RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive276

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 August 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>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <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>, (new)(back)

Contents

Is it possible to delete your Rational Wiki Account?[edit]

Is it possible to delete your Rational Wiki Account?— Unsigned, by: NTDenmark / talk / contribs

No, but a tech can change your username and password, leaving no trace of who you were. However your old edits would still stand. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 09:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Barging in, sorry, but would they? My current account name is one I would rather leave behind. How problematic would it be as well? I'd imagine all links to my userspace would be redlinked. --Spoony (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
They're normally OK with name changes and such, and the password change was done for someone else only a few days ago. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 09:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Spoony Barring any unforeseen complications — what would you like your new username to be? Please also note that if you're considering said name change for reasons of anonymity (related to the nick "Spoony"), it's far better to simply have your 'Spoony' account permanently put on ice (see BWs' post above for details) and for you to simply register yourself a new RW account with an unrelated username. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
My username was apparently changed to Spoony overnight, which i'm perfectly happy with. I don't see a need to ice the account altogether. I made this post when my account had a completely unrelated name--Spoony (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Disaster Movies and Pseudoscience part 1: Nuclear weapons save the day somehow[edit]

Can someone explain why in so many disaster (of) movies think nuclear weapons solve everything? In the "movie" 2012:Supernova they use nuclear weapons to block stellar radiation. In 10.5 they use nuclear weapons to "fuse" a fault line. In Magma:Volcanic Disaster nuclear weapons for some reason stop the disaster. In Quantum Apocalypse nuclear weapons are used to hit a gravitational singularity and it sends everything back in time (I don't understand physics, so I don't get how it works. Forgive me......). If anyone knows then that is good. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Because BIG EXPLOSION!!!! probably. Movies need a big dramatic finish that solves the problem, and, well, what's the biggest, most dramatic, thing we have lying around? Ah, yes... BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 22:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Basically, movies are entertainment, not science lectures. If pseudoscience works dramatically, reality can go whistle. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 22:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Plus time constraints. Instead of a more convoluted solution -and more expensive in terms of SFX-, when movie's time is running out throw in a nuke (or several) and problem solved (ID4 at the very least seemed that was going to avoid that). Never mind in reality it would be useless or would complicate things even more Panzerfaust (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Basically - The War of the Worlds solution (victory by 'germs') is not dramatic enough.
Idea for 'Disaster Movie part 2' - dealing with the after-effects of the resolution to the original movie. 31.49.115.248 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Independence Day again: the city destroyers should have left a HUGE mess behind, even assuming they crashed on a gentle way (toxic products on either them or the crushed cities below, how to process all that waste... name it), not to mention the one caused by the mothership blowing up, even had it happened behind the Moon -the Moon would have ended in a pretty nasty shape- Panzerfaust (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I think a page on disaster movies and the hokey science therein might be missional. At the very least, it could refer to the fact that NASA shows the Michael Bay movie Armageddon as part of their management training program, testing their staff to see how many blatant inaccuracies they can find. It probably doesn't need to be a long one, maybe a few paragraphs about how they contribute to a skewed perception of science, with examples to back it up and lots of room for jokes. And we do have a full page on The Day After Tomorrow, so there's that. KevinR1990 (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
"It probably doesn't need to be a long one" - but it probably would, as people added movie after movie. Actually this sounds like a good idea. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Holy crap Bicycle is back! Now can we also get Aging Hippie back too? CorruptUser (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep, finally online at home again six months after my Dell died. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 06:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do you hate Israel?[edit]

Warum hassen Sie Israel? Ist es weil dort Juden leben? — Unsigned, by: 46.244.252.65 / talk / contribs

Their couscous is just too damn good. No nation should have that power. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Woo, my German is good enough to completely understand those questions! —Kazitor, pending 00:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Why do you believe we hate Israel ? (Je ne parle pas choucroute, désolé) Diacelium (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Governments aren't people, and immoral actions(such as denying half your country the right to vote in your national elections, or bulldozing homes to found settlements) by governments are to be condemned. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I was wondering when Avenger would make another alt. CorruptUser (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a psychologist[edit]

Or for that matter an anthropologist. Never had much interest in that stuff, but can anyone tell me (more or less) whether the following is true or not? The author seems convinced modern man is broken in some way:

http://9-1.huntergatherers.org/

I'm not versed in this stuff at all so I thought I'd ask others who are.Machina (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this something like the fourth time you've asked this?Daev (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The author says explicitly that his explanations are guesswork. Always a bad sign. It sounds like whoever wrote it is touting a view somewhat consistent with psychoanalysis. Also a bad sign. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
How so? I don't think I saw anything that indicated that he was guessing. Do you mean the "educated guess"? Because the dictionary defines it as:a guess based on knowledge and experience and therefore likely to be correct. Also I think this is the first time I have posted something like this.Machina (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you believe everyone who says he has enough education and experience to ensure that his guesses are "likely to be correct?" My dictionary has a picture of L. Ron Hubbard next to the entry for "educated guesser."
'Noble Savage or Good point', 'Is this person reliable?' Both in Barchive275. While I seem to have mis-remembered the 'Is the Unabomber right?' in Barchive274 to have brought that page up also. Daev (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You might have a point but I have bad memory so this might elude me. In regards to the educated guess, the guy cites someone who apparently has scholarly works and the bibliography on the page is rather long. So it seems like his "educated guess" is good to me. What's so bad about psychoanalysis.Machina (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream. Read the books in the bibliography and find out for yourself. Maybe they prove what the author says they prove. You want to just believe it? Fine. Freud is now regarded as the author of many a discredited hypothesis.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Well I ran the names of a few of the authors and I think it might be confirmation bias to be honest. But I have no interest in reading the books just to prove someone wrong. That seems like a waste of time to me.Machina (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
See, this is an example of Ariel's Law: Ask for enough details and your opponent will tell you to do it yourself. We do agree on this.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Scripts and templates[edit]

this user asserts the fact that this user attempted an import of the CSD template and is currently requesting help from others to reconfigure the template to fit the system of rationalwiki while also requesting all to utilize the article for deletion template for discussions of deletion of an article prior to deletion.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[1]] [[2]] 16:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you ask if anyone wanted it first? If not, why are you asking for our help now? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the fact that this user currently possesses plans for rationalwiki, of which, import of templates and scripts is one and this user is requesting assistance of all regarding the items. this user is requesting users @FuzzyCatPotato, Christopher, RoninMacbeth, and Spoony to look into oneclickarchiver system which can be used to manually archive pages.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[3]] [[4]] 18:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Little busy, but I'll try. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you not write in the 3rd person, especially if you're asking for a favor? It's fucking annoying. Bongolian (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
He talks kinda funny, I think we might have to just get used to it.--Spoony (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm Back due to Hack[edit]

Hi all, Refugee here, long-time original(-ish) user since 2007, have been inactive for a year(-ish) or so, came back today because I got a notice to change password due to hack. Changed password, looked around, but not much time, so... Can someone kindly summarize briefly what's been going on recently, and who is running things now? I appreciate it, Thanks much! :-) Refugeetalk page 20:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Refugee

In addition to being heretical scum, who worship satan, we're now also all SJW scum whose wives cheat on us. Not much else to say, really. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
It's all gone to hell. If you want drama, you'll have to make do with Right-wing RationalWiki (friendly troll) or FAMAS (strange grammar). WIGO:CP has just 41 edits this year -- that's 1 edit per 5 days! Most users have turned into filthy, productive producers of mainspace content. Who's running things? You could check the RMF list or mod list, but real power lies with populist preacher Elvis is King and his insightful sermons. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There have been no coop cases for a long time, which is nice, especially from a a moderator's perspective. Despite this, User:AgingHippie has not returned as promised. Bongolian (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all - I appreciate the links and so forth, it's amazing how quickly a person (or at least me) can forget how to do stuff... Refugeetalk page 07:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Security breach announcement (sticky)[edit]

In the process of looking over our terrible server estate, Tim worked out we'd had a data breach in February. That's why you've just been required to change your password. Details. (We decided the best thing to do was get the upgrade done and the server secured, then report it.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

For people who no longer edit this wiki, emailing Troy Hunt, the guy who runs Have I been pwned? may just be a good idea. So the vacant editors know their details are toast.ClickerClock (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Why the hell do we not hash passwords?—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
As David Ghirardelli said on the blog, we do, ...just not very well (at least until now). ~ <3 17:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, but when one logs in and changes one's password one is forced to use a non-encrypted pathway (http rather than https). What gives? Bongolian (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll bet it was a group of angry fundies who did it.

SkepticMessiah (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was moved here from RW:TECH.

Fair play on the disclosure and the forced password change Deku-shrub (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, but when one logs in and changes one's password one is forced to use a non-encrypted pathway (http rather than https). What gives? Bongolian (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
SSL implementation is veeery close. Note also that the aforementioned breach was completely unrelated to https (and would not have been prevented, nor likely even affected, by the use of such in-transit data encryption). The layer in which the breach actually did happen has been sealed up already, and it didn't take SSL to do so. That being said, SSL is 'round the corner. At long last. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

About the br34ch...[edit]

This discussion was moved here from User talk:Tim Starling.

Wouldn't anyone who has sufficient privileges (moderators and techs, I think) and never logs on...basically remain a perpetual liability (if they had "even moderately good passwords") that could do anything moderators and techs can do? (Which, I'm lead to believe, includes the potential for gross violations of the privacy of basically anyone.) For instance, Weaseloid hasn't been on since March, and isn't likely to see that password-changing prompt for a long while yet more. ~ <3 12:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The number of sysops on this wiki is quite high, 798 sysops for a wiki with 314 active users. Sysops have editinterface rights, which could be very destructive for someone who is technically knowledgeable, including hijacking other user accounts. So maybe there is a case for activity requirements, or maybe editinterface should be removed from that group.
Note that we are not really worried about the person who compromised the site in February taking direct malicious action. They could have downloaded IP addresses, but just didn't bother. They could have deleted the whole database, and some of the backups, but that evidently did not align with their motives. The risk at this point is that they will sell the user table on and that someone else may use it against us down the track. -- Tim Starling (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
So wait, there is a way for people to see editor's IP addresses or their passwords? Pirate Chick (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. User passwords require a brute forcing attack to uncover (and that's assuming access to the hash dump) — a method every single password in the world is susceptible to, atleast in theory (read: not a vulnerability unique to RW). With the MediaWiki update, the password encryption was also improved going forward.
Regarding IPs, the log file in question is not to be mistaken for some form of 'covert CheckUser' function. Tim has the details, and nobody's even seen the log but him, but my guess is that it was some general server log, from which IPs could have been extrapolated by a go-getting attacker (atleast in theory). Tim would know, though. At any rate, this log was not leaked.
Most crucially, however — a central thesis to the board's current tuning up of the site and server is to maintain and vastly improve the privacy and security of our users. Part of this is disclosing leaks to our users, and (though for many reasons) not running ads as well. Next up on the list of massive improvements is SSL implementation, for one. Stay tuned. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
On RW sysops don't have editinterface rights, only techs and staff. Christopher (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed -- check http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
As a long departed editor someone directed me here to see this. I'm reading this as; someone has my email and the password that I used to access RW. If those are the same then I should change my email PWord (in my case they are not). 139.130.16.222 (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I just learned of this 5 minutes ago, I went to log in and I got the message of a hacker. For some reason I had to manually put in the signature --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
We made all users reset their RationalWiki passwords for what I hope are obvious reasons. FuzzyCatPotato of the Cryptic Daffodils (talk/stalk) 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Love, I'm a tech and I don't think I can do anything that would be a "gross violation of privacy". Christopher (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I forgot about doxing that's been revdelled so sysops can't see it, never mind. Christopher (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Unacceptable[edit]

I don't want to come off as a dick about this this but, as a long-inactive user, 6 months' time to report a data breach is unacceptable. While it appears that we were (very relatively speaking) lucky this time, I really want to know if the RMF and the technical support they oversee are taking steps (no need to say what they are, due to obvious sensitivity reasons) to ensure that, in the future, such breaches are 1) prevented by means such as SSL password logins and 2) more easily prevented and/or more readily monitored for. -Gooniepunk 67.4.131.157 (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

[A] 6 months is too long.
[B] SSL wasn't the issue (though it wouldn't hurt). Running old software (outdated database, outdated server, outdated MediaWiki) with known exploits and custom-written outdated extensions was the issue. Or issues. I don't want to blame previous Boards, but... holy shit, how was nothing updated since the mid-2010s? (Unrelated: I had to file taxes for 2014-16 and Arizona nonprofit reports for 2014-17. Problems were larger than "not updating MediaWiki".) All relevant software is updated and a lot of custom extensions have died or been updated.
Welcome back, if temporarily and under shit circumstances, Goonie. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Another long departed user. Extremely disappointed that the board allowed my data to be stolen through incompetence and inaction; if there are any existing members from that time period they should resign. Well done to everyone involved on the upgrade and it's good to see the community evidently going strong. I've taken the opportunity to change my Pword to one that I have already forgotten; all the best. Tielec01 (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Gooniepunk-et. al.: While we are all upset and impacted by the breach, I will gently ask that any future "reasonable complaints" be diluted with the prior understanding that a 0-day exploit was utilized in the attack. That is; a method of entry which Tim considered to have been unknown up until now. While said vector of attack has since been plugged (due to only becoming pluggable post-use), consider the meaning of any supposed requests that surprises be known in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@67.4.131.157 @Reverend Black Percy Thanks for putting that to words. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
So upgrading the wiki wouldn't have prevented this attack? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Passive IT security is a myth. While the update was WAY overdue, let's not forget that IT security is an arms race. You can't ever bring a system to a certain state, to then just leave it alone, assuming it'll somehow 'stay safe' on its own. Sure, there are ways of implementing things which vary in their "time resistance" — but the wider point still stands. Security requires constant oversight, which in turn requires dedicated people. As such, I'm proud to be not just in the "generation" of trustees who oversaw the update, but who discovered the breach as well. That both of these things happened under our watch means that for once in a good while, the board isn't just fapping full-time on 'permanent hiatus'. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Was that an answer to the question? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
FWIW it wasn't six months, it was a few weeks. Happened in February, wasn't spotted until very recently - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

How robust, quantitatively, was the password hashing?[edit]

Could someone please say how easy it's going to be for the hacker to find, via brute-force, the passwords corresponding to the hashes that he stole? In particular: What's the algorithm? How often was it iterated, roughly? And were the passwords individually salted? Of course I don't expect an answer if you think the info might help the attacker. But it would be nice to know how alerted people should be. --Sophophobe (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on https://www.elcomsoft.com/lhc.html , a single graphics card could discover your password in approximately the time given in the following table:
  • A misspelt or leetspeak English word: less than a second
  • 8 random lower case letters: 6 minutes
  • 8 random alphanumeric characters (a-z, A-Z, 0-9): 8 days
  • 10 random alphanumeric characters: 89 years
Although it's probably better to use hashcat as the benchmark, since it has built-in support for MediaWiki hashes. -- Tim Starling (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Tim, why did you MediaWiki devs choose PBKDF2 over Argon2 or scrypt, both of which I think are superior alternatives? (The main argument for PBKDF2 I've heard is it is approved for US government use, but while for some software vendors that is a very compelling argument, I didn't think that would be particularly relevant to MediaWiki.) (((Zack Martin))) 10:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Mostly PHP support for PBKDF2, particularly hash_pbkdf2(). You may be interested in this comment on the relevant task, written by the person who implemented PBKDF2 in MediaWiki. -- Tim Starling (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I can understand. At my work, we settled on PBKDF2 primarily because it came included with Java, and did not require any additional third party libraries. So, different technology stack, very similar reasoning. (((Zack Martin))) 22:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Tim.Sophophobe (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
MD5, non-iterated, so, an algorithm that has been known to be unsuitable for this purpose for literally its entire existence but was widely abused by crappy software like MediaWiki. I don't know if it was salted, probably not.
For what it's worth, it so happens that my day job involves working with data stolen from crooks who've stolen it from sites like this (thieves, you may remember, are famously without honour). So now that I know my data was probably in the loot I'll check that... Tialaramex (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I rock and rolled…[edit]

…so what does this even mean for me? I don't know/can't remember which password I used last, I don't know for certain what info has been connected to my account, and I think my password may have been changed on here anyway. What is even going on? Is my security data gonna get fucked or some shit? In simple terms, how fucked am I? 49.197.36.15 (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not the one who discovered or documented this stuff. @Tim Starling and @David Gerard know the details best.
If you don't use that email-password combination anywhere else, you're 0% fucked.
If you still use that email-password combination on any important websites (think bank, email), then you're possibly fucked, if they both [1] crack the passwords and [2] actually try to use them to log in elsewhere. From what we know, the attacker appeared to be running automated software rather than specifically targeting RationalWiki, which reduces the probabilities of both possibilities.
Aside from your email, a hashed password, and (if you were edited in the 13 weeks prior to the database download) your IP address, the attackers don't have any other personal data. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Our friends at /r/WikiInAction have noticed[edit]

Though they're reactionary shitlords who wouldn't notice the truth if it shat in their mouth, they do have a valid point:

they've until now been running on over 2 year old software with known security problems... And they actually want to be taken seriously?

