RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive279

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 November 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>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <280>, <281>, (new)(back)

Contents

Why did idealism fall out?[edit]

I kind of want to know the reason it feel out of fashion. Reading it over, it makes me think that Berkeley was some kind of crackpot. Did he honestly believe that the things he was saying were logically consistent or even rational. He pins his entire argument on the existence of God, which just makes it seem rather flimsy to me.Machina (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the joys of classical Chinese philosophy is its lack (apart from Buddhist imports) of elaborate hairpulls about whether we can know the world outside our heads, or whether words mean anything. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
My sincere answer: conservatism went absolute batshit crazy. Stopping the crazy became an natural higher priority than promoting any sort of ideals(even when those ideals were good). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the philosophical school of Idealism. It just sounds overly complicated to me and relies on God existing.
Oh. That. Um. Because... uh... look at the fucking world? I feel like Voltaire put it in the fucking ground over a hundred years ago. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
There are many dozens of schools of idealism. As you well know Bishop Berkeley was a prince of the church and interested in religious philosophy. You strike me as a Platonic Idealist. Most idealists never mention God in their writings.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Idealism in the Berkeleyan sense is one of the dead ends of philosophy. The mind that does all the perceiving is itself housed in a physical object over which it has only limited control. Your mind is at the service of your stomach or your genitalia much of the time. And the body in which it dwells shares properties with external objects as well; it is semi-solid, but contains water and other chemicals apparently identical to the not-body kind, is partially flammable, and so forth. We can know that other material objects exist because those other objects can involuntarily affect the one in which we live. = Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
None of the facts you raise refute idealism. Saying that the mind has only limited control over the body doesn't refute idealism, unless one makes the mistake of thinking that idealism implies the mind is omnipotent (it doesn't.) The body is a pattern in the experiences of minds, not just in the mind whose body it is, but also in the minds of others who observe that body; all those minds have limited control over that pattern, because all minds have limited control over their own experiences. Idealism is perfectly compatible with the idea that our minds have limited control over the material world–even if the material world is (in a sense) in our minds, we have limited control over it because we have limited control over our own minds and over the minds of others. The ability of drugs, disease, brain injury, neurosurgery, etc, to alter our minds is also something idealism can explain – if I take LSD, and then I hallucinate, both the drug administration and the hallucination are mental experiences, and there is a temporal ordering and correlation between those experiences, which we call "causation", and that causation is itself a pattern in mental experience. So there is nothing in the reality of drug-induced hallucinations which idealism can't explain. (((Zack Martin))) 12:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Well if idealism wasn't just a crock of chocolate pudding.Machina (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a subjective idealist, but I think there are flaws with the specific form of subjective idealism which Berkeley advocated. Machina, when you say "He pins his entire argument on the existence of God", I take it you are referring to Berkeley's argument that objects exist when no one observes them because God is always observing everything. I share your dislike for that argument, but I think idealists have better options. An alternative is the "counterfactual qualia" argument–material things are patterns in the experiences of minds, those patterns are consistuted by both actual qualia (experiences which some mind has) and counterfactual qualia (experiences which no mind actually has, but some mind could have had, if different events had occurred.) For example, if there is a tree in my backyard, when I look at it the qualia of my observing the tree exist, but even when I am not looking at it, there is counterfactual qualia, the qualia I would have had if I had looked at it just now; and both those actual qualia I (or someone else has), and the counterfactual qualia (which no mind actually has, but minds could have had), together constitute that material object which is the tree. Now, the idea of counterfactual qualia might not appeal to you, but it is an idealist solution to that problem which doesn't involve God in any way, and so works just as well whether or not God exists. I also think Berkeley used overly negative language about matter, which makes many people think that idealists deny that matter really exists; I myself say that matter is perfectly real, but all matter is ultimately mental, but being ultimately mental doesn't make it any less real. So, part of the reason why subjective idealism has declined, is that its most famous advocate (Berkeley) had a lot of questionable arguments and positions, and people make the assumption that if Berkeley's arguments/positions are wrong, then subjective idealism must be wrong. (((Zack Martin))) 12:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, the whole idea of idealism is just depressing to me. It's like if solipsism were true.Machina (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is it depressing? Idealism isn't solipsism; solipsism says only one mind exists, but most idealists believe in the existence of many distinct minds. I can see why some of Berkeley's language (matter is "unreal" or "illusory") could be mentally upsetting but I think idealists are making a big mistake by saying stuff like that, because it is possible to be an idealist yet affirm that matter is perfectly real. (((Zack Martin))) 09:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Rationalwiki Dark mode[edit]

Who wants it?

yes20
no2

Note: if implemented, it will optional, you have to personally enable it in your Preferences.

ClickerClock (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If I don't care and don't want it personally but want it for the sake of other people who might want it can I vote yes? NoJohYouAreTheDemons (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. ClickerClock (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
i dont know what dark mode is. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I think its black background/white text. Less glare, useful if you want to take RW along on a night ninja tactical mission. Leuders (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That'd be a useful feature, I wish I could read RW when ambushing computer programmers. LynnR (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We have Dark Mode now[edit]

It takes longer to load than Wikipedia's due to loading it from javascript but it's a sacrifice to make due to automatically updated to Wikipedia's version. Turn it on by going to Peferences > Gadgets > User interface gadgets and turn on "Dark mode for Vector skin.".

ClickerClock (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually we could just shove all the code to the CSS file which will make it load just as fast as Wikipedia's. It would just have to be manually updated on the occasion. Or we could code a bot to update the CSS for us aka have our cake and eat it too.

bot3
faster loading > auto update0
auto update > loading0

ClickerClock (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait, so "bot" incorporates faster loading? —Kazitor, pending 04:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I just tried this dark mode and... yuck. Horrible colour scheme. —Kazitor, pending 05:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I copied from Wikipedia's version. You want me to edit some better colors in? ClickerClock (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, green's horrible. A very light grey on a very dark grey would look far nicer. It also ruins the navigation templates. —Kazitor, pending 06:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I'll get on it.ClickerClock (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kazitor better now? Do you want anything else? ClickerClock (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@ClickerClock there's still a lot of bright green in places, and various other colours (links etc.) don't seem to quite suit it. I reckon the background could be a fair bit lighter too. Basically I have opinions and nothing will ever satisfy them :P —Kazitor, pending 10:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kazitor https://coolors.co/ <-- Make the color palette you want. ClickerClock (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get to that later, once I have time. —Kazitor, pending 11:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@ClickerClock not sure what each bar represents, but here. 1: background 2: text 3: link 4: visited. Something like that. —Kazitor, pending 09:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That's one nice palettee. I'll get to work on it. Thank you. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Never mind I changed the things. You will have to re-enable the setting in Preferences. Ignore the poll. ClickerClock (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Preview[edit]

Demo of Rationalwiki's Dark mode gadget

@KazitorClickerClock (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps make those links a bit lighter? Also, make sure that the navigation templates have visible text, I'm pretty sure the current version doesn't handle them properly. —Kazitor, pending 11:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kazitor Better? —ClickerClock (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@ClickerClockLooking nice. Now that I think about it, the navigation templates might not be such a big deal. The actual textual content of pages looks fine, maybe make visited links stand a bit darker, so they look more different from unvisited links? Also, is there any way I could check out the CSS and make changes myself? —Kazitor, pending 09:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kazitor Ask for tech powers over at RationalWiki:Your mother's basement. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@ClickerClock Okay, so now where can I go to try/make changes? I can't seem to find anything. Thanks. —Kazitor, pending 11:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kazitor, MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css. I recommend copy and pasting it into your Special:MyPage/common.css. This way you don't screw up the gadget. I converted the css to sass. When I added the css back, most of the comments were removed because the sass to css converters are glitchy. Good luck. —ClickerClock (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, found it before. Only saying this now when I actually wrote it before, but didn't notice the edit conflict. —Kazitor, pending 11:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Nutters with guns[edit]

(not being persons with mental health issues) who think that the solution to their sad empty lives and absence of fame is killing lots of people with big weapons are the problem.

Ban the sale of #bullets# without a licence/mental health check. 21:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: 109.158.61.178 / talk / contribs

Why not ban guns as well? They're only used for killing things, often people. Christopher (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Because apparently, if everyone has a gun, that actually reduces gun crime? That's how the argument goes, isn't it? —Kazitor, pending 08:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Presumably to get around the squawking complaints about it being a violation of the Second Amendment? (And why penalise the hunting, historical re-enactments and target practice brigades?)
Are these gun nuts 'terrorists without a cause'? 31.49.127.70 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a US citizen, never understood your obsession with guns. Guns used in hstorical reenactments don't need to function, places where you go hunting or shorting targets should be the ones providing the guns. If you hunt/shoot targets on your own property or just want to use your own gun, that's still not a reason to own guns capable of killing loads of people. Christopher (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing, despite what they claim, the main reason anyone wants a gun is because it's cool/fun to have one. Any other claims are just ways to not look so self-interested. —Kazitor, pending 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The case is not against gun ownership as such; and there will always be 'nutters' but how does one prevent/minimise such acts of violence?
And the gun proponents will be promoting their cause even if the situation approaches the war of all against all/[1]. 31.49.127.70 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I keep asking why anyone needs to own a weapon that fires hundreds of rounds a minute, but apparently the answer is "we don't need a reason". Leuders (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would not feel safe in an American city like Chicago or New York or LA without a gun. Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

But wouldn't you feel safer if nearly no one else had a gun? Christopher (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
No, since a great deal of the crime is not gun related but knives, beatings, etc. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
A great many idiots with guns feel safer because of them in spite of large quantities of outcome-based evidence with reasonable control methodologies that suggests the opposite correlation to their intuition is true. And it won't matter because there's a plethora of thought terminating cliches that the idiots in question can fall back on to reject such empirical evidence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
if i were in a situation were i needed a gun to feel safe, i'm pretty sure i wouldn't feel a whole lot safer if i did have a gun, especially if the reason for not feeling safe was that everyone had guns. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Except it's not "you don't have a gun" vs "you have a gun", it's "nearly no one has a gun" vs "everyone, including criminals and the mentally ill, have easy access to guns". Christopher (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems you've never studied criminals or terrorist groups. They will ``always`` have access to guns, but as I said above the concern isn't really them. You're not likely to be shot by a cartel. You are much more likely to be mugged or have a knife pulled on you, situations where drawing a weapon scares them off very reliably. No one is pretending that they'd win a fire fight with gangs or whatever you think. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, he mentioned likliehood! That means he accepts it's a relevant variable. How do you feel about the fact that you are 11 times more likely to kill yourself with it, 4 times more likely to accidentally shoot a friend or family member, and 7 times as likely to use it in unjustified attacks as any of the scenarios you just described? (I know, I know, it's a researcher using crime data instead of self reporting surveys like kleck so you don't accept the data) Do you radically reverse your position based on outcome-based observation? I mean... it's not like you'd make a point about relative risk insincerely shifting rhetorical focus if something suggested that that method of interpretation doesn't support your conclusion. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything in there which says gun accidents are "7 times more likely" to occur than muggings and other petty crime, and it would be very hard to believe so I'm going to ask you where you're getting that. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In practice[edit]

LeftyGreenMario, CheeseburgerFace and FuzzyCatPotato are basically the same person despite being three different people. ClickerClock (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Elaborate? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We're just moving very quickly backwards and forwards. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Onozomg.gif-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh my god! People share similar beliefs. This is a novel occurrence is human history! 15:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually it's a joke based on how their usernames are basically three words squished together. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, well, funny observation. Having three words in succession can give usernames a nice ring. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

National ID[edit]

The US needs an official national ID number. Social security was never intended to be used as an ID, and not everyone has one due to loopholes. So let's get a national ID that actually was intended for that purpose. Also, off-topic, but why is your mother's basement named that? Openly hinting my to-be denied post on there.ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 15:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

But an official national ID number would be socialism and we don't want government to assign just numbers to us? Wouldn't it make it easier for them to track us and then take away our guns? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
i have no idea how social security numbers work in america, but you say not everyone has one because loop holes. you really think everyone would have a national id? you really think there would be no loop holes? this is precisely why id cards have been resisted in the uk. there are costs involved. not everyone would be able afford them. not having one would would lock you out of employment, out of essential benefits. the very people who for whatever reason cannot get the id are the very people who need these essential benefits. its already difficult for those most need to access these services, something i have recently experienced first hand. @lefty - its curious that you characterise opposition to id as right wing. in the uk, id cards were a tory idea made real by a torylite labour government. support for them was very much a rightwing thing. [2] AMassiveGay (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay It definitely should be free. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 21:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not too into national ID number and I do think social security has its problems. It's feel-good to say IDs should be free, but it might cost government more to levy them in the first place and there is probably an extra layer of bureaucracy that's needed to regulate that aspect so everything runs smoothly and fraud is kept at a minimum. I characterized it as right-wing probably because to mock them since they're so opposed to government anything, but at the same time, I balk at how Republicans support voter IDs or arbitrary measures (like removing early voting) in a thinly veiled way to reduce minority or poorer voters. For right-wingers who claim to be "small government", they seem to be pretty enthusiastic about a measure that will expand government, or maybe I haven't seen right-wing critics of it either... Are there right-wing critics of this measure that object with similar reasons as my joke reasons? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
we had id cards during both world wars and a common objection was of its socialist intent. when last tried, the most unpopular aspect was the biometric database. we've got no guns to steal but we had for a short while government tracking up and running. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
All right, I guess I can't accuse of right of being inconsistent with what they want. But the fears of a database? Pffff, Google and Yahoo are already doing their job nicely of tracking. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Why? What exactly is the problem this is supposed to solve? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 13:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion - the politicians of central government should be given the first batch of ID numbers, using 'a computer with a hiccup.' They should then be used as guinea pigs in sorting out any problems (with a 12 month minimum delay in payments for expenses and other costs). When the problems have been sorted out (and the politicians have some vague inkling of what the rest of us have to go through) then the system can be extended. Anna Livia (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

they'd probably be happy be with that. they can afford the personal cost, a pittance them but an onerous burden on the poorest, already have bank accounts, dont need access to benefits. there is little sense in trialling something with the people least likely to be affected by it. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
But if they can't pay for their spads, illicit trysts, pork barrel, moat cleaning, first class travel etc, and have to go through a whole rigmarole to get anything it will at least keep them out of mischief. Anna Livia (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
A certain type of person discovers there's a problem and rather than cope with the problem they figure it should be steam-rollered. "Every American has a unique Social Security Number, so we can use that". "No they don't". "OK, so let's just issue every American a new unique number then proceed as before".
I work for a Credit Reference Agency, and it has an internal project to reduce (in theory eliminate) problems where the system mistakes two people for one or vice versa. The most common cause is some family has a ridiculous tradition like "Oh, we always call the first son Steve like his father" and so you've got a house with three people named "Steve Johnson" living there and the machine struggles with the idea that "Steve Johnson", "Steve Johnson" and "Steve Johnson" are three different people AND with the problem of which "Steve Johnson" has outstanding car payments. At an internal event this project had a stand with a big deal about how they'd revolutionise things and so I went to talk to the technology people behind it. They showed no awareness of the fact that this is a genuinely hard problem. To them it was simply a matter of assigning everybody a number and then the problem fixes itself, they were actually taking US Social Security Numbers (an infamous example of what not to do) as a role model. I told them several of the horror stories about SSNs and they seemed a bit shaken but no less determined that surely just issuing everybody numbers will help.
There's a list somewhere of "fallacies about human names for Computer Scientists" which is useful here, most of the same lessons apply for attempts to give people unique numbers. Tialaramex (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
the UK id used biometrics. it required getting finger printed. there was talk of iris scans but they were dropped. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wandalisim?[edit]

Is this wandalisim? It seemed derogatory to me. The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 03:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You reverted it. Good. Now forget about it. Spud (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 23:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

You're all very smart and mommy loves you very much. Please chill out & discuss sans ad hominems. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I know this won't go well, but ad homs are the only tolerable part of interacting with Ariel. There is, to my recollection, never been a meaningful or insightful post preceding his sig to respond to with detached analysis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong & writing out of anger. Ariel, like yourself, is interested in rational discussion. Try to provide it -- or at least, not sabotage it. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
After taking a nice long break and relaxing for a while, and some deep breaths, I still cannot bring to mind a time I gleaned anything useful from a conversation with Ariel, but I can respect that that observation, when made repeatedly, annoys everyone else here. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't the first exasperated user to beg to stop. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, I have never had a conversation with you.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
While I strongly suspect that you're aware of making similar bullshit arguments and having them rejected for exactly the same kinda nonsense, with never engaging in any degree of self improvement, you are free to continue to hide your behavior in the fact that we are not mind readers. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

literally what happened[edit]

Seriously, I have no idea what the hell is going on with the Abd edit war. Can someone fill me in? Also, I originally patrolled his page. It looked fine to me. Pls no kill. LynnR (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea and I don't think I should really engage. Check the Chicken coop archive I guess? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
With a blizzard of socks involved (like, who created that Coop discussion and the article Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and the deleted page?), you'd need a program, and I've been asked to stop by Him Who Shall Not Be Named, who said "please." I will respond to questions by email ... and will describe what happened elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did we go "Full Retard" as the kym photo thingy says?[edit]

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/850764-gamergate Googled this after a guy tried to red pill people on a reddit sub I moderate. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

The comments section made me drink several times. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
We didn't go "Full Retard", it's just knee-jerk reactions to an article or political point of view they don't like. Most comments don't seem like they actually follow the article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll advise the people on your use of language. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh for goat's sake, we didn't use "retard" in a derogatory way, I'm just quoting word by word. This censorship is completely pointless. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have many questions[edit]

https://youtu.be/ofvLYZEPbWs like how does your world stop when your son has just been accidentally ran over by a lawnmower,but you have time to post to Facebook? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


A Republican's "Reality Check"[edit]

https://streamable.com/j7h48

Note to the women in the video if you find this I claim fair use. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a reasonable case for banning abortion in the third trimester, except for extenuating circumstances. In fact, that's what Roe v. WadeWikipedia's W.svg did in 1973 (though Planned Parenthood v. CaseyWikipedia's W.svg changed that to the "undue burden" standard). The problem is that most of those late-term abortions are for extenuating circumstances -- the vast, vast majority of abortion occurs before anything can be reasonably said to be alive. And so, yes, us liberals might have blood on our hands for some unnecessary murders -- but we also save many, many lives by allowing safe abortion practices.
In contrast, guns cause maybe 20x more crime than they stop.
What are your thoughts? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion on abortion, so my position has to be that abortion must be allowed in any circumstance for any reason, and I simply do not give a fig about the personhood of the fetus. It's like animal-rightsers and vegans, or anti-tobacco cranks; there's just too much fanaticism and bad faith there that no middle position is possible. Both groups of crackpots use pernicious incrementalism; any concession buys no peace, but sets the stage for the next demand. And like the animal-rightsers, there's something particularly toxic about the combination of maudlin sentimentality and self-righteousness. The rest of us offend them because we just don't care, and this indifference sets them off screaming about the bloody murder of their lost darlings. And the more they try to blackmail you into caring, the more you realize that you have to harden your heart against their cause. The result, IMO, is fully justified contempt. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Turns out questions of fundamental rights brings out self-righteousness. It's almost like... like... it's a moral ground-point for a great many people. Man, I'm sure glad you don't have fundamental beliefs about what's right or wrong or you might be an extremist, which is way worse than minor things like "murder for convenience" for one side, or "fundamental unnecessary encroachment on individual freedom" for the other. It's very important to be above the fray, no matter what the stakes may be.
Seriously, though, smerdis, it seems like your ideology centers on condemning sanctimony all its forms while it sanctimoniously condemns people for their actual perspectives instead of their meta-beliefs about the debate itself. You could just as easily put your arbitrary "at a distance" absolutist position on the opposite side of the debate and not change a single other thing about your argument. Seriously, do that find/replace on what you just posted.
It's not just this either, you do the same thing with your generic right-wing "PC culture" complaints, where you care more about being on the side with congenial tone than developing a sincere personal position based on some moral center. I feel there may be a fundamental fallacy to how you construct your worldview. Though it's always possible I merely misunderstand something about your position. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Smerdis' views - or perhaps his way of phrasing sentiments that might otherwise be taking a side (we all know he leans right) - have the unique ability of getting calm discourse out of parties he's talking to, regardless of which side they're on. I don't think Smerdis constructs his life according to a deified middle ground fallacy, I think he presents his beliefs very cautiously, which ends up appearing to be centrist only by merit of checks and balances made to reassure the other side. Considering the results, I don't think his style is a bad idea. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that my country is infested with scolds of various sorts. I want them to have a much smaller public profile. It seems reasonable to start by not becoming one myself. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a case for abortion 'in various circumstances' (the selection of which may vary according to the speaker).

