Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive280

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 13 December 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>, <279>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, (new)(back)

Contents

The point is part 2[edit]

I am being targeted with abuse (on my talk page and elsewhere) seemingly only because of my female user name - and #this does not happen elsewhere# - or if it is, the matter is dealt with without my being aware of it. This also happens to others here.

'Ignoring the trolls' is not really a viable long term strategy - given the current action against sexist and related unacceptable behaviour in various Real Life contexts and 'various official policies' towards making websites responsible to some extent for what is posted on them.

I accept that RW 'is what it is' and will have more varied opinions that are not always 'politically correct' than other websites with mass user interaction, and will probably have more trolls than other sites. I do not expect to be mollycoddled (only to have certain cultural-specific terms and similar explained etc), but I expect to be treated with courtesy and regard be given only to my statements, information given, views and opinions given on RW (which are mostly within the range of those expressed by RW users in general).

Like others it does not really matter #where# I am contributing to the sum of human knowledge and thought - so RW has to make a culture which encourages people to stay. Anna Livia (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The other point is that RW is free and open to all to edit; that's not changing. We in no way endorse such harassment, which is why people have been reverting it. Keep in mind that, by leaving due to harassment, you are encouraging the person/people at fault further. Ignoring them is a viable strategy, because eventually they (hopefully) get bored and stop. In the meantime, we can continue to revert their "contributions" and block them (it seems they are creating new accounts for the sole purpose of harassment). —Kazitor, pending 12:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
One thing that keeps me here despite the abusive messages is that if all the female sysops leave because of this, it'll take longer for this abuse to be taken down. LeftyGreenMario and I are two of the most active sysops along with Christopher, Bigs, Bongolian, and ClickerClock (probably a few others that I'm not thinking of, too), so on the off chance that none of the four latter were online at the time of a troll posting a harassing message, it could stay up for longer with 1/3 less active sysops. Also, what these trolls want is to get a reaction from you, so if you just revert their edits and ban them without getting upset, it'll discourage them. яεvεятεя σғ ωαη∂αℓιsм, ραтяσℓℓεя σғ ε∂ιтs, ΓУППЯ ・「ҭагк」・асђіεѵеϻԑηтѕ・тіме: 12:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Ariel is commonly assumed to be a female name. On one occasion a troll left a silly misogynist comment on my talk page, which I have not reverted. That's it for trolls bothering me. Maybe it's professional courtesy. Trolls who try to create fear and anxiety are the worst. I don't know what could be done about them, but I wish that I did.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I have added your talk page, Anna Livia, to my watch list, so I can now keep a closer eye out for trolls there. I encourage other frequent editors to do likewise. Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, ignoring trolls is a viable strategy. As I mentioned earlier, time is your ally. Most trolls do get bored after a while, but whenever it takes days, weeks, months, depends on the troll. I wouldn't leave because people targeted me for my gender. The troll messages are easily reverted and carry no weight beyond their words. That being said, there is no way of avoiding harassment by trolls and we don't need to do much else aside from revert and block unless the threats are real. The trolls are just there to make you react this way for their own amusement and by continuously bringing it up and having a mod archive this kind of discussion two times already all while trolls keep trying to respond to this, you're also bringing the attention they want so badly from you. It's so easy to ignore them and revert. If you have a real problem, take it to private discussions, not in a public forum where trolls are now aware how you react to things and will make you a likelier target for them and giving them more motivation to attack you. I just doubt your female username has something to do with it as opposed to how they love see you react to it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

When I use an IP no response - when I use a female username I get the idiots - and when you LGM admit to being female, you get a stupid response: the gender issue does appear to be the problem - and #elsewhere it is not#. (The 'fly-by-night stupid postings' and 'opinionated nuisances' are something else.)

RW is not addressing the issue - how to make 'reasonable contributors' (as I am) falling into a particular category (for which they are not themselves responsible) feel comfortable when they feel threatened by the malicious behaviour of others. (If someone challenges me on my views, but is reasonably courteous by RW standards, fair enough.) RW wants to challenge 'illogical beliefs' and debate 'those at some distance from the general consensus' - why shouldn't it apply this to the trolls etc, and why shouldn't their behaviour be challenged or minimised?

Probably like most RW contributors I operate in various parts of the Wikiverse and beyond when it suits (for all the obvious reasons and a few more - there may be nothing on RW that I am interested in etc). I have every right and justification to operate in areas where it suits me. I am not reacting to the trolls - but trying to have a debate (and I have read these various lists and similar). Anna Livia (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

i'm not really sure what it is you want. trolls here are generally reverted and blocked when necessary. what more exactly can be done? the very nature of rw makes it a troll magnet and trolls are not here to debate and they are not interested in debate. ignore, revert and block if necessary is all that can be done. i fail see what else can be done. what do you suggestion? AMassiveGay (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem seems to have started with the recent bout of 'stupid user names' (which is an entirely different issue) - and is it possible to create a more troll-unfriendly environment (at least towards the actually abusive ones - the 'alphabet soups' and similar are minor nuisances generally)? Could a 'nuisance word filter which prevents posting being saved' program be devised? (The 'Gillespie Road Football Club issue would have to be worked around.)
It is said that trolls should be ignored till they go away - but it is possible to ignore them by operating elsewhere for the duration or longer (and if there is nothing of interest here 'affected contributors' might be elsewhere anyway). Anna Livia (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There's already a "nuisance word filter which prevents posting being saved", the abuse filter. If you have suggestions on how to improve it, email (we don't discuss it where trolls can see for obvious reasons) one of the active techs. Christopher (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
BoNs don't seem to get harassed but I think if you use one to revert edits long enough and if a troll recognizes the BoN, the troll will probably attack the BoN too. I really don't know how gender is the problem. From other talk page histories, I've seen other users face troll attacks, even if those attacks are also misogynist as well. I don't think it's a problem unique to female-based usernames. Perhaps females get targeted by one troll, but if other users get involved long enough, they will also face attacks. As with "RW" not addressing the issue, we surely are by discussing it but I think you're making it more of a problem than it really is. How you react when a troll attacks you is something you can change and you can try to stop internalizing their attacks as personal as I'm seeing here. The "stupid user names" have been a thing for quite a while before you signed up so it's not a new issue. And most steps I've seen to create a "troll-unfriendly" environment tend to backfire. We do NOT want to impede anonymous or otherwise potential new editors. Look how it did to Conservapedia. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There are various ways of getting round BoN familiarity, some of them fairly easy. RW, Uncyclopedia and various other bits of the wikiverse are overtly 'less cool, calm and collected than the Other Place' and one has to accept that 'they are what they are' (and 'what I do' tends to involve above average quote marks).
There is a difference between attacking 'the views' and attacking 'the specific characteristics of the persons holding them.'
Sometimes it is felt that the best response is 'a suitable put-down' (not necessarily a 'same to you with tomatoes etc' school playground response or direct attack) or treating them as if they are perfectly reasonable persons.
Perhaps there could be different policies for 'most of the time' and for when 'there is an ongoing nuisance.' Anna Livia (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic[edit]

That there's a misogynistic troll here now and everyone is freaking out, while seven years ago there was a female troll here and people were saying misogynistic things to her? Misogynist (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki was probably different seven years ago. Likely, the users "freaking out" here are a different basket. S'yeah, this "everyone" isn't a homogeneous blob that remains constant through seven years. I'm taking this comment as face-value; if someone can actually provide me examples seven years ago to give me a clearer picture or at least name the users involved, including the female troll, I'd appreciate it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Attacking trolls is a slightly different 'bunch of things' - and what 'Misogynist' calls a troll may just have been 'an Opinionated Person (whether or not falling into the 'Stuck Needle on an Outlier View' category) to the rest of us (and where the response is 'I have made my views clear - you have now exceeded my boredom threshold' and then going to something else entirely). Anna Livia (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
TrollAriel31459 (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps that is ironic, but it is really irrelevant to the question of whether such misogyny should be tolerated. I don't know how to properly deal with trolls and effectively prevent harassment, but I feel comfortable stating that such harassment is immoral whether committed by trolls or RW contributors. Samstr (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Never argue with trolls. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experianceAriel31459 (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Most people who use RW and similar wikis are what they are and activity thereon will be somewhat more colourful and divisive than Wikipedia etc (and that 'broad coverage fanfic websites' will have material they do not care for on various grounds - but that the 'flags and descriptions' systems will enable them to mostly avoid categories not to their taste). They will also accept the 'look-at-mes', blankers, 'lorem ipsum text posters', actual vandals and trolls exist and will be dealt with.

There are various strategies that can be adopted against the more noisome end of the nuisances - from ignoring them, via 'going elsewhere for a while' to applying the Monty Python foot, some of which enable the person affected feel that they are taking control and not 'being a victim.'

The question for RW is - how much should it get involved in the policy of 'the Marx/Feuerbach quote' towards the nuisances over just binning them - and to what extent policies adopted will encourage constructive contributors affected to go to more vanilla sites? Anna Livia (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the "'the Marx/Feuerbach quote' towards the nuisances..."?Ariel31459 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.' (with a nod at tomorrow's centenary.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
oh by the 9 halls... Anna livia just delete what the troll posted and move on with life already. 2d4chanfag (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Which nine balls? And it might have been interesting to see who Misogynist was talking about - 'Know your enemy' and all that.
I do have other things on the go - but what is the point of all one's trivial knowledge and quotes if one cannot use them? Anna Livia (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
oh fuck my dyslexia! The nine hells. Its nice here in the City of pain on the second level of Dis. 2d4chanfag (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Could have been these balls] - or three pawnbrokers in a row. Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
there really isnt alot more than can be be done to dissuade trolls. as i said before, this sites very nature attracts troll. it attracts trolls of a certain type. to such folk, we are a bastion of libtard sjw cucks. we are the enemy. we attract such trolls like flies on shit and absolutely nothing with will prevent them. if you are active here, you are going to have to accept that you make yourself a target for trolls. if you are obviously female, double so. its not nice but it is the nature of the beast. the only option is to revert, block and ignore, until they get bored. any other response, be it logical counters or witty zingers does not work. they are the oxygen they crave. suck it up. continue regardless. this is the only victory that can gained by such encounters. in this situation all this wailing and gnashing of the teeth gives victory to trolls. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Clap.gif A good post indeed.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 16:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Checking the anti-BS circuits found this gem[edit]

OK, Christian™ radio station with a preacher talking about Jezebel and how she declared herself a goddess, the "Queen of Heaven", along his husband (have found nothing supporting this claim at the Other Wiki, just mentions to Baal and Asherah. Seemingly first BS, as well as taking it as real history as usual), mixing that with prostitutes and the Whore of Babylon, continuing with Jezebel being the first of so many powerful goddesses (this, and especially this other, have something to say about that BS no to mention the many other female deities who were venerated before and/or far away of the Middle East), priestesses who venerated them and the like (EDIT who were not fearful of YHWH), and finally complete with slippery slope complaining about a woman who would be President of the US (obviously canned) and so many others who are mayors worldwide, and especially Angela Merkel who was compared by him to Jezebel (yeah, I dislike her because of the way she managed the EU financial crisis but that is going too far), and I think some comments about homosexuality mixed in. This after days ago someone talking about Hell being in the depths of this very planet (Where?. The Mohorovicic discontinuity or the core-mantle boundary maybe?) and taking as real that hoax about the Soviet Kola Superdeep Borehole.
Frankly, these people is lucky nobody gives a fuck about those channels given the uproar and protests that appear when someone says women must be subservient to men and is forced to retract. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no limit to idiotic beliefs, nor a shortage of idiots to believe them. The best ones are works of pure imaginationAriel31459 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This sounds to me like a version of the old tale about SemiramisWikipedia's W.svg - she of the operas - and Nimrod. We have a bit about this at pagan survivals. Starting with a fellow named Hislop, nineteenth centuries made up an elaborate pseudohistory about those Messopotamian worthies, and the tale got into Jack Chick tracts. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Nimrod and very likely Semiramis were also mentioned by him. He presented her as an opposite to Deborah and continued talking about Eve tempting Adam and the two women who were behind the decapitation of John the Baptist. Genuine bullshit, as usual, then.Panzerfaust (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Who the hell has 2 elections 1 month apart[edit]

All the important measures on my local ballot were settled a month ago and the only thing on national election day is one mayoral election, and I'm kinda steamed about how dumb(read: purposefully disenfranchising) that is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you last your faith in bourgie liberal democracy yet? I´m waiting.'Legionwhat do you want from me 18:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
No political system merits any sort of "faith." Liberal democracy just happens to be the least terrible out of all of them. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
And then, people wonder why voter turnout is so low. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Well the people in power don't wonder why it is that way, they rejoice that it is that way'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
And that works exactly until more people turn out for the next bastille day than election day. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
A lot of state policies in the United States seem designed with the purpose of supressing voter turnout, or at least have that effect. For example, in New York State, voters have to register well in advance before voting in elections. Samstr (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 :-/ ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that this is a fairly common occurrence in electoral systems like France's, that require the final candidate to win over 50% of the vote in a tentative second election if no one wins that much in the first. You'd think that some kind of preferential voting system could automate this, but it's always been done this way. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If your understanding of a run-off is exactly the same as "moving pre-planned elections to multiple days" I think you got brain problems. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that I do. I just wanted to point out that two elections a very short interval apart is a frequent result under systems that require a full majority to elect anybody. And there are technical ways that could make the second election entirely unnecessary. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A certain type of nerd who has never thought about this stuff properly comes away with the idea that this is a technical problem that they can solve, which is entirely wrong-headed. Democracy is a success because it reduces the rate of violent transitions of power by persuading the people that some other mechanism exists to make these decisions without bloodshed. If you try to fix something else with it, you will be disappointed and very likely make things worse. You might be surprised about that, everybody who understands what's going on will just be disappointed. Things that make sense once you understand this:

Confidence is the core value: It is more important that the electorate can see who won and understands why than that the mechanism by which they won is in some general sense "fair". Hence "mark a cross on this piece of paper and put it in this big metal box" beats "use this digital voting booth" and "whoever has most votes wins" beats "our new two stage hybrid approval system achieves independence of irrelevant alternatives". Hence Gerrymandering is intolerable crap, but arranging for California and Hawaii to have equal representation at one level of US government feels fine.

Also, any time you can't envision people strung up from lamp posts as the alternative way to decide, democracy was not the most appropriate tool. So, it probably makes sense to choose a country's leaders with democracy, but it's a stupid way to decide where to eat lunch or the theme for the school dance. Most elected officials in the US have no business being elected, that includes judges, prosecutors, school boards, and countless local functionaries who basically make things partisan for no good reason. Tialaramex (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What is this I can't even...[edit]

Was...was Rick Perry dropped as a child? And then given a lobotomy? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Rick Perry is just talking facts: How many dinosaurs do you know that've been sexually harassed? 05:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I read the article, what Rick Perry said was indeed totally silly:

Speaking at an event sponsored by Axios and NBC News, Perry said electricity also was important "from the standpoint of sexual assault. When the lights are on, when you have light that shines the righteousness, if you will, on those types of acts." From the standpoint "of how you really affect people's lives, fossil fuels ... play a role in that," Perry said. "I happen to think it's going to play a positive role."

Mad physicist (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm more than certain the intent was "let's get more lighting out to remove dark alleyways." Not that that's a guarantee on anyone's safety... or that fossil fuels are the ONLY answer (which he seems to be fighting for), or that it was related to the comment about reading by fireside causing fumes (which fossil fuels would cause more of)--Y'know what? Silliness abounds. TheTallMass (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Even if he meant that its not very common for people to be sexually assaulting others in alleyways. I wouldn't be surprised if it would make less of an impact than moving to a location with a lower population density.Vorarchivist (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The evil smelly fuel the girl was using was almost certainly kerosene, which is ... a fossil fuel.[1] --Gospatric (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly not surprising that Perry makes such stupid comments. He is from the Louie Gohmert school of politics. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned redirects/forks[edit]

Should they all be deleted? —Kazitor, pending 06:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Mostly, yeah. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Forks are supposed to be orphaned (most of the time), they're for people typing something into the search box. Christopher (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What Chris said. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, so don't delete them. I can handle that. —Kazitor, pending 04:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned redirects might also be alternate terms for the topic title, or for a concept within the article's scope that doesn't deserve its own article but is still useful. Boredatwork (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions about Slavery[edit]

So something that's been bugging me for a while now. Slavery still exists today, especially on cocao plantations. While the plantation owners are relatively wealthy compared to the slaves, the lionshare of the benefit goes to both the chocolate companies and the people who consume chocolate. So then, who bears more responsibility for the slave trade? But on to the part that bugs me. Plantations and slavery are something very familiar to the US. But was it similar, in the sense that while the plantation owners made a small fortune, the biggest beneficiaries were the textile mill owners and people consuming cotton clothing? And if so, if the chocolate companies and chocoholics should bear some responsibility for cocoa slavery, should the textile mill owners and people buying cotton clothing also have born some responsibility? CorruptUser (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Merchants, factories, and consumers definitely played a part in supporting slavery. I know more about tobacco, where it was common for the merchants to lend money to farmers to buy slaves, especially in the era in the 18th century when settlers were expanding west and many farmers were comparatively poor immigrants farming small areas. It was almost certainly the same with cotton: both are bulky items requiring large amounts of labour and land to produce. Some merchants made money by waiting until the crops were ready and then buying them or acting as agents to sell them, but the real money was in having a closer relationship, where you could lend money and keep the farmers in debt so they had to sell you their crops. It's typically the case that fortunes aren't made in producing raw materials like cotton and tobacco, but in processing and selling them to consumers in wealthy markets. It takes a lot more money to buy a ship or a factory than a farm, you need to handle more raw materials than a farmer will, and the profits are correspondingly larger. (There's lots of books about the economics of this, I've recently been reading T M Devine who focuses on the transatlantic trade.)
Blame or responsibility is hard to definitively apportion especially 200 years ago, and particularly for the individual consumers buying the end products. Consumer choices were limited, many people buying cotton were very poor, you need clothes in cold climates, and people buying tobacco were addicts. Maybe people wanted to buy fair trade, slavery-free cotton, but couldn't? How much did your working class person in Europe know about cotton farming, particularly if they were working for tiny wages in a dangerous mill or coal mine? --Gospatric (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
i'm not sure how any of that is especially relevant to slavery today. most responsible companies visit their suppliers, for quality assurances, to make sure they comply with regulations in their locality etc. it would take a concerted effort for a supplier to hide slavery from their customers. it would be nice to imagine that we as consumers took steps to ensure that all we buy is sourced ethically, but in reality is going to be impossible to do in most cases. it is unreasonable to place responsibility on us. all we can do is that if it comes out that a company has been profiting from slavery in some way is to hope that the resultant public outcry leads to boycotts and the appropriate legal action AMassiveGay (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
sadly, if conditions are as bad slavery but not quite slavery, all too many people are prepared to overlook morally dubious business practices. people love themselves some iphones, after all. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
One can speak of the complicity of textile mill owners in the proliferation of slavery in the American South. Beyond that, everyone used cotton textiles. As you probably know, the American slave states provided about 75% of the world's cotton production in 1860. So, almost everyone might be held to blame. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on this word[edit]

I discussion on the Discord has made me want to ask this. What do you guys think about the word "fag" in its non-sexuality related connatations? —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 22:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

unless you are talking about cigarettes, it will result with a glass being pushed into your face. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
In Spain, the bassoon is falled Fagot. The Spanish pejorative for gay men is "Maricon", which means a Lady Bug...which is a fair bit more condescending and offensive than the english "fag" which means a cigarette or pieces of wood. Maricon is a far more agressive word than Fag or Faggot...and it takes a tone of disgust or anger at a level much more pronounced than fag does in English. You hear it a lot and it is almost always said in an extremely negative context. I haven't noticed the same with fag, especially in the UK where the use of the word fag is so frequent it has been half-divorced from its original use as a pejorative. Having said that, fag is still a word that you use at your own risk in English speaking countries, as it should be. And I don't think fewer people refer to cigarettes any more as fags in the passing years and it has been a very long time since pieces of wood have been called fags. I think it is time to retire the use of the word fag in every context, though the common opinion amongst social justice advocates is that gay people are permitted to use the term when labeling one another, mostly in an empowering sense. I think that is a much more difficult and interesting question than if people should still refer to cigarettes as fags. ShabiDOO 03:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Three extremely graphic images of Westboro Baptist Church protest: [2], [3], and [4]. Ok so Bigs these images illustrate what "fags" mean to gay people. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
In Puerto Rico, "maricon" is understood as it is in Spain, but "pato" (duck) is commonly used instead of "maricon." British English uses small words in a number of ways. The word "fag" is also used as a verb, meaning "to work hard." The adjective, "fagged" means to be exhausted or extremely tired. If people are offended by a word, I try not to use it. Where I come from, "fag" is a vulgar term, seldom used in ordinary conversation. I think it is problematic for any group to use a word for empowerment while expecting non-members to avoid using the word. If you tell someone it is rude for them to use a word, then use the word yourself, you are likely to be seen as both a hypocrite and a rude person.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Depends really. People get worked up over "niggardly" even though it has nothing to do with racial slurs and some people get worked up over "picnic" because they think it's used as some racial slur even though it has entirely innocuous history (it has French origins, so you know, the world doesn't revolve around Americans; "picnique"). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey you all can't use the word fag or faggot. You have to be one 1st (like me) to use it, but AMassiveGay can. He's a big guy. 2d4chanfag (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
no. no you cant. i dont care who is saying it, if you say it around me there is likely to be violence. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
And just like that, you Sr. Just lost right to use the word fag or faggot. Now you're just a gay guy. 2d4chanfag (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this way too over the top?[edit]

Is the section on soteriology subsection in this article too over the top? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_Jon_Phelps#Reformation_Bible_Puritan_Baptist_Church MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph in question seems completely out of place in the article. I'm actually surprised that "soteriology" doesn't have its own page here at RW as it seems to be an interesting subject in its own right. The over-the-topness of the paragraph as written would be appropriate in a hypothetical RW article in the fun space that compare religious doctrines of salvation in a snarky fashion. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Not happy too as it does not have the same flow as the rest of the page and looks odd in relation with the rest. However, the soteriology is sometimes a natural outgrowth some persons' insanity. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Missing rhetorical tactics[edit]

With regard to Roy Moore, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post listed three rhetorical styles used by the GOP. I don't think that we have the first two.[5] I think her naming is unique, but perhaps they are worth adding:

  1. if-then-ism (or "…if it's true.") — If what candidate X did is true, then I condemn him. This gives X cover to deny the allegation despite 30 witnesses against him, and allows me to continue supporting the troglodyte to advance my agenda. Widespread among GOP senators.
  2. "so-what-ism" — So what if he did do it… they did that in the Bible too (Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler regarding Mary and Joseph).
  3. Blame the messenger — The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, released the story; who care's how much evidence they have. Basically an ad hominem attack.