On the bright side: at least we know the mass-emails are working! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A whole five comments??? Really, I think you have better things to worry about, FCP. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice to non-technicals[edit]

For those of us who are non-technicals - if nothing has happened since the breach, is anything likely to happen? Or do these Omega minuses have the intelligence/patience/whatever to wait six months and then do something? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably, hopefully, not. @Reverend Black Percy would know more. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Using 'non-technical' to describe those of us who can do most of what we want and prefer to have narrative explanations and are willing to cooperate with those who know enough to do the decorative details we don't fancy doing (so a wide range of skills) - and arrange things systematically enough for any snarly-ups/twisty ups to be readily spotted. The experts can do much more complicated things (and if they go wrong it is better to start at the beginning again).
FCP - you are responding to my second comment - and are trolls failed Omega minuses? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
For the life of me, I can't figure out what you mean by "failed Omega minuses". Mind explaining? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You should be completely safe because you don't have an account. Christopher (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@OP "Likely to happen"? First the short answer — basically, anywhere you are still able to access your own account and change its password? Do that now. Successfully doing so means your leaked info is now outdated, and thus made irrelevant, even if acted on by the attacker. Bingo.
Here's the long answer (and it's a bit annoying, I know)... IT security is basically measured in dog years. Ultimately, all the locks will get picked, and all the secret doorknobs will be found and duly turned — given time. What I mean to say is, there are no guarantees in IT security. Treat everything you do and handle on any and all devices you own as something which risks compromise. I don't mean that in a paranoid sense; what I mean is, time alone will gnaw your chains in twain. It works just like evolution (specifically predator/prey relationships) — the one thing you cannot do is stand still (read: ...in the continual evolution of your defenses, over time). People are often shocked and bothered when a breach forces them to change passwords everywhere. Yet the truth is, to ensure anything close to credential security, you're already 'supposed' to be rotating all of your passwords on your own. Nobody bothers to do that, but really, as any IT security 101 class will tell you, password culture is incredibly important — and poor password culture basically cancels out the gains from using ever sturdier vaults. You're technically not even supposed to be using the same password in more than one place, ever — and you're supposed to rotate it over time as well — never mind ever using a simple password (i.e. anything but a random alphanumeric string). But I digress. My point is, it was probably time to step up your password game either way. "IT security", in the literal sense, basically translates to "Don't even use IT in the first place". Fat chance, I know. Thus; fat chance at IT security. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Fuzzycat - failed Omega minuses refers to 'general nuisances and persons who do not have the capacity to even come last.' What other put-downs are there? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
RBP's answer is misleading. It is true that the state of the art in computer security advances. And it is true that people on the trailing edge get eaten alive by sharks. But jumping to the conclusion that it's a Red Queen's Race as RBP seems to is a grievous error. Password hashing is actually an excellent example. Starting in the 1970s Unix has gone from the original M-209 based nonsense, to a DES-based algorithm often just called "crypt()", then PHK's iterative MD5-based replacement and today various bcrypt() and PBKDF-style alternatives. And on the trailing edge we've seen people get into trouble using paintext, unsalted MD5, the "LAN MAN hash", unsalted SHA-1, and various noddy hand-rolled schemes. But notice that all their easily defeated schemes, often invented in the 1990s, or even the 21st century, come long after Unix published a series of much better alternatives. If you start out with a bad approach, refuse to learn anything from your mistakes and then throw your hands up and declare everybody else a cheater for having paid attention to the actual problem and come up with a solution the problem isn't the game, it's the player.
5000 iteration PBKDF2 with a SHA-256 MAC and 64 bits of salt is really good, and did not exist twenty years ago. But, PHK-MD5-crypt did exist twenty years ago, and if your password is so marginally secure that it's not quite safe under PHK-MD5-crypt then realistically your password is just not safe even with the fancy PBKDF2 based algorithm (or Argon2 for that matter), pick a better password. But Media Wiki (to single out one of a huge number of apps for obvious reason) didn't use PHK-MD5-crypt because nobody involved had the faintest clue what they were doing. Why are we where we are? Not because of some Red Queen's race but simple human incompetence. Tialaramex (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

HTTPS[edit]

So, when is HTTPS going to happen? Or will basic site security always be a non-issue? Flannan Isle (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@David Gerard *prods gently* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
turns out to be an arse with an active Varnish and I'm in the last week before the book goes live, so my concentration is rather taken up. But I haven't forgotten I swear - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's encrypt :P agucova 03:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This sort of varnish or this?
Can someone turn the Wikipedia article on the actual topic into something that makes sense to the people who are likely to go to Wikipedia to know what 'Varnish' actually is. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Linked offsite[edit]

Ey[edit]

Been fuckin yonks since I been here. Any cunts still here from the late 2013-early 2015 period? Shit was a different time then, don't recognise most of the people here anymore. Anyway, go about your business and whatnot. 49.197.36.15 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Who were you? (You won't know me, I joined in January). Christopher (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
My moniker was Messiah of Doom (later Doom Messiah). I was an absolute fucking moron and wanker but I'd like to think I've improved myself slightly. 49.197.36.15 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm still here, o Facebook friend of mine. I guess I'm what passes for the old guard nowadays. Spud (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that makes me ancient guard then :s BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 15:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh hi guys how's it going 49.197.36.15 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I joined Nov 2014, you probably don't remember me though, as I don't edit very often.'Legionwhat do you want from me 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I joined around early 2014? CorruptUser (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
there's an easy way to check that, you joined on the 28th January 2015 (unless this isn't your first account). Christopher (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I started reading and making the occasional edits as a BoN late the year before. CorruptUser (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm here from 2010. Does that make me old? KevinR1990 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Early 2013'ers represent! FuzzyCatPotato of the Bloated Heretics (talk/stalk) 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2007, ya turkeynecks! BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Eyyyy, I do remember you somewhat. Nutty used to fucking hate you, didn't he? 49.197.36.15 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Your block log would seem to indicate that you are correct that you were "an absolute fucking moron and wanker". Self-perceived slight improvement isn't likely to change matters any. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Going just by the block log seems a bit arbitrary, the people who were around when (s)he was haven't yet confirmed whether or not "absolute fucking moron and wanker" is an accurate description. Christopher (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
No, but I was. I was, to be fair, dealing with heavy undiagnosed autism, severe mentally illness and social isolation, and lacking in any form of self-awareness. But in the past few years, I've been through some fairly intense shit that's made me actually get treatment, and learn how to actually interact with people. Obviously, neither of those things have worked, but at least I've tried. If you ask anyone who knew me from back then, there are maybe two or three people who would have something good to say, but most people would agree I was a shitstain. I'm also in a kind of bad place now anyway, so nothing like a bit of shouting into the void at people I don't know. 49.197.36.15 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It kind of amazes me that 6+ years later I am still coming to this filthy rat-infested hovel, even if much more infrequently than I used to. (((Zack Martin))) 22:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you try to start that religion or something? 49.197.36.15 (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
When the spirits possessed me I had no choice but to write down what they were saying. They spoke, and I was compelled to repeat what they said to whoever would listen. Nowadays, these spirits remain in me, but they have grown quieter as the years have progressed. If it happened to you, you would understand. (((Zack Martin))) 02:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Uhhh.. sounds like another person we know. I'm not sure if you're joking or are actually serious.. Koi "dammit Koi stop making such long sigs!" development 02:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at this website I created – http://maratreanism.org – and then you tell me whether you think I am joking. (((Zack Martin))) 04:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There's this too.mBicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And there's this too. (((Zack Martin))) 20:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
that only gets me "This site can’t be reached/www.5z8.info’s server DNS address could not be found./DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN." what is it? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Probably being blocked by your ISP... they probably think it is a virus or nasty porn or something like that. I mean, with a URL like that who could blame them! (((Zack Martin))) 20:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So you are serious.. Koifishdevelopment (swim) 13:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ja, oui, si. (((Zack Martin))) 23:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry guys, i returned with a few things that i need to clarify ._.[edit]

Im tired of bring to you ever this kind of posts, because i think you are tired to, and i dont like to anger the people, but, again, can you analize this for me? it looks fake, but for the other side, i have some doubt about it, i dont know why

http://www.someonesbones.com/blog/plot-to-assasinate-putin-over-nibiru-disclosure-foiled/

http://www.someonesbones.com/blog/summer-of-nibiru-says-former-usgs-climatologist-dr-ethan-trowbridge/

http://www.someonesbones.com/blog/vatican-threatens-trump-do-not-talk-about-nibiru/DinoKiller65 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65

You don't have to feel sorry. Addressing these things is what the site was created for. 174.200.16.41 (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course, Nibiru is all a hoax. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
[Witty joke re: 'analizing'] Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that there's a hidden planet within our solar system that will destroy Earth. It's also possible that such a planet would easily be noticeable in other planet/asteroids' orbits (gravity is a bitch). Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So, FuzzyCatPotato, are you saying me that nibiru could exists? or not? im confused DinoKiller65 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65
FCP is, in a roundabout way, saying that no, Nibiru does not exist. If a 'hidden planet' in our solar system existed, we would have noticed a long time ago due to its gravitational effects on our solar system. We observe nothing that points to another planet existing in our solar system. Fareeha A (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh thanks Fareeha, i was kind of confused DinoKiller65 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65
Yes, and don't forget to change your socks.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Vatican?. Looks like Fundie BS, just to begin with. As for Nibiru, is just more BS. To add to FCP's reply, some cranks are saying it will come in September-October this year (and I bet some will say that Nibiru is a bright star, that can be seen well just before dawn and that is just Venus (damned troubles to sleep caused by the summer heat)). Was it true its effects would have been noticed and, as would be easily viible Internet would be awash with reports of astronomers, amateur and professional, reporting both things. Nobody can hide those things that can be seen just looking at the sky.
Never mind, as before they'll keep hammering with the same crap even after countless failed predictions. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

UFO in Afghanistan?[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Betteridge's law of headlines

So yeah, i was travelling on internet and i found this video. It looks kind of fake, because those UFO looked very CGI, but i want to know your opinion guys and clear my doubts.DinoKiller65 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65

It's so easy to fake a UFO that it's just not worth bothering with films like this. Even if it was real, it looks like something that could be easily faked, and so is no compelling proof at all. Will the group who claim ownership of the film (and how did they get it?) let anyone see the raw footage - datestamped and stored on the original media? If not, cry fake until they do. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump wants one of those. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If presidents had a UFO, Reagan would show it off to intimidate the Soviets, Bush and Obama would have used it to secretly attack Al-Qaeda bases, Trump would electroplate it gold and serve tacos from it in Mar-a-Lago. Classy! BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
At the very least that frame (have not seen the video) looks fake. I'd swear those soldiers dress in WWII uniforms, and that the one at the lower right is just CGI. I also find odd the upper part of the saucer and how all those rocks are in place. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
That photo doesn't appear in the video at all - it's just a hook to get you to watch a low-detail video of a couple of vague hovering things. For me, that just screams hoax. 85.234.65.51 (talk) (Bicycle Wheel) 14:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC) (PS the new captcha is shite)
Not to sound like a douche, but...A misleading YouTube thumbnail? It's unheard of! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


Page restructuring proposal- Doctor of Naturopathy changed to "Alternative Medicine Education"[edit]

I suggest this because it would include all alternative medicine credentials. Probably be better if this was made into a poll. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "Alternative medicine credentials" would be a better page title. There are quite a few of these, often of the alphabet soup variety that are sometimes hard to decipher. It would be useful to see a compendium to sort things out I think. Bongolian (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I made the edit but when I added the section for Chiropractic, I tried to put in a reference but it screwed up and I cannot fix it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I really don't like the new title, as that implies they're actually doing any educating. What it's really all about (besides the church-like experience of quietly listening to an old man move his mouth and make sounds without actually talking for hours at a time each week) is the premium sale of Alternative Medicine Credentials, which makes for a much snappier title.
I've already added Diploma mill to the See Also section, and would like to get confirmation on moving the page next. ~ <3 16:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Racism vs Heritability of Intelligence/Behavior[edit]

As you can guess from the subject line, not a light conversation topic. Might be easier if I referred to a chimpanzee species known as the East African Plains Ape (EAPA). Certain people make the claim that there are several, clearly demarcated sub-species of EAPA with meaningful differences in behavior and intelligence. Most research appears to show this to be false, in that there is no clear demarcation between, say, the West Eurasian EAPA and the Southern East Eurasian EAPA, and we've always been at war with Southern East Eurasia that virtually all EAPA are hybrids anyway. No particular morph is naturally "better" than the others, and many attempts to enforce a "betterness" has lead to bitterness. This is not a controversial claim, though apparently there are a number of people who don't understand this anyway.

However, a number of people also make the claim that not only are different populations of EAPA fundamentally no different from one another, but that intelligence and behavior have no genetic component, thus it's impossible to have any material "natural" differences between different populations of EAPA. This is not exactly true; a number of twin studies show that intelligence is somewhere between half a three quarters heritable, and a similar amount for "personality" in the form of various psychological disorders such as NPD and ODD. Do we, or perhaps should we, have any articles regarding genes and intelligence/behavior in the East African Plains Ape? CorruptUser (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So, my thinking – if intelligence is partially heritable, then it would seem plausible that different descent groups (demes) would have somewhat different distributions (mean, standard deviation, etc) of the heritable component of intelligence – now, those differences might be quite small, they might be greatly outweighed by the non-heritable components, etc. – but the idea seems plausible in itself – indeed, the distributions being exactly the same seems implausible. And, I think that thought applies equally to all species–humans, EAPAs, etc. (Now of course, just because an idea seem plausible doesn't guarantee it is true – but it does suggest that research to investigate the quesiton further is called for.) But some people seem to reject that idea, not because they disagree with the reasons given for its plausibility, but rather because they have some sort of ideological opposition to even asking the question of whether different descent groups differ in the heritable component of intelligence. Honestly, I don't know what the truth is in this area, but I think the whole question has become ideologically inflamed I don't trust anything anyone (on either "side") has to say about it. (Talking about heritable intelligence differences between "races" is not very sensible because "races" are overly-broad, poorly-defined groups, and the boundaries between them are cultural constructions and not a very good reflection of biological reality – but asking the question about much narrower groups such as demes seems more sensible to me.) (((Zack Martin))) 21:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that those "demes" are incredibly mixed, and even if we were able to have properly demarcated "demes", most differences in means would be negligible. I'm more concerned about genes and intelligence/personality where it pertains to individuals, not "demes". CorruptUser (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course all demes are mixed to a greater or lesser degree. But, let me put it this way – look at each Norwegian today, and then find their ancestors 500 years ago – while of course there will be many non-Norwegians in the mix, probably there are still very many Norwegians for whom the vast majority (or even all) of their ancestors-five-hundred-years-ago were also Norwegians. So in theory, we can identify a subgroup of "relatively pure" Norwegians (on a five hundred year time scale), which have little or no non-Norwegian ancestry over that timeframe. And, we can apply the same principles to produce a similar group of "relatively pure" Japanese. Now, obviously these two groups–our Norwegian group and our Japanese group–differ in lots of heritable characteristics–such as eye color, skin tone, hair color, height, etc. It seems very plausible that they might also differ in the distribution of alleles responsible for mental phenomena such as intelligence and personality traits. So, it seems plausible that there may be some slight difference in the heritable component of intelligence between these groups. I don't know what it is, and I don't know if we quite yet have sufficient technology to measure it–from what I've read, on average Japanese measure as having slightly higher IQs than Norwegians, so I'd guess the Japanese may have a slight advantage in heritable intelligence over Norwegians–but there are a lot of confounding factors entangled here, so I wouldn't put a lot of weight on that guess, and maybe the heritable advantage actually goes the other way–but I think it is a priori unlikely that the distribution of the heritable components of intelligence would be exactly the same between these two descent groups. (((Zack Martin))) 22:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that it has been at least statistically established that the various human personality axes (the Big 5, in particular) appear to be at least partially heritable. Most parents of more than one child will probably agree that their children came into the world with certain aspects of their personality preset, with various traits (fear of novelty is a big one) consistent from infancy to adulthood. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Wait a few years and I think we'll know a lot more. Whole genome sequencing can now be done for under 1000 USD per a human genome – and Illumina keeps on talking about getting the cost down to 100 USD in a few more years, and I believe that will happen (I don't know when, it might take a decade...) Potentially what we can then do, is get large multinational/multiethnic/multiracial samples of human beings (ideally a sample size in the millions), collect various information about them (including IQ and personality tests, but also a lot of other stuff like height and weight and medial history), and then use computer analysis (Big Data, Machine Learning, etc) to look for correlations. I think we will then find a lot of correlations between genes and IQ/personality which we don't know about yet, plus we'll also get some very good data on the allele distribution among different descent groups. Combine those two bits of information and you've got a pretty conclusive answer to the question of differences in heritable intelligence and personality traits between different human descent groups. We aren't there yet, but I'm sure we will get there soon enough. (((Zack Martin))) 08:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need a page on Race and intelligence. Our current page is severely lacking, especially when compared with the vast citations listed by racist-right writers. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

In particular, this document lists several references that critically engage with ideas about metrics of intelligence, heritability of intelligence, and heritability of intelligence within races. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The word deme is just a technical word for a breeding population. Most species have more than one deme because there are barriers that impede mating between individuals and so there are many different demes; in humans this is mostly because of culture: language, religion etc. And yes, as Zach points out there are clearly biological differences between demes, because cultural boundaries have existed over fairly long periods of time -so it is possible to speak in terms of ancestors and descendants, hence ethnic groups. However, CorruptUser is also correct the differences are small. The main problem with racialism is it makes a big thing out of the small differences, but Zach is correct there are some who try to deny those small differences even exist. Those people tend to be extreme liberals who don't want group differences, only individual differences. That the average ethnic Swede is blonde, but Japanese black haired, probably upsets them. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Then the word "deme" is irrelevant because race is defined by shared ancestry like any other taxonomy, not "current location". A 30 point average IQ difference is far from small, not to mention psychopathy differences. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

More generally, how about an article on measuring animal intelligence? For obvious reasons the methodology must be very different from that of human intelligence. Also, it seems that the article on Intelligence is unintelligible.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution issue: naturalnews for america or world[edit]

this user ran into an edit dispute with user @David Gerard during the edit in naturalnews page regarding the matter of whether the site broadcasts for only citizens of the american nation or all of human across existence, to which, this user presented the fact that the site broadcasts irrespective of region and time. this user is requesting community consensus regarding the dispute in order to reach a resolution on the matter. this user is pinging users @FuzzyCatPotato, RoninMacbeth, Christopher, Spud, and SpoonyFAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[5]] [[6]] 16:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

this user is seeking dispute resolution on the edit war issue regarding alex jones between this user and user @Christopher. this user pings users @FuzzyCatPotato, RoninMacbeth, Spud, and Spoony regarding the issue.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[7]] [[8]] 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
1) David Gerard & Christopher are correct. 2) These are a trivial matters that you don't need to start edit wars about 3) If they're so important to you, you need to take them to the respective talk pages, not the Saloon Bar. 4) Please find your inner First Person. If you can't find it, report to Missing Persons. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Bongolian, this user asserts the fact that matters pertaining to articles not reflecting a worldwide view on the subject are nothing near trivial and are of urgent and massive importance in that stating that a subject only affects a specific nation while it is affecting all of human race is a factual error.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[9]] [[10]] 06:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Your edits are bad, your readings of sources are defective, your redlink was bad, your discussion style is bad and you should stop editing - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
FAMAS, I couldn't understand a word of your last statement. Why is it that you can use plain English when editing articles, but on talk pages you come out with incomprehensible gobbledegook? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 09:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
At this point, has absolutely no one considered the idea that FAMAS might be concern trolling?--Spoony (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Funny you should say that. I'm beginning to suspect that FAMAS has just been a simple old fashioned troll all along, one who's just started using new tactics when referring to himself in the third person all the time didn't irritate people enough. All the same, I'm very flattered to have been considered worthy of pinging and named as someone who might be able to calm down an escalating situation. Spud (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Let me put in my two cents. THIS ENTIRE ISSUE IS ABSURD! It's a minor edit at its most significant that the two editors involved (and yes I said two editors, Christopher is as much to blame as FAMAS for the edit war) failed to resolve, mostly by failing to use the talk page to discuss edits, which is what the talk page is for! And then, because this wasn't farcical enough, FAMAS then decided to escalate by trying to depose Percy, who is the ONLY reasonable person involved in the dispute! What the fuck is wrong with you?! FAMAS's initial edit wasn't even bad! In a way, it was actually really good. Is it at all possible that for once FAMAS is not the only person to blame here? Granted, his attempted coup was pretty bad (and idiotic) but this entire issue started because we failed to effectively resolve this dispute. No, David Gerard, FAMAS shouldn't stop editing. Yes, FAMAS's screeds are nigh-incomprehensible. But this entire issue could have been avoided if Christopher and FAMAS used the talk page. You want to discuss something? Discuss that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it considered ban evasion[edit]

My accounts on here got banned last year, my IP address was also banned but since like most IPs it fluctuates I'm no longer banned on here (unless I login, then my IP gets banned for being associated with the accounts). Is it considered ban evasion if I make another account now on this different IP, since I'm the same person? 66.65.75.21 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It depends, how long were you banned for and for what (if that wouldn't give away who you were seeing as you probably want a fresh start)? Christopher (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Our policy is that if you don't do anything bad, we won't ban you again. (Repetitive spammy trolls excepted.) Good luck. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
We ban behavior, not people. As such, we actively encourage the sort of 'ban evasion' one achieves by literally improving one's behavior on a new account. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Literally the only exception I personally make is when someone gets banned for engaging in a battle with other editors, then immediately go back to that battle with their new account. Patience tends to be low at that point. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the BoN's previous "contributions" it appears to be TheAmazingSkeptic. A user who (before my time) started off pretending to be a legitimate user but then desysopped Joris and went on a wandalism spree. Christopher (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Let us hope they have grown up. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So yeah.....[edit]

I Was on the internet, i found a video this video https://www.facebook.com/1206712406075588/videos/1402272476519579/?hc_ref=ARSGeSnj9mMVpOVDrFss_Ki7ML98SejjI81XGvJKz3_SgBbR8MOHRI3eH9XuuX1ktBo, yes, i know its fake, but i dont know, where is the original footage from? where the effects were made or something, also, in the comments there was this story

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10159083252200711&set=p.10159083252200711&type=3&theater

and in the comments, there were a woman talking about a strange light that she viewed in the sky, i found a photo https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=818102651683636&set=p.818102651683636&type=3&theater but i couldnt pass the full video, can some one analize the three storys?

