RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive271

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 March 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>
, (new)(back)

migration of saloon bar to forum[edit]

this user calls for a vote regarding the matter. this user votes for the bar to be migrated into forum for navigational facilities and topic-based alignments.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[1]] 15:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This user thinks that the fact that you've been whining about this for way too long without any success shows that nobody is interested.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
And this litter piggy user thinks that the Saloon Bar is perfectly fine where it is. Just having it as it is on the WIGO bar is easy navigation. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! There's a roach on my Wall!' 16:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Just do a pointless poll, or add a poll here. Diacelium (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Proposition: Migrate the saloon bar to the forum




  1. The Saloon Bar is not a forum. There isn't a reason to move it, Saloon Bar is just a general talk for the Wiki (also, there isn't anyone in the forum). Diacelium (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Moving the Bar is pointless and unnecessarily complicated to users who've already been accustomed to the current format. In other words, nyet. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! There's a roach on my Wall!' 22:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Does anyone even use the forum anymore? Why not eliminate that?RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. I like the bar just as it is (hic). --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Keep the Saloon bar the way it is, if anything- ditch the forum. At least with the Saloon bar there is much more conversation.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. This is a dumb idea. Rationalwiki is small enough that one place everyone can babble endlessly is the right amount for temporal, non-niche discussions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Why? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. It is not clear what problem - if any - would be solved by this change.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  9. I don't see a cogent argument that moving it would be an improvement. Bongolian (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  10. ...We have a forum?? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  11. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Spud (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  12. What are we voting on anyways? nobs 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


  1. The forum already has general discussion. In other words, the saloon bar would have to be removed and redirect to the discussion topic. —HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This has been another pleasant pointless poll. We now turn to correspondent Reverend Black Percy for reports on meme news. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

...And now sports, featuring my dad. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Pewdiepie nonsense[edit]

I've always liked racist jokes, and I think it's funny to hear that making racist jokes somehow makes you racist. Stereotypes are always funny (to me), no matter what group it's about. Most of the time, jokes aren't representative of an actual opinion.

So, why did medias start to insult Pewdiepie of being a nazi for a simple joke ? I think this kind of behavior only serves actual racism in the end. Diacelium (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that by far most people do. A person would have to be rooted pretty deep in zealot landWikipedia to actually think that Pewds is a nazi based on what's been presented so far.
The thing is, though — before doing a frictionless 180, riding that same ill-gotten momentum to instead go SJW hunting with — remember that this is all really just your typical tabloid reporting; there's nothing new to the process itself (though it is worthy of scorn, obviously).
The difference, perhaps, is that said tabloid reporting is now being done in today's remarkably infected social media climate. And perhaps Chomsky had a point, and — by extension — situations like these risk absorbing participants and topics alike into the self-perpetuating trench warfare of a hysterical "flak mob". By which I mean: "both sides" go completely apeshit at the drop of a pin, "both sides" increasingly gravitate towards their own brand of fake news, "both sides" start to normalize violence against "the baddies", et cetera.
You're also right to conclude that these highly uncharitable interpretations of cutaway gags from a comedian like PewDiePie actually feeds real racism, especially since actual no-shit white supremacists took it upon themselves to rally to his defense. And not 'cause he asked them to do so. (In fact, he's repeatedly distanced himself from the Alt-right).
Rather; because the accusations against Pewds were bullshit, the uninvited Alt-right muppets were able to state the obvious and defend him in the first place. And enabling them to do so was a boon given to the Alt-right by the drama-loving, clickbait-producing incompetents who whipped up this controversy in the first place. People who apparently see nazis everywhere, yet believe themselves to be fighting fascism by diluting the term itself to the point where people shrug it off as a household term Facepalm
Now, don't get me wrong — there's a lot of nazis to be watchful of out there in the real world. But these accusations have little to do with the real world. Or atleast, they had little to do with the real world — until they ended up causing unwarranted (and as such, unpopular) fallout for Pewds; thus morphing the whole situation into a truly outstanding photo-op for the Alt-right. All they had to do was line up next to this dumpster fire, smile, and wave.
Allow me to defer to a greater writer than myself and quote Hentropy from just above:

I suppose the point here is that specifically you have to look at the nature in which the joke is being told. As someone who heard quite a few of those "nigger" jokes growing up, it's really not THAT hard to tell when a joke is being done maliciously and when its done is a good, fun spirit, it's really only difficult when you make it more difficult, by constructing all of these rules and boundaries around what sorts of jokes you can make and when. The situation with PewDiePie is somewhat of an example, he obviously wasn't making any of the jokes seriously or in a mean spirit, but his firing had more to do with him having a generally young audience, but then the media (who have it out for Youtubers bigly) went full-stupid and started calling him a Nazi, mobilizing the legions of actual assholes to come out, hiding among the people with reasonable points.

Real bigotry will always find its way to expose itself, if it hides behind comedy exclusively it is not effective at achieving its goals. So what if real bigots laugh at certain jokes, they're bigots for reasons that have nothing to do with the comedy. Is a joke going to make someone a bigot? That's a bit a stretch, like video games or porn making people violent/rapists. So go after real bigotry all you want, but don't tilt at every windmill, especially in the Trump era critics are going to have to be specific about calling out real bigotry. Going nuts over small comedic offenses is exactly what made people sympathize with Trump over the Access Hollywood tape.

My two cents on the issue. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know (or care) about PewDiePie, but I read elsewhere that he had made several attempts at anti-semitic jokes, so it wasn't just a one-off thing. The media often tends to sensationalize, but comedians like Colbert tread a thin line, and not everyone can pull that off. I struggled for a while with the idea that irreverent depictions of religious icons could be considered harmful. But it is not just about me: regardless of how I feel (or don't) about symbols, it is important to consider how other people might react to it (sometimes things get really bizarre). And for jokes it is the same: I prefer to give up on a joke than risk feeding cultural values that I consider objectionable. And in general, I find stereotypes inconvenient because they get in the way of reality by reducing actual human beings to a small set of preconceptions.
As AMassiveGay said previously: "There is nothing worse than being the target of a cruel or malicious joke and then being told to lighten up if you object". I guess it is easy to find something funny as long as you are not the target (to be fair, some people probably enjoy being made fun of). "Women driving" is only funny in a culture that tacitly views women as somehow "inferior". Making fun of people for the way they look is childish at best. Shaming the behavior of people with clinical depression can do more harm than good. I see nothing funny in a photoshopped picture of people praying that suggests some of them might be terrorists (I can't find a link, I saw it passed around in a bar after the 2015 Paris attacks). But maybe I am just a stereotypical party pooper. Beer.gif
It is ironic that joking could be such a serious topic... --Cmonk (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! Th hug.gif Though, as someone with more details avaliable, I just wanted to offer you a clarification. You wrote:
"I don't really know (or care) about PewDiePie, but I read elsewhere that he had made several attempts at anti-semitic jokes, so it wasn't just a one-off thing."
Just wanted to let you know that, indeed, it wasn't just a "one-off thing" — in the sense that Pewds has in fact been smear-campaigned against twice now. As you'll see, both of these times, it's been a complete joke. If you don't bother watching, that's fine — but just keep in mind that what you "read elsewhere" isn't true.
And if you do bother watching, you'll be able form your own opinion, which I don't think will disagree with the conclusion that 95% of people have been drawing about this whole thing. And don't miss the video linked previously by me (above) either. Straight from the horse's mouth. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts on the issue:
The firing for the anti-semetic joke is just the tip of the iceburg. Pewdiepie over the years has taken a rather drastic shift in the type on content he produces. When he became popular, he was popluar amoungst young kids for minecraft videos. But over the years his content is more oreintated towards an older demographic. Not only that, but he would post a video ranting about YouTube every other month. This is not the type of person YouTube or Disney want to have relations with so it was only amount of time until he was cut off.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Yup, it has everything to do with Pewds just passing 25 and progressing as an artist (and nothing to do with him being a nazi Facepalm). But hey, with a sufficiently uncharitable interpretation, everyone's a nazi! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Well the Nazi content may have played a role in Felix's firing due the the recent USA political disaster, but from how I see it, it served as an easy opportunity to fire Felix. He gets a huge amount of ad revenue and most likely gains an amount that contributes to YouTube being unprofitable.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I misremembered what I read here, where the conclusion seems to be "with great audience comes great responsibility" (my interpretation, not a quote). Anyway, I don't have anything against the guy, and in the video he recognizes that the last stunt went too far and says that he considers himself a "rookie comedian" which I think supports my point about the difficulty of "treading a thin line" (in a previous discussion you talked instead about a "door" so we might be in agreement on that). I guess being famous, especially on the Internet, just makes it very easy for things to spin out of control. --Cmonk (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I generally view a lot of his content to be bad taste overall. Lots of clickbait titles and thumbnails. Felix isn't the brightest person either, in fact, he sounds a bit mentally challenged to me; a lot of his videos are quite mindless and stupid. In short, I'm not a fan of him as a person, and I'm not a fan of his content.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
So PewDiePie had an audience of 50 million subscribers, is 25 years old, using a barely 10 year old platform? Praise God for modern technology! nobs 16:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no, fuck PewDiePie and fuck PewDiePie apologetics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjNILjFters - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I find nothing redeeming in paying people who can't read/speak English to hold a sign that says "Death to all Jews." That isn't a joke. There might be a world in the infinite worlds theory where it is, but this one is not it. That is tasteless in every way and isn't even remotely close to a "thin line." If there's a line he ran a couple hundred yards past it. I feel bad for the two men in the video. EDIT: I'm not saying he's a Nazi for the "jokes," but he isn't innocent. He made the type of mistake you deserve to suffer for. AyzmoCheers 13:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Interpreting if it "really" was a joke or not is one thing (which I discuss further here), but what I do agree with you on hands-down is that freedom of speech =/= freedom of consequence. And that's an important point. Ultimately, I don't think anyone is bad for being offended by Pewds, and I don't think anyone is bad for not being offended by him. It's all people, man. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he's anti-Semitic per say, but he's certainly a fucking numbskull for giving sensationalist media ammo by paying two men to do anything in association with the phrase "Death to Jews". Like this is the guy who made the front page of news for Youtube after stating that he'd deleted his account or whatever, and even I knew that was never going to happen. He had plenty of clear warning that """"news"""" sites were going to overblow everything and anything he said, and he still managed to not foresee "Death to Jews" drawing any negative attention. Facepalm megalodon (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And another thing, Felix should've also known how delicate the political climate in the US alone is right now. Es decir, Pewds should have been aware that a lot of the liberal/conservative or partisan arguments that are popping up frequently because of this year's circus have become more heated than usual. There's a lot of political infighting everywhere, and companies like Disney or YouTube, which are based or at least identified as American companies, absolutely do not want an entire shitstorm brewing bloody murder because this idiot kept making "Death to all Jews" jokes thinking they were laugh-riots. As another user has said, the major news stations that broke this should also shoulder some of the blame, because this huge gossip machine that churns out news has taken some idiot's Nazi jokes and blown them over to the point where they're basically declaring Pewds is an avowed Nazi white supremacist. As Megalodon also said, yeah, Pewds isn't a Nazi, but his pendejo actions affected him in the end, even if he didn't expect such backlash or did (welp, I think this was all rambling gibberish. There's a point there, but I don't know where it is). Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! There's a roach on my Wall!' 18:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another up and coming successful French provocateuer who seems to have gotten himself in very similiar circumstances and trouble, testing the bounds and limits. Fortunately for both these guys, they're young enough, talented enough, and have enough sense to lesrn from the experience, to start over. nobs`

Pewdiepie is an idiot and what he did normalizes anti-semitism which is never a good thing. Unfortunately, millions of fifteen year olds (his core demographic) now grow up thinking paying someone to say "kill all Jews" is somehow "funny" or "edgy". — Unsigned, by: Zionist Goy / talk / contribs

Tiny social experiment[edit]

This is not directed at the community at large, but to the individual reader. You don't need to know me to participate.

Hypothesis: If posting this makes me some kind of fencesitter/mitläufer/feetdragger in your eyes — or worse yet, makes me part of the problem and/or the enemyWikipedia — then you may suffer from clinical zealotry.

Discuss. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer a world where everyone consistently applied this asshole/ideologue dichotomy to the current world. I do think, however, that your graphic suggests that all of these ideologies are equally "normal", when it is possible that (as Trump-ites would claim) Islam is more pro-asshole than is Christianity. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't really find an issue with the image. The larger message I think it's trying to present is this: pointing out extremist outliers of a group and calling it representative is strawmannning.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The Reverend has a strong point about splitting. And we'll it soon enough in this Springs budget debate when Trump comes out against his own party on stimulus, infrastrure, single payer, saving social security, and the minimum wage. It'll be hoot to see the Trump haters oppose those issues. nobs 20:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobs, I'm saving this. Let's see if any of this comes to pass. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It's taking shape on Social Security and Medicare. We'll know more tomorrow nite. nobs 09:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do satanistes get in the "asshole" category ? From what I read about satanism (the "moderate" ones, not those who sacrifice people), they don't seem to be assholes, it's just a religion (or à philosophy, depends on what kind of satanism), however stupid it sounds. Diacelium (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
To me they've never really been a serious "religion", that would suggest they actually believe that Satan and God exist and that Satan is better, when they clearly don't. I don't think everyone who calls themselves a Satanist is an asshole but rather than call themselves humanists or something that accurately describes their philosophy, they call themselves Satanists and do "satanist" things to troll/scare/make Christians uncomfortable. In other words, "you're not helping." Hentropy (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
(EC)You sort of get the point with the last two but they are badly expressed. Someone who "Hates God" logically isn't an atheist because to "hate" someone you really have to believe they exist. And as for the second one - what's wrong with worshipping Satan? And does anyone really claim that all men do this?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that RBP didn't make the image and that a user from Imgur made it. It's not perfect by any means, but try seeing what image is trying to say through the feminist comparison. I would agree that "asshole" is a poor choice of words here, but a post I made previously on this topic gets what the image is trying to say.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I said "You sort of get the point with the last two". But really while the first two have real individuals in the "asshole" category, the second two have straw men. So it could probably have been done better while making the same point. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't what you posted actually an example of Splitting (psychology)Wikipedia? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think most people would disagree with the central thesis of "assholes v everyone else" but it's rarely that simple. A simpler example is someone who is ostensibly part of the "good" group but may have sympathies or support for the assholes. "I'm not a KKK/ISIS/Nazi/genocidal, but..." kind of situations. People opposed to bigotry often accuse bigots of lumping in all the goods with the bads and broad brushing- but really many of them don't, many of them see as much nuance as the rest of us but just don't see it as a pressing deterrent to their bigotry. Like how a rationalist might say that a church's charitable contributions does not excuse or absolve them of perpetuating bigotry on a different scale, or that ignoring bigotry by Christians is just as bad as perpetrating it. Obviously disinfo can play a big part in inflating the problem when it comes to race and other issues. Hentropy (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting point. People opposed to bigotry ... Do you think there are people out there who are for bigotry? or is it generally coached in terms such as national security, public safety, educational standards, job qualifications, or some such? If so, doesn't it seem the two sides are talking past one another? nobs 00:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
As usual, it depends on the definition. In my Oxford English Dictionary, a bigot is "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions". In that case, I partially qualify (the brain is not a piece of rock, words carry weight and some ideas are just too dangerous to be tolerated). But according to Merriam-Webster, a bigot is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Put this way, I am not too sure; I'd like to think that I am somewhat justified, but I guess I wouldn't notice if I became prejudiced.
It seems there is a distinction to be made: are you a bigot if you defend your own opinion against everything else, or are you a bigot if there are some opinions that you refuse to tolerate? --Cmonk (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I always associated 'bigotry' with irrational intolerance of immutable characteristics; such as racism, xenophobia, etc, where the prejudice and fear is directed at different groups for 'banal' reasons. I don't see how disagreeing with other *opinions,* even to extreme lengths, would be bigotry since the target of such anger could be *anyone,* provided they happen to come to those conclusions. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well in that context I was talking specifically about unapologetic bigots, of which I've had various dealings with. While they might couch their ideology in a lot of dubious statistics, many of them don't make the argument that literally all blacks are violent/stupid/etc. I've also had dealings with literal misandrists on the other side of the spectrum (though it's really the same side), and they're both just as quick to use that stupid "if you had a jar of M&Ms and some were poison..." argument. The point being that the #NotAll arguments is unlikely to sway most people who already don't believe it. Most reasonable people don't mind admitting that not all Muslims are terrorists for example, it's almost become a meme, but especially since most in America have never met a Muslim, the idea of banning them doesn't personally affect them much. Are they part of that maligned 'asshole' group simply because they put the perception of security over the sensibilities of people they've never meet and are unlikely to? Hentropy (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Religious bigotry can easily antagonize (mutable) opinions, typically other religious beliefs (or lack of them). --Cmonk (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
1) Actually agree with Cmonk. People can be bigoted against those with different lifestyles or religions or weight, yet those technically are mutable.
2) Virtually every American has met a Muslim. I grew up around decent Muslims, and where I'm from is only barely a city; was friendly with the Kurdish and Bosnian refugees, though there were other Muslims. One of my favorite teachers had the complaint that the Muslim men who had moved in would always treat her like crap, where they refused to talk to her as a person because she was a woman. My views on Muslims is thus... complex, though if you didn't know me you'd assume I'm a bigot about it. Saw something horrifying a few years back; in the Midwest, what I think were recently settled refugees, a young man and woman shopping. The man was dressed "normally", jeans and t-shirt, while the woman was in the full niqab or whatever it was called, only had hands and eyes visable. But as they walked, the woman walked literally a foot behind, like a well-trained dog. I don't have a problem with the headscarf, but if I can't see your face, psychologically I can't even register you as "human".
3) Speaking of Muslims again, strawmanned Atheists and Feminists don't claim to speak on behalf of all of Atheism/Feminism, as they can't because they are strawmanned. The KKK (and neo-nazis and so on) doesn't claim to speak on behalf of Christians; they claim to be protecting white people, with various definitions of "white". However, virtually all other white people categorically reject that the KKK represents white people in any form. You do see rejections of Islamist terrorists by other Muslims, but you often see the qualified rejections of "we don't approve of these people, but they are doing it because of your foreign policies/heathen ways/smarmy attitude", or "we don't support terrorism, but we agree with their goals". It may not be the majority that do this, but it's a significant enough number that it's not on the fringe. It's difficult to find a white person that responds to the KKK as "well, we disagree with their methods, but they do what they do because how dare a black person date their niece" or "well, I don't believe it's ok to lynch Mexicans, but I do support a whites-only America". CorruptUser (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Your point on the non-Muslim teacher I assume complaining the male Muslim treated her like crap, objectively and sociologically, they probably avoided contact or speaking with her because in their culture it would be disrespectful to her husband. In America, we have the age old stereotype of the "cross-eyed Indian", cross-eyed meaning dishonest to 19th century whites. Whereas in many Indian cultures, children were raised to never look a parent or elder in the face cause it may be challenging or rebellious. Yet they had to watch and follow a parent with the other eye. The result was many cross-eyed Indian children. When they met whites, they defered by looking at them cross-eyed, a sign of respect in Indian culture, but interpreted in white culture as dishonest. nobs 07:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about your point that "virtually everyone has met a Muslim." My parents never did, and I only met one Muslim before I started moving around. Depends on how you define it I guess, I don't mean "asking for a soda at the food truck" kind of meeting. I don't live in North Dakota, either, I live in Delaware, a mid-atlantic blue state comprised primarily of urban sprawl. It's my understanding that most Muslims live in urban areas in the eastern part of the country, go into the suburbs and they become a, erm, 'novelty'. So personally it would not surprise me at all of 80%+ of people in the country have never had an extended interaction with a real, live Muslim, and even fewer work with one or consider one a friend. This is what I mean by people not often properly understanding what the bigotry is about and it's the same stuff that makes conservatives consistently say coastal liberals are out of touch. Most people who want to ban Muslims or whatever aren't Christian fundies or hardcore atheists who see them as satan worshipers, their only experience with them is just negative. Understanding this is important to actually doing something about it. Hentropy (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The NYC area is 30 million people, that's 10% of the country. Then there's Boston, Chicago, LA, and so forth, which make up far more than 20% of the country. While yes, I'm sure there are huge sections of the country that only know Islam as the religion of plane hijackers, they don't make up the majority of people. It's a problem, sure, but I'm not convinced it's the only one. StickySock (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Those numbers include outer suburban areas, and presupposes that everyone in the city and its metro area has had some kind of extended interaction with them. Most people live in what we might call a "metro" area but their culture and everyday lives differ greatly from those who live in the core urban areas. They're suburban, and they're the same kinda of mostly white suburbanites in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that voted for Trump. If you want to believe these people have a lot of interaction and experience with Muslims you can, but it's not the reality in my experience. I don't mean to belabor this point because it's kind of tangential, but "virtually every American" meeting a Muslim seems wildly out of touch. Hentropy (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The fundamental flaw is the original premise, that a "Muslim" is a member of a relgious faith. It's not. A "Muslim" can be classified under US immigration law the same way a "card carrying communist", "communist fellow traveler", or "anarchist" have been, as adherents to an ideology that calls for the destruction of the United States Government. nobs 22:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
In that case, the million dollar question would appear to be; are muslims in fact "adherents to an ideology that calls for the destruction of the United States Government", in your opinion? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure Judge Sessions is busy crafting the language right now. It shouldn't be too difficult passing it in the House & Senate with a presidential signature when he's through. Let's put it this way, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell the US will allow any type of Shariah courts like you have in Canada or the UK for the next century, at least, before he's through. nobs 00:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can define 'Muslim' as anything but someone who follows the religion of Islam. Now, you can argue that Islam advocates "destruction of the United States Government" or whatever, but Muslims are still a religious group by definition. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Islam is a political system and ideology. nobs 00:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Prior to 1927, there were no wasn't much federal immigration laws in the US. While there was quarantine and detention at Ellis Island for health screening, no federal law barred access collected a 50 cent head tax as a source of revenue for the US Treasury. Indeed immigration occurred much like you see in the opening scene of Titanic, you bought a ticket in Liverpool or Manchester and set sail.

