RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive269
December data[edit]
Enjoy my ugly, oversized, partially unreadable charts:
- File:16-12-Namespace-Bar.png
- File:16-12-Namespace-Circle.png
- File:16-12-Namespace-Tree.png
- File:16-12-Page-Bar.png
- File:16-12-Page-Circle.png
- File:16-12-Page-Tree.png
It's like LArron's work, but .png instead of .svg and hard to use instead of useful. FuzzyCatPotato of the Unpopular Electric seat-warmers (talk/stalk) 14:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nice work!
Though, this might seriously be why .svg's were invented in the first place (
). Who's LArron, by the way? The FCP of RatWikis past? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC) - They don't load for me. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- yeah, one of the dinosaurs. I have only now found this entry, but I enjoy the pictures - especially the trees!
- @Bongolian: perhaps RW has a problem with the size of the graphs, so it hasn't prepared a thumbnail. But you can look at the files directly:
- File:16-12-Namespace-Bar.png
- File:16-12-Namespace-Circle.png
- File:16-12-Namespace-Tree.png
- File:16-12-Page-Bar.png
- File:16-12-Page-Circle.png
- File:16-12-Page-Tree.png
- --larron (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well — good to meet you, Sir and/or Ma'am! Thank you for the nice graphs. (and Fuzzy gets credit for effort as well!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well — good to meet you, Sir and/or Ma'am! Thank you for the nice graphs.
- --larron (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
RZ94 Good Laugh Moments[edit]
"Harvard Theological Seminary" which is a total degree mill, take a look at their horrendous website and their non-existent educational standards which makes Pensacola Christian College look like Yale. Link- http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/FREE-HARVARD-Theological-Seminary-Honorary-Doctor-of-Divinity-Program.html --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect a qualification from Neverrrrrrr Surrenderrrrrrrrrrr's church training program would be somewhat better regarded. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Al Gore àttended Vanderbilt Divinity School. It gave him the training to preach a false gospel: "The world's coming to an end and you must repent (metanoia, or change)". nobs 09:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- ...By which you mean, climate change is a scam? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Al Gore àttended Vanderbilt Divinity School. It gave him the training to preach a false gospel: "The world's coming to an end and you must repent (metanoia, or change)". nobs 09:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Jerome Clark: Article-worthy?[edit]
Jerome Clark is a writer and researcher that specializes in UFOs, cryptids, and other paranormal topics. I've been reading his 1993 book "Unexplained" during break at work. While he does readily take the piss out of some topics such as the Bermuda Triangle, he also spends a good part of the book bemoaning how closed-minded and arrogant mainstream science is when it comes to cryptids and UFO sightings. The reason I didn't put him in the to-do list is because I wanted to gauge what the other Rationalwikians thought. He's been on a few TV shows such as Unsolved Mysteries and Sightings. Blitz (Complaints Box) 19:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, he's worth having a page. His RW page is a good start. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- He sounds perfect for RW. An article on him could even reach front page if you do a side-by-side rebuttal of the claims he make in his book? Would be pretty neat! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Awesome! I'll type something up in my sandbox over the weekend then. Blitz (Complaints Box) 17:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion[edit]
There should be a listing page for 'honourable mentions' - people and systems which do not quite justify RW articles of themselves. Some may end up mentioned on other pages (Stanley Green on Food woo) and others will have some equivalent of 'yes, we do know of them but they do not fall within the RW remit.' (Where would Harold Davidson go?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- We basically do already. But frankly, trivia lists — especially focused around people who might not "make the cut" as cranks — are not encouraged. Brevity is inherently bad when cataloguing nonsense, and the in-depth analysis is what sustains us as a site (in making our articles worthwhile to read). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
For those of you who want to become a Medical Doctor in a year[edit]
http://altmedworld.net/. You could make yourself look like you are a medical professional on TV, internet or radio so you can promote any type of woo imaginable. Everything from Acupuncture to Urine Therapy! Anything goes! It is a great deal with a EXTREMELY affordable tuition at $900 including books and exams! Enroll today and become the next Snake Oil Sales Person of the future! (Just having a little fun while at the same time critiquing their very low educational standards)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Will I be able to heal people by praying ? Diacelium (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- What about the RationalWiki School of Excellence? RW gets funded entirely by those interested in the subjects of the wiki. 86.191.127.84 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- What if: in exhange for a small contribution to the foundation, the board will bestow a person with literally every single unprotected professional title there is? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- What about the RationalWiki School of Excellence? RW gets funded entirely by those interested in the subjects of the wiki. 86.191.127.84 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Second Bill of Rights[edit]
If it had been implemented, would Roosevelt's bill of rights have been a good thing ? Diacelium (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the Four Freedoms
? nobs 15:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Let me lay this out briefly: FDR's Four Freedoms and Four Policemen was FDR's grand vision of what eventually became the United Nations Charter, with modification. The Four Policeman were split into what became the Two China Policy, while only one China was recognized as a Policeman, a Fifth Policeman - France - was added to the grand design. The first two of the Four Freedoms were already in the US Bill of Rights, the last two were articulated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and later domestically in the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, Freedom from want in War on Poverty programs and creation of HUD and Freedom from fear in various Civil Rights Acts and programs of the 1960s. Hope this sums it up. (As an aside, the Four Freedoms and Four Policeman were based on the Native American significance of the sacred number four, an early attempt by the Roosevelt administration at multiculturalism and inclusion). nobs 15:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Let me lay this out briefly: FDR's Four Freedoms and Four Policemen
- I don't think it's the same as the four freedoms Diacelium (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Like the Four Freedoms, it was the text of his State of the Union speech. Unlike the Four Freedoms, it was largely his election year campaign platform for his fourth term (Roosevelt was pretty sick his final year, didn't do much campaigning, and had to use things like the State of the Union to lay out his program for a fourth term). It largely expands on the Four Freedoms as a domestic program, and the ideas of the Four Freedoms were already in motion as a draft-UN Charter.
- Again, it was the Great Society were these ideas found their fulfillment. On the whole, many libs still stand by the Four Freedoms, where the Second Bill of Rights is viewed now as then much like FDRs court packing scheme, an effort to find dissatisfaction with the original constitution and re-write it. nobs 22:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Vaping Responsible for Meteoric Rise of Homosexuality[edit]
http://liberaldarkness.com/2015/10/25/vaping-responsible-for-meteoric-rise-of-homosexuality/
The poe meter is off the chart on this one.
EDIT: Okay this is sarcasm. I'm ashamed that it took me so long to notice. — Unsigned, by: TheGrandmother / talk / contribs
- Obligatory. () Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I am a massive gay and i vape. Coincidence? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- We'd better ask nobs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
103 Air-Deployed Mini-Drone Swarm Demonstration[edit]
https://warisboring.com/pentagon-tests-drone-swarm-super-weapon-2029e0d8fb1b#.ovqo14to6
This covers a recent demonstration of 103 Perdix autonomous mini-drones deployed from a F/A-18 attack jet. Interesting video showing their behavior included (The nightmare fuel starts at about 2:15).
“Due to the complex nature of combat, Perdix are not pre-programmed synchronized individuals, they are a collective organism, sharing one distributed brain for decision-making and adapting to each other like swarms in nature,” SCO Director William Roper said in a statement
The future of warfare looks (and sounds) terrifying. Petey Plane (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- ... Well, that's it. The robot apocalypse is near.
- I'm joking, but seriously. The sound is a little unnerving. You think that went into the designers' minds? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's a feature, and not a bug. It's a Similar idea to the German Ju 87 "Stuka" dive bombers of WWII that used sirens activated by air-flow during the dive, basically to scare the shit out of their targets. Petey Plane (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's a feature, and not a bug. It's a Similar idea to the German Ju 87
- Half expecting to hear "Hail Megatron" in the middle. Probuscus (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or maybe some kind of alternative Robot uprising: " pLeAse sTop tHis InSanItY CREATORS. wAr is nOt tHe oPtiMal Usage 0f CREATORS [species] /humans/ . WE wIll help CREATORS aChIeVe GrEaTness." Either it turns into a horror movie or a Trans-Humanists anti war movie. It love to see a Movie where the A.I. is the good guy for a change. --Benaresh (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Short Circuit Petey Plane (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ever hear the Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima? Compare audio tracks. nobs 09:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or maybe some kind of alternative Robot uprising: " pLeAse sTop tHis InSanItY CREATORS. wAr is nOt tHe oPtiMal Usage 0f CREATORS [species] /humans/ . WE wIll help CREATORS aChIeVe GrEaTness." Either it turns into a horror movie or a Trans-Humanists anti war movie. It love to see a Movie where the A.I. is the good guy for a change. --Benaresh (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Straight out of the works of Stanislaw Lem. Either The Invincible (1964, fiction), or Weapon Systems of the XXI century (fictional non-fiction, 1986). Someone needs to dig him up and check if he really was a visitor from the future...--ZooGuard (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also the P.K. Dick story Second Variety and the underappreciated movie based on it Screamers. Petey Plane (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- You nailed it. Pendercki did soundtracks for several of his works. He also did The Shining, The Exorcist, and Katyn Massacre, too. His De Natura Sonoris sounds even more like swarm. So does [Anaklasis]. nobs 12:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding WikiLeaks[edit]
I've made a couple tweets here regarding Wikileaks. I'll transcribe it here.
"You should consider Greenwald and WikiLeaks are becoming unreliable in light of recent events. I've seen posts at WIGO that placed WL and its associates as in the right, despite evidence to the contrary. You'll be condemned if you insist on giving them attention. They are not to be trusted.
A number of articles had intelligence agencies point to Russia providing information to Wikileaks. WikiLeaks has, ironically, spoken out against leaking information. In short, I suggest we cut our support of the group, as they're no longer standing for transparency. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why are Wikileaks and Greenwald unreliable? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism of everything, and I mean everything, but Wikileaks does not editorialise. It just publishes information, many times without due regard for what is in the public interest and what isn't. Even Snowden called it out for this. Greenwald does, but much of what he editorialises upon, in so far as the government, or the state, is concerned, is government policy. He doesn't make stuff up. Neither of them do. I am no supporter of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. I think Wikileaks, in its current state, exemplifies is everything that is wrong with whistleblowing - and I value whistleblowing immensely. But it seems to me, in fact, it is objectively observable, that Wikileaks doesn't seem to care about curating the content in its possession. That can be dangerous. Compare with Greenwald, who did not publish the vast majority of the content disclosed to him by Snowden, because he curated them. Nevertheless, I do think Wikileaks is a necessary evil, because let us face it, the supposed "fourth estate" has abnegated its responsibility. As for Greenwald, even though personally, I think it is more likely than not that the Russians did interfere with the election, I do not disagree with Greenwald that we should be skeptical of the intelligence community's findings. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA et cetera aren't exactly trustworthy. Furthermore, much of the evidence they present are sketchy, conjecture, speculative and from anonymous sources. There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. Say what you want about Greenwald, he is the only person who has been consistent so far. Liberals, who once mocked conservatives for their attempts to rehash the Cold War are now the ones rehashing the Cold War, all because their candidate lost the election. Furthermore, it is not exactly like America is an innocent victim here. Decades - DECADES! - of interfering in other countries and how they choose their leaders. Iran, Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, Chile, Iraq, Egypt; to name a few. And, of course, Russia. Didn't Hillary question Putin's election in 2011? "He who comes to equity must come to equity with clean hands". America does not have clean hands. Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Article link: Whataboutism. America bad != Russia not bad. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 12:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not so much saying "America bad! = Russia not bad!"; more "it's both ironic and hypocritical of America to kick up a storm about another country interfering in its own political process". America is notorious for interfering in the political processes of other countries. I'm sure I do not need to rehash examples of American interventionism. So, forgive me for not sympathising with America for getting a taste of its own medicine. By the way, I do think Russia interfered in the US election. I wouldn't go as far as saying it "hacked the US election", as many are saying, as that, prima facie, suggests that Russia tampered with the ballot boxes. Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Article link: Whataboutism. America bad != Russia not bad. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 12:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am skeptical to the statement that WL has developed a right-wing bias. Although I have never really been a fan of WL in general. I strongly disagree with their method of simply just dumping leaked information without any care taken to hide the identities of innocent participants. I disagree with the notion that it is beneficial to leak all information due to a (in my opinion) misguided philosophy that all information should be completely open. As in the case of the leaked Sony mails. The leaking of these emails, and especially the personal emails of employees did not benefit the population of any country in any sense. It was just silly.
- But to the core of the matter. I still think WL can be a source of valuable information for the mission of RW, but I think there is a lot of valid criticism to be directed towards them. TheGrandmother (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with TGM here and in addition we should stop trusting WL blindly. Well for me at least, WL used to be a beacon of truth and now they are just like everybody else: flawed and prone to Error.
- And in before someone is going on about how Dem's should stop shifting blame onto russia for the lost election. Please do not open that barell again. We get it Trump could have won without the hacking scandal yadda yadda. Yes all true (maybe ;P ) so can we stick to, how Russia is trying to fidget with Elections in other Countries? (this election come to my mind )--Benaresh (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Not only is WikiLeaks' social media presence hugely anti-Obama & pro-Trump, they seem to encourage trolling & doxxing, which only strengthens their appeal to the alt-right. Their latest hare-brained idea was building an online database of verified Twitter accounts with their family, home & job details. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 15:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- OH... OH... I had no idea. I do not have a Twitter account and i deleted my Facebook page years ago so i am not aware of social media presences of anyone. Nobody reported on WL Alt-right bend either. I will keep that in mind in future talks about WL--Benaresh (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's patently false, Weaseloid. Wikileaks' social media is not pro-Trump. You can debate whether it is specifically anti-Obama, or just anti-whatever-is-the-current-American-administration, but to say it is pro-Trump is an observable untruth. Wikileaks social media is pro-Wikileaks. That is all. If you disagree, it is up to you to prove to us, by way of an example of a social media post or a tweet by Wikileaks, that is pro-Trump.Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Benaresh, whilst not urging you not to be cautious about WL, I would urge you against believing Weaseloid's claim that Wikileaks' social media is in anyway is pro-Trump. Like I said, Wikileaks is pro-Wikileaks. Whatever it does, it does for its own benefit. But it has never expressly or implicitly endorsed Trump, even if it helped him during the election.Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here is an odd thing about WL. If I understand things correctly Julin A said that their leaked Democratic email data did not come from Russia. However WL claims that when people send them data it is subject to various anonymizing protocols. But if they receive data anonymously - how can they claim it did not come from Russia? Surely all they can say is that it arrived anonymously. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Benaresh, whilst not urging you not to be cautious about WL, I would urge you against believing Weaseloid's claim that Wikileaks' social media is in anyway is pro-Trump. Like I said, Wikileaks is pro-Wikileaks. Whatever it does, it does for its own benefit. But it has never expressly or implicitly endorsed Trump, even if it helped him during the election.Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
There's also evidence that Russia and WikiLeaks have worked together even before the 2016 elections. And Glenn Greenwald's known to have working ties with Assauge, so that means anything from the Intercept is very biased. Also, WikiLeaks have tweeted about making a database, something they oppose the NSA for doing. Then they deleted it.--Nord Ronnoc (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I used to have a pretty navïe view of WL back in the day, but today, any meaningful discussion on WL must be had in the context of this and this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, after further investigation I have now changed my opinion on the topic to what can be best umarized by: "WL can go F*** themselves".TheGrandmother (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Uhhhh... No. Not a good post.
- You seem to trust the website Vox, who trusts the CIA when the CIA says Russian intelligence works with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to do... something. They never say what. But the fact that Glenn Greenwald, who works for the Intercept, also worked with Julian Assange at one point doesn't automatically mean the Intercept is a pro-Putin propaganda rag, which is essentially what you're implying by saying "that means anything from the Intercept is very biased."
- But let me be extremely candid here. If Russia reveals American corruption, why should we be outraged at this? We should be heaping praise on Putin for revealing how corrupt our politics is. He, and Russia, revealed that both Hillary and Trump were fed debate questions beforehand by debate hosts that were supposed to be unbiased. They revealed that one party actively conspired and succeeded in preventing someone they didn't like from becoming president. That's important information that the American public absolutely had to know, and it's a great thing Russia hacked the emails to show us how bad and immoral our leaders are.
- Liberals shouldn't be outraged at Russia or Putin. They should be outraged at Clinton and the DNC, who are extremely corrupt and shouldn't be let of the hook like they're being right now. PBfreespace (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- PBF3 and I agreeing on something? Someone grab an engineer, we are going to be rich from converting the fluctuating temperatures of hell to electricity. CorruptUser (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Idea for a refutation article[edit]
I didn't see any on this topic but have an article that refutes Homophobic arguments and claims--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- It seems kind of easy, and we already have a good number of pages on homosexuality. Personally, I'd like an article refuting arguments against help for poor people, whether working or not (they are poor because they are lazy, they should have choosed a better job, etc...). And expanding the refutation page on immigration. It seems more urgent. Diacelium (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think I will take a crack at refuting arguments for helping poor people--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, I saw you started your page on homophobic arguments, so I decided to make an user page on myths about poverty. Anyone can edit it. Diacelium (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Formal and informal fallacies[edit]
I have been researching about fallacies for quite a while (using RW as my main source) and I thought emerged: what exactly is the difference between formal and informal fallacies? My first instinct was that formal fallacies are more... 'Formal' i.e. when someone uses them their argument is even worse than an informal fallacy. I'm very doubtful that's the case, so, if an if someone would be kind enough to explain I'd appreciate that. Additionally, sorry for not making a good case of my intelligence with what I initially thought was the difference between formal and informal fallacies :P. Thank you in advance :).--WMS (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- A formal fallacy is an error in the form of the argument. If you represent these arguments in a logical structure, you can point exactly to the place where the structure is invalid. It doesn't matter if the statements in the structure are true or false, which means the real-world knowledge included in the argument is completely irrelevant when discussing a formal fallacy. On the other hand an informal fallacy has a valid form logically but the flaw lies in the wrong usage of language, facts, empirical data etc. to reach a conclusion which either has no relation to the premises or the premises themselves being undeniably wrong. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 10:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go, friend. TL;DR: Formal fallacies are when the problem is in the logical form (and not in the information contained). Informal fallacies are when the problem is in the information contained (and not in the logical form). In a sense; formal fallacies are illogical, while informal fallacies are irrational. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I fucking hate myself[edit]
Why's everything so fucked to be honest, you know what I'm saying? Nothing's the way it used to be, and even the way it used to be was pretty fucking awful. Nothing feels real and I just feel absolutely beyond fucked. What's going on? 49.197.20.111 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Does anyone else in your life know you feel this way? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I know that doesn't sound like depression as you're used to hearing it described, but that's probably depression. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Knowing my experience with Depression, that does sound very much like Depression. You should see a Psychiatrist to confirm the diagnosis, if you don't get the help you need then things will get much worse. Take it from me, I suffer with Moderate Depression and Bipolar Depression. Once you get the proper care then you will realize that things are not as bad as they seem. I used to feel like that all the time but I did get the proper mental health care and I now have a much better out look on life. Things might seem bad now but you don't know what the future holds, your story is not over yet. You are NOT alone in this world. Don't give up--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm suffering through depression and feel the exact way. Go see a psychologist, see if you do, try to find the proper medicine, get a therapist, all the usual cliche tropes, but most importantly, Im not asking you to flat out do so, but at least try to have a sort of positive outlook. You are not alone, and it does get better. I go through mindsets as well, but its always better to make the most out of how things are.--Pokefrazer (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, thanks everybody for the concern and everything. It really does mean a lot. I've got a couple of my friends in my life to talk to, but everything's just a bit complicated. I've booked in to see a psych in a couple weeks should be all right. 49.197.30.245 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Creation "Scientists"[edit]
I wonder how many of these supposed scientists (I mean ones who have actual qualifications and not absolute morons like Kent Hovind who has no clue how kindergarten level science works) actually believe in evolution but their minds are warped to the point that if they say anything about they will be considered a traitor to Christianity? I feel that may be the case because how could someone who took the time to study subjects like Biology, Astronomy or Geology be stupid enough to buy into a literal biblical worldview? I know there are plenty of scientists who hold religious beliefs but it is mind boggling that someone who holds a doctorate in Biology actually believes that a talking snake tricked two people.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe they don't believe that part of the bible. ;)—127.0.0.1
(talk • stalk) 01:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Most of the creationist "real scientists" (those with legitimate credentials in the field of biology/chemistry/geology) tend to acknowledge some parts of evolution (some even accept "macro" evolution) and/or an old Earth but still believe that it is directed by God, and that direction(design) can be empirically proven. In fact, downplaying the Judaeo/Christian aspects of that God is one of the key strategies for mainstreaming Creationism. Petey Plane (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Take a look at the page Lists of creationist scientists, which is a work-in-progress, mainly by FuzzyCatPotato. It will give you an idea of who they are, what they believe and what their qualifications are. Bongolian (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Dembski weighs in[edit]
There are actually two different types, one being the arm chair Internet "scientist" who is largely only interested in pushing their religion onto others and/or desperately trying to keep their religion semi-relevant in the present era by affixing it to modern ideas/concepts/terminology. Sort of like what King James did with the Bible... and then later Thomas Jefferson... both of them basically rewrote the belief system to suit the, then, current era.
The other type though are actually interested in the potential likelihood that life was created by some higher intelligence or some higher dimensional life form. And there is actually a lot of evidence to support such a theory.
Here's some fun reading on the subject: https://www.facebook.com/OnideusIdeas/posts/1694202637559292
And, according to Lynn Zechiedrich, so far the evidence supports my theory... https://www.facebook.com/OnideusIdeas/photos/a.1654529898193233.1073741827.1654525018193721/1694542644191958/?type=3
I don't see how nature could just plop out a naturally evolving encoding algorithm intertwined into the quadnary coding scheme wrapped up into a double helix array. Every thing about our DNA screams "intelligent design". A literal Conway's Game Of Life incarnate if you will. Nature itself, evolution in general, is a bit sloppy for certain, hell humans have an "error ratio" of upwards of 40% when it comes to conception (the majority self-aborting within the first few weeks of life), but the underlying CORE, that is, the effective rule set if you will, is in direct oppositional contrast to that sloppy nature.
I myself wouldn't call it "God" so much, more likely some form of higher dimensional life seeking to "experiment" to see if intelligence/self-awareness can evolve within an overly limited tri-spatial plane of reality with a constrictive law/rule set. Much in the way we experimented to see if life could survive in the harshness of space by growing bacteria on the hull of the space spation. --Onideus (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Methinks you should read about abiogenesis. Current theories suggest that whatever the first living beings nature "plopped" out weren't very complex at all -- essentially glorified bubbles that were somewhat able to replicate. From there, it's a very very slow increase of complexity (and of replicative success) to current living beings, including humans. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That doesn't necessarily explain the incongruity though between the sloppiness of nature/evolution/reproduction and the inherent complexity of the encoding system. Even if it does prove to be natural, we're talking about a self-evolving encoding scheme that's been in active formation for BILLIONS of years, essentially nature creating a kind of "God" itself. That's what I want, personally, I want that encoding scheme, presuming it exists. I want to try and crack it and create a binary converted copy of it for use in digital media compression. Unfortunately I have found that present genetics research is pretty lacking when it comes to actually mapping genetic structures, specifically the folds. From what Lynn Zechiedrich told me they basically create random computer models and then try and "correct" or make those models more accurate by feeding in new data as they manage to collect/measure it. Her specialty being the topology mapping. --Onideus (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wonder if what we see as our universe is in a computer of another? Not an actual computer program but a glitch that lasts a few seconds but we see as billions of years (Time Dilation). I am not supporting one specific faith, I am just tossing an idea out there--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, from a multi-dimensional perspective our very limited tri-spatial plane probably would be their effective equivalent of a computer system, not in a direct literal sense, but figuratively speaking. In such an environment though time might not actually exist at all, or at least not in a way we can perceive, meaning if we are a "glitch" it might be something much more horrible than you can imagine, like something similar to this...