Its blue beam? natural effects? or just simple CGI? can you analize it? and sorry because its facebook ._. Just debunk the last two, the first one is obviously fake, except from some storys, but that could be fake also. Just analize it please, and if you can most things of the comments box, just joking DinoKiller65 (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65

I think this is what you are looking for:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/360288038911198182/Ariel31459 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks, now is time to make my own version of it, just joking, but i need some clarify in the other two ._. DinoKiller65 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65
(A) If alien planets appeared in the sky on the scale depicted in the videos and photos, they would be visible worldwide and accompanied by wall-to-wall coverage in every form of media, from CNN to your local TV news. (B) Video compositing software is easy and widely available to hoaxers. (C) Fantastic videos and photos people post on Facebook don't need to be debunked. The burden of proof is not on you to debunk them. It's on them to prove it's not fake. (D) Facebook is not a reliable source of information about the world. Leuders (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, debunk this, please[edit]

Well guys, probably i have annoyed you because i bring many doubts, but you could clarify me about those things?

http://yournewswire.com/rihanna-prince-william-is-the-antichrist/

http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/

and those others, i can differentiate if thats a conspiracy news, or simply some parodys

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/ottomans-were-the-first-to-reach-the-moon-says-turkish-president/

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/moon-astronaut-admits-on-deathbed-obama-could-be-an-alien/

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/nasa-scientists-confirm-the-reception-of-a-message-from-god/ DinoKiller65 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65

Being doubtful is a requirement for RW.

'By their adverts, format, and lack of proper references shall you know them.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any person, living, dead or undead, is purely a miracle." That's the disclaimer found at the bottom of each page, so there you go. I knew the name World News Daily Report sounded familiar from reading Snopes regularly. KevinR1990 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
http://conspiraciones1040.blogspot.com/2017/03/evacuacion-masiva-de-la-antartida-en-operaciones-especiales-y-movimientos-militares.html So yeah, this is another doubt, use the google translate, can you clarify me? DinoKiller65 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65
"A massive evacuation of Antarctica is happening now. All civilians and scientists are being expelled. There are special operations and military movements. This astounding report was posted on the well known conspiracy forum godlikeproductions. Can you think of any reasons why this might not be true? Leuders (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Why has Calais France had a problem with Refugee Camps since 1999?[edit]

Better why did/does France continue to try Contain instead of actually trying to resolve this issue? The Camp/Camps from what I can gather were overcrowded, unsanitary,and in poor condition. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Short version: it's where all the refugees trying to get into the UK wind up, because Calais is the continental terminus of the Channel Tunnel. The reason why they prefer the UK over France and other European countries is because the UK doesn't have a national ID card system (it did during and after World War II, but it was abolished in 1952), and attempts to institute one have long been met with fierce opposition from across the political spectrum. That generally makes life easier for people who, due to their non-citizen status, can't get IDs. KevinR1990 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok,what is your opinion on a national ID card system? What I personally don't understand is why France didn't just send some of them around the country to other refugee camps in France instead of trying to contain them from what I can gather is the camp was overcrowded,and in no way permanent. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't make people stay in a refugee camp without turning it into a prison (one for people who have committed no crime in France, and likely elsewhere). In addition, France doesn't necessarily want them - a lot of them were sent on to France from Italy, thus saving themselves the admin headache. Neither do the refugees, as KevinR1990 said, want to be in France. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 09:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Could certainly find a way to to lessen the admin headache,and speed up the process a bit (Not too much as to make it overly easy ),Give some of the Refugeesd to the Uk,and Stop processing if any at Calais,as well spread out the people so not to have them return to Calais.The question Lies in what is France doing wrong bother countries have handled it better? Knightofjustice123 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Britain (or at least the government) won't take them (and insisted on processing at Calais) because they were scared of what the tabloids would say. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Solipsism[edit]

Is there any way to deal with this? I know the remark is that it can't be refuted so then what do you do about it?Machina (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not directly. The problem with solipsism is very similar to the problem with Humean skepticismWikipedia's W.svg, which holds that we cannot know for sure anything outside our own minds. IMO the solution to this puzzle starts with Immanuel Kant, who noticed that our minds are not blank; they are pre-equipped with mental modules, which he called 'categories', like 'weight' and 'distance'. These are unlearned, and without them we could not make our sense perceptions meaningful. Building on that, Arthur SchopenhauerWikipedia's W.svg observed that we have bodies, which in many ways act as ordinary physical objects, but which our consciousness somehow inhabits. We have the same direct and immediate knowledge of our body's condition that we have of anything else in the mind. Worse, our bodies have agendas that the conscious mind has very limited powers to countermand. We can know the outside world is real to the extent that we occupy a physical object in space/time. And one of the inborn mental modules is human language, which exists first and foremost for the purpose of networking with similar minds in human societies. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
But isn't it possible that one can create one's own language? Also how can we be sure that the other people are real and that it isn't a dream?Machina (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
We deal with it by saying that we both observe the same reality and until such time as we have positive proof that this isn't the "ultimate" reality, we deal with it as we see it, and appeals to outside of our reality must be dismissed until there is sufficient proof. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 05:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
God loves us too much to permit solipsism to be true. In less theistic terms, some propositions are too evil to be true. Goodness and truth (and beauty too) are interconnected, as the Scholastics taught in the doctrine of the "convertibility of the transcendentals" (see [11] and [12] (in particular section 1.2.2) and [13].) Plato declared the Form of the Good to be supreme. (And as to Beauty and Truth, you may remember the closing lines of Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn.) (((Zack Martin))) 09:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I have a unique criticism of solipsism... (See what I did there?)

Personally, I just don't think I'm {intelligent, inventive, creative, highly mentally functional} enough to be {imagining, hallucinating, remembering in amazing, excruciating detail} the entire {town, county, state, nation, cyber-world, physical world, Earth, galaxy, universe}, and all of its billions of people and their {forms, personalities, behavior, histories, desires, characteristics both bizarre and mundane}, plus all of geology, geometry, mathematics, chemistry, physics {classic, quantum, astrophysical and applied} and every other pastime, undertaking, science and field of study etcetera and so on and so on plus all of the vast number of true and fictional stories I've experienced from thousands of authors, ranging from moral parables dating from Ancient Greece all the way up to modern Science Fiction action adventures of genetically xenomorphing aliens journeying billions of miles thru outer space...

Do you think that maybe you alone are the source of even just a thousandth of all of the great, complicated, self-consistent, multiple-themed, brilliant novel- or movie-sized stories you've experienced? If so, how about you write down a few bright, original ones in the next week, and give them to me (with all their legal rights) and let me publish them as books and also sell them to Hollywood? I could use the multiple millions of dollars I'd make from being a non-existent seller of a few best-selling books (in this world which exists only in your mind) which get made into block-buster movies (again, only in your mind)... — Moray (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe your unconscious mind is immensely smarter than your conscious mind? Maybe you are a superintelligent being who has decided to delude itself into thinking that it is far less intelligent than it actually is? Why would you do that to yourself? Maybe for the experience? An omniscient being, who knows everything–can they know what it is like to be ignorant? Maybe, in a quest to know the one thing they actually can't know, they want to make themselves as ignorant as possible? Maybe, to become as ignorant as possible, you must become as self-deluded as possible? Maybe the delusion that you, a superintelligent being, are too stupid to have actually thought up all of reality, is the maximal possible self-delusion, and hence the very self-delusion you need? Good sir/madam, you have sent me to inform you that you are God, and that I do not exist. (((Zack Martin))) 10:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather not have jokes since I am really struggling with this. My grip on reality hasn't been the same since I was exposed to this.Machina (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I think if exposure to an idea is causing you mental anguish, the real problem isn't the idea, the idea is just a trigger. When I was at university, I remember going to this philosophy lecture where the lecturer was asking how can we know that life isn't a dream, and I came out of that lecturer very depressed and feeling kind of quasi-psychotic. But, the reality is, I was struggling with a depressive mental illness at the time, and the lecture wasn't the cause of my depression, it was just a trigger. The actual causes of my depression were issues related to family (divorce of my parents), high school, the transition from high school to university, lack of success (at the time) with the opposite sex, etc. Philosophy lectures about life being a dream were just a surface cause, and focusing on them wasn't really dealing with the underlying causes. (BTW, I'm only half-joking... there is I think a serious point hidden behind the joke... but if you are struggling emotionally, don't bother looking for it, you've got more important things to do...) (((Zack Martin))) 23:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Except none of that is the result for me. My perception has been changed since being exposed to this and now it's hard to think of anything else. When you take for granted that life is real only to find out you can't be sure of it, then it makes everything else seem trivial in response. It means that nothing matters and that I am alone in the world since everything else is essentially a phantom. It doesn't make sense anymore. I know there is no proof of solipsism being true but the isn't any for realism either. It all comes down to belief since there is no way to know for sure and that's what kills me. That I'll never know the answer to the question and I have no way of proving it. Machina (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to zoom in on one particular thing you said–"there is no proof of solipsism being true but the isn't any for realism either... I'll never know the answer to the question and I have no way of proving it..."–how do you know there is no proof or disproof of solipsism or realism? How do you know that you can't know? In order to really answer that question, you need to decide what constitutes proof (or valid proof), what constitutes good evidence, by what criteria are we to distinguish genuine knowledge from the false belief that knowledge exists even when it doesn't. Which means you need to adopt some sort of basic principles of epistemology and rationality. And there are lots of different proposals as to what those basic principles are, and different proposals result in different conclusions with respect to philosophical questions including that of solipsism. In ancient and mediaeval philosophy, the idea that truth and goodness and beauty and rationlity were intimately interconnected was widely accepted, which makes the sort of argument against solipsism I made–that it is too evil to be true–rationally tenable. In modern philosophy, the idea of such a linkage has largely been abandoned, which I think is part of why solipsism is far more thinkable for moderns than it was for ancients and medievals–and without that linkage, the kind of argument I make against solipsism is untenable. So maybe the solution to your crisis is a change in philosophical principles? (((Zack Martin))) 11:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Your replies seem to show that you don't know enough to help me. There is no proof for either one because you would have to use the in the current reality you inhabit to prove the existence or none existence of said reality. That is how we know there is no proof of either one being true, we simply have no evidence. But the claims of solipsism have been shown to be incoherent and untenable in modern times. Language, for one, is a huge blow against it since it can't explain that. But from what I hear around the internet, the consensus seems to be that it's a bunk idea, with negative explanatory power, and that it doesn't matter whether is true or not. They say the best thing to do is assume it's all real because you have nothing to lose by doing so. Dreams don't prove solipsism, only the possibility of solipsism (not the same thing). But other than that everyone seems to suggest it's a waste of time that doesn't yield anything.Machina (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

All fallacies are non sequiturs?[edit]

(Note: I was going to put this on the non sequitur talk page, but suspected this was the correct place. FYI.) I just realised: all logical fallacies are fallacies because the conclusion doesn't follow logically. Does that make them all, technically, non sequiturs? Maybe only formal fallacies count because they have correct premises. Obviously I don't recommend rewording/restructuring the non sequitur to mention this. It does mention formal fallacies at the top, but that doesn't really change my point. —Kazitor, pending 09:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have alledged the same thing in the past. I think this is the most appropriate way to think of fallacies: deductions that djon't actually deduce. Ad hominem is probably the most misapplied fallacy in this particular way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI: you guys seemingly fail to differentiate between formal and informal fallacies here — a distinction of some consequence. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess you could think of it as a non sequitur being completely unrelated to the premises, but that's not how it always is. —Kazitor, pending 10:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Indentation[edit]

Is there any remedy for an editor who consistently fails to indent properly? Exhibit A. I'm really not trying to win an argument by complaining about style or tone, I genuinely find the mess this guy is creating to be hard to follow, and I'm sure others will. I've asked him to indent properly and do not understand why he cannot do so. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If it bothers you, feel free to add a reasonable number of colons to his statements. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I shouldn't really be expected to do that. Is it not sanctioned? Why can't he do it himself? Does he have mental problems? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It is indented. When you though post a blockquote after a paragraph (that is indented) it doesn't indent. Also note "Dave MacIntosh" is a sockpuppet of this guy, a Rightpedia admin. He's been banned here on hundreds of accounts. He started up a debate on the racialism talk page, after losing he starts going off topic with a complaint about intentation and then posting ad hominem.86.14.2.77 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's really not ad hominem, [name redacted]. I just find your deranged mess hard to follow, Are you really incapable of putting colons before a paragraph? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
An irregular verb applies here: 'I didn't hold down the colon key long enough/want to restart the discussion thread/don't know how to insert the 'return to left hand margin line; you are lazy and can't be bothered to indent; they are annoying fools and incipient trolls.' 86.146.100.72 (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rapture site[edit]

I don't like at all to link to pages as this, but for those who want to have some fun (there's one that puts together a paint of the Tower of Babel by Brueghel (?) and the EP (?) building as one of their proofs): https://raptureandendtimes.com/
The sad part is that after finding that page by accident yesterday and looking for it, found a few others similar. I had enough with one site of that kind, but I suspect it will happen something similar to competing conspiracies, whose promoters accuse the ones of others of being disinformation of TPTB Panzerfaust (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Watching conspiracy mongers accusing each other of being part of the conspiracy (or one of them) can be fun. 31.49.115.211 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The funny part of sites as that is to see Biblical literalists ignoring that saying of Jesus about God only knowing when things will end, as well as the punishments deserved for false prophets. Oh, well... Panzerfaust (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That my friends, is a classic example of Cherry picking. Nothing like reading parts of their Bible to claim the end is near. Ironically, these are the same who accuse metaphysical churches of distorting the bible. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Streisand effect in action[edit]

It looks like we're in full Streisand mode with the Eugene M. McCarthy. User:TudorGothicSerpent created a stubby article on McCarthy; it was expanded a bit by myself and others. It somehow has landed as the top result from Googling his name. This might have provoked him into rightly-or-wrongly challenging the contents. It's worth expanding further since there seems to be fertile — ahem — ground. E.g., for the humanzee, he states on one of his pages, "there is at least one fairly well documented case of a human-chimpanzee hybrid is on record" (except for genetics — oops!),[14] but on another gives it a low reliability rating.[15] Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

But think of the geep.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Colon-itis[edit]

As 'excess and insufficiency of colons' appears to be a frequent topic of discussion on talk pages could something be developed on the subject - or as a section on a longer page (including 'arguing with the Captcha programs). 86.146.100.72 (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So Lauren Southerns done something real dumb[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Js8wntdk4&t=145s Knightofjustice123 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Archiving timestamp, no idea who made this section. Christopher (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

On the current poll[edit]

I'm not surprised to see the current rankings. However, I think we should get something clear if we don't wanna take a hit on our xp.

Evil means you disagree with the laws. Neutral means you don't care. Good means you agree with the laws.o

Fantasy world rules, mind.

Lawful means rules and only rules advance your agenda. Neutral/True means anything can advance your agenda as long as it fits, and chaotic means you're only for what actively promotes your agenda.

I am surprised to only see one other vote for a lawful evil alignment. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised there are so few votes for chaotic goat, we don't need no stinking laws! Christopher (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
we'd be chaotic goat if we didn't have citation needed tagsVorarchivist (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
How can you see "lawful-chaotic" as an axis and decide that "good-evil" is the one related to laws. The mind boggles. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Good-evil I'm gonna assume contains the current laws. I think good/evil requires that if you have to put it on paper. Lawful to chaotic is in respect to said laws, which are different in every little fantasy. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that alignment is not supposed to be a straitjacket and, as such, there are many different interpretations of each alignment, I really regret putting that poll up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

regret little, especially if I'm DM Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:47, 19 July 201m7 (UTC)

The Trump Mob edits Wikipedia [Or: My Latest Wikipedia (Mis)Adventures][edit]

In case you were wondering why I was incredibly inactive recently, I found the pastime of trying to search the Wikipedia Recent Changes section for wandalism. And if you were wondering which user I am in the wiki, click this.

So on Saturday I was going through Recent Changes (with a filter) when I got to this revision to the Collusion page. Even if you didn't click the link, you probably can tell what happened because of the media circus surrounding Donald Trump Jr. After all, like father, like son.

It was really obvious why they did it. So I reverted it, and posted a warning on the user's talk page, and attaching a personal note about how there was an actual citation, and that it wasn't really partisan.

The next day, I checked on it, and, I was really angry (but not to surprised) that the user had, in total disregard to my warning, reverted my revision. Thankfully another user reverted that revision. So, unaware that there was a bit of an edit war over the part over Trump Jr. because Trump fans were allowed to edit.

So I went and requested the page to be semiprotected so that non-autocomfirmed users (basically all the wandals who were actual users instead of IPs) and IPs, where all the wandalism came from did not have permission to edit the page. So, while I was waiting for a response to thr request, I went browsing through the page history, and it turned out that an IP at one point edited the section so it said something that only Fox News would be stupid enough to say. Thankfully, a while afterwards, my request for the page to be semiprotected was accepted, and the page hasn't been wandalized since.