After the First Red Scare and Sacco & Venzetti trial, immigration became a federal issue foremost and fundamentally to apply ideological tests. See Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. lawWikipedia. Ideological screening is the basis of all US federal immigration law, revised in 1952, 1965, and in the 1990s. nobs 01:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"In that case, the million dollar question would appear to be; are muslims in fact "adherents to an ideology that calls for the destruction of the United States Government", in your opinion?" -RBP
I would posit that every Salafi and Salafi-related group (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir) adheres to a philosophy/ideology/religion/whatever that is fundamentally incompatible with the US's and the rest of the West's value systems. I would also posit that a number of Shia also adhere to something also incompatible, but much less common than the Sunnis. I would recommend that these groups in specific be barred from immigrating to the US, rather than "no Muslims at all". It's especially sad considering that the Baha'i are, if anything, better than the average 'Murrican and should be snatched up immediately in spite of being a scary brownish color. CorruptUser (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
What about Muslims (and others) who feel that religious laws should have dominance over "man made" laws, do not agree with secularism in principle, etc, but are not willing to use violence to achieve their goals? Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Speculatively speaking, I would suppose it would have to begin with an Act of Congress stating advocates and adherents of Shariah do not have protection under the Establishment Clause, that Shariah represents a "clear and present danger" or some such. The Communist Control Act of 1954Wikipedia, which is still on the books, could be amended. Note we haven't really addressed immigration law yet. Separation of Church and State proponents should reaaly love this, cause the US Congress could stick it to 1400 years of a pseudo-religious law and tradition bigly.
Here's the challenge: anyone claiming to be a Muslim could be labeled subversive, which would require Muslims to renounce Islam and bring a death sentence upon them (takfirism) by the laws of Islam. Western civilization and its legal systems must face this challenge sooner or later. nobs 05:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"Western civilization and its legal systems must face this challenge sooner or" have alot more guns then them. When in doubt get more Dakka. --2d4chanfag (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that was covered with the Salafi-related groups, as the MB and Hizb ut-Tahrir are technically nonviolent, ostensibly at least, but not people I'd want in.
I... disagree, strongly, with the claim that the West "must" face the challenge of Islam sooner or later. Like I said, I don't see all Muslims as being some sort of subversive force, and Islam itself isn't inherently a problem, but rather the Salafis and their ilk. Otherwise we might as well claim that we need to face the challenge of Christianity sooner or later. CorruptUser (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The ShahadaWikipedia is an oath that renounces all other forms of sovereignty other than Allah and is recognized by the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and nullifies the oath a naturalized US citizen would take to pledge "truth faith and allegiance" to the United States and its laws. nobs 14:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Erm... I don't see where in the Shahada it says that. CorruptUser (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The two witnesses would make it an oath under the Mosaic law, binding under both Jewish and Christian traditions. See here and here (first :50 secs in Arabic, the rest in English). Yes, there are disputes among Islamic scholars whether this is enough, and I'm no expert, but IMO (to summarize a vast subject very briefly) dissenting scholars are in the minority, and we are in a period of widespread proselytization right now. The self-help manuals and handbooks for missionaries explain it this way. Often it's referred to as a 'statement of testimony', and if you dig deeper you'll see a 'testimony' is what you give in court, especially if two witnesses declare they heard you make the testimony. nobs 08:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
From the WP article: Recitation of the shahada in front of witnesses is also the first and only formal step in conversion to Islam.[9] This occasion often attracts more than the two required witnesses.... nobs 08:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me transliterate the Shahada:
  • There is One Lawmaker but Allah, as spoken through the mouth of Mohammad His Prophet (i.e. the Qu'ran & Hadiths).
It really isn't covered at all by just "Salafi" groups (a term you are using in a political rather than theological sense). If you are a religious believer, especially in a lawful/academic religion like Islam or Judaism, it inevitability follows that you will see your divine laws as superior to man-made ones. Obviously there are many religionists who support secularism in theory, and the majority of all of them who accept it in practice, but this is a position which is intrinsically tied to religiosity itself. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
any one can believe in anything they want and do as the're god/s see fit, but when it comes to other people that's when it stops. If a religious group can't figure this out, then it will die out.--2d4chanfag (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
In Judaism, there is a concept of Dina d'malkhuta dinaWikipedia; the law of the land is Jewish law (as long as it doesn't contradict it). In Salafism, only Allah can make laws. CorruptUser (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer. But does the Establishment Clause, or should the Establishment Clause protect the free exercise of a system that denies the sovereignty of the United States Government? Should a legal system that denies the USG sovereignty, and either actively or in theory uses capital punishment (takfirism) to keep its members in tow, be protected as a religion? If a United States citizen is born holding such a collective identity, and either willingly or unwilling is required under its tenets to remain within the collective identity by intimidation, does that constitute a violation of their fundamental rights as a US citizen? If a US citizen refuses to break allegiance with the collective identity, i.e. renounce the First Pillar of Islam and holds to a parallel legal system that claims sovereignty over the United States Constitution, is that citizen and the organization they are associated with, however loosely (this would include 'secular Muslims'), a threat to the United States? nobs 13:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A shorter headline[edit]

Original headline: People who claim they can survive the (hypothetical) zombie apocalypse (I am sure many of you already figured out what I am going to say before reading) Many people who claim they could survive a zombie apocalypse would not survive a zombie apocalypse as their only experience is video games and movies, the questions- Could you kill another living person? Could get food from hunting/fishing and farming? Could you last without modern conveniences? Just basic survival questions

I am sure that they cannot answer a simple question- Can you kill another living person? I am not saying I could kill to survive without emotion because I know I would be one of the first to die in a zombie apocalypse because of my inability to control my emotions. In a world overrun by a disease that reanimated corpses, you would have crazed survivors who would go out and kill for fun, you would have to defend yourself which would most likely mean killing another human. Anyhow, many of these people say that because they play zombie-based video games and watch zombie movies they will survive. I don't think these type of people realize that games and movies are fiction, that would be like saying, "I watch movies about war which means I can survive on the battlefield". If anything, trying to survive in a zombie apocalypse would not be fun and games like many people think. Another thing, it is not like in a zombie movie where stores have food on their shelves; the store shelves would be empty. I back this claim with the effects of Hurricane Katrina, store shelves were empty and that was a regional disaster; a zombie apocalypse would be a global disaster. It is not like relief agencies like the Red Cross or FEMA is going to come and save the day, it would be every man, woman and child for themselves; I hope many of these wannabe survivalists would enjoy having to grow crops, hunt, fish and having no real use of electronics (unless you were some kind of engineering genius with plenty of resources). Also it is not like in a survival horror game where you have a data saving spot if you die or can find ammo in strange places. One last thing, nobody would really know how a zombie infection would work in real life. Chances are it would be a mutated parasite, bacteria or fungus that turns people homicidal and drives them to eat uninfected flesh, as for the mode(s) of transmission, would it be spread through bite? Through water? Through infected animals? Bugs? Or the air? In closing: the word, "apocalypse" is in the name for a reason.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A zombie represents a proportionally similar predatory threat to, at most, a wolf. A human sans intelligence is perhaps one of the least threatening creatures on the planet. There's some interesting questions of infection vectors, sure, but traditional medical approaches such as sanataria and triage rooms would minimize those risks. Zombies are only world-ending because the fiction they exist in relies upon them being so. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's Cracked's take on it, for what it's worth. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
A nuclear apocalypse is a more realistic "what if" scenarios. Zombies are just for video games and d&d. They should not be taken so seriously.--2d4chanfag (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Since zombies can't be discussed without specifying which IP we borrow their "ruleset" from, I'm going to go ahead and assume George A. RomeroWikipedia-style "shamblers" (unable to run, almost deaf and blind, brain as only weak spot...). I'd just like to point out that I would guess a wolf might actually be more dangerous than a single zombie. A wolf is if nothing else an intelligent hunter, especially if operating in a pack. Zombies, on the other hand — while relentless — are not hunters, per se. I mean, they claw at metal doors until their very limbs disintegrate. They're like really shabby video game AI, in a sense. Now, admittedly, even in the world of zombie lore, the Romero-type zombies are the ones least amenable to the "hardness" of hard science fictionWikipedia (i.e., the ones "relying on the most woo" to work). For one, they don't seem to depend on a pathogen at all (since anyone who dies, from any cause of death, is soon reanimated). But my bigger point was just that in any zombie IP where the zombies aren't allowed to run, I'd certainly think that a wolf might be a bigger threat... But I could be wrong. The problem here is, of course, that some IP's do in fact give zombies incredible strength and the likes. Damnit. It's hard comparing the real world to make believe. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Lets say a ZA could happen, we will say our hypothetical infectious disease is a parasitic organism. It is spread through bites among humans but other vectors include rodents and fleas, incubation period is four days. Ground Zero in this scenario will be Santa Fe, New Mexico (I am aware the southwest has plenty of wild rodents so that is why I chose Santa Fe for this scenario), the pathogen does not reanimate the rats but they can still infect humans. Lets say three hundred rats are infected and all together the infected rats infect 2500 people in town, during the four day incubation period 156 people go across state. Once the infected people turn each reanimated corpse bites between 20-300 people in one day and that is per zombie. Most likely, health and law enforcement officials might think that these people might be drunk or on drugs, by time health officials conclusively determine it is an infectious disease the disease would be spreading across the region. Going by the rule that the only way to stop the zombies is to destroy the brain, stopping the infected would be more difficult, keep in mind the infected rats would still be around which would not require infected humans. I am sure the hypothetical infection would spread quickly but keep in mind I am not good with epidemiological models but this is the best I could come up with.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Borrow from a slightly different tradition and get the other side of a suitably wide and/or deep river without a bridge/to an island: if one can make use of a river meander or sea promontory to corral them some drastic means of eliminating them (a firestorm perhaps) can be used (and find a disease that kills the vector animal). (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is amusing that the op criticises folk for believing they would survive a fictious apocalypse because they are basing their opinion on films and then defining a fictitius set of properties for a fictitious creature and the ensuing fictitious apocalypse to totally prove they couldnt. This all assumes that any zombie wouldnt be a rotting puddle of meat soup by the end of week, and if not, unless brains count as part of your five a day, theyd be harmless, toothless, scurvy ridden husks. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I did mention I would be one of the first to die, I was targeting people who only play video games and or watch movies. Technically zombies already exist, there are parasitic wasps in the Amazon rain forest that infect ants with their larva, eat the brains of an ant then the larva controls the ant corpse. Who is to say a parasite like that couldn't emerge but it also evolves to where it can spread larva to other victims so it can reproduce faster?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Surely it takes longer than a week to get scurvy?
How would the (theoretical) zombies versus vampires film develop? Bear in mind a zombie vampire ≠ a vampire zombie. Would 'The President is a Zombie/Werewolf (or even a Werechameleon)' be a horror movie or a comedy (or both)? (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
There are as many different vampire rules as zombie rules. Although zombies in general seem to have an inexhaustible supply of energy from nowhere; eating brains is really just a hobby. Vampires, being undead too, might be perceived by zombies as inanimate objects. They may also look less well lit than their surroundings to animals which have reflective retinas, like cats, due to having no reflection. (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
To get my point across (not trying to sound rude), lets take a zombie apocalypse and use it as an analogy for a regular disease pandemic. Supplies would be disrupted, stores would be empty, paranoia would skyrocket, there would be looters and government response would be brought to a stand still. Even in a real pandemic, it may come down to, "Kill or be killed".--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not particularly convinced. The 1918 flu pandemicWikipedia killed somewhere between 20 and 100 million people worldwide, this was at the maximum of the pandemic severity index (5 on a scale of 1-5). The total number of deaths from World War IWikipedia, which co-occurred, was "only" 17 million, and this number is inflated by ⅓ for disease-related deaths (including the flu) for combatants. People got a lot more agita over the war. Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually people have tried to model the zombie versus vapmire thing. (Shouldn't there be an ignobel in there?)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the question here is, but I'm going to look into it way too much. If it's about the ability to take the life of another human being, I'm pretty sure everyone's capable, especially when threatened, but that doesn't mean that they feel good about it. I also think most people have the capacity to survive a zombie apocalypse as long as they; 1. Know how to start fires, 2. Can find / download / print a manual on edible plants before they're all stolen or the internet goes out, and 3. Can fish. I guess if you're in the city it's probably a different story (aka you're totally boned,) but here in the mid-west I'd just take to my nearest local forest (preferably on like an island) and hunker down, waiting for it to all blow over. Another question is what type of zombies we're dealing with, another is what percent of the populace is infected. There's like infinite doomsday scenarios, so creating a mental plan for them would make you insane. ("Go hide out in forest until bad stuff stops" is basically my solution for most poor scenarios.) It can be fun to imagine yourself as a rouge survivor in a legion of undead though. megalodon (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I rephrased what I was talking about, could someone live in a permanent survival situation? Could someone whose only experience in general survival is video games and TV last any apocalyptic event leading to the collapse of civilization?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

October 2017 Doomsday Prediction and a Guesstimated scenario of a smaller yet catastrophic impact event[edit]

This one is listed on RationWiki's and Wikipedia's list of doomsday predictions, the morons claiming October of this year will be the apocalypse say that Planet X will hit the Earth. Got to love those Doomsday nuts, wasting tens of thousands of dollars to build bunkers that would not be able to withstand a planetary collision. Not a Astrophysics buff at all but if an object only 150 miles in diameter traveling at a speed of say 60,000 mph impacted in say Ohio, I would guess (Like I said, hardly know anything about Astrophysics) that the fire ball would span the entire United States, most of Canada as well as Mexico and the Caribbean sea. The crater would be about 1000 miles in diameter which would destroy any bunkers in the eastern United States and Canada, then the apocalyptic earthquakes would rip apart all other bunkers in the Western Hemisphere and assuming an expensive bunker could survive the earthquakes then there would be the tsunamis that would drown anyone who's bunker is near a coastline. Now assuming that somehow a bunker could withstand all that, life on the surface of the Earth would be gone (except extremophile microorganisms that live in hot volcanic springs such as Yellowstone or Hawaii). Then once the Earth cooled down from the extreme heat of impact all the smoke and dust from global fires would block out the sun freezing the world. That is not even a planetary scale scenario but then again this is my best guess on the effects (I cannot stress enough that I am terrible at physics, I was using the K-T Extinction Event as a point of reference for my guesstimated calculations). Feel free to rip apart my poorly guessed physics. Now here is an article talking about the Planet X collision from a British news outlet- http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/02/earth-will-be-destroyed-in-october-2017-and-the-rich-are-already-building-bunkers-6356300/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever considered writing science fiction or teaming up with some of your contemporaries and making a comic book? Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I assume that was an insult but yes I am working on a novel of an apocalyptic variety . I did say that it was guess work and I am terrible at physics. If it was an insult then okay, I know I have almost no skill in physics. But there are morons who really believe Planet X is supposed to hit Earth in October of this year.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Here are some random ideas for a plot: 10 people fight for a place in a bunker that can only accommodate 5. Jack isn't taking shit from anyone. Marie knows what's really happening deep inside the bunker. Steve is hiding her real identity. Gordon found some irregularities in the documents provided by his mysterious client. Cynthia is intrigued by this van that seems to be following her around. Raul has been having strange visions for a while. Francis is working on a secret government program. Elena has a dark secret. Peter is trying to escape from his past. Nothing could have prepared Kimberly for the role she was about to play. --Cmonk (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@RZ, It wasn't meant to be an insult. You appear to be genuinely interested in the sort of speculative ideas that spawn great sci-fi and comix. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@RZ I don't think Cosmicdebris was insulting you at all, dude! I think he really asked if you had ever considered going into fiction writing? You seem interested in topics of that nature! Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The book I am writing is supernatural-science fiction in nature, one of the main enemies is zombies (In the book I call them, "Shedhim" which is Hebrew for Demon or Evil Spirit), plus the zombies in my book are intelligent. Two of the main themes is Wicca and the Kabbalah. Plus I have extremely gory depictions such as a guy getting his scrotum cut open and his intestines ripped out through the hole in the scrotum. Another would be a guy getting his spine broken open and a zombie drinking the spinal fluid.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow. What do you do with the intestines? put it on a stick and roast it like a shishkabob? nobs 23:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
My knowledge of male anatomy is limited, but there is a better way of getting at the intestines than through the scrotum. (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
That is why I wrote it that way, to make the character's death more agonizing. My zombies are very cruel. On a side note, in the book I am writing I make fun of Alternative medicine.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
That's my boy! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the world becoming more rational?[edit]

I recently read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, and I was thinking that, as crazy/sad/dangerous as things may occasionally seem nowadays, at least we don't have literal witch-hunts anymore (or do we?). According to Wikipedia's page about the Skeptical InquirerWikipedia, in 2006 "Kurtz felt that interest in the paranormal was beginning to fail, one piece of evidence he used for this was that so few paranormal books were on the New York Times Bestseller list that had been there years before."

Does that still hold? Is the world globally becoming more rational? Is that a good thing? Is there any kind of research on the subject, or some kind of quantification (like the NYT list mentioned by Kurtz)?