There is a stronger case for promoting 'taking responsibility towards potential child-creation' (and discouraging malicious activities). 109.148.99.72 (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The Gimmick of the Gimmickless[edit]

Businesses without gimmicks often use the fact that they don't have one as a gimmick in itself. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 23:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sans context(what's the context, plz help) this just reads as pretentious, not insightful. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ikanreed I'm talking about ad campaigns that run on the gimmick of not having a gimmick. You know, the "at [insert name here], we don't need a gimmick" ones. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 20:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't really. But maybe I've successfully protected myself from ads enough that I'm unfamiliar with current tropes? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Like this one. You know, how they brag about their lack of a gimmick as a gimmick in itself. Though this could be a lifelong Grammar Nazi using grammar wrong. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 21:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't disagree that this is a terribly stupid gimmick for a commercial. Fun challenge: try to remember the last time an advertisement brought joy into your life? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Figured it out. When the first ad for The Orville came out. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 21:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
'We know that you know that we know that you are using an overused gimmick' - and a very weak one at that. When you go shopping does 'we don't use a gimmick' stick in your brain or 'your favourite advertising logos'? Anna Livia (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Shitty proposal that makes a point instead of meaningful change[edit]

How about this: vaccines can remain optional, but everyone who opts out still has to pay for the vaccine and the money goes into a fund to treat immunocompromised people who get the diseases they spread. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Herd immunity should be priority and it seems like mandating vaccines is the best way to get people vaccinated. It will be cheaper to issue mandates, keep vaccine rates high, and prevent expensive treatments of infections. Not a terrible propsal, but I am afraid theoretically, optional vaccines will encourage people to opt out and so society, not only them, will pay for diseases. We sshouldn't pander at all to those that want to endanger lives. 208.54.4.233 (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The only exception allowed should be religious beliefs. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 00:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's a vapid exception since no established mainstream religion advocates against vaccinations, and even if one did, we should not endanger lives for misplaced beliefs. Remember, in some states, you can be convicted murder if you fail to seek medical services for a kid with, say, bacterial pneumonia and pray for the kid instead, and the kid dies. 208.54.4.233 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It might be reasonable for an individual to refuse some treatment for themselves because of some weird self-invented religions belief. The problem occurs when they want to inflict the consequences of these beliefs on their children - and on society in general.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What about the situation where a disease is effectively (becoming) extinct in the wild in a particular country - [3] being an example. Anna Livia (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bigs Only those with valid medical reasons certified by a medical professional should be exempt from mandatory vaccination. Religious, philosophical, or other non-scientific objections should be categorically rejected. Nerd271 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly the dumbest Quora question I have ever seen[edit]

https://www.quora.com/Can-Islam-dominate-China-Korea-and-Japan-in-the-future Also Note: Do not brigade anyone. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's far from the dumbest Quora question ever. I'd even say it's a valid question especially given how Islam has a big influence in Malaysia and India. I don't know the intent of the question and it sounds like a jab at Islam, but the question as to why the far east Asia doesn't have huge Islam influence is a valid one. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I too have seen much dummer questions on Quora.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The part about eating pork is very silly. The part about drinking alcohol, not quite so much. If national drinking of large quantities of alcohol is an impediment to Islamic dominance (and I have no idea about that), then forget about Japan. For that matter, much of Europe drinks heavily, and countries like Germany would forever be out of reach.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The "Christianity is more popular because they allow eating pork and drinking" is naive, simplistic, and frankly pretty stupid yet it got a lot of votes especially more against way more thought-out posts... the hell? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Obsession over cultural dominance (and especially it being a zero sum game) is core to right wing authoritarian perspectives. By which I don't mean policy positions, but the underlying way the understand and interpret literally everything. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I tend to think that people just like the stupidest "feel-good" explanations for "foreign" things like Islam. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The simplest explanation is always the correct one, regardless of whether it adequately explains all data. --Occam's razor, American edition. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Heretics and Infidels[edit]

I decided I would check in with, America literally falling apart at the seams and very little I can do about it. Its been awhile hasn't it? Bubba41102Is reaching a breaking point 02:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It has indeed been a duration of time. America falling apart was sadly kinda forseeable. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
meh... looks fine to me. 2d4chanfag (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What was worse?[edit]

Post-Stalin Soviet Russia or post-Soviet Russia? —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 02:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the country. This is a question for an Russian historian. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Also depends on how far post Stalin and how far Post Soviet. Bubba41102Is reaching a breaking point 10:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Totalitarian governments don't tend to change much based on economic system. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"My beautiful bias!!!!"[edit]

I love this. I'm so happy that ikanreed came up with this when reverting an edit. It's so nice to shout from the rooftops.

ClickerClock (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrats[edit]

If bureaucrats were discontinued, why does the list say we still have two? —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason you still have an appendix. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
They still use it over at RussianalWiki which explains PieOfInsanity, the only thing the other account ever did was make PieOfInsanity a bureaucrat. Christopher (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
"RussianalWiki". That's priceless. —Kazitor, pending 09:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Blasphemy redux[edit]

Goats are gay. Saint Petersburg (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure goats are super gay to know you think they are gay. NoJohYouAreTheDemons (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
seems to me that goats tend toward being "Prison" or "Navy" gay, rather than a long-term sexual preference. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Lurker[edit]

I was reading the DysLexicon when i realized i qualified as a lurker, so I made an account. Hi to everyone! I have been reading RW for nearly a year now, love the work you guys do.— Unsigned, by: Doitforstate / talk / contribs

Welcome! On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, we hope you put the Rational in RationalWiki to a good use if you come across cranks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

New here as well[edit]

Hello everyone. Similar to the "Lurker" topic just above, I am a long-time reader of the wiki and decided to at least create an account (given that I frequent the site one or more times per day). I was wondering if, perhaps, anyone might have a good selection of books regarding logic/rhetoric and/or rationalism they would recommend for someone interested in learning to be... well, more rational about things! I work at a Barnes & Noble, so access to books is one thing I very much have.

I'm also very new to wiki editing in general, so I'll do my best to brush up on that before I attempt anything more than a saloon post. Thank you! TheTallMass (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny enough, I've seen a book called Bullsh*t by John Grant in the bargain of Barnes and Nobles. I think it's concise enough for understand, and I think it's a good starting point. It also happens to align with RationalWiki's viewpoints, who knew. It's not particularly kind to Republicans / conservatives and people have whined about it, but honestly, Republicans are more wallowed in bullshit than you think so I do think any serious book on debunking won't be kind on many Republican talking points. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Awesome. Another book to check out when I get a chance (they let us borrow certain books for a short period of time so we have great talking points for our customers). And yeah, I've noticed that those who are Republican tend (key word there) to have a very "It's your responsibility, not mine" point of view that they push upon others without even a brief glimpse of both sides of the fence. I don't really aim to debunk them (especially as a cashier), but I want the ability to should the need arise. TheTallMass (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Pings[edit]

I kinda feel like pings should go in the messages instead of the notifications. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What I want to know is how it actually works. Do you just get a notification whenever someone links to you? Test (please say if you received a notification): User:BigsKazitor, pending 23:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but that was a mention, not a ping. A ping is this: @Kazitor. I feel it should be moved to messages as someone is messaging you to respond, while a mention just means someone, well, mentioned you. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but the alert message was identical to a ping, right? —Kazitor, pending 23:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but pings should be in messages as they are meant to get you involved in the conversation, while mentions are just people talking about you. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand that, I was just testing the mechanism behind it. Now I know that, from a technical standpoint, pings and mentions are identical (as a ping is just a glorified mention). —Kazitor, pending 23:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Confessions of an Anti-antifeminist[edit]

Some time ago a prominent user on this wiki commented that if there were a single word that described the general attitude of this wiki it would be anti-antifeminist. At first I was confused by the term. Was it a clever way of saying RW is a feminist wiki? I can say that I am a feminist in the dictionary sense. Some would say that not being female I could not be a feminist in other ways, or at least not the best sort of feminist. This is no good cause for an argument. On reflection I became more and more to regard myself as anti-antifeminist. But I confess to having watched and liked many YouTube videos by professed antifeminists. I now view much of them as sociological pornography: find an ostensible feminist doing some untoward or crass thing and identify it with feminism. I often would assume that the antifeminist wasn't entirely serious when he called himself an antifeminist, but was kidding on the square. It was when many of the antifeminists showed themselves as apologists for Donald Trump that I began to take them seriously as incorrigible antifeminists. Carl Benjamin's videos come to mind in this context. I can no longer bear to listen to the man. Yes, I am anti-antifeminist. But I still occasionally watch Thunderf00t's science videos. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Feminism isn't a single point of view, it is a label applied to a broad group of distinct views and thinkers–those thinkers have some concerns in common, but often take very different positions when we get down to the meat of particular issues. There are a whole list of issues on which feminists have disagreed historically, and many of those disagreements continue to the present day–transgender issues, pornography, prostitution, BDSM, homosexuality, heterosexuality, radicalism vs. reformism, the role of men as allies or opponents, the relationship between feminism and struggles for racial or class justice, etc. Given that, I struggle to see the point in describing one's self as pro-feminist or anti-feminist. Even most of the people who call themselves "anti-feminist" probably agree with some feminists on some issues. I'd say some feminist thinkers have said things I agree with, other feminist thinkers have said things I disagree with, what is the point is expressing some positive or negative judgement on that amorphous group of thinkers as a whole? (((Zack Martin))) 02:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Feminism is quite incoherent, which is why claiming to be antifeminist is either for comic effect or something disagreeable (anti-woman).Ariel31459 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I find myself generally supportive of practical feminist positions, but consider most feminist 'theory' a farrago of nonsense, rather like the 'theory' that underlies other kinds of identity politics. There has never been a unisex society, which suggests that there never will be. (No more than there will ever be a society that fails to prefer local folks like us to strangers.) And a lot of pop feminism boils down to a litany of grievances against men. Expecting men to support and agree with that sort of thing isn't reasonable either. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
So - the consensus is that the wiki in general is not pro anti-anti-anti feminist views? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, everything about this discussion. The whole setup here was just to get someone to rightly point out that a complex ideology is not a monolith, and then retort with complaints about incoherence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It is largely for the reason that feminism seems all over the place that I wouldn't call myself either for or against feminism. I reliably support abortion rights, as mentioned above. I am at least sympathetic to the equal pay movement. On the other hand, I think the notion of 'sexual objectification' is lipstick for the pig of old fashioned prudery. The biggest problem I have with feminism is with its infection with 'critical theory', which strikes me as a vague but radical program to overturn all sorts of random shit: but whose enactment nobody would vote for, and which is beyond the power of even the most authoritarian government to accomplish in any case. Politicizing stuff that politics can't do is a recipe for disappointment. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
To me that sounds more like you're a sucker for dismissing entire schools of thought based on what you think they sound like, rather than anything actually meaningful. Intuition that you've decided is rationality. When stated in actual words, critical theory is "Let's use research and philosophy about society and compare it to the society we actually have to arrive at suggestions for change" is the most tepid fucking thing in the world, and only the most obtuse interpretation of it substantially differs from that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe. On the other hand, I read a fair amount of feminist discourse. And an awful lot of it seems to be politicizing stuff like, say, the recent Wonder Woman movie. Which may be in some sense appropriate given the inspiration of the character, but still doesn't strike me as a sound basis for a policy program that will get through Congress. I will admit that my approach is informed largely by my literary interests, which lead me to the more crankish feminist texts such as Carol Adams's The Sexual Politics of Meat. Her thesis there is in itself eccentric (if you are a feminist you must also be a vegetarian); but what concerns me more is that her arguing style seems to focus entirely on juxtaposing magazine ads with butcher diagrams of cuts of meat; and references to old academic novels no one will ever read anymore. How discourse like this is expected to convince other people is a mystery to me. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"The Sexual Politics of Meat" - why exactly are you picking a 27 year old screed from a fringe vegan activist and pretending that it's something more mainstream than literally the craziest person you could present and pretend represents the mainstream without being called out on it? CR (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"I read a fair amount of feminist discourse. And an awful lot of it seems to be politicizing stuff like, say, the recent Wonder Woman movie." Who told you this lie and what motivation do you think they had for lying to you? If you invented this lie, what evidence do you have for your conclusions? CR (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not unlike saying "An awful lot of economics is politicizing things, like say the Fed's Prime Interest rate change", in that it takes something that is of high visibility and chastises people for talking about it more than subtler, more important things. And I cannot really find fault with people politicizing the movie. It was a political as fuck(and kinda awful on its political merits). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The difference I see there is that the Fed's interest rates are acts of a government body, in a way that superhero movies are not. To me, this means that political screeds about the Fed are appropriate and aimed at things that governments can actually do. Politicizing popular entertainments, by contrast, at minimum does not support a policy agenda. Or worse, it does, which raises the threatening specter of the Kefauver CommitteeWikipedia's W.svg and similar moral panics. One is merely a waste of air; the other is a Bad Thing. And I see these kinds of argument cropping up in feminist tracts for at least thirty years. (FWIW, I liked the Wonder Woman movie. I thought they did a pretty good job, especially given the character's roots and seventy year history.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Aren't you just complaining about the existence of film criticism and film theory? I mean, if some people want to study films in depth, and create complicated theories about them, what is wrong with that, even if it has nothing to do with interest rates. Or, are you complaining about feminist analysis of film specifically? (Or other "politicised" approaches to film, such as Marxist film theory.) I myself don't really care for film criticism (literary criticism is a different story), but to each their own–I don't need to justify the fact that I'd much rather watch a film than read a film theory text by talking about the Federal Reserve. (((Zack Martin))) 22:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's more about their prominence than their simple existence. It's a symptom of the leftist disease that makes everything about symbols and representation. This of course afflicts the right as well, but not nearly as much IME. You get the idea that people imagine that they're striking great blows against the 'patriarchy' by blogging long screeds about tropes in 1980s slasher films. The feminist analysis of those that I've read is actually fairly good when you strip out the jargon; restated in English, it's convincing but rather obvious. But pointing that out does little to advance the cause of reproductive rights in the places where it matters most. And often, there's a whole lot of eisegesis, a whole lot of strained reading-into, in that sort of thing. Politicizing random stuff like superhero movies and song lyrics strikes me as a sort of territorial pissing; not much different from the right wing lust to plaster the Ten Commandments on public buildings. Mostly, it's a frustration born of political ineffectiveness. While the Trump administration plans to degrade health care, the feminist blogosphere seems to think the most important thing in the world is how a Hollywood producer treated some actresses. It gets old. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@ikanreed. No. Everyone should already know that large categories of text in the humanities are incoherent, Feminist texts included. This is not chemistry. I was affirming that I know it, and perhaps you ignore the point. I affirm that antifeminism is either about a bad joke or about misogyny ( or both). For my part it is an apology, not a criticism.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"It's not chemistry" cries the goddamn fucking idiot about fucking social philosophies. Of course they aren't. I do not get why people extend you the slightest benefit of the doubt for your barely cogent arguments. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Bra-fucking-vo. CR (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
So, I take it you don't want to have a discussion?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
You don't have the basic vocabulary for a "discussion" on this topic. CR (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Given that I don't agree with newspeak, I'd say you were right. But accidentally.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, from this baseline, no. I do want to express my absolute contempt at the point you're trying to make, but the haphazard course of establishing appropriate frameworks of epistemological understanding for different venues of discourse is a long and winding one, and I don't really know that I'm ready to deal with the vacuousness of our apparent starting point when, at the end, people's lives are the playthings of this discourse. Maybe all I really want is to be angry at you for playing the heel. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
OK. I get it. You don't want a discussion. No need to try to explain yourself. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
With that attitude, I'm not learning anything really new or interesting, so I'd call off on the callousness or at least do a better job explaining why the argument is so bad. Oh, I'm feminist and I don't think it's confusing as people make it out to be to consider what's "feminist" or not. In the end, it's just promoting equality for women and there are many, many means of how to do this and also the scope of doing this. Hence, the many different schools of thought in feminism. You don't have to agree with all of them. And it doesn't make feminism "incoherent" as if it's a self-contradicting mess and therefore you shouldn't subscribe to it because you'll disagree on a few schools of thought, it just means people have many, many ideas how to achieve it, and there isn't policing on what's considered "feminist" or "not feminist". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Just as a point of information: I was not using the term "incoherent" as a criticism. In the same sense different Economic theories are often incoherent.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"Economic theories are often incoherent." The fuck are you talking about? Everything except for Austrian nonsense is reasonably coherent. CR (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's right! Capitalists and Marxists have buried the hatchet. Everything is good.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
LeftyGreenMario, you present it as if all feminists have a common goal ("equality") but differ on how to achieve that goal. However, some feminist thinkers are opposed to the concept of "equality" as an inherently masculine or patriarchial concept, and believe that "freedom" or "difference" should be the goal instead of "equality" (see for example, Linda M. G. Zerilli, Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom, University of Chicago Press, 2005, pages 96, 102–107.) And even among those feminists who agree "equality" is the goal, they have such widely different ideas of what "equality" means, I doubt there is any common concept behind the shared label. One feminist sees the campaign for greater representation of women in senior corporate roles as a step toward "equality"; another feminist sees the entire capitalist system as inescapably intertwined with the oppression of women, and views the first feminist's campaigns as contributing to the oppression of women by reinforcing the inherently patriarchial capitalist system. I don't think it is true that pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist feminists disagree on how best to attain "equality", I think it is more accurate to say they have radically different ideas of what "equality" actually is. I don't think there is any goal which all feminists would agree on. I think the best way to understand feminism is to apply Wittgenstein's concept of "family resemblance". (((Zack Martin))) 07:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, though at this point, it's rather pedantic to fiddle around with what this "equality" means. What all of these have in common, I suppose, is to promote the woman. I still think to achieve "freedom" (I assume independence?) or "acceptance of difference", equality or fairness still has to come into the picture at some point, right? Anyhow, maybe it's not equality some feminists want, it's fairness, but overall, I think the core idea is either equality and/or fairness. Also, I don't think I've construed or have tried to make a picture that feminism is just many people working together to achieve a single goal (it'll be more accurate to characterize as a school of feminist thought), I just think what their idea of what "equality and/or fairness" can vary and thus involves different means to achieve it, but I don't think it's unreasonable that some schools work together while others entirely contradict (pro porn vs. anti porn for instance). But yeah, the more I argue about feminism and even if I get things wrong or partially wrong, I find that the moaning of feminism gets more and more senselessly stupid. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The Coop striking[edit]

