I might crack it open again. Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Weaseloid: Ha, that's from right after mom asks him if he's communist if I remember right.
@Bongolian: Yeah, maybe I'll give it a second look someday. It's a trip. B) talk 21:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Uncle Joe did it again![edit]

Joe Biden forgets what year it is as he swears in new Senators. If you think this can go into the WIGO page, please move it. I'm not sure so I put it here. Nerd271 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What, you mean he said 2016 instead of 2017? Awww, come on! Give the guy a break. Millions of people make mistakes like that in the first few weeks of the new year every year. I had to write the date ten times yesterday (that includes when I had to write 106, the year according to the Taiwanese calendar which starts with the founding of the Republic of China in 1911, when I paid some money into my bank account) and I'm very proud of myself for getting it right every time. Spud (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If it were Trump he would've said "Do you swear solemnly, and I mean solemnly, that you will preserve, protect, and defend the Declaration of Independence of the United States? You do? Tremendous. Welcome to our 45th Congress." Applesauce (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot to include the link. He said 2007 instead of 2017. Sorry guys! Nerd271 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Like you all don't fantasize it still being 2007 too. Vulpius (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

New level of stupidity[edit]

This discussion was moved to Talk:Flat earth.

Moved. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki in 2016[edit]


Happy New Year, --larron (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who IPs and Others are but they're incredibly active. Happy New Year ! Diacelium (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Pages with more than 250 edits in 2016, grouped by namespace. Pies shows the top 10 editors. --larron (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm part of the top 10? I was only here for half a year!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 00:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
♫ "I've been everywheere, maan! I've been everywheere..." ♫
Thanks for these, LArron! Th hug.gif Also, am I crazy — or is a Donald Trump pie chart visible both right in the center and to the lower left? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
One is for the talk page, the other is for the main article.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 01:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This seriously takes stupidity to the next level.[edit]

I was browsing around on youtube looking for clips of Carrie fisher being awesome... and then this gem popped up. Seriously...

TL;DW A young Carrie fisher was CGI`ed into Rouge one ==> CGI can make people look younger ==> Stuffs about images and Antichrist in the bible ==> The Antichrist will use CGI to do stuff ==> Somehow this will affect the ability for Christians to by and sell stuff because the Antichrist doesn't want Christians to be able to engage in free trade.

I had no idea that Christian trade was a thing.

Epic quote: "If you see a CGI of somebody, don't necessarily believe it."

Pastor Steve Cioccolanti

The comment section is a gold mine as usual. TheGrandmother (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"because the Antichrist doesn't want Christians to be able to engage in free trade." Do I detect a hint of a piece of classic red-baiting prosperity gospel nuttery? ScepticWombat (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Increasing CGI usage is all part of laying the groundwork for a digitally simulated second coming. Don't you see? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Fuck me[edit]

My math teacher is showing a Spirit Science video about "sacred geometry in class.'Legionwhat do you want from me 17:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Math teacher". Are you still in high school? You can always raise a stink about it. Not saying get the person fired, but that kind of stuff doesn't belong in the classroom, and there are certainly avenues you can take to keep it out. Petey Plane (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Good post! Agreed. That shit should not fly unless it is followed by a critical debate about the topic. TheGrandmother (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. Facepalm
  2. I'm afraid to ask where you live, because I'm worried it'll be the US.
  3. You will want to watch this playlist (excuse the Swedish accent), and/or alert all of your classmates about it + about this article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Petey yes I'm still in high school, and @RBP you worried right because it is the U.S specifically in a region very susceptible to that kind of woo.'Legionwhat do you want from me 18:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're never too young to start practicing your skills at scientific skepticism (I wish I knew about that stuff when I was in high school — or middle school, for that matter). Th hug.gif Secondly — you do realize that the Spirit Science has overt religious themes, and it is perhaps not impossible that your high school teacher showing it to students in class violates your constitutional right to separation of church and state? Anyways, seriously link people to this playlist. You might even save a few minds from the jaws of woo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
So, California? Does this teacher have a history of promoting New-Agey stuff? If not, this could just be a innocent mistake, as in your teacher needed a time-waster for a hole in the lesson plan, and found something with "geometry" in the title on Youtube without knowing the content. You can always complain to the school administration that the teacher is using class time to proselytize a religion. Petey Plane (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Complain to the school administration? Hell, film the Spirit Science being shown in class and go straight to the ACLU — you might end up on TV. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
True, but N7 may not want to get the teacher in trouble if it was an honest mistake. If not, by all means, contact the ACLU, Freedom from Religion Foundation or Americans United for Separation of Church and StateWikipedia. Usually, all it takes is a Cease and Desist letter with a threat of legal action from one of those three to resolve the problem. Petey Plane (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Or we could get you an official endorsement letter from David Icke to your teacher (for showing the Spirit Science in class) — then you just give it to the PTA instead. Launch a new satanic panic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As mentioned in our Spirit Science article, YouTuber Martymer81 has a long playlist dealing with Spirit Science's shitloads of woo, crap and bullshit. See under external links. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The very same playlist I link to above! Th hug.gif (Also, his actual profession isn't being a YouTuber, but to teach at a university in Sweden — just saying). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realise that you linked to it too, Rev., because I never thought he had much of a Swedish accent, though I seemed to recall that he is some sort of scientist, physics(?) ScepticWombat (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No problemo Th hug.gif Yeah, he teaches physics at a Swedish university! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Now if it was shown in a religious studies class for a lesson on comparative religion that would be one thing but considering it was a Geometry class then it had no place there.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate creationist lies in Israeli history curriculum[edit]

Today, I was sitting in the library reading. I happened to overhear a group of high schoolers studying together, and I froze when I heard them say that Darwin was a racist, that evolution says that the white race is the supreme race that rightfully rules all others, that Darwin created Social Darwinism, and that evolution caused Nazism. I could not stand this travesty, and insisted on correcting them. They claimed that "Darwin must have been racist because he was a German". At this point my head was exploding from the levels of stupidity I was experiencing. I informed them that Darwin was an Englishman, and had nothing to do with racism or Social Darwinism. The fact that this complete and utter lie is a part of the Israeli History Curriculum is horrifying, and is undoubtedly caused by the increasingly powerful Israeli religious lobby, which significantly affects politics here. --TeslaK20 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know anything about Israel's education system, but could those kids have been from a religious private school, or a public school specifically for Ultra-Orthodox? The US has similar issues, but they are currently mostly confined to private schools. Petey Plane (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Not the old "Hitler and evolution" trope! One must never fail to acknowledge the rampant nuttery of the truly orthodox... And forget Darwin — if anything, it's the Old Testament that goes on and on about a "chosen people". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Like Petey, I wonder if they "learned" this crap from the Israeli public educational system or (and this sounds more plausible to me) it stems from some fringe pseudoeducational echo chamber. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I asked, and they came from a public school. And judging by their clothes and lack of Kippas, they were almost certainly not Orthodox. My guess is that they have a bad teacher who tells them these lies. It needn't be the curriculum itself. --TeslaK20 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like Darwinism is evolving. nobs 10:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Haa! You said the word! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Climate Change[edit]

If the world gets hotter or colder or the climate zones shift, people should know it would still mean disaster for life on Earth. This is why people need science education so people know what is happening in the world (I mean other than politics).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes; yes indeed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not a disaster for life. Monera will do just fine. Simpler members of plantae, like moss, will easily displace old-growth forests that can't migrate as fast as conditions change beyond their tolerances. Many phyla of animals outside vertebrates are doing great: mollesca, and gnideria in the oceans, arthropoda on land. It's only a disaster to the kind of life humans like having around. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. (My above reply was directed at RZ's 2nd sentence, out of the two.) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I should have not said it like that. I meant for much bigger organisms who need a specific climate (Giraffes, Hippo's, many animals in the Rain Forest, snakes, desert animals, arctic animals, many species of fish and so on). Pardon my mistake, it has been a while since I was in high school Biology and I mostly read things on human and micro Biology.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Claim YOUR $25,000 survival bunker TODAY![edit]

Started out here. Decided to go on to here.