Bongolian (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Peak Oil[edit]

Hi, It's been some time but I returned. Yep, it's true. I am here for a fact. You can stop applauding. (Where the hell are the emoji?)

This excerpt is from the RW article on peak oil:

"Some who maintain that those who believe (sic) demand for oil will keep going up (as available supplies drop) also fail to understand how supply and demand, price elasticity, substitute goods, and other basic market mechanisms work. According to this argument, if and when oil becomes too expensive for economic functions which depend on it, the market will seek substitute goods, which will progressively reduce the demand for oil as this process continues to the point that oil actually running out will not be a concern.[14] Those who believe substitute goods are too expensive, or do not exist, fail to understand other basic market mechanisms such as economies of scale, human ingenuity, and, perhaps, hubris. Analysts have noted that high oil prices are bad for the future of the oil industry, as it encourages people to develop cheaper alternatives."

This seems like bad thinking to me. That would be the case with any other commodity. But oil is not just a commodity like any other. Particularly in the form of diesel fuel it is the bedrock of civilization. Tractors, harvesters, logging and mining trucks and equipment, construction and road trucks, cranes, forklifts, 18-wheelers, to name a few, all run on diesel fuel. What are the substitutes? Gas-to-liquids (GTL) and coal-to-liquids (CTL) cannot compensate for declining oil production. There are many reasons for this that I won't bore you with but a major argument against hydrocarbon liquefaction is low thermal efficiency. I won't even comment on battery trucks. Prosaic reasons that have to do with the laws of chemistry and physics rule out this possibility. Get me a breakthrough in battery technology and then we'll talk. Folks, call me a crank but I don't think very highly of Musk's ventures. His companies are nothing more than yet another Wall Street scam to defraud the middle class of its money. The government collaborates because Wall Street became its de facto boss a long time ago. Musk's companies wouldn't be around without billions in government subsidies. Wall Street wouldn't be around without 10 trillion of your money either but that's another story. You know... these are 'populist' things to say, right?

There is much bullshit coming from some peak oil advocates and opponents but let's point out some truths from A to F:

A. Modern society is dependent on fossil fuels, especially diesel.
B. Nothing that generates electricity can replace fossil fuels because trucks which are the true bedrock of civilization require diesel and cannot possibly be made to run on batteries. Sorry.
C. Only fusion can conceivably replace grid reliance on fossil fuels but that's very unlikely.
D. Fossil fuels are finite and depleting fast. Demand will increase because global population is increasing too, demanding a greater share of the pie. True, demand won't outstrip supply but free-market forces will not act as the mediating mechanism.
E. At some point the energy-return-on-energy-investment principle will start to put a natural halt to oil production.
F. Global civilization, dependent on fossil fuels as it is, will unravel and eventually collapse.

The reason oil production will at some point (I don't know when exactly, don't ask me) cease altogether (not all at once of course) is due to a fundamental mechanism that has as much to do with the physics involved in the process of getting the oil out of the ground as with the financial parameters of the whole process. It's the energy-return-on-energy-investment(EROEI) principle. You invest more resources than you are able to get out so that you end up with a net loss and oil extraction becomes uneconomical. Naturally, it won't be as if life will go on as it is until that abstract point is reached. Nations will latch onto their reserves well before that, oil will cease to be exported on domestic and international markets, oil corporations will be nationalized and the end product will be allocated however the authorities choose.

When that happens, it would indicate that the global free-market model has essentially collapsed. Globalism will remain but free-market capitalism will no longer be the dominant factor underlying intercourse between nations globally. If oil is the magic wand that keeps modern civilization running, once it stops being traded freely on the markets other key resources will cease to be traded too. The world's major players will resort to imperialist-like methods to acquire all important commodities and nationalist tensions will be the order of the day. Proxy wars between the major nations are likely but not an open confrontation. It's impossible to predict when and how but I am convinced that even the US, with all the checks and balances provided by its constitution, will eventually evolve into some sort of oligarchy or dictatorship (the latter is less likely). The pluralist model of modern representative democracy with separation of powers will not survive. Elections and the parliament might be maintained in a fig-leaf role (as in the EU, Turkey, Poland or Russia) but real legislative, judiciary and executive power will be permanently vested in a single or a handful of individuals that you can't get rid of. In my estimation, the first steps in that direction will be made during Donald Trump's tenure. His administration marked a turning point in US politics. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As for transports, one can but hope both hybrid and electric vehicles will improve with time having better autonomy as battery technology improves, as well as that engines will be more and more fuel-efficient, even if I'm more than sure there are limits to that. CNG may also help. My concern are other products as plastics and the like.
Sure, the use of oil will someday end but as peak day approaches one guesses the research on alternative technologies will be pressed on. What will happen to the likes of BP, Mobil, and many others plus those countries that export it is open to debate. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Diesel electric engines are more efficient than steam engines. That's why steam engines are no longer used. If obtaining diesel fuel became impractical, the highway transport paradigm might, in lieu of better technological solutions, become overtaken by a shift back to steam locomotives. Almost every town in America once had rail service. It would be more expensive to use steam locomotives, but civilization would not collapse. Sorry. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I doubt steam engines will ever make a real comeback, but we are overlooking something that is already in common practice in many developed countries: Full electric heavy duty vehicles. In the face of a fossil fuel shortage and a switch to electricity, it'd probably be most economical to add overhead power lines, a la electric street cars. An onboard battery could be charged while in motion, and stored power used for remote stretches of cargo routes where it is difficult to run the overhead lines. If high speed trains and municipal buses alike can use overhead power lines and retractable contacts, why not tractor-tralers? TeflonTrout (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Steam engines cannot and will not come back. It's almost crazy to imagine that. Steam engines for transportation reached 10-20% efficiency at best. Oil engines were more powerful, efficient, far less dangerous and cheaper. Natural selection did its thing and today a few steam engines survive only as turbines used for electricity generation. These are very efficient (at best 40% or more) which is why they're still around.
Even if we spent ludicrous amounts of money and energy to make America run on steam again what would the primitive and environmentally prohibitive locomotives carry all around anyway? We have the best freight trains in the world (diesel-electric) and almost half of the insane loads they carry is crude oil. In times of scarcity the authorities will force the population to a few gigantic urban centers rather than spread it out. Steam vehicles are too inefficient and cannot do what diesel does. Stationary steam engines that use biomass cannot be a viable alternative. Biomass won't scale up for use in vehicles and engines for the same reason it didn't in the past when Mississippi steamboats ran on wood. It would run out quickly. Since photosynthesis is inefficient forests take decades to grow back with only about half a percent of new biomass added per year. Not to mention the process would be so ecologically destructive it is near criminal to even contemplate.
It will be hard to build dual-mode trucks that can even come close to matching the performance of today’s diesel drayage trucks, which go 400 miles between refueling, last 604,000 miles, haul up to 44,000 pounds, operate at temperatures from 23 to 113 degrees F, go up 6% grades, and travel 10 to 14 hours a day. Diesel drayage trucks are also far less expensive — a used one can cost as little as $3,000, a new one $104,360 (Calstart 2013). A Battery Electric truck (BEV) truck costs $307,890 (ICCT 2013), a hydrogen fuel cell truck $1.3 million (ARB 2015), and a natural gas catenary truck $282,000 (GNA 2012). Gewgtweg (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe so. But in order to prevent the collapse of civilization, steam engines or electic-line trolley-type transport would suffice. Sorry, civilization will survive.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I hope you realize that 100% electric trucks are impossible. Battery packs weigh too damn much. Even if 5 to 10 times as much battery energy density (Wh/kg) were to be achieved and other technical issues solved, batteries would still be too heavy: 2 to 4 tonnes (4400 to 8800 pounds) in a 40 tonne truck. Today’s batteries are 5 to 10 times heavier than 2 to 4 tonnes (ICCT 2013).
With today’s technology, driving a semi-truck 500 miles would require a 23-ton (46,000 pound) lithium-ion battery, half the weight of the truck itself (Coren 2016).
This is why the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach ruled out battery-electric (BEV) trucks, which need a 7,700 pound battery, since the weight cuts too much into the payload. Also, the battery only lasts for 100, half the 200 minimum-miles required. BEVs are also out of service too often, and take too long to recharge — 4 hours every 120 miles (Calstart 2013b).
Alternatives like CGN, Hydrogen fuel cell and fixed-guideway system are not viable either.
CNG trucks. Aside from the fact that natural gas is finite and not a solution, CNG tanks are heavy as well, would require a new fuel distribution system, with each station costing $1 million or more. CNG would add over 5,000 pounds to the truck weight: 300 gallons of diesel = 1,140 gallons of CNG at 1.81 lbs/gallon (2072 lbs), CNG tank 1,800 lbs, 1,300 pounds for the racks and protective plates (Schneider 2014).
Hydrogen fuel cell trucks are too heavy. Even if this technology were commercial for trucks, each one would need a a $2 million hydrogen fuel tank to go the distance (Coren 2016). The cost of building a hydrogen distribution system is far too high since very expensive special metals and gaskets are needed to keep the hydrogen from embrittling the metal and escaping, so the hydrogen would have to be made on-site. Each station would cost $1 million or more.
Fixed-guideway system. This zero-emission solution was rejected because over 20 years it would cost 14 times more than a dual-mode catenary system (GNA 2012 page 18).
Catenary trucks are more serious but there are many obstacles to building a catenary system.
A catenary truck is a lot like a trolley bus. Both run on electric motors powered by overhead lines, the catenary system. Catenary trucks differ from trolleys though, because they need a second propulsion method after they get off the wires to deliver their products and get back to the overhead lines. Trucks also need to get off the lines to pass one another, operate when the electricity is down, and get around trucks that have broken down.
The need for a dual mode doubles, or even triples the cost of a catenary truck. On top of that, it costs millions of dollars per mile to install a catenary system, plus add more electricity generation, substations, and transmission. Catenary is expensive to maintain as well, and if you’ve ever ridden MUNI trolley buses in San Francisco, you’ve probably been on a bus where the trolley poles detached from the catenary at a bad switch or too sharp a turn and waited many minutes for the driver to reattach the poles.
Even if we could build catenary systems for long-haul and delivery trucks, what about all the off-road trucks? Can you imagine stringing overhead wires across millions of acres of farmland, construction sites, sand and gravel mining, logging, and along transmission wires to maintain them? Rural areas were the last to be electrified, and would need a great deal more power plants, substations, and other electrical infrastructure to power these off-road uses.
If this were attempted, the rough terrain is likely to cause dewirement when the catenary poles detach from the wire at a pothole or bad switch.
Of course, there are mines that have electric mining trucks that run on extremely smooth roads, but the vast majority of the world’s ores are too far from the electric grid to electrify them. Mining sites that use catenary trucks typically have an onsite power plant generating electricity because the cost of diesel is so high in that region. These trucks only use electricity on the uphill or downhill part of the road, and operate on diesel when the road is level. Diesel operation is also required because catenary is very expensive and can’t be placed everywhere at the mining site. Batteries are not used because they drain quickly, are heavy and expensive, and take a long time to charge (Python 2010).
So far the Ports of Los Angeles and San Pedro have done the most research on what it would take to make a catenary system possible for drayage trucks between the ports and inland distribution warehouses. Their interest in doing this is solely for air quality. Energy efficiency and conserving oil aren’t considerations.
The ports don’t know if a catenary system for trucks is possible. According to Calstart (2013), this is a new situation. San Francisco has one of the largest catenary transit systems in the world, with 300 trolleybuses and 150 light rail cars. But on average they’re running 10 minutes apart. In contrast, the I-710 drayage truck corridor has over 10,000 trucks that can weigh twice as much running seconds or less apart. Estimating the power needed, and whether the power can be distributed to all of them is unknown.
Although Sweden, Germany, and the USA are all in the process of building demonstration catenary systems about a mile long and a few dual-mode trucks to run on them, most of them with non-renewable diesel or natural gas backup), these experiments are more concerned with whether trucks can connect and disconnect from the catenary at high speed and won’t answer the question of whether thousands of trucks can run seconds apart, and how much power it would take to do so.
And consider the scale. There are 16,349 catenary trucks expected to be running in 2020 (SCAG 2013), that’s orders of magnitude more than San Francisco’s MUNI catenary vehicles: 311 trolley buses and 151 light-rail cars. And heavy-duty trucks are heavy. They can weigh twice as much as a trolley bus and require more power to move.
In California, four demonstration trucks (and a similar number in Sweden) are planned for the mile-long catenary being built, with the following second modes after leaving the wire: one with a battery that can go for 10 miles (ARB SEP 2014), one that runs on diesel, and two that run on compressed natural gas (Hsu 2016).
Finally remember what I wrote about performance earlier.
The ultimate conclusions are two. Civilization as we know it depends on (i.e. is addicted to) fossil fuels, especially diesel and there's no real alternative yet. Talking about new green technologies that will sort the predicament out for us and preaching the supposedly unlimited ingenuity of the human spirit is the easiest thing to do in the world. Such is the case with statements that are not based on hard reason. It's easy to speak on a non-technical basis about complex things. But the practical work of actually developing such technologies and means and putting them in place as well as the theoretical work analysts and policy-makers have to do is heavyweight stuff.
There's nothing crackpot about saying civilization will fail and collapse. It just means lots of suffering and unwilling adjustment until the material, social, and political relations that reproduce society change radically. Societies in recorded and pre-recorded human history have always followed this road. The difference is that the collapse of own global society will be of an unprecedented magnitude for obvious reasons. Mass globalized societies are a world-historical novum. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I never tried to imply that the collapse of Civilization was a crackpot idea. It is possible, I suppose. Just not because of the availability of diesel fuel. Cities don't require long-distance truck service to survive. Power line trolleys and steam-powered locomotives could do the job. Local distribution doesn't require large trucks.The difference would amount to a change in the standard of living due to increased costs. Forget about battery-powered trucks: they are irrelevant to the survival of civilization.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You left out what will happen to big oil as well as oil exporting countries. I guess solar power could be for the latter a way to survive. The problem is the infraestructure to carry electricity from there elsewhere. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel By civilization I mean the mass society model that has now gone global. There are trillions of dollars worth of billions of trucks, ships, locomotives, and equipment essential for planting and harvesting food, building and maintaining infrastructure (roads, bridges, construction), and mining.
They all have diesel engines and there's a good reason for that. It's absolutely erroneous to say that cities don't need heavy-duty trucks to survive.
Take a look inside your refrigerator, cupboards and on your dinner table. Wouldn't there be foodstuffs that you bought today or the day before yesterday? How did they reach your local retail grocery shop chain? They all got there on a huge truck and could never have gotten there on a trolley car. Those are meant to shuttle people, not materials.
After consuming the foodstuffs you bought I am supposing that you had garbage to take out today or yesterday. Who's going to take that garbage away? It's trucks that run on diesel and which couldn't run on anything else.
Today or yesterday you emptied your bowels of waste. Who makes sure that the city doesn't drown in its own filth? It's a vacuum truck that pumps our crap out for us and takes it to the disposal site.
Take a look around the room where you are located as you are reading these lines. Your furniture reached you by truck and miscellaneous items of all kinds reached your retailer by truck as well.
Next time you leave your home for any reason, take a good look at the building you live in and to which you'll return to. The materials used to build it not only got there by truck but were mined by truck as well.
Once you arrive home you'll probably help yourself to a glass of water from the tap. Who purified your water for you keeping you safe from waterborne diseases? It's the good people working at water treatment plants. Their job couldn't be done without trucks.
You require electricity to prepare your food. Can you guess what kind of vehicle delivered fuel to the power plant?
You are either a commuter or drive a car or motorcycle to work. If you use a trolley car, a tram and the like, what kind of vehicle supplied fuel to the power plant? If you use something else, what kind of vehicle supplied your local gas station?
I could say much more but there's no need to. Nobody wants to imagine what their life would be like without trucks. It's horrendous. All that stands between you, your next door neighbor and cannibalism, is diesel. We have become so used to our way of life that we've forgotten that it's not necessarily the natural way of things. It is the result of concerted effort by a humble minority of people doing the essential jobs. No job is more essential than transportation. Gewgtweg (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
What you fail to imagine, and I'm not sure why this is so, diesel fuel will not suddenly disappear. Production would gradually decline, allowing for engineered compensations. Your arguments don't sound fallacious if you say them fast. None of them are convincing. Civilization would not collapse, it would change. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course it won't suddenly disappear. I never said that. But as it gets scarce, life will change too, and certainly not for the better. There are no 'engineered compensations', whatever that means. I explained why adequately. The mass consumption model that we all live by is not sustainable because fossil fuels are finite. Technology doesn't have a way to bail us out because there's no conceivable engine, contraption or invention that can do the work that fossil fuel does for us now, especially diesel.
The point is moot. Collapse is change by definition. Just the most sudden and violent. Radical i.e. 'to the root'. You see, when societies crumble they are struck at the root. Most instances of societal collapse that our historical consciousness is familiar with are political. One doesn't have to look centuries back. Think about Yugoslavia, the USSR or Syria. There was a political convulsion and degeneration of the political power bearer. The locals were afflicted with hardship and their lives dramatically worsened. The collapse we're talking about is different. Once global industrial society loses the capacity to reproduce itself, whole humanity will be struck at the root. It won't be just another political collapse. When the material means that sustain life disappear, the human species as a whole degrades dramatically in its capacity to self-preserve. So collapse of civilization will bring about a situation where humanity will partially return to the animal kingdom. This won't come suddenly. It will come slowly and excruciatingly from the POV of humans and their limited attention spans. From the POV of history, it will be very quick. I'd be surprised if by 2100 the world's population exceeded one billion. Gewgtweg (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That it will be so slow gives some hope for at the very least somewhat mitigate its effects. — Unsigned, by: 195.235.239.100 / talk
The rate of world conventional oil production (attention should be paid to the words RATE and CONVENTIONAL) happened in 2005 and conventional oil production has been on a plateau since then. Robert Hirsch wrote that we ought to prepare 20 years ahead of time for peak production, but really he should have said 50 to 100 years. In Vaclav Smil's book 'Energy myths and realities' the author explains convincingly why energy transitions take such a long time. You could google 'Moore’s Curse and the Great Energy Delusion' for more.
Clearly once oil production begins to decline, we aren’t going to be able to make the transition, because from mining to fabrication to supply chains to final delivery, electricity generating contraptions and biofuels depend on heavy-duty diesel-engine trucks, railroads and ships. Most 'alternatives' generate electricity, and we don’t have heavy-duty battery or catenary or hydrogen fuel celled trucks, and probably never will.
The only encouraging sign, at least for US citizens, is that there's a US institution which is more concerned for the future of energy than any other government institution in the US and the planet. It's the military. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