What am I doing wrong? Its keeps striking all the text after I make an edit.S.H. DeLong (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I got that too. Somehow, one of the strikethrough end tags isn't registering. Not your fault. —Kazitor, pending 02:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe fixed (again) now? It seems @DiamondDisc1's signature is causing the problem. —Kazitor, pending 02:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The goddamn thing did it again.S.H. DeLong (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me —ClickerClock (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that, because DiamondDisc1's signature has a random aspect to it, the issue only arises for one or more of the options. —Kazitor, pending 04:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There was a "-<s>" that seems to have been causing the problem. Now fixed hopefully. Bongolian (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
So, did the coop actually come to a decision? And if it did, what fate awaits Bryan See? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth I would like to add to the provisions of the probation. If you don't mind? He posted part of the coop on twitter. S.H. DeLong (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Starting with my words that he very carelessly plagiarized. Spud (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a rule against this? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Julius Caesar[edit]

Would you say his death made the future of Rome better or worse? —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 01:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a question for an Ancient Rome historian. A TED ED video, about the assassination here.ClickerClock (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

We let a PETA supporter slip by[edit]

and edited all our animal rights related articles into something biased towards animal rights. I had to clean it up. Can you help out? I don't think I got it all. Animal rights, and some other articles. —ClickerClock (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/RockyRob97, right? —Kazitor, pending 01:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep. —ClickerClock (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This guy realizes that they're going to be separated right?[edit]

Does this guy acually think they're going to do mixed lodging or something? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-boy-scouts-for-girls-20171012-story.html

Honestly they should just merge with the girl scouts in someway to make one big unified scouting organization that acually lets homosexuals and atheist in. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This quote from The Cleveland Show pretty much sums up my opinion on the scouts: "Never in the history of the Scouts has anything anyone's learned for a badge been put to actual use. These are busy-work tasks, designed to keep young boys from sitting around, bending their Beckhams." But yeah, they should merge. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 15:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems unlikely. I feel like this is in the same category as all the "I will never use that stuff" arguments for High School. In the UK I've been a Girl Guide tester and while the material I was covering was not exactly riveting it seemed like it's basically useful. The sentiments match in the UK too. Some girls decided they prefer Scouts, most seem happier in Guides, the Guides remain single sex and the Scouts are co. If you're the kind of girl who is always getting told off for being "too rough" you would probably prefer Scouts, they play a lot more physical games and there's a lot less concern about minor risks, because if you hand back a 12 year old boy covered in mud and with a bruised face their parents shrug it off - "Did you have a good time? Well that's what matters". Hand back a 12 year old girl the same way and her parents will probably freak, "What did you do to our beautiful daughter!", nobody will stop to ask her if acquiring the mud and bruises was fun. Alas. Tialaramex (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Remember, the world ends tomorrow AGAIN[edit]

From the article on the end of the world.
It cannot be coincidental, one month after the entry of Cassini into Saturn's atmosphere. This time she comes for real, I wonder if as the woman crowned by stars, dressed by the Sun, and blah, blah or the other chick of that anti-Roman propaganda piece disguised as a bad trip the Book of Revelation.
Amazing the Nibiru's cloaking device, by the way. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The new cabal (which TOTALLY still exists) caused this! Yeah, we may not have ended the world last time, but we will this one. JOIN US OR DIE! —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 12:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Have fun. I love the smell of AAA-level bullshit in the afternoon. 93.191.139.8 (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Nothing, nada, zero, zilch again. This sucks, even a Dungeons & Dragons book has more credibility than all that crap combined.Panzerfaust (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding probation for Bryan See[edit]

I am going to be on vacation from November 1 - November 15. I am going need one of the mods to oversee his probation until I return. S.H. DeLong (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If the recent coop case is any indication, I'm sure the mob will be able to stand for you. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@S.H. DeLong: I can do it during your absence, if need be. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@S.H. DeLong Me too.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I also think that it needs to be determined how many violations of his probation will result in a permaban. I was thinking of using a three strikes rule. If he violates his probation three times he will be banned from RationalWiki permanently. Does that sound acceptable?S.H. DeLong (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem with that, I'd also be happy to keep an eye on See whilst your away. Christopher (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone should probably let him know this conversation is occurring. @Bryan See. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Incentive[edit]

I have incentive to join our Discord server. There's a bot there that generates random 4chan quotes when .4chan is typed. You can even add the board you want it to come from (/x/ and /pol/ are especially stupid). —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 15:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Are pets slaves?[edit]

https://forbiddentruthblog.com/2015/...pet-ownership/

It's just that reading that kind of got the thought into my head and I cannot seem to shake it, actually it sort of started with me playing pokemon and then I drew the analogy from that to the pets that we own. Are we essentially keeping them against their will?Machina (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What kind of messed up things are you reading? That's a crank site. I don't know. Ok. So you get a dog and you treat it very well. Your dog loves you. Does the dog do want to be with you? Yes because you treat it very well. Children do not get to choose your parents and pets are part of the family. Children are born into this world without their consent. Children are given parents without their consent. A child is at the mercy of their parents. But is that necessary always bad? I argue no. If a child's parents are decent and nice, than that child will not suffer. That child will be very happy. If a dog is very happy with its owner, the dog is not suffering, that dog is happy.
"Happiness" is what I use to qualify whether something is just or not. Do you agree that happiness is a better measure of whether something is ok or not? If you answer "yes", than it would be logical to disregard that crank site.
ClickerClock (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
My family adopted a cat our neighbors found outside. He seems very happy here, and they didn't take him, he followed the neighbors home. As long as there is no forced labor, no, pets are not slaves. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifClickerClock (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Happiness to me is usually a good indicator of something being just. I mean there are pets that run away and come back, and separation anxiety is something that happens in the wild (but we can train dogs to be ok with it). SO would it be safe to ignore anything that comes out of that site?Machina (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it would. Because you value "Happiness" as a moral indicator and that site does not. —ClickerClock (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The assumption that pet birds are in prison is terrible and offensive even. Releasing pet birds from their cages is cruel since you willingly let a dependent exotic bird go on its own. Most of the time, the bird will die. Not only that, that runs the risk that if the environment is right, the people who have released the bird creates a new invasive species that may or may not affect the native population. Either way, releasing birds from their cages is highly disorienting and stressful and most birds who accidentally escape are looking for their cage. Putting their cage out is one of the methods recommended to get them back even... So just from the bird experience I have, it's similar to cat and dog: treat a parrot well and she'll love you and even demand your attention. 208.54.4.233 (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Not all times die. No predators (minus cats or rats at best) + Food in abundance = Parakeet invadersWikipedia's W.svg (and not to mention those idiots who release in the wild species as the american minkWikipedia's W.svg, without caring for the consequences for native species as well as their welfare on the wild). 'Nuff said. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Most of us have known animals which #choose# to interact with us: while are the fish in the pool and similar even aware that we exist?
Are working animals slaves? Anna Livia (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe fish in the pool are aware we exist, but they don't care all that much about you unless you condition them to associate your hand with food.
As for working animals, interesting question, perhaps. It seems like unlike a master slave rerelationship, there are more cases where both animals kind of need each other to survive? Though would you consider animals raised for food slaves? And are work animals better off than their wild counterparts? Work animals, say if they are liberated, exactly what should happen to them? They can't exactly go to the wild, they just aren't the same species and the wild is a dangerous place. The analogy just isn't great... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 08:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There is also a case for 'zoos (and their equivalents - eg these beasts and breeding programs' (including 'less flying etc to see the creatures in the wild, so less pollution').
Whatever the exact relationship(s) it should not be abused by the human participants. Anna Livia (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
All domestic animals are better off than their wild counterparts, even if we breed them only to kill and eat them. They are after all also at hazard of being killed and eaten in the wild. They made the same tradeoff that humans made when we took up agriculture: their numbers increased exponentially and their food supply became more reliable. In terms of the Darwinian agenda inherent in life itself, this is a win. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Depends. Some dog races as pugs of those short-nosed cats would have better not exist. As cute as they're, said short nose as well as other more issues give them lots of trouble.195.235.239.100 (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If I ever have another dog, that dog will definitely be a mutt. Kennel club standards do the breeds no favors, it's true. OTOH, none of those dogs would ever have lived without domestication. How many timber wolves have you seen recently? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hot take[edit]

Full sentience (enough to understand and declare self-intentions) is a prerequisite of slavery. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What if one were to force someone mentally deficient to forced work? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario As I pointed out, forced labor by animals is wrong, but otherwise, it is not slavery. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 23:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't it slavery? Slavery seems to be treating people as property and a source of labor, which oxen, horses, and donkeys do too? I suppose in the case of horses plowing a field, if the horse can't get the job done, then the human can't survive on the land and so both don't benefit. As with slavery... I think slavery is more of a luxury and the power relationship is much more imbalanced? You know, it doesn't help that Aesop fables portray working animals like donkeys as slaves. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMarioMentally deficient isn't necessarily the same as non-sentient. Plenty of people who have many different severe mental disabilities are able to express the kind of life they want to live in a direct and clear way. Those who don't probably aren't actually going to make very useful slaves(just a guess). At some level we do treat people beneath that threshold with similar levels of self-direction as chattel slaves, without the forced labor part being incorporated; nearly every aspect of their lives is controlled by outside forces for their own health and safety. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
But the other animals seem to be sentient too. At this point, it seems more like again we hold an arbitrary standard for humans. Now I don't think it's a huge problem that we do, but it's logically hard to argue for it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well the major issue I have is with the website I got it from. There are other things on there but I don't want to be guilty of confirmation bias/ ad homeniem by writing him off.Machina (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein and trial by media[edit]

i am sure everyone is aware of the allegations. how could you not be? they are everywhere. new ones each day. sexual assault. rape. truly heinous. they are printed with the caveat of 'allegations', but at this point they are not allegations they are fact. weinstein is a rapist. theres been no court case, to my knowledge, yet his guilt definite, he is a rapist. i find this troubling. we are told we must believe the victims of such crimes, to take them seriously. i have no reason to doubt weinsteins accusers - their allegations are reported as fact. to question them is almost a crime in itself. i am a believer in innocent until proven guilty, that trial by media is not a fair trial, but here we are. i believe weinstein guilty as charged because the media tells me he is. that troubles me. if these allegations were not so serious, i would dismiss them as gossip, as he said/she said. i would look at the people making the claims and be skeptical. i cant do that here. id be a terrible person if i did. i am not the police. i cannot investigate the claims. i can only see his guilt in every headline and i must take the allegations at face value. id try to reserve judgement on any other claims until something more concrete is presented - an admission of guilt, a police investigation, a criminal trial of some sort, but here? guilty as sin. should i be concerned? has a line been crossed? is this a trial by media? should i be taking such serious allegations unskepticly as fact? i am genuinely uncertain what the correct response is AMassiveGay (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Substantially spilled evidence of huge cover-ups should be more than enough for you to draw a conclusion about a major public figure, regardless of any legalistic view of their individual rights. Reputations being destroyed by credible evidence is fine; the courts will have their own standards. Also: recorded unambiguous public confession wasn't enough to even indict trump, so... maybe don't worry so much about standards of evidence, the American people are bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
In general I agree with AMassiveGay, but the evidence against Weinstein is so damning. Naturally, law enforcement will decide if there's enough evidence to warrant a trial, but there's probably enough to say, "Harvey Weinstein is not a good person." RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No campaign financiers are good people. None of them. They're all awful power brokers at best. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have given the correct response modified by self doubt. There is no defending Weinstein, and no one will do so, unless they are paid to do so. He is emblematic of bad and even criminal behavior. The reprehensible part of the coverage involves willingness to associate the Democratic Party with Weinstein's scandel, e.g. Politico, NPR, CNN, etc.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

He was a democratic fundraiser, and there were no doubt people within the party infrastructure who knew but didn't say a damn thing until it became a PR disaster. There's a lot of notasbadas comparisons to be directed at the republicans who are inclined to elect such people in spite of evidence. As stupid as argument by association is, there's probably some marginal accuracy to it in this case. Probably. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Here is a good polemic on Trump some might find interesting.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Crash Course Comments Section[edit]

I've noticed the comments of any Crash Course (or any channel) video mentioning Islam are full of both extremely Islamophobic and anti-Christian statements. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words, Youtube has terrible comments. People really need to do a better job filtering their comments sections IMO. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
And crushing all that healthy free discourse the internet fosters? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently being a Antisemit and a Zionist means ignoring war crimes,and apartheid[edit]

https://www.quora.com/Palestinians-often-compare-their-situation-to-Apartheid-so-why-dont-they-learn-lessons-from-how-Apartheid-ended-in-South-Africa-and-try-to-apply-it-to-their-situation?share=3661f838&srid=hywZ3 ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have lost some weight[edit]

Can you see me when you are not signed in?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The New Cabal[edit]

Remember that old Discord server I made? Now it's a category of users.ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 21:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

RW behaviour[edit]

Three times now people have put ugly things/bad language/threats on my talk page.

I am one of the few people using a female name on RW - and this does not happen to male/neutral names or IPs, or to female names elsewhere in the Wikiverse.