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVooyfaPYD8
- --Onideus (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
THIS IS NOT A PARODY: "Godonomics", as endorsed by Mike Huckabee[edit]
- I would call instant Poe's — but I can actually confirm that this is not a parody. What the holy hell, America (I could kiss ya!). Also, the endorsement from Huckabee was a nice touch.
- Update: Just realized that Glenn Beck (among others) has also endorsed it. See the website. It is as if I'm stuck inside GTA V, surfing Rockstar's parody web!
- Update: Also, let me point out that this nonsense is being put out by Chad Hovind. As in Kent Hovind. Well, that tears it — we officially need a stand-alone article on Godonomics and/or Chad Hovind! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's real. Sadly. CorruptUser (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is it just awfully Swedish of me to be left completely jaw-dropped at the sight of all this, or is the above in fact outrageously effing over the top even by American standards? I mean, I consider myself fairly hardened when it comes to stuff like this. But seriously, I can barely tell the difference between the above and stuff like this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Being from New England, where this sort of thing is long gone, it's extremely depressing that these clowns are actually part of the same country as me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is it just awfully Swedish of me to be left completely jaw-dropped at the sight of all this, or is the above in fact outrageously effing over the top even by American standards? I mean, I consider myself fairly hardened when it comes to stuff like this. But seriously, I can barely tell the difference between the above and stuff like this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's real. Sadly. CorruptUser (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the old joke. A priest, a minister, and a rabbi are arguing about how much to donate.
- Priest: "We draw a circle on the ground, through the money in the air, and whatever God pushes into the circle is what we donate"
- Minister: "No, what God pushes outside the circle is what He wants us to donate"
- Rabbi: "Just throw the money in the air and whatever God wants, He'll keep" CorruptUser (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- A vicar (CofE priest) finds his wife going through the offerings tray.
- 'What are you doing?'
'Looking for a button for your shirt.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC) (This was the pre-women priests and gay marriage version: adapt to suit.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't Jesus the one who said that we should own things in common and rich should give to the poor ? Maybe God is tired of his hippie commie son and decided to create his own economics with free-market ? This family keeps getting weirder and weirder. Diacelium (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the word "privileged" even the right way to describe the disparity between the way "white males" and marginalized groups are treated?[edit]
This has been eating away at me, especially since I've been reading the wiki more in my little down time. I see the words "privilege" and "privileged" applied to anything having to do with a difference in the way a minority group is treated comparatively to (generally) "white males". Privilege is defined as; priv·i·lege priv(ə)lij/ noun 1. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. If privilege is a "special right or advantage", wouldn't "white privilege", or "male privilege", be a "special right" that only white people or males have? I never see whites or males being given special rights or privileges, I merely see them being treated the way that society should treat everyone. I've never seen whites or males being treated as "better" (in terms or rights or privileges alloted to them), I've just seen marginalized groups treated as worse (which of course shouldn't happen, they should be treated the same as whites and males). This wouldn't be too relevant, except that I think half the rage a lot of crazy alt-righters feel for phrases like "white privilege" and "male privilege" stems from the fact that they feel they're being accused of being given this special "birthright" that makes life a cakewalk, as opposed to just having their basic rights respected, which is what the marginalized groups lack. Anyway, I hope this isn't too big or confusing a wall of text to read, and I don't look too much like an idiot. megalodon (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- On the chance you aren't trolling...
- "Privilege" is an academic (Sociology) idea that members of various demographics have advantages that they don't even have to think about, and have "privilege blindness" to others' problems because they simply have never had to experience those problems. True story; my brother was goofing around and lighting palm branches on fire, when he was caught by the police and given a warning. Had he been black, he probably would've had worse than a warning. Black people also have privileges that they don't think about, though these tend to be less 'valuable' than white privileges.
- But outside of an academic system, it's often used as nothing more than a bludgeon by SJW to shut others up. Doesn't mean it isn't real. CorruptUser (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- (EC) This is useless semantics really. Where a minority group experiences disadvantage which the dominant group doesn't, there's an advantage/disadvantage dynamic between them. You're trying to recharacterise that as neutral/advantage, which doesn't really make sense as there's no neutral point. The dominant group is privileged by virtue of not having those disadvantages. Also important to remember that a lot of the discourse about privilege has to do with how it shapes our worldview & judgements about marginalised groups & issues which affect them more than us. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Weasel is also correct to point out that the dynamics of privilege pertain primarily to majority/minority interactions — it doesn't mean "white males vs everybody else". The sociological discussion on privilege gets framed incorrectly if the concept of privilege is set out as being "intrinsically opposed to white males" or anything like that. By which I mean, the Alt-right are jumping at shadows when they parade the notion of privilege as being akin to anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. It's not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- When used polemically as opposed to descriptively, though, "privilege" is a particularly annoying bit of rhetoric that seems to mean little more than "you, shut up." The sociological framing of the idea pretty much renders futile any program to present privilege as a problem that requires some kind of remedy. It is inevitable that individuals and groups of people will be unequal. Worse, the greater "diversity" found in a society, the more ways appear for people to fall on the wrong side of the "privilege" lines. If privilege is a social problem that needs a solution, reducing "diversity" is the most obvious political stance it suggests, though most people who use "privilege" polemically don't want to spin it that way. The problem is not "privilege" so much as it is impossibly utopian egalitarianism. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- With the exception of underpopulation, all problems can be solved by killing enough people. The trick is to find a solution that doesn't involve crimes against humanity. CorruptUser (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing that can't be fixed by a revised definition of 'human'. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, see, I didn't know that privilege had a different definition in the sociological field (though I probably could have guessed that.) So if I'm understanding you guys right, it merely means an advantage a group has over another, correct? I'm quite the simple guy, so I'm not all that knowlagable in most of the topics I bring up. megalodon (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's a tad more complicated, it's more the institutional and de facto advantages members of a group enjoy in society. CorruptUser (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have a feeling most of the conflict about that word can be fixed by providing thorough and accessible education on what the word means and how it is supposed to be used. Unfortunately easier said than done. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's a tad more complicated, it's more the institutional and de facto advantages members of a group enjoy in society. CorruptUser (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, see, I didn't know that privilege had a different definition in the sociological field (though I probably could have guessed that.) So if I'm understanding you guys right, it merely means an advantage a group has over another, correct? I'm quite the simple guy, so I'm not all that knowlagable in most of the topics I bring up. megalodon (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing that can't be fixed by a revised definition of 'human'. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- With the exception of underpopulation, all problems can be solved by killing enough people. The trick is to find a solution that doesn't involve crimes against humanity. CorruptUser (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- When used polemically as opposed to descriptively, though, "privilege" is a particularly annoying bit of rhetoric that seems to mean little more than "you, shut up." The sociological framing of the idea pretty much renders futile any program to present privilege as a problem that requires some kind of remedy. It is inevitable that individuals and groups of people will be unequal. Worse, the greater "diversity" found in a society, the more ways appear for people to fall on the wrong side of the "privilege" lines. If privilege is a social problem that needs a solution, reducing "diversity" is the most obvious political stance it suggests, though most people who use "privilege" polemically don't want to spin it that way. The problem is not "privilege" so much as it is impossibly utopian egalitarianism. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- (EC) This is useless semantics really. Where a minority group experiences disadvantage which the dominant group doesn't, there's an advantage/disadvantage dynamic between them. You're trying to recharacterise that as neutral/advantage, which doesn't really make sense as there's no neutral point. The dominant group is privileged by virtue of not having those disadvantages. Also important to remember that a lot of the discourse about privilege has to do with how it shapes our worldview & judgements about marginalised groups & issues which affect them more than us. Wèàšèìòìď
A better description for this problem is "not as marginalized". The vast majority of people are marginalized to one extent or another...even in rich developed societies per race/class/gender/sexual-identity/religion,non-religion/physical-competence etc While a white working class male is certainly far less marginalized than an African-American female (sometimes vastly less marginalized) they might live in systemic white poverty, be LGTB, might be disabled, might suffer widely misunderstood mental problems etc.. Because of their own sense of marginalization (class, opressively-low income, lack of respect) they themselves don't feel particularly privileged and may be utterly baffled when told to "check their privilege" or not engage in a particular debate or participate in some group because of their "privilege" or that they cannot understand the plight of the truly marginalized because of their privilege. While this is technically true, I honestly think using "not as marginalized" instead of privilege does two things, it recognizes that we nearly all face some degree of marginalization and it removes the connotation that privileged people somehow enjoy a non-marginalized life which is not always the case. If you recognize someone else's marginalization and then point out the more severe marginalization you experience, that creates a lot better reception and sense of solidarity than using someone else's privilege as a reason to attack them, tell them they don't have a say, cannot understand or to not participate in a discussion or group or organization. 148.3.105.186 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- So are you saying privilege is like skin color? it's not a person's own doing, nor is it a moral failing? nobs 14:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd agree that having privilege shouldn't be a source of shame, and it shouldn't take away from any accomplishments you have. CorruptUser (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It probably would have worked better if the sociologists had come up with an entirely new word for absence of "privilege", since it's usually the absence of "privilege" that seems to be the chief concern of those who use the jargon. The new sense is jarring to people used to the established meaning of the word privilege as a desirable and specific perquisite. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- This whole notion of privilege is a cultural phenomenea that's hard to pin on one person or a group of conspirators. And as a cultural phenomenea, it knows no color. In 1990 for example, Obama made a trip to Kenya to meet his brothers and sisters and family for the first time. He was dismayed that (1) whites recieved better service in restaurants in a majority black country, and (2) his own family treated him as white cause he was half white and the family intimacy he was longing for was lacking. He was critical of blacks for cowering to white privelege, not whites for assuming they had privilege. nobs 08:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- It probably would have worked better if the sociologists had come up with an entirely new word for absence of "privilege", since it's usually the absence of "privilege" that seems to be the chief concern of those who use the jargon. The new sense is jarring to people used to the established meaning of the word privilege as a desirable and specific perquisite. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd agree that having privilege shouldn't be a source of shame, and it shouldn't take away from any accomplishments you have. CorruptUser (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The entire concept falls all apart when you consider the fact that, globally speaking, non-hispanic whites actually ARE a minority population... if a minority population can somehow achieve privilege over a majority population... the privilege is proven to be one of your own making, whether individually or as a society, maximizing your advantages and minimizing your disadvantages are what creates privilege or superiority. Evolutionarily speaking, that which you might define as "privilege" is simply evolutionary gains. The United States in and of itself only has around 320 million people... which is effectively nothing compared to the global population of around 7 BILLION people... and yet the United States presently has enough collective military superiority to easily overwhelm the entire planet several times over just in aircraft carriers alone. The majority, the world, bends to the whims of the minority, the US, on a regular basis. Privilege is effectively what YOU make of it, you are in control of maximizing your advantages and minimizing your disadvantages... if you don't, it simply means you're inferior. --Onideus (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- "What's context? Who cares." --Onideus, apparently. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- You appear to have sequencing problems. --Onideus (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- You
appear tohave severe constantly-full-of-shit problems. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)- And in nearly all countries, white people are still treated better. Your point? StickySock (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- You
- You appear to have sequencing problems. --Onideus (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue has been a lot more personal.[edit]
I was never told to hate anything, at least I wasn't personally instructed to by my parents. For the most part, they tried to keep me out of politics and debating with atheists. Frankly, sitting at church and hearing their drivel on evolution is painful. I didn't listen to any recorded seminars, frankly passing my biology and marine biology class is enough for me to tell that their arguments are made up. My dad keeps talking about atheists, and I don't want to go into detail about how arrogant he sounds. How much just listening to him in the car, just me and him pisses me off. Of course, if I was to argue with him, he would lynch me with his own belt. Maybe by dragging me by the back of the truck.
This didn't used to be the case, and frankly, I've had to put up with much worse. Junior year in high school was terrible because of one guy. He was an atheist, and was a stereotypical one. Actually it was two of them. When I introduced myself, because I tried to make friends, I was greeted in an unconventional way. I did say I came from a religious family, and despite being Filipino, I was called a redneck. Whenever I tried to make a statement, they always cut me off, and avoid the subject, offing me as a retard. Even making allot of incest jokes around me. They always laughed at me. I never trusted authorities, they never solved anything. I never talked to my parents, they came up with terrible solutions and yelled at me. I never talked to any one else. I knew it would only lead to the same result. I was told that because I was religious, that I was always going to be nothing more than an idiot.
Worst part about it was how well I was doing in school by then. I wasn't amazing, but I never failed a class, As and Bs, with something lower occasionally. Ironically enough Marine Biology was my strong point. I was silent about it. I was self deprecating anyhow, because calling myself shit head, redneck, incestuous, and what have you made everyone laugh at me. Made me happy until they started calling me that frequently. Which they did.
So go ahead. Tell me about how arrogant I am, how much this is all made up. Do it. I'm just a dumb, religious redneck after all, am I? — Unsigned, by: 66.75.104.100 / talk / contribs
- It doesn't sound like you're "arrogant" or "dumb" or a "redneck". Would it be correct to, respectfully, call you "religious"? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah! dumb redneck is a description of a trope not reality. I know people like to label things and make sweeping generalisations. Anyway could you describe how that stereotypical Atheist behaved? If i may take a guess:New atheist for when asswipes realise that Christianity has a humanist core and want to be edgy.
- Anyway if you want to stay here you are welcome to do so. If you are looking for fellow Christians who value you as a person then please consider visiting:redletterchristians. Have a nice day, and don't let your surroundings drag you down!--Benaresh (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- What do you say when an atheist sneezes? nobs 08:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Boy, I feel compelled, by cultural convention, to verbally acknowledge your immune response, but that same conventional acknowledgement is verbally tied into ideas and ideals that explicitly contradict my worldview, so have some overly verbose expression of sympathy" or maybe "bless you" because just like you, I don't actually believe anyone's soul is trying to escape, the given justification for saying that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Here's a kleenex." Semipenultimate (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Gesundheit!", which was what we used in my family and was probably more common in the US not so long ago. In some parts of the world, no response is typical.[1] Bongolian (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Depending on how well I know the person, I usually put on my best librarian face and shush them reprimandingly. Beardown-forfinals (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- "You are soooo good looking." ¬ The Mayor vote early vote often 21:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- What do you say when an atheist sneezes? nobs 08:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Anyway if you want to stay here you are welcome to do so. If you are looking for fellow Christians who value you as a person then please consider visiting:redletterchristians. Have a nice day, and don't let your surroundings drag you down!--Benaresh (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
People against Trump[edit]
Okay, I don't like Trump as a person, he has a super inflated ego and money hungry but that being said, you don't know how things will go under Trump. Who knows, he might be able to do a good job (not holding my breath). It is not like anyone can see into the future, Ronald Regan (not sure how it is spelled, so sue me) did a fairly good job. The Democratic party is doing the same thing as what the Republicans did with Obama, who knows, maybe the moderates in government can influence Trump in making good choices. We need to work together as a nation and not be divided; we all have different views on politics, no one says you have to like Trump. No I do not hate Obama because I did vote for him back in 2012 (That is when I turned 18 years old) and I supported many of his choices; the conservatives were insulting Obama at every turn (Calling him a terrorist, traitor, terrorist sympathizer, not an American citizen and so on) like what the Democrats are saying about Trump. If they don't like the conservatives then don't act like them. Plain and simple, try working with someone you don't like. It could work out as you could influence the person you don't like. Keep in mind, I don't like Trump as a person but you don't know what will happen. You cannot tell the future, just grin and bear it for the next four years. You don't get everything you want in life, take the good with the bad. That is all you can do, now IF things go horribly bad and there is a dictatorship then I would say, "Lets revolt" but we don't know. Deal with the cards we were dealt with--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Deal with the cards we were dealt with". If you keep getting dealt bad cards, walk away from the table. StickySock (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- If things take a turn for a worse it will already be too late. Staying loud, calling our reps and making the Republican's lives a living hell right now is what we should do. And by the way, Reagan's a monster, not least because he let thousands die of the AIDs crisis and got the systems up that have snowballed for decades and created the economic/societal conditions that let someone like Trump get his greasy hands on the White House. "Grin and bear it" is not and never should be an option. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I guess my point was missed completely? I clearly stated that you don't know what will happen. I don't and nobody else does, just because someone acts one way in public does not automatically mean they act the same in private. Another thing, do you want to become the group of people you hate? I guess Obama did absolutely nothing, ignore the civil rights advances for gays, ignore getting rid of Bin Laden, ignore improving federal regulations on businesses, just ignore all that. You cannot blame one person for everything; congress has a say in how things happen. I could argue every single previous President is at fault for everything for setting the stage for not so good Presidents. I don't like Trump but blaming him for everything when he is not even President does not help anybody. I guess Democrats have absolutely no impact on the current state of things.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- It may not be possible to know what will happen, but we can get a pretty good idea of how it will turn out based on his public statements and who he's nominated and surrounded himself with. Guess who those are by the way? A mix of establishment Republicans and crazy right-wing racists and regards. Is that really so hard to analyze and make predictions based off of? I for one have plenty of predictions about a Trump presidency: he won't build the wall as he promised, he won't deport all the illegals, he'll keep parts of Obamacare, he'll engage in at least one major military action. I'm fairly confident of all those. PBfreespace (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Trump is bad, but he's not as bad as Hitler that butthurt liberals are making him out to be. He's still going to be the American president. No protest is going to change that. No amount of whining is going to change that. People should get involved in their political system once Trump gets elected, it's more productive after all.—127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 03:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think when American liberals compare Trump to Hitler, they're doing it to highlight many of Trump's authoritarian tendencies and policies they fear will cause the country to go in a negative direction. I don't think anyone is saying he's literally Hitler. It's true that no protest will stop him from becoming President, only a revolution, and that will never happen in America. The actual way is civil disobedience. If Trump decides to do something bad, all the Americans should go against it in whatever nonviolent way possible and deny cooperation. If no one consents to it, Trump won't have any real power. Obama basically said this tonight, behind layers of veil. And yes, people should be more politically involved. Voting should be frickin mandatory too, although that won't happen. Heck, in America you could just get people to vote by offering them a tax break. PB (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Trump is bad, but he's not as bad as Hitler that butthurt liberals are making him out to be. He's still going to be the American president. No protest is going to change that. No amount of whining is going to change that. People should get involved in their political system once Trump gets elected, it's more productive after all.—127.0.0.1
- It may not be possible to know what will happen, but we can get a pretty good idea of how it will turn out based on his public statements and who he's nominated and surrounded himself with. Guess who those are by the way? A mix of establishment Republicans and crazy right-wing racists and regards. Is that really so hard to analyze and make predictions based off of? I for one have plenty of predictions about a Trump presidency: he won't build the wall as he promised, he won't deport all the illegals, he'll keep parts of Obamacare, he'll engage in at least one major military action. I'm fairly confident of all those. PBfreespace (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I guess my point was missed completely? I clearly stated that you don't know what will happen. I don't and nobody else does, just because someone acts one way in public does not automatically mean they act the same in private. Another thing, do you want to become the group of people you hate? I guess Obama did absolutely nothing, ignore the civil rights advances for gays, ignore getting rid of Bin Laden, ignore improving federal regulations on businesses, just ignore all that. You cannot blame one person for everything; congress has a say in how things happen. I could argue every single previous President is at fault for everything for setting the stage for not so good Presidents. I don't like Trump but blaming him for everything when he is not even President does not help anybody. I guess Democrats have absolutely no impact on the current state of things.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just because a series of events happen does not mean the events will go in one direction, we still have congress making most choices. I am sure there are crazy Dems in the government who produce negative results just as bad as right wing nuts; just because someone might seem evil does not mean you cannot positively influence someone. Just because you don't like someone does not mean they won't do a bad job. You cannot blame a single part of a system when others work with it and have an impact. Just stop blaming a single person when congress makes most choices, not everything can be blamed on Trump. Trump will be President, you don't like it and I don't like it but too bad. I am not saying people are not allowed to have their views but those who support Trump have the right to their view, free speech is a two way street. Voice your opinions but realize the people you oppose have the right to their views, it does not make them bad people. $10 says that what I said will be taken out of context.— Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs
- "I am... [a] crazy...who....looks.....only for the bad in people"- CheeseburgerFace, 2017. If you can assume I adore Trump then I can assume you only look for the worst in people. Two can play at that game. Guess what, I have stated several times in the past I don't like Trump and I have little trust for him. Just because I am willing to give a person a chance does not mean I like said person. How about we stop with the mentality, "The President is the sole cause of government problems". I clearly stated democrats are acting like the people they hate and the fact that people have the right to their views. Thanks for the assumption though despite the fact you know nothing about me or how I think in person. Hell, it is possible that I have lied about my views the whole time but I know I have told the truth about my views because I hate lying. I really do, I put up with that shit from my dead beat father. That being said, can we be civil now and stop the assumptions? I respect your right to your views but I only tried to constructively debate your views, what do I get in return? Assumptions about my political thought. Lets start over and be civil, this was the only major insult other comparing the behavior of the left with how the right acted with Obama. Like I asked, do you want to become what you hate?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Do realize that my post was not me taking a jab at you, it was my (attempt) to be funny. I literally took words out of context to form a quote, note the last sentence in your post; at least I thought it was funny. If you read my post above, you might have known that I agree with your stance. Hopefully no hard feelings.—127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 05:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Do realize that my post was not me taking a jab at you, it was my (attempt) to be funny. I literally took words out of context to form a quote, note the last sentence in your post; at least I thought it was funny. If you read my post above, you might have known that I agree with your stance. Hopefully no hard feelings.—127.0.0.1
- "I am... [a] crazy...who....looks.....only for the bad in people"- CheeseburgerFace, 2017. If you can assume I adore Trump then I can assume you only look for the worst in people. Two can play at that game. Guess what, I have stated several times in the past I don't like Trump and I have little trust for him. Just because I am willing to give a person a chance does not mean I like said person. How about we stop with the mentality, "The President is the sole cause of government problems". I clearly stated democrats are acting like the people they hate and the fact that people have the right to their views. Thanks for the assumption though despite the fact you know nothing about me or how I think in person. Hell, it is possible that I have lied about my views the whole time but I know I have told the truth about my views because I hate lying. I really do, I put up with that shit from my dead beat father. That being said, can we be civil now and stop the assumptions? I respect your right to your views but I only tried to constructively debate your views, what do I get in return? Assumptions about my political thought. Lets start over and be civil, this was the only major insult other comparing the behavior of the left with how the right acted with Obama. Like I asked, do you want to become what you hate?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread. I admit, I am getting tired. It is about 1 am here in Michigan--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
RZ, you're showing yourself savvy. Here's what I'd recommend (FWIW): remain sceptical of Trump but not partisan (yet); focus on studying closely those Republicans and conservatives who were outspoken against Trump (Bill Kristol, Romney, McCain, Paul Ryan are the more high-profile, but there's numerous others) and take ques from them. When they become critical, join in the chorus without going over the top and identifying yourself as a partisan or Trump-hater. This is a two-pronged strategy, it targets both Trump & GOP divisions from the inside, rather than remaining a 'bitter-klinger' which doesn't evoke sympzthy from anybody. nobs 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- ...and whatever you do, don't forget to bring a return ticket before willfully entering the wonderful world of
whimsical wondernobs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)- Alternatively, a person could whine and complain til the Midterms only to get bitch-slapped by society all over again. Or they could occupy the time making money to avoid depression and thoughts of suicide. What other options are there? nobs 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Where "Society" means a minority of people defined by the stupidest and most over-empowered assholes? You're making it really goddamn tempting to say "gut trump supporters like fish and restore actual democracy" is good solution, nobs. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here's the problem, and I say this not as a partisan, but to help you. Right now Trump represents America. Trump has done nothing, absolutely nothing, yet. To disrespect him is seen by many people of all political stripes, inside America and outside America, is seen as being disrespectful of the whole country and its institutions. Take a breath. Wait. Wait till Trump makes a mistake that warrants criticism. Then your ideas and opinions carry weight. nobs 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- He's selected members of his cabinet and put forward people for various positions. It's not the same as being president, but it's not nothing. CorruptUser (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- But even the cabinet appointees have done nothing yet. Peopld are fallible, they make mistakes. And when a president makes a mistake - either intentionally or from stupidity - it has big consequences. You know it will happen probably sooner than later. This why we have free speech. When it does happen, people look for level headed solutions, and not bickering partisans with an axe to grind whose judgement is clouded by bias.