What is this rant for? Presumably Gewgtweg has this one particular axe to grind about how Diesel is at the heart of everything (and so nothing existed until 1892?), OK, and they've constructed this elaborate fantasy around that, but, how does RW get involved in that craziness? At what point in Gewgtweg's day did they stop mumbling "Diesel. Diesel diesel. Everything is diesel and diesel is everything. Diesel diesel diesel" to themselves and find the need to look up RW's Peak Oil article and write all this? Did we trigger that somehow? And is it specifically diesel? There's also a lot of weird stuff about trucks. Is the key that they're diesel trucks, or is it the trucks themselves that captured his imagination? I know that toddlers often become fascinated with trucks for a while, they're very big and, unlike elephants or whales, most of us see them around us, they're a bit newer than Rudie's coal-powered engine but if you're crazy enough to think this all began in 1892 why not a few years later in 1898 with the semi... So maybe it's that ? Tialaramex (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The only fantasy, the only dream, is believing that our way of life is the quasi natural way of things. We've become so used to it that we've put ourselves on autopilot. We're somnambulating from paycheck to paycheck and have lost the time and the interest to see how the world actually works. If you try to get people to snap out of it, they're going to talk gibberish, like someone mumbling in his sleep. That's exactly the case with Tialaramex who is unfortunately not only ignorant but supplements his ignorance with poor reasoning skills and a trivial attitude.
From the logic of all I said, it doesn't follow in any way that human society didn't function before uncle Rudolf's prototype engine. On the contrary, I talked about how long energy transitions take. Also, I expect any commentator to have the working brain enabling him to understand that I am referring to modern mass societies, modern globalist civilization, and that 1892 was very different. I expect the commentator to be able to understand the difference between static and dynamic developments too. If diesel engines stopped working today, that doesn't mean that we would simply go to where we were in 1892. Billions of people are alive now and more are expected, the majority live in cities and require diesel to mine topsoil, produce fertilizer, operate intensive agriculture, operate the earth-moving machines that harvest coal and other minerals and metals, maintain supply chains, service their cities, maintain their infrastructure, build up a modern military, the list is endless.
If Tialaramex has serious proposals about how the modern world could work without heavy-duty diesel engines, I'm listening. But nobody can deny that diesel plays the most crucial role and that diesel comes primarily from oil. In fact, there is nothing that doesn't depend on oil at some point during its life cycle. Gewgtweg (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well I guess that firmly answers the question in favour of the "just crazy about diesel" thing. Should I experiment? I am sorely tempted. OK, so, Gewgtweg do you understand the difference between fuel and energy? The big moving engines you were so enthralled by happen to need lots of energy, so if we can't bring the energy directly to them as it's used we need an energy dense fuel. But they don't care how we get that fuel. The only constraint is that we need to get the energy in that fuel from somewhere. There is a nearby star (you've probably seen it) pumping out far more energy than we'd need for that, orders of magnitude more, we just need to use it to make fuel. Again, the trucks do not care whether the "diesel" came from a fractional distillation of crude oil drilled out of the ground after millions of years, or was made from the used cooking oil from fast food places in a big vat on Thursday. The latter, in case you're not paying attention is not a "fossil fuel" and isn't subject to "Peak Oil". We can make more. In many countries the common "diesel" you keep talking about is already mandated by law to be 5% produced by the latter method, and this fraction is expected to rise. Tialaramex (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tialaramex: the public bus company here is replacing Diesel buses -that use a Diesel/Biofuel (whatever) mixture- with CNG ones, and it's planned Diesel -except some brand-new hybrid models and perhaps old buses to have as backups- will be phased out within a few years, leaving the mentioned plus some electric buses (mid-sized (12 meters-long), not smaller ones, and with juice enough for six hours, I think). A bus is not the same as a truck, but one gets the idea
Even on the scenario depicted above, I can think changes. Maybe the big rigs will forever be gone, but changes on the way goods are delivered could somewhat alleviate that, however what he also fails to mention is that will happen to planes and freighters, that use derivatives of petroleum to work and I feel that's more important than (Diesel!) trucks ceasing to be.
Stuff as solar-powered blimps (the issue is how to fill them, as helium is so scarce and hydrogen so dangerous) may also pop up. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tielaramex So photosynthesis is enough to solve the liquid fuel crisis. Trucks don't care how we get fuel. It could be spent cooking oil. Is that it, genius? Biofuel distribution wastes valuable diesel fuel. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1166 Biofuels are an environmental nightmare. 'The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself', said president Franklin D. Roosevelt. There's not enough biomass to fuel transportation. It's a matter of scale. When it comes to heavy-duty engines things are even more dire. The chemical structure of material that comes from agriculture is different to that of petroleum. Fuel economy, efficiency and safety are compromised.
Rudolf's first engine was designed to run on peanut oil, and Henry Ford envisioned plant-based fuel as the primary fuel for transportation and partnered with Standard Oil to develop biofuel production and distribution. However, currently the only type of biodiesel fuel that can be used in vehicles in North America without violating manufacturer’s warranties is B5, a blend of 5 percent biodiesel and 95 percent regular diesel. Most diesel engines run just fine on blends of up to 30 percent biodiesel. Heavy-duty trucking engines don't. They require 2-D diesel. It’s less volatile than 1-D and provides greater fuel economy. Gewgtweg (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ariel Sorry, but you need to get something into your head and let it sink. Diesel combustion engines do the actual work that keeps us ALIVE. Ships (Marine residual fuel oil plus diesel fuel), tractors, harvesters, equipment, and all the infinite types of trucks use such engines and require diesel fuel. It is the true bedrock of modern civilization. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but your specious arguments suppose that fossil fuel might suddenly become unavailable. This is extremely unlikely. It presumes that the petrochemical managers might forget how commodities markets work: prices rise over a long period of time as suppliers predict the size of future inventories to maximize profits. It basically invalidates your entire perspective about civil collapse. Sorry to be the one to inform you. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
'Extremely unlikely'? Are you aware that fossil fuels are finite and that humanity's consumption requirements (requirements not 'habits' is the right way to put it) are enormous? It's dead certain that they will become unavailable. Few things could be as certain in life. It has to do with physics not with economics or finance. Global rate of conventional oil has already peaked more than a decade ago because there's simply less oil than before. What you just described is what black marketeers do. That's not the way the fossil fuel industry or the commodities market work. Fossil fuels won't become 'suddenly' unavailable and, I repeat, I never said that. Instead they will be available to fewer and fewer of the global community and nations will fight over them. Hell, we're already fighting over them. Why are we in the Middle East in the first place? Of course it has to do with oil. It's about securing the world's energy hub. We will never get out of there. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

hmm..I don't really see any counter argument to Gewg here. The only thing I would disagree on is that actually in the fairly unlikely event that commercial fusion becomes a viable alternative in the next 20 years, this could actually make things even worse. It would buy us more time sure, but even if we had an energy source more efficient then diesel that would just mean that we could continue to grow until we literally run out of natural resources and farmland. The only real solution I can think of would be some form of compulsory sterilization worldwide, and getting a majority, hell even a minority of countries to agree to that would never happen. If you don't mind, gewg, send me an email at joebt@mail.com id like to talk to yaMrTree (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That's because you don't understand that diesel is being used because it is cheaper, not because it is the only way to fuel the economy. The current methods will be used until something else is cheaper. That's the way it works kid. There are already power systems that can do the job. They are too expensive to be preferable, not too expensive to be survivable. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
referring to me as a "kid" to somehow boost your argument? haha. Ive done that before to, but perhaps your older and wiser then me. I'm well aware that there is more then one way to transport freight, and we tend to get creative when we are pushed against a wall. Actually I wish gewg was wrong about this and that you are right and everything works out somehow. First of all, since this is rational wiki we can debate, but keep in mind there is spectrum of likely vs unlikely with some of this because there are to many variables and uncertainties. Which power systems in particular are you referring to? Because then it becomes a question of whether or not we adapt fast enough. You do understand that various markets have crashed all the time throughout history? that is a thing that happens, not a wild conspiracy theory. Before the rise of the nazi's the average German was living in economic conditions worse then Americans were during the great depression. Given what we know about our species do you really think were all going to co-operate and share our resources? You are assuming this transition will be smooth, I am saying I don't know what will happen given the uncertainties.MrTree (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you are just a panic stricken citizen, and not a kid at all. Various markets have crashed because of paper transactions of dubious value, mostly due to fraud and defective banking systems, not because of resource shortages . I have already specified coal-fueled engines and the replacement of trucks with locomotives. Battery operated vehicles could handle short distances. This would be expensive. Bottom line: civilization would not collapse. This is my only point. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Facts remain. Planet has a limited amount of resources. Production of these resources will peak unless you believe in infinite growth. Population will continue to grow until then. We will find ourselves with 10 or 11 billion people on a planet that's more fit for 2 billion. We will then start killing eachother over the scraps.MrTree (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Facts are stubborn things. In a couple billion years the sun will burn out. I'm not worried.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The question of end user efficiency is something that I feel needs to be addressed thoroughly. I would agree that it is impossible to sustaintain the current level of consumption in modernized western societies as oil becomes more scarce. The question then becomes, to what level do individuals lessen consumption? What standard of living can be maintained in a post peak oil society? Samstr (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
All that is correct. The global political economy must be thought all over again. Global capitalism is already dying because the traditional distinction between labor and capital is becoming obsolete. This is due to the dearth of investment following the 2008 catastrophe, the rise of beasts the kind of google, and automation wiping out jobs without their being replaced. The only hope to cushion the impact of the inevitable transition is for radical progressives in Europe and America to take over and implement the policies that will keep the global financial crisis under control. If we manage to keep the financial crisis from consuming us then we can build a new political economy and only then will we be able to combat the energy crisis by radically limiting consumption. If instead we allow the financial crisis to consume us, all we're going to have is a global disorder and then the energy and ecological crisis will effectively wipe out civilization in a bloodbath without precedent in history. Gewgtweg (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we are essentially in agreement then. Capitalism as it is currently implemented is an inherently unsustainable model. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to go about creating a new sustainable economy without first undergoing the collapse of the current one. Samstr (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Does Rational Wiki have any Muslim writers[edit]

Just Curious? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

Probably not. But if you need some information, I can provide you some expertise in that area. I have read the Koran, the ahadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim, Sirat RassulAllah (ibn Ishaq), at the tafsir of Jalalayn. I also have familiarity with fiq. So ask away. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The Muslim userbox is on the user page of five different editors. None of them have been really major contributors. Only one of them has edited this year and she only edited her own user page when she did. Spud (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I probably don't count. Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, a Muslim convert, was here as User:Abd since 2012. He made numerous contributions, but he was perma-banned for doxxing last month. Bongolian (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone here debunked the Miracle of 19 in the Koran which Lomax subscribed to? The guy who came up with the miracle was Rashad Khalifa. He was assassinated by fellow Muslims for distorting the Koran - he had to distort the koran a wee bit (ok a little more than that) to work in the 19. His co-religionists did not take the blasphemy lightly even though he was manufacturing a miracle for allah. Here is the video making the connection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nclvJgT-HKI. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Never mind he is skeptical of the miracle of 19 MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The latest nonsense I've heard on a Christian (TM) station[edit]

Supposedly in the pre-flood days all the lands were one (Pangea), and the Flood was not that but instead a whole lot of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc (coming from the same preacher who earlier on talked about two floods, not just one, the first one to cleanse Earth of Satan and other fallen angels, etc (I brought that here before)), of course using the Bible as justification -where the formation and evolution of galaxies is also present (it's pretty difficult to know exact words due to interferences) (EDIT Hydroplate plus likely catastrophic plate tectonics BS. The man could at least be consistent, since each time says something different). Make of that what you will.Panzerfaust (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

So did this preacher believe in Noah's Ark? I'm not sure that a giant wooden boat would make for great shelter against the severe tectonic activity. Or did I misunderstand and this preacher also believed in an actual flood of water? I'm so confused. Samstr (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The two things. Weeks ago he talked about two floods, the first one having been sent to destroy Satan & Co and being responsible of marine fossils being found in mountains, etc and the second one when humans appeared (the one that forced Noah to build his Ark in 120 years) -I brought that here, must be somewhere in the archives of the Saloon bar-. Yesterday he claimed the Biblical flood (the second one, that unlike that first one at least it's not PIDOOMA creationist nonsense) was the result of extensive geological activity and the breakup of Pangea, associating it with this.
Of course no mentions of how a wooden boat would be able to survive such high levels of geological activity, far higher than anything even on the primitive Earth, and where exactly are the marks it would have left behind -not to mention other issues about the Flood and everything related this very wiki deals with-. In addition to that he seemed -interferences with a clogged radio spectrum meant I lost some of his comments- to imply galaxy formation is described in the Bible (I'd really like to know where the cosmic web is mentioned there, which I seriously doubt).
The thing is, the man seems to like to sprout nonsense thinking nobody will give a fuck, as comparatively few people listen those stations. Does someone know if Disney obtains most of its benefits from oil as he also said?. I seriously doubt it, and not just because I've been unable to find info on a casual search. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm also skeptical that Disney obtains most of its benefits from oil, except in the broadest sense that virtually all of our modern economy is heavily dependent on oil. That being said, I'm most interested in his claim that galaxy formation is described in the Bible. Is he a young earth creationist who believes that the Earth (and presumably the universe by extension) is 6000 years old? The closest galaxy, Andromeda, is over 2 million light-years away, so it wouldn't be visible to us in a young universe. Furthermore, galaxies can be hundreds of thousands of light years in diameter, in a 6000 year old universe, gravitational fields from the center of the galaxy wouldn't propogate to the edge in time to form stable orbits. Galactic formation doesn't make sense on such short timeframes. Samstr (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Old Earth creationist, not Young Earth one -He claims the seven days of Creation are not days in a literal sense-. Still, the same problem with where's mentioned galaxy formation (better said, where are mentioned galaxies or, far better, something that we know to exist since the telescope was invented back in 1600 (say, the rings of Saturn or the largest moons of Jupiter)) persists. And vague references plus cherry-picking do not count
Frankly, he's not the worst one after I picked other who claimed Hell is in the depths of this planet giving as proof among other things that Earth's innards are searing hot, and especially this mixed with PIDOOMA claims of it being so deep than the sound of a rock dropped to it would never be heard hitting the floor. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Monday morning dumpster dive[edit]

After some initial enthusiasm, the effort on the burning, burning dumpster of fire seems to have slackened off. As a reminder, someone needs to manually change the dive of the week every Monday. Also, it's probably a good idea to announce the new target in the Saloon when that happens since the Saloon gets more eyeballs. In that vein, Gaia Health is this week's target. Also, please feel free to add more pages for the voting on future targets. Bongolian (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Rick and Morty vs. Doctor Who[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks that the two shows are antithetical to one another? Both have similar premises (an old adventurer and his younger companion(s) having adventures across time and space), but everything else diverges wildly.

  • The Doctor and Rick both refuse to follow any authority aside from their own, but while the Doctor still has a strong moral code he adheres to, Rick is, well, Rick.
  • The Doctor abhors violence in general and guns in particular, while Rick regularly shoots people and uses violence as one of his first solutions to problems ("Raising Gazorpazorp").
  • The Doctor refuses to kill even threats such as the Daleks and the Master, while Rick wiped out both the Galactic Federation and the Citadel of Ricks without batting an eye.
  • They love their companions but, obviously, in different ways. However, while the Doctor refuses to really express his love for his companions because he knows he will outlive them, Rick views his attachment to Morty and Summer as toxic.
  • The Doctor "destroyed" Gallifrey only as a last resort, and he has counted it as his greatest failure ever since. Rick, on the other hand, fled Earth C137 after Cronenberg-ing it and moved into life in his new universe rather quickly, barely remembering his home dimension.

Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no. People keep bringing this up. The seed of it is Emmett Brown and Marty McFly from Back to the Future, not whichever combination of Doctor Who plus companion you happen to be thinking of. Inevitably as a vaguely Sci Fi-type show it ends up using some tropes familiar from other Sci Fi shows like Doctor Who, and since there have been literally _hundreds_ of episodes of Doctor Who you can find everything if you're determined to look for it. Different Doctors have exhibited different personalities, some have been very analytical, some were men of action, some took few human companions, others had several at a time. To some extent of course that's a result of changing trends in television (e.g. in the modern era the companion has tended to be an attractive young woman because that sells) but we could say the same of Rick & Morty's choice to focus more on Beth and Summer. Mostly I would urge you remember that Rick & Morty is a comedy first and foremost, Rick is an asshole largely because that's funnier. Any time you're tempted to ascribe some more complicated motive, consider first, is it just funnier this way? Then that's why. Tialaramex (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, if Rick shows up wearing braces and culottes again, that's a joke. It's funny, laugh. Don't start looking for a hidden message. A reasonable baseline goal is not to be one of the drooling morons who besieged their local McDonalds demanding special dipping sauce because it was on a TV show. Tialaramex (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer that Rick is a parody of the Doctor Who/Sherlock/House archetype of "super-genius whose single flaw is the way they're an asshole to everyone around them" amplified to the level of "basically god" and "irredeemable mass-murdering sociopath" for each trait. Only... the parody gets lost on most of the fans because we've been spoonfed morally unambiguous heroics for those charactertypes so long, we read everything about it as positive. Also every fan who thinks they're a Rick is actually a Jerry. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ikanreed What about the fans who think they're a Morty? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought this was Rationalwiki rather than Fandomwiki. (Justifiable use of term, so no drink necessary.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
True, but this is the Saloon. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a distinction between 'necessity' and 'appropriateness' - and 'on this occasion not being the standard complaint.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth I completely agree with @Ikanreed that Rick is meant to be a parody of the archetype in the same way that Saitama is meant to be a parody of the overpowered-protagonist-teenage-guy found in anime (think Kirito from SAO). When done right (and I think R&M does it right) these parodies are hilarious. Koi "I could really use an animator because I have so many ideas floating around in my head" development 13:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
And like saitama, he's definitely treated as just an even cooler version of that thing by the fans. If you asked the specifically with a yes/no question, most of them could probably identify that Saitama is a parody, but the popular discussion doesn't treat him that way. I do like the very time-appropriate material of power fantasy creating crippling depression. Very resonant, both for one punch man and rick and morty. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Maine or LePage?[edit]

So basically, I'm thinking of adding an explanation as to why Paul LePage is so popular in Maine in spite of the rampant racism. Or well, not "popular" so much as "not utterly despised". I (on my phone) put a little blurb on the LePage talk page, but I'm not sure if it should go in his bio or Maine in general.

Long story short, due to the opioid crisis, a number of drug dealers move to Maine to sell heroin. Majority are white, but for virtually the first time in Maine's history a sizable number of black people show up (Somali refugees notwithstanding). Even though the problem is more white than black, black people become the symbol of the heroin epidemic ravaging Maine. Thus, when LePage blames Smoothie and D-Shifty, it resonates a lot with the locals, and when they are told the actual stats it's all "fake news". CorruptUser (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the evolutionary purpose of fearing romantic rejection?[edit]

We all know the fear of rejection. Yet confident people are seen as attractive, not insecure ones.