I am not being 'precious' - but this is totally unacceptable. Anna Livia (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You're far from the only one. Do you know I'm targeted too based on my sex (a female) despite my male-sounding name? I had to protect my talk page. You can check my talk page history too but don't say that "this does not happen to male/neutral names[...] or to female names elsewhere in the Wikiverse." I can name another female-sounding user that also got harassed. Honestly, I don't know if we should just report to an ISP at this point. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the harasser is a Grawp wannabe, you might want to read up on that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
One more thing, though, if we can't do anything besides that, can we just stop talking about these people? It's tempting, but all we're doing is feeding trolls. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There is trolling and there is this sort of behaviour (and the stupid/offensive user names regularly added).
I am going by what I have experienced/observed - and if no complaints are made about such behaviour the trolls win/people decided that the RW equivalent of point 102 here applies. Anna Livia (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This is pretty much trolling. I do suppose complaints should be made, but I think there are better, more private venues to make complaints such as email or direct messages on our Discord. That way, we don't give the trolls any attention they want. Remember, they're doing this because they are bored and get satisfaction by seeing your reaction and can get so caught up in it. As outlined in the page about Grawp (though the troll is an impersonator I think, it still applies). "Do not engage suspected Anon IPs or sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis in debate" though it seems like reporting in talk pages is fine. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Could a user-name wordblocker be set up for account creation - for every Gillespie Road Football Club supporter false positive there will be many 'idiots' distracted from involvement
The 'look-at-mes' are easily ignored, and sometimes put-downs are the best response.
If nobody complains 'the bastards will grind Rationalwiki down' (and constructive users will find other bits of the wikiverse to develop) Anna Livia (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the CAPTCHA could be modified. Could we get a tech here to discuss this? @Christopher? RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't Feed The Trolls and nice job doing that... 2d4chanfag (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes 'snark and put-downs' do work - and are better than 'adopting victimhood' - and silence is not always the answer. (And not everybody has the patience to annoy trolls and others with an excsss of kindness and candyfloss.)
Blocking programs of the type I mention do exist (and did pick up on 'hidden/included bad words')
I assume that most people understand my point of view. Anna Livia (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't you get it? People are picking on you because you are a bitchy loser! Fox in a box (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Get back in your box (you have the mange). Accept that female usernames are free to snark. Anna Livia (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
This is why girls are supposed to wear burkas and not go anywhere without their men. They cry over any kind of cruelness toward them. That's why picking on girls is the best. Ugly ass whore. Fox in a box (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I said 'female usernames' - and it should be girls/boys or 'women/men' - and Fox (who is very obviously motivated by sour grapes has obviously never encountered the more 'interesting' sorts of fanfic. Anna Livia (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC

This is great, please keep the headless chicken mode going! Since you're obviously a sheltered little girl at Pensacola Christian College, shouldn't you be getting ready for breakfast/class? Go eat some Sodexho slop down at Four Winds, loser. The Cook (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(Panto voice) 'Oh no I am not.' (And I have better things to waste my time on than looking up Sodexho and Four Winds (a Mah Jong tile I think?).
I am the sort of person who really gets Fox/Cooks goat - I know my viewpoint is as valid as anyone else's, and that I can complain about obnoxious activity. Anna Livia (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... If you are going to do it then work on your "snark and put-downs". 2d4chanfag (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
But people like that are 'so not worth it/anything better.'
The issue being complained about - and the demonstrations of the issue - do have to be dealt with somehow. Anna Livia (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about all of these trolls we've had lately[edit]

Has anyone else wondered what trolls are like in real life? Like I'm sure the relentless ones are freaking weirdos, but what about casual ones that just vandalize a few pages and move on after being blocked? Is a young girl who replaces a page with HI or a young man who writes YOUR MOM on a page to be assumed to be bad human beings for doing that? If an otherwise bright, friendly, and popular young man or young lady vandalizes pages at RationalWiki, does he or she deserve punishment, like suspension from school, getting kicked out of the band, sports, ballet, scouts, cheerleading, chess club, etc., getting fired, getting arrested, etc? For that matter, are relentless vandals to be assumed to be bad human beings deserving of such punishment? If you knew of someone at school or work who had vandalized pages on a wiki, would you report him or her? 73.91.1.105 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If they're writing the worst of the stuff that we usually have to deal with (doxxing and rape threats, mostly), I don't give a rat's anus whether they're not popular anymore. яεvεятεя σғ ωαη∂αℓιsм, ραтяσℓℓεя σғ ε∂ιтs, ΓУППЯ ・「ҭагк」・асђіεѵеϻԑηтѕ・тіме: 03:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a big difference between trolls and those who do silly and pointless (but ultimately completely harmless) acts of wiki vandalism like replacing a page's content with "HI" or adding something stupid to a page. People who do the latter deserve to get banned from the wiki for a short time and will probably then never come back anyway. They do not deserve to have any further real life punishment. People who make rape threats, death threats and otherwise try to deeply upset people online should (and do) suffer real world consequences, such as criminal prosecution. Spud (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to say here who it is or what school I go to, but there's a girl at my school who I have seen vandalizing a wiki, most recently yesterday, and it wasn't RationalWiki, it was Wiktionary and what she wrote was very innocent compared to what you describe, but it's still vandalism, and the first thing I thought was that what she did was kind of like the crazy people posting obnoxious things on here. She is a very nice girl and I'd hate her to get expelled or kicked out of the activities that she is involved in, but she has done it more than once, and part of me says I need to secretly report it to the principal. I haven't said anything to her about it because I'm afraid she will get mad. I don't know, what do you think I should I do? 73.91.1.55 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
That's tricky. If she's just blanking pages or adding silly comments to pages, I do't think she really deserves any punishment beyond getting blocked on the wiki. It's also probably just a phase she's going through that she'll grow out of, the modern day equivalent of writing on walls. Of course, if she is writing truly unpleasant and insulting things, that's a different matter. Spud (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It's just silly stuff, not bullying or threats, but she's done it on at least six occasions. It's pretty obviously her in each instance because there's a noticeable pattern in what is being said (I won't be too specific because there's apparently an asshole on the loose here with a taste for harassing females, and I do not want that asshole to have any slight opportunity to identify her). Maybe I should just talk to her about it, and tell her that vandalizing isn't cool? 73.91.1.71 (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too. Good luck! Spud (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of 'the scribblers and text-generator-pasters' "wherever in the Wikiverse" are fly-by posters - banning them for 'a couple of days' is satisfying and probably has some effect on the non fly-bys. Besides if this person's actions lead to their school IP being blocked then it will lead to protests by other students being innocent bystanders. Anna Livia (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Archivist is out of control![edit]

102,352 bytes removed in a single hit! What has the world come to? —Kazitor, pending 07:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This page was getting very slightly long.
How many conversations can be kept on the go for long enough to give the Archivist an even larger infodump? Anna Livia (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Theoretically infinite, but of course there are concerns of bandwidth, efficiency, and having a life instead. —Kazitor, pending 09:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
And most topics do have a natural lifespan. Probably other people had the same thought. Anna Livia (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Dare I say that one topic had a very unnatural lifespan. NoJohYouAreTheDemons (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
And just as the WP Main Page Talk Page occasionally has a 'what is WP coming to/consider the children/consider my choking on my tea and biscuits/why is this offensiveness' ding-dong and even 'flare ups over nothing' the same will occur here (often involving 'why will nobody support my illogical position/PRATT and similar). Anna Livia (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I know it's against the usual policy, but I had to edit in a closing parenthesis to your statement. —Kazitor, pending 04:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
No! Not my kibbabytes! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Kibbabytes? (Would the answer involve Earl Grey or herbal?) Anna Livia (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a mangling of w:kibibytes which is itself a purposefully distinct representation of "kilobytes" to emphasize that it measures 1024 bytes intead of 1000. There's not a lot to read into there. If there's a joke here at all(a dubious proposition), it's totally destroyed, unmade in its entirety through this explanation. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The joke is Norwegian blue? Anna Livia (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rescue Dogs[edit]

Since it's in the news regarding California, what processes are in place to ensure that the animal shelter isn't itself feeding into the problem of puppy mills? Animal shelters typically charge $200-$500 in order for you to save a dog from euthanasia, but such large amounts of money is basically comparable to getting the dog from a shady breeder. How do we know that the shelter isn't buying rescue dogs from the sketchier breeders, effectively making rescues a horror story in itself? Note that it's not entirely basis paranoia on my part; online pet rescue sites are frequently fronts for puppy mills CorruptUser (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Otoh, pure bred puppies are typically bred for $1k or more, even by mills, and puppy mills would be taking on relative losses to do fake rescues at that cost. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This differs radically from my experience adopting our two mutts in California. One was being fostered, the other rehabilitated via a prison program after being abused by an owner. The foster was free, the jail rehab dog $50. Also the article you cite points out a case that isn't a shelter buying dogs from a sketchy breeder but rather a sketchy breeder -posing- as a rescue operation. Shelters, actual shelters, the shelters I have seen and been inside of, are run by people who love dogs. If some guy shows up with a dozen cyclops Beagles oozing pus from their noses, the cops are getting called. Bottom line: before you adopt a dog from a place, go to that place. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
If I ever wanted another dog (doubt I will) or even a cat, I would want one that is entirely free of official pedigrees. Kennel club standards tend to lead to pets with physical and mental health problems, the result of wholly cosmetic standards that lead inevitably to pedigree collapse. Mutts bring less heartbreak. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Mutts are the natural form of dogs. An artificial genetic bottleneck has been created by our bizarre standards for them. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Wolves are the natural form of dogs. They don't get along with people. You just set an arbitrary standard for naturalness and then act indignant that others don't subscribe to it. Pure bred dogs, of many breeds, are smarter, more vigorous, or more capable of specific tasks than mutts. Other breeds are useless, ugly, disease ridden garbage that people made just because they could(I'm specifically talking about pugs). But such attributes aren't universal the way moralizing busybodies pretend. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that the genetic lineage that led to modern dogs separated from the Eurasian timber/gray wolf lineage during the Stone Age, very long ago, before the beginning of the last Ice Age in fact. While feral dogs can interbreed successfully with timber wolves, and also with coyotes, they have been separated from wolves and dependent on humans for a very long time; more than 15,000 years. No other critter has such a history of co-evolution with humans. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Except for, of course, goats.
And I suppose the 200 or so parasites that are specific to humans, but fuck those. CorruptUser (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Goats and humans also go back a long ways. But of the animals domesticated by humans, only dogs and chickens were domesticated early enough to accompany the earliest Native Americans into the Americas. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Amerindians had chickens. There was a question about some chickens in South America, but it's disputed as to the origin. CorruptUser (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There were domesticated chickens in South and Central America before Columbus. There's some controversy as to whether they came over the land bridge, or got them in trade from Polynesians. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
A quick look here says that studies have shown mutts are more healthy than purebreeds due to hybrid vigor. Am I missing something? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

can you unblock my EmilOWK1 account?[edit]

EmilOWK1 was blocked for 3 months, can you unblock me? thx.EmilOWK2 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@EmilOWK2 I have unblocked EmilOWK. But NO DOXXING! And if you do it again I will reinstate your ban AND ban your IP for the same length of time. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The above comment was also not actually made by the real Emil (only this account is real). Also, your no doxxing policy is not documented as far as I know, making it hard to follow. As far as I know, I only broke it once. Don't know why there was a second ban. Admin didn't reply to my email asking for clarification. Can it be clearly stated somewhere how to refer to a single individual hiding behind many accounts, maybe the person can be given some kind of RW-wide nickname. EmilOWK (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Doxxing has the "porn test", it's hard to rigorously define, but you know it when you see it. You want a working definition? Using the publicity of this website to spread personal details about a second or third party who wishes to remain anonymous in an attempt to insult, threaten, or cajole them. If your only defense of such information is golden rule-esque "I wouldn't mind it if it were about me" you probably went too far. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
However I think are some obvious things that would constitute doxing:
  • revealing a user's real name when it is not also their user name
  • posting a private phone number in just about any context
  • posting personal details about a user that the user has not themselves posted and that could lead to derivation of their identity (e.g., age, specific occupation, specific residency)
This list is not meant to be complete or a RationalWiki policy. It is just my view. Bongolian (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fun fact, y'all: while we don't have a doxing policy per se, it is defined under the Blocking policy. To quote, "Doxing: Adding personal information about others into a page. This also includes soliciting for such information off of RationalWiki." It is enumerated under the section titled Long-Term Block Reasons. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, what got me blocked the second time was that I mentioned the most common (or just a very common) username of that particular person. One can easily google that to see the person's long history of internet shenanigans, impersonation, harassment etc. as well as their real name. So, it may be considered doxxing by proxy, telling people where to look. Similar to how Big Copyright tried to prosecute people sharing links to copyrighted material, or links to pages with links etc. However, what other username should one use? They are all easily traceable to their real name. How does one refer to this kind of person? Apparently, the admins force one to refer to them using whatever sockpuppet they are currently under, which is quite misleading and annoying. EmilOWK (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out it is notoriously difficult to connect someone's real identity to a RW user; there's no check-user tool here. You claim if you "google" this person's RW account to find their real name somehow connected, yet that could be speculation or misinformation from other websites- this is noticeable on the troll website Encylopedia Dramatica that has a RationalWiki article that says x, y,z is someone on RW, but rarely provides proof for this.Skeptical (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder who the impersonator could be... also see this talk page for a log of impersonations by the same person- he does it on both Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Has done for years. He might target you because you banned him from OpenPysch.Asgardian (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
also see the account name under the impersonator: [4]. There's a word filter on this person's name because he vandalised this place so much.Asgardian (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like he's back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KirkegaardEmil Skeptical (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Apropros of what constitutes doxing: posting an email address does. Also posting information about oneself — if specific enough — can constitute doxing. Why? Because nobody knows you're not a dog… until you dox yourself. Bongolian (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Emil, he has been posting dox of someone including full real name of someone called "Ben", also linking off-site to other accounts and IP addresses. Skeptical (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the Onion brushes too close to reality[edit]

New Evidence Reveals Pythagoras Wrote Dozens Of Unhinged Conspiracy Theorems About Triangles. If you read more than an elementry school summary about Pythagoras, you find out he ran a crazy cult that believed all sorts of batshit things about math, going so far as performing literal animal sacrifices after discovering new mathematical theorems. And they absolutely thought the rules of geometry dictated the behavior of the universe in insane ways. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

At least the fallacy fallacy plays here: just because a crazy person came up with the idea doesn't mean the idea is wrong. After all, science and math are only as good as the evidence. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm gonna say something stupid based on hearing it once from a half-credible source: there's no real historic reason to believe that Pythagoras created his eponymous theorem(though before posting this, I did review the wikipedia article saying the same thing). It's definitely hundreds of years older than him, possibly over a thousand. Many mathematical historians think it was attributed to him by the very same cult we're talking about in a deliberate attempt to deify him, and the name stuck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds missional. Maybe we should talk about it in our articles if we haven't already. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Keeping with the theme the onion made a video about how the government should spy on schizophrenics to care for them better six years later this happens. DEMONcaberet


In case this doesn't get a reply here's an approximate timestamp. Christopher (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd drama[edit]

He seems to have attracted a lot of attention and is stirring drama. Can anyone help in deleting all the related articles? Seems to be nothing more than spam mentioning Abd and some guy called pyramidologist. I have deleted about four of them. Skeptical (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The text does appear to be along the lines of the 'Postmodernism Generator' (with a dose of pyramid woo/pyramid scheme. Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You know what I don't like about the postmodernism generator? The datasets feeding it seem to include critiques of writing/art in the realm of its generation. It's not like there are objective standards you can use for that kind of analysis(subjective ones with objective inputs: sure). Am I supposed to be offended at the idea of some imagined Film Studies major somewhere writing a paper called "Reading Marx: Socialist realism in the works of Tarantino"? I don't know I could argue effectively that there aren't marxist themes baked into Pulp Fiction. If you have some kinda post-modern deconstruction that sort of something like "reading marx in the mating flight of north american ants" or something. I dunno, maybe I'm just an evil post-modernist myself, but that seems like a potentially informative question to ask.
Titles like "The Defining characteristic of Reality: Postsemanticist situationism and neotextual deappropriation" are more absurd. Just like a quarter of the time it comes out as "There's literally nothing wrong with using that analysis on that subject" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Objectionable usernames[edit]

Whoever has the power to change objectionable usernames needs to do that. Blocking isn't enough. 92.20.174.185 (talk) (sophie) 19:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

When I personally notice usernames that are doxxes-as-username, threatening, or something similar, I tend to change those. For those making a stupid "point" with their name, it's fun to change too, but only as a lark. But "objectionable" is maybe not specific enough. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ze vs xe vs hir vs they[edit]

What exactly is the difference? I just know that all but the latter are neologisms, they're all used for singular gender-neutral, and "xe" is pronounced "ze". —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 19:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no substantial difference in meaning and the primary reason for there being multiple such options is multiple people ariving at the same conclusion "There should be a new gender neutral pronoun to describe people like me" independently. I expect the eventual resolution to this dilemma will be some kind of compromise that makes no one happy, especially social conservatives. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have three big complaints about the English language.
  1. We have no decisive singular gender-neutral pronoun (I prefer "xe")
  2. We have no verb inflection for future tense
  3. Our writing and speaking don't match up at ALL
Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In order: we'll get over it, you'll get over it, that's every language. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. It better.
  2. I guess I see your point.
  3. Yes, but I mean how in other languages, you say it how it's written, but it's not like that in English.
Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 22:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Humans should human up and be referred as "it". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gifSupreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 22:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If thou needest a gender neutral pronoun, thou shouldst use the one thou already hast but get little use from today. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Singular they has been a part of English language for a few centuries now. If not for all those language purists who for some reason have no problem with neologisming computer to talk about a thing, not a job yet can't stand something that has been used longer than they live it would be completely natural by now. NoJohYouAreTheDemons (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no distinction between he, she, and it in spoken Chinese. The distinction was made in the written language some time after after contact with Europe. Has this fact made a real difference in Chinese society? Ariel31459 (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Spoken Chinese" is, being generous, a very vague phrase. Modern Standard Mandarin? Wu? Hakka? I won't rule out the possibility that there is no distinction in any of these languages, but the lack of that detail makes me instantly suspicious. Tialaramex (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Suspicious of this?Ariel31459 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that triggered me to actually go read up about this. You are quite right that none of the Chinese languages distinguishes except that there's a tweak to let you write Mandarin with a "woman" radical where the "person" radical goes in the third person pronouns so that you can write "she" and also "they, but specifically all the people I'm talking about are female" and since you don't necessarily pronounce Han words based on how they look that doesn't change how it sounds at all (although it might, as it does in languages where third person pronouns have gender, affect how people think). Well there you are. Thanks for the prompt Ariel31459 (that's a lot of Ariels). Googling the character finds that it's used among other things as a translation for the title of Verhoeven's movie "Elle" which makes sense. Tialaramex (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your thoughts?[edit]

Are they even that commen of a site? https://news.vice.com/story/face-veils-are-now-banned-for-quebecers-receiving-government-services ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

Aside from legitimate religious discrimination interpretation, does this law only cover face covering or just Muslim-wear? If the former, then might related to people identification in case of a crime; however, this is optimistic.—127.0.0.1 (talkstalk) 03:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There are some good articles from the CBC on the subject. I particularly liked this one. AcidTrial (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It's been so weird to me that the minority language Canadians are the biggest bigots. I guess it's because all the pseudo-nationalism harmonizes naturally with the xenophobia? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
i'd imagine its because they are the minority language canadians that might make them prone to thinking their sense of national identity is under threat. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, language is a really good target for divisive politics. It's a nice in-group marker, better in some ways even than skin colour. We know you're one of the tribe because you sound like us. If you are a professional rabble rouser language has the benefit of code switching. Skin tone can't be changed dramatically mid-sentence. But you can switch from talking like a Cambridge academic to Jamaican patois in half a sentence, which lets you flit from one tribe to another at your convenience. Tribal membership is important to most humans, indeed we regard people who are comfortable without a tribal affiliation with suspicion. Requiring that outsiders will look and sound like us reinforces the supremacy of our tribe over theirs. Their existing speech, clothing or standards of beauty are garbage, our tribe is better than theirs. And though it's not causal here, French as a language dominates because of this in what is now France in the 19th century. People who spoke some other language (arguably dialect, but you'd have to stretch a point) were regarded as outsiders, they must now learn Parisian French, even though that's never been what was spoken in the part of France where they live. France isn't allowed to have this as an overt policy any more (it would contravene EU regulations which say minority local languages are to be preserved) but French people may not have got the memo. Tialaramex (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
the part of Quebec I live in has a higher than average middle eastern population and I saw 10-20 people with any versions that cover their face, its much more common to cover the hair. However the number of people a law effects doesn't matter in regards to population. There are far less jewish people than muslims but forcing them mix together men and women in more conservative temples or stopping them from covering their heads since its not part of the uniform (and therefore not "secular" enough for the the writers of the bill although crosses get a pass due to "tradition"). This is an attempt at forceful cultural integration and ignore the moral issues this tends to breed cultural friction. Vorarchivist (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

And then there's this.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I hate when I over over a link and the slug is an unreasonable mishmash of keywords with no hint as to whether there might be merit to it. Please feel free to ignore this gripe that is directed at the writers of the independent. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a bit random. "china burqa abnormal beards ban muslim province xinjiang veils province extremism crackdown freedom" makes absolute perfect sense. —Kazitor, pending 21:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore Wandalisim[edit]

I took care of the main perpetrator, and good old Ronin protected the page, so it should be okay. Plus, I finally have a chance to use this:

Detectivepikachu.jpg Have no fear, Problem Sleuth WonderKirby577 is here!