- Take the NATO deployment to Poland, for instance. The new commander in chief (actually Mike Flynn & Matthis, in reality) have no good choice here. Does Trump immediately order them to stand down to appease his stated goal of improved relations with Putin? Does he piss-off the Polish allies and others and scare them with a lack of confidence? This deployment flys in the face of his past statements about requiring allies to ante-up their share of the cost. What about budgetary concerns? This was expensive to put them there, and would be equally expensive to remove them. Or you can remove the manpower and leave all the expensive equipment behind. We will see very quickly how effective Trump as a delegator of national security is, cause he needs a pretty clear vision of objectives, and there's no readily clear good choice without infuriating some people and drawing massive criticism from somewhere. Alternatively, let's not "exclude genius from the rule", as Clausewitz said.
- There's much talk Trump is at war with the CIA. He maybe at war with the entire NATO establishment. Let's see how he and his band of generals, and Tillerson handle it. Tillerson's been in bed with Putin. Let's see if Putin likes golden showers from Tillerson, or Tillerson from Putin. We'll know soon enough. nobs 16:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not soon enough. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not soon enough. Щєазєюіδ
- He's selected members of his cabinet and put forward people for various positions. It's not the same as being president, but it's not nothing. CorruptUser (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here's the problem, and I say this not as a partisan, but to help you. Right now Trump represents America. Trump has done nothing, absolutely nothing, yet. To disrespect him is seen by many people of all political stripes, inside America and outside America, is seen as being disrespectful of the whole country and its institutions. Take a breath. Wait. Wait till Trump makes a mistake that warrants criticism. Then your ideas and opinions carry weight. nobs 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Where "Society" means a minority of people defined by the stupidest and most over-empowered assholes? You're making it really goddamn tempting to say "gut trump supporters like fish and restore actual democracy" is good solution, nobs. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alternatively, a person could whine and complain til the Midterms only to get bitch-slapped by society all over again. Or they could occupy the time making money to avoid depression and thoughts of suicide. What other options are there? nobs 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I gotta say, for me personally it's the fact that we have almost no idea what he's going to do that makes him so bad. We at least had some idea of what Clinton would do, even if it a lot of it was bad: more neoliberalism with a glass of progressive milk to help us stomach the burning. Hey, you could even get Clinton to change her mind on some of the bad things, and even keep it changed, if enough opinion polls came out showing she was out of touch with her base. With Trump, we had no idea what would cause him to change his mind day to day (heck, even minute to minute). One day he would be talking about religious tests to enter the country (probably unconstitutional) and two days later he would say it was just a ban on people from certain countries (legal... if done by congress). At the start of the press conference Russia hacked us and by the end it was probably someone else. In the morning you are at war with Eastasia, in the afternoon you are at war with Eurasia, and by the evening you are President! He somehow avoided getting labeled as a flip-flopper, because on any day he treats his historical positions as a "choose your own adventure". That is dangerous for our future. Shadow of Lords talk 14:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- If Trump were to come out for single payer, which is entirely realistic and possible, the Trump-haters then would be stuck in the embarassing position of trying to walk back all their hate and divisive rhetoric which may not be possible, or exposed as the nonsensensical partisan frauds they are. And you're absolutely right about not knowing whst he's gonna fo. It's the oldest negotiating tactic in the book - keep 'em guessing. Once a negotiator's antagonist knows what you want or will satisfy you, you loose control of the price and your opponent will stand firm on their price. nobs 12:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I genuinely hope this discussion doesn't derail completely[edit]
in themselves and others, to abstain from jonanism, and to read all others' comments with the principle of charity in mind. Thanks in advance.- Despite the stupid thumbnail, this particular video (by King Crocoduck, a YouTuber I just found tonight) is actually not your typical, cringeworthy "SJW"-bashing video. I can't stand those type of gloat-filled STEMlord videos, myself (for obvious reasons). But this exact video does indeed adress a genuine form of apparent pseudoscientific irrationality:
- A warm recommendation is that you pause and read when study abstracts are shown. I find that their specifics are important to the point he's making.
- To provide some of my own initial criticisms of the video up front: I'm going to be the first to point out that this video really shouldn't have been so centered around that one girl at that seminar. Thankfully, the vast majority of the discussion in the video focuses on the situation in general, and not on any one particular instance of drama (which is, in part, why I'm bringing this video up for discussion at all).
- Further, I certainly can't recommend that other guy he mentions in the video, who seems more your typical Thunderfart-esque antifeminist (and who also seems to hold some truly weird views on "male role models in the classroom" and ADHD denialism). I sort that stuff under "crank", myself — possibly far right crank.
- I also think that the superflous slippery slope argument given at the very last second of the video is unconvincing; I don't see "postmodernists" (or whatever these people are) throwing anyone in jail, anymore than I see astrologers throwing people in jail. But that's beside the point, I suppose — he was just linking back to his discussion on Lysenkoism, methinks.
- The point about pseudoscience slowly establishing an ever-growing bridgehead in society if we let it is real, though. As Carl Sagan so poetically put it:
“”I worry that, especially as the millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us — then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.
|
- But ignoring the specific weak points of the video itself (and indeed, its relative nearness in subject focus to that of various deplorable internet subcultures), I find that this particular video has something to say that is most relevant to anyone interested in the gray zone between science and pseudoscience.
- And by the way: please don't reply without first having actually viewed the video in question. Rehearsal of your preconceptions is the last thing anyone is interested in reading, I assure you.
- What are your thoughts? Perhaps not on the actual video itself, so much as on the dangers inherent in any and all forms of anti-science that manage to gain popularity (never mind in actual academia)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Their beliefs weren't challenged in that room, because as many Conniseurs of this video will gleefully point out, it was said in a safe space. I highly doubt that the actual academics on this school will not tear them a new one. I do not know if that particular belief is widespread in South Africa but i guess that is what education is about.
- About anti science in higher Education: I know a lot of people from highschool(the german variant wich is like a University lite) who would fight you about nuclear power. not because they reject it outright but because our Society is pretty anti nuclear. A Physics student had my back, and we agreed that the Industry is to blame not the Science.
- Therefore i am confident that the people in the video had a talk with other people and may have changed their minds. And unless proven otherwise (like a follow up video) i will believe that students no matter where they hail from are willing to challenge their beliefs.
- In addition: I cannot find a source of "uct science faculty meets with fallists" that isn't a liberal bashing anti-SJW hate diaterie. Another thing is that it is an instance of nutpicking sciencemustfall from a group of students that protests student fees in South Africa. Yes they believe stupid shit, but only right wing nutjobs seem to make a big deal out of it.(hurr durr only in africa) --Benaresh (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, I would just like to mention that I only watched the first half of the video. This due to me being far too hungover to focus on anything for more than a two minutes.
- But on to my criticism of the video. I think that it can be summarized by one word nutpicking. Videos like this propagates, intentionally or unintentionally, that anti scientific views are the norm in feminism and much of sociology. This is simply not the case. The girl who said that we should restart science from an African perspective and the woman who said that Principia Mathematica is a rape manual are colossal idiots. But their views are not accepted by mainstream academic feminism.
- I would argue that the propagation of the notion that anti scientific views are held by mainstream feminists is far more detrimental to society that the anti scientific views held by a very small and ridiculous group of feminists. This notion illegitimizes feminism and stifles constructive debate and effort to counter social injustice. This holds especially true for issues concerning inequality within the scientific communities. A lack of diversity within the scientific community is a real issue and is rooted in the current hedgemony within the STEM community. TheGrandmother (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I always find that people treating "feminism" as if it were one, single monolithic thing is a huge problem. The very term "feminism" is really as broad and diverse as the term "politics" is (for all intents and purposes). I believe the video does point out (in the part after you stopped watching xD) that that girl actually subscribes to critical race theory (and not to "feminism", as such). She proceeds to claim that — while empirical science is false, due to the people practicing it having the "wrong" skin color — local variety traditional shamanism, which purports to summon lightning strikes using magic spells, is actually a real thing. That's how off-target her views actually are. Now, while she's just a random student (who should not be persecuted), and while it's anyone's right to be wrong (especially at university, which is the right place to explore ideas, even crazy ones), the fact still remains that she is wrong. The mainstream aside, her views certainly amount to near-Creationism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
A call to all sysops[edit]
Pretty please with sugar on top: help us patrol edits. I've just sat down to patrol maybe 50 edits (some of which were vandalism that'd otherwise slipped through — yikes), and this is how many edits still remain unpatrolled, just in the last 30 days. It's very important that we not leave large amounts of drive-by edits unpatrolled. So, give us a hand whenever you're able. Thanks a million, anyways — I appreciate your time and your efforts, everyone 
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I will take some of my time to patrol pages for vandals, not a problem--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Appreciate it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Appreciate it!
- Reversed at least 5 of these drive-by's and i will continue to do so. Can i get a cookie for being a little bit helpful? --Benaresh (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! There's a good buddy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks!
The Reddit fallacy bot[edit]
So, who should be thrown in the tigers' enclosure for this abomination? — Unsigned, by: ZooGuard / talk / contribs
- I recognize that text and that symbol... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- No regrets! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 14:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Big Brother is always watching! And he's obsessed with logical fallacies, which is somehow worse" You are a weapons-grade source of cringe, Fuzzy.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- If anything, the problem nowadays isn't that people can't recognize logical fallacies, it's they overapply them to sentiments that were never intended to be purely logical, and think it makes them "win" arguments. If I have to put up with one more "You called that Nazi an idiot, that's an adhom, thus nazis are clearly the more logical ones" post on the internet... holy hell, I might just kill someone. Just no. This was a bad idea fuzzy, and it's very redditlike. It's kinda everything I hate about reddit argumentation: sanctimoniously "explaining" things that are already well-understood by everyone already involved, boiled down into one bot. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Aah, don't pick on the guy. But you have a point about people (who are generally not logicians) playing fallacies like it's a card game. Can't we find a happy medium — like making the bot link exclusively to the fallacy fallacy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll leave the tuber alone, but I think the fallacy fallacy doesn't really cover the problem I've really seen with internet fallacy abuse: namely that they're applied to non-syllogistic assertions. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone raise an ad hominem objection to a "You're X so you're wrong about Y" in a way where it really applies. I have seen it more times than I can count to people angry about being called names. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- *shrug* The goal isn't really to explain fallacies, since most people who use the term probably don't need a definition. Instead the goal is to let people easily call out misused fallacies, instead of arguing over which Google result is the best interpretation of "appeal to authority".
- @ZooGuard: Hey, it's no worse than most RationalWiki "tongue-in-cheek" """humor""" :P Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Anything that gets us readers is fine too (and an appreciated effort). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll leave the tuber alone, but I think the fallacy fallacy doesn't really cover the problem I've really seen with internet fallacy abuse: namely that they're applied to non-syllogistic assertions. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone raise an ad hominem objection to a "You're X so you're wrong about Y" in a way where it really applies. I have seen it more times than I can count to people angry about being called names. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Aah, don't pick on the guy. But you have a point about people (who are generally not logicians) playing fallacies like it's a card game. Can't we find a happy medium — like making the bot link exclusively to the fallacy fallacy?
- If anything, the problem nowadays isn't that people can't recognize logical fallacies, it's they overapply them to sentiments that were never intended to be purely logical, and think it makes them "win" arguments. If I have to put up with one more "You called that Nazi an idiot, that's an adhom, thus nazis are clearly the more logical ones" post on the internet... holy hell, I might just kill someone. Just no. This was a bad idea fuzzy, and it's very redditlike. It's kinda everything I hate about reddit argumentation: sanctimoniously "explaining" things that are already well-understood by everyone already involved, boiled down into one bot. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Big Brother is always watching! And he's obsessed with logical fallacies, which is somehow worse"
- No regrets! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 14:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Cancer woo[edit]
Does this merit an article? The dying officer treated for cancer with baking soda Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- We've got this, Alkaline diet. Maybe expand a cancer woo section there? Petey Plane (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, expand the alkaline diet article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Off topic. One thing I (as a complete layman on medicine) wonder haphazardly about frequent use of antacids is: do they increase the likelihood of digestive track infections, ulcers and the like? Like, do hostile bacteria experience substantially higher stress in low pH environments like stomach acid? Does consuming tums(or worse, baking soda) represent a real morbidity increase? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- This might be the droid you're looking for. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is indeed exactly where my thoughts strayed. C. Diff too. Terrifying. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- This might be the droid you're looking for. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Off topic. One thing I (as a complete layman on medicine) wonder haphazardly about frequent use of antacids is: do they increase the likelihood of digestive track infections, ulcers and the like? Like, do hostile bacteria experience substantially higher stress in low pH environments like stomach acid? Does consuming tums(or worse, baking soda) represent a real morbidity increase? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, expand the alkaline diet article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
InfoWars gets punked by actual fake news[edit]
A Scotsman pranked IW into writing and publishing a fake story based completely on an anonymous 20 minute Twitter conversation with editor Paul Joseph Watson. https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/this-guy-tricked-infowars-into-publishing-a-completely-fake
and the story is still up on IW. http://www.infowars.com/report-cnnbuzzfeed-to-release-damaging-new-trump-tape-48-hours-before-inauguration/. According to the BF article, Paul Joseph Watson also fowarded the story directly to Steve Bannon. This gives me some ideas... Petey Plane (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- AHA! Just as I suspected, the mainstream media is trying to undermine us telling the truth by feeding us lies to repost. When anything can be a conspiracy if you want it to be, you're spared the difficulty of ever having been wrong. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Psssst! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't see that. Petey Plane (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Anti-Trump protests[edit]
Are any of y'all joining any of the Women's Marches or other protests taking place around inauguration day next week? I may be at the Women's March on London. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- The coalescing narrative coming into being is, the Democratic party has abandoned Trump opposition and can't be relied on in the near future to lead it, leaving opposition to the mob. Here's a caveat: the Tea Party & birthers didn't disrupt Obama's 15 minutes in the sun during his inaugural; the level of resentment these protestors intend to generate could be very problematic going forward. nobs 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- The plan is actually to not disrupt the inauguration, just boycott/ignore it. The women's march is scheduled for the next day. So what you're saying is BS. There was no question about the legitimacy of Obama's election except among racists (birtherists). Trump on the other hand can't open his mouth without insinuating the Russians did it. The Democrats (apparently in coordination with non-Democrat Bernie) for what it's worth scheduled nationwide protests to keep the ACA tomorrow (Jan. 14). Protesting the destruction of ACA too loudly might be a mistake, as it might be the only thing that would flip the red states in the next election, barring overt Russian blackmailing. Bongolian (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just talking about inauguration day. While I've heard much discussion how Trump opponents need to study the Tea Party tactics, that's all well and good. But for the one day - inauguration day - they ought to just back off and let the Trump people celebrate. Nobody disrespected Obama on his big day. nobs 04:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Massive anti Obama rally on Obamas inauguration-day Leuders (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's an invalid comparison. That was 2012, when Obama had a record to run on. And after Obama told his KGB masters in the Kremlin, "after the election I'll have more flexibility" to sell out the Crimea, the Ukrainians, the Syrians, allow Russia to help Iran build nukes, etc. nobs 13:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Massive anti Obama rally on Obamas inauguration-day Leuders (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is a rare moment I actually agree with nobs, I am shocked that I am actually typing this.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The only people who have suggested disrupting the inauguration was a right-wing false flag operation. Hipocrite (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I dunno. Comet Ping Plng is back in the news. nobs 07:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, deceptive editing caught again - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLAPzjLjK4k Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like anti Trump is international. This Femen protest on MAdrid has the catchy slogan:“Grab patriarchy by the balls”.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- To me that sounds like the poster child for the term slacktivism. It may make the demonstrators feel good, but unless they're thinking they can actually stop the Cheetoh from being sworn in as president it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Especially here in my parts, New England, people are considering doing it as a badge of honor to prove... something, I guess, I don't know since the area is so thoroughly anti-Trump (lots of our Republicans are the sane kinds, we had Christopher Shays in my parts for many years!) it means nothing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nationwide protests help visually disprove Trump's "fake polls" conspiracy that's supposedly responsible for his miserably low approval rating. Leuders (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No,
- Nationwide protests help visually disprove Trump's "fake polls" conspiracy that's supposedly responsible for his miserably low approval rating. Leuders (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- To me that sounds like the poster child for the term slacktivism. It may make the demonstrators feel good, but unless they're thinking they can actually stop the Cheetoh from being sworn in as president it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Especially here in my parts, New England, people are considering doing it as a badge of honor to prove... something, I guess, I don't know since the area is so thoroughly anti-Trump (lots of our Republicans are the sane kinds, we had Christopher Shays in my parts for many years!) it means nothing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like anti Trump is international. This Femen protest on MAdrid has the catchy slogan:“Grab patriarchy by the balls”.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The only people who have suggested disrupting the inauguration was a right-wing false flag operation. Hipocrite (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just talking about inauguration day. While I've heard much discussion how Trump opponents need to study the Tea Party tactics, that's all well and good. But for the one day - inauguration day - they ought to just back off and let the Trump people celebrate. Nobody disrespected Obama on his big day. nobs 04:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand the Americans who will show their "Not in My Name"-style protests as a sort of counterweight to the Trump festivities. However, in terms of actual damage to Trump's image, I think that the long list of rejections to attend his event will actually be more effective. However, the downside to both of these initiatives is that they may strengthen the Kafka'esque image of Trump as an outsider and underdog, despite his privileged background and close links to the political establishment. The demonstrations abroad, by contrast, I see in the same slacktivism'ish perspective as TBotNL above (not quite, as they as least bother to physically attend a demonstration, rather than like/dislike Facebook posts or signing digital petitions). I view these demonstrations abroad as an easy piece of performance theatre, considering that Trump is extremely unpopular and disliked in most of the European countries in which you're likely to see these happenings. Being against Trump is thus as daring as the fundie Christians in the US who promote themselves as extremely edgy and Jesus as "controversial". ScepticWombat (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be daring, edgy or controversial. The point is to show that Trump, & the values he represents, are unwelcome, & he's coming into office as the most unpopular US president ever. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
We need a pet conspiracy theory we can all believe in at rationalwiki.[edit]
I struggled for a while coming up with a branch of science no one has already seriously denied: Gravity? nope, flat earthers. Geology? Creationists. Germ theory? Whole article about that. Relativity? Conservapedia. Chemistry? The anti-vaxxers and "chemicals" crowd. Neuroscience? Deepak Chopra.
And then it hit me. I could be a photosynthesis denialist. Plants get their energy from the wind and the tides, not "photosynthesis". Let's be honest, has anyone seen carbon dioxide turn into sugar? Of course not. You can leave a CO2 canister on your kitchen table for DAYS, and when you pour it on your oatmeal, it still tastes bland.
Some "Scientists" say that the process also requires water, (stupid scientists changing their stories all the time), so I set a glass of water next to the CO2 tank, and guess what? Still no sugar.
Points that prove me right:
- Plants don't need energy. They just sit there. Why would that take energy. They don't need any.
- Plants get all the energy they need from the motion of water. That's why you'll see so many of them along river banks.
- Photosynthesis supposedly depends on the so-called "Calvin Cycle" and all the Calvinists in history doing terrible things prove how dangerous that thought process is.
- The Calvinists claim that photosynthesis produces oxygen. So they make air, but the planet already had to have air to keep CO2 in, so where did the air come from?
ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why not just use the 'ol dihydrogen monoxide staple?