The Moral of the Story? Don't let the Trump mob edit Wikipedia. They would be better suited in Conservapedia. --Rlin (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that wikipedia's membership is dying off, everything people portended about its inevitable doom at the hands of bias will now come true. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

To what extent is the actual or apparent decline in WP use temporary/reflecting a situation where 'much of the basic work has been done'/the initial enthusiasm has transformed into occasional activity (simplifying)/people moving into the wider wikiverse (there are probably enough Dr Who wikis and fandom sites to encompass most people's interest)? 86.146.100.72 (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Or simply that time is finite. Back in the day I spent a lot of time at Wikipedia, but then there's Wikipedia, there's TVTropes, there's this one, there's Deviantart, there're forums about your hobbies... Plus a good Wiki article is quite an effort in terms of time searching for references, formatting it... you get the idea.
EDIT. The truth is also that I got sick of their stance on copyright, with stuff as having your edits removed just because they sounded "very similar" to a book I did not even know to exist, even if it was just a direct translation from an article in other language, threats to delete pictures just 'cause they either lack metadata or are different (having used several different cameras has that) Panzerfaust (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@ikanreed Wikipedia's pool of editors is dying off due to stupid maroons passing RfA and proceeding to go running around like TK blocking IPs and IP ranges at the drop of a hat. Their mentality is like macho-man police officers tackling a group of college girls at the mall who are spending their money and minding their own business, because all girls that look like them are malicious Organized Retail Criminals. The schoolblockers have the same mentality dealing with IP ranges largely used by schools as TK had with overseas "Liberal Land" IP ranges. Interestingly, even this wiki is getting more and more block happy. Anti-Science Wikipedian (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

More reasons the Daily Mail is a horrible source of information[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/rationalwiki/comments/6o1lri/i_love_how_the_dailymail_deliberately_misleads/ Knightofjustice123 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean a source of horrible information?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It says 'there doesn't appear to be anything here.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That is Strange it works for me,but here are the links: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4703386/Riots-German-festival-Iraqi-sexually-harassing-women.html

http://m.dw.com/en/rioting-breaks-out-at-festival-in-southern-german-town/a-39720315 Knightofjustice123 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Organic food article[edit]

I started a fun page on organic food. Additions would be great. I haven't linked to it from the un-fun page because there's not that much there at the moment. —Kazitor, pending 10:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel like an article needs to be rewritten[edit]

The article on Honor killings needs to be rewritten a lot has changed in the last 8 years. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree with me?[edit]

Do you believe, as I do, that white women who are racist, xenophobic, display the rebel flag or support The Donald should be gang raped by big Black cock? I think we should start with the ones who are most overtly racist and support Aryan Supremacy, than work our way up to the less obviously racist ones. There should be no sparing of those below the age of consent. Hopefully, they will be drenched with liters of cum and thrown into a dumpster to starve afterwards. FIGHT FASCISM NOW!!!! Karlahoni (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Go back to /pol/ ya fuckin' moron.'Legionwhat do you want from me 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Also at least now we know what /pol/ thinks about when they lie in bed alone at night.'Legionwhat do you want from me 21:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but to what exactly does "/pol/" refer? I'm guessing it's a subreddit, so what sort of things happen on /pol/? —Kazitor, pending 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@User:Kazitor/pol/ is a 4chan board, it means "politically incorrect" and is full of far-right idiots. Diacelium (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, that makes sense. Thanks. —Kazitor, pending 23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Man, you guys are shit at trolling. Your greatest achievement was getting this past the spam filter. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Even @Elvis is King is a less obvious troll than this dickhead. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It's obvious that when liberals can't come up with a coherent rebuttal, they resort to calling their opponents "trolls." It's quite sad, really, because it represents the dumbing down of culture that is manifested by the fact that we are using scantily clad women to sell the double bacon cheeseburgers that are causing our people to be unhealthy and obese. The Episcopal Church keeps on declining, yet clergy won't rethink their approval of homosexuality. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, and liberalism is a mental disorder.--Elvis is King (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Elvis:You call us "autistic" at the slightest provocation. And you think you get to call us close-minded? Dear sir, you can go fuck yourself. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Eldridge Cleaver is that you? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Who? RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Troll Not so Silent Knight (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Long name trolls[edit]

Would it be practical to have a program that has an automatic message 'Welcome; your user name is (over 20 characters long) and (consists of x words). You are now banned from editing RW including your talk page for (total of two numbers) minutes (or other formula to suit) and 'this IP has been used to generate (number) of user names (which have been sent down the plughole) - you are blocked for (total number of letters) minutes.'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

it would be more practical to have the people who can change usernames do their job and change any offensive ones. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Why not partially automate the process and get the 'stupid-name trolls' to devise their own punishments (though some allowance should be made for 'creative-long-nameism' - crypto-pseudo-anarcho-monarcho-papalo-imperio-communo-anarcho-caesaro-dextro-levo-centro-diabolo (add prefixes to taste)-anti-disestablishmentarianism and its relatives)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you guys think about honey to help heal wounds?[edit]

Specifically, Manuka honey to help heal wounds? It's supposed to help but sounds like nature woo to me. I fell longboarding so I just wanna heal up and get back it it lol. Fareeha A (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Much Manuka honey is supposedly fake.
The vicinity of 'dangerous honey loving animals' (midges, wasps, bears...) is contra-indicated to using honey as a would-dressing. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Never heard of it before but (based on a google search) it appears to be total bollocksWikipedia's W.svg, even the Daily Mail says it's bullshit. Christopher (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to read about various trails that are available on PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Manuka+honey One such trials shows that special honey #1 is better than special honey #2 (link), though the effect was small, the sample-size was tiny (and horses), and the P-value wasn't as low as it could be for that sample-size. Another study (link) shows that honey can be used to kill some pathogens on the wound-dressings themselves. Bigger sample-sizes too, though no published p-values or even a paper, so take it with a big grain of salt.
One thing to keep in mind (this coming from a non-medical-professional computer programmer) is that honey, while anoxic, is also very sugar-rich. When stored properly, it won't go bad, because microbes can't live on it, but I personally wouldn't go slathering it on a wound in the hopes that it'll decontaminate it. I'd use Neosporin or other anti-infection cream.
EDIT: Yeah, what Christopher said. -- Onychoprion (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've not heard of it for treating wounds, but it was taught as a decent improvised burn dressing when I was in Scouts (a few decades ago now). That was any honey, not a specific type. Of the links Christopher posted, theAustralian was paywalled, and the DailyMail one was on "how well they felt" not on its use as a dressing. A quick google on the burn front threw up an article on the NY Times and one on the NHS website. Daev (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've already cleaned it peroxide and then neosporin, and then put this manuka honey bandage thing on it. So I'm not using it solely in hopes that the woo will heal me faster haha. Certainly not Anonymous user, whoever that is.[4][10] 20:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I work in a hospital where we frequently use "TheraHoney" as part of wound dressing in complex cases, but cannot speak directly to efficacy. There are a number of recent studies regarding the relative efficacy of Manuka honey (link and link), but I haven't really had the chance to sit down and read through them yet. It's definitely something that's being taught in nursing and medical schools as efficacious, though. Bearnurse (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

i9 Water Bottle[edit]

So, I ran across this gem, complete with a "why i9?" section that says stuff like:

it is possible to record information and transfer it to another object. The technology enabling this is not new; it was developed in the previous century. It uses a device called a chembuster, which can transfer information without limitations. It can be used for transferring thoughts, wishes and even the efficacy of medicine.

In layman’s terms – an informed product is a product with added information that has a positive impact on living organisms.

At the heart of the i9 bottle is a unique TP tag enriched with carefully selected numerical codes. The codes are transferred to the information tag via chembusters or emitters. The i9 informed water bottle influence on water and reinstate its natural properties. It does so by adding energy potential (producing structured water) and cleansing information retained by contaminants.

The i9 Bottle positively affects our general wellbeing by helping increase vitality and balance personal energy levels by way of chromotherapy and TP technology. Based on numerous tests, drinking water from i9 informed bottle shows a substantial increase in human bio-field, decrease in stress factor and considerably reduced water genotoxicity. Informed water also positively affects on animals and plants.

It's not new to find woo...but not woo this well funded. The i9 bottle appears to be a very legit product, with a professional and well designed website and apparently the products is in retail stores. It's quite a find, and deserves a page. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It does seem to be gaining Google traction with tons of Google results, despite virtually unvisited websites ([16][17][18][19][20]) and social media ([21][22][23][24]). Their Twitter is a goldmine of New Age nonsense ("Way to raise your vibration through diet is to prepare your meal slowly, lovingly and peacefully"; "I can leave the sea, but the sea never leaves me. 🦀"). The product as a whole seems to be tied to "Alternative & Holistic Health Service in Maribor, Slovenia" at address Limbuška cesta 78B 2000 Maribor, Slovenija. IMHO, the website and Twitter quotes deserve an article by themselves. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 10:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Sidenote: They're "certified by the "Institute of Electrophotonics in Berlin", might deserve an article all its own. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 10:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Lord Aeonian Where'd you find it perchance? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 10:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I ran across the name on a facebook page making fun of woo and looked it up. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You accidentally put a pipe in the link, which leads to an insightful 404 page: "There was no 404 CMS page configured or found." Also, the page has a warning about disabled javascript, but you can't see when javascript is disabled. —Kazitor, pending 10:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix that "7C" addition, but the 404 page it links to still gives you the site's navigation buttons to get where you want. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Just remove the pipe, like so: a load of crapKazitor, pending 06:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Ohh, I see. I had always believed that "pipe" was needed to format the link. What is the point of it then? Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
You need a pipe for pages on the wiki (in double brackets), but single-pair-of-brackets external links don't, presumably because URLs can't have spaces but page titles can. —Kazitor, pending 08:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Check out the list of Australian retailers. I didn't know all those stereotypes about Queensland were justified! —Kazitor, pending 10:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
They mention a "chembuster" as being the technology involved,[25] which is a cloudbuster variant.[26] Bongolian (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

New Template/Category/Thing: Apologetics Debunking[edit]

So, we have a few articles like 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe and 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid and rebuttals to essays, or debates, or various other arguments and whatnot. I'm thinking there should be a category to put them in. Like "Apologetics Literature" or "Argument Rebuttals" or something to that effect. We have the giant block about "Creationism" at the bottom of most, but the pages I mention aren't included in them. -- Onychoprion (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be cool but I think we should make a general category for rebuttals instead since we have conspiracy and woo debunking in some parts too (or at least we should!)Vorarchivist (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nova Esperanto Artikolo[edit]

Samlingvano! Bonvolu helpi min kun la verkado de mia nova EO artikolo ĉi tie.'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User rights change: let everyone look at deleted pages[edit]

Community input wanted! Please add your thoughts! Sometimes a BON makes a little stub with good citations or good quotes, but it's still stubby and gets vaporized. Sometimes we had a half-good page on a subject, but it was cringey and got vaporized, but a BON wants to create a new article (and could use the old one as a base). Sometimes we want to cite a revision on a deleted page, and non-sysops can't view it. These are all rare, but they are annoying and they probably happen more often to more-motivated potential-contributor BONs. Right now, non-sysops can't restore vaporized pages (eg, Fecris) or even look at their revisions (eg, [27]). In particular, these rights are currently granted only to sysops:

  • deletedhistory - View deleted history entries, without their associated text
  • deletedtext - View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions
  • undelete - Undelete a page
  • browsearchive - Search deleted pages through Special:Undelete

To change this, four lines would be added to RWSettings.php:

$wgGroupPermissions['*']['deletedhistory'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['deletedtext'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['undelete'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['browsearchive'] = true;

And that's about it. I could've sworn we had a discussion before, but I could only find /Archive72#Another_way_to_make_RW_more_open. TLDR: I want to let everybody look at deleted pages, which IMO fits the RationalWiki ethos. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hideous Mouths (talk/stalk) 18:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What about individual revisions that were only sysop revdelled on a page that was later completely deleted? Would non-sysops be able to see/restore them? Christopher (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope -- deleted revisions are governed by deleterevision and suppressrevision and wouldn't be affected. (Read: Deleted revisions would still be sysop-only.) In contrast, revisions of a deleted page are governed by deletedhistory and deletedtext. See Manual:User rights for more. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The only reason I'd still be wary about doing this is pages that are created full of doxxing/libel and then deleted by a sysop, anyone would be able to see them. Christopher (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
That's possible -- and that's why revdel exists in the first place. (Anyone can get sysop around here, anyway, if they're really determined to get dox from some old page.) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've created a pull request. Does anybody have any objections to merging it in? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I thinks it's probably a bad idea to do something like that without consensus. Letting literally anyone see deleted libel/doxxing (while some of it would be revdelled pages created to dox/libel someone can't be revdelled), even if they don't care enough to get a sysop account, will lead to all sorts of problems ("you haven't actually removed libellous stuff about me, anyone can see it" etc). Christopher (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep. It's just a pull request -- I'm waiting for consensus here. If only other people would venture into this section... Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not too familiar with GitHub. Christopher (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If we let everyone see deleted pages, why bother deleting them? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 22:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It removes it from special:random, dpl and other similar stuff, the redlink means people realise there isn't a decent article on the subject meaning they're more likely to write one than if there's a shitty stub, spam would still be less visible. I still think it's a bad idea due to pages created for doxxing that can't be revdelled. Christopher (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher Revisions of a deleted page can still be revdelled, fwiw Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved this up top. I think it's a good idea and fits the ethos of RationalWiki. The downsides are virtually nonexistent -- we revdel dox & spam anyway -- and it would substantially increase the openness of RationalWiki to non-sysops. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

so all those shitty stubs, attack pages, embarrassments and other crap that got deleted can come back? Openness is a fine thing, but not at the price of filling the website with unwanted rubbish for openness's sake. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If a non-sysop wants to see a page, perhaps there could be a "requests for undeletion" page for that?— Unsigned, by: Bicycle Wheel / talk / contribs
You can't revdel pages where the only revision is dox and even if you could no one does. Christopher (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It's possible to suppress deleted pages; see this page if you have mod/tech and you should see "Suppress data from sysops as well as others" -- however, this is only a mod-level power. (Why there isn't a sysop-level version of this I'm unsure -- I'll check Wikimedia if an extension exists). 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Could we just require a captcha for non-sysops viewing deleted pages? I don't think deleted pages show up in search engine caches as it is, so it's really only for fringe cases. I think that, considering how frivolously pages (and even harmless little redirects) are deleted, giving the ability to view deleted pages to BoNBoNs is not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" ...that is, when the infrastructure exists for sysops to revision-delete without calling the attention of other sysops to it (only moderators/etc who can further restrict the revision or undelete it depending), and when someone who already happens to know what all the doxxes this site has received look like is yanked into making a filter by which an admin can automagically revision-delete (for deleted pages the filter hits) and if applicable set higher revision-viewing requirements (for revisions already deleted that match the filter). (We still probably want someone to go over the stuff deleted by the filter to make sure nothing legit was lost.) So yeah, it's a "when" even if that "when" is probably "a long lazy time from now." ~ <3 09:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the "undelete" right is that it allows history merges. A vandal could find a deleted page, and move some popular article to that title, and then do an undelete, which will cause the history of the deleted page to be merged with the page that was moved in. As far as I know, this is irreversible without shell access to the server. Special:MergeHistory was introduced to allow sysops to merge histories without having to temporarily delete the page, but it has some safeguards which are absent in Special:Undelete. -- Tim Starling (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm, that's a problem. Just deletedhistory, deletedtext, and browsearchive would let users see the text, though, which would be plenty for article recreation. @Tim Starling, do you have any thoughts on @Christopher's concerns about BONs viewing deleted pages with dox? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like an idea you want because it sounds good to you, and not because it's (a) a good idea or (b) has community support - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato Ping seems to be broken. Christopher (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh, seems like the idea is unwanted.
@Christopher I got notified? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't, I have all of the notification options turned on in my preferences. Christopher (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

When right wing nuts who say, "Support our vets" yet want to cut healthcare[edit]

How can you support the troops when you want to cut their healthcare? It is not like insurance is cheap and military benefits only go so far. Kind of a douche move. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

They support vets using their RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM to overcome the harrowing physical and psychological wounds of combat. That comprehensive healthcare stuff is dirty Commie talk. 174.200.13.33 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)




Since It would be good to learn to counter Statistics[edit]

How could this be countered:https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf Knightofjustice123 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

returning to the roots is ambiguous (as Christians who consider the most important commandment to be "Love thy neighbor" could want others to return to the roots despite that being one of the least fundamentalist ways to think), they actually give very little information (usually they give the raw data or at least describe it but they didn't), it's curious that they decided on specifically Turkish and Moroccan immigrants rather than general Muslim immigrants. I tried to find the source data but couldn't find the results so I couldn't talk about the statistics of it which would answer some questions I had like the percentage of Muslims they interviewed, how much from each city etc.. Also the data is nearly a decade old and doesn't concern the ethnic groups are the current migration issue which if I remember correctly are mostly Syrian. I should warn you though I am a University student not a statistician so I might be wrong about some stuff. Vorarchivist (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it strange they don't account for age groups. Why publish this in 2013 if these questions (Which could very well have it's own Bias) were asked in 2008 among 9000 participants? Now I do know that Germany does have an older Generation of Turks that formed their own communities,and only speak Turkish,but It might not be so much of a problem as time goes on don't quote me on that though. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Knightofjustice123
First: Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a proxy for [1] submission to legitimate authorities, [2] aggression in the name of their authorities, and [3] strong conventionalism. The American Christian Right has high RWA scores -- think about what values they hold dear. It might be easier to think of "RWA" as a proxy for "social conservatism".

Second: It's absurd to pretend that the average Muslim is less conservative than the average Christian. (Pinging @Aeonian.) You're setting yourself up for an impossible "debunk". If anything, it is pseudoscience to claim the inverse: that the average Muslim is more liberal than the average Christian. Consider where blasphemy is still banned. (Hint: Muslim countries, right-wing Christian countries.) Consider where LGBT folk are still executed. (Hint: Muslim countries, right-wing Christian countries.) Consider where religious police still exist. (Hint: Muslim countries, right-wing Christian countries.) Pew polls

Third: The real flaw here is not the data, but the application. When nationalists cite studies like these, they are making one of the three following arguments (simplified).

First, the "regressive" argument:
  1. Muslims want more conservative policies.
  2. People who want more conservative policies are bad.
  3. Conclusion: Muslims are bad.
  4. We should prevent bad people from immigrating.
  5. Conclusion: We should prevent Muslims from immigrating.
Obviously premise 1 is a problem for right-wing nationalists -- they, too, would like more conservative policies! By this simplistic logic, right-wing nationalists should also be considered "threats" to liberal values! (Funny, that.)

Second, the "creeping Sharia" argument:
  1. If Muslims gain power, they will enact Sharia.
  2. If Muslims immigrate, they will gain power.
  3. Conclusion: If Muslims immigrate, they will enact Sharia.
  4. Sharia is a society-destroying thing.
  5. Conclusion: If Muslims immigrate, they will enact a society-destroying thing.
  6. People who will enact a society-destroying thing are bad.
  7. Conclusions: If Muslims immigrate, they are bad.
  8. We should prevent bad people from immigrating.
  9. Conclusion: We should prevent Muslims from immigrating.
This is already a more nuanced argument. It avoids the trap of the first argument -- now the focus is on Sharia instead of conservatism. This time, the problem is with the second premise.
Pew predicts that, in 2050, only 1/10th of Europe's population will be Muslim. It's absurd to think a 10.2% minority would gain power in a democratic country. (Note that unaffiliated folk are projected to make up 23.3% of the population.) Unless
Perhaps more interestingly, the majority of Muslims (and immigrants in general) vote for liberal parties. Liberal parties tend to enact policies directly opposed to the enactment of Sharia law. Liberal parties tend to push for secular government. Liberals also tend to push for liberalizing government rules and against social norms against drug use, LGBT acts/identity, gender equality, etc.
Unless Muslims are collectively playing a multi-hundred-year-long game, and their fertility rates remain higher than non-Muslims, then this is bullshit.

Third, the "terrorism" argument:
  1. If Muslims on average, have more conservative religions, then they will commit greater rates of violent actions.
  2. Muslims, on average, have more conservative religions.
  3. Conclusion: Muslims will commit greater rates of violent actions.
  4. People who commit greater rates of violent actions.
  5. Conclusion: Muslims are bad.
  6. We should prevent bad people from immigrating.
  7. Conclusion: We should prevent Muslims from immigrating.
The problem with this argument is one of "relative rates". Consider the possibility that atheists are 10x less likely to commit a crime than the average American citizen. Therefore, if we set our bar for violence at "American atheists", and we say that any group with higher violence per capita should be banned from immigration, then literally every religious group (except Pentecostals) would be banned from entering the country. (The same logic can be applied to terrorism.) IMHO, that's absurd.