Are websites like RW expected to become obsolete somehow? --Cmonk (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Some witches are currently trying to cast a spell against a racist "anti-establishment" billionaire, does it look like people are getting more rational ?
Now, seriously, it does look like the world gets more rational. But thanks to the wonders of the Internet, more and more people are attracted to conspiracy theories.
There always must be a RationalWiki. Diacelium (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you should speak for the world. My impression is that witch burning still happens in Africa and perhaps elsewhere.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My feelings on witch-burnings depend on whether or not the victims actually claimed to have supernatural powers. Those parasitic psychics that show up whenever a tragedy makes the news? Yeah, not going to risk any limbs to save them. CorruptUser (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
An irrational person is still a human being. They didn't kill anyone, but somehow they deserve death? I find your comment highly callous. Gutza1 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was a bit rough too. The death penalty being applied through people being burnt to death is a somewhat harsh punishment for any act. I just figured that CorruptUser wasn't being serious.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
So, to determine if the world is becoming more rational, should we use the popularity of paranormal books on the NYT Bestseller List, or the number of human beings sold into human trafficing last year, or beheadings perhaps, unless the argument is being made human trafficing and beheadings are rational. nobs 22:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a feeling that the question "is the world becoming more rational?" is the wrong or bad question to ask (it leaves out important information for answers such as "in what time frame? Centuries? Decades? Rational thinking as in "the 'alt-right' is clearly nonsense but it is growing and the Internet is a vehicle for spreading nonsense that people believe in?") I think overall, it's a step up from hundreds of years ago, reflected by our increasing life span and lowering mortality (which used to be high), which is a result of science and rational thinking and exploration. Still, we're a long way off since rational thought has to be trained since humans are programmed to be irrational for the sake of survival (you don't need to learn the scientific method to be a successful species). Elaborate, insane conspiracy theories are so attractive to people because it gives them an explanation for the crazy stuff they perceive happening around them and gives them something easy to blame rather than thinking about the complexities of stuff they don't like happening. As long as we're human, we need RationalWiki. And besides, even if humans are perfectly rational, RationalWiki would still be plenty useful since it's a rich source of information and filtering good from the bad and to help us learn our world around us. It can still document the crazy stuff around us if one day, everyone is rational and make us reflect on how insane we or our descendants can be. LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The time frame is a fair question, and I am interested in both: decades because that is what impacts us directly, and centuries because that is the big picture. I am assuming that the NYT book list criterion applies to years or decades at most, but I don't know how relevant it actually is. I agree that lifespan and mortality are good criteria that are linked to a rational approach to medicine. But in the long term those are going to reach limits, unless we bio-engineer our way into "curing" death. Or maybe it is an asymptotic thing, where we get closer and closer to living healthy for 130 years. On the other hand, war can have a negative impact, and war can also be rational if we come to a point where we have to fight for resources. I am not sure it is fair to say that we are "programmed to be irrational"; if anything, rationality improves survival as you point out in your previous sentence.
I personally appreciate RationalWiki as a source of information and ideas, and in a world of fake news and state-sponsored foolishness, I like to think that every little bit helps. But it seems bitter-sweet to me that rational skepticism is a reaction against its own fuel: if it weren't for things like ufology and other paranormal interests, organizations like CSICOP might not exist, and a possible measure of their success is how unneeded they can make themselves.
Finally, I am a curious about the long-term consequences for a rational world: is it reasonable to expect a utopian future where rationality is the basis for world peace and archaeologists look back at us with pity and incredulity, or is there a risk of moving towards a stratified society in which an unscrupulous higher class exploits a disillusioned lower class? Or would irrationality need to be strategically promoted "for the greater good"? --Cmonk (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that in the recent decades, we are going to reach a life span limit, but I don't think we've reached the total maximum yet, so count me optimistic. Rationality improves survival, but to an extent. Maybe it's because we've transitioned to a more rational thinking without evolution catching up, and we still have irrationality; we're still afraid of airplane crashes, train derailment, massive earthquakes, terrorists, shark attacks because they're so colorful and dramatic in the news, but we don't appreciate their extreme statistical rarity and even my own rational mind has to fight with those fears from time to time. Our own food supply, cigarettes, and cars kill us more than any of the worst terrorists can only dream about but there aren't news on those kinds of things.
I guess that's true that skepticism wouldn't exist without stuff like Ufology and paranormal interests though I don't think it's just paranormal stuff. We grow up from teachings and culture and that stuff can be so ingrained that skeptics realize that they need to cast aside such biases and examine the world with fresh lenses. Paranormal stuff do contribute, but I don't think that's the total extent.
That's a difficult question though I still think rationality is needed for world peace though about moving toward the divided society... not sure if there is a risk. History swings left and right a lot like a pendulum, and it might seem like society might become more stratified but it might just swing back and be more egalitarian, though the other way works too. That's always the pattern in history and I don't think we're going to get to that point of being a massively divided society where the higher elites exploit everyone below them, and it's utter chaos. You know any examples of irrationality being promoted for the good of it? LEFTYGREENMARIO 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone promotes irrationality as intrinsically good, but Ancient Greeks like Plato were motivated to find a way to live a good life and build a good society, and they promoted as rational some ideas that would be viewed more critically today. To be fair, without the benefit of modern knowledge, anything that can be thought of is potentially realistic. RomanticsWikipedia reacted to the rationalization of nature, and famous theologians have claimed that reason was their enemy (can't find a good quote, but it is easy to imagine why). More recently, Budhists claim that part of their religion is compatible with the scientific methodWikipedia, while other parts (reincarnationWikipedia) cannot be disproved. It is conceivable to me that selected irrational beliefs (religious, pseudoscientific or other) could be promoted with an explicit focus on "good things" like compassion and balance with nature. For medicine, this is not good enough; but for regulation of society and personal life, I don't know.
It is easy to criticize irrationality when the outcome is obviously bad (torture, death, disease, misery), but things are not always so simple. During a conversation with a creationist, I was surprised when they told me that they value critical thinking (in retrospect, my surprise was evidence of my own prejudices); however, they thought that teaching kids critical thinking was about telling them multiple stories so that the kids can choose whichever one they like the most... I think I understand the intent to be and do good, but sometimes I feel like I am the Big Bad Morpheus trying to shove the Red Pill down Pure Innocent Neo's throat. --Cmonk (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right. What is the yardstick for measurement? and does that yardstick reflect my own biases and prejudices? nobs 03:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I wish I had a simple answer to that. The way I see it, our personal understanding of the world depends on our experience, which is subjective; in other words, our world view is pretty much 100% biases. A simple example: if I had spent my whole life trapped in an old mountain cabin, and all I knew about the world came from Tolkien books, how would I know that Elves and Orcs aren't real? Because I have never seen them? In reality, I have never seen a Dodo either (and never will), but I have confidence that at some point at least they did exist. I have had many opportunities to read various books (fiction or not, how did I even make the distinction?), think about various things, and (over)analyze conversations around me. When I read Carl Sagan, there was nothing really disruptive, it was just new information that connected nicely with what I already "knew", filled some holes and opened up new ones. But what if I had spent my life in a supersitious environment where all the stories suggested that magic was actually real? Carl Sagan's book might then appear in my mind as some isolated oddity, a bizarre story about this so-called "reality" that doesn't connect to anything that I "know".
As far as I can tell, unless we get challenged, we may never know about our biases and prejudices. And even then we may refuse to accept them, or find some cognitively dissonant way to justify them. So, rather than a measure of how biased we are, maybe it is easier to identify our cluster of biases by being aware of the opinions we agree or disagree with. --Cmonk (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif I started to visit this site to deprogramm myself, and to distance myself from my nutty past and also to live a healthier life(as in mental heatlh), i'd even considered briefly PUA for date advice so i came a long way. I wanted to change myself and challenge my beliefs and i feel rationality made me a better person.--Benaresh (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
But being rational is probably less than 50% reason and analysis, the far greater part being instinctive action. Let's define rational as thoughts and actions that do no harm to oneself or other human beings. Any rational person would pick up a $100 bill they find in the street, and rationally consider it would be impossible to find the owner, the wind would blow it away, or somebody else would find it, secure in the knowledge they caused no harm. The next day they find cars keys in the street and pocket them as well. When the owner retraces his steps, the keys are gone. In which case did the finder act rationally and how much rational thinking was applied? nobs 18:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This page defines rationality as the use of logical reasoning in the areas of discourse and problem-solving, and also mentions some pitfalls. It can be very difficult, even impossible, to make a reliable prediction about the future; what qualifies as a "good" outcome may be entirely subjective; and humans can only do approximate logical reasoning, so it is not realistic to expect individual people to always find optimal solutions to real-life problems even when such solutions exist. I see rationality as having more to do with learning from history and learning from multiple sources; so in a way it is about how individuals and groups interact, rather than what isolated individuals think and do.
The situations that you describe also involve morality and ethics, and those are questions we are still struggling with in general. In a pre-civilized or post-apocalyptic scenario where you have to kill to survive, or sacrifice yourself for your family, the "do no harm" guideline may actually be irrational. --Cmonk (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
My main point is rationality is more a function if action than thinking, or a predisposed mindset. The old, "Is jumping on a live hand grenade to save comrades a rational act"? And jumping on a grenade does harm to oneself. So now we have to question if rational action, caused by rational thinking, is good in itself.
The illustration isn't isolated. Why would a women get pregnant if childbirth is so difficult? In the end the person will die anyway.nobs 19:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that when trying to assess the rationality of a person/group, their actions matter more than their thoughts (which are hard to access anyway). But as you pointed out earlier, who does the assessment brings up the question of biases, and the meaning of "good" is not obvious at all: is an action good from the point of view of a selfish gene, an individual, a group, an ecosystem, an ideology?
And I think your last question suggests that there may be limits to how far we can push our attempts at rationalizing things. The goal of (voluntary) pregnancy is the child and the expected benefits, childbirth is a bump along the road. I don't know if this is a philosophical or religious question now, but most creatures don't look for a reason to live, they just do (most creatures probably don't look for reasons at all). Some people choose to end their lives because of negative feelings resulting from unfortunate events, not because they reasoned that they were going to die eventually (I am guessing here, I don't know that for sure that's actually reason 11 on this list). --Cmonk (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(reset) Access to multiple sources of information (even 'just scanning the newsstand')/watching the one thing on TV that is not 'unadulterated tosh/aimed at other viewers/created by people who hate the viewers') can lead to people becoming more rational/willing to consider other points of view than was in the past (the proverbial village with one priest and an occasional visiting reporter of 'news'). And, no doubt, people in the future will consider some of what we now accept as reasonable fact as irrational nonsense. (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You're not talking about rationality. You are talking about brainwashing. nobs 19:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Isn't brainwashing the creation of a mindset in which outside ideas are explicitly rejected? 82.44.143 meant that people are more accepting of viewpoints. Motion to send this to the Nobs Hall of Fame. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! There's a roach on my Wall! 19:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to have access to multiple sources. The downside of choice is that it makes it easier to find an echo chamber. So, as you point out, multiple sources need to be not only accessible but also used, even if only a little. Maybe thematic diversity is a better indicator of a rational society than a low level of "irrational" themes (in the sense that having all entries in the NYT book list be about theoretical physics might be just as bad as having all entries be about ghost hunting... I am not sure...). --Cmonk (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Related reading[edit]

Here's some data. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I haven't been here for very long, and I did a cursory search on RW before posting the initial question, but I wasn't able to get a good match so I thought that it was worth asking. I tried to keep it short but I actually have a lot more questions, and your post does contribute some answers. I see value in RW, and there are occasionally posts where people testify to the benefit that they received. But this benefit isn't necessarily about scientific knowledge, I think it's more about thinking in general.
The American and European studies that you mentioned were about science. It seems obvious that rationality is a basis of "the" scientific method (the days of natural philosophy are not that far yet, and even today it is probably debatable in some fields). But the opposite is not so obvious to me: does rationality require scientific knowledge?
Consider for instance poetry, and art in general. While there may not be a need for precise mathematical theories, there are still rules and methods because human emotions are not completely random. Even just using words and sentences requires a minimum of mental discipline. Is there a non-scientific path to rationality?
In the future, this could be important because of an observation that you bolded in the European study: "we can note a criticism towards scientist’s obscurity concerning the results of their achievements and the way they handle information towards the public." This obscurity may not be the scientist's fault; this is hinted at in Carl Sagan's book, but I see it as a growing problem that is not going to get better: when modern scientific knowledge is difficult to grasp even for a scientist, what is a "normal" person supposed to do? I saw a discussion on another website where a commentator reacted to an article about some recent result in theoretical physics by saying that they appreciate an explanation that they feel they understand, even if it is incorrect. Is that a rational way to look at things?
Imagine somebody who doesn't believe in cells and bacteria (oh I wish I made that up...), but who knows that modern medicine works; when they go to the doctor, they expect to get some medication, they don't really care about the details. On the one hand, this seems to me like a dangerous attitude, and I would like to criticize them for being intellectually lazy; on the other hand, this is a predictable result of a consumer-focused society: if you pay, you expect someone else to do the work (including thinking) in your place, especially since experts should be more qualified anyway; and engineers constantly rack their brains to make sure that the most advanced technology (smartphones) is usable by the least sophisticated users. In other words, a lot of our thinking is geared toward reducing our need to think...
So we have all these contradictory forces that push and pull at the same time, and it's not clear to me where we are going, and where we should be going. There are many urgent issues (violence, disease, hunger, inequalities) that need to be addressed, and maybe rationality is part of the solution. But in the end, if someone lived a long and happy life, during which they won as much fame and wealth as they wanted, and died peacefully surrounded by their loving family, does it matter that they believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth? --Cmonk (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative voting systems, sortition[edit]

What do you think about alternative voting systems for the presidential election, like range voting or instant-runoff voting ? It may be more democratic than current voting systems.

And what about the idea of having randomly selected people for the Congress/Parliament instead of elections ? I think it may be a good thing as it would be truely representative and be impossible to corrupt (and politics wouldn't be a career, so the Congress won't have to screw people anymore). Diacelium (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

'You' buy a lottery ticket - and among the prizes you can win are 'x days in Congress/Parliament' etc; the opportunity to suggest 'something be done about some topic that particularly concerns you that is not otherwise covered' (eg 'idiots on bikes') and various others. (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
A random choosing may be more democratic, but it's a bit risky if that random choosing process begets a batch of people wholly unfit for political office (not that the current leaders aren't unfit), but these unfit people could also be a bit worse. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! There's a roach on my Wall! 23:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I like the random idea. Whe Jeb Bush announced, I thought they should put Hillary & Jeb on one ticket (flip a coin for top and bottom), and hold a national lottery for the other two slots. nobs 10:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Putting random idiots in charge is not a good idea, since uneducated people can be easily bamboozled by legal complexity and corrupted by lobbyists' money bribes, just plain appeal to nationalism/fascism. It's not much different than who we have now. Frankly, I've lived in one shithole in the US and I don't like the idea of being governed by a random person from there. Bongolian (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The American Congress seems to be already full of idiots. The difference between uneducated people and politicians is that politicians learn precisely how to "manipulate" people to be elected. There could be laws outlawing lobbying on Congress, or something of the sort (and I'm pretty sure that some elected congressman probably already accept bribes). And another advantage would be that randomly elected people would write laws with a normal language.
The current Congress isn't representative. It has a very low approval rate and most congressman keep getting reelected. Congress isn't representative of different ethnies and of social classes in America (They are almost all rich, I think). Polls show that most americans actually support things like free Healthcare and free education, but it would never pass in The current Congress. Diacelium (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually Congressional approval ratings are as high as they've been in many years - about 29% right. They've floated around 12% for most of the new millenium wheter Dems or Pubs are in charge. It's early tho, they haven't voted on anything this session yet. nobs 09:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Direct ranked choice vote technocracy -- direct STV vote by civil engineers only on civil engineering programs. That way, we can finally blame all of our problems on the unified government-scientist conspiracy. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Who here would vote for 'King Log' or 'the proverbial zombies and vampires'?

What would happen if there was a voters' strike? (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Besides the classic argument for proportional representation for larger forms of government I always wondered about making a certain amount of government experience necessary for election in higher forms of government (like you need 1 term of municipal government experience for a county position). On the plus side any politician would have a track record by the time they get to bigger government and they'll have experience working with the system but there are probably problems besides the ideological "anybody should be able to become president" Vorarchivist (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Or be the child or wife of a popular incumbant. That should be enough. nobs 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WATCH: Far-left american politician advocates for socialism ![edit]



More seriously, how unlikely is it that Reagan supported socialism (worker ownership is literally the definition of socialism) while being considered as the worst ennemy of socialism and gets applauded ?

Funny thing is Bernie Sanders also supports employee ownership. Diacelium (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've always been in favor of employee ownership over the more hierarchical systems. Because ultimately, neither the manager nor the union boss actually works. CorruptUser (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
From a pure political science point of view, there is nothing inherently socialist or even anti-capitalist about employee-owned businesses- indeed Marx himself would probably call it petty bourgeoisie. A bedrock of Marxist theory is the idea that there should be no distinction made between firms. All workers are part of the same class and share the same struggle, even if every business that currently exist became employee-owned overnight, we would still be capitalist so long as they are competing against each other. That's why socialism tends to be defined as the state ownership of the means of production, because only the state has the purview over ALL workers and the authority to protect their interests.
Hearing Reagan praise the idea is a little strange, but there is nothing in classical liberalism or economic libertarianism that says that voluntary association and employee ownership is a bad thing. Hentropy (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Marx didn't invent socialism, many of the first socialists (the one before Marx) were for worker-owned business, and generally for competition between businesses. It's called market socialism, I think. Diacelium (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Didn't invent it, no, but helped cement many of the ideas we currently associate with socialism. Infusing more socialist ideas into markets has been a bedrock more of American left-wing ideas for a while, now. Hentropy (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Reagan is speaking specifically of state ownership vs employee ownership, a not so subtle distinction that Leninism and many modern communists confuse.
@CorruptUser, even an employee owned business needs managers and bosses (a boss here being essentially a trustee of the enterprise with fiduciary responsibilities).
And the big unstated thing about employee ownership is, corporate law is the only thing that makes such a collective enterprise possible. The collective enterprise of workers is indeed a separate, private person with its own rights apart from individual owners, workers, competitors. nobs 21:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the harsh reality; 1000 workers don't just show up and build a factory. But I'd rather not have the business be so top heavy, where there are far more executives than needed. CorruptUser (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Air Canada offers a great example. A state owned enterprise, they paid the CEO like he was a government bureaucrat, something like $700,000 a year, while most CEOs of airlines its size started at something like $1.2 million plus bonuses. Air Canada became non-competitive because it attracted second-rate talent. Between 2009-2012, at a time Executive pay and compensation packages were lambasted, Air Canada, a government run enterprise, had to double its CEO pay to make it competitive again and avoid bankruptcy. nobs 00:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
What about worker cooperatives ? They seem to work fine and to be actually be more productive. Diacelium (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Depends on how you define productive. Most co-ops in the US (which are already rare) tend to be nonprofit and constantly struggle with keeping the lights on and staff paid. It's hard to stay afloat in modern capitalism when you're deliberately handicapping yourself in every way. Around where I live we have Amish farms and markets that are known for their better quality meat/produce and they get a decent amount of business. There's an anarchist bar/hangout spot I used to go to that was co-op and did okay, but the menu was all vegan and employees came close to living there much of the time. I can't speak to how it is in other areas or countries, though. Hentropy (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Because coops operate on such a thin margin, a thief in the accounting department or warehouse can fuck things up bigtime. Adding security and background checks for workers only adds to costs. So who is going to police the honesty of coop members? And what do you do about a transfer of assets once all the original coop members die? The heirs or buyers of the shares of the deceased might not be so ideologically driven. And who wants to own stock in a barely profitable coop when their money can be used much more effectively, efficiently, and profitably elsewhere. Ultimately, only the super-rich can afford to have money tied up at 1-2% return at the risk of total loss, which defeats the whole original theory behind worker collective co-ops. nobs 00:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible RW Discord?[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but I've been kicking around the idea of a RationalWiki Discord server in my head. Of course, the admins will need to approve it, and we need rigorous protection, as well as throw in a goat or two. But who knows? It may be a good idea.