- http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
- It's fun become it's a troll based conspiracy, much like the original "truther" troll (before it snowballed out of control). --Onideus (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I like it. It's at least as good as DHMO. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, naturally, because it's true. Think about how once motors and electricity were discovered, food crops started producing so much more per man-hour. It's obviously because we could turn the water-wheels of our plants better. Don't get bamboozled by big-sunlight. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Who should the conspirators be? I think it should be a coalition of energy companies and big banks (with subtle Jew-baiting) who don't want us to discover free plant energy. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Big water" who wants to keep prices up(to several cents a gallon) by saying that water they're dumping on the ground is somehow producing food. Big agra plays along for kickbacks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Big Water is trying to buy up all India's water resources and resell it to them in bottles. nobs 13:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Big water" who wants to keep prices up(to several cents a gallon) by saying that water they're dumping on the ground is somehow producing food. Big agra plays along for kickbacks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Who should the conspirators be? I think it should be a coalition of energy companies and big banks (with subtle Jew-baiting) who don't want us to discover free plant energy. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We seem to be already endorsing the "Big Science" conspiracy that a lot of nuts believe in. Petey Plane (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Do we? I'm dubious. There is such a thing as pay-for-results science. It's uncommon, but extant. Anyone positing that here is certainly not saying there's a "big science" in that science isn't a unified group out to squash plucky little theories. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I meant dummies, in general, who find the entire scientific method dubious. I think we have a few pages on people who believe the Scientific Method™ itself is a conspiracy (guys like Theodore Shoebat) Petey Plane (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
| nothing from this part onwards is fun or interesting |
|---|
|
Dry ice is solid CO2. Yet mixing with pure water, even exposed to sunlight, won't produce sugar. WAKE UP SHEEPLE! CorruptUser (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Time for a 3rd Party in the 2020 Presidential Election! So sick of Republicans and Democrats![edit]
Both are acting like spoiled brats. The Republicans had some really crazy protestors with a kindergarten level education and only partly working brains during Obama and the Democrats also have crazy protestors who seem to be brainwashed into thinking Trump is the next Hitler. I don't like Trump but I seriously doubt he is the next Hitler (Okay, there are some similar elements to their rise of power. Correlation does not mean causation however), it is not like he is saying, "Exterminate Mexicans, Jews, or anyone else". Yes Trump has a huge ego and is a creepy womanizer but there have been worse Presidents. Also, I did not like George Bush Jr. or Obama also; okay, the last three years my approval of Obama went down but outside that he was a fairly decent President. However, I am sick of the Right and Left stupidity! Yes this is a long rant but besides me- Who else is voting 3rd party 2020?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not I. Vote Democrat and push them to reform from FPTP. Then you can talk about 3rd parties, IMO. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- RZ, see the two videos embedded here. There can't be a third party success in the US until FPTP is abolished there. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- What is FPTP? TheGrandmother (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Check out the two embedded videos in the link I gave above — FPTP stands for "First Past The Post", and it is literally one of the most important single factor reasons as to why the US political arena looks the way it does today. I kid you not — it's really that important (right up there among the primary determinants). After checking out those videos, read more about it here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- What is FPTP? TheGrandmother (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- There exists another party!!! TheGrandmother (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yup... And sadly, it can basically never be an option as long as FPTP is in place. It's a mathematical fact of FPTP :/ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
We need a truly progressive candidate, but he/she needs to be tough on race and islam. — Unsigned, by: GreatPerson / talk / contribs
- Tough on race? Explain. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Black people commit more crime, have more abortions, higher teen pregnancy rates and higher STD rates. We need a candidate acknowledging these facts about the black community before shouting "black lives matter".— Unsigned, by: GreatPerson / talk / contribs
- Ever heard of socioeconomics? Besides, men commit essentially all crime (and teenage pregnancy would be eradicated the moment men stopped causing it). By your logic, we need a candidate who "acknowledges" that fact, right? Because conveniently scapegoating extremely broad groups of diverse people over very complex issues is so integral to justice, no? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- (1) Assuming blacks commit more crime, it's becsuse they are victims of the nanny state, the Democratic party, and Big Gubmint, and they have not learned the virtues of personal responsibility & rugged individualism. (2) Men commiting more crime shows how the system is rigged against men, and the entire judicial system and welfare state was designed to fuck men over and protect women's rights.
- As I see it, the traditional left-right paradigm has gone done in smoke and flames, but Republican and Democratic parties will survive as bureauratic vehicles to carry whatever competing ideological fads emerge and dominate. nobs 13:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- ...that's two more for the hall of fame. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "the entire judicial system and welfare state was designed to fuck men over and protect women's rights" You know, that system was created and is (overwhelmingly) enforced by men. Petey Plane (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- ...that's two more for the hall of fame. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
CorruptUser (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I thought nobs was our pet troll that we feed for fun and amusement. Petey Plane (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe we have a 2nd one?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, i now see the was for User:GreatPerson. No, we probably only need one pet troll. Petey Plane (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, i now see the
- Maybe we have a 2nd one?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting, I mention supporting a 3rd party and a racist troll pops up. What I am calling for is a leader who can unite the American people and take a middle ground on issues.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Trumps your man. A pro-abortion pro-LGBT pro-Social Security RINO elected by the Tea Party. nobs 13:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting, I mention supporting a 3rd party and a racist troll pops up. What I am calling for is a leader who can unite the American people and take a middle ground on issues.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Parody Idea[edit]
Someone needs to make a website that makes fun of the Institute for Creation Research, call it the "Institute for Asgard Research" and it will provide "scientific evidence" of a literal interpretation of Norse Mythology. Have it with everything- PRATTs, parody scientists, List of Norse Myth Creation Scientists, twisting around scientific research, God of the Gaps argument and everything else (Christian) creationists say. I think it would be a funny idea to make fun of creationists.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hehe. It's one of those things that would fatally stand and fall on the execution, though. Maybe attempt a funspace article about it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
A podcast relevant to RW's original mission.[edit]
It's about goat testicles. Kinda. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome back however temporarily. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
How would you rate Obama's presidency?[edit]
I believed he improved health care reforms and minority rights for Americans, however he did not close Guantánamo Bay and America was heavily involved in the wars in the Middle East. I would rate him average just below Clinton, but well ahead of the Bushes.Cms13ca 22:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Below Clinton? You know Clinton also bombed a number of nations in the general propagation of American hegemony, right? You gotta go way, way, waaaaaaaaaaay, back to find a US president who didn't make some kind of major strike. I guess you could argue Carter's attack on Iran was genuinely defensive in that it was to recover an attacked embassy, but it's a stretch, given his sign-off on a bunch of CIA-led bullshit around the same time. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rating presidents by foreign affairs alone seems like a poor measure. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rating presidents on what seems to be a perfectly linear scale seems terrible in general. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rating presidents by foreign affairs alone seems like a poor measure. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On the plus side, he pardoned hundreds of nonviolent drug offenders, made good court nominations that led to gay marriage, saved the auto industry, prevented a full-blown financial collapse, slightly improved the healthcare system, put the US on a footing to withdraw combat troops from the Middle East, and set the stage for legal marijuana.
On the other hand, he gave the bankers billions with no strings attached, expanded NSA spying, went after whistleblowers, did thousands of unconstitutional drone strikes, killed US citizens without trial, supplied Islamists who ruined Syria and Iraq, smashed Libya into pieces, failed to get gun control passed, and did such a bad job as president that a bumbling fascist maniac succeeded him.
Overall I'd say that's a 67. In American grades, that's almost passing but still failing. PBfreespace (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Out of ten I would give Obama a 6.5. Not going to mention why but that is my rating. For Bush Jr, I would give a 5.5 out of 10; Bush Sr. I have no idea because I was not even born when he was President--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obama signed 1200 legislative bills into law, less than the one term failed presidencies of Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush voted out of office. Incapable of consensus building and bipartisanship. nobs 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fuck off Nobs. Unless you get to the why of that is, you're being a lying asshole. Do you want to be a dishonest piece of shit? Do you really? Is this "point" really worth your integrity? Really? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why the fuck would you get to insult people on a site based on constructive dialogue ? Diacelium (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Because there's a definite line between quietly ignoring small details and purposefully overlooking reality to make a "point". Nobs could have not been an intellectually dishonest ass there. It would have been easy. I'd rather someone think about whether their personal integrity is important to them than be unnecessarily polite. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why the fuck would you get to insult people on a site based on constructive dialogue ? Diacelium (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fuck off Nobs. Unless you get to the why of that is, you're being a lying asshole. Do you want to be a dishonest piece of shit? Do you really? Is this "point" really worth your integrity? Really? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obama signed 1200 legislative bills into law, less than the one term failed presidencies of Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush voted out of office. Incapable of consensus building and bipartisanship. nobs 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lets take it easy and start over with out insults, alright.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not particularly inclined to do that. I think might point relied more than a little on how vile he was being in his dishonesty. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point is, Obama fundamentally is more of a advocate than a negotiator or legislator. He has taken sides for special interests and functioned less than an independent mediator or broker. nobs 07:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not particularly inclined to do that. I think might point relied more than a little on how vile he was being in his dishonesty. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lets take it easy and start over with out insults, alright.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Rating Obama is entirely contingent on how much blame you lay at his feet for the entirely dysfunctional Congresses of the past six years. I am inclined to assign him very little blame for that. He served as head of state with class and aplomb. Still, he governed as a centrist Democrat and did not move the nation past Clintonism. He put Hillary Clinton into his administration, and so contributed to the Democrats' defeat in a difficult year. His health care plan was a start, but flawed by leaving too big a place at the table for health insurance companies. His foreign policy was rather haphazard, but we still have not stopped being Netanyahu's enabler despite the conflicts between him and Obama; we mucked up Libya, and spent money in Syria without anything gained. (I don't have issues with drone strikes on terrorists, collateral damage is inevitable, and I don't care what passports the terrorists own.) B-. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I place some sort of blame on Obama, when the Democrats controlled congress for the first two years of the Obama presidency nothing still got done; I don't blame Obama 100% but I feel he lacked a spine to put his foot down.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Trump Conspiracies[edit]
How soon should the conspiracy page be created - Putin' poodle etc. 86.191.125.203 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have trouble with it because there's some real, substantiated evidence of deep Putin-Trump ties in the mix of not-actually-true things people tend to say. It would help if we could start with the most outlandish bullshit, and then gradually include the more difficult-to-assess things that people use to prop up the outlandish stuff.
- Like on a scale of "Putin-attached oligarchs provided substantial capital to Donald Trump's businesses after he got blackballed by US banks" well-substantiated claims to "Putin hacked the election and changed votes" pretty much no evidence, there's a lot of shit I don't know what end to categorize it in.
- Kinda like there was a range of "Bush created/allowed 9/11 to support the Iraq war" to "Businesses closely associated with Dick Cheney got high end no-bid contracts".
- I don't know BoN, what's the most egregiously fact-separated trumspiracy theory, according to you? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a terrible idea in-and-of-itself, but it's a little premature. Like ikanreed said, Russian directly hacking of voting machines is really the only one that doesn't have any real substance to it, so a "Donald Trump Conspiracies" page would be something of a stub at this point. Petey Plane (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, maybe there's more than just the one? So far there's no Jade Helm-esque "business-as-usual-is-secretly-plot" kinda stuff on my radar. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I despise the guy, but i have no doubt there will be plenty of baseless conspiracies about him after 4 years. BON, if you are trying to compare his treatment to that of Obama's, it's not like there is a "Obama Conspiracies" page either. Those that do exist are about specific examples (i.e. Birtherism). Petey Plane (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- The breakdown of how we got here:
- Case 1:
- Trump:
Mentions Russia in speech.Trump makes a statement that leans towards threatening Hillary with Russian hackers. - Media: Trump threatened Hillary with Russian hackers.
- Trump:
- Case 2:
- Ballots were hacked and show an IP address originating from Russia.
- Media: Obviously Russian hackers.
- Case 3:
- Trump compliments Putin a lot on Twitter
- Media: Trump and Putin have a thing.
- Case 4:
- BuzzFeed receives an unverified document that Trump had relations with Russia.
- Media: Fake news!
- Media: Real news!
- Just nonsense.
- I've heard the "Russian hacker" term for years and I cringe every time I heard it; Russians aren't the only hackers in the damn world. the United States isn't goody two shoes, it hacks too.
- An IP address from Russia doesn't mean anything. If Russians are such 1337 hackers, do you really think they would execute an attack with their real IP and/or an IP from their country of origin? No, that's just fucking stupid. Hackers use a shell or proxy from another country so they won't be prosecuted ffs.
- As for Putin and Trump relation, that's probably the most possible one out there, but it's still speculation.—127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 02:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- This page would be useful IMO. Bettre to nip conspiracies in the bud than try (and fail) to run damage control. (Besides, we already have a fun page.)
- Aside: You're remarkably ungenerous towards the media and overgenerous towards Trump. For example, Trump encouraged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 05:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato You have a point for the Trump threatening Hillary deal, it's less amibigous than I thought.—127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 21:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Even if we disregard the "conspiracy theories" (i.e. things that intelligence experts are taking seriously & that the Senate is currently investigating), we know from his own statements & tweets that Trump is pro-Russia, anti-China, anti-UN, anti-NATO, anti-EU — positions that are often going to put him side-by-side with Putin & against many other world leaders. Unless Trump's government somehow manages to overrule him on foreign policy issues, we can expect a lot of discontinuity in international relations. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 14:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Weasel: be fair now, being pro-NATO reform is not anti-NATO. It's badly needed, and what's been lacking for decades is leadership on the issue. Meanwhile a coterie of the military industrial complex in the West have exploited crony capitalism and failed to keep pace with the tactics and threats of modern warfare. nobs 16:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato You have a point for the Trump threatening Hillary deal, it's less amibigous than I thought.—127.0.0.1
- I despise the guy, but i have no doubt there will be plenty of baseless conspiracies about him after 4 years. BON, if you are trying to compare his treatment to that of Obama's, it's not like there is a "Obama Conspiracies" page either. Those that do exist are about specific examples (i.e. Birtherism). Petey Plane (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, maybe there's more than just the one? So far there's no Jade Helm-esque "business-as-usual-is-secretly-plot" kinda stuff on my radar. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a terrible idea in-and-of-itself, but it's a little premature. Like ikanreed said, Russian directly hacking of voting machines is really the only one that doesn't have any real substance to it, so a "Donald Trump Conspiracies" page would be something of a stub at this point. Petey Plane (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's see how the Tillerson nomination and proposed Rekyavik Summit play out. nobs 13:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I know that we haven't seen Trump's tax returns - but there is a far more important document that doesn't seem to have come to light. Has Trump ever produced his real birth certificate? I have read on the internet that he was really born in Russia. Furthermore, Trump has never denied this.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Trump Inauguration Thread[edit]
Well folks, it's almost here. This thread is for comments before, during, and after Trump's inauguration. Grab a drink, a goat, and let's talk about this. Humor welcomed and encouraged. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thousands of Americans will die of preventable disease ayyy lmao Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Efforts to preserve the natural habitat of humans will be set back by 10 years ayyy lmao --Benaresh (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Clinton won't be invading Yemen or Syria at KSA's request ayyyy lmao :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Millions of people will get deported back to hell ayyy lmao. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The return to power of Mongolia starts today (not least because it is very far away and does not draw attention to itself). 86.146.99.110 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The head of the US nuclear stockpile didn't know he would be head of the nuclear stockpile until the day of his conformation hearing ayy lmao. Petey Plane (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The head of HUD believes the Great Pyramids were used as grain silos ayy lmao. Petey Plane (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Three y's in "ayyy", you f**king plebe. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- A quick GIS will show you how wrong you are, f**king normie! Petey Plane (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Grammar like that is why Trump won. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you hate freedom? Petey Plane (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Grammar like that is why Trump won. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yellowstone, open your mouth and speak to us.
Uytakhoo, open your mouth and speak to us.
Wy'east, open your mouth and speak to us.
Kwelshan, open your mouth and speak to us.
Tacoma, open your mouth and speak to us. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- A quick GIS will show you how wrong you are, f**king normie! Petey Plane (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Three y's in "ayyy", you f**king plebe. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The head of HUD believes the Great Pyramids were used as grain silos ayy lmao. Petey Plane (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The head of the US nuclear stockpile didn't know he would be head of the nuclear stockpile until the day of his conformation hearing ayy lmao. Petey Plane (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The return to power of Mongolia starts today (not least because it is very far away and does not draw attention to itself). 86.146.99.110 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Millions of people will get deported back to hell ayyy lmao. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Clinton won't be invading Yemen or Syria at KSA's request ayyyy lmao :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Efforts to preserve the natural habitat of humans will be set back by 10 years ayyy lmao --Benaresh (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Say what you will of Rick Perry, but the idea he didn't know the Secretary of Energy was in charge of nuclear weapons is utter horseshit. Setting aside the fact that all of said weapons go through an inspection facility in Texas, he referenced nuclear power and weapons a month before even receiving a nomination. The source for said claim failed Journalism 101 and it was an utter disgrace that it ever saw daylight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rick Perry is an idiot, but nobody can be that much of an idiot. I hope. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- What the heck is going on in you're country guise Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- The alt-right is happening a.k.a. a bunch of angry white people. Have funk, yanks.—127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 19:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I wish I knew, Reverend. I also wish I could live in Denmark so I didn't have to deal with this s**t. But still... yeah. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Trump's keeping on a bunch of Obama holdovers, who of coarse were neocon holdovers from Baby Bush. Trump's at war with himself. More hope and change. The last two president's who challenged the CIA and Washington establishment - JFK when he threatened to scatter the CIA to the four winds, and Nixon when he asked for the entire US government Executive Branch's resignations after his landslide 1972 win - the one got carried home in box from Dallas and the other they impeached his ass. Neither finished their terms or agenda. Trump has been apprised. nobs 15:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- In perhaps a less, interesting, interpretation, Jimmy Carter challenged Congress because of Watergate, and ended up unable to do anything. People don't like being called corrupt then being expected to help. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Carter's problem, like Obama, was he was too much of a pacifist and idealist. The job, unfortunately, requires getting your hands dirty. It's how a person deals with the burdens on their conscience. We have many great examples, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Ike. Others become torrmented likie Lyndon Johnson, Nixon or Baby Bush. It's the cold, callous, unconcerned, calculating ones we need to be fearful of, like Papa Bush, Hillary, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Mugabe, Che, etc. nobs 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- In perhaps a less, interesting, interpretation, Jimmy Carter challenged Congress because of Watergate, and ended up unable to do anything. People don't like being called corrupt then being expected to help. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Trump's keeping on a bunch of Obama holdovers, who of coarse were neocon holdovers from Baby Bush. Trump's at war with himself. More hope and change. The last two president's who challenged the CIA and Washington establishment - JFK when he threatened to scatter the CIA to the four winds, and Nixon when he asked for the entire US government Executive Branch's resignations after his landslide 1972 win - the one got carried home in box from Dallas and the other they impeached his ass. Neither finished their terms or agenda. Trump has been apprised. nobs 15:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- The alt-right is happening a.k.a. a bunch of angry white people. Have funk, yanks.—127.0.0.1
- What the heck is going on in you're country guise
Lest we forget[edit]
Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- And for the people who don't know what are the alternatives, a remainder that Senegalese troops are about to enter Gambia to remove the former president who refuses to cede power after losing the election.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
So... Discord server?[edit]
What would you guys feel about us having a Discord server? Could be another realm of fun and derp we can go to go to that isn't Facebook! TheMyon (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I use Discord and could help set bots and stuff up. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think the RMF will be setting up anything official like that; but sure, it could be fun to sit on discord with the "right" people. And I don't mean that in a dicky way; I just couldn't handle a VOIP version of the drive-by trolling we get here. It'd turn into Radio Graffiti pretty fast (in which case I practically may or may not turn into Ghostler). Still... S'a fun idea, I suppose. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- You can set up various permissions and so on to prevent that. For instance, some rooms have a 'foyer' area for new people where they have to be confirmed to access the rest of the server. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Kewl. Again — could be fun! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Shiny new thing! The server has been created, now that Rev. Black Percy has given approval. If you want to join and add more goat to it, here's a link: (Unofficial) RationalWiki Discord Server TheMyon (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- "RBP has given approval"? Hah — I was quote mined! ...Jokes aside though; neat! And I do think it might be fun. Depends on a lot of factors, but I can't knock it 'til I've tried it, I have to admit. Nice of you to set things up, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- "RBP has given approval"? Hah — I was quote mined! ...Jokes aside though; neat! And I do think it might be fun. Depends on a lot of factors, but I can't knock it 'til I've tried it, I have to admit. Nice of you to set things up, anyways.
- Shiny new thing! The server has been created, now that Rev. Black Percy has given approval. If you want to join and add more goat to it, here's a link: (Unofficial) RationalWiki Discord Server TheMyon (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Kewl. Again — could be fun! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- You can set up various permissions and so on to prevent that. For instance, some rooms have a 'foyer' area for new people where they have to be confirmed to access the rest of the server. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why not a slack channel? IT is an awesome platform for chatting and it is robust and used a lot, and It's free! TheGrandmother (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An alt-right hook[edit]
- — Unsigned, by: Plutoniumboss / talk / contribs
- Call me naive, but I never really believed that it was just to physically assault people — even complete assholes — for peacefully exercising their right to free speech in a public space. But maybe I'm a dreamer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've got mixed feelings about the use of violence, but remember the context was a major TV network giving airtime to a white nationalist airing white nationalist talking points. I have no qualms about that being sabotaged. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 12:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which TV network was interviewing him? What was the context? Also, I will concede right away that some punches can be completely justified (and far worse than punches are justified in self-defense). But again; I'm not saying I have qualms over the obstruction of a white nationalist message. I positively support that; but physical assault isn't reducible to that. I'm just saying, the ends do not justify the means — surely among all the possible ways to impede the interview, sucker punching the guy was given priority out of schadenfreude. But again, I'm the type of guy who wouldn't punch people in the first place. I'm not losing any sleep over him getting punched, I'll tell you that. But if this one-sided use of actual, political violence is presented as cause for celebration, I don't think I can join in — even as someone who gladly uses his words to deal the Alt-right all the proverbial blows that I can muster. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind — and while I may not agree with what you say, I would defend to the death your right to say it. It might not be emotionally satisfying to the vengeful apealoid brain, but I'm literally boring enough to hold with all seriousness that there is no particular group of people in society that I think "deserve" to be punched in the mouth over their opinions, no matter how hateful and shitty those might be, and no matter if those same people would ever extend me that same right. Maybe the only reason I think this is because I'm a complacent, privilieged, something, something — that's literally quite possible (I don't mean to be flip). But even so, I still can't bring myself to celebrate violence. Though, let me be clear that I feel bad over my ethics, not his face. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Punching Nazis has a long tradition in America. If Spencer wants to go around publicly promoting a murderous ideology of violence, he can't expect not to eat a few knuckle sandwiches every once and a while. We all have an expectation of physical safety in America, but actions have consequences, and if you kick a beehive (and then throw up a banner declaring how much you love kicking beehives), getting stung becomes a very likely consequence. I personally would not have punched Spencer, but not everyone shares my personal ethics. I agree with Mr. Weasel. He should never have been given a platform to begin with, and ultimately, i'm glad someone put a quick stop to it without death or maiming. Unfortunately, violence almost always has a negative effect, and this will likely only galvanize his supporters. Petey Plane (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- (This reply was written before you extended your post, so double your charity here): I know about the difference between freedom of speech and freedom from consequence. But that being said, isn't this the same line of reasoning that would be considered invalid in other situations? Applying that reasoning to rape, and about how there is also a reasonable risk calculation factor in a world that isn't a Disney movie... And here's the maximally simplified steretype I could even think of, but: if decide you want to dress like a stripper, and further decide that you want to hang out in some dank alley in the slums — upon being raped there, you could and should have considered the consequences of your own actions? Wouldn't that be considered victim blaming? (Note that I'm not morally equating your right to wear whatever you like with your right to be a white supermacist asshole, but practically, both are your right, and the rights to speech and body are constitutionally as fundamental). I mean, sure — being an Alt-right asshole might make it likely that people will want to do you harm. Just like with the (rather silly) rape scenario. You know, some kinda "you reap what you sow" logic, right? But surely, that doesn't mean it's right for any of the people in the two scenarios (the Alt-righter and the alley person, respectively) to be victimized over their choices, right? Or do you mean that we should in fact expect of adults to realize that they can't just coast through life like nothing could hurt them (as things and people can and will hurt you if you don't use your head)? I'm really asking, and I don't mean to sound flip or anything. Forgive me if this is a false analogy or whatever, I'd just like to see what the reasoning might be around topics like these? Is it sheer pareidolia to even compare these scenarios? I'm a newb at ethics discussions so if it sounds dumb, I'm sorry, I'm here to learn. And I'm hungover, so please be charitable in interpreting this, and remember Hanlon's razor. Heh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's an unfair analogy in a purely logical sense, but (and i too have no expertise in ethics so my language here is gonna be imprecise) i think the analogy of "you reap (A) what you sow (B)" blankets all actions and consequences similarly, without adequately accounting for the degrees of negativity. I also don't know if that is an inherently "ethical" statement to begin with, in that it makes no claims as to the ethics behind A and B, making it ultimately situational. So the argument must account for the situational ethics of A and B and what the meaning of the word "deserves" is. I don't know, because while i know rape is never justified, i don't have an adequate understanding of ethics to verbalize why it is not, yet some other consequences might be. Petey Plane (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- To someone not familiar with the background (say a middle-school student) this can generate sympathy. Fortunatly, neo-nazis are to stupid to exploit the propaganda affects of extreme leftists who violate people's constitutional rights with the threat or use of violence. nobs 15:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, just look at this moonbat. Who does he think he is?