He will not rest until the Corsolas are safe guilty parties are give a stern talking to and sat in the time-out.

If you think the detective is not doing his job, you can get off of my property discuss it on his talk page.


The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 01:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hold that thought, I'm going to make a banner like that for myself. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"Oh dear, Kazitor is here. / Damn, that's a downer." —Kazitor, pending 21:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"Supreme Leader has ended the threat to the Glorious Rationalist Republic of Goatistan." —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have my own crap in my userpage, but I hope some day, The Mario of Disappointment image will get some use. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's mine:

Oh dear — Kazitor is here

Well, isn't this a downer.

Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away?

Yep, I copied someone else's idea for no particular reason. I guess we'll all just have to deal with it. —Kazitor, pending 01:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I made this a couple days ago:

Capra falconeri hepteneri.jpg Goat-Emperor Bigs has ended the threat to the Goat-Kekistani Empire.

The troll has been banned, though as a result, he had to block their IP range due to this one user showing their entire range is corrupted.

Any complaints against his omnibenevolence may be placed with his words of wisdom, and will be fairly and justly dealt with.

THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY WIGO.

Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 13:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Who wants this to be in Project space?[edit]

ClickerClock/Vandal catcherClickerClock (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

upneutraldown
9Would you like a page like ClickerClock/Vandal catcher in the RationalWiki namespace for easier patrolling?
Made a vote. —Kazitor, pending 01:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Eh, what the hell. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 04:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a thing that helps catch vandals. It may be boring but it's very useful. —ClickerClock (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato and Christopher, in case they haven't seen it. —Kazitor, pending 05:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I like it very much! Spud (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly an overwhelming vote, but certainly has support. It's not like it is somehow detrimental. —Kazitor, pending 04:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with list[edit]

Greetings, can someone provide me some assistance in creating a list which has three columns rather than one long list so as to save the reader from scrolling through an already longer article? TIA MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess you could use a table.
Here's some text It's very... texty. Just press edit to see the source for this
I'm sure you can figure out the rest :) Kazitor, pending 01:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course, you can put multiple lines in each cell. I'm just demonstrating how rows are used. Someone else can remind me how to make each column the same width. —Kazitor, pending 01:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I use {{columns-list}}. It's very easy and accessible.
{{columns-list|3|add list here}}
  • simple
  • easy
  • quick
ClickerClock (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
BTW the table thing for lists is bad for blind people. Tables should only be used for content that is actually a table. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know tables are bad web design, but this is a wiki. Plenty of templates etc. use tables :P Anyway, now I know about that template too. —Kazitor, pending 02:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that wikis' constant use of tables for layout is throwing blind people under the bus. Wikipedia is the ultimate example of "do as I say, but I'm not actually going to do it." Policy guidelines that most at Wikipedia ignore. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, it extends beyond Wikipedia. Plenty of regular websites have an obsession with tables as well. —Kazitor, pending 03:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all. Col-list 3 was what I was looking for and worked as I wished. I know how to construct a table in a wiki but was attempting to have this performed in a list without having to manage a table structure. I am a little lost here, or perhaps not getting the inside joke, but how would tables cause problems for blind people? I think I might be in for a DUH! moment. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no joke, it's about the markup. Screen readers can use the structure of a webpage to determine how to handle it. If it encounters table tags, it would probably assume that it is literally a table, despite not being laid out like one. —Kazitor, pending 04:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah Thanks! MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Pals help.[edit]

I think someone who knows about Asian alt med look this over. I think we let a pro alt med BoN through. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

1,001 inventions[edit]

Has anyone attempted in debunking the 1001 inventions? I have from time to time debunked the claims make in areas in which I have some study - mathematics, physical sciences, philosophy, classical mythology, history and Islam (fiqh, major ahadith, sirah, tafsir, Koran) etc. in an informal manner. I wonder as to how this should be handled. Also, I cannot find the list of 1001. Or should this be regarded as a hot potato? MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What's/What are the 1001 inventions? Link? —Kazitor, pending 04:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
http://www.1001inventions.com/ they do not provide a list though MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
If one take the Light House of Alexandria as an example. It was built by the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty not the Egyptians per se and was constructed about 800 years before Mohammed was born. It has nothing to do with Islam. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So the problem is that some of the descriptions are not accurate/give undue emphasis to certain aspects? —Kazitor, pending 05:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Almost all the inventions claimed are not Islamic/Muslim. So far I have been able to debunk most claims such as Ibn Rushd, ibn Sina being an islamic philosophers, algebra, decimal system, paper making, gunpowder, places of pi, geometry etc etc etc. All are claimed can be debunked rather easily, but I have done so informally. Are you familiar with the 1,001 inventions tour? MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
These myths are worth busting from an intellectual, historical and scientific perspective. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that the 1001 are probably listed in the book 1001 Inventions: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilization: Official Companion to the 1001 Inventions Exhibition by Salim T.S. Al-Hassani (2012) National Geographic; 3rd ed. ISBN 1426209347. Bongolian (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
From what I have heard the books only contains about 100. Much of the exhibits are directed at getting teachers talking to schoolchildren about it. The problem it is bad history and those person who attend without knowing it learn what is in reality pseudo-history and take it as fact. For example algebra was used by Egyptians, Babylonians longer before even the Greeks began using it putting it to use in algebraic geometry. Brahmagupta wrote a treatise on it. All long before Mohammed was born. Basically, the 1001 project attempts to take credit for discoveries and inventions which have been known for a long time and taking credit for inventions which were not inventions at the time, like taking credit for flight where some lunatic pasted wings to his arms and kept jumping off buildings attempting to fly, claiming that Islam invented flight! In that case Daedalus and Icarus invented flight too. Right? Hold on, they did not just invent flight they invented space flight!!!MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
If it's an an effort on battling anti-Muslim bigotry, inventions by the pre-muhhamadian peoples of the middle east and North Africa do help battle some of the racial "primitive" stereotypes. If it's "Islam is the best and it makes everyone genius inventors" as its goal, then yeah, total batshit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
...you actually said "muhammadian" lmao! All my previous disrespect of you is hereby nullified, have regained your sharaf Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Racist Mikemikev is back[edit]

I've been blocking his socks on Wikipedia (the last one being "Lampshademaker", which was a brazen statement), so besides harassing me there he's here.[5] An earlier version was deleted. Can the page be protected so it can't be recreated without Admin permission? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. We earlier already locked Talk:Racialism because of Mikemikev; its now protected to autopatrolled. It looks like Mikemikev used the name "Maunus" here (who is a Wikipedia user), so an impersonation; I also noticed at Wikipedia he's impersonated an ex-user from here named Emil Kirkegaard. I don't know if this is done harmlessly to troll, or with malicious intent. Anyway, Mike gets blocked if he reshows, but he's being doing this sort of disruption here for years (if you look on the Talk-Racialism archives, he has dozens of banned socks going back to 2014.) The best thing is to just lock the race/subspecies biology articles he vandalises for Wikipedia & RationalWiki; if they're locked he will give up for several months, but then comes back when they are re-opened. However we've now locked them indefinitely here.Skeptical (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Attacking Maunus is typical of his edits. The real Maunus was also puzzled about the Emil Kierkegaard account. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Emil banned Mikemikev from OpenPysch, so they have history; someone (likely Mikemikev) also impersonated Emil here as @EmilOWK2. However, the real Emil (@EmilOWK) was recently banned from here for doxing & harassment. So they're like two peas in a pod and also share the same racialist beliefs; the only difference between them is appearance; Emil tries to disguise his hard-core racism since he's trying to be an academic, while Mikemikev is openly a Nazi.Skeptical (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It always concerns me when a random redname comes to "warn" us about a specific off-site user. Like the shittiness of "mikemikev"'s views are standout stupid in the first place and don't require elaborate measures to counter. Why do you follow them around? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue was mikemikev creating an article here trying to attack Doug who is an admin at Wikipedia. Its now deleted. From what I know about mikemikev he debates people on Wikipedia on "race" (his obsession), loses, then goes around the internet attacking his opponents by creating hit-pieces on them. He did this also on Encylopedia Dramatica to Mathesci, someone else he debated on race at Wikipedia. The article he created on Mathesci was also deleted. Skeptical (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump and the Emprah[edit]

So I'm guessing those of us who like WH40k have been aware of the "God-Emperor Donald Trump meme," and I know it's stupid, but I just realized that the comparison isn't without merit, just not in the way alt-righters intended. For instance, consider that

  • Trump and the Emperor both think that they are the only people who can save America and humanity, respectively, and anyone who denies this is either lying or is obviously wrong.
  • Trump and the Emperor see their children as tools to be used and disposed of when necessary.
  • Trump and the Emperor are both kind of selfish assholes.
  • Trump and the Emperor have an almost fetishistic infatuation with gold buildings.

Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Look here Heretic! The Emperor did not use hes kids as tools, The Chaos Gods did. Also The Emperor is not a selfish assholes, he tried to do all he could to save us humans from Chaos. He is still doing all he can and so what if he likes gold, he is a god. Your account has been flag for an audit by the Inquisition - 2d4chanfag (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You're overthinking it. Fascist idiots(see above reply) see fascist iconography in dumb nerd game and ascribe it to their real-world fascist views. Because they're not really capable of understanding or appreciating satire above the level of "Act stupid, get called stupid, lol trolled". Because they're dumb.
If, at any point, you feel the need to ascribe complex motives to internet neofascists, you've fallen into the trap of benefit of the doubt they rely on to promulgate their views. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that they're both similar, but not how alt-righters imagine it. Also, 2d4chanfag, perhaps I misspoke when I said "selfish." Emps does want to help humanity, but it's his way or the highway. Just ask, say, Angron, or even Guilliman. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
No really, that's literally fascism. It's shitty, authoritarian, doesn't really help achieve that end, and only works specifically in the setting because impure thoughts literally cause demon outbreaks and "racial impurity" could literally be an alien infestation. If you read something positive into the empire of mankind, it's because the setting bends over backwards to make it a good idea. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. The only "positive" I can see about the Imperium is that humanity is still alive under its rule. That's it. Hell, some of the saner 4channers think Emps is a douchebag who probably would have run Humanity into the ground at some point. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think the main difference is the Emperor is much more right and well-versed about the world than Trump is. If you want some insight, track down the short story The Last Church by Graham McNeill. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I dunno. Death to the false emperor. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not very much into WH40K, but I thought the Emperor was tied to a life-support system nobody knew how to repair. So far, Trump not. 195.235.239.101 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
He is, but not by the time of Horus Heresy, which is what's primarily being discussed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth The Emperor is not "Its my way or the highway", just look at the adeptus mechanicus and Omnissiah.
@ikanreed It is not some "dumb nerd game" you heretic of Slaanesh. Its a collection of books about my god. 2d4chanfag (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

i think a little bit of my virginity just grew back AMassiveGay (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If the Imperial Truth is fascist, sounds good to me. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorists Have a Fundamental Cognitive Problem, Say Scientists[edit]

A taste:

Illusory pattern perception — the act of seeking patterns that aren’t there — has been linked to belief in conspiracy theories before, but that assumption has never really been supported with empirical evidence. The British and Dutch scientists behind the new study are some of the first to show that this explanation is, in fact, correct.

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean, that's not exactly a surprising correlation. But hey, now there's evidence! —Kazitor, pending 04:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
ahh, another day another 'scientists say that group you dont like are idiots' study. i am expecting good things from the accompanying study into whether people like me (read: actually me) are jesus. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm gonna jump in and say that "similar" "defects" have very positive impacts on people. The tendency to develop hallucinations(i.e. any of the various psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia) is likely explained by the visual or auditory pattern recognition circuits in the brain being too effective. And that sounds like a bad thing, but these same mental characteristics also affect artistic skills.
It's very easy to treat mental disorders as part of the brain being "wrong" or "broken", but more and more I think the neuropsychology is finding that they tend to be caused by small aberrations outside the normal functioning of a particular part of the brain. See the "intense world" hypothesis on autism for another case.
So when I see articles like this, I don't go "Oh conspiracy theorists, who I don't like, are bad and broken." I go "The same pattern recognition that allows me the cognitive function to survive works slightly differently in others". It provides explanatory power when the much more common motivated reasoning doesn't explain the bizarre conclusions that some people arrive at. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm autistic. When I do maths, there's this abstract confusion. It's like there's too much information to process and my brain just freezes. Or my problems sleeping at night. There's just too much things to think about. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Human survival required the development of strong pattern-seeking instincts that allowed us to track game animals, identify edible plants, detect danger, etc. Blame your DNA. Leuders (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but evolution is not this perfect machine that spits out identical cogs to produce locally maximized results on a given function. (Unless it needs to because selective pressure for one factor is amazingly dominant). We're at a homeostasis centered around "good enough" for higher cognitive functions. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
'It #seems# logical that there will be some correlation between certain 'mental aspects' and a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories (but most of us can understand [6])
And having 'strong reactors and other outliers' in a community may be a useful thing for the group as a whole in particular contests or generally - colourblindness being used against camouflage, 'strong face recognisers' and other examples we can think of or have come across. Anna Livia (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifClickerClock (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Relevant to evolution: Evolution doesn't just select for 'perfection' -- it can also select for variation, as a way of reducing "all eggs in one basket" effects. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There are 'many' references for my two examples - and 'the outliers' can be useful for the community as a whole (or given a function).
And sometimes the conspiracy theorists are right or find something that the wider population is interested in or consider worth investigating.
'Mental aspects' - in the sense that some people have 'a knack for' or the reverse, are naturally positive or gloomy etc. Anna Livia (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Indo European Without Cases[edit]

Thats right, I have reconstructed Pre-IE, or at least Early IE (the earliest stage), and found from the data that the 8 cases of the later stage can be derived from postpositions, except for the Dative and 2nd instrumental, with lexical meanings. The reason why I am posting here is because Wikipedia won't allow me to share my information. Here is a demonstration of the singular case forms and their origins.

Nominative -(e/o)s Genetive -osyo and Ablative -ōd

The nominative comes from a middle stage ergative case -ed. The reason why it looked identical to ablative -ōd (middle stage ēd), is because they both come from the postposition h2ed, meaning to, by, at. If we reconstruct the traditional voiceless as voiceless aspirated, the voiced as voiceless, and the voiced aspirated as plain voiced (p b bʰ > pʰ p b), then h2ed is actually h2et, explaining how it became a sibilant. This postposition would have developed in to the ergative case after a shift from active stative IE to ergative IE. This would further be changed into the nominative.

The logic behind having this postposition for the ergative case is that the sentence would look like this, From\to me punch (came) towards you.

The genetive -osyo comes from the PIE root syuh1, which means, sew, stick together. You see, early IE had a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession. The postposition de\do, to, towards, expressed alienable possession, while syuh1 expressed inalienable. In a sentence, with English word order, it translates into this, Stuck to me is this arm, and, to me is a house.

Vocative -Ø

The endingless vocative was in the middle stage an endingless absolutive, in the early stage, simply nothing.

Accusative -m

I have derived it from PIE h2ṃbi, which could have been abreviated as ṃ. Compare this assumed abbreviation to the Irish "um" descended from this word.

The word would have meant with regard to among its many other meanings. This is still preserved in Sanskrit. So X to Y with regard to VERB, is, from X (came) VERB in regard to Y It served to intensify an already clear meaning, but later fell into normal usage.

Instrumental -inē/ō

From PIE wi(na), meaning against, by, and with, in the sense of being next to someone.

2nd Instrumental -it

Unlike the above, this expressed the meaning by means of and is only preserved in Hittite. Its origin is the verb h3eyt, meaning to take and to use, abbreviated to h3it. From this word comes the English utilize via Latin.

Dative -ōy\ēy

From leykʷ, meaning leave away and hence give, from this word comes the English word lend. The Dative -ēy can be thought of as an abbreviation of this word. What this would imply for the early stage of IE is that, instead saying something like, This is for you, it would be said as, I this you give.

Locative -i

From the postposition h1en, meaning in, inside.

Animate Plural -o:s

From -e:t, possibly a particle meaning many connected with Semetic -a:t.

Instrumental, Dative, and Ablative Dual -(o)mbhi

From a combination of h2ṃbhi and h3bhi, the former meaning both and the latter meaning towards.

The reconstruction of an /m/ before the /bh/ is based on Old Church Slavonic.

Dative, Ablative Plural -(o)bhyos

From a combination of h3bhi and e:t.