TLDR: The stats are right. The interpretation is wrong. As Koopmans concludes: "let those who are without sin, cast the first stone".
Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
As you seem more knowledgeable about statistics do you know why they specified muslims from two specific countries?Vorarchivist (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not a statistics thing, that's a demographics thing. Germany has had a substantial Turkish population for a few decades now. (See eg KanakeWikipedia's W.svg.)
More broadly: See Pew Polls for a comprehensive look at the Muslim world. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato I was never not implying one was not more conservative than the other. You see I don't want to be argued against with these statistics,and By countering Statiscis I mean using other statiscis (Non Right Wing Think Tanks(MacDonald Laurier Institute),Pro Israel(Washington Institute for Near East policy),and Not a Saudi owned News Site(al-Arabiya). to argue against.Knightofjustice123 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

But that's the whole point. To debunk the claim "Muslims are more conservative than Christians", you'd need to prove that "Muslims are not more conservative than Christians". And you straight up can't on the vast majority of social issues. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes but a lot of these Statics say a wide array of things they're was a PRII study that says this: https://www.prri.org/spotlight/religious-americans-same-sex-marriage-service-refusals/ which different from only 20% 40% support. No I'm not discrediting either. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

American Muslims are one of the most liberal groups of Muslims worldwide. Check that Pew poll linked above. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

SSL, probably![edit]

Discuss at RationalWiki:Technical_support#First_attempt_at_SSL.21_STILL_TEST_ONLY - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup off the fucking deep end[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6obcdu/turkeys_new_school_curriculum_drops_evolution_and/ Knightofjustice123 (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Recently I started watching a contemporary Turkish-made historical soap opera titled RESURRECTION: Ertuğrul. Available on Netflix. There are well over 200 episodes, and I have watched most of them, despite the really bad English subtitles. Really interesting. I like it (seriously). But the heroes beg to die for their religion, never do, and they kill Crusaders and Mongols every chance they get. But, of course, those pesky Crusaders and Mongols were asking for it.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Water Pollution[edit]

No comment. Nerd271 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

But wait, there's more!Ariel31459 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It looked to me as if some kind of varmint was living inside one of those bottles. The diver passed that one by. Once again, evolution finds a way. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem is evolution usually isn't fast enough. Christopher (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Many species do adapt and survive. others just go extinct. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the species that do adapt to degraded ecosystems become "garbage" species, and overall biodiversity collapses. How does all this crap land in the ocean? Many years ago, in remote & rural Indonesia, I saw it in action. People regularly through their trash straight into the ocean when they were on boats. The crew of a small commercial plane threw the plane's trash right at the end of the runway. There are probably other routes that it gets there, but some of it is definitely deliberate. Bongolian (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
How soon [28]? 86.146.99.45 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki Facebook page needs maintainers[edit]

I have largely left the FB page as I have other shit to do (book out on Monday!) - but it turns out to be a contact point, e.g. for people worried about the data breach.

So! CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS. If you are willing to post on-topic stuff to the FB and deal with our lovely readers and stuff, PLEASE join in on the FB. I'm /davidgerard on Facebook, message me or whatever with your FB name. If you're a regular enough regular that you think you could reasonably represent RW to the world, we need you - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(and yes Fuzzy I will look at the SSL tomorrow) - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Goodpost.gif Goodpost.gif
Love the book cover, title. But why pay $5 to read what I can get on Wikipedia for free... ;)
@David Gerard Why does the page need admins? (Or: what's broken?) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Just someone hanging out and being useful there would be good - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It probably doesn't need the cock who answers people "Somebody put me on the admin list, as they're wont to do, and I get notifications about messages. I don't care. Make a new account with your username backwards and wave down a janitor. B. Its standard English, you should oughta learn it. A. I'm only an editor, I cannot take myself off of the admin list and no one will help. I think the owner died or some shot." The FB interface is made of shit and won't show me who's sending that, but I'm an admin on it now, I should be able to remove you and will do happily - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Prisoner Sterilizations[edit]

So, Tennessee now offers a month off of sentences for prisoners that voluntarily get birth control. Vasectomies for men, hormonal implants for women. The hormonal implants last for about 5 years, and vasectomies are often reversible.

Necessary evil? Horrific crime against humanity? Both? I'm honestly not sure. Thoughts? CorruptUser (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

horrific crime against humanity. It's firstly against the whole cruel and unusual punishment part of the eight amendment, secondly there is no evidence that this would reduce crime and thirdly the only other reason why someone would do this would be if crime had a heavy genetic component (which it doesn't) and it was a way to get "inferior genes" out of the gene pool which means this plan is basically either just neo-eugenics or an attempt to be cruel just to entertain non criminals which is sick. I expect the only people who would do this are those who want those types of birth control to begin with.Vorarchivist (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It's apparently not 'Tennessee', but 'one local judge in Tennessee'. I don't have an issue with it. Whether criminality is a result of bad blood, bad parenting, or bad local culture, sterilizing convicts is reasonably targeted at any of these sources. Then again, I've never bred myself, too cautious for it, too strongly value solitude; so other perspectives may differ. Also, nothing has brought down crime rates as powerfully as abortion on demand did. If abortion stops being covered by the right to privacy, I don't want to outlaw it to save pwecious widdle fetuses, but I would happily consider making it compulsory for certain demographics. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
so you would consider forced sterilization & abortion against demographics that cause disproportionate crime? I assume that you don't believe yourself to fall under any of those demographicsVorarchivist (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said, breeding is not for me, so I wouldn't mind. If I did beget children, I would try to turn them into enemies of society. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it, but it's voluntary. So long as prisoners aren't forced to go through sterilization, I'm...well, not really OK with it, but still. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's strictly voluntary because the promise of reduced incarceration could be considered coercive. Bongolian (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Could it? I would understand if they threatened to increase sentences, but not what they do here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
What kind of person would consent to sterilization to evade a single month in jail? My guess: a mentally challanged person or someone with a serious impulse control problem. With regard to traditional Census Bureau identity groups, demographics do count with regard to violent crime. Poor Hispanics are 40%-50% less likely to commit a violent crime than either poor whites or poor Blacks.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
For most people, being in jail is not like having an unexpected vacation. There can be some serious consequences including loss of employment, loss of home, and other economic problems. Not everyone in jail is guilty, either. Some people take a plea bargain to get a shorter sentence because they can't afford a good lawyer to adequately plead their case. Bongolian (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes the bargain in order to keep their house or prevent a personal economic disaster
Well, who knows what prison is like in Tennessee? My Uncle Stanley was arrested for DWI in Maine. The Judge said "9 months or $1,500 fine." Stanley was already on his pension and after some quick mental arithmetic answered " I'll take the 9 months!" The judge conferred with the clerk for a few seconds, and then said, "alright then, six months or $900."
And naturally, Stanley said "I'll take the 6 months!" This went on like that for a while until it was clear to the judge that Stanley was more interested in free room and board than saving a few bucks. I think they settled on 10 days in county and no fine.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that story is highly apocryphal. If a judge makes an offer of punishment, the judge can't really rescind that offer. Can they? I don't know Maine rules.
Back to topic at hand. Actually, criminality is very much "bad blood", as well as environmental/cultural/lead-in-the-water/you-name-it, in the sense that many psychological disorders such as O.D.D. have a genetic component. There is no "burglary gene" or "walk backwards with an ice-cream cone in pocket gene", but there are likely genes that result in increased risk of anti-social tendencies and so forth.
This isn't quite Eugenics, more like "Eumemics", as this is offered to drug addicts rather than being based on genes (or race/demographics). The idea being that a drug addict is proooobably not going to be parent of the year, and any children they have would either have a horrible upbringing and/or be a huge burden on the state. CorruptUser (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
As to whether or not it's coercive, I see no real difference between "We will give you 4 months but reduce to 3 if you get sterilized" and "We give you 3 months and additional month if you don't get sterilized". CorruptUser (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

bold and determined to create epilepsy[edit]

this user took notice to the fact that the page Bold and determined possesses writing of color and size ranges that would trigger epilepsy in some and thus this user advises creating a hub page that will provide a warning before proceeding to said page and provide a colorless non-epileptic version of said page in the hub page.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[29]] [[30]] 19:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Epilepsy does not work that way. Nog Bogmire (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Nog Bogmire, this user asserts the fact that as epileptics slowly look downwards into the page, the varied sized and colored texts come up in almost the similar pattern as bright changing lights and trigger the disorder, thus this user presents the opinion by this user that an epileptic-friendly version of said page be made.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[31]] [[32]] 19:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And you base this on...what, exactly? Should we also be careful of the wiki emitting poison gas or causing earthquakes? Nog Bogmire (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Fun space article for anyone can edit[edit]

Fun:The_adventure_of_a_creation_scientist_(If_creation_science_was_fact)

It is an alternate reality if creationism was fact. I got it started and anyone can edit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Snake Volcano[edit]

Finally, im dont questioning about a conspiracy theory, LOL.

https://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/is-snake-river-plains-volcano-a-bigger-threat-to-america-than-yellowstone/

I´m doubtful respect about this, can something happen with the snake river? or not? if that happens, it will be in the future? or in modern times?. DinoKiller65 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65

It is the same volcanic region, Yellowstone's caldera and areas are in the Wyoming part of the region. As for will it, probably. For when, we can still only predict volcanic eruptions on a time scale of months, but it is likely to do so some time in the next few million years.Daev (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Calling for more eyes on the Eugene M. McCarthy page[edit]

I'd like to call for more eyes go over the Eugene M. McCarthy page as well as the talk page. The subject (McCarthy himself) of the page has been writing extensively on the talk page criticizing what is written on his main page. I would prefer that this not seem like a battle primarily between McCarthy and me, particularly since McCarthy has been effectively blocked from editing his own page due to page protection by @Christopher. Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@162.197.60.142 I wonder if {{ping|162.197.60.142}} would work for a BoN. After all, his IP address doesn't seem to change. ~ <3 03:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The wisdom of predictive text[edit]

I put a 'd' in the search box. The first four suggestions, in order: Didit fallacy, Don't Feed the Troll, Donald Trump, Deceit.

Are the algorithms able to comment? 86.146.99.16 (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I always assumed it was alphabetical, I think it used to be. Christopher (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@BON, that's lovely. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
C gives Conservapedia Christianity Conspiracy theory: some of the other letters and combinations don't work as well. A mixture of search box Molybdomancy and a form of 'creative/constructive misreading' (the book title you create on skimming a bookshelf and the interesting programs created by running together titles on the on-screen TV guide.

Roko's basilisk is friendly after all. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Party now sits between Donald Trump and Deceit. And it is not until the 4th letter of his name in the search box that 'Trump' comes up in the dropdown list. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit template[edit]

I had an idle thought: with so many articles linking to bullshit, what if there were a template (e.g., bs) that could style the text differently (like {{wpl}} does) and/or put an icon next to the text so nobody has to waste time mousing over the link? Example: Vaccines cause austism![poo icon]Kazitor, pending 08:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No articles should link to bullshit - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Your intentions are clearly good, however, the idea is not. Thanks, though! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
So, should I remove the relevant links from practically every page in Special:WhatLinksHere/Bullshit? Because if so, that just makes this idea even more useful, as a replacement. Maybe. —Kazitor, pending 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
If you like, unless it's relevant. If it's a pipelink that exists solely to insult some claim, then feel free to get rid of it. If it's a discussion of eg what is and what is not bullshit, then perhaps leave it in place. However I bet you the latter doesn't exist in mainspace outside the Bullshit article. 79.68.245.38 (talk) (Bicycle Wheel again) 17:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
We used to have a bullshit template, but it got deleted long after it fell out of use. Category:Bullshit should probably go as well.
Other articles that should have almost no links are not even wrong, fractal wrongness and most logical fallacies. Christopher (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
As in, almost nothing should link to those pages? —Kazitor, pending 05:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a bit ambiguous. Christopher (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Article on The Checkout?[edit]

There's a show on ABC called The Checkout, that mainly focuses on consumer rights, purchasing goods and services, telling how not to get scammed, etc. They are quite snarky and humorous to help get their point across (kinda like this wiki, but with much less goat jokes) but the main reason I am suggesting an article for it is they have aimed their sights and pseudoscience and homeopathy on quite a few occasions.

They pwned a homeopathic medical book in their segment on fish oil supplements (and that was not the only pseudoscience clam they debunked in that segment), took some jabs at water woo detox for weight loss (again, not the only pseudoscience they debunked in that segment) and even looked at a few scams.

Also, here is a quote from The Checkout:

"But diluting things only makes them more powerful!"-Unnamed Homeopathic "Doctor"

— Unsigned, by: WonderKirby577 / talk / contribs 00:53, 28 July 2017‎

If it's as snarky and fact based as you say it is it will probably make a good article (also you should use four tildes (~) to sign your post) Vorarchivist (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a good article. Maybe you could start a stub at The Checkout with a list of the best episodes? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@WonderKirby577 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 RationalMedia Foundation board of trustees election (sticky)[edit]

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:2017 board of trustees election

Nominations and campaigning are open. FuzzyCatPotato of the Cosmic Eels (talk/stalk) 00:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Vote: When should nominations close?[edit]

Usually we do 2 weeks -- would August 14th be a good date to start voting? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above, unless nobody volunteers, which is unlikely.-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Fun fact: Last time we tried to do this, it took almost a month to get 5 people to sign up. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That was the moderator election, right? You need 6 people to sign up for those, as opposed to 2, so this should be faster.-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
August 14th sounds good. When would the polls close? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe two weeks from that again, so August 28th? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

ITT: We just learned about something called Poe's Law[edit]

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/RationalWiki&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwif2veYh5zVAhVHFT4KHWKZChEQFggaMAI&usg=AFQjCNG8Jz42hEMP3c4r5IPl1gy7ygHG1w Note: Use An Adblocker their site probably gives you aids. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's ED, who cares? Daev (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I highly doubt ED cares about ED. And it is true that we are "far-left" if the center is defined as "Mussolini." RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Never mind the fact that OP's original complaint is akin to doing a 'fact-checking' of The Onion — all that communicates is a misunderstanding of what a roast/parody site even is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has cared what ED says since... oh hang on, actually nobody cared then either. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 16:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We've known about Encyclopædia Dramatica's page on us for a while. Our page on them even begins with a direct quote from it. They've always prided themselves on being dumb trolls who hate everyone and everything, especially "normies", which makes them the internet-culture version of hipsters if you will, though Gamergate caused a whole bunch of alt-right channers to flood the site. Their page on the alt-right makes fun of it like everything else, showing that they haven't completely taken over ED, but it also opens with a note describing it as the single most controversial political topic on the entire site, and a read through its talk page shows that there are a lot of butthurt users (as they'd put it) who think it ought to be more laudatory and complain that it reads like... well, like our own page on the alt-right. KevinR1990 (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
ED is a valuable educational resources if your subject is the truth about human nature. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifRoninMacbeth (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, those guys are just some random internet trolls, dont expect so much DinoKiller65 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)DinoKiller65
That's the point Smerdis was trying to make. He's a dye-in-the-wool misanthrope. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
ED has articles on Rationalwiki sysops, myself included [I was a sysop here 2-3 years back]. My ED article makes up nonsense about me ranging from my sexuality to politics, as well as fabricates my internet history (it quotes things I've never written) and is filled with intentional misinformation. Its obviously not meant to be taken serious. Even the owner of the website has admitted it is not for facts but "lolz". While I have nothing against satire, my issue with ED is it is sometimes weaponized, so for example I had malicious trolls edit my ED article to try to outright defame me. This is why I blocked my ED article from Google. If you find yourself in the same situation just use the legal removing content tool, you can get links then de-indexed so they don't show. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

CERN and asteroids[edit]

This discussion was moved to Talk:CERN. *datestamp* BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What a group of paranoid nutters![edit]

This discussion was moved to Talk:RFID. *datestamp* BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the founder of this website?[edit]

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Rational Wiki,and wondered what ever happened to the founder? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RationalWiki Knightofjustice123 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the unfortunate theft of his gravestone, combined with the impressive rate at which grass grows, even I have lost track of his exact coordinates. Semper fudge, old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Actual answer: he's busy teaching, researching, and generally having a life. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What's his actual username on this website? Knightofjustice123 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse. Christopher (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris Knightofjustice123 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Should've looked deeper found this timeline:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Timeline Knightofjustice123 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Think of us as The Hell Lords. The original guy's gone, so we're all just stuck here doing what we can to keep the site running. Occasionally there's a purge or exodus, but our ranks fill up again with new members. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Reminds me of KultWikipedia's W.svg. As such; with Trent having gone AWOLWikipedia's W.svg, it's down to us ArchonsWikipedia's W.svg to keep the sheeple asleep-le. Also, it's pure coincidence that every individual 'woke' enough to actively oppose us just happens to be critically lacking in this one thingWikipedia's W.svg. 'Nuff said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I've never actually played Kult. Right now I'm trying out Pathfinder so I'll need to play a few campaigns before justifying another RPG purchase. Either Kult or In Nomine is next. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Another blow to Biblical literalism[edit]

Bible says Canaanites were wiped out by Israelites but scientists just found their descendants living in Lebanon

I put this here instead of the world news page because that "click here" thingy to add the poll to it isn't working for me. Ru1138 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I've created an entry on WIGO:World for this article. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Also added to ‎Deuteronomy 20:17. Bongolian (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course, the apologists have already "debunked" this story. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Also updated: Canaan and Biblical scientific errors. Bongolian (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

John Romer had a very nice series on the historicity of the bible called Testament. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting! I wonder... Hey @BruceGrubb; ever heard of John Romer? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I've seen some of the TV shows based on his books but in terms of general archeology he is not that major a figure. On a side note neither is Howard Carter other then an example of Boasian archeology. Those who made the most contribution to the field are unknown by the general public. Dunnell, Binford, and Miner cases in point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

How inaccurate are Memri's translations?[edit]

I've heard their inaccurate or cherry picked. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

They look for the funny opinions and shows, but the translations are very accurate. Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I've heard the translations are accurate,but they are Biased with what they translate Knightofjustice123 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

See for yourself here, or here. In California, there is always this.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
They are biased or cherry picked in the sense they do not provide full daily translations of every newspaper or broadcast they monitor, which is a wide array. When something of interest or importance comes up, then it gets a pretty fair and accurate translation for wider exposure. nobsAloha Snackbar 04:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some criticism of it though. I find it best to take pro Israel sources with a grain of salt.I've heard they have a Bias. I'm not doubting the translations I'm doubting the sources negitive bias towards Arabs,and Muslims Mentioned in the Wikipedia article Knightofjustice123 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want us to say. I understand Arabic and their translations are very good. I don't know why you're trying to bring up Israel-Palestine since the majority of their translations are from Arab talk shows and Islamic lectures which have nothing to do with that. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medicine[edit]

Does anyone think the Naturopath's will gain licensing in all 50 states in the near future? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

They're being licensed somewhere, currently? :/ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are several.[33] It does look like the trend is toward state regulation; several of the unregulated states have legislative bills in the works.[34] Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
In Arizona, naturopaths are considered primary care physicians. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Shameless self-promotion[edit]

You can now see the amount of days in Trump's term that have passed and can put it on any page you want!-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I've still got a feeling he won't last the full 4 years. Whether or not a Mike Pence presidency would be worse, I can't say. Mind you. I'm amazed that Trump has stayed in office for as long as he has. Spud (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I doubt he'll end this year in office. I see an impeachment looming in the horizon. As an aside, does not have US the possibility of a new presidential election if Trump was kicked out? (ie: you'd have Pence, likely with Trump in the back seat, until 2020) Panzerfaust (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately we don't have a new election post-impeachment (or death of the president). There's a rigid line of succession that the presidency goes through, until the next election. That's also why term limits are phrased as "two terms, but no more than 10 years in office." If Trump got impeached and Pence took over right now, Pence wouldn't be able to be re-elected in 2024 since he'd've had 7 years in office. If Trump got impeached in 2019, Pence would be eligible in 2024. -- Onychoprion (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
What happens if 'a president' becomes too incapacitated or too 'mad' (in the colloquial sense) to be accommodated? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, according to Article II, Section i, Clause 6 of the US Constitution, as well as the Third Section of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, if a President is unable to discharge his duties, his office would be filled by Mike Pence if he sends a letter to the president pro tempore of the Senate. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
In practice, though, he gets re-elected by the twelve-toed, rednecks, pitchfork-wavers and BTLsIbiwisi666 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's the important question, Trump or Pence: which one would you rather have? If neither, do you want Paul Ryan to be POTUS? He actually knows how Congress works, and could cause a lot more trouble than either of the other two clowns.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Personally I'd prefer Trumps incompetence to Pence's potential competence or Ryan's experience. I'd rather that none of them were president, but such is life. -- Onychoprion (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether I want Pence more or not, I sincerely want treason to win elected office to be harshly punished. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Lock her up? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the not possibility of an election. Besides Trump ('nuff said) the alternatives aren't very good -a Fundie and a massive Randroid-. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fatima as a creation of the Portuguese Catholic Church[edit]

http://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20170512/215478955_0.html