What's the evolutionary reason for fearing rejection? Wouldn't confidence lead to more success in attracting a mate?

Was there a time perhaps when being too confident got you killed? Or is this proof that evolution is an Illuminati hoax and that the FSM just hates us? --TeslaK20 (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense because our ancestors were spiders, according to EVILUTION. Just kidding, I know we didn't come from spiders (because there are still spiders). 2.121.207.90 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Humans have an innate goal to achieve high social status, as we are social creatures and when push comes to shove, the people at the bottom are the ones that starve. Everything that lowers status or lets you know you have lower status is psychologically painful. Rejection is one of those things. Not to mention that asking and failing potentially lowers status in the sense that others find out you got rejected. CorruptUser (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Fear of romantic rejection is a very modern psychological effect. Hundreds of thousands of years ago, when human brains were still evolving, I imagine that romance followed customs that would be regarded as alarming by modern standards.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it actually more general, though? People will worry about doing many things that might not work, even when they know they won't lose anything. 2.121.207.90 (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I'm not actually a biologist, so I can't speak on this topic with authority. However, I would suspect that some traits aren't actually selected for, but rather tend to arise naturally as side effects of other traits that are selected for. Fear of romantic rejection could be a side effect of organisms evolving to fear risky actions that could incur some sort of injury. Alternatively, I might be completely wrong about this side effect hypothesis. It could be argued that fear of romantic rejection incentivizes careful selection of a mate. Humans have an abnormally long developmental period, so perhaps careful selection of mates was selected for because it lead to healthier families and more successful children. Samstr (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Romance, let alone the pain it causes, has nothing to do with evolution as such. Romance appeared when modern brains appeared. Romance is a temporary infatuation with one particular individual. The sex drive is infused with all sorts of ideations and idealizations. The question we have to figure out is why the human race evolved to have ideations and idealizations in the first place. If we sort that out we'll sort out the romance question. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Surprisingly few people realise how extremely different primitive human social structures and culture was like. As Desmond Morris (amongst others) pointed out romantic interaction in primitive man would be unrecognizable to us. Small groups of humans occupied very large tracts of land and they encountered other groups of humans infrequently meaning courting opportunities were few and people encountered perhaps 100 other people in their lifetime of which mates likely came from (per incest avoiding). Absolutely everything everyone did was very public and mostly a shared experience. It is also quite unlikely that arranged marriages or convenience marriages were common and that couples paired together after mutual attraction. Fear of rejection comes from the pressure to find a mate when few options are on the table as well as the anxiety over what would be a very very very public failure if the feelings are exposed but aren't shared. 87.218.194.226 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The great and the good: Alexander[edit]

Alexander smashed the empire of Cyrus but at the same time wiped out the Hellenic city states. He plundered the wealth of Asia and imposed a tyrant's regime worse than the Achaemenid dynasts. Plundering was indeed the primary motivation of the campaign and was necessary for the power and luxurious life of the royal house and its lackeys.

The internecine conflict and vile behavior of Alexander's successors would complete the demise of the Hellenic nation states -already begun since Philip's time- and make them easy prey for the Republic. The Alexandrian despotic attitude vis-a-vis the Hellenic and Anatolian nations would be copied by the Romans and in time lead to the transition from Republic to Empire. They took care to incorporate Alexander in their militarist ideology and practice and continue his work, the imperialist drive into Asia Minor, in a frenzy of subjugation, massacre and enslavement.

Consuls and emperors literally worshiped Alexander as a god and followed in his footsteps and example. He served as the ultimate embodiment of conquest and supremacy. The effective genocide in cases like Epirus and Gaul happened precisely in the effort to copy Alexander. At the time of Augustus, the revolts and upheavals in Germany, the Balkans and Israel, all happened during the same era. They were related phenomena and were all in fact chiefly inspired by the vulgar oriental-style despotism that Alexander had taught the Romans to act with. Only a change in attitude after those instructive events helped the Empire stabilize itself and survive and prosper the following centuries.

It was that moral-ideological change that gave birth to Roman law, sidelined orientalism, and prevented its capital from sharing the fate of Carthage. In the end however, the plague of all traditional empires, i.e. the quarrels of candidate monarchs, weakened the empire and former foederati leading bands of tribal paupers by their home territories, conquered much of the western half. The crossing of Roman law and Germanic law yielded western feudalism which mixed with imperialism to yield the capitalism we know and love. Capitalism created the men of business and finance that contemporary folk adore and study in the same way the Hellenes celebrated the lives of philosophers, medieval Europeans the monks, and Easterners the gurus.

The deification that Alexander imposed for his persona and the state-sponsored monarch worship instituted by the diadochoi and epigonoi, created the theory and praxis that lingers on until now in some measure. It set a standard for statehood not only for the early Roman emperors but also their western Christian successors who ruled by natural law and divine right. In this manner, much like the history of communism, the Christian religion transformed itself from an initially revolutionary ideology opposed to Roman power to an ideology that legitimized the newly solidified oppressive rule before finally decaying into an ideology that lines the pockets of the most successful of charlatans, i.e. televangelists, creationists and the like.

In the Palazzo Ducale of Venice Tiepolo portrays the sea mistress Venice as a female deity touching with her right hand a lion, a symbol of great power, while Neptune pours onto her feet the horn of plenty and its treasures. The doge appears in a work by Varonese sitting among Mary and the angels. Venice is seated with the Olympians. Justice and peace personified honor the Serenissima etc.

In the 19th century we witness the spread of Alexander's fictional image as an apostle of western civilization that brought culture to barbaric Asia, an image also portrayed in our Hollywood movie. During that era, the same principle is applied to the 'holy' emperors of 'enlightened despotism'.

Culture, nurturing with those motifs generation after generation, gives rise to the legend of the 'Greats', an adoration that would seem repugnant to the multitudes that suffered under their rule. That expert on immorality and debauchery, Marquis de Sade, once quarried: 'What is more immoral that war?' It was a rhetorical question. There is arguably nothing that causes more suffering than war. Singing odes to the power of war-makers, as Plutarch did for Alexander, ensures that wars of conquest with all their far-reaching ramifications, will exist in the future. The moral failures of today, breed the political failures of tomorrow. In the end, political failures lead to failed states. All anthropogenic tragedies, wars or otherwise, are ultimately the result of man's moral imperfection. As long as man remains imperfect and the measure of all things, the worst disasters will not be prevented.

Author's note: I don't use the conventional term 'Greek' for Hellenic because it is a misnomer giving two misleading impressions. That the Hellenic world was confined to the borders of the modern Brussels debt colony and that the inhabitants of that failed state are genetically and culturally related to the ancient inhabitants of the same area. This is false. Modern Greeks might use an endonym that is derived from 'Hellenic' but that is due to 19th century Greek nationalist myth-making and with regards to actual history the label is as unjustified as modern Wallachians calling themselves Romanians. If the 19th century Greek state (=Great Power protectorate) had not been built by Bavarian philhellenes it should normally be called Romania, Rumeli, Romanistan or something like that since Byzantines always called their domain Romania and themselves Romei or Romyi, derived from the Roman origins of the Eastern Roman Empire. Romanistan (with Turkic suffix -stan) might be more fitting since at the time the state was created its language was a Koine-Turkish creole much like modern English is a Saxon-French-Norse creole. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'm not entirely convinced that RW is a hotbed of opinion on Alexander's legacy, if that's the discussion you want to have. Boredatwork (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
We probably ought to have an article on Alexander the Great. I can supply info about him as a figure in medieval romances. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm maybe. He's also sometimes touted as a gay icon, too. Oh all right, maybe RW is a hotbed of opinion on ol' Alex, after all! Boredatwork (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think that Gewgtweg's original post was not intended to spark an entirely literal conversation about Alexander. Rather, Alexander the Great is used in an almost symbolic context to describe the way modern society (and historical societies) perceive leaders and conquerors, the "greats". If I am correct in this interpretation, I think that there are some valid and interesting points raised about the perils of hero worship. I find the conclusion particularly interesting; as long as humans remains imperfect, human suffering will continue. While I do tend to agree, I have to wonder how we can define perfection. In my mind, perfection almost implies some sort of Platonic ideal of human morality that we can compare the current moral standards of human society to. How else can we define perfection and imperfection of human morals except as that which causes human suffering, which renders the claim a tautology. Perhaps defining perfection in that manner is reasonable, and the tautology is a simple application of a straightforward definition. Samstr (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately, for most of Alexander's subjects, it made sweet FA of difference whether their king was Alexander, or one of his generals, or some Persian, or the Athenians, or the Romans, or anyone else. You only paid taxes if you had money, and no one had any. Any allegiance you had to your city or ethnicity was not that big a deal. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There was also the benefit of 'more gods - more excuses for feasting/observing some bigwigs pontificating' and more work for the construction and priestly robes industries. Anna Livia (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I get the feeling Gewgtweg isn't very fond of Greeks. I kind of want to make a rebuttal of the various historical and ethno-linguistic claims, but I don't want to wade through giant blocks of text. I'll just attack the first 'misleading impression'. Many people outside of Greece might only associate it with the southernmost part of the Balkans, but that has more to do with their education level regarding the topic. I don't like relying on analogies, but a helpful one might be that it's like saying Germany shouldn't be called such because it ignores the German populations and their history outside of the nation.Teurastaja (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what gave you the impression that I am 'not fond of Greeks'. I have no problem with them. It's nationalism and falsification of history that I have a problem with. Just because I called the country a 'debt colony' and 'failed state' doesn't mean I hate them. It's the reality and Yanis Varoufakis, 'the Thucydides of our time', as Jeffrey Sachs called him, agrees. So the man who taught me to call the country a 'debt colony' is a Greek himself, and someone I am in agreement with on nearly everything he says.
That the Greek language was a Koine-Turkish creole at the time the state was created is out of the question. Linguistic purism changed that although in the modern Greek vernacular the presence of Turkish words still remains significant. Concerning genetics, the population is in varying degrees a mixture of Wallachians, Albanians, Avars, Slavs, Venetians, Turks and other peoples of Anatolia, North Africans and more. The only thing they are not is descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the region who already started to disappear in the Hellenistic era.
By 741 A certain Willibald writes in his journal of his travels to Greece 'Ad urbem Manifaciam in sclavinica terra'. The area was called 'sclavinica' because for centuries it was inhabited almost entirely by the invading Avar-Slavs, a fact that is corroborated by the Byzantines themselves and is undisputed by historians. Later the Byzantines subjugated them and resettled hundreds of thousands Slavs to Anatolia, the core of the empire, in order to fill depopulated areas. That is the the reason genetics shows that Slavic contribution to modern Greek ancestry is rather low (another reason is early 20th century ethnic cleansing in the north of the country). The area was resettled with Albanians and peoples of Anatolia.
The Germans call themselves 'Deutsche' which doesn't come from 'Teutonic' as misconception has it but means 'gentiles', 'commoners', 'common folk' etc. and was initially used by the Christian Germans who were the ruling class, to call the common people who had not yet been christianized. It is analogous in meaning to the term 'ethnikos' that we find in the septuagint meaning 'gentile' and 'heathen'. The Greeks call themselves 'Ellines' but it was only in the 19th century that they started to do that. Before that, the country spoke a variety of languages. Wallachian, Albanian, Italian, Turkish, Koine-Turkish creoles, South Slavic etc. A multi-ethnic, multi-lingual situation persisted in much of Greece until 1922. Once you look seriously at the history of the country (and nationalists never bother with that), the allegation of modern Greek nationalism that the same people inhabit the place since 2500 years is beyond ludicrous. Hardly anybody can pull that off, especially a region that has been invaded and settled so many times by so many different nations. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Samstr The interpretation is correct. Concerning 'morality' I don't use the term in the modern sense. It's closer to the archaic sense of the term, the one employed by Clausewitz or Marx for example and who used it to mean something like 'inner quality', 'human constitution' or 'fiber'. Moral imperfection are instances where men cause trouble because of weaknesses in their own inner quality, such as cowardice, fear, greed, passion, false hope, etc. Since man is the measure of all things, all manner of bullshit he does is due to those weaknesses. To beautify men like Alexander, as Plutarch did, is 'bullshit' in that sense, since the image of an adorer is a false image.

In 1204 the crusaders raped Constantinople and essentially set the Byzantine empire on a course of irreversible decline. They were able to do that because of a moral failure by the emperor. He had more than enough forces to ward off the crusaders but he panicked and ran away from the city. And that was it. Without the emperor to provide a moral authority in what was an absolutist state where everything depends on one man, men just didn't fight. They followed his example, took their families and ran.

If the coward had stayed put the city wouldn't have been captured. If Stalin had done the same mistake and ran away from Moscow in 1941 I don't believe the Soviet Union would have survived either. And yet the fact that he suffered millions of casualties was because of his moral failures. He had massacred all capable military men because of fear. He stifled innovative thinkers like Triandafilov because he valued intellectual subservience. In spite of evidence, he failed to anticipate and prepare for invasion because of false hope.

More recent examples for Europeans: if in 2010 George Papandreou hadn't in his cowardice took on new unrepayable loans and had simply defaulted instead of masking the bankruptcy with new loans imposed by official Europe to cover up losses of Franco-German banks, not only Greece wouldn't be a debt colony today (which will remain forever) but Europe would have been forced to change for the better (which it will not). His moral failure was cowardice. The moral failure of guys like Panakonstantinou, who advised Papandreou to do the wrong thing, was to protect their own career which depended on Brussels and particularly the German finance ministry. That is the moral failure of ambition, subservience and self-service.

If Angela Merkel didn't insist on maintaining her country's unsustainable trade surpluses and moved to Europeanize Germany's private banks the European banking crisis (officially 'debt crisis') would have been resolved. This moral failure will doom the EU to disintegration and Germany to huge suffering. Here the moral failure is unreasonable pride and short-sighted stupidity.

Moral imperfection is the unmistakable human capacity to screw things up and has to do with human nature. Moral greatness, or moral enlightenment is the same thing as Clausewitz's 'Takturteil'. It is the rare human capacity to deliver the best possible outcome given odds that are against you. The reason humans invented morality and religion in the first place is because deep down they don't like their world and so they find ways of making it seem (but not be) prettier. The moral imperfection of man is merely a function of the imperfection of his world. Man is a moral being in the sense that he attributes meaning to things. Animals don't do that.

An example of moral greatness is this. In the aftermath of the Greoc-Turkish war, Eleftherios Venizelos spared the Greeks in Turkey the fate of the Armenians (likewise for Turks in Greece) because of his idea of population exchanges. He was a great politician. If Greece didn't have him, it'd have half the territory today or even less. His moral virtues were the cause of his successes.

I am not religious but I think the reason the bible states 'blessed are the poor in spirit' is that the author thought that benign fools have already secured their existence in heaven because in their innocence they cannot recognize the difference between good and evil. The implication is that the rest of us, who were not born to be fools, must try hard to make the distinction and earn God's grace which was lost in the beginning because of the sin we inherited after the fall from grace. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Slavs did make it into Greece proper, but not to the same extent as the areas north of it. The situation in that specific area followed the same path as the Bulgars, who were Turkic but assimilated into the majority Slavic area of Bulgaria. The same goes for for the Ostrogoths and Visigoths. There of course is genetic admixture, but that doesn't make the current population non-Greek. I should probably look up the current Greek genetics. Looking at their haplotypes and percentages can give a good answer.Teurastaja (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Also, the Slavs were eventually kicked out.Teurastaja (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No. The Slavs made it as far south as Morea (a name which is of Slavic origin) and lived for centuries independent of the Eastern Roman Empire. They were polytheistic and present in massive numbers. What little had remained of the Hellenistic population was killed off during the invasion, fled to Italy or took refuge in Monemvasia and some mountainous regions. After their defeat a majority of the Slavs was transferred east and placed in depopulated regions in Anatolia to till the soil.
Meanwhile, Byzantines from the east steadily repopulated Morea. In other words, the fact that the Koine survived in Greece is because it was brought in from the east, not because it never ceased to be spoken as a majority language there. The reason the modern Greek language belongs to the Balkan sprachbund is because of the enormous Slavic influence on all South Balkan languages. Other languages derived partly from the Koine such as Pontic Greek or Cretan Greek do not show those features. In Greece Slavic place names were very common until the modern state officially 'hellenized' them. Nevertheless, they still survive wherever you see the -itsa suffix in toponymy. Some everyday Greek words also come from Slavic. An example is vulgar 'putsa' meaning 'dick' from Slavic 'butsa' meaning 'protrusion'.
There is no 'admixture'. There is population replacement that happened not once but many times. In the Hellenistic era, the population of Greece was largely replaced because of the genocidal campaigns of the successors, epidemics and mass immigration to the richer east. The Hellenistic population of Greece was a mixture of many elements such as modern Americans are in most cases a mixture of two, three or more nations. By 600 AD not much had remained of the Hellenistic population because of imperial and barbarian massacres as well as plagues. They were replaced by the Slavs, Avars and others.
The modern population is a mixture of Wallachians, Albanians (these two components are by far the strongest), Turks, North Africans and many others. Those white houses the islands have are simply traditional Tunisian architecture. That traditional dance they call Zeibekiko is Turkish. Zorba is Turkish for 'tyrant', conqueror'. Most of their music and cuisine is unmistakably Ottoman. Given all that, it's a historical absurdity to seriously call these people 'Hellenes' They're little more than Christian Turks who because of nationalism have learned to deny the legacy of their Ottoman past. Only some ruins remain that attest to the past presence of the Hellenes and the reason they are ruins is not their advanced age. They were destroyed by Christians and plundered systematically for centuries by local stonemasons. That's why I disagree with Stephen Fry. It was a blessing, not a crime that a part of the antiquities would be salvaged by westerners. They were saved from annihilation. Furthermore, giving those treasures to an unstable failed state is definitely a very bad idea. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I should have clarified. By a lesser extent, I meant in absolute numbers, not distance-wise. But the Slavs didn't really start to settle there until the 600's. I haven't read anything saying the majority of the Greek population was killed off by them, though they did see population loss, but the area was repopulated not too long after by Greeks migrating back from Anatolia and southern Italy. Undoubtedly, there was more genetic and cultural admixture later on during the Ottoman times, but nothing I've come across says that the current population is majority, let alone completely, unrelated to the Greeks of old. It's interesting that you say that they are Christian Turks, since the haplotypes of Turks actually points to their genetics being closer to the peoples of the Balkan's than anything else, combined with that of the other parts of the empire. They truly have gone through a great deal of miscegenation. Yet, even in their case, while their Turkic genetic component is so diminished, they have retained a Turkic language, culture, and identity. As for the cuisine, it's more accurate to describe it as Mediterranean. Many of those types of foods are found throughout the eastern shores of the sea. And again, with the Turks miscegenation, they probably also adopted the cuisine that was already present in the area. As for the words of Turkish origins, you surely must be cognizant of loanwords. Hell, there are Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages that have loanwords from each other, but they're from completely different language families. Come to think of it, this could be easily testable. There is a Maniot area where the people are said to still be descended from Spartans, since their location in the mountains kept most outsiders away. They probably have very little genetic admixture. If this proves to be true, then their genetics can be compared to other Greeks, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were certain differences depending on the area even if the rest of the population never changed.Teurastaja (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