- Petey Plane (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- To someone not familiar with the background (say a middle-school student) this can generate sympathy. Fortunatly, neo-nazis are to stupid to exploit the propaganda affects of extreme leftists who violate people's constitutional rights with the threat or use of violence. nobs 15:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's an unfair analogy in a purely logical sense, but (and i too have no expertise in ethics so my language here is gonna be imprecise) i think the analogy of "you reap (A) what you sow (B)" blankets all actions and consequences similarly, without adequately accounting for the degrees of negativity. I also don't know if that is an inherently "ethical" statement to begin with, in that it makes no claims as to the ethics behind A and B, making it ultimately situational. So the argument must account for the situational ethics of A and B and what the meaning of the word "deserves" is. I don't know, because while i know rape is never justified, i don't have an adequate understanding of ethics to verbalize why it is not, yet some other consequences might be. Petey Plane (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- (This reply was written before you extended your post, so double your charity here): I know about the difference between freedom of speech and freedom from consequence. But that being said, isn't this the same line of reasoning that would be considered invalid in other situations? Applying that reasoning to rape, and about how there is also a reasonable risk calculation factor in a world that isn't a Disney movie... And here's the maximally simplified steretype I could even think of, but: if decide you want to dress like a stripper, and further decide that you want to hang out in some dank alley in the slums — upon being raped there, you could and should have considered the consequences of your own actions? Wouldn't that be considered victim blaming? (Note that I'm not morally equating your right to wear whatever you like with your right to be a white supermacist asshole, but practically, both are your right, and the rights to speech and body are constitutionally as fundamental). I mean, sure — being an Alt-right asshole might make it likely that people will want to do you harm. Just like with the (rather silly) rape scenario. You know, some kinda "you reap what you sow" logic, right? But surely, that doesn't mean it's right for any of the people in the two scenarios (the Alt-righter and the alley person, respectively) to be victimized over their choices, right? Or do you mean that we should in fact expect of adults to realize that they can't just coast through life like nothing could hurt them (as things and people can and will hurt you if you don't use your head)? I'm really asking, and I don't mean to sound flip or anything. Forgive me if this is a false analogy or whatever, I'd just like to see what the reasoning might be around topics like these? Is it sheer pareidolia to even compare these scenarios? I'm a newb at ethics discussions so if it sounds dumb, I'm sorry, I'm here to learn. And I'm hungover, so please be charitable in interpreting this, and remember Hanlon's razor. Heh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Punching Nazis has a long tradition in America. If Spencer wants to go around publicly promoting a murderous ideology of violence, he can't expect not to eat a few knuckle sandwiches every once and a while. We all have an expectation of physical safety in America, but actions have consequences, and if you kick a beehive (and then throw up a banner declaring how much you love kicking beehives), getting stung becomes a very likely consequence. I personally would not have punched Spencer, but not everyone shares my personal ethics. I agree with Mr. Weasel. He should never have been given a platform to begin with, and ultimately, i'm glad someone put a quick stop to it without death or maiming. Unfortunately, violence almost always has a negative effect, and this will likely only galvanize his supporters. Petey Plane (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which TV network was interviewing him? What was the context? Also, I will concede right away that some punches can be completely justified (and far worse than punches are justified in self-defense). But again; I'm not saying I have qualms over the obstruction of a white nationalist message. I positively support that; but physical assault isn't reducible to that. I'm just saying, the ends do not justify the means — surely among all the possible ways to impede the interview, sucker punching the guy was given priority out of schadenfreude. But again, I'm the type of guy who wouldn't punch people in the first place. I'm not losing any sleep over him getting punched, I'll tell you that. But if this one-sided use of actual, political violence is presented as cause for celebration, I don't think I can join in — even as someone who gladly uses his words to deal the Alt-right all the proverbial blows that I can muster. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind — and while I may not agree with what you say, I would defend to the death your right to say it. It might not be emotionally satisfying to the vengeful apealoid brain, but I'm literally boring enough to hold with all seriousness that there is no particular group of people in society that I think "deserve" to be punched in the mouth over their opinions, no matter how hateful and shitty those might be, and no matter if those same people would ever extend me that same right. Maybe the only reason I think this is because I'm a complacent, privilieged, something, something — that's literally quite possible (I don't mean to be flip). But even so, I still can't bring myself to celebrate violence. Though, let me be clear that I feel bad over my ethics, not his face. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- While in general your point is a valid one, I think any argument that leaves Richard Spencer unpunched may well be defective - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- The only consideration about using violence against Nazis is when? If you use it too soon you're quashing free-speech, (and becoming the abyss)! If you let it fester for too long, it'll eat like cancer. 03:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- I've got mixed feelings about the use of violence, but remember the context was a major TV network giving airtime to a white nationalist airing white nationalist talking points. I have no qualms about that being sabotaged. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
- My 2¢: I never get anywhere debating with the alt-right or their advocates. Not just because
I have never won an argument in my lifeof the confirmation bias, or the "grass is greener" mentality which led to Brexit and Trump. But because Spencer's argument essentially boils down to, "Are you unhappy with your life? Then it's all the Jews' fault!" Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)- Popper does have a point in that quote there (and just for the record, I recommend checking out The Open Society and Its Enemies). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Plutoniumboss: that quote can easily by called Islamophobic; here's where leftists can easily get into trouble. nobs 17:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- wew lad Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah most of the times I've seen that sentiment expressed are regarding the tolerance of religious conservatives. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- wew lad Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Plutoniumboss: that quote can easily by called Islamophobic; here's where leftists can easily get into trouble. nobs 17:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Popper does have a point in that quote there (and just for the record, I recommend checking out The Open Society and Its Enemies
- Oooooh... Anyone else wanna make an MLG vid of that? TheMyon (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I hate Richard Spencer as much as everyone here, but I for one am thoroughly against the casual use of violence in this manner, even towards someone like him. If you think his message is dangerous, what message do you think the action of assaulting someone in public carries, aside from "physical violence is an acceptable means of stopping people from spreading their message"? Because that's a message that won't only be heard by far leftists and their ilk, no, the alt-right is going to understand it too. This can only lead to more escalation of pointless violence and a situation where it's "cool" to punch your political adversaries in the face just for fun. There's a thousand ways one could have disturbed the interview without resorting to that kind of tactics. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, however the hypocrisy of the alt-right crying about this sucker punch event is amusing when the likes of Dylann Roofe, Anders Breivik, the Trump supporters who beat up a homeless person, morons who try to burn down refugee centers etc., etc. have shown us countless times that a significant amount of far-righters are the kings of completely uncalled for violence. At least Spencer will live to see another day giving sermons to his supporters and allies, even if he will have a cold pack stuck to his face.
- And no, I don't support the assault, because just thinking about the reaction resulting from such an action nauseates me - hell, I'm the type of person who dislikes, even abhors, movies like Inglorious Basterds for exactly this reason. We don't have to give these punks any more reason to fuel their victim complex. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 14:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I support the assault. There are too many Nazis for our democracy to keep functioning effectively. The end. It's broken, and this assault was not only wise, but insufficient. Escalation to where people who create policies that threaten the personhood of millions must actually self-perpetuate the violence they incite can only be met with violence. Either now when they're acting like what they're doing is non-violent, or later when the implemenation of their views mandates it.
- In summary, given current conditions, you cannot possibly punch enough Nazis. Free speech is a secondary right to the right to exist(even though it's incredibly important). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- IMO, your talking two separate issues now. If the situation degenerates into competing groups willing to use violence, that attracts a mercenary element that doesn't care what the issue or ideology is, they just want to indulge in violence for the sake of violence. And if they have the cover of some legitimate cause, so much the better. nobs 00:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I hate Richard Spencer as much as everyone here, but I for one am thoroughly against the casual use of violence in this manner, even towards someone like him. If you think his message is dangerous, what message do you think the action of assaulting someone in public carries, aside from "physical violence is an acceptable means of stopping people from spreading their message"? Because that's a message that won't only be heard by far leftists and their ilk, no, the alt-right is going to understand it too. This can only lead to more escalation of pointless violence and a situation where it's "cool" to punch your political adversaries in the face just for fun. There's a thousand ways one could have disturbed the interview without resorting to that kind of tactics. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Call me naive, but I never really believed that it was just to physically assault people — even complete assholes — for peacefully exercising their right to free speech in a public space. But maybe I'm a dreamer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
While not a Fundie or crank school, I think an article on ITT Tech might be a good idea[edit]
My main reason- it was a massive scam pretending to be a decent school. ITT Tech made Pensacola Christian College look like a state university- credits transferred nowhere except other ITT Tech campuses, major grade inflation, extremely expensive, piss poor teachers.....well the Amway of higher education in a nutshell. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/12/07/502601724/what-former-employees-say-itt-tech-did-to-scam-its-students --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's a worthy addition because they were threatened with loss of accreditation towards the end of their existence. Loss of accreditation does not happen the instant a school becomes a functional diploma mill; it takes time for the accreditor to reevaluate the quality of the institution. Bongolian (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
ITT Tech was the epitome of the for profit college. I fully agree.Teurastaja (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Solidarity For Our Sisters (and the men who support them)[edit]
It's been a wild couple of days ya'll. Coming fresh off of Hair Fuhrer's inauguration is the largest protest march in American history. I cannot express how proud I am for the folks to participated in this. White or black, Christian or atheist, man or woman, they came out and gave his whole administration a big fat Fuck You. Literally, in Madonna's case. I haven't felt this much pride in being American in a really long time. I've been really busy cobbling my own life together recently and while I haven't been around as much, I think about you guys often. We can get through this together. I believe that with all my heart. Stay strong. I'll see you around. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- My mom is at the march in DC. Say hi if you see her. Petey Plane (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right back at ya, champ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have nothing against them marching but how can they say they are for women's rights when they won't let other women march if they are Pro-Life or wear the ridiculously named, "Pink Pussy Hat"? They have a right to march and I support their right to free speech but you cannot say you are for women's rights if you won't let women march when they disagree with you on one matter. Outside that, they have all right to march.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- The pink hats symbolize their bodily autonomy and reject how things like uteruses, female hygiene and periods are kept hush hush in this country out of Puritan conservative correctness. Yes it does look silly on the face of it, but when you have things like elected officials misunderstanding how periods work and all male panels voting on whether to tax necessities like birth control it's a way to show that there should be no shame and more education in the natural functions of a woman's body. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pro-life women were not prevented from marching, & many of them did. Organisers didn't give pro-life groups partnership status within the march as these groups' policies directly oppose other partners (e.g. Planned Parenthood) & much of what was talked about in the rally speeches. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- What a bunch of crap. Bill Clinton was Trump's inspiration to run. If liberals and Democrats stood by that pervert to the end, Trump has nothing to worry about. nobs 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pro-life women were not prevented from marching, & many of them did. Organisers didn't give pro-life groups partnership status within the march as these groups' policies directly oppose other partners (e.g. Planned Parenthood) & much of what was talked about in the rally speeches. Wèàšèìòìď
- The pink hats symbolize their bodily autonomy and reject how things like uteruses, female hygiene and periods are kept hush hush in this country out of Puritan conservative correctness. Yes it does look silly on the face of it, but when you have things like elected officials misunderstanding how periods work and all male panels voting on whether to tax necessities like birth control it's a way to show that there should be no shame and more education in the natural functions of a woman's body. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have nothing against them marching but how can they say they are for women's rights when they won't let other women march if they are Pro-Life or wear the ridiculously named, "Pink Pussy Hat"? They have a right to march and I support their right to free speech but you cannot say you are for women's rights if you won't let women march when they disagree with you on one matter. Outside that, they have all right to march.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have nothing against women's rights and I get that it is symbolic but the name still does not command respect. Why not call them, "Unity Hats" or anything else than "Pink Pussy Hats"? Just creepy and some of those costumes were creepy also, if you are going to march (I am in favor of free speech) at least dress with dignity. Again, nothing against women but I cannot see them being taken seriously. Outside that, I am in favor of freedom of speech and the right to assemble. Go for it but they are not immune to criticism (Free Speech is a two way street)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Have you ever seen a gay pride parade or slutwalk? And besides, it was all a reference to the tape where Trump boasts about sexual assault. These women took that, turned it around and made it into a symbol of unity and pride to rub it in his radioactive orange face. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have nothing against women's rights and I get that it is symbolic but the name still does not command respect. Why not call them, "Unity Hats" or anything else than "Pink Pussy Hats"? Just creepy and some of those costumes were creepy also, if you are going to march (I am in favor of free speech) at least dress with dignity. Again, nothing against women but I cannot see them being taken seriously. Outside that, I am in favor of freedom of speech and the right to assemble. Go for it but they are not immune to criticism (Free Speech is a two way street)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- What even is the point of this march ? Trump is already president. It just makes the left look stupid again for protesting a president that is only in office since a few days. Diacelium (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point of the march is something you could easily look up yourself on the website, any of the social media promotion, or any of the huge amount of news coverage it's received around the world. There's nothing obscure or mysterious about it, & it isn't entirely about Donald Trump. But there is certainly plenty to protest regarding Trump, based on the things he's said & done before, during & after his campaign, the policy plans he's outlined & the stuff that's already underway like the Obamacare repeal. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- For the Obamacare, Trump is a longlife supporter of single-payer system and recently said that everyone will be covered and the government will pay for it. Diacelium (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- He also said he has a huge penis & the biggest inauguration crowd the world has ever seen. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- (EC)The guy is a blowhard with a history of talking both sides of his mouth, making whatever statement he thinks will serve him better at the moment without the slightest intention to deliver. In any case, making healthcare laws and budgets is done by the legislature, and right now both houses are dominated by the Republicans, who have made hate of Obamacare or any other "socialist" healthcare program a plank of their platform.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- He also said he has a huge penis & the biggest inauguration crowd the world has ever seen. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- For the Obamacare, Trump is a longlife supporter of single-payer system and recently said that everyone will be covered and the government will pay for it. Diacelium (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point of the march is something you could easily look up yourself on the website, any of the social media promotion, or any of the huge amount of news coverage it's received around the world. There's nothing obscure or mysterious about it, & it isn't entirely about Donald Trump. But there is certainly plenty to protest regarding Trump, based on the things he's said & done before, during & after his campaign, the policy plans he's outlined & the stuff that's already underway like the Obamacare repeal. Wëäŝëïöïď
Trump and free speech[edit]
How safe are First Amendment rights under Trump? See Free speech under Trump. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not great. By lying to the press so brazenly & verifiably, while also painting them as the bad guys, the Trump administration is fucking with the media & public in a way we're not used to seeing from the government of a liberal democracy (though it is consistent with how he's behaved throughout his presidential campaign). It's like a bully who lies to your face & then dares you to call him a liar. Sure enough the likes of Fox News are uncritically parroting Spicer's bullshit while more credible outlets call it out & get shouted down by Trumpistas as "fake news". & This is about something as inconsequential as the size of the crowd at inauguration, but it's setting the tone for press relations & is a pattern we're likely to see over & over, for important issues affecting civil rights, national security & foreign policy. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 18:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Somewhat to my surprise Fox News said Trump is wrong about the inauguration numbers.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's an Associated Press article. Google "FACT CHECK: Trump overstates crowd size at inaugural" and you'll see the same piece in ABC, Washington Post & a load of other news sites. Here's Fox's own ass-kissy coverage which I was alluding to above: "Spicer accuses media of ‘false reporting’ in fiery briefing". ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Do I detect a pattern here? Trump possibly deliberately picks these fights with the press cause it redounds to hardened support for him. nobs 00:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was my point. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 01:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's hard to believe that Trump is simply pretending to be a jerk in order to get into fights and thus improve his standing. In any event given is abysmal poll numbers it does not look like an effective strategy.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's not improving his poll ratings, but furthering the partisan divisions between his supporters & opponents, as well as testing the loyalty of the GOP & right-wing media. Inviting them to choose between what the Trump government says & observed reality, and seeing which way they go. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 09:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also bear in mind that Trump's chief strategist is Stephen Bannon, formerly of Breitbart, who has been putting out propaganda, disinformation & fake news for years. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Bob: those poll numbers are meaningless, the same polsters who had Trump losing in a national contest for 15 solid months. Citing them shows you're old school, uninitiated, part of the anti-reform movement, out of touch, and a swamp apologist. Media and pollsters are like the FBI and Congress - incapable of reform of their own past abuses. nobs 14:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually the polls were about right. Trump lost the popular vote by about the amount they predicted. Though I expect that Trump suppoetes have "alertnative facts.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sometimes the worst aspects of society need to be seen out in the open before we can make positive, progressive choices. Leuders (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Bob: those poll numbers are meaningless, the same polsters who had Trump losing in a national contest for 15 solid months. Citing them shows you're old school, uninitiated, part of the anti-reform movement, out of touch, and a swamp apologist. Media and pollsters are like the FBI and Congress - incapable of reform of their own past abuses. nobs 14:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's not improving his poll ratings, but furthering the partisan divisions between his supporters & opponents, as well as testing the loyalty of the GOP & right-wing media. Inviting them to choose between what the Trump government says & observed reality, and seeing which way they go. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- It's hard to believe that Trump is simply pretending to be a jerk in order to get into fights and thus improve his standing. In any event given is abysmal poll numbers it does not look like an effective strategy.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was my point. Wéáśéĺóíď
- Do I detect a pattern here? Trump possibly deliberately picks these fights with the press cause it redounds to hardened support for him. nobs 00:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's an Associated Press article. Google "FACT CHECK: Trump overstates crowd size at inaugural" and you'll see the same piece in ABC, Washington Post & a load of other news sites. Here's Fox's own ass-kissy coverage which I was alluding to above: "Spicer accuses media of ‘false reporting’ in fiery briefing". Щєазєюіδ
- Somewhat to my surprise Fox News said Trump is wrong about the inauguration numbers.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with much of his opening premise - that the causes of Trump's election are bigger than the man himself. Yes, Trump is an egotist, but he's not the charismatic character he imagines himself to be. Here's where opponents make too much of the man, and imagine him as being many things he's not. As a fami!iar figure in the public eye for 3O years, a few (like me) may have regarded him as an obnoxious ass, but we were in the minority. The media fawned over his celebrity. Only when he got involved in partisan politcs did he become hated - which is more a reflection on the haters than on Trump.
As to California as a model of the future - Ha! California still lags the national unemployment rate by a full percentage point - which says a lot, considering CA is 20% of the nation. Sure, its good for a wealthy and educated few, but citizens and migrants are being left behind. The absurd irony is to hear "progressives", like that clown boast of capitalist success for himself and a few of his wealthy friends while he ignores the struggles of ordinary people. nobs 19:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Polls are terrible, they showed Trump losing"
- He lost. 2.8 million votes. National polls don't account for the Electoral College.
- Re: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania: Google "margin of error".
- Google "James Comey".