Link in Spanish, so I'll explain: the Church, that was losing power in Portugal after a Republic was founded there, created that manipulating three young peasants, one of them being someone who had religious visions and the like after having been raised on a family of basically Fundies. Details as the vision of Hell and others were taken from a XIX century book later even denounced by Popes. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember one time when a YouTube user demanded me to explain this "unbelievable miracle." He outraged after I responded that I indeed considered it exactly that and that's common knowledge to anyone who was dumb enough to play "staring at the Sun" as a kid with his friends. --Jagoe (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Our article on Fatima goes into this as well. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
According to the same author (I don't remember where I saw that, but it was a Spaniard site too), supposedly the initial visions of them were quite distinct and Lucia's ones, the only one who survived (see article here), were later developed by clerics who interrogated her into what would become the Three Secrets. In a sort of Spaniard forum (so take what follows with a grain of salt) is mentioned the "dancing Sun" was BS invented by one journalist who later repented, as October 13, 1917 was a rainy and overcast day. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What are the political views of Rationalwiki sysops?[edit]

What exactly are the political views of sysops here? Left, right, centre? I ask this because there are people who see this as a 'far left' wiki, basically the opposite side of the same coin to Metapedia/Rightpedia. From my personal experience I've encountered a bit of left-wing bias on a few articles, however I probably wouldn't call this place 'far left'. Is the average sysop, probably left-centre? Those political spectrum terms themselves are problematic, but I think people should get what I mean.86.14.2.77 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I consider myself a social democrat. Where that puts me on the spectrum is up for debate. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I call myself a Democratic Socialist, which is pretty left, but not "Far left". I'm pretty sure most people here are somewhere along the lines of RoninMacbeth and I, but you shouldn't have to look too far to find people here to the right of us.--Spoony (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am a Left leaning Centrist myself. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
According to The Political Compass test, I score Economic Left/Right: -3.25 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I self-describe as a fairly conventional liberal, but I'm starting to have serious qualms with the lack of action taken about fascism by those who share that identity, and increasingly am seeing only hard leftists taking up what should be a universal cause of actually doing something about actual fucking nazis. I see non-violence and tolerance as dangerously bad ideas when dealing with these groups. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's an incomplete semi-rundown that's more likely to muddy the waters than clarify anything. So be it: the question is actually kinda hard for me to answer properly, for the simple reason that I find much issue with the type of mentality typically engendered by too enthusiastic a political alignment. I consider myself a bit of an 'outside observer' into politics (as a philosophical phenomenon), more than I see myself as an active participant in it — though I very much support the democratic project/secular humanism/the general idea that people go out and vote.
My ultimate goal remains to be a decent skeptic; that is, to not turn a blind eye to the flaws of any given political position. As a result, you can see my apprehensiveness towards politics in general considering I find almost every position to be built on quicksand. One way of putting it is that I'm largely trying to replace every normative view (ought) with a descriptive view (is); I believe this to be the only way I'll have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding politics, and I'll gladly do that better at the cost of not "having a dog in the race myself". Obviously, this isn't a view I'd really advocate for anyone else — certainly not society at large (or there'd be no body politic for me to study!). All for Silas, all for Silas... But seriously, I hope what they say about the positive correlation between wisdom and doubtfulness is true, 'cause I'm riddled with doubt when it comes to politics.
As a misguided teenager, I used to self-identify as some type of libertarian — naturally, without any real clue as to what that really entailed. Today, I "still" consider myself a civil libertarianWikipedia's W.svg, though only with a marginally better understanding of what that really entails. Something about not wanting to be told what to do, nor wanting to control others (#ADHD). My voting record has been pretty snarky — so far, giving my every vote to the Swedish Pirate Party. This was all back when I had no adult concept of how the world worked I still felt the jury was out on their potential to bring useful novelty to the table. I don't plan to give them any more votes, for a number of good reasons. In the next election, I'll probably toss my hat in the ring for the Social Democrats.
Now, all I can really draw up to try to explain my "position" is a bunch of disconnected labels, so let's pile'em on, and you can tell me what (if anything) the resulting chimaera indicates. Aside from the civil libertarianism, I'd certainly like to give a tentative thumbs up to things like welfare capitalismWikipedia's W.svg, social liberalismWikipedia's W.svg, social democracyWikipedia's W.svg and the Nordic modelWikipedia's W.svg. I use to call myself a feminist, which I do mainly to underscore that sex-positivity exists (and kicks ass). Under certain definitions, I'm certainly not a feminist (postmodernism, critical race theory, yadda yadda). Under others, I certainly am (empirical feminismWikipedia's W.svg, analytical feminismWikipedia's W.svg, sex-positivity, yadda yadda).
Anyways, I liked Ike Bernie, and were I an American with any faith whatsoever in American politics, I'd probably have ranked among the Berniebros (whatever that means). I actually consider myself somewhat centrist, though certainly a liberal at that. I'm your typical Swede, meaning: while I love freedom, enterprise and bikinis, I also love not having armies of homeless people fending for themselves. Sweden successfully manages said points all at once, for the record.
While economically left-leaning, I'm also very much not a communist. Communism ranks up there with David Icke the Austrians, as far as I'm concerned. I'm also completely shocked and appaled that the US doesn't have universal healthcare. You see how I'm kinda hard to place? I'd say I'm likely some kind of smug pink-and-sparkly centrist dilettante. And like I hadn't already supersized it on the paradoxes here, I'm essentially an easily moved bleeding-heart who also detests thin-skinned whining. No wonder I'm all over the place, eh? The one thing I staunchly am is pro-democracy; flaws and all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
"I consider myself a bit of an 'outside observer' into politics (as a philosophical phenomenon), more than I see myself as an active participant in it..." How very Kierkegaardian. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Berniehoes represent! I'm all for the cause of love, but as the most recent election showed, the capability for hate (to (self-)destructive degrees, in fact) is not at all something one can cleanly divide down party lines. We can't afford to let what happened to Labour happen to the Democratic Party. "I actually consider myself somewhat centrist, though certainly a liberal at that." Um...? Hey good reverend, I forgot where you said this, but I think this sums it up much nicer:

You know you've hit the sweet spot when MRAs complain that you're radfems, and radfems complain that you're MRAs. I take that criticism of RW as really meaning: "Hey, they're escaping the confines of the horseshoe! Get'em!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC))

I've quoted it on my userpage and it's probably my one of my favoritest quotes ever and wow and I hope it lays a solid groundwork for basically the entire future of Rationalwiki! ...Bit of an off-topic question: since you've been here longer, would you be able to determine whether 86.14.2.77 is Nebuchadnezzar or Krom or someone else? I may be a good detective, but I'm also very lazy when it comes to something that isn't really important. ~ <3 01:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
My practical opinions aren't usually far from the mainstream, but I come to them from very different assumptions. I consider myself generally an Old Right conservative with a very strong dose of "cultural libertarianism", which appears to be a term of abuse here, but generally is a fine and true epitome of my usual stance. I don't 'believe in equality', in that I think egalitarianism is taken too far, and the natural preference of many of your neighbors to live in communities of people who look and talk like their own selves and share common cultural assumptions shouldn't be condemned as unthinkably evil. That's demanding too much of human weakness.

And without being a 'liberal', I do think that the authority and respect due government needs to be restored in the USA. Income inequality has become a serious problem. And people need their government to defend them from 'disruption' and 'agility' and the rest of the cant of ultra-capitalism. Left unchecked, they render human values impossible, and sap the life out of community institutions. The way people are hag-ridden by their jobs is a serious issue to me. People are generally too exhausted to contribute to local politics, to cultural institutions, to their religions. These evils are also sustained by a campaign of economic terror; people are too afraid of losing their place, of slipping into the lower classes, to rock the boat. Social mobility is not an unvarnished good. And people need to be able to plan their own futures without the fear that the rug will be yanked out from underneath them. Commerce makes way too much noise, as well. I'm in favor of advertising free Sundays on the publicly owned airwaves. The economy needs to be beaten with a stick until it learns to sit and stay, to roll over and play dead. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Read my userpage'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My halfassed 2015 demographics survey might shed some limited light. RatWiks (and trolls) gave an average 8.0/10 to "Obtaining societal equality is" (0 bad, 10 good), 5.8/10 to "Government intervention is", and 7.25 to "Feminism is". (I've since read substantively on the problems with agree/disagree and good/bad question styles.) The vast majority answered "Left" to "Political identity" -- though the choices were limited to some combination of "Left", "Right", "Libertarian", and/or "Authoritarian" and/or write-in. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Pan-Arab monarchist. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

All my political and social views are listed here. [35] S.H. DeLong (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I've just retaken the Political Compass test and my results are Economic Left/Right -6.25 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -5.28. I'm a bit more of a lefty than I thought I was. Spud (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"Social Democrat" seems like an apt choice. Politics without definite ideology about economics, religion and morality is a vapid topic. I think most of us believe the Star Trek economy would be ideal. Politics usually represented just another headache in that world. That is, a world in which everyone is adequately provided for without limits to the individual's ability to accomplish extravagant goals in science, technology and exploration. But, even in this Utopian model, conflict exists on the borders of the "Federation." Sadly, there is always an outside. Western economies today appear to resemble this model with the obvious exceptions due to wealth distribution.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Some people say the TNG (Picard's era) Federation is communist, just for the record. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I got in The Political Compass test, Economic Left/Right: -6.13 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03. I was expecting to be less to the left in the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, as much as I support civil libertarianism (the economic one much less) and very much share Reverend Black Percy's ideas. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I would probably just sit on the fence and be neutral, if I were a sysop. The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 06:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, a man of my own heart. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ikanreed, you might want to take a look at this interview of Professor Erica Chenoweth, an expert on toppling dictators.[36] Violence by protestors is much more likely to play into the dictator's hands than to topple it. The more effective strategy is to show broad opposition with large numbers of people; violence also discourages such public displays. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Believe it or not, toppling Trump as if he were a dictator is pretty irrelevant to my concerns. I'm actually referring to grass-roots nazism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a Social Democrat, pretty squarely. Though I think the US political system needs as much a revamp as the economic one, with actual democracy or, at the very least, actual representative republic. Apologies to non-US people for being US-centric in this, it's just I happen to live here and thus it's economics and politics are most prominent. I should get around to writing a Needed Amendments essay sometime. -- Onychoprion (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, semirelatedly, I'm taking that PoliticalCompass quiz thing, and am I the only one who finds the wording strange? I get the feeling it's not been, like, checked to ensure the questions are phrased in such a way as to prevent bias. Am I crazy? -- Onychoprion (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry — nobody mistakes that thing for anything but an online browser quiz (a highly succinct one, at that). I think its primary use is to help in sorting political adherence at the 'resolution' of "Are you Adolf Hitler Y/N?". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The questions also seem to me to be extremely US-centred/-biased in both topics and phrasing, particularly in the latter ("identity politics") parts of the test. But yeah, it's a very rough compass for where you are based and is perhaps best used as a sketchy relative comparative tool for seeing into which quadrant a person or corporate entity (mainly national governments) is placed in relation to others. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Secularism and Muslims[edit]

While I'm pretty sure this is just the creeping Sharia argument again what are the percentages around the world of secular Muslims? I want to learn how to debunk people who say Muslims shouldn't hold any political positions. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This may help. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 11:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
How do you deal with people who dismiss any and all evidence because, and I quote, 'hurr durr durr taqiyya'? How can you debate a person for whom any evidence against their conspiracy theory nonsense is just stronger evidence for, because 'they' are all liars who want to <fill in the blank>? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't. You can either ignore that person, - it is fine, no point in arguing if you're not willing to do so - or continue to debate them, but not for the sake of proving your point to them, but to - hopefully - inspire casual, non-participating observers of the thread to take a stance on the discussion's subject. A stance that you are defending. These observers are invisible, but there's plenty of them, and some will definitely investigate your point and let themselves get convinced. Loc (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Every (Abrahamic) religious person should believe that their religion's divine laws are superior to human laws, and that they have a moral imperative to bring them about. But this is the logical conclusion of a religion and religious people are not always rational to began with. Perhaps you should try showing the people you're talking to - probably Christian munafiqeen - that there is a big difference between what a religion says and what believers do.

Also, taqiyya is a Shia thing. In the khaleej the Salafis like to accuse the Shia of using taqiyya whenever they try to defend their sect. Its funny to see gharbis do the same. Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You're presuming that Breitbart-'n'-WND-fed Americans actually know anything about Islam beyond 'evil moon god' (ugh), let alone any kind of difference inside the faith, however subtle or un-. Shit, maybe I should just point out the nearest mosque so they can speak with actual Muslims. A severely homophobic friend of mine had a real change of heart after economic needs forced him to take on a gay roommate. As Loc said, he may investigate, and in investigating he may learn. Thanks for the help/hope. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Secularism is not a bar to radicalization, contrary to misperceptions. nobsAloha Snackbar 03:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I see nobs' point. Turkey, Egypt, and Syria secularized, but now they've experienced some kind of fundamentalist resurgence within the past decade or so. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Here for example, this gang is identified as being drunken. nobsAloha Snackbar 20:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@RobSmith http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/27/gang-of-thugs-rampaged-through-city-centre-attacking-white-non-muslims-6810709/ , http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/liverpool-muslim-islamist-gang-attacks-hero-takeaway-owner-edris-nosrati-police-court-jailed-a7866951.html , http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/islamic-thugs-who-attacked-white-13396646 oddly enough most aren't mentioning that part. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Except, contrary to desired political narratives, actual studies have shown there is no correlation between perceived racism, opposition to Western foreign policy, and radicalization. A quote from the linked study;
In an apparent contrast, wealthier British Muslims are more likely to be able to think of situations in which they would suicidal terrorism as justified. Quite remarkably, the only two variables which fail to reach statistical significance in any countries across the two models are those which capture experiences of racism and discrimination as well as attitudes towards Western foreign polices. The present analysis thus confirms previous findings (Berger 2014) that negative perceptions of Western foreign polices and support for Islamist extremism are not linked...[these] analyses challenge conventional wisdom which emphasizes discrimination and rejection of Western foreign policies in the explanation of political radicalism. Instead, religious guidance and socio-economic status emerge as consistent correlates of political and social attitudes among West European Muslims."
Try again. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is Che Guevara on T-Shirts?[edit]

Why? Knightofjustice123 (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably because as one of the most trendy, quotable and attractive of soviet revolutionaries it appeals to those who are shallowly experimenting with left wing ideologies. The real question is why there aren't any other socialist leaders on clothing (besides the communist party t-shirt). Vorarchivist (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Probably because besides Lenin,Stalin, and Castro they're much less known. I'd swear to have seen Marx elsewhere, plus other where the former, Lenin, and Stalin are having a party. In any case it's interesting how having a t-shirt of Nazi imagery will tend to give you at best bad looks, but if you go full Tankie people will usually not give a fuck unless you run into neo-nazis. Nonetheless it probably has something to see with (usually young) people perceiving and liking his rebel attitude (and why not, women liking his looks on that famous picture), and in any case says quite a lot how someone as Che Guevara has been victim of merchandise. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
All I know is that Che Guevara shirts going mainstream and being sold at the GAP and whatnot — i.e., his (admittedly very handsome) icon having been debased to a shallow token in the 'capitalist cultural superstructure' — warms my heart, and likely spins him in his grave. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Erik Honeker doesn't have the sex appeal Che had. nobsAloha Snackbar 04:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What did Che do before instituting another regime? Knightofjustice123 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Try watching the movie about Che. It is not secret. To answer why Che's portrait is on a t-shirt: 1) he was a hero of the revolution, 2) he was a martyr, 3)he was handsome 4) the copyright to his image is public domain 5) socialist politicians soon lost their luster by proximity to absolute power. e.g. if you get a shirt with Stalin's picture, don't expect to make new friends.no flying monkeys please

Or, to use a movie metaphor, he was a hero who didn't live long enough to see himself become the villain. He was basically everything that Hollywood could want in the protagonist of an action-adventure film, and he was never able to piss it all away by becoming just another corrupt bureaucrat (i.e. the reason you rarely see people defend Hugo Chavez anymore). KevinR1990 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't think of that but in hindsight it seems obvious that Che would be popular as one of the only revolutionaries that didn't go paranoid and authoritarian.Vorarchivist (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Reverend If you think that's bad...'Legionwhat do you want from me 05:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably some of the same applies to Richard III and Cesare Borgia - also dark haired, handsome, controversial and killed untimely. 31.49.115.149 (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
i imagine the image's enduring popularity lies in the fact it has become an icon of opposition to Imperialism, specifically of the US variety. that stuff always flies well with students. its become too cliche that i doubt anyone wears a che tshirt as a sincere statement of their politics. it no longer works as badge signalling your tribe, if it ever did. its just a nice tshirt that might imply that you maybe be a bit of a rebel in an inoffensive and noncommital way. as a tshirt or a poster or what ever, its just such a strong image. it works even if you have no clue as to who he is AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Highly nonspecific, but correct(!) answer[edit]

T-shirts are a trivial way to see products that represent someone's self-professed identity. Whether che actually would believe in a society where this is true is 100% irrelevant. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a factor, absolutely. But even with your T-shirt hypothesis, we're far from completing our Unified Che Theory. And on that note; here's another potential piece of the puzzle (to be 'factored in' alongside those listed in the above discussion) — the inherent allure of Slacktivism (read: Slacktivism figured as an alternative to "simply doing nothing instead"). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A veritable manual for RW talkpages[edit]

Whether it be a drive-by BoN, a fellow regular, or indeed your own words you're trying to reign in make sense of, this short-but-sweet elucidation will come in handy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course, when he says "bore", we have to imagine that he's saying "crank". Spud (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed — or, since we get the occasional bore here as well, just mentally supplement "bore" with "...and/or crank/zealot", and the video might just as well have been specifically about RW talkpages. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Everyone should watch the video. It is feminist friendly and does not outright insult other persuasions. The point it makes however applies to every political ideology including feminist varieties, i.e., behind the abstract claims and the jargon of patriarchy and male-privilege, there are real problems that need to be addressed. The generalizations sound like noise to the undecided.no flying monkeys please

I know I always preface all my political statements with a complete rundown of my childhood trauma. That doesn't really make it any easier at parties, though. Hentropy (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif For increased success at parties, don't forget to also practice the other three-fourths of making good conversation. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


Sums Up Kraut and Tea and Sargon of Akkad. Knightofjustice123 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

...Franchesca Ramsey and Steve Shives are also notable ranters.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Also me. I can 100% recognize the shittiest part of me in Sargon, only with shitty views attached instead of ones that aren't horrible to other people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll be...! You watched a video? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't. I just assumed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
...but you'll watch Sargon's videos? Hmm... I just got the crazy idea that maybe, if something doesn't accommodate your passion for bad people getting punched in the throat 'feed you fuel for your fire to burn', then you're not that interested in it? I call it the "auto-annoyant theory of commitment". If you can't hate, you won't participate. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Chatbots[edit]

Should there be an article on chatbots etc - [37] and the 'rogue construct that quickly turned into a UKIP supporter' (summarising) a little while back?