As fringe as survivial bunkers are, I saw no reason to suspect it wasn't atleast a serious company, although working a very niche market.

I noticed that, at the very bottom of the page, there were some colorful icons — mousing over them revealed that each signified a potential calamity.

And suddenly, I had to rethink my position on the company itself, because clicking one of them led here.

Runner-ups to taking the cake include this and this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on it: Vivos. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
¡Ay, caramba! Thanks, old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I admit, I have a huge interest in survivalism, I wouldn't mind having my own doomsday bunker but sadly I live in an apartment and I would not be allowed to do thank kind of construction nor do I have the money for it--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@RZ Survivalist vaults/bunkers are fascinating in a way — I always loved the Fallout series of games. And, I mean, if I had a billionaire friend who owned a survival shelter and asked if I wanted to get a free ride in case nuclear war was imminent, I'd say "Sure!". Outside of that, though... Nah. I know I'd get claustrophobic immediately. Besides, there's not much to be afraid of in the real world (for me atleast). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Turns out that not only have they bought a truly huge former Soviet complex in Europe, they've also gotten into life extension woo. And the founder/owner seems to be a "former" doomsday/apocalypse crank who thinks he's on a mission from God. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Our article should be updated with this info. Those repurposed bunker sites are a new development. Previously I thought Vivos were just offering empty promises to their customers, as per most survivalist pipe-dreams (the Citadel springs to mind). I'll try & look at updating the article in the next few days if I have time. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Good thinkin', Weasel! I don't know what else they might be up to — clicking around the site on the lookout for still more gems (like I did) is prolly a good idea before you start writing. Best of luck. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump sides with Assange and Russia over U.S. intelligence[edit]

My question is simple: Is this really such a wise thing to do? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you implying that his first trip as the president will be to Dallas? Vulpius (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The key to understanding Trump is his all-consuming ego. That's really what drives his behavior. In this case, it's simply "I didn't need help from Russia. I won the election because I'm great". Leuders (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The Russian hacking controversy isn't making anyone look good, but Trump's & Putin's responses are extremely suspicious. + It's grossly unprofessional & unpresidential for Trump to be publicly shitting on the US's intelligence agency while exonerating Wikileaks. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
His ego can be divided into two parts, "greedy, greedy, greedy"[1] and revenge. His plan for his reign will be massive looting of government under his direction with the necessary crushing of any opposition, past or present. His appointment of Ben Carson to head HUD can even be seen as revenge against the housing discrimination suit against him in the early 1970s. Sounds bizarre, right? Well, Carson has said he's against desegregation.[2] Nonetheless, Trump's attack on US spy agencies (which can also be seen as revenge for their delegitimizing his election) may be his undoing because they likely have compromising information on him as likely does the Russian spy agency. John Schindler, an ex-NSA agent, indicated that there might be a meeting between an agent and a journalist in parking garage at some point, harking back to Deep Throat (Mark Felt) and Watergate.[3] Bongolian (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
TRUMPGATE *INCEPTION WHAM*€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bongolian, I dunno. I always feel the need to clarify that this is with respect to his public persona, but it seems like every choice he makes almost precisely matches the behavior described in extreme cases of narcissistic personality disorder. As such "greed" is much better understood by status-seeking than pure wealth accumulation. And revenge tends to be centered on personal offense rather than in proportion to actual harm.
I know it's both reductionist and a little insulting to people suffering from mental disorders to boil someone down to purely the expression of that mental disorder's symptoms, but god damn is not not a great heuristic for his behavior. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
He built a multi-million dollar empire, had his own TV show, constantly tweets on twitter, and said on OZ that he feels 30 years old, you have to have narcissism given these examples.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The list NPD traits seems right on the money. That's our Prez. Leuders (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
(EC)Narcissistic Personality Disorder is pretty radically different from the more general personality dimension we call narcissism. Having a self-aggrandizing point of view about things in the sense we colloquially call narcissism is actually pretty radically different from NPD, which the DSM-6 defines as "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts".
Specifically they give 9 criteria:
  1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
  2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
  3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
  4. Requires excessive admiration.
  5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectation.
  6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
  7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of other
  8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
  9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
Now, if you think the public persona of every famous or rich person, or even compulsive tweeter(which does have a modest correlation the personality dimension also called narcissism), you're off your rocker. Half of these are traits that Donald Trump is particularly noteworthy for exhibiting with some frequency. I'm more than a tad narcissistic, I often think quite highly of myself, and exhibit a degree of vanity. I'm in no way, shape, or form diagnosable as having NPD. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 23:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange started out 10 years ago to dethrone Bush and thd neocon conspiracy. Obama and Hillary were supposed to complete the job, but flipped and used big gubmint and the NWO apparatus to persecute Assange. Trump now, commie lib that he is, sides with Assange. In 10 years, everyone has changed except Assange, who's been kept cryonically alive in the Ecuador embassey. The US government has slowly moved to Assange's position, except the CIA, which still wants to drone him. nobs 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Uh, cryonically alive? B) talk 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
RobS comes across as my favorite type of conspiracy theorist; he hates the likes of Alex Jones with a commanding passion, yet if teleported into the InfoWars bunker a minute before the Alex Jones radio show goes live on air, nobs could likely take the man's place without half of us noticing. Never change, nobs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump may have been normal once, but the decades of being reward for acting abnormal have become his real persona. To further the Nixon (our heretofore most paranoid president) parallel, take a look at this post-presidential statement by Nixon on why it pays to be crazy:[4]

In your own mind you have nothing to lose, so you take plenty of chances. t is then you understand, for the first time, that you have the advantage—because your competitors can’t risk what they have already. It’s a piece of cake until you get to the top. You find you can’t stop playing the game the way you’ve always played it, because it is a part of you and you need it as much as an arm and a leg. You continue to walk on the edge of the precipice, because over the years you have become fascinated by how close to the edge you can walk without losing your balance.