Tell me what you think of this. Darthmaul (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thats right, I have reconstructed Pre-IE, or at least Early IE
only one reply to assertions of this type ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That, was, crazy. But in a good way. I started this work however as a reply to Answers in Genesis. One of their articles tried to demonstrate that languages gets, more complex, the further you go back into time. Their example was as expected, Latin. I started trying to reconstruct the earliest stage of IE, to see whether it as "complex" as some of it's daughter languages. What I have found is that it was a simple tongue, not any more complex than say...Jul'hoan. Even if the theory above is wrong, it can be demonstrated in other ways, that early languages were simple in that regard. Darthmaul (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's not surprising, and probably considered mainstream, that some kind of postfix system preceded the cases; and that personal endings once were pronouns. The thing that keeps a complicated language together is a small, consistent, and unified group of people. The bigger and more far-flung the language community is, the odds become greater that this bit or that may be done differently over to the west. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"…that languages gets, more complex, the further you go back into time…" is erroneous on it's face.
  1. Complex (e.g. some Papuan languages) and simple (pidgins) natural languages exist simultaneously in the modern day.
  2. The study of pidgins an creoles — at least in these situations — shows that language formation goes from simple to complex.
  3. It would seem likely that the earliest languages must have been simple because the growth of language, brain size, and vocal physiology likely co-evolved.
Bongolian (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I just wish you to know that I totally agree with your statement, that the earliest languages would have been simple. The claim that the earliest languages were complex is one made by Creationists, one I have been seeking to refute. So far it's going pretty great, what can I say, bullshit is so easy to debunk. Darthmaul (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And FWIW, there really isn't a good metric for 'simplicity' in languages. Is English simple because it lacks noun cases and highly inflected verbs? Or complex because of its fuckton of irregular verbs? Chinese speakers get by without specifying stuff that gets spelled out in Spanish. Which is more complex as a result? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You may notice how I put the word complex in parenthesis, it was because in my personal opinion nominal declension is not any more complex than the system we have in English. But creationists like to use terms like this when describing Indo-European, Sanskrit, ect. It might have something to do with a personal attraction of theirs towards fusional languages in general. I picked up the term sophisticated in one of their articles, see [1]. They state in their article, :

Crowley’s model shows that languages can change from inflecting languages, with ‘endings’, to isolating languages. These may appear to be easier in structure, but are in fact equally complex, as the lack of subtle nuances, which the endings and prefixes often provide, leads to ambiguity. Crowley does show that isolating languages can change further and pick up complicated case systems after they have lost them. However, this model cannot be used to explain the origin of highly sophisticated language systems like Sanskrit and Greek. History shows that when a language changes, it tends to become more user-friendly. It likes to be flexible. When it has rid itself of cases, it is free to make them up again. However, as these changes are spontaneous, unplanned, and often unnoticed, it seems impossible that a language as sophisticated and regular as the Indo-European ‘parent’ was made up from a simpler form. Language change, as Crowley’s model shows, would be unlikely to produce consistent endings for the whole of the Inflecting Language.

On the contrary, any model in which case endings develop over time can be demonstrated to be completely correct, as I have just done. Mainstream linguistics already agrees Indo-European lacked true tense, and that at an earlier stage, there were no primary verbal endings or thematic endings. This, together with no cases, makes for what a Creationist would possibly be inclined to label simple.

Early IE could be said to have been simple, in the sense that it would be easy to learn. Having to memorize nouns inflected for three genders, persons, and numbers, along with verbs conjugated in three aspects, with two types of endings, two tenses, about 4 moods, for three persons and numbers, might not be as hard as having to memorize just two verbal aspect conjugations.

The indicative mood is the oldest one, making the others all derived from combinations of pronouns with postpositions, being placed after the verb. This can be said of the Middle Voice.

The Imperfective and Perfective Aspects were also just one aspect, since they are nearly identical in the past indicative. The secondary person endings m, s, t are obviously derived from the pronouns me, ti [2], and .

This leaves one with a language possessing little to no conjugation, if any, and no cases. Verbs were not inflected for person, number, tense, voice, number, or aspect. The secondary endings all originated as words, and only later came to become aspect switching devices.

Reduplication would have been present, with ablaut involved, from the earliest stages. The only purposes this would have served would be to make verbs habitual (the only exception to what I said about verbs not being inflected for aspect), nouns, abstract nouns, adjectives, or more intense.

Early IE was an isolating language, like Yoruba or Thai. Reduplication having been the sole way to change a root, it was very much like an Austronesian language. Darthmaul (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty insane to claim that the 'mainstream' scientific view of the evolution of languages requires anything like 'Proto-World'. The mainstream view is that the question is undecideable; there are limits to what historical reconstruction can do, and whether human languages all had a common origin, or diverse origins, is something we cannot tell because at some point relationships become unrecoverable. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right, but I never claimed that, my words were

Mainstream linguistics already agrees Indo-European lacked true tense, and that at an earlier stage, primary and secondary endings would not have been differentiated.

By tense I refer to the past, present, and future tenses. Early IE did not have tense, it had verbs which were stative, and verbs which were active. Active verbs could not become stative and neither could stative ones do vice versa. Proto World has nothing to do with it.

Darthmaul (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we have a pro primary source policy?[edit]

Secondary sources can lie so very easily. WP:PRIMARYWikipedia's W.svg Wikipedia does love secondary sources. Or is it obvious to fact check the authenticity of secondary sources already? A quote from a book is not much good if we can't read it. —ClickerClock (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Another example of secondary sources being inaccurateClickerClock (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd say primary sources are the best under most circumstances (especially since we're basically a secondary source), no need for a policy though. Christopher (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It would need to verifiable, though (obviously). Can't just have someone make a claim and cite "I totally did a study on this, trust me." —Kazitor, pending 09:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
A whole lot of what we do here is simply restating the claims made by various eccentric sources. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I totally did a study on this, and most idiots think they understand how to properly interpret primary sources when they don't. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Trust me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
An example of a secondary source that is better than the primary sources is a meta-analysis (if done well). Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I like secondary sources more because they offer other valuable perspectives on things and also include context and I'll have to agree with Wikipedia's stance on that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Types of Tobacco[edit]

I recently read the article concerning tobacco, and found it had little or no mention of other forms of its use, mostly concerning "dip", "snuss", "snuff", and other forms of use. Would it be acceptable to edit the article including information about these? I am also wondering if it would be in RationalWiki's mission statement that would make such edits relevant. Or rather, should I include it in my talk page and submit it for review with people before making the edits?Doitforstate (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Doitforstate

If you're confident your additions are accurate and readable add them to the page whenever you want, no need to submit them for review or anything (because you're not autopatrolled the first sysop to see your edits is encouraged to review them by a big red exclamation mark anyway). Christopher (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, I will begin the page as a rough copy on my talk page.Doitforstate (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it best not to aim towards the encyclopedic. What you can to is take the health & marketing approach. E.g., oral tobacco use is carcinogenic,[7] and smokeless tobacco manufacturers have intentionally manipulated nicotine levels to gain new users addicts.[8] Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahh that whould be interesting. Thank you for the idea.Doitforstate (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)doitforstate

A documentary on PMC's[edit]

Your Thoughts? https://youtu.be/9yCONEdFgWo ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

I clicked the link just to find out the meaning of PMC: Private Military Companies. Anyway, right now I don't have the time to watch a ~90 minute film, but I must say I am more than just skeptical of PMCs. IMO they are a tool for governments to distance themselves from "dirty wars". --Mad physicist (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Map of Religion/Irreligion[edit]

ReligionMap.jpg
A friend on the Discord server made this. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 00:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Take it with a big grain of Himalayan salt. Bongolian (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Woohoo, I live in the sane area! Although I already knew that. —Kazitor, pending 04:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Link to the surveys they used to find this out? Christopher (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This has probably used the religiosity index that appears here on articles about countries. Glad to be on a sane zone too, even if some people would like to see it colored blue (2017 Invasion... no comments). Panzerfaust (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Panzerfaust just out of curiosity, where in the sane zone is that? Is your user name any indication? —Kazitor, pending 13:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Russia is non-religious? I doubt it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's just say southwestern Europe. I agree with the remark on Russia even if I wonder if "Christianism" on the map will mean just "Evangelism", since the latter like to call themselves Christians™ and don't like very much worship of Mary, etc. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
That only works if they say the wrong kind of Christian is the same as an atheist! With that logic on this map the wrong kind of Christian is an atheist but a Muslim is religious.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A woo peddler followed me[edit]

Got followed by a certain "Antonin Tuynman" on Twitter. He has a Kickstarter page for a book boasting that it can improve your intelligence by "showing its steps". The cover image of the book appears to have the Devanagari Om symbol on its page. I don't know if I can/should post a link to the Kickstarter or his Twitter (if requested I'll post them) but searching for his name and "Technovedanta" should bring up some of his previous insanity.Rusakov (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Could someone[edit]

Upload a version of this that is:

  1. A PNG
  2. 250 x 65 or smaller

LP Ratlogo.svg
Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: Nvm, I figured it out. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 22:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Why? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Wordmark. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
But why would you need a png for that? —Kazitor, pending 22:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kazitor Wikia only lets you use PNGs for wordmarks. Idk why. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 01:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

(Not) Holy (Never Was) Roman (Only After It Fell) Empire[edit]

Figured out a more accurate name for it: Catholic German Imperial State. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Um... how much do you know about European feudalism and the difference between kingdoms, duchies, etc., and sovereign nations and versus vassals? Crusader Kings II could actually be a great teaching tool, except for Paradox Interactive's bullshit DLC policy.Teurastaja (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Calling the Holy Roman Empire "Catholic" after the Peace of Augsburg seems a bit odd. It established Lutheranism as the state religion in parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Also, calling it "German" ignores the fact that while it always was majority German-speaking, for most of its history it controlled significant territories with some other majority language, such as parts of Italy (back in the 10th and 11th centuries, the Holy Roman Empire controlled the whole of northern Italy, but its Italian territories were progressively reduced, so that by the 17th century they were basically all gone.) (((Zack Martin))) 12:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Drinks with cannabis extract[edit]

There're out there some beverages -I've located energy drinks plus tea- that claim to containt extract of cannabis albeit in very small doses, the latter sold by the way in a supermarket chain. Has someone tried one of those things?. I'm quite sure the effects will not be the same as getting high smoking the thing but I'm curious and may try one of those. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never indulged in any kind of drugs, but my understanding of "edibles" is that THC can only be absorbed through the digestive track when dissolved in conventionally digestible lipids. That's the same limitation a number of so-called "fat soluble" vitamins have. This is why brownies are a popular choice, because the butter and oil are good vectors for THC to enter the bloodstream.
To that end, I'd expect those drinks to be fatty or have very low uptake. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Checked the tea one. Did not notice nothing weird on its taste (like tea) or it being oily, and just a weird sensation on the tongue, that I'd not be surprised if it was just psychological after knowing what I had drank. It costed around $1, by the way. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
In in addition to the digestible-lipid vector ikanreed mentioned, thc is also active in tincture - steeping in alcohol. Although unless the product contained enough tincture/serving to be strong enough that the alcohol % had to be listed, the thc dose would be approaching the homeopathic. Daev (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope, had no alcohol at all -had it said thing, I would have not drunk it-. If the "thc" is the thing that comes from cannabis, the percent was less than 1% (0,04% maybe?). Panzerfaust (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
And don't forget the wine. Anna Livia (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
these drinks contain CBD, not THC. I do not know if they have any effect, I have vaped CBD extract and I would describe it as relaxing and stimulating without getting stoned or high, can confirm it is not a placebo. Have not tried the drinks, why not just vape CBD oil? Probably healthier then drinking so much sugar/caffeine, although im not a medical doctor.73.140.28.198 (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)AnonymousUser420

My argument against the people who claim they are egalitarian, not feminist.[edit]

I would like to point out that an egalitarian is by definition also feminist. An egalitarian is someone who believes in equal rights for all, while a feminist is someone who believes in gender equality. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 17:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

People tend to believe the straw feminist more than the actual definition of feminism, but it's the same thing as people who say they aren't liberal (or they're independent) but they advocate viewpoints that align closer to liberals than to conservatives. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh look, its this old argument again. 2d4chanfag (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
"a feminist is someone who believes in gender equality" is a poor definition of feminism because it excludes feminists who criticise the concept of equality. Some feminists have criticised the concept of "equality" as inherently masculine or patriarchal, and have argued that feminism should be defined in terms of "freedom" or "difference" instead of equality. (I have a source for this statement: Linda M. G. Zerilli, Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom, University of Chicago Press, 2005, pages 96, 102–107 – Zerilli traces much of the feminist criticism of equality to an Italian feminist group, the Milan Women's Bookstore Collective.) I actually don't believe "feminism" can be defined per se; which is not to say that the word is meaningless, but simply that it must be understood as a case of family resemblance. (((Zack Martin))) 12:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

A special section of RW to which known spam-ists and other nuisances are banished with a capacity of 'about a hundred pages' - so such persons can have the pleasures of 'posting to RW', over-writing each others pages, edit warring each other and whatever else they get pleasure out of and the rest of us can get on with things. (The 'one post and depart' group do not count.) Anna Livia (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think that'd achieve much. They probably prefer fiddling with the actual content rather than some special, vandal only "content". —Kazitor, pending 11:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The persons get automatically sent there on signing in, and it has some aspects of a mirror site/sandbox, with the pages that tend to be most vandalised. More an amusing idea than necessarily practical. Anna Livia (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If we could automatically detect that an account was a spambot we'd just block it. Christopher (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
In point of fact, we do have some automatic edit filters that do reduce spam, though I haven't seen a single spambot successfully register since we switched to recaptcha. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
An RW spam-ist purgatory already exists. Leuders (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Can the persons involved be automatically routed there?
'Get thee to the RWWWW playpen' might be a suitable retort to the nuisances. Anna Livia (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't my wiki in there!? —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
...and how did RWWW come to have zero articles and all spam? Leuders (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Careful it does not dis-evolve into the other place. (Trigger warnings crumbly biscuit and drink near keyboard issues) Anna Livia (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

So the latest in Nazi nonsense[edit]

I've decided needs to be an article. Here you go everyone: Wolfenstein (Todo: References, padding stuff about violent panics and/or Nazism) Zero (talk - contributions) 19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the game series is banned or heavily censored in Germany. In fact, Wolfenstein: The New Order is heavily censored and will be the first game that will even be released in Germany. So take note of that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I still can't quite process that Nazis are back (and getting offended at being accurately characterized) and 90% of people don't give a fuck. How do you live in this world? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Economic crises don't tend to be very kind at people's ability to punch extremists in the face. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Political extremism is not pleasant but it's always been natural. It's an essential phenomenon and has always changed the course of history. Right-wing extremism has already led to Brexit and to Trump getting elected. We talk a lot about right-wing extremism but we have forgotten how left-wing extremism has shaped the world we live in far more deeply than its counterpart. Russia would never have been a world power in the 20th and China would never have played the role it will play in the 21st without left-wing extremism. Western mass societies would never have become more egalitarian without the indirect influence of left-wing extremism and the globe wouldn't have witnessed significant decolonization without left-wing extremism.
Alexander The Great was reviled as a beast when he lived and shortly after he died. But with time his crimes got rusty and future generations not only glorified him but tried to emulate him. The same will happen (is already happening) with Adolf Hitler. Ever since it arose in the Mid-East thousands of years ago, civilization has an endemic militarist, misogynist etc. streak. It's normal that many people find the personae of war-makers and conquerors interesting and attractive and it's all too human that some take interest and attractiveness a bit too far and are drawn into a cult of personality. Gewgtweg (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Alexander is remembered for his nearly successful attempt to conquer the world. It was not the generations that followed, but the individuals with the same ambitions who emulated Alexander. Most people have the vaguest idea who he was: a great general. Napoleon is a better model for this type of argument. The modern view is that only lunatics think they are like Napoleon. Hitler is a much different example. Known now not for conquest, but madness. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario >"people's ability to punch extremists in the face." They can try... 2d4chanfag (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel It was coming generations too. Plutarch didn't have ambitions of conquest but he was a textbook myth-maker. One of those intellectuals who push aside hard history and paint their idols and heroes in fictional colors for the world to admire. That's what modern fascists do. But indirectly, anti-fascism helps because it's just the reverse. It vilifies individuals and keeps them in the sphere of myth. Each time we use an argumentum ad hitlerum we actually contribute to the work of admirers because we become trivial and seem biased. Some people will push to the opposite direction.
It was not by accident that Alexander was loved the most in the country he was initially despised the most. Forget the Hollywood movie. Alexander and his successors were for the Hellenes a far worse enemy and oppressor than any Persian monarch had been. No other of many conquered nations fought and rebelled with the same intensity against his rule. No other suffered more grave consequences. War, massacre and immigration destroyed the Hellenic city-state and impoverished and depopulated the area. The Hellenic nation essentially suffered an ethnic and cultural death and this is not at all exaggeration. A Hellenist was not the same as a Hellene. He spoke a related but wholly distinct language. He was a heathen but his religion was syncretic to the point it would have been alien to Sophocles. He might have had a fraction of Hellenic blood but just like modern Americans he was a diverse genetic product. A modern American may be of Irish stock but hardly just Irish. Late Hellenists loved Alexander. They would not exist without him.
Most Neo-Nazis live in America and Russia, in countries that during wartime hated him. Racialism, eugenics, anti-semitism etc. have a long tradition in America and other formerly imperialist western countries. They weren't born in Germany nor did they become more widespread in Germany. All the völkisch movement did from which Nazism sprang, was give them a nationalistic twist and imbue them with paganism and the occult. Today liberal capitalism is not what it used to be. So the popular consciousness is searching alternatives elsewhere and nationalism gains ground. In a country where many people come from areas formerly under the rule of German-speaking monarchs, where protestant anti-semitism is widespread, that invented the idea of the 'under man' which the Germans translated as untermensch, where racism runs very deep, where racial segregation is still the order of the day, which stations troops everywhere across the planet, that experiences demographic decline, that has always lacked a serious left and associates the left with every sort of profound social negative, that faces terrorist threats from brown people, that has a government beholden to Wall Street bankers and corporate executives, is it any wonder that white nationalism and Neo-Nazi sympathies are present in every third white republican voter?
Russia has perhaps fewer Nazi sympathizers but definitely more Neo-Nazi extremists than America in absolute numbers and they're even more violent. It is felt as a way to regenerate a national consciousness after the demise of Soviet communism. Since Russia is a multi-ethnic state headed by a Slavic nation, lacks a nationalist tradition (in the historical absence of a bourgeois middle class), and has reasons to reject its communist past, Nazi collaborators are seen as heroes that wanted to take out a supposedly anti-Russian regime and Russian Slavs are seen as a sort of superior race. Furthermore, given that the Russians won the war (no need to feel inferior) and given that aggressive expansionism is how they imagine their country's future, teenage thugs and violence professionals (ex-military, private security, criminals) are drawn en masse to Neo-Nazi cults. Neo-Nazi sympathies are spread elsewhere throughout the former Soviet bloc. In the Baltic, even functionaries from the highest levels of government are seen attending pro-Nazi anniversaries and ceremonies. The Baltic states have perhaps the most Nazi sympathizers in terms of population percentage and historically they were the most collaborative of all subjugated nations. More wartime German graveyards exist there than anywhere else even if relatively few died at those places.
Personally, I don't believe Nazi atrocity was as exceptional or mad as it's been claimed to have been. Only a relative ignorance of the reality of violence in the past and present can justify that view. The genocide of the Jews was ultimately a decision by a handful people who had this belief that the Jews are by nature malignant and destructive for societies, that they were were in control of Nazi Germany's enemies. If Strasser or some other Nazi were leader of the Nazi party, the Jewish genocide would not have happened. But in the final analysis it doesn't really matter. The Jews were generally highly urbane and skillful people (unlike many Nazi collaborators who were of peasant origins) but populations rose so rapidly following the end of the war that their absence was hardly felt anywhere, except maybe in Poland. The victims were shot or gassed. But a good portion of those who were sent by the trainload to their deaths, perished inside the cars, often by suicide. The gassings were very painful but must resemble crushes and stampedes. The majority of the victims inside the chambers died as a result of crushing rather than the toxic gases.
After so many stunning victories that made it obvious he was commandeering the best tactical army in the world with the most senior and experienced staff, Hitler might have been excused for believing he could finish off the USSR in a swift campaign. At the time of the invasion, American analysts didn't expect the regime to last till summer's end. After all it was logical (not 'mad') to believe that Germany would not have been a world power without more land, more people and more resources. In fact, the most fundamental reason the war was lost was not Hitler's errors (these have been grossly overhyped by former German generals as an alibi for every defeat; Stalin made extremely costly errors too) but logistical shortcomings. The war machine needed more men and materials and the economy needed more rationalization. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
What we do know: Hitler was a psychopath. Hence a madman. Usually when you are responsible for the deaths of 40 million history can be unkind. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've resurrected RationalWikiWiki![edit]