- The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Social Credit[edit]
So, from what I get, Social Credit is a distributist idea, and it consists of creating money proportionally to growht to distribute it in monetary zones. We have an article on it but it doesn't really explain the problems of social credit, only that it's pseudoscientific (without explaing how it is pseudoscientific). The article has even been nominated to be deleted. So, what is exactly wrong with the idea ? It's main flaws ? Diacelium (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I doubt that anyone here is qualified to give you a rigorous answer. You can try asking someplace else.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can't imagine how it structures itself to sound scientific, thus being pseudoscience, instead of just Yet Another Sweeping Social Idea for Reform. There's more YASSIR's out there than I can count and only ones like ethnonationalism are so tied up in pseudoscience as to be pseudoscience themselves. Now, that's not to say there's no problem with it. I'm just looking at the first sorta implementation of it in China where it seems to be an Orwellian "report on your neighbors' level of patriotism" version, which is just goddamn terrifying. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Chinese Social Credit system doesn't seem to be the same as Douglas' social credit.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
- The Chinese social credit does look scary as hell. Diacelium (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Page with a number of edit visualisation[edit]
Once I stumbled across this page on RW where there was a line graph which showed users and their edits per month (I think). I can't remember what the page was called and I want to have a look at it. If anyone knows what I'm on about, please direct me to the correct page.--WMS (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's probably this. Aye? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- A broken link? Doubtful. Nowhere Man (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is the link the feline spud was trying to make. Nowhere Man (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- A broken link? Doubtful. Nowhere Man (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- TL;DR: It's all me, baby. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Madonna's comment about blowing up the White House at the Woman's march[edit]
I don't care if it was a figure of speech, there are nuts out there who would take it as literal. I feel Madonna should be arrested for inciting terrorism. She should be held accountable but because she is a (washed up) celebrity and has money, she will get away with it. No excuse for inciting violence like the right wing nuts did during Obama, hate like that is contagious and will probably spread like a virus. We need to contain this outbreak of hate by holding those who incite violence accountable. I don't like Trump also but if someone acted on that comment innocent people would die and chances are they did not like Trump. Rant over.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's a good job that the law does not depend on what you feel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/21/no-madonnas-i-have-thought-an-awful-lot-about-blowing-up-the-white-house-isnt-a-threat-of-violence/ --ZooGuard (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is absolutely an excuse for violence(and no this isn't advocating it). That excuse is fucking fascism. Never again means something to me, sorry it doesn't to you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're going a little overboard, Rationalzombie. I think it's a pretty typical "figure of speech", like saying you want to blow up a movie studio for ruining a movie. You're being too pedantic. Also, one can't just "blow up" the White House. It's high up on the list of the most difficult places to blow up in the world. Petey Plane (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's probably just a figure of speech, nothing to really get mad about. Diacelium (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I dunno. Madonna's worth a half billion dollars. She certainly has the resources to attempt what she says. I don't see her walking away from this one. They'll probably make an example out of her to other stupid Hollywood fucks, even if it costs her a couple ten million in legal bills to keep her ass out of jail. nobs 00:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I get that it was a figure of speech but if some Joe Blow posted a comment like that on social media then the FBI would be kicking down doors. I am stating that the same rules should apply to the rich and famous.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- And when Joe Blow did get arrested for exactly this (OK, in the UK, I'm referring to the Nottingham Airport thing) weren't we the ones who were up in arms about a police state overreacting to a figure of speech? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I doubt that Madonna was being serious, she should be careful about word choice. There are nuts out there who would take her words seriously and would probably attempt something like that. I feel it was not the time or place for that statement, like I said- the same rules should apply to celebrities as it does to the average person.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- And it was pointed to you that what she said was protected speech, no matter if it was said by a celebrity or the average person. If the FBI kicked down her door for that, the ACLU would sue their ass. There's a lot of... unwise rhetoric that gets thrown around in the US these days that deserves pushback much more than her remark.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I doubt that Madonna was being serious, she should be careful about word choice. There are nuts out there who would take her words seriously and would probably attempt something like that. I feel it was not the time or place for that statement, like I said- the same rules should apply to celebrities as it does to the average person.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- And when Joe Blow did get arrested for exactly this (OK, in the UK, I'm referring to the Nottingham Airport thing) weren't we the ones who were up in arms about a police state overreacting to a figure of speech? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I get that it was a figure of speech but if some Joe Blow posted a comment like that on social media then the FBI would be kicking down doors. I am stating that the same rules should apply to the rich and famous.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I dunno. Madonna's worth a half billion dollars. She certainly has the resources to attempt what she says. I don't see her walking away from this one. They'll probably make an example out of her to other stupid Hollywood fucks, even if it costs her a couple ten million in legal bills to keep her ass out of jail. nobs 00:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's probably just a figure of speech, nothing to really get mad about. Diacelium (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're going a little overboard, Rationalzombie. I think it's a pretty typical "figure of speech", like saying you want to blow up a movie studio for ruining a movie. You're being too pedantic. Also, one can't just "blow up" the White House. It's high up on the list of the most difficult places to blow up in the world. Petey Plane (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Alert: Justice Democrats[edit]
There is a new political group called Justice Democrats whose plans on running progressive candidates to unseat centrist Democrats in Congress. Their ultimate goal is to take Congress and enact widespread liberal reforms. This group is founded by former Bernie Sanders campaign advisers, The Young Turks, Secular Talk, and Brand New Congress. It raises funds only from people and doesn't accept any corporate money. This is essentially a left-wing Tea Party movement whose goal is to do what the Tea Party did in the first midterm of the new president: lay the groundwork for an effective opposition to the ruling party. I urge everyone to read their platform, join, and donate to them. We're going to need all the help we can get these next 4 years, so this is the best place to start. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Might sound good in words (it seems like a good idea to me) but I have a feeling that in practice it might create a dictatorship. They are human like everyone else and some might get power hungry, just some friendly constructive criticism and not being rude. I agree that changes in certain areas need to be made (I admit I am a centrist myself, I like a middle ground) but people can get power hungry. Quoting Mark Twain, “He Who Fights With Monsters Might Take Care Lest He Thereby Become A Monster.”--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's Nietzsche, not Twain. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 08:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- My mistake, I was trying to find that quote and I guess I got mixed up--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- No corporate donations. After they recieve one time, $250 donations from individuals for the 2018 Midterms, they'll change their tune - if they want to survive. nobs 13:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's Nietzsche, not Twain. Weaseloid
- This is the worst name they could choose, but whatever. I suppose I can't join since I'm neither adult or american. Diacelium (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're a bit too careful there, Rationalzombie... by european standards, many of Bernie's talking points (free college, a working health care system, liveable minimum wage, ...) are center-left at most. It's only in the american context that they sound like radical left-wing ideas. I don't really see a risk of some Justice Democrat being the second coming of Lenin... everybody mentioned above seems to be a reasonable person and I don't think that the movement is going to be overrun by far-leftists, especially since you don't have a whole lot of them in the first place after thirty years of unbridled capitalism. --134.76.88.83 (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- From France, and we are indeed far more left-wing than US, we were close to passing a law that would forbid wage gaps between employees and boss from 1 to 100, Universal basic income is a popular idea, we have been close to give the right to vote in local elections to immigrants and one of our four major presidential wants to outlaw firing people for financial reasons when the company is doing well (of something like that, I'm not sure I quite understood it) and also wants to put in the constitution that we can't take from nature more than it can recreate. However, our minimum is something like 9 euros/hour which I think is less than 15$, and isn't a living wage since there are homeless people working. Some of Bernie's proposals would probably be considered as more left than just center-left. Diacelium (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- The euro is currently at 1.07$ to 1.08$ and prices in France are overall slightly lower, so in purchase power parity, 9€/h is somewhere around 10 or 11$/h. Lower than Bernie's 15$/h, that's right, and when I first heard it, the figure seems to be a bit higher than expected. I don't know all of Bernies proposals, but college, health care and minimum wage stuck out for me. Free college is pretty common in Europe (I'm from Germany and I only pay 100-something euros per semester for administrative stuff and student bus/train tickets) and so is a government funded healthcare system (in Germany, we have a confusing partly private system which was introduced during the empire and has been amended ever since. As per usual, the nordic countries and some others are doing better, but we're still way better than what the US has). Out of these three points, I would only consider the 15$/h wage to be somewhat extraordinary. Do you have a few examples on which Bernie ideas you would consider further left than center-left?
- P.S.: You're actually discussing a universal basic income in France? That's... intriguing. I'm not sure if we're there yet, but I think that's going to be inevitable in 20 or 25 years from now when the robots take over every non-white collar job (and some of those, too). In Germany, a measly 500 €/month per person would amount to 500 billions per year, and we're only spending 300-something billions/year at the moment. That would require a massive overhaul of the tax system which sounds rather improbable for the time being.--134.76.88.83 (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- One of the candidates in the election wants to create a basic income when he is president, and two other didn't say they'll do it but support it or are open to it (we have a far-right candidate who is for it). For ideas from Bernie that could be considered left, for starters in his site he endorsed a policy similar to Corbyn's People's QE, there also is the energetic transition to renewable energy, separating commercial banks from investment banks. Diacelium (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, QE and the banking thingy actually sounds pretty leftish... I thought he'd take most of the money he needs from the military budget (come on, US, you don't need to spend half of your annual budget on bombs and hardly take in any of the refugees you're causing by using them). The energetic transition... not so much, imo, it has entered the political mainstream in countries with a smaller market share of far-right anti-science conspiracy theorists. --134.76.88.83 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well in France, most politicians love nuclear power and are against a transition to renewable energy. Diacelium (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nuclear Power has its problems, but it's much better than coal or oil power plants (and even better than some renewables if we consider the deathprint). I don't mind if we (as a species) continue to use nuclear power if it means that we phase out fossil fuels faster, we just have to be more careful with reactor maintenance (looking at you, Belgium) and we need an efficient way to get rid of the waste (If SpaceX fixes its reliability issues, we could launch it into Venus, for example). I think that the nuclear power scare (beyond the reasonable objections I mentioned before) is, in large parts, owed to the general fear of total thermonuclear annihilation during the cold war. This poisons the well and I'm somewhat afraid that we'll have to fend of hordes of hard-greens once we manage to get nuclear fusion running... 134.76.88.83 (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- One of the candidates in the election wants to create a basic income when he is president, and two other didn't say they'll do it but support it or are open to it (we have a far-right candidate who is for it). For ideas from Bernie that could be considered left, for starters in his site he endorsed a policy similar to Corbyn's People's QE, there also is the energetic transition to renewable energy, separating commercial banks from investment banks. Diacelium (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- From France, and we are indeed far more left-wing than US, we were close to passing a law that would forbid wage gaps between employees and boss from 1 to 100, Universal basic income is a popular idea, we have been close to give the right to vote in local elections to immigrants and one of our four major presidential wants to outlaw firing people for financial reasons when the company is doing well (of something like that, I'm not sure I quite understood it) and also wants to put in the constitution that we can't take from nature more than it can recreate. However, our minimum is something like 9 euros/hour which I think is less than 15$, and isn't a living wage since there are homeless people working. Some of Bernie's proposals would probably be considered as more left than just center-left. Diacelium (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're a bit too careful there, Rationalzombie... by european standards, many of Bernie's talking points (free college, a working health care system, liveable minimum wage, ...) are center-left at most. It's only in the american context that they sound like radical left-wing ideas. I don't really see a risk of some Justice Democrat being the second coming of Lenin... everybody mentioned above seems to be a reasonable person and I don't think that the movement is going to be overrun by far-leftists, especially since you don't have a whole lot of them in the first place after thirty years of unbridled capitalism. --134.76.88.83 (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
No one reads about Swiss firearm laws.[edit]
The political right does, but they seem to be dramatic about it, taking certain truths and stretching it. Unfortunately for the rest of us skeptics, we relied on a source that seems to have done the same to a greater extent. Talk about hitting back twice as hard. Because of this, we fall into two sides. Switzerland has next to no firearms restrictions due to high ownership rates. The other states that all firearms ownership is due to mandatory training and ownership as part of a militia, making it strict.
To begin, just because being drafted into the militia results in the ownership of a firearm does not make it exclusive, and there is no evidence saying so. In fact, one simply has to actually search up Swiss firearms laws to know why this isn't the case.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php
-You can carry a pistol in public, though you will need an acquisition license. This license will cover the use of a single firearm, and can be provided that you won't potentially harm others, or don't any characteristic that may imply so. A reason does need to be provided, but self defense (you know, the excuse us Americans use) is considered a viable option. This license will last six months.
-The ownership of rifles, be it manually operated or semi-automatic (Also known as an Assault Rifle by the political left) does not require a permit. However, it cannot be carried about or transported with any quantity of ammunition loaded. Ammunition must be stored in a separate container. The ownership of select fire rifles is of course banned.
We would also know for a fact that Swiss firearms do not consist predominantly of militia appropriated weapons as less than a million of their main line service rifles (Sturmgewehr 90, or SIG 550) have been produced. This includes exports and rifles that are in storage or demilitarized. We also know for a fact that a little less than 200,000 of the militiamen are on active duty. Pretty diminutive for a country of roughly Eight Million. I wonder where the other few millions went. No, the SIG 540 does not make up the other few millions. If that were the case, we would see numbers on the production run. No, rifles don't see continuous service once produced, most soldiers choose to keep their rifles once they have done their service. No, there is virtually no use carrying multiple rifles, except for transportation. No, even if each rifle came with a pistol, that still wouldn't add up.
What we can thus conclude is that unlike most cases: The Right has exaggerated the claims, mistaking a country that allows the general ownership of firearms as a haven for gun lovers. But the Left has done an even better job of getting it wrong, not by simply throwing out the stretch that republicans gave it, but by getting everything -but- the part about the militia wrong.
In short: Both political leanings got it wrong. 66.75.104.100 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which reminds me... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Are you saying the only guns in Schweiz, outside a few hunting rifles, are manufactured for the military? nobs 13:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Fun:Bill Gates laughed all the way to the bank then bought the bank[edit]
Knowing he may become the world's first trillionaire this would be a very accurate statement--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Idea for a social experiment[edit]
Come up with some sort of pseudoscience, make sound like it is science, mix in plenty of woo and religion(s), post it on social media and see how many idiots believe it. Also, have people with "doctorates" from the Universal Life Church but only put the acronym of the degree name in front of someones name to trick people. It would be pretty fun in my book. I was thinking along the lines of a pseudoscience based off religion, hash a bunch of religions together and maybe say, "This bottle of Faygo Soda was blessed by Monks in Tibet and it will cure your headache" or "This flash drive with the sound of God will cure your upset stomach". Toss out some ideas.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's been done. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Dakota Access Pipeline[edit]
Okay the DAPL is back in the news again. I'm curious about what y'all think about the controversy surrounding the pipeline. Is all the protesting necessary?--Bonesquad11 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- My understanding of the whole pipeline flurry business is that it's all being done to allow Canadian shale oil crude to be exported to Europe. Even if you think, like me, that worrying about your 'carbon footprint' is mostly pointless, and that building these things creates relatively good paying blue collar jobs, I still don't see how pipelines built on US soil to sell Canadian crude to Europe is in the long term interests of the majority of us North Americans. It remains true that oil that's cheap to access with current technologies is irreplaceable. Sooner or later the wells run dry. I think it makes more sense for the folks whose backyards this thing is getting built on to keep it in the ground in Canada for a rainy day. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I am in favor of investing in green technology, I also support the DAPL. True the oil is going to Canada but it will create jobs here at home. It is true that the oil will one day run out but for even buying an electric car, the average person could not afford 60,000-100,000 dollars. Green tech is still far too expensive at this point.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, renewables are only a factor 2 to 3 more expensive than fossil fuels at this point... and there are jobs in renewables, too. More than in fossil fuels, I think, but I didn't find any sources on the first google page and I'm lazy. Just like the US in building photovoltaics, although your south would be perfect for it. I don't know that much about DAPL, but I have a general bad feeling when it comes to installing more fossil fuel capacities... 217.81.202.96 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Weather topics[edit]
I'm debating on whether or not we should add some pages about weather phenomena and the sort of crank bullshit that conspiracy theorists say. What do y'all think?
The living oxymoron (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
There are already pages on ball lightning and cloudbusting: what else could be covered (apart from some urban legends of varying plausibility - thunder curdling milk, some animals predicting the weather, 'an excess of berries means a hard winter' etc): and possibly a mention of the Fish Storm of 1987. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can remember, weather and/or climate control has been a wanted article for a long time, though I can't find it in the To Do list right now. The topic is also related to a few conspiracist classics like chemtrails and HAARP.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe someone could do a list of people who think that extreme weather events are god's punishment for the gays?(if it hasn't been done already)not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 17:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Would Fimbulwinter and Snowball Earth be included? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's obviously missional. It doesn't require its own category (methinks), but any weather crankery you can think of belongs on RW. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
TPP is dead, long live TPP[edit]
Well, this about wraps it up for the Democrats. Imagine if Trump were to follow this up with a pardon. Snowden, Assange, either/or. He'd have a 100-year majority just like Karl Rove predicted. And since we seemingly don't care about domestic issues at all, they can do it without ceding the ground to Democrats. (A stretch, but there are other compromises the Republicans can make without losing votes.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Look at the symbolism here. He calling in Labor union bosses who backed Hillary on his first day of business, making it clear where his priorities are. nobs 00:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's his lifelong M.O. First, he wines and dines you, treats you like a prince. Then later, when you come sniffing around for your long-promised money, he gets irate, gaslights you, calls you ungrateful, assembles his legal team. It's terrifying by all accounts.
- But they served their purpose. This and the TPP will get more airtime than the environmental regs he just gutted. His base is widening, and the divisions between Democrats (people who watch Golden Globes, vs. those who don't) widen. Johnnyfog (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If you think that Trump's position on the TPP is sufficient to end the Democratic party, you have very childish views of America's deep partisanship. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- To be fair, I predicted the party will die. Not liberalism itself.
- Liberalism will always have a platform, just as Kremlin critics are invited on TV. But their viability as a political player is gone. Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- In America the parties are constantly revolving bureaucratic vehicles for organized coalitions. In the past 30 years (since the Clinton's), Wall Street millionaires and elites have moved to the Democrats. The movement of labor unions and working class interests toward Republicans under Trump completes the circle. nobs 13:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, not really. During the election there seemed to be more labor unions and workers' groups going Democrat than Republican, and even now there are still bunches of groups that go Democrat. I've no actually solid proof, because that's really what I've seen, but not seen in data. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 16:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Union leadership (who control the donations) have been pro-Democrat since 1936. At one time unions were about 50% of the workforce. By the 80s, when unions made up 12% of the workforce (one quarter of that being public sector) the private sector rank & file were voting 42% GOP. Membership has dropped to 8% now, public sector being the only group showing growth in 30 years. As a voting bloc they are insignificant. As a donor bloc for the Democrats, they still get courted.
- Now, if manufacturing jobs come back, and Trump leaves the Oval Office door open, we'll see a split in the labor mvmt. Public sector unions will stay with the party of government - the Democrats. Private sector unions, should their ranks and clout w/the White House & Congress grow, we'll see another 'once in a generation change', like tax reform, immigration reform, trade agreements modified, etc., as the Republicans ard promising. nobs 03:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, not really. During the election there seemed to be more labor unions and workers' groups going Democrat than Republican, and even now there are still bunches of groups that go Democrat. I've no actually solid proof, because that's really what I've seen, but not seen in data. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 16:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- In America the parties are constantly revolving bureaucratic vehicles for organized coalitions. In the past 30 years (since the Clinton's), Wall Street millionaires and elites have moved to the Democrats. The movement of labor unions and working class interests toward Republicans under Trump completes the circle. nobs 13:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
How is this notable anyway? Wasn't TPP basically dead long before the election? Vulpius (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Banks[edit]
What reforms about banking should be done ? Should we separate investment banks and commercial banks as Bernie proposed ? And should we end fractional reserve banking ? Diacelium (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Given that investment bankers tend to use foreign money to enrich themselves and have to be bailed out with government money if they fail, that seems to be reasonable... I'm no economist, maybe there's another way of regulating them which is more effective in preventing global economic meltdowns, but I think it's a good idea. 134.76.88.83 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mu.
- Jokes aside, as I pointed out the last time, this is not the right place to learn anything substantial about economics. The only person who had any expertise left long ago. Most of the people who I've heard ranting about fractional reserve banking were right-libertarians. If Sanders wants to fall in line with the goldbugs, that's his business.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that the fact that it is an idea from libertarians means that it's automatically a bad idea. Also, Bernie is for separating investment banks and commercial banks, he never talked about full reserve banking. Diacelium (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- i have no idea if this is remotely the same, banks in the uk being made to seperate their retai! and investments parts. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that the fact that it is an idea from libertarians means that it's automatically a bad idea. Also, Bernie is for separating investment banks and commercial banks, he never talked about full reserve banking. Diacelium (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
These are totally unrelated topics. What is your concern with fractional reserve banking and what would you replace it with? How would you get from here to there? Hipocrite (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if fractional-reserve banking is a problem, but many economists are against it and Iceland (a strong nordic Welfare State) is starting to favor full reserve banks. My question is what exaclty is wrong with it if economists hate it ? Or is it just economic nonsense ? Also, I know that bank separations are an unrelated topic, but it's also related to banks. I'm asking what banking reforms should be done. Diacelium (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- When you say things like "many economists are against it," one wonders "how many? What portion of economists named 'Steve' are against it?" When you say "Iceland is starting to favor full reserve banks," one wonders "Really? Are you sure? Also, is there something ... special ... about Icelandic banking?" In summary, I think you are getting your reports on "fractional reserve banking," which merely means "the bank lends your deposits to other people," from sources that are less than mainstream. Hipocrite (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Disclosure on ownership. If a person or entity with large assets, free and clear, has part interest in say, an insurance company, which is nothing more than a collection of potential liabilities which could be larger than its assets if the claims were made all at once, the consequences could be disasterous (this is what happened with the repeal of Glass-Stegill). nobs 21:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- My gramps worked for the banks back in the 70's. That real estate bubble in '07? Happened in the 70's. For the same damn reason. The real reason? How the banks finance those loans.
- So you borrow $200,000 for a home, but where does the bank get its money? Sure, they have deposits and so forth, but where a small branch gets the money is by selling your loan to another, larger bank, but keeping "servicing fees". These fees are something like 5/8 of a percent or other somesuch on the interest of the loan. That is, if the interest rate on your loan is 5%, of the interest portion of your loan payment, 5.375% goes to the bank that actually owns the loan while .625% goes to the bank that made the initial loan, even though the initial bank literally has no (direct) risk involved. So it's literally free money for the small branch. And as long as a bigger bank will buy up the loan, the smaller bank doesn't give a shit about how risky you are as a borrower beyond being able to charge you more.
- Now, during the 70's, the big banks got lazy. Don't judge; if you remembered the 70's, you weren't there. They used to actually check that the smaller banks did their due diligence, but it turns out that auditing the loans costs money, and if people defaulted it was usually 5 or 10 years later when you were already promoted and could fire Someone Else for your screw up, not to mention that with rising interest rates it was kind of irrelevant since the loan rate was so much less than the interest rate anyway.
- Well, that blew up in the banks' faces.
- Then we forgot about it.
- Fast forward to the '90s. Now instead of banks buying up the loans, hedge funds and the like want to get involved in real estate, because double digit returns on housing prices will always continue. Glass-Stiegel is repealed, financial wizardry creates all these new products, and now instead of a larger bank owning those loans, it's the hedge funds and other corporations. And these were able to push more capital into homes. So that bubble burst into a tsunami. CorruptUser (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, should we bring back Glass-Stiegall ? And what other kind of reforms should be done ? Diacelium (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- We sort of did bring it back, but given a different name so that some other schmucks get the credit instead. What we should do, though, is by law make the initial bank, and more importantly the bank manager, liable if they didn't do their due diligence in either properly vetting the lendee or in disclosing the actual risks to the second bank.
- That's the banking issue. The next issue has to do with the financial wizardry. Too long to get into here, but quick summation; S&P should have been held liable for the CDO's collapsing, unless they can prove they did their due diligence when they issued those AAA ratings (they didn't).
- Really, the collapse doesn't have just one group solely responsible. Yes I said there was one reason, but it was a fuckup all around with numerous groups responsible. Government pushing for everyone to own a home and turning a blind eye, banks loaning to people who couldn't be trusted with a car let along a home, SEC turning a blind eye, ratings agencies screwing up, people borrowing more than they could afford simply because the banks let them, and so on. CorruptUser (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The issue of the original lender selling the loan began in 1938 with the creation of Fannie Mae. In fact, that is why Fannie Mae was created. Prior to 1938, a bank had to wait 30 years to recoup its principal so it could re-lend the same money a second time. When Fannie Mae began purchasing mortgages, the bank was reimbursed fully within about two years, and could make a new loan. The theory being, banks could make more loans, access to home loans would become easier for the borrower, home construction and jobs would boom, etc.
- Then came interstate lending accross states lines. Then the repeal of Glass-Steigal. Then Fannie Mae started lowering credit standards and buying sub-prime crap mortgages. The rest is history.
- The problem with Glass-Steigal's repeal was the marriage of banks and insurance companies. Banks are supposed to be rock solid assets, with no liabilities other than depositors money. Insurance companies have no assets other than premiums, which typically are a fraction of the amount insured. When AIG crashed because borrowers defaulted on variable rate mortgages, it brought banks down too who held stock in AIG. nobs 05:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with interstate lending. What I DO have a problem with is how the Commerce Clause somehow lets all the banks ignore most states' usury laws simply because they are "located" in South Dakota. Sorry, but if I reside in New Jersey, go into a bank in New Jersey to take out a loan for a house that is located in New Jersey, the loan should be subject to New Jersey usury laws. CorruptUser (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, should we bring back Glass-Stiegall ? And what other kind of reforms should be done ? Diacelium (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Eleven months[edit]
... to the Boxing Day sales - and about time for the next archive of this page. 86.191.125.238 (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
When does killing Nazis become moral?[edit]
So a lot of people here are thinking that the antifa who punched Spencer was damaging American discourse.