The living oxymoron (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I proposed the idea a whole ago. Thanks for the bump~ TheMyon (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose? Is it simply the chicken coop in another place and/or with a broader range of complaints and disputes?Teurastaja (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A general chat of sorts. I dunno. I've yet to fully think it out. The living oxymoron (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this going along the lines of the fabled IRC chat from the days of yore? Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! Look! Up there!' 16:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
IRC, but better. And Discord is free, so there's that added benefit, as well as bots to amuse RW users on dead days. The living oxymoron (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
That's...not a bad idea, actually. I've used IRC on Wikia before, so if you say it's better than chat IRC then I'm getting more curious. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! There's a roach on my Wall!' 17:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
And the best part is that Discord servers are relatively easy to set up. If we do set one up, I could help show y'all the ropes. The living oxymoron (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This was mentioned a month or so ago, but never went anywhere. I know Discord well and could help with bots and such. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Does discord only work on browsers?—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope. You can download the program and use it that way. It's how I use it. o vo TheMyon (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Not everyone uses Windows though.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Discord is compatible with Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android. Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 03:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want, it is possible set you up with a more personalized chatroom that can be integrated into an online website. It's called rocket.chat, and you can modify, brand, and self-host it. --TeslaK20 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For those interested, here's the old one: https://discordapp.com/channels/272467383770284033/272476777429860352 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

From WP: "Discord has had problems with hostile behaviour and abuse within chats, with some communities of chat servers being 'raided' by other communities. This includes flooding with provocative topics related to race, religion and politics." It would be another channel to police for trolls but with no obvious added benefit to RW mission. Bongolian (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Internet.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
A forum I use has a bot that sends out the invite link only to users that use the forum. One could also set it up so users who wish to join the discord have to be approved in some way, instead of just instantly gaining access to the chat. This can also be done by having new users join an intro channel. Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 03:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Discord's fun, but mostly because of spamming memes and text-to-speech (dubbleyewdubbleyewdubbleyewdubbleyew) with friends, I don't know if rationalwiki really appreciates either of these. Everything else people use discord for (minus voice chat of course) I personally feel is generally taken care of by the saloon bar. (This is all just my opinion of course.) megalodon (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Paranormal Skepticism[edit]

Not that I deny the existence of ghosts or other paranormal beings but for TV shows about haunting's, I would like to hear from scientists from a skeptical POV. The first rule of scientific investigation is to rule out the supernatural, I say this as I am a big supporter supporter of science and critical thinking. While it is possible that beings such as ghosts could exist, scientists probably would not have the proper tools at this point to confirm the existence of the paranormal.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

you should probably look on youtube for the many videos of the hosts on those haunting shows staging the results. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This is addressed here and in the case of ghost hunting TV shows here. It is incorrect to say that "the first rule of scientific investigation is to rule out the supernatural" because there is no such first rule and supernatural is non-scientific by definition (or at best not precisely defined). There are various definitions of science and the scientific method, some are simple ("the goal of scientific research is the production of theories that yield successful predictions and understanding of a wide range of phenomena", by E. Brian Davies) and some are complex (diagram from the website Understanding Science). Also, Brian Cox recently argued against the possibility of ghosts. --Cmonk (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"While it is possible that beings such as ghosts could exist". How can you demonstrate this statement is true? What is your positive evidence for this belief?
I would say "We don't know if it is possible."--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind when I mentioned a rule of science (which I was incorrect on), I tried to go by memory. As for me having evidence, I never said I did. I was just mentioning something that might exist. Saying ghosts are real would be the hypothesis based on an observation then you would experiment with it (but many of the experiments were poorly set up), I also did mention that science at this point does not have the tools to do a real investigation (not attempting to use a god of the gaps-type argument). In the future if people have a better understanding of Theoretical and Particle Physics then scientists could do a proper investigation. Don't think I want to discard the scientific method and 100% support parapsychologists, not what I am saying as parapsychologists do not do proper experiments. Not defending parapsychologists but clearly they don't have any proper tools (or physics it seems).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right in the sense that anything is possible (maybe the laws of physics change when we are not looking) but this is not very helpful. After centuries of observations, what distinguishes reality from fiction is limitations (we can't go faster than light, we can't have perpetual motion, the dead don't come back to life). When you say that science doesn't have the tools, you already assume that the phenomena are "real". But if it is all hoaxes and mistakes (hallucinations, misinterpretations), then there is no need for new tools. Ruling out hoaxes and mistakes could actually be the first rule of scientific investigation into paranormal events, and I suspect there would be no need for any other rule. --Cmonk (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I should rephrase, I meant was that paranormal investigators should find new tools and rule out hoax's. I am not saying parapsychologists are legit scientists, I am saying they should bring in actual experts in Physics and have carefully controlled double blind studies. Another problem with parapsychology is the possibility the the paranormal is most likely beyond the current understanding of physics. Do note when I said, "people don't have the tools" I meant observing other planes of existence (i.e other dimensions). If ghosts are real then they might be on another plane of existence and or dimension (just a guess and my guess could be determined to be wrong with future scientific discoveries) and science does not have the proper tools to see beyond our view on existence (We don't even know what is outside the universe but that may change in the future). I was criticizing the poorly put together experiments and the lack of input from physics experts.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem with "parapsychology" is conflict of interest. It is not by accident that the field of parapsychology is filled with deception, fraud and tricks. If they did proper experiments like you suggest, they would always conclude that there is nothing paranormal going on, and soon be out of a job. Serious skeptics already do things properly, and nobody has won the million-dollar challenge.
"Observing other planes of existence" is problematic only if you already assume that such things exist. If I tell you that there is an invisible immaterial gremlin dancing on my desk, but modern science doesn't have the theory to build an appropriate detection device, you could (rightfully) conclude that I am making stuff up. This is why Bob asked about "positive evidence". We could spend years and write thousands of books discussing all kinds of planes of existence, ghosts and other imaginary things, but in the end, that's all it is: imagination. Without positive evidence that such things are even somewhat likely (and so far there isn't any), they are not "beyond the current understanding of physics", they are just dreams, made up stories.
If you want something that is beyond the current understanding of physics, you can look at concepts like dark matter and dark energy. Those are names given to observed but unexplained phenomena. --Cmonk (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(Reset) Most people will accept that 'a fair bit of so-called paranormal activity' is down to peculiar natural phenomena/unusual and low frequency coincidences and alignments, creative misreading (easier to spell/remember than 'the correct word beginning with p') and similar, but that 'there is more to heaven and earth than in scientific philosophy' - and many people have encountered some 'weird things that nobody they've asked has been able to explain.'

And if you enjoy such things it can be a good enough reason for travelling - in the category of 'all places in the UK beginning with the letter Z' - or doing some house/local history. (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Even though my interest went down over the years, I still enjoy science fiction and fantasy. While I don't take "haunted" places seriously, I can't deny that some creative entertainment makes for a less boring local life and more touristic activity (for better or worse). However, that nobody is able to explain something doesn't mean much; sometimes there is just nothing to explain in the first place, and the ease with which we can fall prey to illusions, some of our own making, should encourage us to raise our mental guard and keep it up.
When I was a child, I thought that there might just be something to this UFO thing. This belief lazed around in the back of my mind until one day I found this blog, and then I was cured. In my view, the article by Carol Rainey in this document is emblematic of a larger issue that goes way beyond just UFOs: there is a complex web of interactions between people who are there for fun, people who are there to make money, people who take things too seriously, and people who are in dire need of professional medical help. Short summary: Carol Rainey is the ex-wife of the alien abduction investigator Budd Hopkins (now deceased), and she recounts how she aided the scams at first, and progressively became more and more alarmed by the realization of what was actually happening. The last part of that document also contributes to answer Rationalzombie94's request to "hear from scientists from a skeptical POV" (protocols, health concerns, peer review, professional stigma). Minds are easier to break than one might think, and there is real danger and suffering underneath the hype. --Cmonk (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we might need an article on this[edit]

I don't know exactly where to place these guys, but... get this.

I'm talking about the so-called People’s Protection Force and "Kevin Mugur Galalae".

Here’s their "manifesto".

Seems to me like some kinda super-crank magnetic mixture of the Alt-right (hails Trump as an anti-NWO hero, calls itself "Alt-news", defends Adolf Hitler outright, rants about the importance of traditional family structure) and NaturalNews/Zeitgeist Movement/GlobalResearch.ca-type moonbats in general (supports the Occupy movement, defends Russian propaganda).

Their worldview also seems to invoke certain elements of David Icke (royal bloodlines, Matrix terminology) as well as a distinctly Freeman-esque approach to the UN and international law (and to silly naming conventions).

This, in addition to discussing GMOs, vaccines, chemtrails and a general depopulation conspiracy. You know, the usual grand unified conspiracy stuff.

As linked to from the Zeitgeist Movement official forums.

Anyone heard of the People's Protection Force before? Who is that Galalae guy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Certainly worth an article, break out the tin foil hats! This is totally paranoid batshit insane garbage. Nothing like starting my morning with a paranoid conspiracy article.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and don't miss the "manifesto" (linked above). It actually has some length; about 90 pages IIRC. Googling "People's Protection Force" yields nothing but the Medium article (as spammed across the fringe), which makes the existence of the 90-page text much more interesting. Who is this guy, and what's in his text? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Added to the to-do list, certainly seems worthy. See also this science blogs profile. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy! Also, I checked out his puffery-filled Amazon author's page (apparently he's written a few crank tomes). Based on said author's page, the guy is a definite Freeman (in the vein of Kevin Annett and Malcolm Roberts). Possibly, he's the nuttier of the three — and if so, that says a lot. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

When on Queen Mother Allah's green earth did support for NATO become a left-wing position?[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Poe's Law

A recent survey shows 97% of Democrats support the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization compared to only 60% of Republicans. That is particularly disgusting since most Blacks are Democrats. Apparently, because Supercilious Orange made a few remarks a while back about NATO being "obsolete" - comments that should offend any decent person because they imply it should have ever existed in the first place - despite having retracted those comments and affirmed support for NATO Zionists, the reaction of the American "left" has been to defend an organization that was founded to stop left-wing revolution, funded neo-fascist terror through Operation Gladio, dismembered Europe's last socialist nation of Yugoslavia and turned Mama Afrika's most prosperous anarcho-syndicalist direct democracy into a reactionary hell through genocidal racist bombing. Has "left-wing" politics simply turned into the defense of neoliberal "business as usual" against Trump/Le Pen/Brexit right-wing populism? It has hardly even "anti-fascist" since today, due to neoliberal pro-NATO, pro-EU, anti-Russia xenophobic hysteria, "progressives" are sounding like the John Birch Society, puking out reactionary anti-Soviet lies, and supporting openly neo-Nazi, pro-Israel, genocidally racist and anti-LGBTQIA+ terror gangs in Ukraine against revolutionary socialist liberation movement of the glorious Donbass proletariat. Instead of supporting the heroic comrades fighting for the freedom of Ukraine's most socially progressive and tolerant region, they line up with all of the US ruling class, INCLUDING Trumpenfuhrer, in denouncing the freedom fighters as "Putinist fascist terrorists" and the Russian "annexation" that the Marxist workers of Crimea voted in favor of. The reality is that Trump is NOT pro-Russia as you claim. You can defend your NATO and EU and Justin Trudeau all you want, I prefer the side of radical Marxist revolution. Howard McWashington (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comrade the revisionists have been attacking workers ever since the bourgeoisie destroyed the Soviet revolution once Stalin died and destroyed the Chinese revolution after the Gang of Four. If even men raised in revolution like Khrushchev could be so counter-revolutionary, what chance the Western left raised under the bribery of capitalist super-profits from the Third World? No wonder they support the Zionist apartheid state's genocide against the global Muslim proletariat, the occupation of Ukraine by fascists trying to prevent a reborn Soviet superstate, and general fascist politics everywhere. As Mao said, the Western proletariat cannot be relied upon because there is no such thing, only a global bourgeoisie vs the global proletariat. There are thus no 'leftist' movements in the West, only varying degrees of Nazism. Real Workers of the World, Unite! Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
What in Hell was that. The dangerous zionists come to stop the marxist revolution. I don't like EU or NATO, and I am a far-left on American standards but what the fuck are you on, man ? And Why would we like Putin, his government is State capitalist and is trying to pass a parasitism tax on unemployed people.
And ni, I'm not for a marxist revolution. Communism doesn't seem to work. Diacelium (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't doubt 97% of Democrats support NATO. I'd like to see a multiple choice poll with 3 choices to see how many Democrats can identify what NATO is or why it exists. nobs 10:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to see a multiple choice poll with three choices where Nobs gets to decide which of the last three Democrat presidents were KGB agents. (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Holy hell what a cranky post. It's not every day you get one of these. Thank you for that. Filed under: "Tankie classics". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Look who's back part II (Joe McCarthy) strikes again. (The captcha was 'graveyard shift': draw your own conclusions) (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Fundamentally, it's 'Environmental McCarthyism'. It started with the Putin-Tillerson-Exxon deal of 1998. Tillerson began negotiating a deal for Exxon in 1995 with Putin (who was a Yeltsin flunky at the time) granting Exxon not just exploration and drilling rights, but part ownership in the reserves. This was unlike the Saudi Aramco deal negotiated in the 1930s, where the reserves remained in Saudi hands, and the drilling consortium split the profits and costs with the Saudi clan. Operating rigs and refineries are but a fraction of the value of Saudi Aramco, the far greater value being untapped reserves (Saudi reserves = 1/2 World GDP in 2014). The deal made Russia rich, raised Putin as Yeltsin's successor, and Exxon, America's largest corporation, abandoned North America for Siberia. (That's why British Petroleum operates in the Gulf of MexicoWikipedia; Exxon long ago ran all its North American competitors out of existence, and anti-trust laws were createdWikipedia because of this).
As a result of this post-Cold War deal, Gorbachev's selling out natural reserves to the capitalists, Russia, Exxon, and the United States are joined at the hip (the mons pubis, more accurately). The Rosatom-Uranium One deal is the shoe on the other foot, as the US allows Russian ownership of energy resources (uranium mines) in the US as part of the quid pro quo. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukrainian independence anticipated joint longterm cooperation and economic development.
The sanctions on Russia, Putin, Exxon, and Tillerson's retirement pension is an opening salvo by Progressive/Communists to retake the Russian people's natural resources from the greedy globalists and multi-national corporations. Defense of Ukraininian nationalism is used by these same Progressive forces as the pretext for NATO enlargement and funding the military-industrial complex. McCarthyism, and the global capitalist Russian bogeyman is the fear factor in play. The Progressive/McCarthyite slur, 'global warming denier,' was coined to attack the energy dependent West and multinational oil conglomerates in bed with the Russian sellouts of the revolution, and to destroy the capitalist system. This is why we need a special prosecutor to look into Trump's ties to Russia. nobs 20:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You're such a dick. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
'Wrong interpretation' of McCarthyism - a reference a previous thread on the novel 'Look Who's Back' with Joe McCarthy in the title role. (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I probably mentioned this before- Improving Naturopathic Medical Education[edit]

I think I brought this up before but I cannot remember but anyways, I understand that people want other choices in healthcare but calling Naturopathic Practitioners "physicians" is a horrible idea. It has been noted that Naturopathic schools (not the online Diploma Mills) have less pharmacology courses than a Physicians Assistant which by the way is only a Masters Degree Level program (Not the best reference but it was the best I could find: [2]). To make the Naturopath training better increase the number of pharmacology courses with standard medical textbooks as well as being taught by experts in said field (PhD in Pharmacology or Doctor of Pharmacy/PharmD). Same pretty much applies to every other class in their schools. So there is proper medical training (N.D's consider themselves equal to M.D's) and also have training in Alternative medicine, have the doctoral degree be called, "Doctor of Integrative Medicine"/"I.M.D" or something along those lines or have a regular M.D/D.O program but have an optional post professional, "Master of Science in Naturopathic Medicine" degree. Anything would be better than what Naturopathic practitioners are now.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WHOWikipedia made official their support for traditional medicine in 2003 and again in 2009. As a result, they provided guidelines for various activities, for instance in their Benchmarks for Training in Naturopathy: they specify how many hours of training should be given in Anatomy (96), Physiology (96), Pathology (48), Hygiene and public health (24), Psychology and stress management (24), First aid and emergency care (24). I have no idea about the actual medical value, and I don't know either how medical schools deal with that (do they even know or care?). In case you are worried about Ayurveda, Nuad Thai or Tuina, they got that covered too.
They have a portal and are now 3 years into a 9 year plan detailed here, I am guessing with heavy support from China. I don't know how much to trust this document, but there are many charts and figures; they claim "Potential cost savings are an important reason for individuals to opt for T&CM services". They rank "Lack of education and training" second last (last is "other") in the list of "Difficulties faced by Member States regarding regulatory issues". What name to use for the practitioners doesn't seem to be much of a concern (maybe it's in "other"), but I guess you should expect things to have "improved" worldwide by 2023, and coming soon in a state near you. --Cmonk (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting information, now what I find amusing is the fact that there is a Naturopathic clinic in Michigan (I live in Michigan) and the first doctor's visit cost around $200. People think regular doctors are evil and only care about money but gouging people for substandard treatment is horribly unethical.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Fed rate increases[edit]

The Federal Reserve is set to raise interests rates this month. The reason given is always "to keep the economy from overheating". The Fed is essentially telling Congress, which will vote on Trump's proposed $1 Trillion dollar infrastructure stimulus about May, "don't do it'. This puts Trump in the same position Bill Clinton was in in 1993. Clinton came in during the early phases of a recovery when stimulus was not needed, but wanted to pile on an additional $60 billion (a lot of money in those days) to the national debt as a stimulus. Republicans argued it was a payoff to big city mayors and governors that got him elected. This was the beginning of the Gingrich Revolution that ousted the Democrats in the 1994 Midterms, citing Democrats fiscal irresponsibility in times of prosperity.