Here it is. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No you didn't, you created a new wiki by the same name. One with less information relevant to Rational-Wiki than the interior of Hillary Clinton's babymaker. There's a reason RWW died; nobody cared enough to maintain it. Good luck to you though! 172.58.12.128 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Well to be fair, the project is really young. Revival may happen yet. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I doubt revival will happen but a good start might be copying over articles from Category:RationalWikiWiki and archive.org. Christopher (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)stop
RWW died because it descended into a griefer shitfest, where anyone who'd fallen out with another user could spew bile. There's a reason I never copied over the articles about users to here; it was better to let the drama die. May I ask a) how you intend to stop drama and bitching happening on this relaunched version and b) how long will you able to maintain interest in the site? Six months? What happens after that? 79.68.225.6 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (Sophie)
Why~~~~~~~~~~y?—127.0.0.1 (talkstalk) 05:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The only good RWW stuff is in Bicycle Wheel's (and one toher user, forget who)'s archives. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not just the only good stuff, but the only stuff. I chucked RWW into the wayback machine a couple of years ago and it didn't have anything. 79.68.225.6 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: We now have Template:U and Template:Ping. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: We also have Template:Stub. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a list of my hotspots with two editors: [9]Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 23:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Huzzah! RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget to create categories and to put your pages into them. And will pinging work on Wikia? Spud (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Spud We think so. And yes, we are working on categories. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not remember the National Archives existed when I named this. Also, I had Wikia rename it to RationalWikiWiki. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the archives[edit]

I can now say that I'm happy that RWW shut down. A lot of trash with editors enjoying suffering of other editors. It's mostly trash. But now introducing lighthearted and friendly jokes about other editors! The best article currently on our tiny wikia. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Education[edit]

The problem is simple. We have industrial age education in a service economy. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope there are more videos that explore why most kids HATE school. I hated school and my therapist even said it was a little traumatic for me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
And you know school doesn't teach us critical thinking, which is a highly important skill. I know the video goes a little bit into it, but it can also cite stats on how many adults believe in evolution, global warming, that Earth goes around the sun, and other basic elementary facts. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The worst part of school for me was forced socialization. On the other hand, the notion that industry is for brown and yellow people and what people in advanced economies have to do is this year's version of 'learn computers' strikes me as seriously shortchanging the future. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd argue they do tacitly try to teach critical thinking, but ironically it's often bundled in rote lessons where you regurgitate the N rules they give on how to think critically on a test. There are explicitly anti critical thought movements in the conservative side of American politics which is a separate can of worms. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Changing the angle slightly - there should be more education aimed at those who have left school/are in work and you find your areas of interest/can appreciate it more etc (and instead of '100 channels unwatchable TV').— Unsigned, by: Anna Livia / talk / contribs
Well, I did go to critical thinking class but I was rather disappointed and I have kids spewing out the awesomeness of coconut oil and the teacher even allowed a 9/11 truther person to spout out shit. I wrote about anti-vaxxers and their ire. The class was more focused on how to debate rather than challenge and point out the lack of any merit of 9/11 truther or the magic of coconut oil and that made me super frustrated. I think the best way to teach critical thinking is to investigate health claims on coconut oil or actually dissect the entirety of a website like NaturalNews or an anti-fluoridation website that so many people alarmingly fail to do.
"industry is for brown and yellow people", what a curious statement. I'd think industry is for useful idiots who can just vomit out words, and the system favors white people (not sure if they like mixed races like me, no one ever talks about mixed races and I often have trouble applying myself to white or Asian statistics; am I more "white" or more "Asian"?). But tell me about it: Asians are less likely to get hired for some reason and some may have experienced reverse affirmative action because so many Asians have landed successful positions. I even sometimes wonder if my last name by itself lowers my chances of being hired because people might think I have language deficiencies typically associated with Asian Americans. On the other hand, this is Los Angeles, it might be "normal". My impression from high school was that GPA matters more than test scores. On the other hand, I like how my school put so much emphasis on grades that once you're in college, your high school GPA means jack shit. Oh and if my high school was supposed to prepare me for college, it failed horribly since I struggled so much at high school (and got a 3.2 GPA though my parents wanted me to do so much better) and high school was such a massive burden on my mental health. I didn't just dislike school, I loathed it with every ounce of my being and some of my journal entries were angst and wanting to blow up school from the face of the Earth. I don't think school is supposed to do that to kids. If it's relevant, I have ADHD. The experience is rightfully coined "academic agony". I wasn't diagnosed into middle school probably because 1) I'm a girl and 2) I'm not explicitly failing my classes, just "under-achieving" (getting Cs instead of As). Despite literally everything else like getting in trouble with the teacher every single year for six years in elementary school. LITERALLY EVERY YEAR. It's to the point I wanted to have just one year I didn't get into trouble and this one year I wanted didn't happen after I was diagnosed but I still got into trouble, just less often. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The video author seemed to be under the impression that manufacturing and industry were irrelevant to his presumably mostly White and European audience. The future would be connected electronically and service oriented, is what I got from the video. That kind of thinking is part of the problem, and it does relegate manufacturing as something done cheaply abroad by yellow and brown people. More inportantly, it's complicit in a cognitive-elitist vision of de-industrialization, in the future where we make nothing and are all busy selling each other smartphone apps and insurance. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

As someone currently in their last year of secondary education, I can say that the problem has nothing to do with what is being taught, it is the way it is taught. The simple fact of the matter is that all schools, even ones with pretensions of teaching in a "progressive" way or that teach "inclusive" content still use Prussian style systems. I don't believe schools should just be a place to hammer students into being obedient workers, whether in the service sector, or the industrial sector. The reason schools don't teach much critical thinking is simple, it's because you are not expected to think, you are expected to work. Also as Carl Sagan once stated in The Demon Haunted World, if schools taught critical thinking to students, they would find that students may not limit their critical thinking to what the teachers wanted them to. They may start questioning other topics like religion, the family, the state, and other hierarchies, and may reach some inconvenient conclusions.'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, it seems that critical thinking is devalued. If taught properly, history class is supposed to promote critical thinking. Science is also supposed to promote critical thinking. The problem is that science classes don't emphasize on the importance of the scientific method. It seems like you're taught how to do experiments but not why they're important or why it's important to constantly replicate studies. Science classes should show children actual bad studies, we have no shortage of the crap the anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO people like to spew out. The textbooks themselves are very valuable sources of information, but students don't appreciate their textbooks and read only what's required and not the little text boxes and study image captions. Furthermore, art classes are NOT required even though they should be stressed for their importance to critical thinking. In my opinion, art and critical thinking are very related to each other. You NEED critical thinking to make good art. But art is devalued and as people dismiss it as just pictures or just "creative" and they're "impractical". Art has always been the medium people go to to promote critical thinking and challenge preexisting conventions, and it's a very powerful medium. Realism forces you to pay attention to the real world and how light works. Abstractionism still forces you to appreciate the form and color of the art. I mean, there is so much learning and thinking related to art but people just think it's nothing when it's not. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Imagine if science class took the format of "we're going to use this month to, as a class, come up with the correct answer to [ambiguous question] using experiments devised by the class". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. What are you trying to communicate here? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Bad. The classes don't have enough funding :P —Kazitor, pending 08:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd think hypothetically, if funding didn't get in the way, would this be a Good thing then? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually liked being in school, it was a reliable routine and the supposed “forced socialization” actually worked because otherwise I wouldn’t have the nerve to do it myself. I’m also glad they didn’t teach critical thinking because after discovering it and practicing it, the process hasn’t brought much joy to my life.Machina (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

We Become What We Behold[edit]

We Become What We Behold is a short web game by Nicky Case (who you may know from Coming Out Simulator 2014 about media, racism, and loops. It was released just after Trump won the election. It's only about 5 minutes long and makes a great statement. I highly recommend you to play it.

Like, seriously. It has a very powerful message.

64.231.124.247 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In the game, player shows images to in-game peeps to change them; IRL, Nicky Case uses game to change people's perceptions. Who has taught you that everyone not holding a "progressive" view is non-empatising, science hating deplorable? Alliumnsk (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It's interesting, but I wouldn't say it's particularly novel. The media can affect and alter people's opinions and views, and hence it has a responsibility to do so responsibly. —Kazitor, pending 11:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be winnable. If you ignore the first 'crazy' character nothing else shows up. Not sure how long it continues to run if you do not click on that guy intimidating another character. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's something else I wanted to mention: it seems less effective when it forces you to make certain decisions. If there were some sort of point system or whatever that encouraged "effective" headlines, then it might work better. —Kazitor, pending 04:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Stuck needle syndrome[edit]

(As in old record players)

Is there a better term for those people who 'come up with a theory which does not quite work', and stick to it regardless of the counter-arguments proposed and errors mentioned? They are not trolls as such (or at least not yet), but they are nuisances, sometimes abuse others who join the discussion and appear to get some enjoyment out of being fed.

'Occasionally expounding the pet theories and viewpoints we all have' does not fall into this category (and is part of 'the functions of Rationalwiki'). Anna Livia (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fundamentalism", "Wilful ignorance", etc. probably. I'm also forced to point out that you didn't close the quotation mark for your definition... —Kazitor, pending 12:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I meant the miscellany of persons who start discussions on RW and then disrupt the interesting discussions that arise among the other participants who respond initially in good faith. Anna Livia (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
That's just "being an ignorant monomaniacal twat" isn't it? Boredatwork (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The golden hammer is related to this. Bongolian (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Is it intentional that you bring the golden hammer into every discussion where it could possibly be mentioned or am I imagining things? Christopher (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Anti-Ed Gillespie Ad[edit]

I was browsing around YouTube last night, and I stumbled across this ad that targets Virginia's Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie... Be warned, it is graphic, and highly provocative. I understand that mud slinging is quite common in elections (especially gubernatorial and presidential elections), but depicting children getting run over by a man who voted Republican in an election? Especially if they're from minority groups? This is way too damn far. Hell, even the truck depicted in the ad carries a Gadsden flag license plate, as well an Ed Gillespie bumper sticker and a Confederate flag. Pardon me for showing my conservative bias, but this shit is unlikely, and is blatant race baiting. If anything, this is just fractal bullshit laced with a weak message that will only piss off everyone for the wrong reasons. The living oxymoron (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not very much worse than the notorious daisy picking girl ad run by LBJ against Goldwater in 1964. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Portugal without net neutrality[edit]

PortugalNet.jpg

This is what Portugal's internet looks like now. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 19:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Joke or real? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/country-net-neutrality/Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Some days guillotines start looking like a real nice accessory. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
For what I've seen on Twitter, Portugal has net neutrality, the basic EU rules for that as happens in other EU countries with no NN laws, but the company does not give a fuck.
I wonder where's basic Internet browsing there as well as protocols as BT, online gaming, etc suspecting these are packages for smartphone (=mobile), not home, users (EDIT: A portuguese user comments in Twitter that, yes, that thing is for mobile users and the purchase of those packages mean those apps' data do not count against global usage, not that are blocked without buying them. The same happens in Spain with at least one company according also to Twitter). Still, a bad precedent knowing how, NN was not to exist in EU, datacaps for even home accounts would likely be a reality as well as to cut Internet in bits and sell access there that way. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If socialism is technically a stepping stone to communism than what actually differs between the two[edit]

Also what makes a Democratic Socialist? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

It depends on the flavor of socialism. There are many types of socialism. Many are not a path to communism. Socialism ≠ communism. Socialism is an umbrella term covering a wide array of leftist economic views including communism. Differences between socialism and communists. So all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Socialists believe in the state control and management of the means of production, and usually are quite hostile to private businesses running around without any form of checks. Communism is when the state is removed and the proletariat is in charge of the means of production. They use the resources to help every person in society, and make every business publicly owned by the people, for the people. Democratic Socialism is the belief that socialist policy and the democratic system can both coexist- therefore, they don't believe in a revolution, and believe that such attempts are not socialist. They also believe in having private businesses exist, but not to a high level of exploitation. Examples of Democratic Socialist countries include....... nothing, because they don't exist. Examples would include Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, and (to a ideological point) Noam Chomsky. Father White Jackson AKA 194.82.180.254 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

IP - a word such as 'persons' should be included in the last sentence.
There are many varieties of socialism and of communism - often overlapping but sometimes incompatible - and many viewpoints that overlap with them/share some principles and ideas but which are of a different persuasion. (Didn't Karl Marx say he was not a Marxist?) Anna Livia (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'm neither a socialist nor a communist, but the accurate description of the differences is not hard. "Ownership of the means of production by workers" and "A society without social class, from each according to their ability to each according to their need." I... kinda think those are radically different, and if you believe the underlying theory, socialism leads towards the utopian ideal described by communism, eventually. There's however, the idiot's view of those ideas which is essentially "if it involves the government helping people instead of exacerbating structural social problems it's socialism and if it involves direct financial aid to any person, it's communism." That definition is used unconsciously even on the left here in the US. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I tend to think that the notion of "a society without social class" is pure moonshine. I do think that human society is a family, not a marketplace. The rich have duties to the poor, and ideally these duties are embodied in universally acknowledged customs, as are all other social relations where someone is above another. Our problem is that we've allowed a marketplace to take the place of custom, and in a marketplace the expectations of employers and employee are allowed to shift, and tend inevitably to shift in favor of owners. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that you are overemphasizing how useful custom is in society. Historically people weren't that kind to kids they didn't want (there's a reason why infant surviving being left to die in the wilds is a recurring motif) and I don't see how we can socially control the rich to not abandon the poor any more than it stopped parents from abandoning kids they didn't want in the woods, especially because social sanction dosen't have the same practical power it once did (we can't exile them or withhold food from them for not doing their part)Vorarchivist (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
An ideology having a stupid premise does not prevent it from being accurately described, and your certainty that you've found "the" problem with modern capitalism is meh to me. You're wronger than the commies. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that custom would work now. Law will have to be resorted to. I do however find fault with the fetishization of "growth", "efficiency", and "productivity", all of which are obstacles in the way of creating a steady-state economy. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Truth be told, you need incredibly reliable, repurposeable automation to do away with those concepts as important goals. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Defining Sexual Freedom[edit]

This kind of got me thinking because of the whole free love bit in the 60's and my recent learning about asexuality in the current time. THen there is stuff like this:

https://forbiddentruthblog.com/2017/03/14/sexual-freedom-truthfully-defined-and-personally-achieved/

Point being, how does one define it? Is it the freedom to have as much or none as you want without judgment? What about those who abstain, should they at least try it first before saying they don't want to be any part of it all?Machina (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should be much different from idea of freedom in general. Something along the lines of - you should be free to do whatever you like unless it impinges on the freedom of others.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
What Bob said, as well as "without judgement" - the social peer pressure around sex can sometimes be as life-altering as any law. 79.68.226.156 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well even though peer pressure can certainly be an influence on the fact, so can personal ideas about “superiority” from either being a virgin (which the link seems to be getting at) or being a player, which seems to be a thing in society. Such ideas of being better than others surely is a hinderenace when it comes to sexuality. I remember feeling pressured to be “experienced” in the arts and to have these talents and that if you have a list it makes you amazing. But I was also hammered by fear, fear of performance. I felt caught between two extremes.Machina (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Fear is the mind killer. 2d4chanfag (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "freedom", only "freedom to"–the concept of "freedom" is meaningless without identifying what specific acts one is claiming the freedom to perform. Sticking "sexual" in front of the word "freedom" doesn't change this. An example of a "sexual freedom" is the freedom to own sex slaves–that is an example of an evil sexual freedom. Freedom is good when it is freedom to do good, and freedom is evil when it is freedom to do evil, and that is true in sexual matters and in all other matters also. But the abstract concept of freedom (even sexual freedom), without identifying an object, is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it is neutral. (((Zack Martin))) 21:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Zack hit the nail on the head this time. Is rape sexual freedom? Telling a man not to is violating his sexual freedom, but expecting a woman to allow it is a violation of her sexual freedom. Crop (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A project I am thinking of[edit]