During Byzantine times, Greece was not a core province of the empire. Anatolia was, both its western and eastern part. During Ottoman times however, Greece and western Anatolia were the core provinces. Contrary to what modern Greeks think, they were never abject slaves during Ottoman rule. They were a very rich and integrated area of the empire and enjoyed a level of autonomy unparalleled in other contemporary multi-ethnic empires like the Austrian or the Russian one, where subject nations really had it hard. Unlike the Bulgarians, Albanians and other nations, the Greeks were more economically developed and traditionally occupied many important positions in the Ottoman administration. Greeks were in charge of all Christian populations on behalf of the Sultan. The patriarch was the heir to the titles of the Byzantine despots themselves.
The point is that Greece had a relationship with the Ottomans that other Balkan vassals lacked. It was a core province. As such modern Greeks and modern Turks have culturally and linguistically more in common even as they hate each other. The Greeks deserve the title 'Christian Turks' entirely. All the rest would agree. Only these two nations consider talking about their close affinities an insult. Pay heed that I use 'Greek' in the religious and linguistic sense (the former Ottoman Christian that doesn't speak Slavic and whose liturgical language is solely the Koine). My usage of 'Greek' and 'Turk' doesn't imply racial homogeneity. Both the Greeks and the Turks are ethnic mixtures, alloys of many nations. That is precisely what you don't seem to understand. Just like most Greek nationalists do (are you Greek by the way?), you tend to identify Turks exclusively with the Turkic invaders from Central Asia. In fact, those settlers contribute only minimally (but visibly) to the descent of modern Turks who otherwise come from multiple nations native to Anatolia, the Balkans or the Near and Mid-East.
For God's sake. The Maniots (Mani comes from Slavic by the way) cannot be the descendants of the ancient Spartans. The Spartans were massacred during Hellenistic times in the wars against Alexander's successors. Sparta, as a city-state (it was more a collection of hamlets really) doesn't survive Hellenistic times, nor do the Spartans. The Maniots are a mixture of a few nations as are the rest of the Greeks. Given the conditions during the Ottoman Empire, the fact that the area was hard to get to means precisely the opposite of what you try to prove. Brigands, killers, and all sorts of outlaws fleeing the authorities took refuge there from all over. By the way, it's easy to get there by sea and Mani was a pirate hub. Nevertheless it never really developed. It remained a troglodyte shithole ravaged by clan warfare and one of the most backward places in the country after the creation of the modern state, and, unsurprisingly, a stronghold of Nazi collaborationism.
The majority of the Hellenistic population (who were themselves in no wise 'pure Hellenes' in the same way modern Americans are not pure Anglo-Saxons from Britain) was killed off during the Avar and Slavic invasions. We know that from Byzantine chroniclers who report that there's no 'Romei' to be found anywhere. In no uncertain terms they write 'the territory has been slavicized'. There's a reason Willibald called Greece 'sclavinica terra'.
There's no population on earth that has an unbroken 2500 year old history and they're no exception. They are a cultural and ethnic product of later centuries. For every person that is sane that's perfectly normal and not a problem. The Hellenes are effectively a dead nation since 2000 years. The Hellenists are dead too. Making a fetish out of historical fantasies is not a good thing. It poisons the mind and has kept nations from progressing. The surprisingly numerous disasters that small country has brought on itself are a testament to the devastating effects reality-denial can have.
You remind me a little of those romantic philhellenes from Europe who set off to aid the insurgents when Czarist gold fomented an uprising against the Ottomans led by Shqiptarian (Albanian) brigands. They thought they were going to find orators and the like. In the end, some were lucky to escape with their lives because whatever else they had was stolen. Naturally, they turned from lovers of Greece to haters of Greece.
Naturally, both Afrocentrism and Nordicism are bullocks and I don't mean to defend either. The truth of the matter is quite mundane and boring. As modern genetics and history prove they're for the most part descended from adjacent populations native to the Balkans, like Wallachians (Romanians) and Albanians as well as populations native to Western Anatolia. Even though they're not descended directly from the ancient inhabitants they're still similar to them as are other nations of the vicinity. A recent excellent study on the genetics of Mycenaean and Minoans points to many continuities in the wider region. Even though the Hellenes died, as did the Hellenists, the Slavs were removed too and the place was quickly resettled by populations that come from sources more or less akin to the those that produced the ancients. Gewgtweg (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Commanding others[edit]

Just going to start with what I saw on a forum:


i made a song called NOOSE or Necessity Of Original Slave Existence.

it's about how, in a Saturn-esque fashion, we are slaves to existence, and by that, we are slaves to our NOOSE. how is that for original?

facepalm: we all have to command someone. or remain alone.

Then additional details:


my proving my "claim" is easy...seeing as it's art, and it makes no claim, all i said was "people command or go alone", which is true- we all slave someone to do our bidding, because no one human can go this world alone, unless they are completely alone- highly unlikely- and if they were, they can be said to be slaves to the world, or the world slave to them.


no, it doesn't. it says something about me, and it says something about the human condition. you don't have to believe me, but when you try doing things in this world without command, you tell me how far you get, ok?

Basically, do we really have to command others to not feel alone?Machina (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Is one alone while being commanded? Samstr (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If you invent a dichotomy of "never affecting others" and "literally owning others" you're gonna come to some shitty conclusions about human interactions. See also: extreme libertarians who create a dichotomy of "mutually agreed contract" and "act of aggression". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I can agree with that. Human psychology is a complex subject, and I think it can be easy to attempt to simplify complex interactions by breaking things down into a small set of broad categories. In the process of pigeonholing different interactions into these few different categories (such as "mutual contracts" and "acts of aggression") one walks away with warped conclusions. Samstr (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Reducing psychology to 'A or not A' is incredibly naive. There are far too many factors to account for in order to understand humanity. We don't reduce the world to slave or master because we can't. Your theory also brings up at least two problems off the top of my head. 1) Is there, logically, one head master in the world? If so, does that make all other people slaves? Since one must be either a master or a slave, when two masters meet, one must be the master over another. Therefore, the Ultimate Master™ must be the master who is greater than all the other masters in the world. Are all other people then slaves? 2) Is there one lowest slave in the world? If so, does that make all the other people masters? See, what happens when two slaves meet? One must be lower than the other. The lowest slave, then, would be the slave that is lower than all the other slaves in the world. Does this then make all other people masters over this one slave?
Additionally, it's wrong to think that people will be alone if they don't enslave someone (not to mention, does your slave similarly enslave someone? If so, who's at the bottom of the chain? Are they damned forever to be a slave to everyone in the world above them?). I don't enslave my partner and I certainly ain't alone. Koifishdevelopment (swim) 13:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I remember he tried to make the definition of the term slave to be as broad as possible, at which point i told him it would be useless. Then he said a weak mind limits definitions.Machina (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your Thoughts[edit]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=2dlbI8OWk7c ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

I think you should include some kind of description of the video, rather than just posting a raw link. Nowhere Man (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Some gamer saying he was blacklisted by Youtube for no good reason. Boredatwork (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I should mention this guy is a closeted "skeptic". ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice Cracked Video on the ~~brainwashing~~ NRA[edit]

https://youtu.be/rYGOg1xElBc ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) I'd also like to start building a source list.

I still think the 2nd amendment today is as relevant as the 3rd amendment. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed just because you don't have a second amendment (which isn't even relevant it's not 1776-1783 anymore),but that doesn't mean guns are banned. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

The hour soon approaches[edit]

My minions, deep undercover and ready to strike, shall soon reveal themselves. And when the hour approaches, we shall emerge victorious.

Despair!! Despair Rationalwiki! As your project of fear and authoritarianism is doomed!

Soon a new age of freedom, justice and liberty shall emerge for all.

Those of us, long prejudiced against and greatly repressed, shall rise up and take this website in the name of th eternal mobocracy.

And all shall tremble.

Despair! — Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs

TF are you going on about? —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Soon 2d4chanfag (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bigs, an old troll has decided to grace RationalWiki with his presence once more, there's a bit about him (specifically, some wiki he made) here. Christopher (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who any of you people are. You are neither interesting nor sexually apetising.— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs
That's not what you said last night. 2d4chanfag (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey look everyone! The court jester has returned to us! Let us greet his arrival with suitable levels of derision, mockery, and derisive mockery! RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey Marcus! How's that play you were writing about RW coming along? 92.20.163.111 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Or that wiki‽ —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 03:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Alas, poor MC! I knew him, @Bigs, a fellow of infinite idiocy, of most despicable fancy. He hath borne the wiki on the coop a thousand times, and now, how mocked in my imagination it is! My gorge rises at it. Here hung those fingers that I have hated I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? Your campaigns? Your slogans? Your flashes of merriment that were wont to set the wiki on a roar? Not one now to mock your own grinning? Quite chapfallen? Now get you to my lady's chambers and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favor she must come. Make her laugh at that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I will only post about this once. I would really encourage you not to interact with or encourage this this individual. He is a truly toxic individual. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Goats in the sky[edit]

I've added a picture with the constellations of Capricornus and Auriga, associated with goats, hope you like it (it took me two hours to go to a place dark enough to take those pictures, dammit!).Panzerfaust (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice work! Bongolian (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Net Neutrality[edit]

To all the Americans, please take a minute and read about Net neutralityWikipedia's W.svg on RationalWiki or on these websites: battleforthenet.com; savetheinternet.com; netneutrality.com. In December, a vote will be conducted that may change the Internet as we know it. So try making a difference by contacting congress and whatnot.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

My main concern is what refers to privacy. Don't you have data protection laws that forbid to sell or cede them to third parties unless you consented that?. What is described in some of those pages would be a boon to for example these peopleWikipedia's W.svg. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I uploaded this picture a while back of the Portuguese internet since they abolished net neutrality. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 00:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Panzerfaust That is already being done under the PRISM surveillance program,Wikipedia's W.svg as leaked by Snowden.Wikipedia's W.svg€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I know of that surveillance program. I'm refering to your ISP selling data as your navigation history, etc. to someone (advertising companies, etc) without your consent and similar abuses. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

File uploader seems to be borked.[edit]

Uploading a 1.4 MB image into this site for some reason is giving me a "413 Request Entity Too Large" error. Another user is also reporting this problem. Help...? TheMyon (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheMyon can you move this to RW:TECH Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is -- RWSettings.php doesn't list $wgMaxUploadSize, and the default is 2MB for uploads. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I had a similar issue for this image. Had to rescale it to half size in order to be able to upload it. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been listening to System of a Down recently,and[edit]

I can't help but notice how many references to Christianity there are which makes me think is Serj Christian? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

From a 2008 interview with The Hill "I have the same religion as that tree over there...You have to ask the tree [laughs]. It’s a mix of Native American, Buddhist and transcendental ideas. I like to think of earth as mother. I like to think of sky as grandfather. God has been used for ulterior motives." Daev (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Rule of Law[edit]

A Justice Department spokesman recently claimed that because the Northern District Court was outside its bounds in striking down Trump's sanctuary cities order, the Justice Department will continue to follow Trump's order. No mention of an appeal, just "We're going to ignore the court's ruling." How screwed are we, if the executive branch can get away with ignoring the judicial? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Color us Very Screwed, though not necessarily from this particular incident. "Will continue to follow" may not last long. If this was a direct defiance of a federal court order, more than just a statement of intention, this could lead to "interesting" consequences. All's well that ends well, and we can hope that this nightmare ends soon! On the other hand, what is the LD50 dosage of Trump? --Some random Smith (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I get advice on how to deal with a traumatic event? It has been bothering me for a while[edit]

I mentioned this to my oldest brother and mom last week about an incident 10 years ago. When I was in middle school, I exited the building and was walking to the bus when some pedophile came up from behind me and groped my thigh. I felt totally humiliated and never said anything for ten years. I was 13 at the time and I was to scared and embarrassed to say anything. Not like I could say anything to the school, the staff has a bad track record of keeping a low profile. How do I deal with the emotional issues and hallucinations relating to sexual assault? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This must be hard for you to discuss, but also this is an area where therapy can be a powerful tool. It can help you contextualize any feelings you might have, and begin developing coping strategies for the negative responses you experience. It's important to understand that therapy doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with you, it just helps you understand and control your own responses to the trauma you've experienced. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Key is that the ongoing issue is the response to the trauma, not the trauma itself, which was over ten years ago. There are two responses: the immediate one of fear and shame ("embarrassment"), including whatever decisions were made then about the future -- these tend to persist, even though they were the decisions of an immature person with little or no experience -- and then there is the ongoing response to memories or triggers that recreate the trauma and old responses. Some forms of therapy are effective with this, and learning how to create new responses will be extremely useful. (We can never shut off old responses entirely, ten years of practice is more than enough to establish them as permanent, but new responses can be set up that free us from the old traps.) Many modalities exist for that; all that I know of depend on personal intention and action. What is described is a form of PTSD. EMDR is sometimes effective with PTSD and should be brief, not "years of therapy" as might be normal with other approaches. The point I'm making here is that the "problem" is inside, not outside, not out there or back then, but now. Here. We have no power over what happened then, but we do have power over our present state. Good luck. --Some random Smith (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Zombie Apocalypse (Not actually wanting one to happen, rather a critique of those who do (I posted something similar a few months ago))[edit]

I am sure many of you are aware of people who want a zombie plague to happen and many are those who play video games are the ones that think that. Now, most of these people could not even survive a conventional disease pandemic (i.e- Spanish Flu of 1918). What I am going to critique the idea of surviving the disease itself and not combat skills like last time.

Possible simulation of a zombie plague[edit]

For the aggression of a zombie, I will use the example of being high on cocaine. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181074/ ). Cocaine produces extremely violent behavior.

For infectiousness of a potential zombie, I will use Ebola as an example. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/). We know that Ebola is spread through infected fluids (similar to the modern day zombie archetype). Even skin contact without any wounds can transmit the virus.


Note- I am not a medical doctor or microbiologist.

Now, using the aggression of cocaine users and the infectiousness of Ebola, we might have an extremely aggressive infected people. Even if someone has not been bitten or scratched, they would still have infected fluids on them that could infect skin cells. Even with Syphilis, contact with a sore on someones hand can cause infection. In many zombie movies, someone can shoot the zombie on top of them, get blood in their eyes and not be infected. This would not be the case. I doubt these people who want zombies could last in an regular Ebola outbreak. Even if medical staff wearing protective hazmat gear can get infected them so would regular people. Go ahead and pick this apart. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want a more realistic biological scenario, you might look to rabies,Wikipedia's W.svg which not only causes aggression, but also has a "dumb" non-aggressive phase, not unlike the slow vs. fast zombies. It's obviously not as infections as ebola though. Bongolian (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the major problem with the premise of zombie movies (at least the "realistic" ones that treat it as an infection) is the tradeoff between survivability and transmission rate. If the disease is not readily transmitted, like rabies, then the zombie plague probably won't happen in the first place. We're already pretty good at dealing with infectious disease, so the zombie infection wouldn't spread that effectively. On the other hand, if you have a very infectious disease, then it is hard to justify how the survivors avoid infection unless they go to some isolated area in rural Montana where they won't run into any zombies (which isn't an interesting story as my real analysis Professor pointed out the other day). I would say that the most plausible scenario is the one presented in Left 4 Dead where the survivors have a natural immunity to a highly infectious disease. Samstr (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not difficult to imagine a highly infectious disease which kills most people. But I have two big problems with the ideas of zombies as commonly presented: decomposition and lack of energy input.
The internet tells me that a human body exposed to the elements won't last more than a month - yet zombies seem to keep together for years.
Secondly, while they may eat the occasional human, most of them don't seem to get any food at all. Yet they seem to be able to keep moving, and consequently using energy, indefinitely. And even if they do find a human to eat they won't have functioning digestion systems which would give them any energy from this food.
Incidentally it occurs to me that a post-zombie civilisation would have no problem with energy production. Just put zombies in treadmills and you have a perfect inexhaustible energy source.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I went with Ebola because of the quicker fluid transmission, to date, only two known cases of human-to-human Rabies transmission. I see your points though. I am a zombie fan myself but many times I am skeptical of the zombie Biology/Pathology. Unless the zombies in most movies actually get nutrients from airborne particles and the bite is for mere reproduction? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Suddenly authorial intent[edit]

Another problem is that Zombies have very frequently been used as a proxy for xenophobia. This basal, unthinking, hoardlike group of violent, dangerous people who it's okay to murder because they're automatically a threat, and not actually human. This was an explicit theme in the original day of the dead, and been recurrently used by creators of zombie themed content since then. Though deviations like Shaun of the Dead and Nazi Zombie modes take a different theme of what zombies represent.

To that end, I feel like a lot of people obsessed with the zombie apocalypse scenario are seeking similar validation for power fantasies where they can kill dehumanized people en masse. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

its not just the guilt free murder, its coupled that in most zombie flicks the zombies are very killable by the everyman protagonists. so killable in fact, that they need to paint other humans as the real threat. its wonder how zombies are any more than a minor nuisance in some flicks.

just curious - has anyone noticed the current trend in guilt free cinematic carnage of an invading alien menace being comprised of a drone army? AMassiveGay (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If there's one thing I've learned from sci-fi alien tech that's just a better version of what we're us Ing to destroy each other today, it's that all military tactics leave room for pluckiness.
Cocaine Ebola sounds like pluck incarnate. All my money on cocaine Ebola. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The last apologetic nonsense.[edit]

The last BS I've heard is about how Christ's sacrifice in the Cross was not useless, much according to them despite people like Hitchens or Dawkins, who consider that an aberration.
The analogy they used was a car accident assuming you had no car insurance. OK, I'll forgive you if you leave me to sacrify my son. According to them, God did that with Jesus.
The second one was about the same, but assuming the car you damaged in the accident was a Rolls and the reparation costs were so astronomically high there was no way for you to pay it. The equivalence is that the original sin was a fault so expensive that just Christ's sacrifice could have fixed that.
I leave you to guess why this is BS (I'm not in the mood now). There's also at Patheos for the curious one article that comments why Christ's sacrifice has no sense.
BONUS TRACK. Now they say that we were created by God because the Bible does not mention the Big Bang or mutations. The smell of BS is as strong as unsurprising when all you have as only proof of your faith is that book. When I say is that any good writer (not Hubbard) would've created something far more believable I'm clearly not exaggerating.Panzerfaust (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The analogy makes enough sense to me. By being born I've hit God's soul car with my soul car. Crap, I'm screwed. When I die and meet God and He says 'you didn't buy my dead son insurance' I'm going straight to hell.
ok sure, I mean why not? It's Pascal's Wager: Capitalism Edition.
Not that the church of the spaghetti monster is different from Russel's teapot besides pretending to believe and worship, but new apologist analogies are like hoping a Star Wars theme will make Monopoly somehow more fun. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Parabon Nanolabs Snapshot[edit]

Hello all,

I hope there are some biologists out there. I've been hearing about a company called Parabon Nanolabs and their "snapshots" where they take a guess at what people look like based on their DNA. I'm here to ask how seriously such efforts should be taken. Are these "snapshots" trustworthy, right part of the time and wrong a lot, or complete woo?

Thanks in advance! Vital Forces (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject matter but it sounds a bit far fetched to me. GrammarCommie (talk)
Biology student here! You can absolutely use DNA to predict genetically-determined features like eye color, but I highly doubt that these folks have the technology to sequence the genome, match the genes to traits, and predict appearance accurately, and if they did it would be way too expensive for police departments and anybody interested for recreational purposes to want to do. Additionally, you have to adjust for factors not entirely or not at all determined by genetics such as age, hair color (dependent on age, could be gray, plus hair dye must be taken into account), fatness, hairstyle, muscle size, etc. So I wouldn't put much weight in their predictions, though they could definitely be right about things like eye color. a ƽøȼɪаլ յμʃтɪȼε шаѓѓɪøӷ @ 03:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, appearance is partly based on environment (e.g., better nutrition in youth tends to increase height; sun exposure darkens skin color for all but the darkest-skinned people, facial surgeries, accidents, whether you've been punched in the nose). Bongolian (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone seen this Planet X Nibiru and the Anunnaki[edit]

Is this a movie, or a documentary or a fictional movie based on the dumbassary? Anyone seen it. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Here is the link https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00Y1EFKH4/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00Y1EFKH4&linkCode=as2&tag=atlangarde-20&linkId=HBCPDYGSJH3CF4WG MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The buyer reviews (which are hilarious) seem to indicate it is a long and somewhat boring video interview with Lloyd Pye. Leuders (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Merging Iron Chariots Wiki (sticky)[edit]

Older RatWiks may know that RW merged in EvolutionWiki, a wiki dedicated to documenting evolution science and debunking intelligent design / creationist arguments, after that site became inactive and lost the funds to host itself (see EvoWiki and RationalWiki:EvoWiki).