The key here is, by the time Congress votes on a budget in late Spring, the fundamental analytics will have been changed by the Fed. This gives the GOP cover for not passing Trump's proposals, and Trump can tell supporters he tried to keep promises, but the Fed was against him and realities changed. There's already talk the Wall won't be built or stimulus passed til next year. And just as Obama failed to pass healthcare reform his first year, he was crazy enough to come back his second year and pass what Congress had already rejected as a priority. In both the Clinton and Obama cases, the incumbent's party was shellacked in the Midterms. nobs 05:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So, if you want to defeat Trump & the GOP, here's your opening. Both Clinton and Obama were handed a loss in their first budget proposals, and in Obama's case, he stubbornly came back with it tbe second year. The net result in both cases was loss of control of Congress and gridlock for the remaining six years. To follow the playbook Democrats must oppose infrastructure spending this year, or next year if Trump thinks he can use it (as Obama did Obamacare) as an election year issue. nobs 21:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Anybody notice?[edit]

I called a federal office the other day, and what was distinctly missing was the voice menu operator's first question, "For English press one". nobs 07:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be implying this is a good thing, why? Christopher (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. The question I have is, how did this come about? By Executive Order of the President, or of his Cabinet Secretary? and we never cease to hear how difficult it is to enforce change or undo regulations snd executive orders, yet this was fully implemented quickly. Did Trump take time out of his busy schedule of defeating ISIS and North Korea and promoting global recovery to inconvenience native Spanish speakers, or is this a coup within the agency by bureaucrats acting on their own to paint Trump as xenophobic? nobs 11:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
My mistake, I doubt it's "a coup within the agency by bureaucrats acting on their own to paint Trump as xenophobic" though. Christopher (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump certainly does have a very busy schedule. Christopher (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
It depends on which federal office you called. There is not a mandated automated greeting for every federal agency. They are largely allowed to set their own policy on administrative issues such as that. Petey Plane (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes staff quotas just aren't met. Situation normal, AFU. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 14:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian diplomat deaths?[edit]

Now i'm no conspiracy theorist and i'm loath to fan the conspiratorial flames BUT i'm going to anyway. There are at least 6 top Russian diplomats who have died in somewhat suspicious circumstances since November's US election, at least two of which were connected in one way or another to the multi-billion dollar Rosneft oil deal. Considering the whole Russian hacking thing and what we now know about Gen. Flynn and Jeff Sessions troublesome pre-election contacts with Russian diplomats, that's more than a little suspicious isn't it? What say you guys/gals? not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 11:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

They absolutely were heart attacks (induced by blunt force). Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
6 in 60 days and 9 in 15 months. While all of them may not be connected, two seem somewhat odd. Sergei Krivov, November 8, 2016 in New York. Initial reports said he fell from the roof and had blunt force injuries, but Russian officials said he died from a heart attack. Mikhail Lesin, founder of RT, November 2015, in Washington. Medical Examiner said it was "blunt force injuries." The Russian media said it was a "heart attack." Do I detect a pattern? Disagreements like these are indicative of just how bad US-Russian relations are right now. The sanctions have had their wear.
Here's a theory:The sanctions basically are targeted at a handful of individuals who are extremely rich and powerful. The sanctions basically bar these individuals from access to US banks and the US dollar. So these powerful people must engage in money laundering. But they are blacklisted and can't do it themselves, they have to use intermediaries. And because the sums are so large - oil company profits, some of these intermediaries may have raked off a little sumpthin' for themselves.nobs 15:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
On a related note: the only possible way for a FISA warrant being obtained would have been for investigators to make the allegation to FISA judges that Trump associates were involved in money laundering for Russians in violation of the sanctions. That has nothing to do whatsoever with hacking. nobs 16:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Secondary theory via my Breitbart channels - it's all Hitlery Shitton's and Barack Devil Kenyan Muslim Usurper "Make Sure To Mention That His Middle Name Is 'Hussein'" Obama's faults, since they are both devil worshiping cannibal child-abusing Satanists. OF COURSE they'd kill Russian diplomats for the same reason they ordered all those Jewish tombstones desecrated and those four mosques firebombings since January, to make Donald Trump look bad. Doubtless Hillary colluded with the Russians in hacking her own servers. Diabolical. LOCK HER UP! Semipenultimate (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, could someone tell me why Obama's middle name is emphasized when the Muslim conspiracies start? I can understanding replacing the b in his last name to get Osama, after Osama Bin Laden, but why draw parallels to Saddam Hussein? Hussein was a secular dictator who happily played both sides in Iraq's sectarian politics just as easily as he crushed Islamist dissent that challenged his government. It's a rather odd figure for a supposed Islamist to be associated with. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aeonian: Because a significant number of my countrymen are politically and historically illiterate idiots. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
McCain calls Russia a gas station run by the mafia. Whacking political opponents is so Clintonesque. nobs 11:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
It's really surprising when people die. It's such an odd thing which happens very infrequently so there must be some connection between these deaths. And, look - here is a connection! I was right.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Semipenultimate: I stand corrected. Now that you've articulated a plausible scenario with such clarity reason dictates an obvious conclusion. nobs 21:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Remember Tisane (Nathan Larson)? Apparently they're running for office.[edit]

‘Red Pill Libertarian’ VA House Candidate Hopes To Legalize Child Porn, Marital Rape, Is Lunatic. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts represented by different people:
Rickyphoo: His face has sociopathic, serial killer written all over it.
VoteRonaldRayGun: This might be the most most unelectable person in US history. Yet I have absolutely no trust in Virginia's voters to make the correct decision.
NekryydremaG: [T]hanks to Trump and his rapey bullshit being ensconced into the mainstream consciousness, count on more pissfucks like this worming their way out of the woodwork.
HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the recent kerfuffle with Milo shows that pedophilia is more or less the only thing the right is willing to call out their own over. It also helps to actually be a Republican, as far as I know this guy is running independent. Knowing that, I bet the lamestream media regrets burying Trump's child rape allegations. Hentropy (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
What the fuck is this thing. This guy actually had an account here. What the hell. He actually already ran as Libertarian in 2008 (and failed miserably). Diacelium (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This situation is really funny and sad at the same time. To anyone who thinks this person isn't a paedophile, only a pedophile and/or lunatic would want to legalize rape and child porn. He's also an extreme misogynist who supports straight marriage. His wife also committed suicide and Larson previously owned a wiki dedicated to supporting suicide, surprise? Also, it's odd that the American Right is supporting pedophilia considering the left in the UK supports it.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't panic, Diacelium. Anyone can create an account here; they don't necessarily get privileges though. Tisane was blocked for 50 years, 18 days after his first attempted contribution in 2012. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
CheeseburgerFace, there are some pretty crazy people on the left in the UK and some of them support pedophilia, it would be nutpicking to suggest they represent "the left" as a whole though. Same with the right in the US. Some people on the far left support pedophilia would be more accurate. Same with the right in the US. Christopher (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel sorry for Nathan. I think he really is a smart guy. He just doesn't know how to use his intellect in productive (as opposed to self-destructive) ways. I am unconvinced he actually is a pedophile, I think he originally latched on to defending them because they were his friends in prison and defending them played to his worldview of "the vast majority of people are idiots but I am a member of the intellectual elite who sees the truth". (I wouldn't let him anywhere near my own kids though.) (((Zack Martin))) 11:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

And I'm wrong. I just wasted over an hour of my life reading the courtroom transcripts of the child custody case over his daughter. Nathan admits under oath that he told his wife that he wanted to impregnate any daughters they had. Obviously Nathan is a lot more disturbed than I thought he was. I still feel sorry for him for being that disturbed. But I'm not sorry that they denied him custody of his daughter. (((Zack Martin))) 12:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
So — considering Tisane's official dabblings into public office, combined with his long history of general insanity... Does all this warrant us having a page on the guy? Though, I am reminded of having recently argued against RW overlapping with ED in terms of which people we ought to focus on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
He's a nobody with zero influence (or audience). At this point, an article about him would be rubbernecking at a flaming train wreck. And yes, RW should not turn into ED.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Since we seem to share the intention that RW =/= ED, I dug out what I recently argued (on the AfD page for Joshua Conner Moon):

Personally, I think that almost anyone covered on ED (who is not obviously relevant in the way that public figures like Richard Dawkins, Ken Ham, Alex Jones etc are) need not be covered here "as well". And not just in an effort to keep the editorial practices of ED as far away from RW as possible. Feel free to call moralistic fallacy on me here, but by and large, I reckon overlap in coverage of individuals between ED and RW ought to be made as minimal as possible, now and in the future. Moralistic fallacy again, but to me, our focus should really be on (bare with me here) science/movements/trends/parties/products/treatments/companies/religions/cults and all that prior to giving focus to individual people. And the individual people who we doubtless ought to cover — aside from public individuals/crank "celebrities" — should really be people who ED would have very little interest in covering (e.g. Roger Leir, John Hogue or Daniel Estulin). Like, actual fringe people — not famous, but certainly not involved in internet drama. I mean this in the sense that the Skeptic's Dictionary, or any given issue of Skeptic magazine, mention extremely few of the people mentioned on ED, and vice versa. This, to me, partially makes the difference between an actual skeptical resource and a digital high school "burn book". But maybe that's all just me. I'm not saying, in a practical sense, that an internet drama war couldn't be fought on RW as well as in the ordinary places elsewhere on the web. As evidenced by the stream of new accounts, BoN involvement and troll baiting, this is clearly possible. I'm just saying, let's fucking not. Facepalm But these are just my two cents. The site doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for the site. But obviously, RW could be less hypocritical than it has been allowed to be at times (read: in certain portions of mainspace). Let's consider actively moving away from that, even with baby steps.

I still don't know how relevant it is to Tisane though, considering we do (and should) cover political cranks of all sizes. But I'm flexible when it comes to the details, I suppose. The bottom line, in my perspective, has more to do with how RW should not be/become a general drive-by outlet for doxing/character assassination/personal vendettas (while still staying snarky and biased, of course!). Admittedly, even with the best of intentions, it's inherently a bit of a tightrope to walk. And feel free to call me on the moralistic fallacy here as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
We need to hard solid and concise rules like our mission. Right now I feel like your proposition is to convoluted to be adopted for the site. Here's a proposed rule:
RationalWiki can cover crank people but not people who are blatantly insane and offensive in every aspect about them. Unless said individual has a very elevated celebrity status, such as a president, it's best not to bring attention to them.
How about that?—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but I don't think your "proposed rule" captures what I was trying to say very well at all. And — crucially — I'm not actually proposing any type of policy change here. What I'm discussing has nothing to do (per se) with our mission statement or the likes. I'm talking not of rules, but of attitudes. I'm just trying to give my own view on what I consider editorially sound, and what type of editing culture we ought — in my personal view — to pursue. That's all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
At least you're honest.Th hug.gif I think the proposal was more my opinion, honestly. I think we can all agree that RationalWiki shouldn't be like ED, no?—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

lol, Larson is still here: Special:Contributions/L's_Ideology <-- Roosh / Red Pill, pedophilia, suicide, wikis. It's obviously Larson. You're actually still hosting Larson's essays here. "L's Ideology" is a theme from Death Note, and Larson is a Death Note fan: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22death+note%22+site%3Anathania.org. ~Kiwi Farms to the Rescue

The existence of Essay:Age of consent abolitionist FAQ is certainly questionable. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Aside from being pro-child rape, it's not even a well argued essay. Half of the sources are from the bible (who gives a shit what Christians say, eating a cheeseburger means you're a sinner) and a lot of the feminism section is speaking for feminists rather than referencing them. The essay would be better if it argued that pedophilia needs more research, and individuals need to get help rather than be shamed for it. The essay in its current state is just ... rubbish. Nothing of value will be lost.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. (((Zack Martin))) 04:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Intelligible research paper analysis[edit]

Research papers only become visible to the public when they are deemed newsworthy, and even then they only appear as interpretations by people familiar (hopefully) with the subject. Rarely is there an attempt at detailing the arguments (context, methods, data, discussion) of research papers, probably because there are millions to choose from, many behind paywalls, they are already highly technical and hard to understand (you need a manual to read them), even harder to explain, and there may be legal issues constraining how the texts and figures can be used. Yet, such information would be invaluable to people who can't afford to dig into the arcane world of specialized sub-fields but would still like to understand what is going on in them.

I feel like there is a gap in the available ways to access research papers, somewhere between the raw things themselves and high-level interpretations like you can find on blogs and specialized websites (phys.org), a place for something that might complement the usual approach advocated in this opinion referencing this paywalled paper.

If such an intermediate content were even possible, would it be appropriate for RationalWiki (in forum or essays)? --Cmonk (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Eurekalert may be what you're wooking for. It's typically the press releases from universities about recently published papers that focuses on layman's terminology without the filter of "newsworthiness" necessarily being applied. It certainly doesn't get every major paper or journal, but cuts a way broader swath than your typical tech news section of the NY Times. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am a Doctor of Universal Life![edit]

That means I could come up with absolute Bullshit and people would have to believe me because I am a doctor.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Dog speed, my child. You're doing Dog's work. Reverend Black Percy (talk)

A user called "Owlman" has reverted many of my edits without discussion[edit]

Can you please tell me why a User called "Owlman" has reverted many of my edits without even asking me about them? I'm not quite sure what to do about this, so I thought this would be the place to raise the issue. Zionist Goy (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you could always ask him.RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I just did. He has not answered me yet. I also get a weird error message sometimes and have to put in the captcha again. Why is that? Zionist Goy (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Troll--JorisEnter (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Owlman has now answered me on his own talk page ":I don't always have time for leaisure and RW is currently low on my list of activities. Regardless, I didn't revert many of this user's edits, I reverted 3; one on Stalin, one on BLM, and one on Whataboutery. This user only started a discussion on the BLM page and reverted two well sourced sections (BDS support by BLM and Israeli apologia on whataboutery).--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure what to make of this, given that the user seems to be unable or unwilling to defend his actions but undertook them nonetheless. Or am I misreading this? At any rate, I would like to not have to have the captcha thing, which I presume Owlman did (if it wasn't him, could you please explain who did?). At any rate, is this normal behavior? Zionist Goy (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Not really, no, but we've had a lot of drama as the result of a person that also had a Zionist agenda point of view, and everyone else is tired of the fighting one way or the other. So he adopts a scorched earth policy to anyone who might be that person. CorruptUser (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kellyanne Conway Debacle[edit]

OK, I admit that I thought the whole "She isn't showing respect by kneeling on the Oval Office couch" complaint was a waste of time, but I think something's kind of crossed a line. I mean, really? Saying that's a "familiar position?" We're better than this, right? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Her sitting there like that was definitely inappropriate because she showed a lack of respect for the formal occasion of leaders of traditionally black colleges in the Oval Office with Trump; it flows from the top though (Trump posed both Martin Luther King III and Jerry Falwell Jr. in front of Playboy for a photo op). One specific criticism of her was also inappropriate because it was sexist, as it intimated that she was behaving like a slut. The person who made the comment publicly apologized for what it's worth.[3] It's important to be aware of distractions like this which Team Trump is happy to propagate to keep people distracted from their real agenda. Bongolian (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering all the weirdness about the things she has actually said - does it really matter how she once sat on a couch?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see why anyone needs to resort to Obama-esque pseudoscandals when the administration is a never-ending parade of genuinely terrifying fascist bullshit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm with ikranreed on this one, Conway is far from the most slimy actor in the White House, and obsessing over the way she postures herself while sitting is not a substantive critique of Trump, and gives them cause to start trolling about how Democrats hate her because she's a conservative woman. Hentropy (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, noob here, hello[edit]

I lost my job last week, and I have a new laptop, so I have time to help or annoy people online. :)

I got inspired to sign up here when I read the article about Brights and the logo looks, to me, like a butt with sunshine coming out. I went to their web site and it does *not* look like a butt. I'm confused, but after reading some of the articles here, I decided it might be some twisted humor? If that is the case, then this is the place for me!

I hope I did this introduction in the right place, if not, please show me where it should go. — Unsigned, by: M C Pee Pants / talk / contribs

There is plenty of twisted humor here (i.e Snark, Sarcasm and Parodies), though there are some serious articles (with snark mixed in). Hope you are happy here! Welcome to the RationalWiki Family. I have been a member for about four years. FYI, in order to vote in a moderator election you must be a member for a few months and have 500 edits (Something along those lines, I don't exactly remember).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi and welcome. Actually you might want to put some of that post on your user page. Or you might not. It's sort of up to you. But putting something would be a good idea to stop it being red. :-)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am new here too, but I didn't want to create another topic in the Saloon for introducing myself, so I am here :) . I really love this wiki, I discovered it about 4 days ago and read a lot of articles, an I really like the snarky/sarcastic humor here. Probably I will not make a lot of contributions because English is not my primary language and I don't feel confortable writing/editing an article. PS: I hope you get another job ASAP! 109 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking- an article on the acceptance of Evolution in Christian Colleges and Universities[edit]

Something that looks something like this-

School Acceptance of Evolution Statements
Baylor University Button Icon GreenForest.svg Supports Evolution "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."
Bob Jones University Button Icon Red.svg Creationist Quoting the BJU Biochemistry program description- "Throughout your courses you’ll also learn about the evolutionary framework of science so that you can understand how evolutionists think, and more importantly, how a biblical worldview gives more reasonable explanations of science than what an evolutionary worldview has to offer."

Thoughts?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks interesting. But what you seem to be proposing is a list, so far at least. Maybe add it as a section to an article on Christian colleges. Wait, do we have that? Let me check...RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Shit, looks like we don't. Sure, seems like a good basis for an article then. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the links that were on your post, you can put them back if you want, but having links on the Saloon Bar makes it ask you for the references tag. Diacelium (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. I like the format. Petey Plane (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Rationalzombie94, could you put some more effort into making references look better. Your current efforts aren't working so well. If you want more help with this, just ask. Here is an example of a better-formatted reference:

<ref>[http://archivepharma.financialexpress.com/sections/market-section/2211-ayurveda-is-well-versed-with-the-toxic-effects-of-aristolochia-indica Ayurveda is well versed with the toxic effects of ''Aristolochia indica''] by Chandrakant Bhanushali (Published on Wednesday, 05 June 2013 18:21) ''Express Pharma''.</ref>

Which will produce this in the reference section (without the "[5]"):

Ayurveda is well versed with the toxic effects of Aristolochia indica[4] by Chandrakant Bhanushali (Published on Wednesday, 05 June 2013 18:21) Express Pharma.

Also, see Help:References. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I should have went to the Saloon bar before creating the page--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So I've Been Watching Anita's "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" Series...[edit]

So as someone who would consider themselves an avid "gamer", I feel like, even though I have never had anything to do with "Gamer-Gate", I need to apologize on the behalf of all of them. Like Jesus Christ, this is what mass-triggered thousands of neckbeards? All she even tends to be saying is that the extreme sexualization of women that tends to occur in video games is not productive to society at large. And please understand, I actually hate the "women are oversexualized" argument. I think that the reason some people view women as "over"-sexualized is because, traditionally, women were shunned for being open about their sexuality (Christianity/traditionalist culture's stress on female sexual purity, etc,) quite unlike men, so the "balance" of "selling sexy" just is incredibly skewed to one side (my theory anyway, feel free to demolish it).

But mother of god, it's sometimes difficult to play even really good titles without some hyper-sexualized goddess, who adds almost nothing of substance to the game, and who has no actual logic behind her swimsuit armor, waltz in and nearly molest your eyes. And I'm not talking about merely "slender, traditionally good-looking women" here, I'm talking like, "Why are you in a bikini in a warzone?" kind of sexualization. Another good point Anita makes is that older women are rarely portrayed (hell, let alone a main character,) in most mainstream games. (And no, 400+ year old witches who look like they're 35 at most, ala Bayonetta, don't count.)

My main criticisms for the series would be that often she seems to try and reach too far in trying to fit an example to a point, and she seems to lack background knowledge on the creation of some of the games she makes claims about. (Huge nerd rebuttal incoming.) For instance, in "Not Your Exotic Fantasy", Anita tries to illustrate that darker women are often linked to "tribal mysticism", by showing "Cia", (an evil dark-skinned sexualized lady with tattoos) from "Zelda Triforce Heros". Anita tries to indicate the reason for the skin color of the character, trying to tie it to the character's place on the hero/villain spectrum, (being evil, she's trying to say Cia was made to be dark-skinned because she's evil). Anita also claims that the Tattoos directly resemble tribal body paint, linking them to tribal mysticism.

While I'm not saying that the tie of "dark skin = evil" is nonexistent in the Legend of Zelda, I'd agrue that the Reason for Cia's skin color comes more from her ties to the series' reoccurring main antagonist, Ganon. In fact, if you merely do a google image search of the two characters and compare, you'd find a lot in common. Both have a weird green/gray skin color, and both have orange/red... hair... feather... "things" accenting. Once again, it's totally possible to make a case for Ganon's skin color being the way it is because he's evil, (but even then, most of Ganon's race, the Gerudo, have a skin color closer to, you know, real-life "colored" people, and they aren't evil,) but I think it's probably a safer bet to link Cia's skin color as trying to illustrate an alliance with the main bad guy. I feel like Anita probably tried to use Cia for this because Cia's a woman, and therefor more relevant to her series in general, but I still don't feel her theory holds enough water, even substituting Cia for Ganon.