Bongolian (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It comes from the company he keeps(scroll through all the photos). nobs 04:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
That quote is eerily relevant to Trump. Thanks, Bongo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The assault of a disabled man in Chicago[edit]

How could they not figure out if it was a hate crime? They kidnapped the victim and violently assaulted for hours on end with anti-white racial slurs being yelled at him during the abuse. The reason it was a hate crime is the fact that it was a hate fueled attack against another race and someone with a disability. The attackers were black and they assaulted a man of another race out of hate, if the shoe were on the other foot it would be deemed a hate crime in a heart beat. I am not saying one race is better, I am saying that double standards don't help with the issue of racism.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

When you make these type of posts, please don't forget to add a link to your source — you know, so we can all be sure what you're talking about in the first place. Thanks! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, here is a link- https://www.yahoo.com/news/arrest-of-black-teens-in-brutal-chicago-attack-sparks-hate-crime-debate-180845913.html --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The question remains on Brittany Herring's relation to Black Lives Matter or was this a lone wolf attack. nobs 04:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no connection between them and Black Lives Matter. They just assume there was. And we all know what happens when you assume thing.--Bonesquad11 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you assuming we all know? =0 Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 07:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
According to the commander, they were teenagers trying to get on the news. It may seem ridiculous that anybody would make something look like a hate crime just for attention, but there was a serial killer in Canada who kept sending news agencies increasingly disturbing videos of him killing people because he couldn't make national headlines. Of course, police officers are reluctant to label anything a hate crime, regardless of the evidence. It's not good to jump the gun on those things. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 07:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There, now you see how I very subtly stuck in the idea of a Black Lives Matter lone wolf attack, impugning BLM as a terrorist network with no objection from any of you. Now, when is Barack Obama gonna be called upon to disavow BLM in the same manner Trump is called upon to disavow David Duke or the KKK? nobs 08:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
"no objection from any of you?" What about Bonesquad? Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
He didn't refute the implication BLM may inspire terror attacks or hate crimes, which us the unstated thinking in many proples mind, including the Chicago Police, evidentally. nobs 08:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The word is "evidently". Are you college educated, nobs? If you are, what college did you attend, and does it give refunds? This isn't your first grammatical atrocity. You also can't tell the difference between "secede" and "succeed". This is why people are often right when they presume many of you on the Right are uneducated. They may do so for different, and often poor reasons, (e.g. arrogance), but they aren't wrong in their presumption. Many of you are indeed barely literate. Now that I've got that off my chest, please proceed. Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The nuns taught me spelling wrong. I wish I could blame my spelling and grammatical errors on Big Pharma which has America doped up, but attribute it to being overworked, which is becoming increasingly rare in America. nobs 14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
nobs, what are you smoking? Going by various things you said in the past and this, you must be high 24/7. Considering this nonsensical statement you must be doped on some strong stuff!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Does every thread need to be derailed to a discussion of Rob's bullshit talking points? Time to bring back the Robrail page? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah uh, it's a little concerning that every discussion is starting to follow the pattern of X starting topic, nobs adding his nonsensical two cents, Y calling bullshit, prompting another even more confusing reply...ya'll might have to do something about that. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Do something about it? We already have — by which I mean, we provide a field guide to help you determine when to engage and when to look the other way (to the benefit of all involved). But "do something about" it — as in; limiting Nobs' ability to peacefully participate (if you can call it that) in discussions here? Nah, that's not us. After all, we're a place centered around the interested study of nonsensical opinions, not around their hasty supression. Nobs is just as welcome as all the other children to use the slide (though, he is under specific recommendation not to subject others to his actual personality whenever possible). That being said, however — you and Weasel should do what I do instead. Document things for posterior. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Back on the main subject, all four suspects are being held without bail and this is from multiple sources. Now off the main subject, I know arguing with nobs is like playing checkers with a Pigeon but sometimes you need to get your point across--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What if Trump was mature[edit]

Here's a troll twitter account that transforms all of Trump's tweets into mature ones. I-it's ... beautiful...—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A twitter account dedicated to fact checking Trump.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yah, every othet tweet says "appoint a task force", a sure fire way to flood the swamp. nobs 08:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Nobs, I know you're not one normally inclined to change your mind in the face of evidence, but haven't you noticed how many long-term pretty-damn-corrupt assholes Trump is appointing and how openly he's selling access to monnied interests? Congrats on achieving the opposite of your stated goals, I guess. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there anbody or several in particular you're referring to? Mnuchin tops many peoples list. Of coarse nobody wants to refer to tbe fact he's a registered Democrat. nobs 04:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post makes Ken Ham look smarter than he actually is[edit]

Ken Ham corrected the Washington Post when they wrote an article claiming he believed that the dinosaurs were wiped out in Noah's flood. http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/get-your-facts-right-creationist-ken-ham-flips-out-after-paper-claims-no-dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark/ --Bonesquad11 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thry couldn't have been, the dinosaurs built the Pyramids, as I was informed of just yesterday. nobs 08:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
D-Do you actually believe that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit, they stored the grain. Aside from that, I read that article when it was just published and it was no better. They called Ham's opinions "controversial" as if to take him seriously. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Some weird things[edit]

The page on FairTax considers it as a bad thing, yet the Mike Gravel page includes the FairTax as the good things he proposes. Also, this site seems to be neutral on communism, yet the New Deal page says banning private gold possession was stupid. It looks contradictory to me. Diacelium (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral on communism? Certainly not. Are we neutral on Fascism? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The page on communism doesn't really criticize it. There' s even a section about places where Communism worked fine (with some places where it isn't Communism, and some where it didn't last long enough to know if it really worked). And what about the FairTax and Mike Gravel ?
"Fascist ideology centres on national unity behind a single revered dictator and for the idea that citizens must serve the state" I don't like communism, but I don't see how this applies to communist ideology. Diacelium (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
None of our larger articles covering particular ideologies are even of silver quality, afaik. Many were written in an older generation of RW. Quality, consistency and comprehensiveness are as follows. Now, I'm a leftist myself — but as a social democrat worth the name (never mind a humanist above any political label), I'm very, very critical of the excesses of Communism. I'm not saying it's particularly bad compared to all others (quite the opposite actually), but it certainly is worthy of criticism. Besides, discussing the relative closeness of Fascism to Communism can be highly instructive to those lacking nuance on the topic. For examples of articles on Communist themes that aren't just unreflective pandering, see — for example — Anti-Fascist Protective Wall, Command economy or False consciousness. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There are articles on very bad ideas of Communism, but these ideas have been abandonned by many communists (marxists or not) and we don't criticize the idea of abolishing private property. Ideas like communism, Communalism, and mostly life salary all look very attractive, but I don't believe they can work. Diacelium (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget Rent control, capping one segment of capitalist investors income while the value of their property deteriorates to the detriment of the whole society and community. nobs 13:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)–
I don't know if what you say on rent control is true, but unlike communism, Communalism and life salary, Rent Control isn't about creating an utopian society. Diacelium (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. Disregard nobs on everything related to Communism — that word triggers him.
  2. Abolition of private property is indeed a nutty pipe nightmare dream.
  3. I advise against conflating Communalism with Communism (per se).
  4. More like: those who have abandoned those concepts are no longer "Communists" in the orthodox sense; instead making up the spectrum of "softer" leftist variants.
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Everything is communism for nobs. I didn't conflate communism with Communalism, but they are very similar. All the things I have mentioned are utopian.
Also, many people close to communism have abandoned the idea of communal ownership for ownership by use (which Rojava has implemented, but I don't think it'll work for very long. There's also this idea in the idea of life salary and in some version of anarchism). It's just as utopian. Those who have abandoned command economy and other concepts are still communists, they can want a less agressive planning (or even decentralized planning), or just have abandoned this idea but still believe in abolishing private property.
The only thing there is to remember about Marx is his contributions to sociology. Diacelium (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Check out this stupidity from Huffpo.[edit]