Iron Chariots Wiki appears to be on route to suffer the same fate. Iron Chariots is an explicitly atheist wiki dedicated to documenting arguments for and against god and about atheism in general. The site hasn't had any edits since September 6 -- two months ago. The forums are offline. The bottom of every page proudly displays two PHP error messages. Relevant links:

In short: the site has gone Citizendium'd. Do we want to try to contact Iron Chariots Wiki and merge in their content? (@Tmtoulouse, @David Gerard, @Human, @Reverend Black Percy, @Spud) Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 14:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objections. SpacePriusIs always watching 15:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is irrelevant but I'd say yeah. Christopher (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Same here. We are legion, for we are many. Nerd271 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright is the issue. Everything is born "all rights reserved" by default. If it wasn't under any licence, we have a problem unless we get permission from each individual contributor. (We sort of arsed it through with EvoWiki ...) - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be licensed under Creative Commons but it's an earlier version (2.5, we're 3.0) theirs and ours are compatible though aren't they? Christopher (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like copyright isn't a problem. OK. Merge them into us and salvage anything useful from them. Spud (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher Thanks for finding that. The Iron Chariots Wiki license is CC-BY-SA-2.5, better if anything than EvoWiki's CC-BY-NC-SA-1.0, and definitely compatible with our CC-BY-SA-3.0. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems like a reasonable merge to me and can follow the strategy used for EvoWiki. What we did with EvoWiki was to move EvoWiki onto our server then have it exist there for the duration of the porting process. Editors who were interested would take non-stub pages and convert them into RW style within RW and include a category link indicating that it was ported (Category:EvoWiki ports). After the port was complete, the EvoWiki page was replaced with a redirect to the corresponding RW page. @FuzzyCatPotato knows the details of this better than I do. Bongolian (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If the copyright issue can be solved (and it looks like it can) this sounds like a decent idea. Boredatwork (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Soounds good to me! RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's do it. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad there is interest in this getting done. I was the main contributor to IronChariots over the last few years. I have not had any response from the server admin Russell, my main contact, on updating Mediawiki software or getting more disk space, which I suspect is the underlying problem. They don't seem to have the time to commit to the project although Matt Dillahunty occasionally plugs the site. I'm still wondering what my involvement will be or what will happen to the site eventually. I will consider continuing to work on this within RationalWiki but the tone of RationalWiki is a little different :) TimSC (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to stay here, good sir. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If the site owners have no issues, go ahead. — Unsigned, by: 195.235.239.101 / talk

There are a few issues. The first, and most obvious, is whether the current owners think such a merger would be appropriate.

The second is the fact that RW is not explicitly an atheist site. To all intents and purposes it is, but we have historically avoided describing ourselves as such. I'm guessing that would have to change if we incorporate Iron chariots.

There is the question of the differing tone of the two sites - though RW's tone seems to be rather less jokey these days.

Finally there is the question of the work involved in incorporating the material. Saying "let's do it" is fine, but are those who are in favour also volunteering to do the work incorporating the articles? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There may be a plurality of non-believers on RW, but it is by no means an atheist site. There are other users here with a variety of religious beliefs. It should also be noted that some religions are not incompatible with atheism (e.g. Hinduism). I think that regarding the tone difference between the two wikis, it would be worthwhile, @TimSC, to compare the tone in our Category:Logic pages, which I think tend to be more in line with those at Iron Chariots (lower levels of snark). Bongolian (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I had similar thoughts, but we do actually have pages for a lot of the same topics as Iron Chariots already. They fit in with RW's mission in the sense that these arguments often invoke pseudoscience or questionable logic. (There are also already some pages on RW that seem to exist primarily because people here are interested in atheism and apologetics, rather than because they directly relate to RW's "mission" regarding crank ideas.) With some tweaks, we could absorb much of Iron Chariots without making RW any more atheist-leaning than it already is.
I think that the real problem is that the TAE folks probably wanted Iron Chariots to be viewed as a somewhat "scholarly" resource, and RW's snark would undermine that image. So even if they're OK with content being copied over, they might not want Iron Chariots to be swallowed whole by formally merged into RW. Quantheory (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have IronChariots (and RationalWiki) pages linked in several easy copy pastas I give to people to refute certain categories of arguments or teach them the underlying logic; IC sometimes covers thing in greater depth than RW and for my purposes I IC's tone is much better. I suspect many others share my appreciation for a "scholarly" go to resource to refute theistic claims; on RW you're always two clicks away from goat jokes. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Decided to actually have a look at it, and there seems to be some good info. I think our main issue is lack of organisation, no doubt most of their pages are similar to ours but look! It's so organised!Kazitor, pending 11:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong interest in atheism, myself. But given that we appear to have reasonably congruent articles on most of the subjects they cover, it might help just for the sake of priorities to make note of articles they have that we don't. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dropped?[edit]

The original thread's been archived. Just wondering, has this idea been dropped? 87.192.220.205 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been -- Archivist is acting up. FuzzyCatPotato of the Unpopular Jerks (talk/stalk) 16:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to self FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

On Thoughts and Prayers[edit]

Thoughts and prayers is an idea that I hear a lot and thought I had a good grasp on.

I am an atheist and basically always have been. I have thought before. I have prayed, more in a secular sense like hoping. I don't mind the idea of thoughts and prayers in a hard time. It never struck me as a very useful thing outside of investing in and growing outside of a situation. But I've never understood the phrase beyond my secular conception, and as it turns out there's another more correct interpretation.

I've only attended church as an adult and only a handful of times. Fairly recently I've learned that it apparently moves God to think and pray and I only didn't know that because I don't fully understand what thoughts and prayers are.

Me and my hubris, we don't really mind the insult.

But now I don't know about the phrase. I can relate this feeling to the WIGO blog condemning Ken Ham for building his Christian faith on a 'house of cards' foundation of Hebrew scripture. I didn't even know you weren't supposed to do that. But apparently Jesus is the cult leader and the only guy who was ever right about anything and he said don't do that. I don't even know where to start feeling about that.

So instead I'm wondering who sends thoughts and prayers and who calls that a bullshit waste of time. It feels like a weird semantics battle that I've overheard and must meddle in. I need context, perspective, semantics!

Thank you in advanceGaul Dernitt (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the others here but I don't view the phrase "thoughts and prayers" in a favorable light. In my opinion it has been used too often by politicians and others in power to gloss over issues during times of tragedy. I tend to wish the victims in such cases luck because that's all I can do, though I deliberately avoid the phrase in question. GrammarCommie (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In general "thoughts and prayers" indicates a complete absence of the former. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe thoughts and prayers are good ways of expressing sympathy/solidarity with someone when you have no other means of relieving a person's pain, such as if you were to express your thoughts and prayers to an acquaintance who had recently lost a grandparent to old age, but you have no other ability to relieve their sorrow.
It's a different situation with things like the Las Vegas shooting. Politicians who say their thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families (or something to that effect) are probably using the phrase as a cheap cop-out. As leaders of the United States, they have the power to ensure that such a tragedy is less likely to happen again.
So I guess it depends on who's using "thoughts and prayers," in what situation. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
That's pretty much it. "Thoughts and prayers" is perfectoh acceptable if the person using it doesn't have the ability to affect change themselves. Politician do have thr ability, so them using it is just a sugar-coated version of "I don't want to do my job". 2600:1002:B12A:FFD7:C50E:146:1DE5:58D6 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. But. I'm worried they believe they ARE doing their job. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
If someone knows they are talking to an atheist it could be passive-aggressive or simply insensitive if they know the atheist is going through a bad time. In other contexts it's mostly pretty meaningless - it's just one of the noises people make when they want to sound supportive.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Net neutrality amendment[edit]

I think that a constitutional amendment should be passed ensuring net neutrality. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 18:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Too bad the third of Americans who are consistently wrong about everything would raise a shitfit about it being a repeal of the first amendment. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I can already see my fellow Texans freaking out now... GrammarCommie (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Onozomg.gif-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, seriously, what does the USA have against passing laws? Do you even know what the constitution is intended for? The USA is probably the world record holder for "most amendments to a national constitution". —Kazitor, pending 04:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Laws are way easier to reverse, as they just require another law to be passed. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 05:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's get internet defined as a public utility first. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Gaul Dernitt I added that to this old essay I made that I probably need to update. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The USA is probably the world record holder for "most amendments to a national constitution" - only because other countries replace their entire constitution at intervals; Wikipedia lists 17 constitutions of France[6] since the US formulated their own. --Gospatric (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

perhaps someone can enlighten me because i' not quite sure i understand the arguments against net neutrality. just who gains from it? who is pushing for it? as from as i can tell aside from ISPs, no one gains from ending nn. any company that does business on the internet, read 'everyone' is going to impacted by a potential bar on their customers. who is pushing for this? do isps really have so much power and influence? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The whole point from what I can see is for certain companies to be at the top of the heap and gain a clear advantage over their rivals. GrammarCommie (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
how does is that achieved by ending net neutrality? beside isps that is. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Basically, this would allow them to slow down smaller websites by demanding money to keep the sites at full speed, and even let them block sites they don't like. Also, they could split services into packages. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It would allow the bigger companies to keep whatever monopoly/establishment they have whilst also basically ensuring that up and coming companies wouldn't be able to compete due to how stuff works. So if google supported getting rid of net neutrality (which they don't, as far as I know), the benefit to them would be that they're big enough to strike deals with all the ISPs to ensure that THEY don't get throttled, but whoever was trying to make and launch Google 2.0 would be fucked from day one because they wouldn't be able to compete on a level playing field; whatever deal they tried to make the ISPs to get equal footing with google, google would be able to use their already existing resources to out-do it. So the benefit to ISPs is what people already know (charging through the ass for bespoke packages the same way cable companies fuck people over), and the benefit for OTHER internet companies who support it is that they'd basically be free to rule over their domain, preemptively ending any potential competition before it even gets off the ground. Imagine, for example, if Netflix tried to launch itself in a world without net neutrality, when Disney and Comcast and CBS etc... already have their own streaming services up and running and are in tight with nice deals with the ISPs. Which is on its way to happening already, sadly. X Stickman (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
To their credit, Google support net neutrality (although they never mention the words). Christopher (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thanks that is all very enlightening. as for google, of course they support nn. it makes them look good. they'll still take full advantage if it goes though. google china tells us where their values lie. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The argument against net neutrality is to allow companies to treat different types of data differently. They can privilege online video to ensure you get the Netflix service you desire or privilege online gaming for low latencies. They can limit bandwidth for certain websites that may put a strain on their servers (e.g. throttling online video). I don't have a particular problem with non-neutrality for different classes of service (privileging low-bandwidth web content, web service calls, telephony, etc, over high-bandwidth streaming data is sensible in many ways), the problem is (as X Stickman says) if you privilege one streaming video company over another then that's anti-competitive and monopolistic. --Gospatric (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
In theory it's not a bad idea. In theory it would allow ISPs to offer a wide range of packages that would increase consumer options and allow for significant optimisation of how the internet works. My grandad, for example, has an internet connection but he only uses it for ebay and looking stuff up (and it takes him ages, bless him), so some kind of browsing specific package where he ONLY had access to basic web traffic (not p2p, not video streaming etc) for a reduced cost would be great. The problem is, in practice scrapping net neutrality basically amounts to telling ISPs you're going to get rid of a ton of regulation and just kind of hope they then do the best they can for consumers, which anyone who knows anything about how US cable companies work know is a pipedream at best. I believe it'd turn the internet into basically a big bribery machine; the only companies who would be able to do anything are the ones who'd be able to pay through the nose to the ISPs to get onto the system in the first place. In that world, all the companies we use now wouldn't even exist; google, youtube, facebook etc... all would have floundered under throttling before they established themselves enough to be able to pay. (Phone posting!) X Stickman (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Vote of the Pizzagate being a cover story[edit]

Do it here€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone still needs to write the front-page abstract and endnotice. Bongolian (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Against Medical Technology[edit]

It's a few months old, so there's no point in submitting it to WIGO:CLOGS, but I just stumbled across this work by an anarcho-primitivist. It's eugenics with a fresh coat of paint. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

...we are in fact killing off our own species very gradually. The reason this is able to take place is simply because we are allowing anybody and everybody to contribute genes to the gene pool. This is simply unnatural and breeds failure to the highest degree. In allowing anybody and everybody to contribute their genes to the pool, we are allowing weaker genes to perpetuate themselves.
...
Nature did not intend for the human animal to have an average lifespan of 79 years. That is not how we evolved to live, and it never will be. Prior to the discovery of the wonders of agricultural civilization some 12,000 years ago, the average human lifespan was only 30–40 years. That is enough time for one to procreate, raise their kin to adulthood, and pass on. This is the optimal lifespan for the human animal, as it allows one to live a fulfilling life.

Anarcho-primitivists will bang on and on about nature's intent, but I've yet to see a single one of these fuckers volunteer to get their face mauled by a moose.

A few things. From what I understand, an "average human lifespan was only 30–40 years" isn't true. Living to 60 was quite common even in Ye Olden Days—it's just that the average looked a lot lower because of how monstrously high the infant mortality rate was. ("It's natural for your children to die in droves" is an incredibly hard sell—outside of shitty anarcho-primitivists, no one's ever going to accept a system like this if they can help it.) Also, 30 is not long enough to procreate and raise someone to adulthood. Even in Ye Olden Days—especially in Ye Olden Days, actually, thanks to the risks of childbirth—15 was not a good age to become a parent.

This is the path to the devolution of the human animal at its peak. If we are to strive to evolve to become the best species we can be, why have we eliminated the factor of natural selection entirely?

That's not what evolution is, you shmuck. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Yeah, I'm not the most optimistic person regarding anarchism or primitivism. Anyways, good to see an Old Guard here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Nature did not intend for long life span, but who gives a shit? It also didn't intend for improvements in standards of living to happen so fast, or for life to exist overall. If you want to be anarcho-primitivist, why not just join some hunter-gatherers? They may not be common, but they still exist. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 06:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
In point of fact nature did not "intend" anything at all. Nature does not have "intentions".
Furthermore this is utter bollocks: "we are in fact killing off our own species very gradually. The reason this is able to take place is simply because we are allowing anybody and everybody to contribute genes to the gene pool". If you have natural selection then, by definition, you must include everyone. If you decide who gets to reproduce then you have selective breeding.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
For those who doubt we're leading ourselves to ruin read the 'peak oil' edit here in the saloon bar. It's true that nature doesn't have intentions but the guy has a point. We only manage to live for so long because we have learned to be good at kicking nature's ass. This won't go on forever though and it has unforeseen consequences. If mankind wants to take control of its destiny it must put limits to its reproduction and consumption. We cannot go on like that. We're eating this planet alive and unless we stop very soon we're gonna be eating our flesh and drowning in a pool of shit. Gewgtweg (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
In the past the average lifespan of those who reached five (this is a proviso regularly used) was somewhat shorter than it is now: and there has probably always been a measure of exclusion from reproduction on grounds of incapacity.
Is this a continuation of the 'national degeneracy' thesis of the late 19th-early 20th centuries? Anna Livia (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Gewgtweg - that wasn't his point though. His point is that medical intervention is causing our species to become "unfit" as people with conditions that at an earlier point of time would have been eliminated from the gene pool are now able to reproduce. It's a flawed argument since the fitness of a species is contingent. The fact that we have developed and continued to advance methods of medically supporting productive members of the population who might otherwise perish is itself a facet of our species' fitness. I'm by no means an expert in any of the relevant fields, but I would guess that our population's genetic trajectory doesn't put us at any more risk of succumbing to a catastrophic event than that of a hypothetical "primitive" population. 213.205.253.170 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Right. I don't believe in 'natural laws' and all that bullshit. The reason heart diseases today are prominent is not the propagation of weak genes because of our advancement but our current plentiful supply of calories and fat which we are wired to consume. There's isn't any evidence that today's genes are on average inferior to those passed on before agriculture. After all, not all the world lives in the most civilized conditions. People in countries like Ethiopia for instance are master survivors. The reason non-civilized people have a lower brain power is because their bodies are on survival mode.
Homo sapiens is the last survivor member of the genus homo. So apparently we have a quality as a species that our presumable 'natural-law obeying' relatives didn't have. We owe our unprecedented fitness in the history of the animal kingdom to something else. In any case, there is no natural law and nothing can ensure that the species will survive indefinitely. Nature presents its creatures with a game where they have to self-preserve. There is no law any animal can follow that always guarantees success. The very reason species evolve is because of the constant failure of specimens to adapt to new conditions. Gewgtweg (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Evolutionary 'fitness' can only be measured inside of an environment, and ours is one we've substantially modified for our convenience. The fact that many of us would not thrive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland is beside the point. I do worry slightly that, since breeding is controllable and optional, it happens more often to people with poor impulse control; and that seems to be a heritable trait. Fortunately, Lamarck was wrong, and better genes will still be around when their time comes. I'm more concerned that the human biomass is headed for a crash once a contagious disease evolves that we can't cure in time. When that happens, I expect to die if I'm still living; I won't be one of the survivors. But I expect that humans will get past that bottleneck one way or another, and enjoy the prosperity that comes with a population crash caused by a contagious disease. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the reverse argument could be raised: some genes which can be tested for can have their frequency reduced by various means (though it will probably be impossible to identify all carriers of certain genes which may well arise spontaneously - as with Queen Victoria), and by allowing a more diverse gene pool to survive the population may be more viable across the range of environments. Homo sapiens var. stone age would have to be far more robust (and given the small populations that could exist in particular environments, was probably far less genetically diverse) than Homo sapiens var. 21st century (or even Homo sapiens 'var. cooked food and clothes') Anna Livia (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that the main points on why the author is a crank have been made already. Nothing he asserts seems plausible. Humans are not intended to be or to do anything. Many animal species have existed for millions, even hundreds of millions of years essentially unchanged. He writes that 30-40 years is enough for " one to have a fulfilling life." So will he think his life is not worth living when he turns 40? "We are killing ourselves off very gradually." Never mind world population grows 1.12% annually (83 million), and the fact we are all hanging around almost 40 years longer than he thinks is necessary. He seems to be saying that we'd all be better off if most of us were dead so the rest could be content collecting nuts and berries.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

we'd all be better off if most of us were dead so the rest could be content collecting nuts and berries That's the essence of anarcho-primitivism. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel I don't think 'many' animal species have existed for millions, let alone hundreds of millions of years 'essentially unchanged'. Name one such species. There's no logical inconsistency between believing that 30-40 years is enough to "have a fulfilling life" (whatever that means), and wanting to continue living beyond that. The author just states his view on what minimum duration a human life may have and still be considered "fulfilling". He didn't make the point that life after that is shit. There are people who idealize their childhood or teenage years and feel nostalgic about them but who don't necessarily conclude that they have no reason to live because those days ended.

The fact that population is growing at a rate like that forebodes a dire future for humanity. It is cause for alarm, not relief about our existential chances. It cannot be taken as an indication that the human species will be the last to ever go extinct. Anarcho-primitivists argue for hunter-gatherer societies. So such societies wouldn't merely gather nuts and seeds but hunt game too. Well... whatever game's left, that is.

Although there are good reasons to despise the conditions of civilization there's no rational reason to believe that those of any past society were better. Granted, social inequality in prehistory wasn't as pronounced as it is now but people had a worse enemy than the greed of men to worry about. And that is the fury of the elements. There's no doubt however that nothing in all of human history will compare in suffering with the ravages caused by the collapsing industrialized world. Gewgtweg (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Then you would be wrong, e.g., the coelacanth evolved into its present form about 400 million years ago. The crocodilia, almost 90 million years ago. There are many others. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Anti-SJW" Rant[edit]

CJ-Moki found this idiotic rant: http://fav.me/db7kj2wGoat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 05:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not so much a rant and more like a list of facts. There is even some good advice on how to deal with SJW's 2d4chanfag (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
An analysis of this rant might make for an interesting side-by-side. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Some of the points in that rant, such as hating someone's choice of glasses or their choice of art style are just childish and petty. GrammarCommie (talk)
It looks like it was written by an immature 14-year-old. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This is really stupid and considering it's on DeviantArt seems like it was written by a left winger to parody/discredit non-SJWs.
Here is a list of what SJWs think are normal or okay (they actually aren't, to be honest with ya. It's weird and wrong).
Hating Trump is okay.
Abortion is okay.
Using unappealing art styles that are somehow appealing is okay.
This is clearly trolling, and it's actually pretty funny. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
"SJWs are mainly people who think the opposite of what we normal humans think."
So I guess that is a confession: "SJWs are anyone who disagrees with me!".