The second issue I had was this "tattoos = cultural appropriation" business. First is, considering the amount tattoos/body paint are used in cultures throughout the world, I wouldn't find it unusual if some magical races in a magical universe occasionally end up with both magic and body art. In fact, the few times that body art is linked directly directly with "magic" or "mysticism", it generally happens with the fair-skinned protagonists Link and Zelda, and with the Mark of a Hero, literally a magical tattoo of three triangles on their hand, not with "tribal markings", (Ganon also has a "mark" similar to the one Link and Zelda have, although it's definitely not a hero's, and the story isn't really centered around him, so you don't see him do too much with it).

I don't want to make this too large a text wall to read, but another example of this would be in the video "Are Women Too Hard to Animate?". This video tries to illustrate how female player options or characters take a backseat to male player ones, and while once again, I've experienced that this is probably true, and you could build a very good argument on this, however, Anita makes the colossal blunder of using the game, "Assassin's Creed Unity" as an example. Now if you don't know why using "Unity" to prove your point is a colossal blunder, I don't blame you. Assassin's Creed is a well known franchise that had already had a female as the main character in at least one game before this one, (although I believe it was a spin-off,) what better way to show how women always take the backseat to men in gaming? Well the thing about unity is that it's bad. And when I mean bad, I mean god-awful. I personally bought the game before launch, back when I still cared for the franchise, and I was disappointed to find myself unable to even launch the game without it immediately crashing to desktop. When they cut corners for Unity, they minced them to a pulp. People who could even successfully launch the game found bugs everywhere from being stuck on walls, to falling through rooftops, even incomplete-able missions. With the history behind this game, I'd say that Anita was probably wrong when she said that the game devs lied about creating new rigging and models for a female characters, the devs saying that it'd be too much work. It probably was too much work for them, whether by their own choice or by company choice, to create a whole new completely optional model for a game that had since, (and still does in the main titles,) revolved exclusively around edgy brooding men, if the sorry excuse for a launch left almost a third of the buyers unable to start up their game, and the other two thirds in a glitch-riddled mess.

In short I'd say I agree with the thesis of Anita's videos far more than I disagree, although I may nitpick at some of her examples. If she were to do the series over again, I'd recommend going after some of the lower-hanging fruit. *cough cough, Quiet from MGSV needing a bikini to photosynthesize through her skin, while, an earlier, older male character who photosynthesizes the same way could wear a full ghillie suit, cough cough.* megalodon (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I watched one of her videos to see what the fuss was about, and it was pretty basic and non-debatable (basically, how video games are mostly made from a male perspective and portray women accordingly). Nothing she's saying is either radical or particularly hard to see for yourself. This of course, makes it even more funny that so many Westerners chose to waste their time pushing "Gamer Gate" and writing multiple literally endless rebuttals to it. Someone who only saw this perspective would easily think GamerGate was a major political movement sweeping the world; granted, the people who lavished attention on it probably thought it was. The hatred directed against Anita and Zoe Quinn, people who can best be described as 'minor' in the grand scheme of things, is a fitting summary of the whole thing. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@megalodon Good post!
I'd like to add that the rampant hypocrisy coming from people I later realized rallied actively under the banner of GG (which I didn't even know what it was until it was dead) was one of the things that really stuck out, even to a person who was utterly oblivious to the bigger conflict.
Specifically, their constant calls for "objective reviews" kept pushing the boundaries of abrasive stupidity. And when they wrote "objective", they meant "selective".
Worst of all, the very same people who would (claim to) fight for "freedom of artistic expression" and "the rights of artists" — things I personally support unflinchingly — concerning gratuitous fan service and the likes (which I don't mind per se) would withdraw all support when artists used that same freedom to include a black character, or a trans character, or allow playing as women in certain RPG's, or the ability to be a gay male Shepard in Mass Effect (female was fine though, cause lesbians are hot!).
Suddenly, to them, this wasn't about lame appeals to "artistic freedom" anymore. This was (and I quote) about fighting cultural Marxism in the games industry — by extension, about the future of white Christian western civilization as we know it. And the hypocrisy in this was just staggering. Like what they're doing isn't identity politics too!
Those same people would continue reasoning like this, most recently in hailing Trump as an in-your-face anti-PC hero, while simultaneously sobbing about the media unfairly bullying Trump, demanding that the white house press room be converted into a safe space.
Ethan has a point here — these guys are just as triggered as their "SJWs counterparts", and together they constitute a veritable "cult" of outrage. Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Please don't use "triggered" like that. That usage came about to mock people with PTSD that have seemingly benign/unrelated triggers and politely ask people to stop doing things around them, and a lot of people close to me have suffered trauma that has resulted in "weird" triggers. Like, certain foods can be triggers for people who've been in a car accident that a family member didn't survive. It doesn't make sense, but the human mind doesn't care. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 03:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Now, here's an important point. I have all the empathy in the world for the point you're trying to make. I'm not just saying that — I actually have "triggers" of my own, in the real, psychiatric sense. They are not self-diagnosed, either.
But what you have to factor in is how I use the word, not just how you percieve it. Now, I am in fact completely sensitive to how it is perceived by you — but on the sole condition that you are sensitive to how I mean it, in equal measure.
The moment I'm being lectured on what I mean by my own words is the moment where I've been denied the charitable interpretation that ethics demands of my reader. And I pay no mind to uncharitable interpretations, for obvious reasons. Nobody should, ever.
This is an absolute rule in logicWikipedia. The strongest way to read what I wrote is not to think I'm making fun of PTSD. It's stronger to read it the way I actually meant it, i.e. "offended". Any other reading is uncharitable, and betrays its malign as such.
Now, I assure you. I truly meant the colloquial use of the word (which exists in modern lingo), not the actual PTSD term. I don't mean to make light of PTSD. And I do not decide which terms enter popular culture.
But that's OK. Because with a charitable interpretation, I will remain sensitive to requests that I personally reduce my subjective use of a term, even when it's not employed by me to do harm in the first place. In other words, I will symbolically submit to the "tastes" of another person. Now, that's empathy.
And, in turn — affording me that same charitable interpretation back — said concession will be recognized as reasonable validation of the raised concerns.
A reciprocal gesture here would be recognition that when that word has been used by me in the past (or appears sometime in the future because I'm hungry, emotional or forgetful) it will already be settled that I used it for those reasons, and I will be spared "correction" on it.
In line with basic emotional intelligence, I certainly don't consider anyone who thinks that words themselves somehow convey meaning on their own (irrespective of context, charitability, cultural difference, etc) any type of functioning adult. Getting stuck on word use means not seeing the forest for the trees.
Anyways Narky, thanks for bringing up your concerns. I really didn't mean anything bad by the term, and I will do my best to use it more sparingly in the future. I was just honestly upset at the hipocrisy of the alt-right, and I think that that should be acknowledged by any respondent.
Culture will not cease to affect anyone's dictionary, however — mine included. I'm only human, I never claimed perfection, and I don't run the world. Please adjust your demands accordingly. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Lewis Caroll wasn't treating Humpty Dumpty as a man to be aspired to when he had him say "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Serious.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the moral assumptions of Anita Sarkeesian's videos. She wants to pour her version of politics all over something that, at minimum, was not created with the intention of creating political propaganda. Fans of the material are entitled to treat this kind of critical approach as a kind of vandalism. Worse, in this enterprise, there's always an element of pretending to uncover unintended hidden meanings in the source material. This is an act that can be easily taken too far. There's also an element of moral blackmail involved. The assumption is not only that the hidden meanings are truly present; but also that they need condemnation. You are an apologist for immorality if you deny their presence. You are also an apologist for immorality if you refuse to join the chorus of condemnation. You are an apologist for immorality if your reaction to the argument is not to care about this issue. I don't see why she ought to be immune to pushback if that's the public stance she has taken. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Everything you assume about Sarkeesian is wrong. Your belief that you are not being political when you do things, and that treating a critical approach to the political things you do is vandalism is so disgustingly anti-intellectual - but who would expect more from you? Not I. "Moral Blackmail," for pointing out tropes. You are hyperbolicly stupid. Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Where did you find this marvellous world where politics is not in literally everything? I submit you don't know what you're talking about - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I think instead that we need to learn to share the world with people whose tastes differ from our own. Singling out a human community or subculture for moral condemnation is an inherently hostile act. It is, at the very minimum, unfair to expect no anger from the communities being judged. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 06:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That's non sequitur to both what I said and what you said - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone keeps going on about Anita vs GG. She was just a passtime for us. The real target was all the guys who did the "All gamers are dead" stuff. And I have got to say a jod wall done. -2d4chanfag (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've logged into RW and someone is talking about Anita Sarkeesian... It's like it's 2013 again. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 15:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
My team. Disagree, please. With both sides. It sucks that some girl hurt some guy, but video game journalism is not journalism. It's advertising. Gamergate thrives on a false premise. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Lol, yeah, sorry for being so late on the ball with this, also, sorry for the long screeds of unintelligible rambling. I wasn't much in the loop back when it was actually relevant, and I'm just surprised her criticisms invoked anything as serious as death threats. And on a somewhat related note, happy International Women's Day! Regardless of how I feel about it (the hashtag being somewhat patronizing, etc, etc.) If you want to see how much of a temper tantrum the web is having because of it, click any related youtube video, scroll down to the comments, and be prepared to wince. megalodon (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Heard today the new Mass Effect will have full alien nudity. Shouldn't matter if it's alien. I just hope every time I blast some alien his dong goes full ragdoll.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Uranium radioactive decay and skin[edit]

So I know that uranium decay only emits alpha particles, which will be stopped by your skin. However, could the alpha particles damage the skin, causing skin cancer?Teurastaja (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the American Physics Society, alpha particles can be used to fight skin cancer. Here is APS article- http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201406/alpha.cfm --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Alpha radiation is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation, but it cannot go through the outer layers of skin (sourceWikipedia) which are made of dead cells (sourceWikipedia) which get constantly replaced (source): so you probably can't get skin cancer from an external source of alpha radiation. The alpha particles themselves are like helium nuclei (sourceWikipedia), so I suppose that if you have really a lot of them or if they are somehow accelerated then maybe they could damage the outer layers or get inside (pure speculation). In addition, while the CDC has published one study that no human cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to natural or depleted uranium, exposure to uranium and its decay products, especially radon, are widely known and significant health threats (sourceWikipedia). --Cmonk (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this part of the conspiracy theory that globalists contaminated Iraq with depleted uranium so now they have to invade Sweden to find a safer place to live? nobs 17:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Sweden is stepping up its game to defend against the upcoming invasion. --Cmonk (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
What's a globalist? Zionist Goy (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Those who promote globalism/internationalism on a global scale.
What are the main tenets of "globalism"? Zionist Goy (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not recommended to have too much uranium glass too close to you as it #is# dangerous. (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Teurastaja (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

See eg [5]. (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Meet Dan Piraro[edit]

Let me introduce you to Dan Piraro, a comic artist for newspapers:

  • His blog has a lot of interesting things he talks about and the ideas behind his comics.
He seems a bit too obvious/on-the-nose/cliched for my liking, though I could probably say the same thing about most political cartoons from major publications or newspapers. They tend to be about as broad and obvious as possible in order to appeal to as many people as possible. I occasionally get a laugh out of Matt Wuerker's stuff on Politico, and The Nib has a lot of great political and informational web comics. Hentropy (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he's generally quite witty. His early work tended more towards the surreal and sometimes hard to figure out. There was a time when he was doing pro-veganism cartoons, which I found to be rather tiresome. Bongolian (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I owned a few of his albums as a kid growing up. I don't know the first thing about the guy himself, but his absurdist comedy is truly top notch (at his best). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh please. I'm white, or pass for white or whatever (in 2020 I will be MENA), and I've been pulled aside for airport security 3 times. My sister too. Yes, there's white privilege, but not when it comes to airport boarding. Or if there is, it's OLD white privilege. CorruptUser (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Bizarro is great. It's in my paper every Sunday. Actually it's pretty common in papers throughout the midwest, don't know about anywhere else though. megalodon (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I used to read Bizarro every Sunday in the Taipei Times (one of the two English-language newspapers here in Taiwan). It's not in that paper anymore because the Taipei Times dropped all its comic strips about two years ago. I don't remember any overtly political strips from the time when I used to read Bizarro. Mind you, it was a different world back then. Spud (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Board question: Use of RationalMedia.org and RWDocs.org[edit]

At last meeting, the Board decided that the current versions of RationalMedia.org and RWDocs.org don't seem useful. To make sure, we want to know if you currently use these websites for substantive purposes. As in:

  • Have you visited these sites recently?
  • What did you do there?
  • Did you even know these sites existed?

If users don't use the sites, we'll probably do something like move the content dumps from RWDocs.org to RationalMedia.org and either:

  • [A]: Get rid of the outdated/unnecessary RationalMedia.org content (essentially just leaving the donation/about pages), or:
  • [B]: Convert RationalMedia.org to a redirect to RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation (with the exception of the content dump pages).

As the representative of your shadowy autocratic cabal, I remind you that input is always welcome. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know these existed...—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
...The Foundation has a website? Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! There's a roach on my Wall! 22:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know these existed and I'm a moderator! They don't seem particularly useful. Bongolian (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Utility isn't actually the purpose(Yes, that's a real sentence I just used sincerely). It's my opinion that it helps with establishing the fact that the board is a separate entity that is merely responsible for the maintenance and perpetuation of the wiki as part of its corporate non-profit mission(promoting skepticism and rationalism). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
btw, having the names costs ~0 (domain names aren't very expensive at all) - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Aye -- redirects seem better than deletion. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I knew the RationalMedia.org one existed simply because there's a link to it at the bottom of the Wikipedia article about RationalWiki. I didn't know the other one existed. But I don't think I was missing out on very much. That page looks like it was created in 1989 and hasn't been updated since then. I don't think either of them are very useful and could best be made into redirects to relevant information about the Rational Media Foundation here. Spud (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I knew RationalMedia Foundation existed but not that this website existed. I also didn't know RWdocs existed. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem useless, just needs some updates and a way to inform RationalWiki members that it exist (for example, include the links to RWMedia and RWDocs in the welcome for new members). Diacelium (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I certainly didn't know these were things. I guess the trouble is informing because self reference is off mission. Usually feels like poor taste, super tough to live with it. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

User pages[edit]

Are there any rules on user pages ? Can I post literally what I want on it ? Diacelium (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Within reason. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Meaning for example: no doxing, nothing libelous, no porn, nothing that can get RW into legal trouble. Bongolian (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Why no porn? Is it a sin? Does it make baby Jesus cry? Do dick pics count? (((Zack Martin))) 06:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes those fluids are God's tears. To be completely serious though, RW content should be SFW. There's plenty of porn on the internet already, no need to add more (at least here). --Samstr (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If RW content should be SFW, why does Category:NSFW exist? Should it be deleted? (It might not exactly be porn, but some of it is getting close, like that drawing of two men rubbing their penises together.) (((Zack Martin))) 23:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I amend my previous statement. There should not be unlabeled NSFW content. I suppose that labeled content is not strictly bad per se, but overall, porn and other NSFW content does not mesh with the RW mission. I tend to agree with Bongolian, there are potential legal issues around NSFW content that make it difficult to include on RW. I do not think that porn is inherently evil, and indeed can be consumed in a healthy manner. This does not imply that RW needs to participate in that *ahem* medium. --Samstr (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Porn is not a sin per se. There are plenty of places where you can post porno on the internet, but it doesn't contribute to rational discourse so please take it elsewhere if you're so inclined. There are also possible legal repercussions from posting porn (age verification, proof of consent) that could adversely affect RW. Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This. If you allow porn on your site, you better be ready to tangle with the requisite legalities. RW's time and resources would be better spent elsewhere. (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is not Conservapedia not work safe (in the sort of companies most of us wish to work for). And 'do not read while consuming crumbly biscuits and/or drinks which you may ruin your keyboard with while laughing' articles? (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
maybe spend your time at working, working? idle bastardsAMassiveGay (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Break-time reading obviously (and 'lateral/blue skies research - honest, gov'). (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sesame Street has moved to HBO[edit]

There goes the neighborhood. I know, I know, it will still air on PBS nine months after the fact, but public education in the US isn't exactly going a different route from, say, private prisons.

Overreaction? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

if you are relying on tv to teach your kids it must be so much worse AMassiveGay (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
PBS still has a lot of other programming for children (At least they did when I was a kid. I have fond memories of Arthur and Cyber Chase).
I don't think that this is a huge deal, I'm surprised they're even going to keep it on air at all after this long. --Samstr (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: the commies who produce Sesame Street are trying to create a two-tiered society, the upper crust and hip who can afford HBO, while the low class scum at the bottom have to wait nine months for it to trickle down?
Anyway, it's good to see they got those deadbeats off the public dole. nobs 17:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still having a hard time telling whether or not Rob is trying to make a serious point, or if it's just some kind of joke. Why can't this wiki be written in Lojban.'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a list of stubs somewhere?[edit]

Please do share the link if there is one.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is it: Category:Articles needing expansion. Bongolian (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!:)-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Pseudo Engineering[edit]

I was considering this as a concept for a new category briefly, and I do think it would fit the mission of RW. However, it might be too specific as a category and already explored in other articles such as Transhumanism. It would cover things like the "solar roadways" project, things that are not necessarily pseudo science as they are physically possible but are otherwise impractical and difficult to implement. For example, the aforementioned Solar Roadways project is technically possible (at least theoretically), but it would be very difficult and expensive to actually maintain an entire system of highways with electrically interconnected smart tiles. I fear that many potential candidates would be considered more subjective than other categories such as pseudo science, as the practicality of certain proposals could vary drastically based on implementation. --Samstr (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be difficult to tell which is "pseudo" and which is not based on what you're saying. Pseudoscience is just false, but pseudo-engineering is just a matter of financing (or government subsidy) it would seem. Is the hyperloop pseudo-engineering or not (RW seems to think so but Elon Musk thinks not)? What about damming the whole Hudson Bay for hydropower (once fantasized by an engineer I knew), what about the space elevator?Wikipedia Bongolian (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the concern I was getting at when I mentioned that many potential topics could be too subjective. Perhaps the phrase pseudo engineering isn't truly appropriate. Perhaps that problem alone is enough to render the idea worthless. Oh well. Some things like Space Elevators or possibly even the Hyperloop might be made possible in the distant future with new materials. --Samstr (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing is that science is a process which can be defined. Se we can give a more-or-less coherent definition of pseudoscience. I'm not sure how you would go about defining "Pseudo Engineering". (Though this could be a consequence of my lack of knowledge of engineering.)
But can we come up with a clear definition of "Engineering" and explain why "Pseudo Engineering" does not fit this description? If we can then we are good to go. If we can't then we are not.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say that it's pseudo engineering if it doesn't violate any laws of physics but will still never happen. (Allthough people thought powered flight was impossible until it was done.)— Unsigned, by: Christopher / talk / contribs
Sooo ... It's "pseudo engineering" if it's very difficult, very expensive or both? The problem is that new technologies or political will can change what we mean by both "difficult" and "expensive". For example going to the Moon in the sixties was both difficult and expensive - but that didn't stop it happening.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's so expensive/difficult to be nearly impossible yes. The problem would be that amongst the huge volume of rubbish ideas the ones that actually do happen are also branded pseudo engineering. Sounds great in theory, in practice impossible to know what's pseudo engineering and what isn't. Christopher (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Universal rent guarantee[edit]