RW should be ahead of the 'mad/would-be-world-domination-computer' theorists. 86.146.100.21 (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, years ago when I ran a BBS, I got ahold of the 'Racter' source code in unstructured BASIC. I set it up as an online 'door' program on the BBS, only I labelled it 'Chat with Sysop'. The results were occasionally worth it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
A RationalWiki "talk with Goatie the Goatbot" would be entertaining. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
ELIZAWikipedia's W.svg is the mother of all chatbots. She was a Rogerian psychiatrist wannabe. The topic of course intersects with the Turing test. Bongolian (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The real question[edit]

Will chatbot AI ever become advanced enough to accurately simulate the Yahoo! Answers experience? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

After developing a chatbot AI, the programmer will have to filter it through an ASS, an Artificial Stupidity Screen, in order to make the chatbot appear to be human. After that, instant fame and fortune for passing the Turing Test! Bongolian (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I propose the Yahoo! Answers test — will the AI ever be able to figure out whether or not it's actually... PREGANANANT!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This was shared elsewhere as a bad thing[edit]

here's the link. I gotta say, looking at this list, good on google for deprioritizing sites that seem inclined towards promoting bullshit. Elsewhere this was called google punishing left-leaning sites, but several of the listed sites are serious bullshitmongers, especially globalresearch.ca, and I'm glad to see them go. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to imagine it does something similar to right-wing trash sites as well. There's no doubt there's a problem with people trying to look up real information and landing on something like Alternet or Breitbart, not knowing their slant. Those sites had been more or less coasting off of that Juicy SEO Money for the last two years or so. It is possible that Google has GONE TOO FAR though, I don't think many people were confused as to WSWS' bias. Hentropy (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Google has also restricted vocal liberal YouTube channels behind the adult content filter. It's for advertisers because Google is an ad company first.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Religious Symbols at a University's Chapel[edit]

I got a video sent to me on Facebook about the removal of a cross and bibles from Boswell Chapel on the campus of East Central University in Ada, Oklahoma. According the Tulsa World the items remain in the chapel and they plan on fighting Americans United for Separation of Church and State over this. Was wondering if AUSCS is in the right?--Cms13ca (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is there even a (need for a) chapel at a public university? Bongolian (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm cool with a communal worship space on a public university, but it should show no preference to a specific religion. So i'm fine with this. As to need, i'd say the majority of people have a desire to worship, and many times, these universities represent the entire town/community available within dozens of miles, so it may be the only option for those without a near-by place of worship. Petey Plane (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
'Tis amusing that a country where religion and state are constitutionally separate seems to have so much more aggravation from both religious and secular sides. Here in the UK religion is hardly relevant to any day-to-day business despite having bishops in the legislature and some state schooling supplied (is that the correct word?) by religious organisations. I don't know how things are today but when I was at school we had daily assembly with prayers. Admittedly this is a load of bull but we seem to have much less religious 'trouble' than the US. (btw our RK (religious knowledge) teacher was the only woman on the teaching staff - referred to, somewhat irreverently, as 'Nipples'.) Pippa (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

As long as all (or at least- most) religions have their symbols in the chapel. I find nothing wrong with interfaith worship. It is a public university. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

God hates Owls[edit]

And periods, mold, & people with damaged testicles. Does this mean that if I want to damn someone to hell, all I have to do is kick them in the balls? 74.12.59.224 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'hell on Earth' caused by a surprise nutcracker from you is about as close to hell as you'll be able to send anyone using that method, I'm afraid. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Nearer, oh Hell, to thee…
Bongolian (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Reminds me of the classic short (of Moleman Productions fame), Man Getting Hit By Football. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Damn! I thought it said, "Owl ny balls!" I was hoping to see a video of an owl taking a peck at a man's knackers. Spud (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that's what I call RationalWiki! The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 03:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Responses to this article[edit]

Just Released Docs Show Monsanto 'Executives Colluding With Corrupted EPA Officials to Manipulate Scientific Data'. Never heard of the site. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 12:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean you haven't heard of them, they say they're the "nation's leading environmental news site engaging millions of concerned citizens every month."! They don't seem totally cranky like many we see, but the lawsuit is being filed by none other than Robert Kennedy Jr. and they certainly seem to be under that persuasion. A similar story was written on HuffPost as well, seems the EPA is really looking into this. Hentropy (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Media Bias/Fact Check reports that Ecowatch has many legitimate articles, but dabbles in pseudoscience on certain scientific issues. (7/20/2016). Ecowatch is cited in the Jimmy Dore article as a "conspiracy-pseudoscience website." Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Dumping these links here [38][39][40][41] Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Noobtubers Article[edit]

I'm thinking of making a article of some of the worst Youtube accounts. I would be calling it Noobtubers. Good idea or not? The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 04:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nay, not missional. We refute cranks but aren't assholes.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
If those Youtubers include subjects like pseudoscience and creationism, then sure, but I also don't think the subjects you've shown me pertains to the Wiki. There is also the sheer coverage. No way will we be able to cover them all also given Sturgeon's Law. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 07:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just looked at WonderKirby577's draft and I have to say, "No. It's a terrible idea." It doesn't belong on RationalWiki. Not even in Fun space. We pursue cranks. We don't make fun of people on the internet simply because they happen to be people on the internet. Leave that to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Spud (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking for the "worst YouTubers", might I suggest the woo-mongers at User:FuzzyCatPotato#To_do? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 11:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@WonderKirby577 As noted previously; bad idea. Good move asking, though. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Oy, let's be nice. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't the series 'Rude Tube' cover this already? 31.51.113.62 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is the NHS setup poorly?[edit]

Today I saw an article about that Baby, :http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/health/charlie-gard-brain-scan-court-bn/index.html and it made me think about why is the NHS so shitty compared to other parts of the world? Knightofjustice123

Archiving timestamp. Christopher (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Not being British, I have little personal experience with the NHS; but as an American, I nonetheless have a strong opinion about it. Charlie Gard will never see, hear, or speak. He will never breathe on his own. He will never swallow food or water. In the US under Dear Leader's true vision for the future, all of that would be called a 'pre-existing condition' and he would be denied insurance coverage. Or he'd hit his lifetime maximum payout limit of $1M after a few months and the insurance company would then stop payment. Only since it's a private corporation saying 'you're not worth the money' that's OK, we all accept that, just business as usual. It's when government and government alone performs a cost-benefits analysis do Americans get upset. Trump sees a way to score some cheap points with the evangelicals without doing anything of value. Optics and bullshit, Koj, optics and bullshit. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@knight i am curious to know what aspects are so shitty. it certainly ha\s its problems, the whole tragic charlide gard thing is not one of them. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I am British, and I can assure you the NHS is not 'shitty'. The reason this case is in court, is because in the UK the doctor's duty is deemed to be to protect the best interests the child itself, even if that means not agreeing with the wishes of it's parents, and since the parents and the hospital could not agree, the court was asked to decide, on behalf of the child. What makes the NHS great, and not shitty at all, is that whatever your sickness or injury, it will repair you with the best skills, drugs, technologies and treatments - for however long it takes - without charging the patient a single penny, ever. That rather contrasts, with the horrifying tales we sometimes hear of uninsured Americans, who when they suffer accident or illness no fault of their own, they are repaired by wonderful medicine, but then bankrupted, by ruthless financial pursuit. To a Brit, that seems barbaric. Rational44 on Twitter (Apologies if I have misunderstood how to respond here.)
"To a Brit, that seems barbaric." Not just to a Brit, German here. To me it's an appalling lack of empathy. But well, maybe it's the same thing as walking past a homeless person without doing anything (which I'm also guilty of). And I think in neither case it's necessarily about collecting of money to help that particular person but rather promoting policies that examine and fix the underlying issues. --Mad physicist (talk)

Charlie Gard case[edit]

I Would like to see a page on the Charlie Gard case, as this would put of the issues like the NHS, palliative care, death panels etc. in plain detail. I have put them on my sandbox Thoughts, anyone?. Euromec (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
there not much to say. desperate parents tragically clutching at straws while foreign opportunists drag out their agony. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
His parents were in denial and unscrupulous news media hyped up the story to suit their anti-NHS agenda. The fact his mother is young, slim and blonde probably hadn't escaped their attention either. I'm very sorry for his parents, but the anti-GOSH rhetoric from others was monstrous.Ibiwisi666 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the wishes of parents should be respected, even if we don't agree with them, even if we think our idea of what is in their child's best interests is more rational than theirs, except when following the parents wishes would cause serious harm to the child. And, even if we think permitting further medical treatment is futile, or allowing them to take their child overseas for further treatment would be futile, I am not convinced it would cause the child serious harm, so I think it should be allowed even if the professional medical opinion is that it is futile. I think an important ingredient in a free society is a wide (but not absolute) respect for parental autonomy – we should respect parents decisions with respect to their own children, even if we think we know better what the child's best interests are, except when those decisions are causing serious harm – respect for parental autonomy means we respect parents different ideological views (whether liberal or conservative or radical or traditionalist or whatever) and allow them to practice and transmit those views with respect to their children, and only intervene to override parental decisions when it is an issue of serious harm. (To make that standard more concrete – if the parents want to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion for their baby because they are Jehovah's Witnesses, I think in that case we should override those wishes and allow the doctors to give the transfusion – but, if the baby is terminally ill, and we think further treatment is futile, but the parents want to continue, I think in that case we should permit the parents to do that, especially if they are willing to pay for it themselves.) (Also, I am primarily talking here about babies and toddlers and young children who can't have a rational opinion on their own treatment; for older children and adolescents, we should pay more attention to the wishes of the child than that of the parents.) (((Zack Martin))) 22:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Quora thread about RationalWiki[edit]

Two of the usual suspects show up -- the other answers aren't bad. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Does this even ring a bell? WHo is this person talking about? Other than that, Only two of the answers even remotely attempt to answer the guy's question. The other threads on us don't seem so nice--Spoony (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Anytime there's a mention of RW anywhere on the internet, somehow, like a shark sniffing blood in the water, Rome Viharo WILL find it. In fact this really pretty much an internet law.'Legionwhat do you want from me 17:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Replace "Rome Viharo" with "FuzzyCatPotato" in the above, and — it would seem to me — the maxim grows truer still. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

New message blocked by firewall[edit]

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Technical support.

@Reverend Black Percy When moving a page always remember to include a comment dating the move or the section will stay until Fuzzy archives it manually. Christopher (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Christopher Ah — good to know! All work and no play makes Fuzzy a dull boy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Is modern life soul-crushing?[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Betteridge's law of headlines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zw_E4qwuNs&t=18s

Kind of based on the Rick and Morty episode that recently aired, about whether or not the conveniences of modern society have robbed us of meaning in our lives. Without any major hardships we bicker over the trivial things, most of us work for others instead of anything for ourselves. With most things handled, have we become weak in the process?Machina (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As opposed to what? Spending our days toiling in the fields praying we wouldn't be raped to death by mercenaries, like the good old days? CorruptUser (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Calling life "soul-crushing" assumes that we have souls that can be crushed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If you want a serious philosophical examination of this question that comes to the conclusion "yes, it is bad", (only "modern" meant 1700s agrarianism), read the works by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Specifically Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, which asserts people were happier in their "natural state". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
While I can see both pros and cons to much of what Rosseau said, what I personally find most endearing about Rosseau is not his rampant neuroticisms, but rather, the extent to which his conflicted psychology ultimately came to frame his theories and discourse on politics — as is, undoubtably, the case for us all — by their occasional reducibility to little beyond blatant wish-fulfilment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Are there any major philosophers you don't hate? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Short answer: Nope, though none more than myself.
Long answer: Jokes aside; I don't 'hate' any philosopher (including myself, though under protest) — nor would I endorse the practice.
As I quote Bertrand Russel in saying:

Philosophers, from Plato to William James, have allowed their opinions as to the constitution of the universe to be influenced by the desire for edification: knowing, as they supposed, what beliefs would make men virtuous, they have invented arguments, often very sophistical, to prove that these beliefs are true. For my part I reprobate this kind of bias, both on moral and on intellectual grounds.

Morally, a philosopher who uses his professional competence for anything except a disinterested search for truth is guilty of a kind of treachery. And when he assumes, in advance of inquiry, that certain beliefs, whether true or false, are such as to promote good behaviour, he is so limiting the scope of philosophical speculation as to make philosophy trivial; the true philosopher is prepared to examine all preconceptions.

When any limits are placed, consciously or unconsciously, upon the pursuit of truth, philosophy becomes paralysed by fear, and the ground is prepared for a government censorship punishing those who utter "dangerous thoughts" — in fact, the philosopher has already placed such a censorship over his own investigations. Intellectually, the effect of mistaken moral considerations upon philosophy has been to impede progress to an extraordinary extent.

Heck, I would even go so far as to say that I love even the worst of them — atleast in the sense that earnestly attempting to follow their reasoning is one of my favorite "anti-fandomsWikipedia's W.svg" (proverbially speaking).
More importantly, however — I try to always keep in mind that there is no philosopher (or person) so bad that there isn't some good in them, just as there is no philosopher (or person) so good that there isn't some bad in them.
Taken on the right spring day, you could even find me agreeing with Hitler — had the entirety of his statement been that the leaves were coming in nicely this year. On that perfect day, no man could've been wrong in saying so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I was mostly getting at how today since we don't have to worry about survival we focus on trivial things like games, and sports. Essentially anything that isn't related to "subsistence living". Or that we even stress about said games and the drama of our lives. If we were focused on survival like in the past then we wouldn't have the humdrum grind of modern life with all it's regulations taking away human agency. I mean people cheer for sports like it's life or death out there when the outcome doesn't really matter. Or how people become so invested in the stories of others (television) that they don't write their own. Too much comfort seems to be taking away meaning from our lives, leaving us getting worked up over trinkets.Machina (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Er, I think you may have gotten so unwittingly spoiled by the progress of civilization — and especially its rapid technological advancements (which also include non-electrical conveniences) — to the point where some unenlightened, Hobbean daily-struggle-for-dear-life sounds like an existence with more intrinsic meaning or human agency. The fact of the matter is, while constantly being totally busy not dying does physically limit one's time, energy and (in the absence of higher education) ability to reflect on life to the point of weltschmärzen, I think our ancestors would 'switch seats' with you in a heartbeat if given the opportunity. "Holy shit — living past the ripe old age of 35, and without dental health bordering on body horror at that!? Sign me up!". But seriously — while modern society and human existence totally have their fair share of serious problems, I have to disagree with you that human agency and the likes 'improve as material impoverishment increases'. Think Mazlow's staircase instead — ranking in lower is additively shittier. Never mind the (apparently unintentional) irony in that it's actually a romanticization of suffering to imagine that it's always, never mind often, all that meaningful. On the contrary, much of suffering truly is for no convincing reason or ultimate purpose whatsoever. You seek to escape the 'humdrum', seemingly by eliminating leisure and shifting our state of relative abundance much further out towards the razor's edge. I believe that the one choice we really have, in the framing of your question, lie between the poles of suffering and boredom. And if so, I decidedly chose the latter. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are guilty of the assumption that we make about modernity. That our ancestors would trade places with us. Yet we have people in the world today who seek to live as they did, for the modern world has many stressors that are essentially based on trivialities. Taxes, car repairs, rent, or ancestors didn't deal with any of that, they were focused on finding food. We even have to "work" more hours than they did. Maslows hierarchy isn't a valid theory anymore as there is no evidence of its ranks in that order or of the hierarchy even existing. Dental records show that agriculture was the issue with the decline in tooth health in the past, at least initially. You can argument that we have many forms of entertainment and pleasure, but there's the adage "you can't miss what you never had". There's even the argument that they lived more "in the moment" than the current form of man. Comfort breeds weakness. I'm sorry but your reply doesn't address the concerns at all, it sounds like the generic informed responses most people have about modern life. Machina (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The wider picture[edit]

Life may be a bitch sometimes — but on the plus side, it's flashing before your very eyes as you read this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Nihilist here. Thanks for the video. CorruptUser (talk) 06:576, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Glad you liked it. As far as labels go, I dunno what I am — something involving 'modern' stoicism, to be sure — but I do agree with the above espoused Kurzgesagt philosophy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't really optimistic nihilism,or even nihilism at all. If it were then it would states there is no reason to do anything. This isn't "the wider picture" it's just trying to dress up a grim reality, that we don't matter. Not to mention the hint of positive bias, for we get to experience pain (far more than pleasure) of such magnitude that we beg for death. We will know the fear of death as all life does. Nothing we do has any impact, as history shows. In fact it could make the case for suicide. There is no reason to not enjoy yourself, but there is no reason to do so either. Let's face it, that option is likely only available to those with the privilege to even debate it on the internet. Climate change looks to spell our doom anyway. All in all it's a very blinded view of reality. Definitely not any form of nihilism.Machina (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you okay? I mean this seriously. Christopher (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thats not relevant to the topic at hand. Machina (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
"There is no reason to not enjoy yourself, but there is no reason to do so either."
I can think of a reason for enjoying myself - it's enjoyable.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this guy is a troll-bot.no flying monkeys please
@RBP The Kurzgesagt philosophy (I guess that's the name we are using?) espoused in the video is more or less what I've believed for a while. God, if she even does exist, doesn't do anything to help (or harm) humanity, there are no benevolent nor malicious forces of nature guiding us. There is no inherent justice or mercy in the world, no right nor wrong; if a bear mauls you, no shining white light will say in bear-speak "no, bad bear, it's not ethical to eat this person, that's wrong, bad!" There is only what we do. So it is up to us to decide what our purpose in life is. CorruptUser (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A self given purpose is no different from no purpose at all. As for enjoying yourself because you enjoy it, that still isn't a reason for doing so. Not to mention it's based on the assumption that life is enjoyable. For the majority it isn't, but survival instinct keeps us from ending our lives for the most part. Even if enjoying yourself because it's enjoyable (and empty and hollow reason) was a reason, by that logic someone wanting to kill themselves because they don't want anymore pain makes sense as well. The video doesn't do a good job of removing suicide as an option. In fact you could say it's a better one since you don't have to worry about pain or enjoying yourself. After all, there is no reason to be alive, and hedonism isn't a philophsy that lasts in the long run. Life sucks unless you're in the developed world and even then it still has stresses that make people want to die. Machina (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately there's no reason to live, but no reason to kill yourself either. Seriously though, are you alright? Christopher (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A self-given purpose is very much different from no purpose at all. If god does exist and created humans for a Purpose, what purpose does god have? Who gave her purpose? If god was created by mega-god, who gave mega-god purpose? Is god herself ultimately meaningless? Or perhaps that even various forms of Theism must also concede that it's possible for something to give itself a purpose? CorruptUser (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem with hedonism is that biological life has an agenda. In the service of that agenda, evolution has programmed us to take pleasure and pain from things and situations that we might not, and probably wouldn't, choose if we had a choice. The highest calling of any human being is to find ways to hot-wire our biological programming, and to take pleasure in things that confer no survival or reproductive advantage. Only by such means can we obtain even the illusion of freedom. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Suicide is not unique to humans; other primates sometimes do it too such as tarsiers a primate with a brain about the size of its own eyeballs. Then there is the unfunny video of a baboon trying to fly.no flying monkeys please

RW emergency maintenance, 0100 UTC Sun 6 Aug[edit]

Hardware problems at Linode, they'll be migrating apache3 to a new server.

http://rationalwiki.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/emergency-maintenance-sun-06-aug-2017.html

(about 5h 45m from now as I post this) - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump's "news" show[edit]

This discussion was moved to Talk:Fake news#Trump's "news" show. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Cover story nomination[edit]

The cover story nomination for the deep web has been up since May, and no one has responded. Posting here for attention n crap.チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

*bump* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this man rational?[edit]

Lately, I have been having a debate once every Saturday with a man who, know that I feel like a have a grip on what he believes, would like the opinion of you guys, who are clearly very smart about politics, if this man is, well, ok. He does like to intimidate with sheer power of words, and he sounds like he knows a lot, so I shall list some of his positions, but not strawman them. this is stuff he has told me; some of this might sound like a poe's law.