They censor the word "nigger" in their screenshot of the offending tweet. Why would they do that? Everyone knows what word they are talking about! Why would they censor it. Whom are they trying not to offend? Do they think reproducing the original tweet will be deemed offensive? Talk about unnecessary censorship. Political correctness gone made. Note: "political correctness" is different from "political correctness gone mad"Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given his views on "genetic superiority", I do not believe that Trump would support a "nigger" navy. Sigh. Let the alt-right rejoice. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Same reason tabloids write "f**k" when quoting somebody saying "fuck" I guess. I find it weird how many people also do this themselves on social media. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@FCP, Trump believes in "genetic superiority"? That is news to me. When did he express that opinion? I always suspected he was of the casual racist variety, but supremacist?I didn't think so.Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
He believes in his own personal genetic superiority (based on an uncle, no less), other than that what he actually "believes" is anyone's guess. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, he did get sued for discriminating against blacks, and he said blacks were inferior by being genetically lazy, so there's that. Nothing big. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Related. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School[edit]

Honestly it could have been a decent school as there are religious schools with research doctorates in natural sciences but because it is solely creationist they dropped the ball. Why not have it where they do present both sides and let students choose for themselves like other religious schools (Examples- Loma Linda University, Andrews University, Brimingham Young Univeristy, Baylor University and so on)? That would have been fine and dandy because if they wanted students to learn about what they think then a Statement of Faith would not be needed. Here is a link to the ICRGS Catalogue from 2008-2009 and you can make you own opinions (And for the love of God nobs, please try to have a civil discussion and not have it devolve into paranoid racist conspiracy theories!); link- http://www.icr.org/i/icr.edu/pdf/ICRGS_Catalog_2008_2009.pdf --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think itsnobody.blogspot.com should get a page here[edit]

It's one of the most super fundie sites I've ever seen, lol (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was last active in 2008. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually it looks like it was only active in 2008. Five short posts. BoN is likely either connected to it or just trolling. Bongolian (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops sorry, wrong link, I mean https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/ amoung other things they consider atheists subhuman and think they want humanity to go back to the Stone Age (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Reading its "About" section, I'm getting strong Poe's Law vibes. Just saying. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
My poemeter does not go through the chart after reading the about page. I feel that the about page reads a lot like it was written by someone in a manic state (maybe from type I bipolar disorder or schizophrenia). None of the statements made seem like anything particularly absurd from someone who has been sitting at home and realized that they posses great knowledge. There exists a lot of people with these kind of delusions, they are especially common for people who suffer from type I bipolar disorder. TheGrandmother (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The website hasn't been active since 2011 and i believe that it is not of large enough impact to warranties own page, Although it should definetly appear on the Webshites page, since it is an amusing read TheGrandmother (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Community question: WIGOW vs WIGOB[edit]

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

There has been recent dispute about whether blogs (and blog-like sources) and social media (and social-media-like sources) should go in WIGOB (the blogs view), WIGOW (the news view), or wherever the original poster puts it (the idgaf view). I'd like to get community consensus. Let's first discuss, then vote. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


I firmly support the idgaf view. RationalWiki isn't about the WIGOs -- it's about the articles those WIGOs touch on. Nobody will care how your precious source is categorized in a week, including you. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be the contributor's choice. There's a grey area here. For example, blog posts concerning a current newsworthy event might warrant going in WIGOW. Also, it's not a sin to include several links in a single entry for amplification or different takes on the same story, etc. Let the mob decide if something looks entirely out of place. That being said, the recent edit warring over a particular post seems completely meaningless to me. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
"the recent edit warring over a particular post seems completely meaningless to me". That didn't stop you from reverting my edits. That's like walking into a bar in the midst of a brawl, and then saying, "you know, I really don't care about your dispute", after having just smashed a bottle against the skull of a combatant. Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Everyone: Try to discuss ideas, not people. Fallacious ad hominems and all that. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Twitter is a microblogWikipedia, thus it goes into the blogosphere. It's not blog-like; it is a blog. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's say you're right. Should anyone regulate these pages to ensure that X article goes here and Y article there? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, it seems like a waste of time. Sure, someone can move an out of place tidbit to the correct place if they spot it, but constantly regulating it seems unproductive. Focus on article quality.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFace, why did you delete my response and whose post did I undo on this talk page? I checked the fossil record and there is no suggestion that I deleted anyone's post. You, sir/madam, are a pathetic liar. Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Levi Ackerman You're full of shit.€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 06:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFace Am I now? Let's take a look at the fossil record. Let's take a look at edits within those times slots, 22:34 - 22:50. Please explain to me, where during that time slot I was supposed to have undone your post/edit and why it isn't shown on the fossil record? According to the Fossil record, between 22:34 and 22:50, 7 January 2017, the only person who deleted/undid anything in the Saloon was you! Also, why isn't the entire text in your link above in emboldened red? Did you manipulate the fossil record comparison?
For the record, here is the post the liar CheeseburgerFace deleted:

"Twitter is a Microblog, thus it goes into the blogosphere", would be a point worth making IF I HAD A POSTED A LINK TO TWITTER IN WIGO: World or we were even discussing such a post. As it happens, I didn't and we aren't - as far as I can tell. I posted a news article reporting events which occurred on Twitter. Therefore, "Twitter is a Microblog, thus it goes into the blogosphere" is NOT a point worth making; at least not as far as I am concerned. Levi Ackerman (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's one thing to delete people's edits on an article or in WIGO, but to delete what they've written on a talk page, that's just Stalinist.Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Generally I'd put tweets in WIGOB, but it's not an issue worth going in guns blazing over. Twitter is typically used as commentary, not news. If it concerns something on Twitter that is newsworthy, then perhaps it could go in WIGOW, but in the concrete example, it's a HuffPo story about a tweet rebuking a twat (going Godwin over US (non)actions in the recent UN Israel resolution spat) — that's a blog story in my book. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's never been poster option - even op-ed pieces from newspapers have gone in BLOGS in the past. From the above discussion, it looks very like a problem contributor, and that's not something to be solved by adding a gratuitous new rule, 'cos they'll just find something else to be a fuckhead about.
More generally, trying to use WIGO as a soapbox has in the past year been a pretty reliable indicator of someone who will end up editing once every thirty minutes in the very near future - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Good post! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, I did not put a tweet in WIGOW. I feel like I need to keep pointing this out, as many of you just do not seem to be getting it! Furthermore, the article was not an op-ed. It was simply a report saying, "X did this on Twitter and Y responded like so...". That's very different from posting a link to Twitter or an article in which X opines on Y's Twitter antics. Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In my response above I have already pointed out why I don't think a tweet becomes news just because HuffPo reports on it. It's still a story about a spat in the blogosphere and thus I think it should go in WIGOB. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
First, when you say "a spat in the blogosphere", you totally misrepresent the story. This was the Auschwitz Memorial - the Auschwitz Memorial! - responding to a conservative pundit comparing support for the UN resolution to helpers during the Holocaust. It wasn't a "spat". A spat is what we're having vis-a-vis the Maajid Nawaz page. This was someone, of relative note, saying something profoundly stupid and insulting and the appropriate authority responding. Secondly, you say "I don't think a tweet becomes news just because HuffPo reports on it"; well looking through WIGOW archives, I can see several postings of news articles centred around things happening on Twitter. To give one example, posted as recently as October 2016:

And then they came for the Jews: In 2016, people have read anti-Semitic tweets 10 billion times, many from Trump

— Unsigned, by: Levi Ackerman / talk / contribs 12:30, 8 January 2017‎
So entries have sometimes been posted in the wrong WIGO page & left there. It happens, & there's no point in moving old entries. That's not an argument against moving new entries when they're posted in the wrong page, as I did, as many other users also do, & as I've seen you do as well. You've been edit warring for over a week to try to keep that Auschwitz entry in both WIGO pages, which is moronic & a waste of everyone's time. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Weaseloid says, "...there's no point in moving old entries", yet, for over a week now Weaseloid has been trying to move an old entry. Methinks it's a contradiction. Also, it's clearly not a waste of YOUR time seeing, as you keeping trying to move my entry. I have advised you to move on, haven't I? Why are you spending so much time on something you deem "moronic" and "a waste of time"? Methinks Weaseloid does contradict himself too much. Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You've been edit warring against something like 7 unrelated sysops, across two different mainspace articles, since about December 20th. A mod was forced to lock a page to stop you alone. You were also warned by a mod; instantly rebuking him (and reverting him) instead. You're done. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
"I'm done"? Lol. Says who?Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
And for the record, I neither rebuked a mod, nor was I warned by a mod. I really don't know why RBP is so butthurt? Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Though, you kinda were, and you kinda did. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
So, in your view, 'disagreeing with a mod' = 'rebuking a mod', and 'a mod disagreeing with me' = 'a mod warning me'? Okay. Talk about extrapolating conclusions to suit one's bias. Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
"...They said I was crazy... THEY'RE the ones that are CRAZY!!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Levi, I did spot that it was the Auschwitz Memorial's twitter account, but that's still a microblog criticising some pundit twat for going Godwin on Twitter, and the entire HuffPo story is about the Twittersphere (quite correctly) criticising the pundit who then doubles down on his Twitter twattery. This is a blogosphere story, hence it goes into WIGOB. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No amount of reasoned discussion or mobocratic consensus will be sufficient, as having sysop allows him to put up the fight ad infinitum. Also, speaking of Levi reverting mods... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Rev. try to stick to the topic and don't let Levi derail this into a row about this or that editor. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Good post! Will do. (I'm beating a dead horse at this point, I know.) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Sceptic, here's a tip: if you do not want me to detail this thread, maybe don't make backhanded comments about me, like the one above. Just my two cents. You did something similar in the Maajid Nawaz talk page; moaning about how my cries of "edit wars", was becoming tedious or something like that. Stop with the backhanded comments or don't try to take the moral high ground when I respond in kind.Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Levi Ackerman is now blocked for 24 hours (but can edit his user talk page) & sysoprevoked to make the block stick. He's persisted in edit warring over this issue against numerous editors, including moderators, ignored repeated warnings to stop & ignored the fact that literally nobody has agreed with his arguments. If he resumes warring over this after the block expires, I suggest he be vandal binned. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the chance to engage in the drama which has seen the insufferable little scum brought low. I suppose I'll have to settle for post-hoc celebration. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, LA, it pleases me to know that little tete-a-tete (in which I savaged you and your massa, Aneris) left you quite so butthurt. It pleases me greatly. How is your massa, Aneris? Levi Ackerman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
????? Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Before I put in my observation, I would like to note that I have not thoroughly read everything above, so I might hit upon something already mentioned. While I don't believe there should be a really strict formula people should adhere to while posting to the various What Is Going On categories, I fear the pages becoming partisan. What one person considers a Blog, others consider a Clog. I've seen a few instances where one website or public personality is put in the Blog section because they are being held as a voice of reason, while another contributor will put something very similar by them in the Clog section a little while later. I'm excluding Stopped Clock and its opposite. One time that comes to mind is, if I remember correctly, something about the regressive left or of that nature was put in both Blogosphere and Clogosphere simultaneously, probably by two very different people. Currently, this seems to be mostly happening with the debate about Russian interference in the election. As for What Is Going On In The World (news), I've seen multiple articles posted in quick succession about one subject, usually Israel. It might be a good idea to discuss things to keep What Is Going On from becoming an ideological battleground.Teurastaja (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A school I unintentionally came across that could make a good article[edit]

The American University of Health Sciences, it is a nursing and pharmacy school that is fundamentalist Christian and Homophobic to boot! Here is the link- http://auhs.edu/god/statement-of-faith/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't even have a wiki page. Is that even possible anymore? I'd be amazed if they have more than 50 students. That being said, it's very likely legit, in that state certifications (and therefor employment) for nursing (LPN level at least) and pharmacy can be surprisingly easy to obtain, depending on the state. And to be fair, outside of women's healthcare, there isn't any reason a fundy school couldn't adequately teach those professions. They are both rather engineering-like in their instruction and practice, and seem have very little overlap with the political or metaphysical, at least in my experience working in the health care industry (I work in hospice care). Petey Plane (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not stating they could not teach nursing or Pharmacy, because the Fundie school Loma Linda University which is creationist has very good medical education programs--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not a good sign when either the faculty are not listed or are difficult to determine on the website. Also, their address appears to be residential from Google maps.[5] Bongolian (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think your link points to the right address, Bongolian. I could easily find the office building depicted on their website (look for the intersection between E Hill Street and N Walnut Avenue), nor had I any problems finding the faculty list on their website (under About and then Faculty List), although it contains far too much alphabet soup and far too few info blurbs or links (read: none) to anything beyond email addresses for it to be of much use.
Google maps error, I think. Google was off by a bit. Bongolian (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
A big red flag is that it's accredited by Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and SchoolsWikipedia although the rest of the accreditations seem legit (California Bureau for Private Postsecondary EducationWikipedia Accreditation Council for Pharmacy EducationWikipedia Western Association of Schools and CollegesWikipedia Commission on Collegiate Nursing EducationWikipedia) ScepticWombat (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools is said to be legit as it is recognized by the USDE--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I looked into it again and it is still recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation but not by the Secretary of Education--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I think AUHS might merit an article here — if we can actually source it and point out its particular relevance (e.g. due to notoriety or the AUHS being haunt or alma mater of some crank we already have an article on). If it's "only" a fundie school, then I don't we need an article on it, simply add it to the fundie school list. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm @ MTV[edit]