The french government was working (they later gave up on it, for some reason) on an universal rent guarantee, which would be a government program to make housing rents free, and would go with rent control (which is literally communism) and is supposed to help against homelessness. What do you think about it ? Diacelium (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Universal basic income is preferable. It's easier to administrate and more flexible. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Good post! Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I like the idea of basic income but we could have both, and basic income wouldn't be a solution to homelessness. First, basic income could cause inflation, so rent prices would also go up. Secondly, with basic income, people bad with money (sorry, I'm not english, so it's hard to explain here) can still get in debt, spend their money bad and find themselves on the street. Even with the french minimum wage, there are homeless workers, so I'm not sure if basic income would really help. Rent guarantee and social housing can get anyone a house no matter how much they screw up. Diacelium (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
does nothing to remedy the lack of social housing which, in places like london, is the problem. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm against universal rent because I don't think living in a particular city should be a right, even though I believe bare-bones housing should be a right. Live in a shithole town like I had to. The reason people will pay astronomical rents for NYC is because in NY, you can meet a huge number of people, most of them more attractive than the average, there's stuff to do every hour of the day, and more importantly there's a choice in what stuff you want to do. You want sports? There's not one but two football teams in the area, two major league baseball teams to choose from, to say nothing of hockey and basketball and the like, versus a small town where you are lucky to have a minor league (and in most places in the US, just a High School team). Want to go to a concert that month? You have a choice in which type of music to go to, instead of waiting 3 months for a major name to pass through. Want a play? There's literally a dozen broadway plays to choose from at any time to say nothing of the hundreds of smaller amateur ones, versus the same one a bunch of amateurs will put on for a week that month. Want to go to out to eat? Well, you have literally almost every option in the world available, versus a big deal when a Thai restaurant opens in town. CorruptUser (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
So what, the government should move homeless people to social houses in other cities ? Diacelium (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's much cheaper, yes. And no. It's complicated. And half the time I'm not sure I even know. Like I said above, I don't think living in a particular place is a right. At the same time, I truly have sympathy for the people that lived in a bad neighborhood and then worked their asses off to make it safe, only for a rich person who didn't suffer to come in and jack up the rents. I also don't think it's fair for a city that does take care of its homeless properly is rewarded by having all the other cities dump their homeless on that city, so there should be a way for, say, Los Angeles social services to sue the asses off of Houston if they end up having to shell out a fortune for all the homeless Texans that show up; maybe some national transient registry or something that records which county you last resided in before becoming homeless? CorruptUser (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
people dont have a right to live in a spefic location per say, but its not the issue just with out of town homeless(see below as that actually means). People a!ready living in the area are finding them priced out the market. This what gentrification is. The gets all cleaned up and by moving all the poor folk out. Its not just a city problem either. In the south west of england folk have the problem because holiday homes push up prices on the already short supply of property. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(reset) The question is - who pays for universal rent/income, especially if 'everybody' decides that 'this is a good thing, and might as well pack in my job (for six months/until I have finished playing every level of 'computer game of choice' etc). (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Amen. A politician and/or politicians who solicit votes in exchange for 'free rent' (or 'free healthcare' or 'free daycare' or 'free any service that requires workers to be paid') need to be prosecuted for deceptive advertising practices. nobs 18:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Many workers are homeless, universal rent will help everyone who doesn't have a home. Diacelium (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Current evidence (admittedly poor) suggests that universal basic income doesn't encourage people to drop out of work. Current evidence also suggests that the same is broadly true of welfare. It's almost as if most people don't enjoy being poor [or poor + tiny income] and will work to avoid that status. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
you have to look at why folk are homeless, and specify what you mean by homeless. Are you talking about folk sleeping in shop dorways? In hostels? Folk couch surfing? Living with their parents. They seperate issues. The folk sleeping rough, universal rent does nothing for them, same for those in hostels. They are infront of people living at their parents or those couch surfing, but in london there is still something like a 10 year waiting list to get housed if tbey are on the list at all. Rents not e en an issue as they would qualify for housing benefit. There is just not enough social housing to house them. Some folk do get shipped of out of town. From london to hull for example, the kther end of tbe country.. They might be a solution for people but fors others, it takes them away from there support networks of frirnds and family. It makes them more dependent on the state. Its not like there is much work where they are sent, thats why these property available to them.
Universal rent doesnt help folk living at home, or those couch surfing, either. Same issue. Not enough social housing. This is why rents are sky high. If are eligable for housing benefit, it does no good if you cant find somewhere who takes benefit, or you cant stump up tbe deposit. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ship 'em to Sweden, they'd love to take them. It' good for the Swedish economy and their future. nobs`
i would move there for the sole reason i suspect it is the one place on earth i would not be asked 'are you from sweden?' (I am very blonde)AMassiveGay (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how it works in France, but generally you need a home address to get a job, right? I mean, unless you're getting cash, you need a bank account, which needs an address. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I dont know about france either, but you dont need to be necessarily housed to get either a job or have a bank account. you generally speaking, in the uk at least, you just get the bank before you are homeless. i would assume people arnt born homeless and stay that way till adulthood. banks dont stop your account just because of homelessness. you would only need a postal address (i wouldnt advise telling what it is, i dunno what the rules are.), probably not even that these days if you get statements online. you can even claim dole with just a postal address. with work it is often the same, though dont expect to find employment anywhere that requires a crb, as i discovered when i lost my last job because i couldnt account for gaps in work history as i discovered to my cost when i lost my last job because i had gaps in my my employment and addresses over the years that i couldnt accont for because i was both homeless, able couldnt claim dole because i was unable to get to find a suitable postal address. that makes for difficult conversation when prospective employers ask why you left your last job and i say i failed a crb but i totes dont a criminal record. it should be noted as to what level homelessness you are talking about. if you are couch surfing or in a hostel, you shouldnt have too much problem. in sleeping shop dooerways? you might have neither an active account or a postal address. isuspect there are going to other issues. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
See, here's the beauty of being a self-employed entrepreneur - accounting for gaps in employment. Just tell them you were busy pulling yourself up by your bootstraps with your latest business idea, you were living in the back of the shop to save costs or residing with co-investors on a joint project, everything was going fine until the government raised taxes or introduced a new regulation, and voila, I'm out of work again so I'm here now to share my boundless energy and imaginary talents at a cut-right price with you.
They'll understand. Hell, they been there themselves, too. nobs`
I thought the beauty of self employed entrepreneurship was tax dodging via getting paid in cash. still would help with my crb problem. its not the unemployment that failed it, it was not being able for them to check. it doesn't help that I have less documentation than an illegal immigrant. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
That's it! You had an all cash business being paid under the table, like a plumber, a handyman fixit man, computer maintainance, street vender, mechanic, etc., all based on referrals, so long as it doesn't sound like dope dealer. The fact you survived and are ambitious without a criminal should suffice. What employers look at is attitude. Do you want to work? Do you want to learn the dull, laborious skills we have to teach that can benefit both of us (you & the employer). Are you willing to cooperate to make this opportunity work for both of us. Background and experience aren't deciding factors, they're only clues to the employer about whether or not its worth their time to invest with you. Rarely does someones resume fit exactly with qualifications an employer is looking for. Each business is unique in its product or service, and environment (internally and externally). It is the motivation of the prospective applicant that decides, Can the applicant succeed and excel at minimum cost in time and money to the employer? Those are the deciding factors. Ideally, and some employers will say this, Employees hire themselves. nobs 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
as I said it doesn't help with the crb check. I was already temping there and they offered me a perm position. I filled out a form and the next day I was asked to leave. no debate and there was no apparent way to challenge it. the check was outsourced. im not even sure why I failed it, that's all I can think off because they didn't even tell me, and I did ask. it was the same for my work mate. he'd temped there for over year. got offered a perm position, filled out the crb, then got escorted from the building. thats what pisses me off. im still bitter. i make an effort to turn my life around and its thrown back in my face and at the same time making it much harder to do. people always go on about people on the dole scrounging and being idle wasters, completely ignoring and how its self perpetuating and how much harder it gets the longer you are out of work. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It's computers. They got us all by the nuts. This is where one-on-one people skills come into play. As wise King Solomon said, A reputation is better than fine gold (i.e., cash money). Your name ultimately is all you possess in this life. That's why Wikipedia has BLP, cause even those idiots recognize the truth of this.
So, how does one go about building or rebuilding a positive reputation? Know this, we all have a name or reputation, and it is either good or bad, no grey area. If it is iffy, in a grey area, it's bad, cause someone certainly has had the time to get it into the good area.
My word is my bond. Speak no lies. Hate lies. And not only hold yourself to honoring the words that come out of your mouth, hold others to account, as well. If they are a lying sack of shit, dismiss them as well (not rudely). Don't tolerate liars. Spend your time seeking people like yourself, who say what they mean, and mean what they say, and hold to the bargain. All else is a frivolous waste of time and life, for which you one day will be held to account.
Force people to respect you. Don't ask. Don't give them a choice. They don't have to like you, but they must respect you without choice, because you have built a reputation and name of honor, not tolerating lies nor deceiving people. Require others to be honest.
Anyway, for a copy of today's audiotape sermon, send $9.95 cash or money order to Box blah bla bla.... nobs 19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A Haunting in Georgia[edit]

I watched it the other day and there was someone notable on the show- Doctor William G. Roll who is a psychologist and parapsychologist. On the show it depicted him measuring Ions from Geological event to determine if Ions were causing hallucinations . Thing is, measuring Ions from geological events is a matter of Geophysics and not psychology. I am aware of the fact that it is fine for a scientist to ask questions that don't relate to their field but Geophysical experts should have been investigating or even Biophysicists as they understand the physics of Biology because they could have determined if Ions were causing people to see things.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

What was this? Was this one of those wacky shows on the history channel where they pretend to be the Ghost Busters? I'm not really sure what ions would cause hallucinations and how, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I suppose I'm just confused about your description. --Samstr (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
From what I got from the show is that the, "Scientist" claims that Ions from released from an Earthquake were causing people to see things, that is as good as it gets in terms of a description. As for the show itself, it is commonly showed on the Destination America channel.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Huh, that does sound fairly wooish. Based on their understanding of "ions" it sounds like they are talking about something beyond their area of expertise. --Samstr (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it was about earthquake lightWikipedia which may or may not be a real thing. According to the Wikipedia explanation, some rocks can ionise oxygen when mechanically stressed, and "once they reach the atmosphere these ions can ionise pockets of air, forming plasma that emits light". But instead of a hallucination it would be a hypothetical natural phenomenon. --Cmonk (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
That may be the case but as for the origin of them that would fall under the field of Geophysics and as for the effects on human physiology then that would be under the discipline of Biophysics.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that particular phenomenon before. It does make some sense that ionized oxygen could produce interesting effects of lighting. I think I was confused because I had heard of carbon monoxideWikipedia causing hallucinations, but that's a molecule and not an ion. --Samstr (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

its a TV show. what did this Dr find? you set it up to look like a unbiased investigation into spooky goings on and bring in someone with suitably impressive credentials, suitably skeptical. he explains his methods with vaguely plausible science stuff and a dumbed down bottom line. they show you some spooky stuff while he works. at the end they ask the good dr what his results are and its suitably inconclusive or its debunked but with enough hand waving 'to make you think'. haunted or debunked? let the viewer decide. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

the good Dr has a wikipedia page. he sounds like a charlatan, and his theories seem to be considered bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
or not a charlatan but and idiot fooled by a twelve year old. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It would have been better if there was input for reputable medical doctors and physicists. If his research was legit then it would be in peer-reviewed science journals.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Reliable experts and measuring equipment require time and money. TV shows are likely short on both, and only care about ratings anyway, so there is no reason to expect quality science (or any quality at all sometimes). In addition, experts may not want to waste their time or risk damaging their reputation by being associated with quackery. The show itself probably couldn't have been "better" because doing things properly would require honesty, and that would just be bad business for them. On a side note, Dr Roll's biographyWikipedia indicates that he died in 2012, so was it a different person or just an old show? (or was it actually him Ohmy.gif) --Cmonk (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
THAT WAS THE HAUNTING ALL ALONG Ohmy.gif! /s --Samstr (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
"We tried to debunk but can't so ghost" Leuders (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Hidden cures" for alzheimers/autism[edit]

General rule: If the video name contains "hidden cures" don't believe it.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Better general rule, if someone calls something a "cure" and offers any class of evidence besides double-blinded clinical trials with effect sizes in the stratosphere and p-values that are microscopic, they're bullshitting you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Even better general rule: Add acid. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 23:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

NDE quackery[edit]

http://www.near-death.com/ NDEs and religion to bash all on the same terrible website. Two birds with one stone would be quite a fitting idiom, no? Randír (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, I just wish one of these crank sites knew how properly design a website. For ones that haven't been updated in 20 years I can understand but this one is still quite active. Hentropy (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a 'we have taken over this (previously otherwise used) website for promoting our spam-likes' type we have all come across.

Obviously the 'teenage resident would-be-geek' decided there were better things to do. (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Do you not like the busy cloud background, the hundreds of links spaced out across the entire page all trying to grab attention and really poorly compressed jpg logo? --Samstr (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Like said would-be-geek (we all know them) I have better things to waste my time on. (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Fun: Greatest Scams in History (Not in any particular order)[edit]

General Scams[edit]

  • Scientology (I don't consider Scientology a church)
  • Amyway
  • Y2K
  • 2012 Apocalypse
  • Harold Camping
  • World News Daily
  • Gaia (not the Goddess but a subscription website that promotes conspiracy hypothesis's Theories)
  • Donald Trump's presidency
  • Warning! You're computer have viruses! Call the #xxx-xxx-xxxx for fix.
  • Do you want to buy the Eiffel Tower? Contact Victor Lustig today!
  • Bernie Madoff
  • Nigerian 419 scams (PeoPle still fall for them to this day)
  • Phishing scams
  • Politicians in general
  • My (Embarq editor's) ex-girlfriend (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternative medicine[edit]

Higher Education[edit]

I'm sorry, but Liberty University and Pensacola Christian College are not "scams." Pensacola Christian College is a nationally accredited school that charges a fraction of what most schools charge, so while some may consider them odd, they're not conning anyone. LU is a regionally accredited school which uses connections with major corPorations and government agencies to connect students and alumni with jobs and internshiPs. If LU is a "scam" then Harvard and Yale are bigger scams. (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Pensacola teaches creationism: https://answersingenesis.org/colleges/colleges-and-universities/pensacola-christian-college/
Pensacola is accredited by TRACS; only its engineering and nursing programs are otherwise accredited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensacola_Christian_College#Accreditation
TRACS is nationally recognized by DOE. However, it's essentially the creationist accrediting body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_Association_of_Christian_Colleges_and_Schools
As such: The content of what Pensacola teaches is the scam, rather than the cost of receiving that teaching. Compare Liberty University:
Liberty University teaches creationism: https://answersingenesis.org/college/liberty-university/
Liberty University is accredited by multiple subject-specific organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University#Accreditation
αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Pensacola is respected for certain academic programs, despite otherwise being only nationally accredited. Devry, U. of Phoenix, and Oral Roberts are regionally accredited, and Bob Jones is a candidate for regional accreditation. People like the editors of this wiki are the reason tenure exists. Embarq BoN Person (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I have never heard so. Please provide sources. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Never heard what? You already said yourself that PCC has some programs which are accredited beyond TRACS, the other schools I mentioned you can verify on the schools' websites or the accrediting bodies' websites. PCC's credits can be transferred into some regionally accredited schools, including Liberty and University of P hoenix. Since we're on the topic of "scams," satelitte campuses for community (or "state") colleges are scams because people sign up thinking it's close to home, then they learn some of their courses are only available at the main campus, requiring a long commute, then many students have to transfer anyway. One may as well just go and get their bachelor's from PCC for next to nothing and transfer into LU or U. of Phoenix for their master's. Embarq BoN Person (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So Pensacola isn't a scam because (1) two of its programs have accreditation & other private colleges accept its credits and (2) community colleges can have long commutes. That doesn't explain why "Pensacola is respected" or why the education outside nursing and engineering is not a scam. In particular, its bio and geo courses have to be whack to handle YEC. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I never said Pensacola isn't a scam because community colleges are (sort of) a scam, but if one has to transfer out anyway, one may as well spend less money in the process and come out with a higher degree. As for your argument against YEC, I refer to my argument about tenure. As for accreditation, I would compare PCC's competition with BJU to the old Eckard Drug Store's competition with Walgreens, where they were always trying to out do each other, always building stores right next to the competition, and when BJU gets accrediation from SACS, the regional accrediting body in the area, my money is on PCC applying for SACS accreditation. Embarq BoN Person (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The definition of a scam is a "fraudulent or deceptive act" (Merriam Webster Online) or "a fraudulent deal" (Wiktionary). ITT Tech probably falls under that, which is why they were shut down. Unless they're lying about the costs or lying about their accreditdation, the rest of them probably do not fall under that. Ricky's Wiki (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I will give Pensacola Christian College this, at least their credits transfer unlike Scam Tech.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


Not a complete list.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There was that time a pyramid scheme engulfed the entire economy of Albania and started a civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_schemes_in_Albania (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I was aware of a civil war there but didn't know scams were the cause, damn. Then again, I was only three years old at the time when the war began.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Dietary supplements. CorruptUser (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Religion.--Palaeonictis (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Teapot dome
  • South Sea Bubble
  • Dutch Tulips
  • Electronic Poker Machines
  • Facebook advertising (just kidding)

If you don't know who the sucker is at the table, why don't we play cards Gadzooks (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

On the Internet[edit]

I'm wondering...[edit]

have you folks ever met a list you didn't like? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-enactment societies[edit]

Would a general article on them be on mission for RW? (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, any reason you suggested it? Christopher (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Re enactment societies could spread pseudohistorical rumours sopossibly. I still think probably not.— Unsigned, by: Christopher / talk / contribs
It could be an article I think. It would have to take on the pseudohistorical or apologistic angles as its main focus. Here's a Guardian article that might be good for a start.[7] The BBC show "Time Commanders" might also be worth some coverage; it's virtual pseudo-historical reenactment![8] We already have a couple things that touch on re-enactment: Swastika#WWII reenactment, Rich Iott. We also have one on the total bullshit TV show "Deadliest Warrior". Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
i had the misfortune to catch time commanders. Offensively awful. Ive seen some appallingly bad tv, but that show really takes the cake, and ive seen towie. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
whenever i hear the reenactment, i always think of the sealed knot society. They seem like decent non mental folk. Not seeing anything missional there. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah psuedohistorical reenactments seem more like a side-effect of the pseudohistory than something that is actually noteworthy in itself. Most reenactments (in my experience, being American) go to great lengths to be as painfully historically accurate as possible, most participants being rather hardcore nerds. There are some Confederate reenactment societies that have nebulous ties to racist "heritage" groups, and many of them will use Confederate symbols without consideration to sensitivity (because, you know, they're trying to be historically accurate), but that's not psuedohistory history in itself. Reenactors themselves tend to have as diverse views as anyone on some of those thorny historical disputes. Hentropy (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently crank-y/apologist about reenactment societies in general or as a concept. If you can point out specific, noteworthy ones that spread pseudo history and misinformation then they probably deserve individual articles. (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Given the choice would one prefer to be in the proverbial post-apocalyptical world with a group of re-enactors (skilled at creating things) or a group of preppers?
I used to go to re-enactments (as a photographer) at the Victory Air Museum in Libertyville IL (basically, a farmer who quit farming and had nothing else to do with his land). Military collectors are a strange, obsessive breed, as any hobbyist is. Some collectors focus on a particular era, some focus on a particular armed force or war. Others are more universal in their approach. Gun shows are where they barter, and reenactments give the opportunity to show off their collection and do more bartering.
After the Oklahoma City bombing militia groups were demonized. There is some overlap between militia groups who are gun and military regalia collectors and re-enactment societies. Demonizing them made me laugh, cause every militia group member and re-enactor I ever knew spent the vast majority of his spare time with a needle and thread at a sewing machine restoring authentic uniforms or creating reproductions for equipment and uniforms in high demand rather than plotting to overthrow the government. Oh, and there is much overlap between re-enactors, militia groups, and gay activists, too. nobs 02:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-enactment societies as a term appears in a few RW articles. (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an expansion to Militia movement or Mall Ninjas ? The intent of the act is a bit different, but i think that could be a place for a section on some of the wooier/pseudohistory forms of re-enactment. Petey Plane (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd have no objection linking re-enactors to militia groups, provided you added this is a male-dominated subculture infused with gays. nobs 15:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
i curious as to what the gay connection. Is it any more than a bunch of chaps who like dress up comparing the size of the weapons? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yah, and sewing. Truth is, I saw more of them showing off a WWI uniform they sewed from scratch or restored after a laborious hunt for the right matching material, then time piece rifles and hand guns. I been to thier houses. They all got a sewing room with reams of canvas material to reproduce WWII camophlage, painted by hand, a genuine art form. I busted a gut laffing in the Clinton era when they alleged militia types were anti-government subversives. And yes, by my reckoning, a disproportionate number were gay (compared to tbe general population) in this all-male society where they could be comfortable and accepted. nobs 00:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be very good at identifying gay men, nobs. Petey Plane (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It really is quite an educational adventure. My experience of war was all based on book-learning, but being out there in the trenches, these guys can teach you how Civil War soldiers or WWI soldiers thought how to survive. And what I learned from them often you don't find in books.
And the amazing thing to me was, how small people in WWI were. Average height was probably 5'4; someone 5'6 was tall. None of the authentic uniforms ever fit me. And a spiked helmet just sat on my head. Their heads were probably about as large as my two fists. This is historical learning close up. nobs`

From 'encounters and other information' of various re-enactors they are mostly 'people enjoying themselves learning about the past and dressing up/creating things' (and 'you try and get a harmless little pen-knife into most places' and what a fuss; you and your mates dressed up in armour with short swords/black powder weapons can drag serious weapons around and just get photographed, with some money put in the collection bucket). They also cooperate with historians, archaeologists and suchlike enlightening their academic ignorance with practical examples, and are often of the female and also of the straight persuasion.