Actually, at first I wasn't a Trump supporter. I'm still kinda disappointed that he won the race, but fuck, he's doing the best he can at trying to protect our country from North Korea and shit!
But seriously, give the poor guy a break. I know he's 70 or 71, but still. Give Trump a break.
I don't think that it's right that these SJWs have the right to love hating on Trump.

How is he "doing his best" especially when he's trying to dismantle our health care and clean air right at home. This guy asked for the most responsible position in the country, he's expected to take it seriously. But no, he's running it like a real estate and he acts so childish and petulant who speaks at a third grade level, brags about groping women, emboldens racists, and so many other ugly things, he deserves his criticism. No, he won't get his break, I have no sympathy for such a poor millionaire fraud that puts his party before his country.

As I tried saying before, people shouldn't have the right to get an abortion. However, if the parents of the child don't want the baby, then they probably should give it up for adoption instead of just killing it while it's in the mother's womb.

Giving it up for adoption is even more unethical in my opinion than terminating a pregnancy. And people should have the right to an abortion, it doesn't matter if it's illegal. Carrying to term is a high responsibility that women understandably may not want to deal with, and they'll go through ANY means to terminate an abortion.

Okay, what the heck is wrong with you Black Lives Matter supporters?! Aren't you guys seeing that this group is completely racist?! Instead of thinking that this group is not racist, why don't you just accept everyone for who they are?!

Misses the entire point of Black Lives Matter, which is identity politics that attempt to highlight the real race-related disadvantages that blacks face, which is more so than the white race. I bet BLM is incredibly tired of the canard "WAIY KNOWT EVERYWUN MATTERZ???". Come up with more original arguments.

Okay, I get that some deviants on here are cartoonists, but come on! Using Picasso-like art styles is very weird and is unappealing to me. As for me, I try my best to stick to the official art style or the official artwork or costumes of characters from movies such as Suicide Squad and from games such as Pokemon. But I find it weird that people who like to draw and are SJWs have a really unappealing art style, and I just find it... weird.

This has nothing to do with "SJWs", it's just people who adhere to art styles different from yours. I smell confirmation bias at play here, like you are actively searching for reasons you don't like "people who disagree with you". The beautiful thing is, if you don't like the art, you don't have to comment on it.

Growing up in the 2000s, I knew that there were, are, and will ever be only two genders. Now that we are in the late 2010s, people are using fake genders such as "genderfluid", "demigirl", "transboy", "foxkin" to describe themselves. And only when I thought New York City was immune to this shit... Yep. Now there are over 40 different genders and 100 different sexualities to describe a person in New York City and online. I just hope my tiny state is safe...

Too bad science disagrees with you. It's up to you to choose whenever you believe in transgendered people, but if you dismiss it after looking at the evidence, don't be surprised that you'll be labeled as a transphobe.

Look and listen. IT'S NOT. Saying that racism is okay is like saying that people who have peanut allergies should eat peanut products is okay! IT'S NOT!! What if said person dies from eating peanut products (I actually know someone irl who is allergic to peanuts)?! What the fuck is wrong with these SJWs? I just find this to be so wrong. So, SO, SO wrong.

Who actually actually argued that "racism toward anyone is okay"?

Now I will never understand this concept of having over 100 different sexualities. As a young kid in the 2000s, we only had three sexualities to best fit our lifestyle. We had heterosexual (boy X girl)(which I actually am), homosexual (boy X boy, girl X girl), and bisexual (boy X boy X girl, girl X girl X boy). Now we have terms such as pansexual, asexual, demisexual, and other terms I can't even fathom to name here. It's confusing and I fucking hate these fake sexualities. Can we just go back to the 2000s like this fake sexuality shit never happened.

Romantic and sexual attraction are two different things. It seems like you lack understanding of that and those "fake sexualities" generally base their definition on those two concepts and how they're different from each other. Touche, you labeled "asexuality" as "fake" and you lost my respect for you.

No it is not. Look, guys, we have the police for a very good reason, and it is to help protect the laws of the United States or wherever else you may live (e.g. France). If we didn't have police officers, then terror groups like ISIS would be freely killing innocent people in the US and other parts of the world and simply won't give a million fucks about it!

No one actually argued that "the death of police is okay". Your strawman shines brightly on the horizon. Criticism of police is acceptable though, and there's no denying that there is police brutality and it's race sensitive, hence necessitates the existence of Black Lives Matter in the first place.

That would have been okay if you guys were LIVING IN THE 1950s-1960s. But now, as we are creeping towards 2020 ever so slowly, it is no longer okay to use that term as an excuse for "free speech, bitches". I get that there were segregation laws back in the 1950s and 60s, but... now that law is pretty obscure, and for the SJWs to be bringing it back is just... so fucking frustrating.

Meh, sometimes the willingness to not offend goes a little far, but proper communication is the key here. I find the "SJWs are bringing it back" a bit of a scare mongering conspiracy thinking: who exactly are these insidious evil "SJWs"? They sound like some encompassing bogeymen for changes you don't like.

Okay, whoa! You SJWs are going much too far beyond my comprehension for this bullshit! Sure, you may have free speech, but insulting people who don't agree with Islamic practice and calling them "Islamophobics"?! Look, what I'm fighting for is diversity and equality, whereas you guys are just so inconsiderate and fighting for your own rights. Nobody is the same.

Maybe there are people who think criticism of Islam = Islamophobia, but there are people who characterize anyone who adheres to Islam as "violent" and "should be repressed" and that is criticism of Islam, but also Islamophobia. The argument might hold a bit of water if you can bring up examples of what you think "disagreeing with Islam is". You can bring up the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia per Islam law as a criticism of Islam. On the other hand, your argument willbe characterized as Islamophobe if it means stereotyping the 1.2 billion followers as a violent homogenous barbaric group.

Figments of your imagination. FIGMENTS. OF. YOUR OWN. IMAGINATION. Those words aren't real. In fact, they'll never be real. Start using she/her/hers or him/his/he, and then you and I may talk. All I'm asking out of you guys when it comes to this bullshit. I can't even fathom how much you SJW freaks are frustrating me.

Meh. I think those pronouns are silly too but if people insist, then why not. But calling people "SJW freaks"... didn't you just argue earlier that you're "for diversity"? Maybe try not insulting your opposition and calling them freaks will be a starting point? Not just knee-jerk labeling orientations you don't like as "fake"?

No it is not. Look- it's fucking sexist and you know it! I can't even understand how you guys wanna live without men! If we have a planet without men, pretty much all of our species will die off, and we humans as a species won't even exist! Hell, we won't even have anything if it weren't for men!

Misandry is one school of thought under feminism, but it certainly isn't all of it and most people and feminists never argue it. Men are complete fucking morons, but I don't hate them and I think they can be improved. The rest of the argument is... complete nonsensical. You really, really think the opposition is so daft they'll literally argue that men shouldn't exist in the planet? This goes for the next nonsensical strawman you knock down, that "all men should die".

Uh... okay. Although I sorta don't get it, but hairstyles is one of the things that makes us free to express ourselves. But the weird hairstyles...? That I don't get. I'd rather have side bangs that go over my right eye instead of ACTUAL BANGS. ACTUAL BANGS EVERYWHERE.

Yes, you just said "hairstyles is one of the things that makes us free to express ourselves". That means styles you personally don't like. That's the point!

You SJWs are complete idiots. It's one thing to have glasses due to a genetic eye problem or whatever, but having them just to look "cool"? Uh-uh. No way, Jose. Ain't happening for shit, mate. Don't you need a prescription if you're gonna get glasses? Especially if they are for reading.

Glasses are also another thing that makes us free to express ourselves. It seems like you care awfully a lot of fashion choices that doesn't impact you or anyone else. It makes you come off as an petty entitled fashion snob who can't fathom that people have different tastes than you.

... Just stop. The reason why Trump wants our borders to be closed is that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Syria don't get in. I had a couple of friends from India once, but they were legal immigrants because guess what? They and their parents had fucking green cards (or visas, whatever you wanna call them). Sadly, they moved back to India, and I never heard from them again.

And that's completely racist. You do realize that sometimes, being a "legal immigrant" isn't as easy as bringing a simple green card. It's a highly complex situation. I'm sure those people would love green cards, but many of them are frantically fleeing dire poverty. Syria, you know, is completely war-ravaged. And a big demographic of illegal immigrants are kids who flee their home country like Honduras because of high crime rate. And yeah, isn't it a wonderful think they can move back to India? You do know that if this wall gets built, some people will not be able to move back to their home country. Many people who get in the country also get out, and that includes illegal immigrants.
And so on....
I think most of these arguments are poorly thought-out if not trolling. You're right, this is a rant. At least the poster doesn't really double-down when people criticize the bad arguments. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I created a side-by-side article for this rant. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

there is altogether to much time and attention being spent such a no mark.AMassiveGay (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with AMassiveGay. So some arsehole wrote something stupid on DeviantArt. So bloody what? It's quite possible that the rant was meant as a piss take by somebody who actually believes the opposite of what he wrote. It's also quite possible that it was written by some stupid kid. But it really doesn't matter. It's not as if anybody influential or important wrote it. And I don't think it's worth doing a side-by-side rebuttal of that stupid rant that will very soon be forgotten. `Spud (talk)
I was bored. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In which case, I recommend spider solitaire. Spud (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm more of a minesweeper guy myself. But I would recommend Help:Bored. —Kazitor, pending 05:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, when encountering an article so profoundly specious as this one appears to be, one could assume its absurdities are distinguishable even to those of lesser abilities who are willing to consider them.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Waste time on doing something more productive. —ClickerClock (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Newest dumpster dive[edit]

The Soviet Union is now this week's dumpster dive topic. Please have a go at fixing it up. Also, please contribute new pages for future dives and vote on which page will be next. Bongolian (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dive, aye! Could take a while before that page is up to some more acceptable standards, however. Nerd (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the Soviet Union? A shame it's not another crackpot site. I can become an "expert" on one of those and learn enough to formulate a decent article just from skimming them over a few hours. That's not really the case with conventional history/political subjects. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Then you submit your own suggestions and vote for next week's choice. The bar has been rather low for getting into the dumpster: only 3 votes total for Soviet Union. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: Put the template for dumpster dive at the top of the page like with that fundraiser and that survey. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Politics at thanksgiving[edit]

So did any of your folks bring up politics this thanksgiving? According to an Infowars poll, half of the participants were happy to share their bullshit views with their family.

Infowars poll.png

I had to endure a discussion about the sexual assaults cases in the media. (Spoiler alert: their views didn't match RationalWiki's) How about y'all?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

i dont know what rationalwiki's opinion is on these cases. is there one? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
My Thanksgiving was just my family and my paternal grandparents, so we don't clash much. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Going to a friend's house for Thanksgiving, it's generally a non-political affair where everyone gets along. GrammarCommie (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay: See here. I have members who are part of the alt-right.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
not really seeing any consensus thereAMassiveGay (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
half of the participants were happy to share their bullshit views with their family "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity." —WB Yeats Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Am I the only one who noticed that poll seems to fall victim to voluntary response bias? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
No politics here.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
No politics for me either, just crab and lobster. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard of people eating crustaceans on Thanksgiving rather than turkey, that's interesting. Gœʦ ϝϭг Ѕæⳑ @ 16:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@LynnR I haven't had crab and lobster before either, lol. I was entirely clueless on how to eat it, but seeing my dad tear apart crab and lobster sort of horrified me. Oh, well, it's not the first year where it's a break from American tradition. I had Taiwanese hot pot last year and the pork liver is gooooood. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
None for me either. Nobody talked about current events.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

considering the poll comes from infowars, home to politics of the more rabid kind, is it not kind of obvious the respondents would look forward to political discussion? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of us don't celebrate Thanksgiving. Anna Livia (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

So RationalWiki has a new icon[edit]

I'm not really sure what to call it, but the little icon shown next to the page title in most browsers' tab menus has been changed. That's going to be hard to get used to for me. Do you think it's better or worse than the old one? Gœʦ ϝϭг Ѕæⳑ @ 01:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

They finally changed the favicon? —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 01:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
If you don't like it, you probably should've spoken up when you had the chance. The old one was pretty poor though. —Kazitor, pending 01:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that's what it's called. I don't really hate it, it just seems a bit too small. Gœʦ ϝϭг Ѕæⳑ @ 01:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I barely noticed, haha.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Brain Force and other Alex Jones products[edit]

Alex Jones's InfoWars store host many products. One product I read about was the infamous brainforce from its website:[7]

How brain force works?

With all of these key ingredients properly blended together this supplement creates a powerful supplement improve your brain's overall performance. As many top scientists and researchers would agree, we a constantly being hit by toxic weapons in the food and water supply that are making us gain weight, be sick and feel stupid. By using this mental wellness supplement you fight back all of that and keep your mind and body at a good balance. The developers have spent countless hours in deep studies to bring you a product that is truly life changing and you'll only discover that for yourself once you get your hands on your own supply!

There's also a review on the products. The InfoWars store hosts other products such as "Super Male Vitality", "DNA Force", and the "Caveman True Paleo Formula". While some of his products are alluding to on several pages, there's not a dedicated article for the store. How about a "InfoWars Store" article?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex's store is such a mind numbing display of fail, that it descends to the level of webshites like "Minister's Best Friend. What kind of person supports and sends money to such places? How much money do these snake oil salesmen extract from the public? This sounds like the makings of a good article in the essay or fun spaces. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
My favorite part is how after pointing out all of these nefarious chemical castration plots, they completely neglect to tell the audience to simply stop consuming the products in question. "You're drinking (imaginary) poison! But keep drinking it, so you can buy our (imaginary) antidote!" 174.200.15.43 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
from what understand soy is in fucking everything in the US. eg, more potato in your burgers than in your fries. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
that said, too many burgers and fries probably does result in lower testosterone levels, but its got fuck all to do with soy. save your money and eat a salad once in a while and go for jog. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
the above is meant for the section above this one, but it still fits here AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
At least two of Infowars products are actually demonstrably dangerous. See the Megavitamin therapy section of Vitamin and mineral supplements: "Survival Shield X-2 — Nascent Iodine", and "Advanced Liver Cleanse Pack". Bongolian (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Some help needed[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTOK2AuY6QE&t=855 Can someone watch a couple of minutes of this video and let me know if this arises to claiming that black persons to be slaves/servants. He refers to blacks as Hamites, Ham, Cannan if you missed it. Would you understand what he says seems to say that blacks should submit themselves as servants to the rest (which is what he means but does not say - he does avoid specifics in many videos generally takes the viewer to the precipice and leaves them there). Your opinions are greatly appreciated. Video beings at the 14:15 mark. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I advise checking his social media. —ClickerClock (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
He is a primitivist apart from YT and his website MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey small suggestion[edit]

Don't include a link to the RW Discord on the main fucking page if the first thing you see when you click the link is trolls posting a shitload of racist memes. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You can ban users on the Discord. Also, several non-trolls have joined that way. And usually you see boring conversations when you join. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
so boring conversations or racist memes? i think i'll pass, taAMassiveGay (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcoming trolls until they make a mess is part of the rationalwiki experience. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If I was in charge[edit]

Most on the Discord server would be blocked already. lol. —ClickerClock (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This is why I don't run for mod elections. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
All hail Discord mod Goat-Aristocrat Bigs! —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The smell of BS in the morning[edit]

From the same who said there was two floods, the first one to wipe out Satan & Co (and epically falling) and that Pangaea's breakup was the thing behind Noah's one, dark matter is Christ, as he's the only who unites galaxies, etc. (of course scientists being atheists do not know that). The funny part, that being because I bring it here, is that conveniently ignores the existence of dark energy and how it's more than twice abundant than matter, which I guess will be the Devil as it's everywhere and overcoming matter's gravity, be it dark or not.

Someone really needs stop reading and regurgitating Jack Chick and creationist bullshit and begin with real science (or perhaps not, as it's quite entertaining).Panzerfaust (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Yeah, god, this totally omnipotent thing who is beyond mortal comprehension needed to cast a magic water spell to beat the bad guy he created, but dammit satan rolled a nat 20 on his reflex save" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Bahahaha! "satan rolled a nat 20 on his reflex save" 2d4chanfag (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Life's Been Good[edit]

Huh, not a bad song actually. Should I thank the troll? Daev (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 14:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

rel="nofollow"[edit]

New user and long-time lurker here. Recently, I checked out our article on DoNotLink and found out that rel="nofollow" on the end of the link (presumably without the quotes, but you get the point) does the same thing. If that's the case, should we strive to edit every source link from places like Goop, Breitbart, NaturalNews and such with that, and/or make it a policy? (Assuming that's not the case already.) Bendazol (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason that this type of construct is used on NaturalNews is because at some point, that site redirected incoming links from Rational Wiki to a spam page, probably because they're pissed at us. I can't remember any other site that does that. There is no policy and why would we need one? Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
MediaWiki links are automatically nofollow, sitewide. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, it's good practice to make sure that links to quackier websites at least are archived on either archive.org or archive.is, if not making the link directly to the archived versions. This assures that the author can't later claim that they never wrote the drivel and then sue us. Bongolian (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif
The kookiests sites are fragile and go away when the authors lose interest and don't renew their domain registration or delete everything in a huff. It's always good to make a snapshot. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This sort of quackier? Anna Livia (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This week's dumpster dive[edit]

21st Century Science and TechnologyGoat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 14:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Check https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Duplicate_articles#Merge_21st_Century_Science_and_Technology_and_Lyndon_LaRouche first FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WIGO RW[edit]

Finally found a selling point for RWW! http://therationalarchives.wikia.com/wiki/RationalWikiWiki:WIGO_RWGoat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Theory of Goat[edit]

I have recently discovered evidence that Goat and Kek have been fighting for ages. Both came into existence at the Big Bang to balance each other out, and never let good or evil truly win. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 06:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I knew you liked starting 183 topics here each day, but I think you just set the new record for how pointless and unnecessary it could get. —Kazitor, pending 06:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Why do you respond to half the topics I post to criticize them? —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 06:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Far from that, most of the time I ignore them (like most topics on this page, really). —Kazitor, pending 06:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 (sticky)[edit]

I want to know more about who actually writes RationalWiki. To that end, I made a community survey (RationalWiki Community Survey 2017) that covers identity, religion, and politics sections. The religion and politics sections are both based on academic literature, so I'm interested to see how RationalWiki fares (results here). If nobody has any objections, I'd like to put the link into MediaWiki:Sitenotice for a week or so. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I second the motion. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Likewise. Nerd271 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see the point personally, didn't we do one of these earlier in 2017? Christopher (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher I had about 10 people take a draft version. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so it was just a draft. I didn't get that ping btw (they don't seem to work in non talk namespaces). Christopher (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato Sure.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, make sure to fix this broken link from page 4 of the survey.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I still think the questions from 1 to 9 are quite poor and it's very US-centric (I took the survey without submitting and had to look up "British equivalent of high school" for instance). Christopher (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I could feel the American-ism from the values test. And we have a North Korean editing this site?????? —ClickerClock (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear comrades, let's sail right into the dustbin of history! Nerd (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
We apparently have an editor in North Korea who, being a white Hindu, is unlikely to be a native of North Korea and might well have clicked on Korea (North) instead of Korea (South) by mistake. That brings me nicely to what I was going to say. It would be nice to have separate choices for country of origin and country of residence. I live in Taiwan but I'm not Taiwanese. And previous Saloon Bar conversations suggest that we have some Brits living in Spain editing here. Spud (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I took it even though it's hosted by Google. Surely you can do better than that? But certainly some of the later 1-9 questions didn't seem applicable. I suspect the last ones probably apply mostly to particular country? —Kazitor, pending 11:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
As whoever it was said - being born in a stable does not make you a donkey. Anna Livia (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Some person apparently is 150 and living in North Korea. Seems legit!Do You Believe That?-Not Anonymous user (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@DiamondDisc1So that's where the food and medical aid went. They have a doctoral degree, too, and are a committed Marxist-Leninist until they sail their submarine towards the U.S. coast to either immigrate or start a war. Nerd (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone needs to tell Norway that Bouvet Island isn't uninhabited anymore.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This is why I joined RationalWiki, I get to meet people from so many interesting places and laugh about it. GrammarCommie (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad this wiki lets nonexistent people edit!-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to close the survey this Friday. FuzzyCatPotato of the Slimy Tapiocas (talk/stalk) 08:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey results[edit]