Dear MTV: When you base your view of your fellow man on the exact same bigoted racialist sorting heuristics that racists use — guess what that makes you too? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear RBP, take your nose out of h3h3's ass!Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
...But it's such a juicy ass? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
"As a white guy, I am very offended."Facepalm
"Why am I talking about white people as a group, its insane. I have never done that before."Facepalm
I enjoy h3h3 in general but their political things tend to be a fucking cringe fest. This is the same shit as one hears all the time, someone criticizes a privileged group and then everyone goes "Omfg!! You are just as bad as the racist/sexists/misogynist/whatever, derp derp derp, you have to be nice to me."
So sorry RBP, I must agree with Levi.
Ps: Man-spreading is a real thing.
Rant over. TheGrandmother (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Disagreement is healthy, so please don't apologize! Th hug.gif That being said, though — where he said "as a white guy", he was clearly joking (imo). I assume you didn't miss the part where he ranted against the Alt-right and the racist social experiments of Joey Salads? Regarding the other quote, however — I really question the idea of directing policies and opinions towards pseudoscientifically defined "racial" groups. Because again, the whole problem with a biological race concept is that no such races actually exist. What does exist (and is terrifyingly widespread) is a cultural race concept, i.e. racism — and racism inherently pretends to biology, as racist classification by necessity categorizes from primarily physical features. But again, there is no biological race for these concepts to actually base themselves on. So, who is white? You can't answer this question without having to measure noses and compare eye colours — the travesty that is physical anthropology, in other words. And even if satisfactory criteria were drawn up, there's no way to get past the Sorites paradox and actually find any "definite step" between "races" — because again, these don't exist. Positive application of color sorting is nothing but an arbitrary system of othering based on the fallacy that physical characteristics are indicative of qualitative difference between human beings, and the fallacy that other individual people are somehow fundamentally different from yourself. Both of these claims are demonstratively false, and culturally corrosive at that. Finally... I find the whole idea of actively sorting people a priori, never mind based on appearance, to be both factually wrong and deeply unsettling. That being said, I certainly don't have a problem with critiquing priviliege or inequality; I just worry enormously when societal problems are framed in terms of: "It's all [people of skin color X]'s fault, and they're all the same too!". In my view, no "sort" of human is ever the problem, partially because there are no such "sorts" to begin with. We're all part of the same big family, and we all come from Africa. I'm on my phone so I'm cutting this short here, but ultimately I see common progressive ground between our angles here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
MTV is CBS dressed up to look cool. nobs 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree Percy, disagreement is healthy. I found the best quote related to this researching for a project:
Knowledge evolves through social negotiation and through the evaluation of the viability of individual understandings
—John R Savery and Thomas M Duffy. “Problem based learning: An

instructional model and its constructivist framework”

But back to the topic, I don't think he was joking about the "as a white guy" thing considering that it is very in line with the rest of his rant.
Regarding the whole "I hate the alt-right, so you cant be angry at me" is a token example of Whataboutism. The proposition: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" ⇒ ("I am the enemy of everybody" ⇒ "I am the friend of everybody") is obviously not necessarily true.
And yes, the whole concept of biological race is silly, but, race clearly exists as a social construction. When people attack the behaviour of white men, they dont mean the behaviour of aryan men they mean the men belonging to the group of people of predominantly pale skin complexion who hold privelge and have a track record of being dicks to less priveleged groups. And yes I agree that such a grouping is undesirable, it exists and it needs to be addressed.
Then I also agree that MTVs vido on the topic might not be MTVs greatest accomplishment. FYI, their greatest accomplishment is when Beavis and Buthead are giggling when an elevator says "going down".
TheGrandmother (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Good post! I agree (good quote btw!), though I will still insist that Ethan is a comedian, and that h3h3 is a comedy channel first and foremost (unfunny or not is to each his own). Indeed, the principle of charityWikipedia demands that we give him the benefit of the doubt if we suspect disagreement. As Donald Davidson puts it:
We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimises agreement.
Let me also be clear that I fully acknowledge that people on all sides (read: because we're all really siblings) tend to commit a very comfortable fallacy, that of confusing a controversial view with the person expressing it. We love to conflate problems with people. Problems are abstract, elusive, they can't always be confronted easily, and for all the hurt they cause, they can't be given what's coming to them and made to feel bad. Problems don't have feelings — they're not even aware of the fact that anyone's upset at them (which makes us feel even worse). The one thing you can do with problems — like with Gods and ghosts and other abstractions — is invest emotionally in them (heavily, if need be). People, on the other hand... You can pin them down, you can confront them (which makes them suffer — "FUCK YOU, PROBLEM! >:D"), you can joust them... and even "better", sometimes people will (seem to) step in to defend the problem. At this point, it's almost impossible to resist the fallacy that the people are the problem. "You're working for the problem, you like the problem, and — unlike the elusive problem — you're standing here right in front of me, just begging to get screamed at/punched/attacked". But it's a dangerous and blind fallacy, because in the end — like with God, contra religious people — the faithful don't actually speak for the bigger issue (God). They can't, even if both you and they'd like to think so. In the end, the problems we face may be caused by people, but you'd have literally gone full Godwin the day that getting rid of the people equates to getting rid of the problem. And besides, for all the "Dear [skin color] [gender], stop ruining society", keep in mind that Hanlon's razor still applies, even to your worst opponents. I think that very few out of the total amount (including all the unreported ones) of everyday instances of friction between intersectionally different individuals in society is actually motivated by personal malign or a desire to harm. Lack of information resulting in an understandable failure of empathy? Sure. But not actual malign between strangers. We're all victims of intersectionality; it's not actually a thing that exists in and of itself, but a heuristic intended to help us perspectivize interpersonal misunderstandings, and indeed to root out all attempts to devise a splitWikipedia ingroup/outgroup perception — especially one overtly framed in terms of ethnodivisionary pseudoscience (i.e., "black", "white"). Grouping problems (and uniting against them) is most useful, necessary even. We need to openly denounce problems without mercy. Grouping people (and uniting against them) is both terrifying and nonsensical. Openly denouncing people without mercy is the most wickedly immoral tripe imaginable. We need to think twice about all this. We don't understand ourselves (from the inside no less); it'd be a bit rich to assume that we could somehow understand others (from the outside no less). Golden Rule, people — stay humble. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I used to like h3h3 until he started cynically pandering to the anti-SJ crowd for clicks. I'll agree the MTV vid isn't the most intelligent thing ever made, but I also think that tone policing women and minorities is bullshit. Why should we require the utmost politeness and diplomacy from the marginalized when we don't expect the same from the social majority? It boggles my mind how utterly unable to take criticism - regardless of tone - some straight white guys are. Blitz (Complaints Box) 00:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"Why can't we just all get alongWikipedia".—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Bring up white privilege to most white men and most of them will get defensive.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Depends on how it's brought up. Much of the time I agree, albeit changing "men" to "people" would be even more accurate. When my black coworkers say "We need to unite under Farrakhan" and insist I (as someone with both gay and Jewish family) have no right to speak because "white privilege" (yes, that was the rationale 'in toto), then yeah I have a problem. Even if the expression "playing the race card" is a grossly abused and overused, there is a reason it exists. And also, it's too bad MTV doesn't actually have music videos on anymore; they should change their name to "The Dreck Channel" or something else a little more candid about their programming. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Good post! I totally agree Blitz. The privileged constantly wine on and on about minorities being offended and triggered by everything. But there are few people who freaks out more the slightest fucking critisism than those who are already privileged.