  1. He is progressive economically, wanting a gradual advancement to Techno-Socialism. However, while he says he knows a lot about economics, actual economic professors tell me he is not as good at economics as he thinks he is.
  2. He is pro civil rights for LGBT+, People of color, but not everyone. He is a reliable critic of things like the PATRIOT act, but sometimes he sounds like he secretly supports it.
  3. He is on the right side of history; by that I mean, he likes Bernie sanders, opposes movements like brexit and the Alt right, albeit in a weird way, and is supportive of science when it suits him, like evolution or climate change.
  4. He is, in my opinion, islamophobic; he believes all Islam is reactionary and inherently subversive to modernism.(he says Moslem, not Muslim; just something to note.) He also once told me any Muslim who publicly expresses their faith is an islamist, and that if you let them get away with it, they will start using car bombs. He also seems to think middle eastern countries are a lot more primitive than they actually are, like most inhabitants still live pre industrial lives, and would only be modern if they embrace western culture. he is an uncritical Israel supporter, and thinks that if we nuke mecca, all muslims would throw down their weapons and beg for mercy because they would be terrified of our might.
  5. He is also an American exceptionalist. he believes that America is the pinnacle of human achievement, and that since we are more advanced, we have the right to dictate to others how they live. he believes American dominance post ww2 is because American culture is superior to European and Asian culture.
  6. He is also a neocon; he has repeatedly described, to the point where he says it in the same words every time, in an almost sadistic manner how America must export Americanism to the rest of the world and utterly destroy native cultures, and he thinks that the military capacity of the eastern countries, to him china, Russia, and the middle east, would be destroyed in weeks. afterwards, we would essentially make them American. he believes that other countries demonize America because if their people learned the truth, they would all overthrow their governments and try to become America.
  7. He likes to white wash failures in American policy like treatment of Native americans and Japanese americans as being only flukes which a very small amount of americans supported. He also does this with trump and the alt right, assuming that the number of trump supporters is really only 20% of America. the other ones were faked by... THE RUSSIANS!!!! with him, the Russians are always the final boss of American history. The are the ultimate inferior culture, chthonic serpent in the American Chaoskampf, etc. He believes that trump would have not carried a single state if it was not for the Russians. he believes that movements like the alt right don't really exist, and they are Russian false flags to destroy America.
  8. Finally, he is a transhumanist. He belives that since America is a leader in technological improvement, we will eventually integrate technology into the human form, specifically Nanotech into our dna to make americans born cybernetic supermen at birth. Is that possible? anyway, he belives that America, and later the world, should be ruled by an AI that is embodies his traits that are what makes America philosophically superior to him.

I have tried to sum it up as best as I could. He sounds like a genius, but that could be faked. he has supreme confidence he is right, and people who disagree with him just cant handle the truth, and that the science supports him and he knows he is right even though I know he has no credentials in most of the fields this covers. But is he right? — Unsigned, by: 140.186.15.195 / talk / contribs

Yipes, press the enter key to space out the thoughts. You make him sound like a nutcase from what I'm getting, so he's not right. He's like Dunning-Kruger. He doesn't realize how crazy he sounds at points and he dismisses people who dispute his claims. Some of his claims seem wrong even if there aren't evidence to contradict what he says. Particularly on Muslims.
His thoughts on Islam are wrong if you consider the huge leaps of logic to categorize a HUGE group of people, like literally 1/4 of the world's population. Muslims are human beings just like the rest of us and they are victims of their fellow extremists just as how many people in the U.S. are victims of Christian terrorists or nationalist terrorists. Muslims have their share of decent people and assholes like every other group of people, especially the huge ones. His ideas on American exceptionalism is too devotedly nationalistic for me to consider they're coherent strings of thought. Especially when he dismisses the actual bad things Americans have done in the past and I mean stained so hard they eat holes and burnt into the fabric of history. That's not rational, that's being in denial.
The Russian false flag argument is also a little crazy and I think a little naïve, which also stems from "waaa, Americans are so good", as if human beings are incapable of thinking and acting like earnest "alt-right" people. Calling them the "ultimate inferior culture" reeks of prejudice and ignorance and it sounds like xenophobia in red paint. Most of the time, I don't think he realizes that it's logical that a complex problem like the rise of the "alt-right" usually means there are complex factors behind it and assuming a single cause for Trump's victory is usually silly. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Somebody block Tea Sagan[edit]

He's engaging in constant vandalism on the Jimmy Dore and Jeremy Corbyn pages, He removes sourced information because he doesn't agree with it and defends known unreliable sources (such as RT), It's a pain to constantly undo his vandalism.Jaydogg1994 (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Tea Sagan was already spoken to about this behavior and given a second chance (see Tea Sagan's talk page). Given that Tea Sagan has not repeated this behavior since then, there is currently no reason for blocking. Bongolian (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Are science and feminism mutually exclusive?[edit]

Feminism, I think, is poorly defined and thus encompasses many beliefs. I've experienced the conservative-leaning TERFs and teenagers that just think it's hip (speaking of teenagers, just look at the stereotype they have created).

But this article made me mad. Looking at this article will give the impression this is a liberal pro-science feminist writing this, but implies that the science distinguishing the binary male and female sex is wrong because science was wrong before, including racialism. The author then proceeds to say

What they fail to understand is that there are published scientific papers out there to support every possible opinion, even that black people are intellectually inferior to white people. Getting published doesn’t make an idea true, it only means that someone has managed to get it into print. In evolutionary psychology, theories are sometimes little more than speculation strung together with scant evidence.

Upon reading this I thought the author doesn't understand science, as she then compares this science with racialism. Since when did the scientific community legitimately accept these fringe ideologies as fact? And I've seen this kind of rationalizing in feminist courses, claiming science, economics, gender science, and racialism are equally flawed, and were created to dominate "lesser people." —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 21:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. Feminism encompasses a wide range of beliefs and thus, while the author of that article's "brand" of feminism may reject science, there are plenty of feminists who accept science. (Although it is a little disturbing that some of the arguments put forth in that article mirror those of creationists- "science has been wrong before", "science promotes immorality", etc.) 127.0.0.1 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

One shitty feminist journalist does not feminism disprove.

I agree, however, that feminist (and other "progressive") journalists tend to have lower standards of evidence than skeptical writers, and that it's a problem. Kneejerk anti-bigotry has good intent and horrible execution. FuzzyCatPotato of the Spine-chilling Persons (talk/stalk) 23:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Her argument is typical of the usual special pleading that is summoned against evolutionary psychology, which at its core is the simple and obvious notion that humans are identifiable by their behavior, and that basic human drives are the product of evolution. It generates hostility mostly because it shows that a unisex utopia probably isn't for humans or any other mammals. All she really needed to say was that 'is' doesn't imply 'ought'; human instincts are rather skeevy and contain no great moral truths. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Feminism is a category, not a concept; it is not a fixed set of ideas but rather it is a set of perspectives from women's points of view that are generalized into coherent classes by encyclopedists, social critics, and public intellectuals: the perspectives are typically concerning the situation of women in general. One might consider a Feminist Perspective Scale. This particular scale has six classes: liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, cultural feminism, womanism/ (Women of Color), and conservatism. I don't completely understand the test associated with this scale, but I did take the test, and I appear to be an upper mid-range Liberal Feminist. These online tests can be quite contradictory. Another one had me as a radical feminist. These divisions are an academic construct that somewhat clarifies the meaning of the word feminism. The definition should not be considered final with respect to its completeness.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I am 43% Liberal Feminist, and 32% Woman of Color. Good to know. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I am 42% Liberal Feminist, 32% Radical Feminist. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Guys, guys, guys... The test results aren't given in percentages.
For example: I scored 50 at "Liberal Feminist", 31 at "Women of Color", 22 at "Socialist Feminist", 16 at "Radical Feminist", 16 at "Cultural Feminist" and finally 10 at "Conservative Feminist".
Were the results given in percentages, I'd be some sort of kickflipping über-feminist (i.e., apparently "152% feminist" in total).
Also, quite interestingly — just according to the test — the two of you (@Ariel31459 and @Smerdis of Tlön) are apparently harsher feminists (less liberal + more radical) than myself. Which could actually make a certain amount of relative sense, considering I'm of the ardently sex-positive sort. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Reverend Black Percy I did notice that, but since I didn't figure out the scale methodology, I went along with the % metaphor. The test doesn't provide interpretive advice. My total score was in the 160s.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I have 47 in Liberal Feminism, 35 in Women of Color, 32 in Radical Feminism, 28 in Socialist Feminism, 20 in Cultural Feminism, and 12 in a column simply labeled "Conservative." Total score of 174. What does any of this mean? Also another thing I didn't get were all the questions about capitalism's impact on women. I couldn't tell whether the questions were about whether capitalism is the sole contributing factor to the oppression of women, or whether they were just asking whether I think it factors into it. Take for example, "Capitalism and sexism are primarily responsible for the increased divorce rate and general breakdown of families." Sure, I think the current values of our capitalist society factor into it, but I think it's likely that this would or could happen with any other economic system, I don't think the problem would be instantly magically solved if our society was just not capitalist. megalodon (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Climate change questions checklist[edit]

I like to check if we have addressed the following concerns or myths about climate change:

  1. "The extreme weather events of 2017 means it is too late to avoid the worst or catastrophic outcome(s)."
  2. "Donald Trump will undo all our effort to prevent the worst of climate change."
  3. "There is no point in taking action if the government and/or industry is doing nothing about it."
  4. "I am just one person: I won't make any impact."

--User4501 (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

See this section and its video subsection. I think the 'arguments' you list are all covered there. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I was in the video store last week and I went to the documentary section[edit]

There was plenty of Woo to go around. There was films promoting pseudoscience behind GMO's, bible documentaries acting like Genesis was a true story, one about the 2012 apocalypse and various others. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I hear ya — the (often unwitting) consumption of woo has become a standard feature of popular culture, spread globally via social media, and right at a time when most public school systems are failing their students. If you ask me, that's what makes efforts like RationalWiki so relevant. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Same thing here. Even worse, not only are the more well-known (sane) documentaries like Cosmos not being sold here, even the Public library has the same issue--Spoony (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I will also note that good, actual documentaries tend to be taken off YouTube pretty fast by some copyright holder, while crank 'documentaries' stay up forever. Imagine what this does to the search results given when kids type "X documentary" in YouTube and just go by the apparent view count? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say good, actual documentaries tend to be taken off YouTube pretty fast by someone who claims to be the copyright holder. As has been stated many times YouTube's copyright system is a disaster and allows people who don't own the copyright or don't give a darn about fair use to take down videos. Many of the improper claims are simply because someone doesn't like what is in the video and has nothing to do with copyright. For example, videos critical of a game have been removed by people abusing YouTube's copyright system; see This video is no longer available: The Day One Garry's Incident Incident for an example of this behavior. Popular YouTubers have the clout can fight these abusers while many don't and the video goes down forever.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Those are some very good posts! The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 01:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Documentaries have long been a format for propaganda. Considering even good documentaries that are relatively accurate tend towards creating narratives, it's a really easy format to hide bullshit in. I'm not even sure the internet has done anything to exacerbate this, other than every tinpot studio is now aiming at enough production values to get on netflix? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course, documentaries create narratives, practically every form of human communication does. Where I suspect the internet has probably had a detrimental effect is partly the indirect filtering effect on YT mentioned by The Rev., partly due to the "megaphone effect" which I've seen described vis-a-vis Alex Jones as the difference being that in the pre-digital age, he would be the weirdo handing out mimeographedWikipedia's W.svg flyers at the bus station or ranting on some obscure shortwave radio frequency. Then there's the effect that a drastic reduction in cost of and access to the necessary equipment (video, sound, editing etc,) has had in enabling a host of cranks to be able to produce their very own crankomentaries peddling their particular brand(s) of woo. Of course, the upside is that this has also allowed debunking to be equally easy and professional looking, too. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but people need to see the debunking, and that doesn't really happen. The audience for debunking videos is "people who like to see things debunked". Which has, in turn, led to the subset of conspiracy peddlers who promote themselves as rational skeptics "debunking" things ways inappropriate to the the subject matter. see: antifeminism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
While I know you to hold certain 'categorical biases' against the entire medium in question (as compared to text) — though not supposing myself free of bias, of course; rather I hold the inverse bias — you make a perfectly important point (as does the Wombat). One major reason I have serious qualms about answering the question "So, what do you do?" with "Well, I'm a skeptic" is because doing so would entail a lot of explanatory tedium about how I certainly don't mean to say I'm a 'climate skeptic' (or the likes) by that. Though, I suppose openly self-identifying (in any serious sense) as being 'rational', 'skeptical', etc, isn't a practice I'd ever wish upon myself in any case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The kicker was the documentary about the Burzyski Clinic (It was free to rent, still probably too much money)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
There's something about the format that can become off-putting. I've enjoyed a number of Adam Curtis documentaries (keep getting him mixed up with the Joy Division guy, whose documentaries I'd watch in a heartbeat). Half the time he seems interesting and insightful. The other times he seems like some kind of nutjob who overdosed on John Gray books and got mazed on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll definitely agree with Smerdis on Adam Curtis. I personally think his best work is The Century of the Self, exactly because it contains less "cantilevered hypotheses" than, say, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace which while raising some interesting points also tends to oversell/-hype them. After The Century of the Self, the second and third best are probably The Mayfair Set and The Trap after which there's quite a gap down to The Power of Nightmares, Pandora's Box and All Watched Over... as well as his two most recent works, Bitter Lake and Hypernormalisation, while I consider The Living Dead his weakest work. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Glad to hear it's not just Alex Jones recommending The Century of the Self. And I do mean that; The Century of the Self is on my 'to-watch list' — it just has been since way back during my crank teenage years. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The first episode of All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace does contain an excellent retelling of the always fascinating drama of Ayn Rand and her circle. I'm surprised no composer has yet turned it into an opera, to my knowledge. (And the title is a Richard Brautigan reference, which always helps.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
As with most 'cure-all'-themed political factions, nothing could be more interesting — or telling — than appraising the given views of said faction in light of the relative madnesses of its originator figure(s). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Happy to agree with Smerdis (again) about the interesting, rather cultish sounding depiction of Rand's small circle (jerk) in All Watched Over..., but that it also sits somewhat awkwardly with Curtis' overarching theme in that series, that of a unrealistic, idealised, mechanistic recreation of a "stable natural system" - yeah, yeah, I know the link is the belief in a "self-regulating market", but considering that the two subsequent episodes deal with biology, the initial episode is still sort of the odd man out of the series. I'll also confess to having a weak spot for Curtis' visual "collage" style, although that too can go a bit overboard at times.
Btw, there are several versions of Century... available at YT, Rev., so cosy up with a cup of hot chocolate or something on a grey fall weekend and binge watch them, or simply chill out with and episode each evening. It's good edutainment and I actually know of a university associate professor who has used parts of it in a course (I think it was on the history of ideas and/or psychohistory). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy! I'll be certain to bump it on my list Th hug.gif Also — perhaps slightly off-topic — speaking of Randean cirkle jerking auto-fellatio... Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Come to think of it, I've used snippets of Curtis in my own teaching too. One about the perverse effects of NPM (New Public ManagementWikipedia's W.svg) with its focus on targets and how the system was "gamed" by public sector employees in Blair's Britain as an example of the pitfalls of NPM in a course on management in the public sector, and I think I've also used some of the examples of Bernay's (for its time) innovative advertising as part a course in communication
As for randroids and cults, another interesting overlap is that both free market and religious fundies have set up their own parallel "education and research" systems mimicking the trappings of actual academia with the addition of various types of ring fencing of free, sceptical enquiry; compare, say, fundie schools with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, (parts of) George Mason University or the (very much strings attached) Koch-funded departments at otherwise legitimate educational institutions. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Very true, and I'll also add to your enumeration of such "ring fenced" 'pseudo-academias' their noteworthy existence in various Communist contexts as well — ranging from minor cells and local juntas, all the way to being a core 'feature' of the educational systems of entire Soviet republics. At the national level, the latter largely being the ones responsible for spending all those countless gallons of ink needed for certain litterature to 'trickle down' to moonbats everywhere, both western and third world, in the pre-digital era... But I digest.
Getting back broadly on the topic of advertising, mass psychology, public management and the likes — one man who has been getting far too little attention (specifically in that same 'contextual arena' which Century of the Self dedicates mainly to Freud and Bernays) is John B. WatsonWikipedia's W.svg.
Sure, every high schooler taking introductory psychology gets to hear about Watson (typically after Pavlov and before Skinner). But what they don't tend to bring up is how tremendous Watson's impact actually was after he took his seminal discoveries in psychology, left the field, and specifically adopted his work for use in advertising insteadWikipedia's W.svg (and in management; especially personell selection). For example...
Ever heard a celebrity spokesperson endorse a product? Well, guess who came up with that? Watson!
And never mind celebrities — ever heard or seen a so-called testemonial, on TV-shop or otherwise, wherein 'regular people' explain what some product or service supposedly did for them? Well, guess who invented that? Same Watson!
Here's some random links. If you hadn't heard about this, considering especially your concern with the concept of management, I'd suggest you wrap your head around Watson's legacy. Sure, it's all history now, but it's both interesting and elucidating. Many of Watson's contributions to the field still see use, in one form or another.
From a purely therapeutic standpoint, in the light of what we know today, it's perhaps easy to 'poke fun' both at Freud and Behaviorism — and yet, unbeknownst to many, much successful adaptation of their work went on to make it into mainstream public relations, advertising and related fields. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Watson's influence certainly sounds interesting, although Wikipedia mentions that testimonials far predated Watson (I agree that he may have put a more psychological spin on the genre, though). For instance, you can find similar types of ads in the marketing of "patent medicines" and other products in the 19th century when you browse vintage ads (yes, I'm weird, I know...). It is also clear that Bernays was drawing extensively on Gustave Le BonWikipedia's W.svg and Wilfred TrotterWikipedia's W.svg (C-SPAN's Lectures in History podcast had a good episode in Bernays and PR, but it appears that it doesn't keep these lectures for long in the feed).

Taking PR (reputedly a word of Bernay's invention, though that infamous flimflam man may have "borrowed" and simply popularised it) to far more extensive levels, I'd also look at the Committee on Public InformationWikipedia's W.svg as perhaps the most widespread and systematic effort at "perception management" until that time at the level of an entire, modern state. I think the idea of the Four Minute MenWikipedia's W.svg was a particularly interesting, and (for its time) very advanced and American initiative (a mass, volunteer, layman initiative, rather than relying on "experts" or "opinion makers"). In general, I think that it is in the era from roughly 1900-1920, and particularly with WWI, that "societal modernity" really becomes apparent and that this is the time from which we can begin to clearly recognise trends that are still with us today. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll be...! My cite for Watson having invented it is a lecture given by the excellent Professor Steven Gimbel in the following course. I'll have to dig that back up and see if I'm not actually misquoting the good professor on it.
As for the rest — some I had heard, much I had not. Very interesting, at any rate. I'll be sure to read up on it all. In the meantime, I wanna see if I can't dig up that Gimbel quote and set the record straight one way or the other. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, it might be that the professor was using a specific definition/version of the testimonial when he highlighted Watson as the inventor. It might be that Watson codified the "modern" testimonial which is not necessarily using praise of the products direct effects, but more on it supposed psychological aspects (e.g. it will make you more "glamorous", "successful", or "free"). Contrast with the outrageous testimonials about patent medicines and other panacea where the lavish praise of the product's immediate effects would more resemble those of, say, today's weight loss commercials. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)