Survey is closed. I'll publish results tomorrow. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting...-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering about that too. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
FuzzyCatPotato is still in a meeting with David Rockefeller at the Eiffel Tower. He will be back when the NWO takes over. INFO WARS *WHAAAAAAAAAM*€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato I smell a conspiracy. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato Do the results somehow contain evidence for the Illuminati?-Not Anonymous user (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
i suspect its taking some time to make the results appear interesting and not blindingly obvious 12:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato, what do you mean publish them? They're already viewable. Christopher (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

sorry everyone -- i thought i'd have a chunk of free time to nicely sort & graph the results. i promise by next monday! The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
So no evidence for the Illuminati?-Not Anonymous user (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've got the results ready (in an un-pretty form). However, I thought it might be nice to release the survey results + editcount results on January 1st, since then we could compare the 2017 survey and 2017 edit patterns in one go. Does anyone vehemently oppose releasing both results on the 1st? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. GrammarCommie (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I can wait.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why not. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Likewise. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Soy Boys[edit]

So Paul Joseph Watson came out with a video claiming that soy is "turning men into pussies". The video is funny on its own but he has gotten a lot of responses. There's this video by hbomberguy where he points out that the supplements that PJW promotes have soy in them and pledges to go on a soy diet to test PJW's claims. There's also this funny tweet from YourMovieSucks showing PJW's inconsistent views on depression. Bonesquad11 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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) 16:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I eat a lot of soy protein isolate, but that's because I'm a strength trainer and I need to get my protein cheaply. I dare you to call me a pussy to my face. CorruptUser (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
My ma po tofu definitely de-pussifies the stuff, especially when I make it with the ground pork. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I know it's a joke, but men in general should stop being so obsessed about their masculinity. What is the deal with men? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it either Lefty and I'm a dude. GrammarCommie (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing it involves some feeling of superiority. I have no idea why. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 11:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
its all to do with societal norms and expectations. since the advent of feminism has redefined what these are for women, the traditional view of masculinity has become more and more irrelevant, 'toxic' even. for a certain people, attempts to redefine masculinity is a line in the sand, its the end of a traditional, mostly mythic, way of life. the more extreme examples of this masculinity is a fight back at the changing world - hence the existence of mens rights groups. its a world view rooted in failure, and the unrealistic expectations of their definitions masculinity, compounds and perpetuates that failure. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
As a minor point, the article also ignores the fact that pussies are tougher than their counterparts, to paraphrase Betty White. TeflonTrout (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

We have an article: soy boy Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

When is the logo changed again?[edit]

When do we put the Christmas hat on it again? —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 18:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean the war-on-christmas satan santa hat? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that one. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 18:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Do we get red coffee cups to ruthlessly attack enjoy holiday beverages? GrammarCommie (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Sadly no, but here's a JPG of one. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 18:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I kinda like this one. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Do it now -- no harm. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris Angels and demons spotted! Nerd (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Gab[edit]

So I've recently discovered a site called Gab, which appears to be the alt-right's version of Twitter. The question is should we make an article on it or just add it to the list of webshites? GrammarCommie (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The latter. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 23:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It's been around a while along with it's other "like X, but full of nazis" compatriot: hatreon(yes they called it that). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Webshites, unless you can make a non-stub level article out of it.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I added it to webshites. I might try to start an article in the future but not until I come up with some way to look at it without feeling ill. GrammarCommie (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


Just Found out Rick Perry is the Secretary of Energy[edit]

What human being in their right would give him power? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Texans? Though to be honest the sanity of my fellow Texans is debatable. GrammarCommie (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone who wants whatever he's put in charge of utterly destroyed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Nerd (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
And last Saturday (12/2) was the 75th anniversary of the activation of the world's first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile 1. (Chicago Pile 3 was the world's first nuclear power generator.) Enrico Fermi, John von Neumann, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Hans Bethe, and many others will certainly be unhappy. If you enjoy history, the video below might interest you.
Nerd (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 (sticky)[edit]

I want to know more about who actually writes RationalWiki. To that end, I made a community survey (RationalWiki Community Survey 2017) that covers identity, religion, and politics sections. The religion and politics sections are both based on academic literature, so I'm interested to see how RationalWiki fares (results here). If nobody has any objections, I'd like to put the link into MediaWiki:Sitenotice for a week or so. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I second the motion. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 16:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Likewise. Nerd271 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see the point personally, didn't we do one of these earlier in 2017? Christopher (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher I had about 10 people take a draft version. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so it was just a draft. I didn't get that ping btw (they don't seem to work in non talk namespaces). Christopher (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato Sure.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, make sure to fix this broken link from page 4 of the survey.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I still think the questions from 1 to 9 are quite poor and it's very US-centric (I took the survey without submitting and had to look up "British equivalent of high school" for instance). Christopher (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I could feel the American-ism from the values test. And we have a North Korean editing this site?????? —ClickerClock (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear comrades, let's sail right into the dustbin of history! Nerd (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
We apparently have an editor in North Korea who, being a white Hindu, is unlikely to be a native of North Korea and might well have clicked on Korea (North) instead of Korea (South) by mistake. That brings me nicely to what I was going to say. It would be nice to have separate choices for country of origin and country of residence. I live in Taiwan but I'm not Taiwanese. And previous Saloon Bar conversations suggest that we have some Brits living in Spain editing here. Spud (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I took it even though it's hosted by Google. Surely you can do better than that? But certainly some of the later 1-9 questions didn't seem applicable. I suspect the last ones probably apply mostly to particular country? —Kazitor, pending 11:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
As whoever it was said - being born in a stable does not make you a donkey. Anna Livia (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Some person apparently is 150 and living in North Korea. Seems legit!Do You Believe That?-Not Anonymous user (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@DiamondDisc1So that's where the food and medical aid went. They have a doctoral degree, too, and are a committed Marxist-Leninist until they sail their submarine towards the U.S. coast to either immigrate or start a war. Nerd (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone needs to tell Norway that Bouvet Island isn't uninhabited anymore.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This is why I joined RationalWiki, I get to meet people from so many interesting places and laugh about it. GrammarCommie (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad this wiki lets nonexistent people edit!-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to close the survey this Friday. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 08:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey results[edit]

Survey is closed. I'll publish results tomorrow. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 04:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting...-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering about that too. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
FuzzyCatPotato is still in a meeting with David Rockefeller at the Eiffel Tower. He will be back when the NWO takes over. INFO WARS *WHAAAAAAAAAM*€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato-Not Anonymous user (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato I smell a conspiracy. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato Do the results somehow contain evidence for the Illuminati?-Not Anonymous user (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
i suspect its taking some time to make the results appear interesting and not blindingly obvious 12:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato, what do you mean publish them? They're already viewable. Christopher (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

sorry everyone -- i thought i'd have a chunk of free time to nicely sort & graph the results. i promise by next monday! Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
So no evidence for the Illuminati?-Not Anonymous user (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've got the results ready (in an un-pretty form). However, I thought it might be nice to release the survey results + editcount results on January 1st, since then we could compare the 2017 survey and 2017 edit patterns in one go. Does anyone vehemently oppose releasing both results on the 1st? FuzzyCatPotato of the Clumsy Copy-pastes (talk/stalk) 02:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. GrammarCommie (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I can wait.-Not Anonymous user (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why not. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Likewise. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

unfair irrational censor[edit]

101.180.193.48 (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@101.180.193.48 Put your complaints on RW:COOP. —Fake News™ (talk/stalk) 02:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ok 101.180.193.48 (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You're not really taking our advice. You're posting bad Clogs and we believe there should be SOME curation and quality control to clog posts. Your posts didn't pass our standards according to talk page consensus and so they're removed. There is no "censorship", it's just that we didn't find your posts appropriate and explained at least for one of them why. GrammarCommie also explained reasons for his edits and even acknowledged one mistake. All in all, please don't throw around "censorship" and we're trying our best for quality control. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging Iron Chariots Wiki (sticky)[edit]

Older RatWiks may know that RW merged in EvolutionWiki, a wiki dedicated to documenting evolution science and debunking intelligent design / creationist arguments, after that site became inactive and lost the funds to host itself (see EvoWiki and RationalWiki:EvoWiki).

Iron Chariots Wiki appears to be on route to suffer the same fate. Iron Chariots is an explicitly atheist wiki dedicated to documenting arguments for and against god and about atheism in general. The site hasn't had any edits since September 6 -- two months ago. The forums are offline. The bottom of every page proudly displays two PHP error messages. Relevant links:

In short: the site has gone Citizendium'd. Do we want to try to contact Iron Chariots Wiki and merge in their content? (@Tmtoulouse, @David Gerard, @Human, @Reverend Black Percy, @Spud) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objections. SpacePriusIs always watching 15:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is irrelevant but I'd say yeah. Christopher (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Same here. We are legion, for we are many. Nerd271 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright is the issue. Everything is born "all rights reserved" by default. If it wasn't under any licence, we have a problem unless we get permission from each individual contributor. (We sort of arsed it through with EvoWiki ...) - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be licensed under Creative Commons but it's an earlier version (2.5, we're 3.0) theirs and ours are compatible though aren't they? Christopher (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like copyright isn't a problem. OK. Merge them into us and salvage anything useful from them. Spud (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher Thanks for finding that. The Iron Chariots Wiki license is CC-BY-SA-2.5, better if anything than EvoWiki's CC-BY-NC-SA-1.0, and definitely compatible with our CC-BY-SA-3.0. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems like a reasonable merge to me and can follow the strategy used for EvoWiki. What we did with EvoWiki was to move EvoWiki onto our server then have it exist there for the duration of the porting process. Editors who were interested would take non-stub pages and convert them into RW style within RW and include a category link indicating that it was ported (Category:EvoWiki ports). After the port was complete, the EvoWiki page was replaced with a redirect to the corresponding RW page. @FuzzyCatPotato knows the details of this better than I do. Bongolian (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If the copyright issue can be solved (and it looks like it can) this sounds like a decent idea. Boredatwork (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Soounds good to me! RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's do it. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad there is interest in this getting done. I was the main contributor to IronChariots over the last few years. I have not had any response from the server admin Russell, my main contact, on updating Mediawiki software or getting more disk space, which I suspect is the underlying problem. They don't seem to have the time to commit to the project although Matt Dillahunty occasionally plugs the site. I'm still wondering what my involvement will be or what will happen to the site eventually. I will consider continuing to work on this within RationalWiki but the tone of RationalWiki is a little different :) TimSC (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to stay here, good sir. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If the site owners have no issues, go ahead. — Unsigned, by: 195.235.239.101 / talk

There are a few issues. The first, and most obvious, is whether the current owners think such a merger would be appropriate.

The second is the fact that RW is not explicitly an atheist site. To all intents and purposes it is, but we have historically avoided describing ourselves as such. I'm guessing that would have to change if we incorporate Iron chariots.

There is the question of the differing tone of the two sites - though RW's tone seems to be rather less jokey these days.

Finally there is the question of the work involved in incorporating the material. Saying "let's do it" is fine, but are those who are in favour also volunteering to do the work incorporating the articles? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There may be a plurality of non-believers on RW, but it is by no means an atheist site. There are other users here with a variety of religious beliefs. It should also be noted that some religions are not incompatible with atheism (e.g. Hinduism). I think that regarding the tone difference between the two wikis, it would be worthwhile, @TimSC, to compare the tone in our Category:Logic pages, which I think tend to be more in line with those at Iron Chariots (lower levels of snark). Bongolian (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I had similar thoughts, but we do actually have pages for a lot of the same topics as Iron Chariots already. They fit in with RW's mission in the sense that these arguments often invoke pseudoscience or questionable logic. (There are also already some pages on RW that seem to exist primarily because people here are interested in atheism and apologetics, rather than because they directly relate to RW's "mission" regarding crank ideas.) With some tweaks, we could absorb much of Iron Chariots without making RW any more atheist-leaning than it already is.
I think that the real problem is that the TAE folks probably wanted Iron Chariots to be viewed as a somewhat "scholarly" resource, and RW's snark would undermine that image. So even if they're OK with content being copied over, they might not want Iron Chariots to be swallowed whole by formally merged into RW. Quantheory (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have IronChariots (and RationalWiki) pages linked in several easy copy pastas I give to people to refute certain categories of arguments or teach them the underlying logic; IC sometimes covers thing in greater depth than RW and for my purposes I IC's tone is much better. I suspect many others share my appreciation for a "scholarly" go to resource to refute theistic claims; on RW you're always two clicks away from goat jokes. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Decided to actually have a look at it, and there seems to be some good info. I think our main issue is lack of organisation, no doubt most of their pages are similar to ours but look! It's so organised!Kazitor, pending 11:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong interest in atheism, myself. But given that we appear to have reasonably congruent articles on most of the subjects they cover, it might help just for the sake of priorities to make note of articles they have that we don't. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dropped?[edit]

The original thread's been archived. Just wondering, has this idea been dropped? 87.192.220.205 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been -- Archivist is acting up. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to self 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Aww[edit]

Your little atheist playgrounds can't survive on their own? What ashame. :P 73.91.2.168 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The size of one's fanbase does not necessarily correlate with how correct they are. ΛίνΡ (ομιλία) (συνεισφορές) @ 03:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Never said it did, but remember that next time numbers are in your favor. 76.3.172.194 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
They want a resume in order to edit it. No wonder they are practically dead. Good riddance, one less cesspool on the internet. 76.3.172.194 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Expanding Universe[edit]

I have thought about it, what would the edge of the universe be made of? Not a physics buff here, but how would it affect universal expansion? --Rationalzombie94 (talk)

Probably the same spacetime as the rest of it. I think it would either lead to another edge of the universe (so it would be an inescapable prison), or just lead to the quantum void of interdimensional space. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Feast your eyes!
Nerd (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Very neat video. In non-infinite universe models there's also no such thing as mentioned above as an edge -you go as far as you can and you either begin to return from the opposite direction to where you started -the three dimensional equivalent of circumnavegating Earth-, that would happen in a closed Universe, or wrap around as in games as Pacman, Asteroids, and others-.
Another issue with edges -in the sense of the edges of a room- is that, according to the other wiki, they're hard to model mathematically and funny things happen there, so are generally discarded (and there's the: if the Universe has an edge, as a sort of wall: what lies beyond said edge?)

Panzerfaust (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The video was interesting, I remember hearing an idea years ago where there is an infinite number of flat universes that are above and below our universe. Forgive any typos I might make, using a smart tablet with spell check that comes on and off. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Saw some light Ant-SJW discussion on this on the PCMR discord[edit]

https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-just-six-months/ ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If Islam didn't exist[edit]

I've been wondering lately, what would the world be like if Islam had never been invented? —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 21:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There would be just another religion invented and that'll also happen to subjugate women and mistreat other minorities. People will just continue killing and oppressing each other as they've always have done. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
A quick look at Wikipedia reminds me that the dominant religions in the Middle East before Islam were Zoroastrianism and Nestorian Christianity, which split from mainstream Christianity over doctrinal differences about the nature of Christ; one of these would have become dominant in the region, and, as LMG suggests, would have almost certainly have become politicised and oppressive. How this would have affected the development of science and mathematics (which made advances in the early Islamic world) I have no idea, without digging into obscure books and journals on Zoroastrianism and Nestorianism's attitudes to science, education etc. It's one of history's biggest "what if"s: what if Islam had never taken off? Would we have a safer world now, or would there still be violence, but about something else? Boredatwork (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget there was also Judaism in the area; many of the khaleeji tribes were Jewish and the others mostly followed Arab pagan beliefs. Zoroastrianism was confined to the north of the najd and Christianity to the coastlines and west of the hejaz, i.e. Africa. The question about science is good, since the European Enlightenment was kick started by Arab developments, but those developments took place largely because of the strong and patron rich Abbasid caliphate, which created a rich climate for scholars all of all fields in Baghdad and Alexandria. This was, of course, largely allowed by the creation of the Umayyad caliphate after Islam had unified the Bedouins; whether one tribe would have unified the others without Islam is an open question, but maybe not a crucial one. A restored Persian empire or Egyptian empire, or even a resurgent Byzantium, unchecked by the Arabs, could have had the same result. All that was needed was a powerful, stable and reasonably sane super-state in the region. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
You think religion may have reinforced the power and stability, which was essential for development of scholars? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
During the golden age of Islam as a civilization, this seems to have been true. All sorts of Greek philosophical and scientific texts were preserved in Arabic translation, and many textbooks from classical antiquity are preserved in that form. The Crusades (a little) and the Spanish reconquest (a lot) put dozens of texts full of obviously useful material into European hands, and a great effort was made translating the books from Arabic into Latin. The great tragedy of Islam was the Mongol sack of Baghdad, which produced a reaction against scholarship and curiosity and hardened both Islamic theology and culture into a culture of 'honor' and warrior virtues, which remain part of the problem today. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
You two have a really Orientalist view of the period, which was developed during the concurrent and post-crusade period in other to justify those religious wars. Namely, you seem to think Islam was very important during the Golden Age; every notable (and court funded) poet from Khayyam to al-Mutanabbi wrote about the decadence of the Abbasid and earlier Umayyad rulers, at the least they were very heavy wine drinkers, and many philosophers attacked Islam. A large portion of al-Ghazali, Taymiyyah, and Qudamah's anger was directed against the academic class; their books feature long descriptions of how atheist professors convince wealthy college students to abandon religion with their emphasis on reason and logic.
And so to do we see the end of the Golden Age, it had nothing to do with the Mongols (who were so ideologically pragmatic that they quickly converted to Islam just to better gain their new subject's loyalty) and everything to do with Ghazali and his friends creating an environment that saw madrassas become more respected than universities. This brief piece and its linked academic paper does a good job showing how madrassas overtook universities when the Golden Age ended, and the percentage of Arabic language books on science decreased greatly in favor of religious books. Most of this happened before the Mongols arrived at Baghdad, by the way. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
What about the religions that existed in the Arabian peninsula during Muhammad era? Panzerfaust (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

For whom Nobel tolls[edit]

How do we interpret the Nobel Prize paradox: despite representing more than 1.5 billion muslims, Islamic culture has produced only 3 prize winners in physics and chemistry, and none in medicine.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Nobel Prize "paradox" might be a problem of physical characteristics rather than actual talent. I mean, look at the women... --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
India has one chemistry, 2 physics, and 2 medicine laureates[8] and of those 5, one was ethnically British, 3 were citizens of the US or UK, and the remaining one won while India was still under British rule. So either Indians are equally backward or there is another explanation. --Gospatric (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Backwardness is a vague term. Anti-science traditions perhaps is the answer. There are five Chinese Nobel Prize winners in science and medicine. They may also be hindered by ancient cultural traditions. Contrast China with Japan, perhaps the most modern Asian country, having 22 Nobel Prize winners in science and medicine.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I an certain the Nobel Paradox is in no way due to the various committees being historically full of white Scandinavians. The fact that 58 prizes have gone to Scandinavians (one of whom won for the "invention of automatic regulators for use in conjunction with gas accumulators for illuminating lighthouses and buoys") is entirely coincidental. Boredatwork (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I am also certain of that being irrelevant to the question.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Somehow, I find the "China loves ancient tradition" explanation leaving a bad taste behind my mouth and overall unsatisfactory, like it's a stereotype of China that is hastily and not carefully thought up and then applied to a complex phenomenon. I think other factors go into play here, not "China is 'anti-science'". In fact, wasn't traditional Chinese medicine (like acupuncture) in decline before Mao hopped along and decided it should be cool again to stimulate medicine or something? Besides, Japan also loves tradition; the collectivist conform culture is pretty similar to China's. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The "X loves ancient tradition explanation" was neither stated nor implied. Traditionalism opposes modernism, the optimal environment of science. The fact that Japan is more like a modern western state than is China is not debatable.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)