I am thinking on doing an article on the felony charge of "Criminal Transmission of HIV". Thoughts (Side note- first time I logged in within the past month, so hello)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but you should probably make a draft first. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh man, I can not imagine a wormier can of worms. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
If you know you have an STD, and you have sex with someone without revealing to them that you do, then in my view that is morally tantamount to sexual assault–they may consent to sex with you but they haven't given informed consent. If you don't tell them and they say "yes", well there is a decent chance they would have said "no" if you had, which makes their "yes" of questionable validity. Before you have sex with someone, you are morally obliged to reveal to them every fact which is likely to be significant to their decision as to whether to consent. I don't think there should necessarily be a special rule for HIV; I think the moral rule is the same for all STDs, but the nature of the disease (the severity of its consequences and its curability) is relevant to judging how grave a violation of the moral rule is. So, violating this moral rule with respect to HIV is arguably more grave than violating it with respect to certain other STDs, since HIV has some of the most severe consequences, and it is incurable (it can be treated but cannot be cured.) So, that is in my view the answer to the moral question; what should the law say? I think if something is morally tantamount to sexual assault, the law should treat it similarly to how it treats sexual assault. However, I don't think we should have special laws for HIV, since from a moral viewpoint HIV is not special as such–prior to the development of antibiotics, syphilis was a death sentence, and with increasing antibiotic resistance that may become true again. (((Zack Martin))) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
people can and do get sent down for deliberate infection of hiv. its rare but happens. if you are basing your sexual health on the honesty of your partner, you are playing russian roulette. all you can do is ask. you cannot expect people to volunteer such information everytime. if you dont ask your partners status they can make all kinds of assumptions, dependant on where you picked them up, what kind sex you doing, drug use etc. you dont ask, they may just assume you are hiv+. theres a lot of stigma with stds. folk are reluctant to declare their status if not pressed. and thats if they even know their status. the only circumstances in which you can say its 'tantamount to sexual assualt' is they are positive, not on meds, lie about their status and pressure you for bareback. if your partner is in a sauna, or on grindr, chems are going to play apart in the sex, you assume they have something. they assume you have something. act accordingly. condoms. prep. regular testing. maybe avoid the dark room. the ultimate responsibility is yours. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
"you cannot expect people to volunteer such information everytime". My view is that they are morally obliged to do so, and they should be legally obliged to do so too. "theres a lot of stigma with stds. folk are reluctant to declare their status if not pressed" – if a person is morally obliged to reveal some fact, then I don't think stigma or reluctance excuses them from that obligation. "and thats if they even know their status" – well, obviously if they don't know, if they are invincibly ignorant, they are not morally responsible, and should not be legally responsible either. "not on meds" – while medication can reduce the risk of transmission, it cannot completely eliminate it, so I don't think medication eliminates the obligation of a person who knows that they are infected to divulge this information to their sexual partners – their partners have the right to decide for themselves whether that is a risk they are willing to take. "chems are going to play apart in the sex" – it is generally accepted that self-administered intoxication with mind-altering substances does not eliminate one's moral or legal responsibilities, nor alter one's culpability for violating them. (((Zack Martin))) 09:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
for people in high risk groups, your preaching is unenforceable fantasy. you really want to off load your own responsibility onto someone in a sauna whose been smoking meth all night and fucked about 5 people already? if it is applicable to know you ask. if there is something you need to know you would hope it would be volunteered. if they even know. a clean bill of health from their last test is only reliable to the date of the test. you only have their word they have a realistic grasp of how safe they have been since. and when exactly you disclose all these? when is it pertinant? before penetration? before a blowjob? handjob? kiss? handshake? perhaps you would prefer a badge so you wouldnt even have to talk with them. these questions only ever arise if you going bareback. the shame and stigma associated with hiv might be enough that if they are on meds and your going with condoms, they may not deem relevant information to the person they just met 5 mins ago and probably wont see ever again 2 hrs from then. once again, your sexual health is your own responsibility. it is idiotic to rely on someone you just met, who, if you met them at particular locations, are inherently unreliable. the world is a murky place. the best you can hope for is 'probably fine, fingers crossed'. your legal obligation would provide nothing but a false sense of security and sanctimony. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Morally speaking, I don't think a person should be "in a sauna whose been smoking meth all night and fucked about 5 people already". To start with, smoking meth is really bad for you, and harming your health through drug abuse (whatever the legal status of drugs involved) is immoral. Also, I don't think people – whatever their sexual orientation – should be having sex with multiple strangers in one night. I think ideally people would only have sex with people whom they know, but if they are going to break that rule, at least do it in such a way that leaves open the possibility of becoming more than strangers to each other (e.g. one picks up someone in a night club on Saturday night, ends up taking them home, has breakfast with them on Sunday morning, one is at least trying to keep open the possibility of something longer-term, or even just a friendship, whether or not it actually eventuates as such). I think the kind of extreme promiscuity you are talking about is immoral regardless of the genders of the people involved. (((Zack Martin))) 17:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
this the situation on the ground. the pitfalls of these lifestyle choices and behaviours feed of each other, they are integral to peoples sense of identity. this is what needs to tackled to effect any positive changes. moralising does not do this. a blanket condemnation that makes no distinction between genuinely damaging behaviours and your own sanctimonious distaste does nothing but shame people. it reinforces already damaging behaviours. such moralising is and always has been part of the problem. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I know in several states you can be charged with attempted murder or murder (if someone dies of HIV infection). Here is a link to the CDC website on the subject at hand- https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The thing is[edit]

...Rationalwiki needs people like me more than female user names need it - especially with the fuss about Hollywood, Parliament and elsewhere, and given that there are other holes we can go to.

Noli illegitimi carborundum, sed Rationalwiki carborundum illegitimi.

As for the idiots in question 'you wish, jellyfish.' Anna Livia (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I accept that RW is meant to be rumbustious and opinionated, differences of opinion, and there will be trolls and other nuisances 'and all the rest of it' - but I want the backchat to be for what I say, not what I am. I don't think this is too much to ask is it? Anna Livia (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I say let people protect their talk pages! —ClickerClock (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I second the motion. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 03:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support that motion too. We do in deed need more female contributors and they should be able to come here without worrying about being harassed. Anna, please don't give up on us yet. Those trolls are not representative of RationalWiki at all. As you yourself said, don't let the bastards grind you down. I understand it can be difficult and I know that other users have said this to you before, but please try not to respond to those trolls in any way. They want a reaction. Any kind of reaction. Don't give them what they want. Spud (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Just look at all this troll food. Crying about trolls will only make them toll more. 2d4chanfag (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ask not for whom the troll tolls, it tolls for thee. —Kazitor, pending 10:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
ya... what he said. 2d4chanfag (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Right - Kazitor and 2d4chanfag #you are the problem#.
Why the #### should I (or anyone else) operate in an environment where I am abused because of what I am (or present myself as being)? Anna Livia (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Eh, what? I was just joking about 2d4chanfag's typo. (also, you can emphasise text by placing two or three apostrophes on either side) —Kazitor, pending 11:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
'I was only joking' #is also bullying#. Telling people to ignore trolls on a regular basis is not really an answer. Anna Livia (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
But replying to trolls and asking them to stop is most probably not going to work either, unfortunately. I think we need to break through the vicious cycle of looking away if trolling and bullying happens. I guess helping each other with moderating the talk pages is one way. --Mad physicist (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not just or even primarily the people who complain RW should be worrying about - but those who look around and decide that 'the natives are unfriendly' and take their diverse bags, baggage, knowledge and research elsewhere. Anna Livia (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Nobody here is supporting harassment, only trying to find the best counterharassment methods.

@Anna Livia If you want to protect your talkpages, go ahead. We've been fine with that as a way of making trolls move onto new things before. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

But that is not the answer.
It is difficult to ignore trolls when you are being abused and threatened - and saying 'ignore them and/or protect your pages' is not a viable policy.
The message I am getting #very loud and very clear# is 'just put up with being abused woman.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Protecting your talk page is a perfectly viable policy and would probably put a stop to it, why not just do that? Christopher (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Just read the above discussion from my point of view.
I did not get such remarks when I have used an IP or elsewhere in the wikiverse and beyond (whatever pen name I use).
Asking someone to protect their talk page is to some extent blaming the victim. Anna Livia (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Anna - what do you feel should be done?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, the ball is in RW's court (especially given that someone else who admitted being female was also subjected to almost immediate abuse) - I #do# have better holes to go to (and can do so). Anna Livia (talk)
I still don't see the problem with page protection, how is it "blaming the victim"? You protected the page yourself temporarily (I removed it because at that point only one or two acts of vandalism had occurred). Christopher (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
If I experience no problems elsewhere (apart from the occasional disagreement/preference for alternative points of view): here I have been subjected to various incidents gender related abuse over 2-3 weeks, and all I am told is 'protect your talk page' (and the other incident).
RW does need to do something to have a visibly more diverse regular contributors base; and while trolls, 'look at me usernames', 'lorem ipsum spam posters' and suchlike more or less annoying abuse cannot be eliminated entirely there should be a more robust culture against such things. Anna Livia (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think one troll (and I do think it's only one person harassing you) is going to be deterred by "robust culture", he'll only stop if he gets bored or is blocked from posting abuse. Christopher (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Anna Livia Time is your ally. Use it to your advantage and protect your talk pages for weeks. My problem with protecting talk pages is that legit BoNs will not be able to communicate with me, though there are workarounds especially the ever-useful pings. I'm female, I get harassed based on my gender, but I don't make a big deal as you do. As I said, a troll's purpose is to BAIT you and you're taking the bait. The trolls aren't legitimately threatening you, they're just playing with your emotions and reactions and you're giving them what they want, which encourages them to harass you more. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That person who was only joking didn't say anything in support of trolls by the way. Not even as a joke. 94.1.147.227 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

IP - if someone said you probably had a shorty which didn't work, only joking - would you find it funny?
Why shouldn't Rationalwiki be asked to be more overtly troll-unfriendly, and to encourage people who are not white American males who enjoy 'banter' to participate? 109.146.55.52 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
"Rationalwiki should be better than it is. Don't ask me how. It just should be." This isn't concern trolling?Ariel31459 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I remind all participants here that concrete proposals are always welcome here or at RW:CS. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a brief guide on how to deal with trolls on RW. Bongolian (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Something like this perhaps?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
we could make it a 10 question tast when you sign up for RW. 2d4chanfag (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Some of us do feel the best form of response in particular circumstances #is# the equivalent of 'a sweet which turns your tongue black/bad taste' (as available from joke shops)/the wartime parody of the Colonel Bogey tune/'"Do I look bothered" with your infantile behaviour' etc (and even stronger responses). 'Going by superficial detail' there #appears# to be a number of people involved in what I am complaining about.
I am not against people disagreeing with my views (and some references do not cross borders well) and most people do indulge in occasional 'silliness' etc - but there should be some stronger course of action than 'just ignore them.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Well yeah, they get blocked (usually). Not much stronger than that. —Kazitor, pending 12:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I still have no idea what Anna would specifically like to see from RW as an institution. These are our community standards. If Anna would like to propose an addition to them I am sure people would be happy to consider her suggestions.
It should be remembered however that anonymous trolls or throwaway accounts can happily ignore these standards. But that is how free-to-edit wikis work and I can't see any way of changing this without fundamentally changing how people can post to the wiki.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Most of the ideas to try to bar trolls from signing up will be counterproductive in the long run. It's already very easy to revert and block. We already seem to have a guide, "Don't feed the troll" but quite a few people don't seem to follow those guidelines. I don't care if people try to be witty or honest, just do not respond to trolls. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
My idea is to have a help page that could be linked from the welcome message, that has a short description of what a troll is and what troll tactics are, followed by recommended actions: blocking, protecting pages, and alerting sysadmins/mods early in the troll activity so that the targeted person is not facing the troll alone. Bongolian (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that a new user can not block nor protect. —Kazitor, pending 23:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
That is true and that's why they need to call on sysadmins/mods. Also, I think the existing page, Don't feed the Troll, is a start but I think it's a bit too long and not aimed so much as the recipient of troll abuse. Bongolian (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
IP - if someone said you probably had a shorty which didn't work, only joking - would you find it funny?Why shouldn't Rationalwiki be asked to be more overtly troll-unfriendly, and to encourage people who are not white American males who enjoy 'banter' to participate?

I should clarify, I was referring to Kazitor. And what I said was not, "It's OK because they were joking," but "It's OK because they didn't do that at all." A reply of "yes they did" would make sense (but I would disagree) while a reply of "that doesn't make it alright" doesn't even compute. 90.193.142.146 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Humans being emotional vampires?[edit]

https://forbiddentruthblog.com/2015/04/16/professional-cuddling-a-forbidden-truth-dissection/

I know I know, just bear with me.

I am a bit confused by those people who pay others for cuddling, it’s just so odd. Isn’t it kind of sketch to take advantage of someone else’s pain like that an make a profit from it?Machina (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

what is point of buying a hug? it has no value if it is not freely given. is that web site genuine? the tone seems a little off, a little ott. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes the page is real, but as for the service it does exist. People can pay to have someone cuddle with them.Machina (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Personal experience of a Professional hugger. <-- good info on why people hire cuddlers. I think "emotional vampire" is a questionable term. An emotional vampire drains people's energy? What? I don't think this sounds like an actual psychological term. What did I just read on that blog link you posted? Please do note that a hug does not drain your happiness. An emotional vampire causes a severe decrease in mood. That's the definition. A hug causes happiness. It increases mood. This blogger literally says:
professional cuddling as a form of therapy. Is it?? Yes, and less harmful than the therapy offered by licensed psychologists and psychiatrists. But the key term here is: less harmful. It is still harmful, it still denies and rejects the Forbidden Truths of human touch. It still addicts the human to other humans, it still renders it impossible for the individual to meet his own need
Human contact is required for humans to survive. Humans are a social species. It's impossible for humans to be fully self reliant. See the Wikipedia article on Loneliness § Effects. This blogger is part of the Anti-psychiatry movement. This person is a crank. Forbidden Truths is all wrong, it's pseudoscience, a poor attempt at fixing broken humans. This so called "truth" has never been tested in a clinical trial while CBTWikipedia's W.svg is the most effective therapy known. What you need to do is exercise your critical thinking skills. Please stick to self help that is proven to work. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
at the top of his manifesto (having a manifesto surely is a warning of some sort), there his a picture of charles manson. Apparently he is America's no.1 political prisoner and is guilty of 'the most Unacceptable and Terrifying crime that you humans can imagine, the Revelation of Truth.' reading further, it seems he views manson as a kind of jesus figure. theres quite a bit there and i cannot be arsed tom go through it all, but i dont feel it is too much of a stretch to assume this chap is verging on the lunatic. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Manifesto here should you be interested. curiously, the most brillian seer of forbidden truths accepts donations. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
ha, the whole thing seems like a love letter to a wide variety of high profile mass murderers. this goes a little beyond pseudoscience AMassiveGay (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Machina take care of yourself. Ignore that crank. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we have clearly established that the Forbidden Truth organization is of questionable moral and scientific standing to phrase things politely. However, I think the overall idea of professional cuddling is interesting. I personally can't see myself attending a cuddling session personally, but the sessions designed to teach people about consent seem like a good idea. Samstr (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In need of both better Counter Arguments by someone gratefully more knowledgeable[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/7al6zw/stop_sexualizing_kids_and_yes_that_includes_finn/dpblv2s ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

Zinnia Jones on Trans Youth contains plenty of counters. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is just my opinion, so make of it what you will especially after considering that I am almost certainly not more knowledgeable or qualified to talk about this subject. Anyways, I would counter that the problem with the argument that recognizing transgender children entails sexualization is the conflating of sex and gender. Why does gender have to be inherently sexual? The existence of cisgender gay and lesbian people demonstrates that sexuality and sexual preference are not simply determined by gender. Samstr (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is Pyrronism not valid?[edit]

I looked at the page on this wiki and saw the previous edits, yet I still have to wonder why it isn't valid. What is the difference between it and paranoid skepticism, they seem the same to me. In fact I don't think it is possible at all to live as a supposed Pyrronist since you are liable to poison yourself if you have no strong opinions about what to eat or anything else.Machina (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Pyrrho,Wikipedia's W.svg if he existed, allegedly wrote nothing down. His student, if he had one, was possibly named Timon of Phlius, and may have written them down, but those writings may have been mostly lost. Pyrrho is now supposedly mostly known through the writings of someone, Sextus Empiricus, who lived more than 100 years after his death. This would seem to be basically third-hand reporting, and perhaps not very reliable. Bongolian (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Would 'excessive supporters' be Pyrrhomaniacs? Anna Livia (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The questions about 'whether our senses reveal anything about the world' and 'whether words mean anything' have kept Western philosophy spinning its wheels ineffectually for around 400 years. Really a waste of time and breath. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Which philosopher 'walking and "thinking about the world" at the same time' fell into a hole (thus proving that it is necessary to consider what one's senses tell one)? Anna Livia (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure that story's apocryphal because I know a slightly different version of t. There was an astronomer who was walking along and gazing up at the heavens. He didn't look where he was going and fell down a well. That's a fable by Jean de La Fontaine. Or at least it was included in the Ladybird Book of La Fontaine's fables that I had. Spud (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
We are both right - and the story/actual events probably goes back much further. Anna Livia (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't he right though that the problems of the world are caused by opinions and beliefs?Machina (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"opinions and beliefs" didn't cause the Black Plague; which is still a thing FYI. It didn't cause cancer, dementia, or Prion diseases. The world problems are being solved bit by bit everyday. War rates are decreasing.ClickerClock (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I just want to know because I struggle greatly against this school considering that some of it is based in truth.Machina (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)