They are thus the opposite to mall ninjas and other 'look at me making up for my insignificance' types. See [9] and [10] for examples (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So what were you thinking of when you suggested they would be on mission for a RW article? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps an article covering also cosplay and suchlike: people who enjoy 'dressing up, learning skills and pursuing a secondary lifestyle' but who are otherwise reasonable - and demonstrate what pseudohistory and other woo is not (even if they occasionally go for what is practical rather than what is accurate - there was less Health and Safety - whether sane and reasonable or 'gone mad/deliberate obstructive' in the past after all). (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted too, not only do reenactment societies sometimes serve as movie extras, some individual reenactors are paid as expert consultants for authenticity on films and other projects. nobs 01:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Consequentialism vs Deontology[edit]

I'm not sure how to create a debate page, so I'm just posting this here. Anyways, which theory do you guys think is a better template for a moral compass? Should a person be judged by the consequences of his/her actions, or by the motives behind their actions? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

why must it be either/or? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I really don't know. For some reason, I am unable to reconcile the two. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the answer is already in the question: If you want to judge a person's character, then only the (real) motives matter. Somebody who tries to commit a crime but ends up accidentally doing a good deed instead is a failed criminal. Not legally guilty of anything, but probably not very nice inside. And a person trying to do good but failing in the worst possible way is probably already going to be overwhelmed with guilt, so treating them like a villain would only add insult to injury. But "actions speak louder than words" is particularly relevant when people lie, so in the end you may have to go with intuition. Worse still, contradictory motives may not allow a clear-cut answer anyway, and let's not forget that people can change. More important I think is the idea that people should be judged at all. This implies that somehow individuals act in isolation, independently of their life experience and social context. Personally, I think that if you are going to morally judge somebody, you should also consider judging everyone involved, past and present, including the judges themselves, and at some point wonder if it is really relevant or worth the effort to try to stereotype someone as good or bad. --Cmonk (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the more interesting question is in how moral decisions should be made prior to their action, as opposed to how they should be studied after the fact. This is a tricky question, and one that has been discussed at great length by many philosophers far more qualified to address these questions than I am. Essentially we want to know if we should decide the right moral decision based on outcomes of our actions, or based on a more abstract duty based world view. For example, a consequentialist might say that killing another person is immoral because that act will decrease the happiness of that individual's friends and family and decrease overall happiness. Deontology is more difficult to summarize, but essentially argues that morality is a more complex system in which an individual has duties to uphold. Perhaps, in reference to the prior example, we could say that you have a duty not to kill and so the act of killing is a violation of your duties. Certainly there are people better trained in philosophy who could offer better descriptions than the ones I offered here. I could write more, but I don't want to produce a massive wall of text that nobody will read. --Samstr (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's fine to discuss a topic even without being an expert, otherwise conversations in general would be very short indeed. Besides, we don't have a duty to know everything and never be wrong. Undoubtedly, thousands of books have been written about morality across the centuries. But so is the case for religion and politics, and that hasn't stopped anyone... In addition, we all have to deal with moral issues in our lives, regardless of our individual levels of knowledge. Back on topic, the original question is a bit ambiguous: moral compass can be used to help make decisions, like you point out. I chose to focus on the last part of the question which seems to be about judging a person, not the actions themselves, although it is possible that I misinterpreted the question. Without more precision, we might end up with walls of text trying to refine the issue, but maybe that was the point? --Cmonk (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

hr 1313 bill[edit]

Words fail me, or at least words that can be used in polite company do, so i'm just going to leave this here for you guys and gals to digest for yourselves(I hope you have strong stomachs). https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/ not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 13:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/ Inyë (Carfa) 13:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had read that. It wouldn't be mandatory BUT would result in heavy financial penalties on anyone refusing to comply/submit. I think it would set a very dangerous precedent, especially in regards to genetic privacy but also to privacy rights in general, or what's left of them.

An individual's personal information simply doesn't get any more personal than this and such information could be subject to all sorts of abuses if it were to fall into unscrupulous hands. not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 15:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Templates Technical Trouble[edit]

So... apparently someone had removed one of our better running jokes; constant misspellings of Gaddafi. So I decided to fix it by creating a template with a list of different spellings, most taken from an ABC article but whatever. The problem I'm seeing is that all templates return the same result. I.e., if the result is "Kadhdafi", everywhere the template is placed it'll be "Kadhdafi". I'd rather each instance be randomly taken from the list, e.g., a "Qadafi" here and a "Kudafi" there, rather than all "Gadafi". How would I do this? CorruptUser (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Like this. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Gaddafi was a devout fashionista. This was a long running joke throughout his life. Should a separate subheading be made for it or can it fit in elsewhere? nobs 02:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzzy Thanks
@Nobs Feel free to add in his fashion sense wherever you think it's appropriate. I think I should add in something about his obsession with basketball. CorruptUser (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Glenn Beck apologizes for raping and nearly killing reality[edit]

After raping and nearly killing reality,Wikipedia it seems that Beck has become a reality proponent in his senile years.[11] Bongolian (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I used to listen to Glenn Beck way back when I was younger, even reading one of his books (I was a strange child), and even back then I could disagree with them but he was always... fun? Is that the right word? He never seemed totally in the can for Bush, but then Obama got elected and we all sorta know what happened then. It seemed like during that time he did cultivate a more refined and most importantly, sincere opposition to totalitarian tactics and creeping dictatorships, even if it seemed like his knowledge of it wasn't as in-depth as it could have been. It wasn't that much of a surprise to me then that he ended up opposing Trump to this day where 90% of his peers completely changed their values and priorities so they could support the team. I'm not sure how much respect someone should get for simply being consistent and not hypocritical (many hate groups and bigots can also be like that). Strange times call for strange allies, sometimes. Hentropy (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a start. I almost never agreed with what Beck said during the Obama years, but I can at least admire the fact that he didn't run from his principles. I remember seeing one of his books at Barnes & Noble, called Liars if I've not mistaken (this is still Beck we're talking about), and on the cover were several progressive leaders he saw as ruining America... and Trump was at the front of the pack. He may be a loon, but he has a self-awareness that way too much of the American right (be it the old-style Reagan coalition or the alt-right) lacks. It's way more than I can say about Alex Jones, who happily sold out his principled opposition to authoritarianism the moment that brown people started scaring him more than the police state. Something tells me that, in ten to twenty years' time, Beck is gonna be something of a Michael Moore figure on the right, leading a crop of business-focused, libertarian conservatives who feel left out of mainstream politics the same way that the New Deal Democrats did from the '90s until just last year. Just as Moore saw Bill Clinton as a sellout to Reaganism, Beck will probably spend almost as much time railing at his own party for abandoning Reagan-era conservatism as he will at bashing the Democrats.
It's also hard to discuss Beck's opposition to Trump without also mentioning the fact that he's a Mormon. The Mormons despised Trump, and while enough of them ultimately held their noses and voted for him to lead him to victory in Utah, he only won that state with less than 46% of the vote (in a state that normally goes 2-1 for the GOP candidate), with an enormous chunk of the state's conservatives turning in protest votes for the independent candidate Evan McMullin. I would not be shocked if, maybe not in the next few election cycles but perhaps in a few decades' time, the Mormons start abandoning the Republican Party. KevinR1990 (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Mormons voting for the party that supports gay rights and abortion? Hah! CorruptUser (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
You guys want Beck? You can have him. Roger Ailes dumped him a long time ago, so to maintain an audience and remain relevant in his profession he has to turn to libs now. Not unlike Dick Morris reinventing himself as a diehard conservative after subverting America with the Clinton's, then falling out with Hillary. Oh, and it has more to do with Mormon love of their favorite sonWikipedia Romney than an anti-Trump sentiment in Utah. nobs 02:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
No, he wanted us. We didn't want him. Maybe Beck was mad because Romney showed his unrequited love for Trump.[12] Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Well yah, you're stuck with him. Ailes & conservatives don't want him. Since the Romney-Trump rapprochementWikipedia the sliver Mormon/NeverTrumpers that was his remaining audience has dissipated. Now he has to borrow from the playbook of Morris and Barry Goldwater if he wants any audience at all. Endorsements from the NYT, WaPo, and New Yorker should help. New headline: "Glen Beck on Soros Payroll." nobs 02:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
We aren't anymore "stuck with him" than you are. As far as we're concerned, the man can float around in media limbo while everything comes crashing down around everyone's ears. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Look at the case of cp:David Brock. He started out as a fierce defender of Clarence Thomas against commie/lib attacks that Thomas was an Uncle Tom. He suffered relentless attacks from the Left. When it became known he was a gay junkie taking time off to recuperate from the attacks in a lunatic assylum, conservatives dropped him. Hillary & Soros hired him to do what he does best - character assassination as head of Media Matters - a fulltime job that pays way better than conservatives offered for piece work on books and articles. Beck's not in his 20s like Brock was, and has his own media operation. Problem was, the demographics for growth to sustain it in its current form just isn't there. nobs 03:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but who wants to pick Glenn Beck up? the man built his reputation up as a frothing lunatic who hates everything the left stands for. At this point, Glenn Beck is synonymous with "rabid conservatism." And if groups like Justice Democrats continue to gain influence, well then people like Beck are even more f**ked. The New Left seems to have a long memory and little forgiveness, from what I can tell. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Beck has TV, Radio, and TheBlazeWikipedia, which obviously have a monetary value, established user base, and not worth allowing to shrivel on the vine. The shift in editorial policy eventually will drive some longtime viewers away. The timed endorsements from NYT, WaPo, and New Yorker will bring some curious onlookers in temporarily. The gamble here is for every old conservative viewer he looses, he gains 1.5 or more millenial liberals. Sponsorship too will change. In coming months he'll be looking to exploit some big stunt, either of his own making or capitalize on a national headline, to establish himself among his new target audience that he indeed is part of the Resistance or SJW movements. Look now if you have the resources, I bet TheBlaze is already off fake news shitlists. nobs 04:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If this doesn't become a woo magnet for the ages, I don't know what will[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal - (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ctrl + F "Quantum". 70 matches. I don't know, maybe the woo-meisters already embrace it. Never underestimate the lengths they go. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
By time crystals being a "woo magnet for the ages", I assume that you meant: cranks will take this legitimate scientific concept (which they don't understand) and then render it in Deepakeese? Because — while I am not a physicist myself — to the best of my knowledge, Frank WilczekWikipedia certainly isn't a crank. Time crystal research seems to have involved not just the University of California, Berkeley, but the University of Maryland and indeed Harvard University, with time crystal research being published in Nature (among other places). So again, I assume you're not questioning the validity of the time crystals themselves, but pointing out that woo-pushers will try their hardest to appropriate the term for emotional effect (per usual)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone will probably make a fake perpetual motion machine.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Reverend Black Percy: that's what I'm getting from, just as how quantum has overall acceptance, but woo-meisters push it way over the edge, trying to impress with technobabble. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Five years too late - see Talk:Crystals, last entry. (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's never too late when all the woo-community does is rehash the same old arguments and appeals forever and ever. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
When the page is created here can it be rendered into a form that 'enjoy science programs and books' level readers (ie knows slightly more than the basics and not frightened by technical words) can understand - the Wikipedia page is rather difficult to follow. (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with the Reverend. I'm not enough of an expert on physics to accurately judge this phenomenon, but from what I do know it doesn't seem like complete woo. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some woomeister sees this and instantly jumps to some hilariously absurd conclusions. --Samstr (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm waiting for time crystals to show up in my instant coffee and laundry detergent. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bike helmet laws[edit]

Bike helmet's are only mandatory in a few jurisdictions

So in some countries there are laws that force people to wear bike helmets. There is however no study showing they are effective and many hints that they instead decrease the number of cyclists and make motorists behave more reckless towards cyclists. The science seems to point towards an overall increase in premature deaths when less people ride bikes. Here is a TedX talk on the topic. What do you think? Zionist Goy (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked it up on Google scholar and a number of studies show they're effective. There is the issue of religious freedom though. Sikhs who don't cut their hair would be hard pressed to get a helmet on. Allthough as far as I know they're exempt. Christopher (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh oh. This issue caused the rise of the largest 3rd party in the United States. nobs 00:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think seat belt laws make sense, but bicycle helmet laws make no sense. Cyclists have no higher risk of head injuries than pedestrians or people in cars. Where are the car helmet laws? And bike helmet laws are known to decrease the number of cyclists, which decreases the safety of the individual cyclist due to various reasons. In short, bike helmet laws help only the manufacturers of bike helmets and hurt people on bikes. Zionist Goy (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm opposed to mandatory helmet laws, only because we need more organs </snark>. CorruptUser (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You should read Peter Myers, Bicycle-Riding - an Act of Defiance against arbitrary authority?: He was victimized by the one-world globalist conspiracy, ticketed for riding with an unapproved helmet, and forced to pay a $45(AUS) fine. What's next? Will bicyclists be forced to carry identity papers, subject to backstreet blitzes and arbitrary check points? nobs 02:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
So you think telling people "cycling is dangerous" and making a law that will be enforced mostly against poor people (a great idea as we've seen in Ferguson) is a good idea? Or am I misunderstanding you? Zionist Goy (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think scateboarders are tbe most dangerous and reckless on the road. First off, they have no breaks, especially downhill. Secondly, they hit a pothole or crack in the sidewalk, they have no steering mechanism to avoid. And these kids are about 9 years old. Its not uncommon to see them operating in the street where I live.
In a few years when the children of immigrants start carrying RPGs on scateboards will it get attention. Frankly, I don't know what to do. nobs 02:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I've always found motorcycle helmet laws make an interesting comparison to allowing amateur pilots. The argument usually is that helmetless bikers suck up precious tax dollars when they get disabled in accidents that the helmets might have prevented. OTOH, when pro golfers, Silicon Valley billionaires, and young Kennedies go missing in their amateur aviation, this literally calls up the Air Force and the Coast Guard. But nobody claims that amateur pilots are doing something dangerous that drains the public purse. On a mere bicycle, a helmet usually means a rider to get past and steer away from to the extent possible. Lots of people ride bicycles for many reasons, and most of them observe the unwritten social compact in which bicyclists are not vehicles but pedestrians on a contraption. It's the speedo and helmet set that thinks they're cars and that they're entitled to mix it up in traffic. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
maybe make pilots wear bike helmets? And i disagree with the 'pedestrians on a contration' its the cyclists refusal to act like they are driving a vehicle that leads them to be universally reviled by pedestrians and motorists alike. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I largely agree. Cyclists tend to be disliked for being a "middle ground", we are often too fast for pedestrian traffic and too slow for road traffic. I am certain that bike helmets help in the event of an actual crash; the main concern seems to be whether this is countered by the fact that bike helmets reduce cycling to an extent that makes crashes more likely and thus puts cyclists who do wear helmets at greater undue risk. I haven't read the studies to make a proper evaluation, but I'm skeptical that bike helmet laws discourage enough potential riders to counteract the safety benefit they provide. The most convincing argument against such laws seems to be the one in favor of personal liberty, but I still think I lean in favor of requiring helmets. --Samstr (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There is "safety in numbers" which has been borne out by several studies - the more bikes there are, the safer the individual cyclist becomes. There are several reasons for this, from the trivial (if two bikes ride side by side, a car can only hit one at a time) to the less direct (more cyclists means stronger lobby, means better legal and infrastructure protection). Bike helmet laws meanwhile have the proven impact of reducing the number of cyclists on the streets all other things being equal. So if the stated goal is to reduce the negative consequences of bike accidents, it is very doubtful helmet laws do that. Oh and as an aside, I keep getting error messages saying something about a "vandal bin" Zionist Goy (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
a quick google search tells that bike helmets do prevent head injuries. Id link to them, but condidering how few places actually have any laws at all concerning them, and fewer still (one) places that fine you for not having a helmet, i just cant be arsed to spend any effort on this greatest debate of our times. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course bike helmet laws prevent head injuries and generally improve safety outcomes for cyclists. However, countries with a stronger cycling culture -- the Netherlands being a prime example -- often do not require cyclists to wear helmets and indeed most cyclists there do not wear helmets, not because helmets are ineffective, but because they feel safe cycling without a helmet since bikes make up a much more significant mode share than, say, here in the States. There have also been studies performed that say drivers are less careful around cyclists who wear helmets and, combined with observations that mandatory helmet laws discourage cycling, in the long run it's worth letting people choose their own adventure when it comes to bicycle safety apparel rather than unintentionally suppressing cycling through helmet laws.   ¬   The Mayor vote early vote often 23:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
the netherlands have more in the way of cycle paths, so it safer all round. still seems like a moot point though as the vast majority of the world do let you choose. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it does seem that developing more cycling paths across the country would be a better way to encourage cycling, and something that I would very strongly argue for as an avid cyclist myself. I love road biking, but even in rural areas, it can still be a dangerous hobby. Well maintained paths dedicated to cyclists would make it a much safer sport and make the question about helmets more or less irrelevant (at least when it comes to bike paths). Personally, when biking on large roads I almost always wear a helmet (save for the fact that I forgot it at home this semester, oops) it makes me feel much more comfortable. --Samstr (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The number of people killed by skateboards is a rounding error. The number of people killed by cars is higher than that killed by handguns even in the US. Zionist Goy (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

While I support the freedom to get smeared, I am having a hard time telling if this is Poe. Bike at 5mph fine. Cruise a street, where is your helmet!?!Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

indeed. if I were to share London streets with metal beasts weighing over a tonne on a bicycle, id want a little more protection than hair gel and the good will of motorists AMassiveGay (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
We have a "Bicycle Boulevard" alternative route in my town to keep bicyles from getting squashed on Main Street AmericaWikipedia. The speed limit is 17 mph, which has two benefits: any cycle-car collision almost automatically will find the car at fault for recklessness, negligence, exceeding the limit, etc, secondly a good revenue source cause most drivers are unaware of the odd speed limit. nobs 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair and good. My town has a terrible mayor, bike lanes were introduced only into serious traffic concerns but nobody bikes past interstate turnoffs anyway. Never did, never will. Make great turn lanes, though. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)