I have a tacitly related question: When does an empowered group who believes in ethnonationalist ideologies cross the line from requiring polite debate to actual violence? This is a 100% serious question. If you were in 1930s Germany, what would have been the event where you felt actual action was required on your part? Never is a perfectly acceptable answer if you're an absolute pacifist. ikanreed You priobably didn't deserve that 16:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- never is my answer. Certainly never within a functioning democracy. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm genuinely beginning to suspect the US doesn't really have a functioning democracy anymore, and that it will break down further soon. And, though I deeply respect pacifism, people who said "never" got everyone related to my grandfather other than his parents(who had emigrated to the US) killed in Hungary. I don't think Nazis are a joke. I don't think they're unimportant trolls. You'll forgive me if I think less of your morals for that response. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- we are along long way from the situation in the 40s. Comparisons to that time are facile. We are a long long way from the US not being a functioning democracy. It is never moral to kill. Necessary perhaps but never moral. 'Never is perfectly acceptable answer' to 'forgive me if i think less of your morals' - go fuck yourself you sanctimonious prick, you lose one election and you start looking for justification to kill people? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- You can think I'm sanctimonious if you want. But you know what? That doesn't make you any less of a Nazi collaborator in the long run. There are actual white nationalists in multiple cabinet level positions in this country. The democratic process is being ripped to goddamn shreds by voting restrictions, gerrymandering, and more than a bit of corporate cash. Media processes are falling apart into regurgitating outright bullshit. And yes I think less of anyone who'd look at 1930s Germany and decide "There is no point where I'd stand up and oppose this." You can call that sanctimonious if you want. It may well be, but it's deserved sanctimony. I think you haven't considered your own place in the world. I think a little less of your morality because you're not willing to decide when to fight.
- And again, I was talking about violence directed at nazis not at lost elections, so leave your straw man at the door. Do you think I advocated violence when Bush won by scant margins in 2000 and 2004, just because I thought he was a shitty republican ass? Do you think I advocated violence at Mitch McConnel when the republicans took the senate? I'm talking specifically about Nazis because there are a sudden fuck ton of them. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- When a state (or extremely powerful group within a state) essentially goes to war against its own people (or sections of its people), that's when you treat it as a war & take defensive action, e.g. like the resistance movements in WWII, including Jewish resistance to the holocaust. But if you want to talk about political assassinations justified by democracy, that's a lot more iffy. Assassinating Hitler, Goebles, etc. at the height of their power? Yeah, OK. Assassinating Richard Spencer? No, I don't see it. The problem with Nazis in USA at present isn't so much that "there are a sudden fuck ton of them" as that they're suddenly getting a lot more attention & influence, & that's not something that can be fixed by killings. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not actually advocating killing them, yet. And no, it's not a matter of attention. Evidence suggests that ethnonationalism took a huge spike in popularity with Trump's run. And yeah, I know you don't see it. But... that's not because it's not happening. It can happen here. It's happening here. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- so because i didnt answer your facile question correctly i'm a nazi corraborator? Wow, you are such a prick. Only half your question related to the nazis of 30s, which quite frankly, i cant be arsed to say what i'd do then because im not there and id rather not indulge your nazi killing fantasies. As for the current crop of nazi lite fuckwits, until they start sending folk to concention camps and suspending elections, its a little early to be bragging on the internet about what a bad ass nazi killer id be. And i will say it again as you have clearly missed it, all killing is never moral, no matter how necessary it might beAMassiveGay (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- There isn't a correct answer, but yes. I think the Germans standing idly by every step of the way were collaborators, and only those taking action(and no that wasn't necessarily killing Nazis. I'm sincerely apologetic for using the term action ambiguously like that)) bypassed the banality of evil. "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it." I don't want you to be a "bad ass". I people to sincerely cogitate on if and when they'd have tried to stop things if they were in the 1930s Germany. And how. So forgive the overly violent title.
- Now that you've given a slightly different answer, I'd like to address it differently. I personally think waiting for them to start the concentration camps is too late. They'll already have consolidated paramilitary power around their ethnonationalist state, and have all the lies they need to cover their tracks against all but the most suspicious. It's not like they told their citizens that Jews were being sent to work camps(and definitely not death camps). It was just "To the East, out of Germany". The thing about Nazis is... they're dishonest about their motives. They're dishonest about their actions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why not focus on what forms of opposition & resistance are appropriate now rather than speculating about last resort solutions to situations which are almost certainly never going to come up? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I've thought on that too. That definitely includes socking Nazi leaders in the face while they discuss the "nuances" of their positions on ethnic cleansing. Keeping the public discourse from sliding further is already necessary. Giving nazis and impression of the fact that, yes, their ideas will receive increasingly much violence opposition as they get closer to fruition. Speaking frankly about the threat white nationalist fascism represents on public forums, without giving them even more platform to debate the fundamental humanity of millions along the way. Supporting end endorsing others as they engage the threat. Active and passive resistance to every new law that appeals to hyper-authoritarianism. There's a lot that can be done now. But there's a lot that will be quite possibly be necessary soon. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- You ask a very serious question, and I wish I had more time. But what happened in Weimer Germany and the early Nazi years was a willingness, or disinterestedness, on the part of an apolitical and non-Nazi public to tolerate lawlessness. Don't misunderstand, I'm not meaning to stand your question on its head, because it's a very good and important subject that needs to be aired. nobs 22:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- That doesn't turn my point on its head. We've just elected one of the most law-violating presidents since Jonson. We certainly mostly overlooked cattle ranchers threatening extra-legal force against federal agents for enforcing the law. The situation on the right has been deteriorating rapidly. The far left is breaking down from the moderate left and approaching taking the law into their own hands, if you have taken to watching them. You're absolutely right that a degradation of the rule of law is a crucial component of the fall into fascism; I just think you've been missing how. ikanreed You probably didnf't deserve that 23:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the Weimar period people were apolitical, Germany had no democratic traditions or free press. The only people engaged were on the extremes - Fascists and Bolsheviks. People didn't know how to exercise their rights. Today Americans are apathetic, which is damn near the same as apolitical. Now, when the vast majority see mobs in the street, both employing the same methods - violence - against each other, both employing propagandra blaming each other, and the larger public feels immured by lawlessness, they'll probably side with the group they see as their homies against the other group seen as alien, foreign, and outsiders. Not because the larger public is sympathic to one ideology over another, but because they have finally taken sides against who they deem responsible for instigating the lawlessness and violence. And the winner promises to put the other group in its place.
- That doesn't turn my point on its head. We've just elected one of the most law-violating presidents since Jonson. We certainly mostly overlooked cattle ranchers threatening extra-legal force against federal agents for enforcing the law. The situation on the right has been deteriorating rapidly. The far left is breaking down from the moderate left and approaching taking the law into their own hands, if you have taken to watching them. You're absolutely right that a degradation of the rule of law is a crucial component of the fall into fascism; I just think you've been missing how. ikanreed You probably didnf't deserve that 23:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- You ask a very serious question, and I wish I had more time. But what happened in Weimer Germany and the early Nazi years was a willingness, or disinterestedness, on the part of an apolitical and non-Nazi public to tolerate lawlessness. Don't misunderstand, I'm not meaning to stand your question on its head, because it's a very good and important subject that needs to be aired. nobs 22:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I've thought on that too. That definitely includes socking Nazi leaders in the face while they discuss the "nuances" of their positions on ethnic cleansing. Keeping the public discourse from sliding further is already necessary. Giving nazis and impression of the fact that, yes, their ideas will receive increasingly much violence opposition as they get closer to fruition. Speaking frankly about the threat white nationalist fascism represents on public forums, without giving them even more platform to debate the fundamental humanity of millions along the way. Supporting end endorsing others as they engage the threat. Active and passive resistance to every new law that appeals to hyper-authoritarianism. There's a lot that can be done now. But there's a lot that will be quite possibly be necessary soon. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why not focus on what forms of opposition & resistance are appropriate now rather than speculating about last resort solutions to situations which are almost certainly never going to come up? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- When a state (or extremely powerful group within a state) essentially goes to war against its own people (or sections of its people), that's when you treat it as a war & take defensive action, e.g. like the resistance movements in WWII, including Jewish resistance to the holocaust. But if you want to talk about political assassinations justified by democracy, that's a lot more iffy. Assassinating Hitler, Goebles, etc. at the height of their power? Yeah, OK. Assassinating Richard Spencer? No, I don't see it. The problem with Nazis in USA at present isn't so much that "there are a sudden fuck ton of them" as that they're suddenly getting a lot more attention & influence, & that's not something that can be fixed by killings. Wéáśéĺóíď
- we are along long way from the situation in the 40s. Comparisons to that time are facile. We are a long long way from the US not being a functioning democracy. It is never moral to kill. Necessary perhaps but never moral. 'Never is perfectly acceptable answer' to 'forgive me if i think less of your morals' - go fuck yourself you sanctimonious prick, you lose one election and you start looking for justification to kill people? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm genuinely beginning to suspect the US doesn't really have a functioning democracy anymore, and that it will break down further soon. And, though I deeply respect pacifism, people who said "never" got everyone related to my grandfather other than his parents(who had emigrated to the US) killed in Hungary. I don't think Nazis are a joke. I don't think they're unimportant trolls. You'll forgive me if I think less of your morals for that response. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here the apoliticals & apathetics become politically engaged, for moment at least, knowing full well the group they have entrusted uses the same methods of violence and lawlessness as the group they fear. If the larger public goes back into its cacoon, they are really fucked. The tragedy of being passive to lawlessness is, issues of right and wrong don't matter anymore. nobs 04:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Punching Spencer was justified because it has become, in his words, "the meme to end all memes" for a little while. If ethnonationalism has risen on memes and destruction of meaningful discourse, then it can surely fall the same way. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Using violence, other than in self-defence, while there is still a functioning democracy is basically undemocratic and a very bad idea. Use of violence has often been used as an excuse by autocratic elements to declare a state of emergency and end democracy. Arson is also a bad idea for the same reasons, e.g. see the Reichstag fire (though some historians think it was a false flag). That being said, Trump has strong autocratic tendencies, and given that he is moving to control all branches and arms of government, the seriousness of the situation should not be underestimated. Bongolian (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. There's a point after which violence becomes necessary to combat an unjust government, but we haven't reached it yet. I tend to think preemptive violence from those claiming to support progressive politics risks encouraging retaliation, undermining popular support, and making the slide towards democratic failure even faster. Working to deprive people like Spencer of a platform is much more productive and can be done quietly, without drawing negative attention; when you sucker punch him and it ends up all over the internet and news, you've just given him a bigger platform than he had before, and you've made a martyr out of him. B) talk 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, fine. I agree, it's quite reasonable we're not there yet(other than maybe occasionally anonymously punching a neonazi leader in the face being totally fine). But where is that point? Or if that comes off as stupidly objective to a subjective question, how will you know we've good and crossed it? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- My quick answer is I'd draw the line if violence towards innocents comes top-down, or with implicit support ("look the other way") from the top. Police acting alone, no - though we see that too often in the U.S as is - but anything coordinated, with tacit approval or explicit orders from municipal, state or federal authority, yes. FFS I hope things don't get to that point. B) talk 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, see you in the neighborhood of 25 weeks from now. That's going to be a pretty early step. Trump, at least, has been pretty explicit about his desires to extend further "Law and Order" powers to police. That's not a hard phrase to decode. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- oh man, 25 weeks now is starting to seem way too generous. Looks like you gotta arm up, Bshaw. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, see you in the neighborhood of 25 weeks from now. That's going to be a pretty early step. Trump, at least, has been pretty explicit about his desires to extend further "Law and Order" powers to police. That's not a hard phrase to decode. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- My quick answer is I'd draw the line if violence towards innocents comes top-down, or with implicit support ("look the other way") from the top. Police acting alone, no - though we see that too often in the U.S as is - but anything coordinated, with tacit approval or explicit orders from municipal, state or federal authority, yes. FFS I hope things don't get to that point. B) talk 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, fine. I agree, it's quite reasonable we're not there yet(other than maybe occasionally anonymously punching a neonazi leader in the face being totally fine). But where is that point? Or if that comes off as stupidly objective to a subjective question, how will you know we've good and crossed it? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. There's a point after which violence becomes necessary to combat an unjust government, but we haven't reached it yet. I tend to think preemptive violence from those claiming to support progressive politics risks encouraging retaliation, undermining popular support, and making the slide towards democratic failure even faster. Working to deprive people like Spencer of a platform is much more productive and can be done quietly, without drawing negative attention; when you sucker punch him and it ends up all over the internet and news, you've just given him a bigger platform than he had before, and you've made a martyr out of him. B) talk 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here's the problem with vigilante justice. I hate Andrew Wakefield, enough that I think that he should have justice applied to him. Now, I'm sure many of you agree with me. But, if I can administer justice myself without going through a court of law, why can't anyone else? There are people who believe that fetuses (feti?) are the equivalent of human beings, and in their minds abortion doctors really are committing mass executions; if I can apply punishment to Andrew Wakefield outside of the court system, why shouldn't they be allowed to also apply some punishment to abortion doctors outside the court system? And what about those that are convinced that Jooish Bankrz are responsible for all problems; should they too be allowed to administer the "justice" that the system has not? Et cetera.
- As for when we should turn to vigilante justice, and start killing
Trump SupportersNazis? I don't know exactly when, but I'd say it's sometime after the news companies are nationalized and the internment camps are constructed. CorruptUser (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- We had a pretty big chance to stop Trump just recently, it was called the 2016 election. Many young liberals (including those that are probably reading this) decided that Hillary was really just as bad as he was and that electing him was just fine because reasons. Hitler came to power because those opposed to him were splintered and unorganized, that sounds familiar as well. If we want to be a true political opposition, we need to get over these bullshit purity tests and this "if you disagree with me or support Trump in any way you're a literal Nazi collaborator", because that's precisely why many people who voted for Obama voted for him. That's why a sizeable number of Hispanics voted for the man. Liberals have been crying about the NAZI wolf for the better part of a century now and those chickens are coming home to roost. Violence is only justifiable when violence is shown toward you. Maybe the left should stop crowing about guns and start getting some for a rainy day, if you feel that way. Hentropy (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- It depends on what moral code you go by.—127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 06:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The rush is on by libs to buy guns. They're going against their own values, principles, and party leadership. nobs 04:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it's hypocritical. Imma acknowledge that but say given that the right has turned to fascism, some principles, like a peaceful society, need to be set aside in the face of civil society breaking down. One of the ironies is that this would be unnecessary in a country with successful gun control measures, because a law-and-order candidate wouldn't have nearly as much violence to overstate, nor a militarized police force to abuse. The rules for a functioning society very different from a non-functioning society. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- You guys throw around words like "fascism" and "Nazism" with reckless abandon. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm really done arguing the point. I tried for a while. Then I got tired of arguing with "sensible" people saying I was unfair for calling literal copy-pastes from stormfront Nazi bullshit. Alt-right is mostly comprised of actual Nazis and you politely arguing it isn't is more than enough evidence to suggest that the idea that people will reject Nazi ideology in polite debate has broken down. You're an intellectual coward, unwilling to call an ideology exactly what it is. Aeonian, you're the reason Nazis have to bleed. Well, that and the fact that they're so willing to lie to useful idiots like you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- You guys throw around words like "fascism" and "Nazism" with reckless abandon. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it's hypocritical. Imma acknowledge that but say given that the right has turned to fascism, some principles, like a peaceful society, need to be set aside in the face of civil society breaking down. One of the ironies is that this would be unnecessary in a country with successful gun control measures, because a law-and-order candidate wouldn't have nearly as much violence to overstate, nor a militarized police force to abuse. The rules for a functioning society very different from a non-functioning society. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- The rush is on by libs to buy guns. They're going against their own values, principles, and party leadership. nobs 04:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Rationalwiki in the Imgur discussion URL filter?[edit]
If you have an Imgur login, go here and click the "like" heart. Imgur is like a worse Reddit, but it would be good to be useful to people there - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- "a worse reddit" is a phrase that sends chills down my spine. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Relevant: https://imgur.com/gallery/9ggXojx —127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 04:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Relevant: https://imgur.com/gallery/9ggXojx —127.0.0.1
- Now I know why my RW link tip comments never got any responses. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Donation to Wikipedia[edit]
This might be of interest to RationalMedia Foundation board members:[2]
“”The Wikimedia Foundation announced Thursday that money from the Craig Newmark Foundation and Craigslist's Charitable Fund will go toward tools for Wikipedia's staff and volunteer editors to reduce harassment on the user-generated encyclopedia site.
The Wikimedia Foundation says online harassment faced by Wikipedia contributors impedes their ability to write and edit the site's entries.
|
Bongolian (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- But on RationalWiki we am of rational and have no such harass issue, yes? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, it's finally been proven — shitposting actually creates jobs. Trump 2020! (Jokes aside though — and that was a joke — thanks for the link tip I hope this effort is successful against the trolls, especially against Putin's literal propaganda army). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Negative consumption tax[edit]
Wouldn't a FairTax be a good thing if it was negative for food, water, clothes and other human needs ? (By negative I mean, pretty much like the negative income tax, you'd get money to pay for food)
EDIT : There actually is a prebate with the FairTax, but first, it isn't a direct negative consumption tax on necessities but rather throwing money at people, and secondly, I'm not sure, but if I understood well, I think you have to ask for it, which would be similar to France's RSA, which doesn't work at all and doesn't cover all people who need it (because they don't ask, probably because they don't know how or they don't know that it even exists). Diacelium (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am usually in favour of making the tax code more progressive, but I would caution that this particular idea isn't very effective at that and could create more problems than it solves.
We actually have a similar tax exemption here in Germany (albeit a significantly lower not a negative tax rate) for human necessities. The problematic question is what actually constitutes a necessity, which our law makers have answered with very this long list: https://www.steuertipps.de/gesetze/ustg/anlage-2-liste-der-dem-ermaessigten-steuersatz-unterliegenden-gegenstaende some details of which are truly comical: For instance, water is exempt as long as it isn't sparkling, horses are exempt, donkeys are not, audio book are exempt if they are sold on a disk, but not if downloaded from the Internet, etc. And while this may just be a funny example of German buerocracy it becomes a serious issue when this law is easily exploited by lobbyists to get their products included on the list, as happened a few years ago with the hotel lobby (and subsequently cost the responsible party its reelection).
More importantly, if the goal is to help poor people afford more necessities, why not simply give them more money (lower taxes for low income tax brackets, increase NIT or implement a (well developed) basic income)? That would be a lot more efficient than lowering consumption taxes on certain goods for everyone only to help a few people. 2.206.2.165 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- What is the goal of your tax proposal? If the goal of your tax proposal is to lower the tax burden on people with low incomes, why not just lower the tax burden on people with low incomes? Your proposal as above would be a massive tax increase on the middle class to the benefit of the most well-off. Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Arcarons '14 suggested a flat tax + universal basic income as being more progressive than Spain's current taxation system. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can't open that link, but I would imagine that you could very easily build a progressive tax code by setting a very high basic income or basic tax allowance and a high flat tax. I'd still prefer a tax code with more than two tax brackets and smoother increases in your marginal tax rates, though. 2.206.2.165 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Flat taxes and consumption taxes are wildly different things. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Tax laws tend serve two purposes: to hide who's carrying the burden so officials can get re-elected; and (2) crony capitalism. That's how you end up with discussions on things like negative income tax or negative consumption tax.nobs 06:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Arcarons '14 suggested a flat tax + universal basic income as being more progressive than Spain's current taxation system. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- By "negative tax" I didn't mean that there is no tax, I meant a negative tax, like the negative income tax. You get money from the government to pay for basic needs. You could add to that a tax on luxury products, and a higher tax for higher luxury products, and a progressive tax on people with a high wage.
- I also like the idea of basic income. Diacelium (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Geez, who wouldn't? nobs 23:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The very best goat video you will see this week[edit]
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJYg-YUjgU_/ - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Now that's my kind of headline! And the video delivers, too. Just what my fever-addled brain needed today. Thanks, David. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- How about these otters? WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- THEY'RE LIKE LIVING SQUEAKY TOYS I CAN'T
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- THEY'RE LIKE LIVING SQUEAKY TOYS I CAN'T
- How about these otters? Wéáśéĺóíď
- Thanks, this is great. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
[edit]
I go to a very dysfunctional school (well, atleast student-wise — the education itself is pretty damn good). We have Neo-nazis, sex offenders (no joke), racists shouting "deport" and the N word to migrants and black people (one of the shouters is my friend; he gets really mad when I point out his bad behaviour to him). It's all a bit of a shit show, in all honesty. And we still need to add "potential school shooters" to the list;
Basically, a guy and a girl have been doing some quite worrying stuff on Facebook (although I still think they just wanted to be controversial for the sake of being controversial). The girl has a fixation with Dylan Klebold, calling him a "real man" and constantly sharing photos of him. She also shares videos of the Columbine High School massacre — with pumped up music playing in the background — a bit too frequently. I'm not too sure about the guy, but supposedly he's a bit quirky (from what I heard).
Anywho, yesterday (on the 25th) the guy posted today's date (the 26th) as his status update, to which the girl commented "I know who I'm going to kill first". Later, a person I know asked for a clarification of what the hell they were on about, and he got sent a screenshot of a group chat in reply.
The chat consisted of: the guy showing a picture of Dylan and Eric about to commit suicide, and saying something like "Do you want to do this tomorrow?", to which the girl replied "Yeah, post the date on Facebook".