Pentagon chief is wrong[edit]

I was watching Meet the Press this morning, when I saw this atrocity of a statement by Ash Carter: “They came in, they said they were going to fight ISIL, and they said they were going to help in the civil war in Syria. They haven’t done either of those things.”

This is absolutely insane. Just yesterday Russia bombed ISIS over a dozen times in one city! You also may not know that there's a large tactical engagement going on at the T4 airbase in Syria, where ISIS has been attacking the Syrian Army for 3 weeks to take one airbase. Russia has bombed ISIS at this place for weeks, and has done so just yesterday as well. They've bombed ISIS in July, August, September, December, and January. It's a ridiculous nationalistic falsehood statement that comes from a deep-seated irrational hatred of Russia, one that is endemic among top US military officials. PB (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia spent more time bombing "moderate" rebels than bombing ISIS. If it hadn't been for Russian support, Assad would've fallen and the Syrian civil war would've ended years ago and Europe wouldn't be in the immigration crisis. Likewise, if it hadn't been for American support, Assad would've crushed the rebels already and the Syrian civil war would've ended years ago and Europe wouldn't be in the immigration crisis. Russia supports Assad because Assad offered them a swanky naval base, while the US opposes Assad because they keep causing trouble with Turkey or something, and also NATO doesn't want said naval base. Welcome to geopolitics. CorruptUser (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"Russia spent more time bombing "moderate" rebels than bombing ISIS. If it hadn't been for Russian support, Assad would've fallen" I agree with this, although Iranian and Hezbollah support are also critical.
"and the Syrian civil war would've ended years ago and Europe wouldn't be in the immigration crisis." Whoa whoa whoa hold it right there. No immigration crisis? Libya's dictator fell in 9 months, and there's still a civil war going on there to this day between rebel factions! A great deal of the refugees are from Libya. Syria would still be in civil war if the government fell early on. You'd have moderates fighting Islamists, and those fighting the Alawites and Kurds. The Druze and Christians might get involved. With the Islamist Sunnis in power, you'd have the perfect recipe for mass Shi'a and Christian migration to Europe, numbering in the millions. Hell, with the bigger haven for ISIS the Iraqi crisis might've been even worse, with ISIS taking over all Sunni areas then marching on Baghdad. This is ridiculous!
"Russia supports Assad because Assad offered them a swanky naval base" Do you really think that's the main reason? You don't think economic ties and a bulwark against America-Israel-Turkey have anything to do with it? Plus fighting terrorism, which is kind of a good thing.
Your analysis isn't far off, but you have some seriously distorted notions of how things would've went if Assad fell early. PBfreespace (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
You really think for 5 seconds that Russia is actually "fighting terrorism"? Seriously? CorruptUser (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
they said they were going to help . Carter's being a bit disengenuous. Because of the sanctions, US forces are prohibited by law from coordinating with Russian forces. It's not that they don't want to "help", it's the US has refused their help. 'Help' is a bad word, they have dominated, while the US sat on its hands waiting to turn this mess over to a new commander in chief. We re rapidly getting to point where the US is the party offering help, cause we're no longer in the drivers seat . nobs 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

For the Fundie School page (I know matters on specific articles should go on the talk page but there are very few people who use them anyway)[edit]

I was thinking of having the Fundie school list be divided into the categories of "Good", "Moderate", "Awful" and "Should not exist". I do not mean separate pages but the list being divided into categories. For example-


School Notable Characteristics
Example Example
Example Example
Example Example


School Characteristics
Example Example
Example Example
Example Example

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Workplace democracy[edit]

What do you guys think about workplace democracy ? Is it wrong or a good idea ? Diacelium (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

what do you mean by workplace democracy? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that, in general, the strive for consensus is desirable. But, regarding technical issues, all peoples oppinions are not worth the same. The marketing department should have no say in a discussion regarding architecture changes to the backend architecture in order to improve horizontal scalability.
But I am also slightly biased in this issue. Nothing drives me more insane than prolonged, needlessly verbose discussion about details that are, in the end, completely irrelevant. TheGrandmother (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
So while on the boss's dime, workers conspire to liberate the owners of their property rights. There's a word for this, I just can't of it at the moment. nobs 13:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No, they can't take away the worker's property. But since they are the reason the company is running, they should have a say in decisions of the company. Diacelium (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
do they not get paid for their time? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they do, but I still think they should have a say in some company decisions. Diacelium (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
wby exactly? You take someones money to do one thing, but you'd rather do something else? Dont take their money. Its nice and all to get asked your opinion if you think you can improve the business, but you know, its their money. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The workers don't work becaused they choosed to, they work to avoid homelessness, hunger and death. Diacelium (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
doesnt really answer my question though does it AMassiveGay (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Diacelium: there's a difference between outright expropriation of property, and impingement on property rights. The owner of a capital has rights over that capital, how it is to be employed. A friend told me he made a suggestion once to a boss how to improve production, and the boss responded, "There's probably a million ways to do this, but since this is my factory we're gonna do it my way". Also, a worker who feels "forced" to work out of fear, rather than choice, has a spiritual problem only Jesus can fix. Working to avoid homelessness is not a universal axiom. nobs 14:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
We have democracy in the Rationalwiki workspace, no? (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel a middle ground can be reached, let employees have some kind of say but the CEO and or President or whatever makes the primary choices on how the business is ran. You would not want to feel like you don't matter at a workplace but the employees should not make the final choice on company policy. It would be like a department store manager how to run things in turn making the employees the bosses and the CEO powerless. But concerns an employee has should not be instantly tossed out the window.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Having owned and operated a manufacturing concern at one point in my career, I'll be brief. The investor works out a formula based on unit cost (production tools + materials + labor) that sells for a variable market price. Selling price - cost = margin, or profit. Time is a huge factor, every moment production is down costs money in lost sales. People constantly pressure you with new ideas to improve production, 99% of which ALWAYS entail more capital investment, more capital investment which either (a) you don't have, (b) would require going into debt and delaying further the day you will ever see a return on the investment you've already made, and (c) a delaying tactic either by workers to stall for more time and run up the labor cost, or (d) outside competitors trying to confuse and fuck you up. In the end you nod, smile, say thanks, and tell them you already know what you're doing. But this isn't to say 1% of helpful suggestions that come your way cannot be very profitable, indeed. nobs 17:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I seem to recall learning in school that the owner gets to call the shots at the company because they're bearing the risks of the venture. On the other hand, it seems to me that the workers are the ones losing their livelihood when those risks look like they might be realized, so I can see why the workers might want a say in the matters. Hertzy (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Difference between "Welfare capitalism" and socialism[edit]