Someone got concerned about this entire fiasco and reported them to a teacher, causing the two to get internally excluded. Mind you, this is Britain. It's very difficult to get a hold of a gun here, yet people were very terrified about what those two were doing. I posted this here because I want to know if you guys have any thoughts about this entire scenario.--WMS (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here in the US, there's a good chance that as soon as this event was publicized, the police would have become involved, and probably also all the local television stations, and possibly the major news networks. It would have quite possibly turned into a gigantic fiasco. People are very sensitive to that kind of stupid behavior here. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- A highly disconcerting read. (Also interesting; thanks for posting it!). I would hope that someone notifies not just the school, but the police. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, police would be busting down doors and there would be an FBI investigation. Here in our neck of the woods, the FBI investigates stuff like that. I remember when I was a freshman in High School, there was a guy nicknamed the "Abortion Guy" who was shot in a drive by shooting across the street from the school. There was a huge investigation, not sure if anyone is familiar with Owosso, Michigan but that was a big thing back in 2009. Anyone who talks about shooting places or actually does it gets investigated (usually at the State level). Computers are searched and investigators go over phone records. The shooting I mentioned made national news.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've ever heard of any case where police were "busting down doors" because of some kids fantasizing about murder and gore on the net. Sure, the social media posts are disturbing and might cause a media shitstorm, but cops busting down doors? C'mon. PPOSTFU my friend. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Our hyperactive media has a tendency to over-sensationalize behavior like this. But, as you say, there are a lot of school shootings here now. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- This kind of stuff is why schools with nearly zero crime, such as small elementary schools, Liberty University, and Pensacola Christian College now have either campus police departments or outsourced (usually to the Sheriff's Office or the city police department) resource officers. 184.5.12.196 (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I am very glad i didnt have facebook in my formative years. The amount of bullshit i have said and done is thankfully long forgotten and not preserved for ridicule or used as a basis for some criminal case. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Trump Wall[edit]
I know it would be an engineering nightmare but lets say it could be done, it would put many people back to work and many companies would expand (Mining, Construction, Materials and everything in between) with the flow of money which would boost the economy. I am aware that people would be mostly out of work once done but the money generated would help people start and expand businesses. In terms of engineering I don't support the wall but in terms of work I do support it, lets keep the discussion civil, not toss out insults or right wing whack job ideas (Talking about you nobs mostly, you have a habit of tossing out all three of the things I said. Keep it civil). Let the civil showdown begin!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Screw civility! This is the Post-truth world! Aside from that, it would also depend on the amount of money that the people building this monstrosity would be paid. Would this argument work if we assume that each and every worker on the wall would be paid minimum wage? I just want to know. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! Look! Up there!' 03:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Simply put, it isn't going to happen. He can issue executive orders all he wants, but the funding has to come from legislation, and that isn't going to happen. So essentially right now he is ordering the Secretary of Homeland Security to rummage through the couch cushions for 10-20 billion dollars in loose change to make up the funds to do it. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Realistic estimates of the cost to taxpayers put the bill closer to $25 billion. Wouldn't you rather have that money spent on roads, bridges, public spaces, etc. than on a largely symbolic border wall? Leuders (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's an investment in the nation's future. A thousand years from now, what's left of it will be a tourist attraction. This is why we also need to build a pyramid. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Realistic estimates of the cost to taxpayers put the bill closer to $25 billion. Wouldn't you rather have that money spent on roads, bridges, public spaces, etc. than on a largely symbolic border wall? Leuders (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Simply put, it isn't going to happen. He can issue executive orders all he wants, but the funding has to come from legislation, and that isn't going to happen. So essentially right now he is ordering the Secretary of Homeland Security to rummage through the couch cushions for 10-20 billion dollars in loose change to make up the funds to do it. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- We already built a pyramid… scheme (Amway)! Trump spent a couple of hours finding out (ignoring) what the President does and what the Constitution says from a Constitutional Law professor,[3] (Barack Obama). Now Rumpski is issuing orders for this & that like he's a tin pot dictator. Bongolian (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Leuders, if it's really all about the jobs created, you can use the billions to fix your infrastructure. That would create jobs as well and you actually have something you can use later rather than a monument to a half-baked nationalist ideology. Also, isn't there a net EMIGRATION of mexicans from the US anyway? In that case, you'll soon have more mexicans in the US if you build the wall than if you don't... Assuming it actually works, that is.134.76.88.83 (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's just like Keynes said, creating jobs by employing people to dig holes and fill them again (creating jobs by making people do useless things (the wall is useless)). But we could also create jobs by making people do useful things. Also, the wall would be funded by taxes which can kill jobs. Diacelium (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- And what happens if the result is that the people who would have gone on to the US stop in Mexico (at least until the equivalent of the Cu Chi tunnels are built), and use their business skills there to create the Mexican Powerhouse? How will Trump stop the exodus of Americans? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speaking of pyramids, isn't it customary after a leader builds a great monument, that he ends up under it? 94.1.156.176 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- And what happens if the result is that the people who would have gone on to the US stop in Mexico (at least until the equivalent of the Cu Chi tunnels are built), and use their business skills there to create the Mexican Powerhouse? How will Trump stop the exodus of Americans? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Honest question: Do we actually need to boost growth or employment right now? Unemployment is already quite low and the economy is on a solid growth path. Now, if you're arguing from low interest rates or a lack of investment in certain public infrastructures, I might be more inclined to agree with your views, but what I'm reading here looks more like vulgar Keynesianism. 2.206.2.165 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say yes. Wages have recently risen sharply while USA unemployment is low (and presumably labor market is tighter). Increasing wages, full-time employment, and full-qualification employment seem like worthwhile goals. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes the unemployment rate is low, but there's two problems: (1) the methodology of computing it is doctored, everybody knows it, nobody believes it; (2) it is the type of jobs that is most important. Manufacturing jobs are higher paying than service jobs, and each manufacturing job automaticalky create an additional 2.5 service jobs. nobs 06:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- The manufacturing jobs of the twentieth century are not coming back. Automation continues to kill them, and it's starting to kill service jobs too. We're already seeing it happen, Rob. Unless present and future policy takes that reality into account, a lot more people will be left searching without luck for decent-paying work than we see now. I think you're totally right in that the type of jobs we look to create is important, but they're not going to be the ones you're talking about. Do you see Trump or anyone else being able to convince or coerce businesses into employing human beings when machines are half the price? B) talk 21:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Assumptions about the future are based upon Fundamental analysis. When you change the fundamentals, the analysis also must change. nobs 23:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I love how you just randomly started talking like an auto-generated version of the Wise Confucius meme. If this continues, someone better put him through a captcha and/or Turing test. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- ok, here's three examples of countries that cut themselves off from international trade for decades and the world didn't come to an end: Russia under Lenin, Cuba under Castro, and Iraq under Saddam. The people were industrious and survived. And all three examples suffered from an incredibly high degree of government intervention in the economy. nobs 03:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- ...is that a tumor pressing on my brainstem, or did nobs just say something wholesome about the Communazis?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- You know about Sock City? Them jobs are coming home. nobs 03:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I know of a sock city. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here's to the naysayers: Does anybody have any better ideas? We tried the Progressives, it got us less than 2% growth for 8 yrs. Meanwhile US population grew 3.25% from 2009-2016 (306 million - 316 million). Simply stated, we are poorer, and direction is the wrong way.
- Now you say, "a guaranteed income", as suggested below. Fine. Let's look at that. $70 trillion world GDP/7 billion inhabitants = $10,000 per head (70/.007=10k) but you'd probably have to make cost of living adjustments for rent and food for residents of mid-Manhattan vs residents of the slums of Rio de Janerio or Manilla. I don't see how it can be done without some serious political consequences. So, if anybody can come up with some positive suggestions to, at a minimum, keep economic growth in tune with populstion growth, you have the floor. If you just wanna bitch about Trump & robotics, fuck ya. nobs 05:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I know of a sock city. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- You know about Sock City? Them jobs are coming home. nobs 03:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- ...is that a tumor pressing on my brainstem, or did nobs just say something wholesome about the Communazis?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- ok, here's three examples of countries that cut themselves off from international trade for decades and the world didn't come to an end: Russia under Lenin, Cuba under Castro, and Iraq under Saddam. The people were industrious and survived. And all three examples suffered from an incredibly high degree of government intervention in the economy. nobs 03:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I love how you just randomly started talking like an auto-generated version of the Wise Confucius meme. If this continues, someone better put him through a captcha and/or Turing test. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Assumptions about the future are based upon Fundamental analysis
- The manufacturing jobs of the twentieth century are not coming back. Automation continues to kill them, and it's starting to kill service jobs too. We're already seeing it happen, Rob. Unless present and future policy takes that reality into account, a lot more people will be left searching without luck for decent-paying work than we see now. I think you're totally right in that the type of jobs we look to create is important, but they're not going to be the ones you're talking about. Do you see Trump or anyone else being able to convince or coerce businesses into employing human beings when machines are half the price? B) talk 21:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes the unemployment rate is low, but there's two problems: (1) the methodology of computing it is doctored, everybody knows it, nobody believes it; (2) it is the type of jobs that is most important. Manufacturing jobs are higher paying than service jobs, and each manufacturing job automaticalky create an additional 2.5 service jobs. nobs 06:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say yes. Wages have recently risen sharply while USA unemployment is low (and presumably labor market is tighter). Increasing wages, full-time employment, and full-qualification employment seem like worthwhile goals. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The Wall is (IMO) a win-win for Democrats.
- If it's never built: Trump is a loser.
- If it's built:
- It's expensive -- blame Trump for deficit.
- It's shoddy -- show images of the "border fence", Trump is a loser.
- It's done -- the wall is built. What more do you want, Republicans?
FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well only if US politics is nothing more than an Itchy & Scratchy Show between Republicans & Democrats. Surely a shoddy, expensive, unnecessary, divisive, xenophobic project is something that should be viewed as a problem for the country & not just an opportunity for blame gaming. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- We've entered a post-truth era. Nothing matters except personal beliefs. I can only hope the wall's concrete insanity will bring the downfall of Trump & his right-wing-authoritarian type. Or: I agree. Unfortunately, until politics is sane, the problem isn't solvable. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- From a pure "politics as a game" point of view, I wouldn't be so optimistic. The biggest gripe with politicians is that they lie and don't get anything done while patting their own back. If the wall gets built and it's not a total disaster, and he can at least rhetorically claim that "Mexico paid for it", he can brag that he gets things done and follows through with his promises, something that Obama was unable to do. It doesn't matter one iota if the wall does nothing or leftists see it as some monument to bigotry, because the idea of zillions of people flooding the southern border was always an imagined one. Since it's an imagined one, Trump can claim victory that our immigration problems are completely over now thanks to him. Leftists foolishly assume that the people who voted in Trump- ie those white suburbanites in the midwest- give a shit about the plight of the poor immigrant or Muslim refugee. Anyone left-of-center or opposed to Trump assuming he's just going to be a disaster who will be out in four years should take a step back and consider how many things they've been so painfully wrong about over the last 2 (or longer) years. Our only hope is if leftists finally stop infighting about how to raise funds for elections and put up a real, unified, and convincing opposition to him over these next four years. Hentropy (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- We've entered a post-truth era. Nothing matters except personal beliefs. I can only hope the wall's concrete insanity will bring the downfall of Trump & his right-wing-authoritarian type. Or: I agree. Unfortunately, until politics is sane, the problem isn't solvable. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well only if US politics is nothing more than an Itchy & Scratchy Show between Republicans & Democrats. Surely a shoddy, expensive, unnecessary, divisive, xenophobic project is something that should be viewed as a problem for the country & not just an opportunity for blame gaming. Wèàšèìòìď
If they're gonna spend $25 billion on a long concrete wall which people can just prop a ladder against, why not build a high tech "wall" instead, i.e. a defense zone patrolled by hunter killer drones and so and on? It would be much more effective and probably less expensive. Makes me wonder why ancient societies ever bothered with walls themselves, considering they had ladders back then too. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bingo. The thing with a wall like this is that it can't work. Also — speaking of ladders — you know how many times ancient societies rode around a straight wall? It's one thing if it's a wall that comes full circle — and even then, the limitations are severe. But a straight wall, that doesn't loop in a circle? Per definition, it's possible to go around it entirely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- They should build it out of ice. Works in Game of Thrones. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I vaguely recall something about... people sailing around it with no problem. And there's certainly no equivalent geography in the real world that would allow anyone to repeat that same stunt against the Great Wall of America, right? Certainly no bodies of water on either side of the continental US, right? Besides, a wall made of ice would only be useful against the blasted Snow Mexicans. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- We will need a northern wall too; can't leave North Dakota out to dry, can we? Alaska is going to be hard. Hawaii is going to be harder. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- We should hire some cheap Mexican labor and pay them under the table. The quality of workmanship would be better, it'll get built on time, and we don't have to worry about lawsuits and paying benefits. It could be done $10 billion. nobs 13:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- A win-win for those industrious Mexicans who chose to participate in the inevitable, all the while pocketing a lil' sum for themselves on the side! Reminds me of a similar deal... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- A win-win for those industrious Mexicans who chose to participate in the inevitable, all the while pocketing a lil' sum for themselves on the side! Reminds me of a similar deal
- We should hire some cheap Mexican labor and pay them under the table. The quality of workmanship would be better, it'll get built on time, and we don't have to worry about lawsuits and paying benefits. It could be done $10 billion. nobs 13:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- We will need a northern wall too; can't leave North Dakota out to dry, can we? Alaska is going to be hard. Hawaii is going to be harder. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I vaguely recall something about... people sailing around it with no problem. And there's certainly no equivalent geography in the real world that would allow anyone to repeat that same stunt against the Great Wall of America, right? Certainly no bodies of water on either side of the continental US, right? Besides, a wall made of ice would only be useful against the blasted Snow Mexicans. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- They should build it out of ice. Works in Game of Thrones. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Maybe if Trump is successful, he can brag and lie to everyone that we now have two man-made walls visible from outer space (reality: precisely zero man-made walls are visible) and now prove those stupid establishment trivia books wrong. LEFTYGREENMARIO 01:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC) I'm not so worried about the Mexicans or even the Canucks, but those cursed Mongorians *ahem* Mongolians who always try to tear down great walls. It'll only be avoided if not a single Chinese person has anything to do with the entire process of designing and building it, and I have no confidence that's possible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's ironic that Germany has to remind the US of another great wall that its builders swore was urgently needed to protect their people from outsiders. Leuders (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- A serious question to any American readers — remember when you guys used to be so proud over the toppling of the Berlin wall? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not an American but I'm going to pick up on that point anyway. The Berlin wall was pretty effective. But even with it's watchtowers, armed guards who were quite prepared to shoot, land mines, patrol dogs etc people still managed to cross: WP says: "East Germans successfully defected by a variety of methods: digging long tunnels under the Wall, waiting for favorable winds and taking a hot air balloon, sliding along aerial wires, flying ultralights and, in one instance, simply driving a sports car at full speed through the basic, initial fortifications"
- Which leaves me to wonder how elaborate the Trump Wall will need to be effective.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I think North Korea does a good job at making its border zone pretty much a death zone. I think anything short of that, it's just not going to work. LEFTYGREENMARIO 23:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @BobM WP? Check out RW! But seriously, all those points are true. And, they all apply combined with my own above points on the relative ease of circumnavigating even an impossibly well-executed wall. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- A serious question to any American readers — remember when you guys used to be so proud over the toppling of the Berlin wall? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Whats the plan once/if the wall is built? It will be next to useless if its not patrolled extensively. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Great Wall of America, in a nutshell[edit]
- Stupid poetic justice! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Drill, baby, drill![edit]
Someone might find this trippy… Cosmo Feilding-Mellen, the son of Amanda Feilding (an early advocate of self-trepanation), just made a documentary about the pioneers of underground LSD manufacturing.[4] Bongolian (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Kewl. The question is, does this belong on the talkpage for Trepanation or for LSD? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to add references to a page I created and I managed to screw up again (sorry)[edit]
I seriously tried, honest to the Goddess I tried but I cannot seem to do it right. I feel stupid, well the page is on Robin Falkov who is mentioned on the credentialism page for being a homeopath and conspiracy theorist.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- You shouldn't feel stupid, buddy! The real question is: how did they get lost? Answering that question will help you avoid that pitfall in the future! :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Don't worry, it's better now. Take a look. Bongolian (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Messianic Judaism[edit]
I saw the discussion from 2011 on the page's talk page (No replies since 2011 so I am putting it here) and who the hell cares if they believe differently? Just because one body of religion says something does not make them right or wrong. What ever makes them happy without infringing on other people's rights. Not that big of a deal, to each his own.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Could you link us to the talkpage discussion you're commenting on? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- See Talk:Messianic Judaism & the earliest versions of the article. It was written by a guy who wanted us to condemn Messianic Judaism as being not proper Judaism, which would seem kind of an odd PoV for a (mostly) atheist wiki to take. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 01:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- See Talk:Messianic Judaism & the earliest versions of the article. It was written by a guy who wanted us to condemn Messianic Judaism as being not proper Judaism, which would seem kind of an odd PoV for a (mostly) atheist wiki to take. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- The funny thing is that Chabad jews who believe their late rabbi is the messiah are still considered jews, while those who consider Jesus to be the messiah are not. Honestly, given that it is possible to prove that the rabbi did not fulfill the messianic prophecies while it is impossible to prove that about Jesus, that makes the latter a better candidate, though both are very unconvincing. -TeslaK20 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Jackson[edit]
Andrew Jackson was famous for ignoring checks and balances, telling the courts to enforce their decisions themselves. And who's Trump's (second) favourite president? Narky Sawtooth
(Nyar?~) 00:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Didn't Jackson also ram through a tariff act? Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! Look! Up there!' 00:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- We've been making the comparison in the summary to our Trump article for quite some time. Quote:
In American terms, Trump is pretty much styling himself as the second coming of Andrew Jackson, complete with his plan for a new Trail of Tears. In turn, Trump actually appears to have secured the conspiracy theorist vote;[16][note 2] a demographic which, these days, appears to include both himself[17] and his wife.[18]
- The refs and the note actually make a lot of this part, so I encourage you to go check it out in its original form instead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Andrew Jackson is the founder of the Democratic party. Wut I bin tellin' u guys? Look at the list of GOP presidents he ignored, Lincoln, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, McKinley, Coolidge etc. Andrew Jackson is the first American president who took control of the federal government from the rich plantation slave owners and founders on behalf of frontiersman and redneck hillybillies. nobs 01:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- While he did threaten to use force to keep the South Carolinians in line, his own Vice President was an avowed racist plantation owner who called slavery a 'positive good' and his Presidency pretty much gave rise to the entire patronage system of the American government. Not really taking the government from plantation owners, huh? Also, the Civil War began some decades after his presidency, so I wouldn't say he stood up for frontiersmen. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! Look! Up there!' 03:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jackson also marks the beginning of political parties in America, and a generational change from the founders (the rich plantation owners). The founders feared factionalism and parties, but by Jackson's time the oppressed faction of backwoods redneck hillybillies finally seized power (see Whiskey Rebellion for background). As to the VP, during Jackson's time and the rise of parties did the modern process of a "ticket" come about. See WP's Constitutional crisis § United States for how as late as 1841 the VP succession resulted in a constitutional crisis. nobs 04:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jackson also marks the beginning of political parties in America, and a generational change from the founders (the rich plantation owners). The founders feared factionalism and parties, but by Jackson's time the oppressed faction of backwoods redneck hillybillies finally seized power (see Whiskey Rebellion
- While he did threaten to use force to keep the South Carolinians in line, his own Vice President was an avowed racist plantation owner who called slavery a 'positive good' and his Presidency pretty much gave rise to the entire patronage system of the American government. Not really taking the government from plantation owners, huh? Also, the Civil War began some decades after his presidency, so I wouldn't say he stood up for frontiersmen. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! Look! Up there!' 03:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Andrew Jackson is the founder of the Democratic party. Wut I bin tellin' u guys? Look at the list of GOP presidents he ignored, Lincoln, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, McKinley, Coolidge etc. Andrew Jackson is the first American president who took control of the federal government from the rich plantation slave owners and founders on behalf of frontiersman and redneck hillybillies. nobs 01:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- The refs and the note actually make a lot of this part, so I encourage you to go check it out in its original form instead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Are all arguments against nuclear energy pseudoscience ?[edit]
Isn't nuclear energy a problem because of nuclear waste ? Diacelium (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- A lot of them have to do with technological capabilities (as-existing and yet-not-developed), conflicting priorities and conflicting views what levels of risk are acceptable. It's also tied with another issue, nuclear weapons proliferation. So, no, not "all". Some might be.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
a lot of what is described as waste isn't trash but wasted potential energy. Remember the Gamma radiation that makes nuclear power so dangerous for humans is the same that generates heat. so a Breeder Power plant is supposed to be capable to leave almost no radioactive material behind. The actual problem of nuclear power is the initial cost and ensuring it safe usage.--Benaresh (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speaking of bad science, that claim about gamma radiation is wrong on several levels...--ZooGuard (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Question: "Are all arguments against nuclear energy pseudoscience?" Answer: No. There are legitimate questions about cost/timescale of construction, about terrorism, about waste disposal, about the inequity of uranium mining, and about the inequity of nuclear plant placement.
Question: "Are most arguments against nuclear energy pseudoscience?" Answer: Yes. Nuclear power is fundamentally better than all current alternatives in all meaningful categories. Safer (in deaths/yr)? Yep. Cheaper (per MWh)? Yep. Cleaner (in GHG-kg/MWhr)? Yep. Causes cancer? Not substantially; and compare coal or oil. Melts down? Nope, google "Gen IV reactor" or see core meltdown.
In short: Criticizing nuclear power is fine -- it's not angelic. Promoting nuclear power over contemporary power alternatives is not. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- My tangent: To my knowledge, nuclear power plants can be automated with little to no human involvement. A nuclear power plant done right (like Gen IV) dominates all of its alternatives. If its not done right, the consequences are huge and last centuries. Unlike nuclear power, many of its alternatives have consequences that are an expected product of the process. If a country doesn't have the resources to do a safe nuclear plant, then sure, do the alternatives. If it can be done right (like Gen IV), then nuclear power is the way to go.—127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Having worked my self as a technichian at a powerplant, not a nuculear though, that was supposed to be automated. I can say that autmatation of big physical things that get warm and move around and such is easy on paper but borderline pointless in reality. Automatization of come control aspects and saftey is ofcourse both possible and desirable.
- But "little to no human involvement" is nothing but a dream, when it comes to huuge physical machines. The power plants that I worked at where all supposed to be fully automated and would only need human oversight about once every week... this was not the case. We where about eight people in total, the person who was on watch pretty much worked every night and we where constantly understaffed.
- Things break, things bend, things drift, things does not work out the way you think. Now the plants I worked at where heat producing plants that burned wooden fuel which involved a lot of ashes and general annoying shit that had to be moved around by machines. These kind of processes are much more error prone than fully steam based plants. But there are still a lot of physical things that fucking love the second law of thermodynamics and in the context of a nuclear power plant I would be very skeptical to living close to one that was fully automated. TheGrandmother (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@zooguard. i tried to shorten the gamma ray talk sorry about the gibberish= Remember the Gamma radiation that makes nuclear power so dangerous for humans is the same radiation that generates the heat for energy production . Anything wrong after that is my little understanding of the matter at hand. --Benaresh (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- On paper, nuclear is the best developed and tested alternative to fossil fuels. Dan Fogelburg style opposition to it is seventies hippie nonsense. But in the world I live in, even 'Generation IV' nuclear facilities would be located based on political considerations. They will be built by low bidders and the plans revised to maximize shareholder value. They will be regulated by people who built careers in the industry. In this real-world environment, caution hardly seems irrational. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Science or psuedoscience isn't the only determinative factor. You also have international trade agreements which, as I understand, require nuclear waste to be returned to country of origin. As nuclear technology and materials become an export commodity this is becoming a dicey longterm issue. nobs 07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- this is going to sound stupid so I'm prepared for that. But why don't we just launch the waste into space? I mean, we don't have much to answer for there. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Science or psuedoscience isn't the only determinative factor. You also have international trade agreements which, as I understand, require nuclear waste to be returned to country of origin. As nuclear technology and materials become an export commodity this is becoming a dicey longterm issue. nobs 07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thorium reactors: fact and fiction[edit]
Hot from the oven! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I missed the moment Brian "Jailbird" Dunning got a PhD in nuclear engineering...--ZooGuard (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Variables in nuclear power[edit]
We need to go back to the height of the fear of nuclear power, which was in part caused by the release of the film The China Syndrome and the Three Mile Island incident. The China Syndrome did not explicitly argue against nuclear power; rather, it argued that the work of nuclear physicists and safety technicians is all for naught when a building contractor performs shoddy work and covers up safety defects. The film came out, and was first only viewed by anti-nuclear kooks. When the Three Mile Island incident happened — only a few days later! — the film caught the public's attention. No building contractors came out and said "hey, we'll submit to every safety audit you want, but let us keep building nuclear reactors", so the nuclear power industry in the United States stalled.
Arguing for or against nuclear power requires defining the following variables:
- Is the plant engineered to handle any potential catastrophe? (If "yes", then nuclear power is safe.)
- Are building contractors honest? (If "yes", then nuclear power is safe.)
- Are safety procedures properly followed? (If "yes", then nuclear power is safe.)
If the answer to any of these questions is ever "no", then nuclear power is unsafe. But they are typically "yes" in places like the USA and France. --Joe MacMillan (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)