Bernie is considered to be a Welfare capitalist by some. At what point do you go from capitalism to socialism ? When is an economy socialist ? Is it at a tax level, do you need maximum wage, worker ownership of means of productions, abolition of all private property ? Diacelium (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

there are paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, collectivist anarchist, anarcho-communists, social democrats, democratic socialists, marxist, trotskyists, etc, etc, etc. Seem we spend more time debating the labels rather than issues. Its not helpful. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The classic definition of socialist, long lost to the discussions of American politics involves a national government seizing and running 1 or more industries. Distinct from communism by virtue of not necessarily being a classless society and distinct from a state-run economy in that not necessarily all parts of the economy are under state control. Saudi Arabia is socialist, in that the same royal family that runs the state runs the oil industry. The "socialist" democracies of Europe rarely are actually socialist, and are instead often social democracies(state should be for the benefit of society as determined by popular vote of that society)
So... a social democrat, like Sanders, who wants to apply low-grade wealth redistribution for the sake of an improved society, still believes in the virtue of free market capitalism, but isn't actually a socialist.
He's only called a socialist because he gave a speech where he said "And if that makes me a socialist, then I'm a socialist". It's a completely inapt label, and as the very large homosexual person noted, debating the nuances of the label is not at all helpful. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yet Ricardian socialism industries aren't run by the state. Diacelium (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there direct worker control over the means of production and community control over social institutions? If not, then it's not socialism. Simple. PB (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Socialism isn't about the State. It started as the idea that riches own too much and should give to the poor, this doesn't necessarly means state owned industries. But yes, Ricardian socialism is about direct worker ownership. Joseph Charlier was an utopian socialist and didn't propose nationalizations. Many of the utopian socialists wanted industries and businesses to become worker cooperatives. Diacelium (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
hmm, Marx said From each as he is able, to each according to his need. So the labor of the worker (which is a "means of production") is not the property of the worker, and the produce of that labor is taken from him and redistributed by government to "each according to his need". nobs 00:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Marx was neither the first communist, neither the first socialist. Diacelium (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a moderator election on[edit]

This discussion was moved to Forum:RationalWiki election process.

Unweildy, probably un-archivable discussion about election policy moved to forum. Please participate! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

About that RW mod election?[edit]

During the last hectic days of the US elections, the question of our own RW mod elections was raised. However, while those who chipped in all seemed in favour of starting the process fairly soon (as the current Mods were elected a year ago), it was not entirely clear that any concrete steps were decided, nor that any clear schedule was agreed on. So, I'd like to reopen the topic as I am both among the current mods and one of those in favour of holding elections fairly soon. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of a moderator election ASAP. Applesauce (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we need a mod election, in the spirit of mobocracy. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 18:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Please have one, I'm finally eligible to vote.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Before people get riled up in favor of democracy, my question: would people like to pair up the mod and board elecitons & get both over at the same time, or separate? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I very much think these should be separated. The roles of moderators and board members are different, and the motivations both for voting and running are completely different. I think it's a mistake to figure "Hey, people have short attention spans, let's make it a huge cluster****"! It's literally better to space it all out, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to roll both election into one either, unless we have a reason to suspect some kind of election fatigue or very low interest in one of the elections. However, we need to get a schedule ready as well as nuts and bolts, especially with regards to ballot return officers. Someone has to do the adding up, after all. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair points. Last time, I and DG basically did the grunt work and ran it by Trent. Not good -- both of us were elected. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 09:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


Current moderators:

Enjoy. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 09:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed schedule[edit]

Proposed schedule: (propose by FCP as a user, pending mod feedback)

  1. Nominations: December 19-January 01 (two weeks)
  2. Voting: January 02-January 07 (one week)
  3. Results: January 09 (one day for ballot processing)

Thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato of the Stupid Squids (talk/stalk) 09:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Cough cough. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Cough cough. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You should get that cough checked by a doctor, Fuzzy, it sounds nasty.
Anyhow, I think your schedule sounds reasonable. While it does run into Christmas and New Year's that might actually be a good thing for those who are otherwise tied up by work and need time off from all that icky socialising with family and friends. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech rights and mod count question[edit]

In addition to moderators, there are several techs. During 2015's flood of spam and after discussion here, I gave CorruptUser‏‎ and JorisEnter‏‎ and Owlman‏ and Queex "tech" rights. CU, JE, and Owl are all still active. This "tech" position essentially gives all the rights of a moderator, minus the ability to add/remove moderator rights.

The flood of spam is now over. Should the tech rights of these users be removed? If so, should we elect additional moderators with the goal of speedy Special:AbuseFilter adjustment -- or stick with the current count of 6 mods? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 09:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I was also given tech rights for the purposes of monitoring and maintaining the edit filter(I've made all of 2 changes to help out a new user getting falsely flagged). If tech rights are up for review, mine should probably be commented on as well. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd actually like to request tech rights — if that's how this works — as it might be time for me to start learning how to add to the edit filter? Joris has used his tech powers responsibly and has made numerous additions to the edit filter. Unless he wants them removed, I highly advise that he gets to keep them. Also, could someone please bestow Krej with Ninja? His (lovely) 4 symbol edits have the side effect of filling up the RC feed. Oh, and before anyone asks — I will not be running for moderator. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

STV operators[edit]

RW uses the (no-longer-free) OpenSTV software to tally STV votes. It's pretty simple; I, DG, and Trent have experience & can troubleshoot. Are there any people interested in tabulating results after the election? I (and DG) can provide copies of OpenSTV to those interested. More people presumably means less chance of a rigged election. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 09:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the last open source version of OpenSTV is in Debian and Ubuntu. sudo apt-get install openstv and you're good to go - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, was there a discussion/holy war in the distant past that resulted in choosing STV that I can read? I've been reading a lot about voting systems lately, and learning that STV's single-winner cousin IRV is moderately shitty, and that score voting is a better choice for single-winner elections, but I have no opinion yet on which systems are good for multi-winner elections.

I do know that I voted in one of the mod elections, and trying to find a single rank order for 20 or so candidates was pretty daunting. I ended up just categorizing them in groups like "good" "bad" "kind of good", etc. and roughly ordering them accordingly, which sounds a lot like score voting. (But I don't know if score voting produces good multi-winner results.) Hmmph (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's get on with it[edit]

It's 2-3 days past the given start date. I'll make an announcement. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting end[edit]

What time does voting close & shouldn't there be another announcement to remind about this? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting closes when David Gerard makes it happen. The announcement went up when I got up. :) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please post the results?[edit]

-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I do agree, we want results. We wouldn't want the vote tampered with, right? Applesauce (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Results are posted! Check RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results!

Apologies for the delay -- there have been some shenanigans. Please read up and vote. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)