RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive281
A timecube... documentary(?) video[edit]
So this was recently uploaded, and it was interesting to me, so I thought other people might like to see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7lWCqbgQnU I've known of and tried to read timecube before but I never knew much about the guy behind it and hadn't heard him speak or anything, this video goes into a fair amount of detail on all that and does some decent digging around to find old clips and speeches and such he's given. I wasn't sure whether to put this on the timecube/Gene Ray page but it seems generalised enough that it should go here instead. Anyway, enjoy 45 minutes of trying to make sense of the nonsensical. X Stickman (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I love Time Cube rants, they're always good for a laugh. GrammarCommie (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really find Time Cube funny, Ray was clearly ill. Christopher (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- After enduring listening to 20-odd minutes of Michael Hughes' interview with a flat Earther, I wondered whether crank magnetism is indicative general mental illness. Bongolian (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really find Time Cube funny, Ray was clearly ill. Christopher (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Trump and Jerusalem[edit]
Self-explanatory. Thoughts? @Aeonian? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Would people have supported him if he had recognized Jerusalem as the twin capitols?
- At the moment, waiting for the other shoe to drop. So far, just the usual effigy and picture burning, but I'd have expected a riot or two. As for long term consequences, I get the impression that most of the most offended people are people that weren't exactly friendly to the US to begin with, so I'm not exactly sure if much drastically changes as a result of this. CorruptUser (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is some question as to whether it matters what the US recognizes as long as Trump is the President. None of the US allies will follow.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Correct me, but as commented in Patheos (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/12/07/donald-trumps-jerusalem-declaration-is-another-gift-to-the-religious-right/), this looks like a gift from Donald
DuckTrump to those Fundie friends of him (you know, prophecies and all that stuff). Panzerfaust (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Correct me, but as commented in Patheos (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/12/07/donald-trumps-jerusalem-declaration-is-another-gift-to-the-religious-right/), this looks like a gift from Donald
When isn't there violence in the middle east?[edit]
Not trying to sound right wing but, there is always violence in the middle east. Not matter what- treaties, supporting Israel, aganist Israel, supporting Kurdish people, against Kurdish people, peace keeping efforts, giving money, and so on. It does not matter. Might be wrong but all I hear is about violence in the mid east. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes and no. A lot of the violence ongoing is a result of the Iranian revolution (which was secretly supported by Carter), in that they keep funding every other insurgency in the region. Without them mucking things up, a very uneasy peace could have been possible. To be fair, we still haven't quite learned never to trust the religious nutters, so you can't really fault him too much for that. Also to be fair, the revolution was in part because of British and American greed, plus cold war geopolitics, so we aren't exactly innocent. Saudi Arabia gets more blame than they deserve, and while their funding of the Salafi madrassas is probably the second largest roadblock to peace, well ok they deserve a huge amount of blame but not quite as much as they receive. Going forward, well, I'd really love a Kurdish state, but that's not going to happen while Turkey has any say in that. CorruptUser (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- 'in part because of british and american greed...' - entirely because of british mand american greed. we installed the shah. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is stupid, USA didn't get any financial change from that except more debt. You did it as part of your plan to use religious theocracies to combat the spread of Marxism in the Middle East. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, no. Iran wanted to nationalise their oil industry. Since AIOC was a british concern we werent too happy with that. The marxist thing is just what we told the americans to get them to stick their oar in. so, yeh basically greed. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Cannot explain Western support of theocracies in all the countries conspicuously lacking oil resources, nor those without the infrastructure to harness their oil resources for that matter. And I find it hard to believe anyone was told about the Cold War element, since every Westerner I come across parrots the oil narrative without delay. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- wasnt trying to, just the shenanigans in iran and how easy it was to get the yanks to do the dirty work if you tell em reds are involved. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Cannot explain Western support of theocracies in all the countries conspicuously lacking oil resources, nor those without the infrastructure to harness their oil resources for that matter. And I find it hard to believe anyone was told about the Cold War element, since every Westerner I come across parrots the oil narrative without delay. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, no. Iran wanted to nationalise their oil industry. Since AIOC was a british concern we werent too happy with that. The marxist thing is just what we told the americans to get them to stick their oar in. so, yeh basically greed. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- And also 'Mrs Smith had a peaceful/enjoyable day' is not news but 'Something terrible/YouTube meme happened to Mrs Smith' is.
- With #most# inhabited places in the world if you want to film a documentary 'There is (much unpleasantness and problems) here' you can do so - and also a travel documentary 'The delights of charming Olde Worlde Y' etc. 2A00:23C4:F505:4F00:8DE:2F0D:9B70:A697 (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is stupid, USA didn't get any financial change from that except more debt. You did it as part of your plan to use religious theocracies to combat the spread of Marxism in the Middle East. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- 'in part because of british and american greed...' - entirely because of british mand american greed. we installed the shah. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget the Saudis. $2-3 billion a year funding Wahhabism. Of course, now it seems to be coming back to bite them in the ass.Teurastaja (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
To answer your question, both sides could have come to an agreement long ago but it is fundamentally an ethno-religious conflict, and so there is no room for compromise because you don't "compromise" with the kuffar. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
While I'm not Canadain I don't quite know how I should feel on this[edit]
More sources would also be appreciated also. http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/plan-to-deal-with-returning-isis-fighters-sparks-fiery-exchange-between-scheer-pm-1.3698183 ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
- Sounds like the longer debate in the UK about how to deal with British ISIS fighters, which ranges from calls by right-wing politicians and populist media for them all to be shot[1][2] to calls (particularly from Muslims) for them to be rehabilitated[3][4]. The British government already has deradicalisation programs that people can be forced to attend.[5][6] There's a lot of teenagers, including some women/girls, going out there and realising it's not what they thought it would be like and wanting to come home (but Isis isn't too keen on that);, the authorities have declined to press charges against at least one young man who joined Isis but changed his mind.[7] Jailing them isn't ideal because prisons are one of the main places that Muslim terrorists are radicalised.[8][9] And the security services don't have a good record when it comes to monitoring returning people and stopping them turning to terrorism.[10] The obvious solution is to do what the justice system does (or tries to do) in other situations, not treat everybody the same but differentiate hardened terrorists from kids who've gone astray. --Gospatric (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Was Airline Deregulation good or bad?[edit]
ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- An absolute catastrophe. I refuse to fly. Why would I buy a ticket if the ticket isn't guaranteed to get me a seat on the flight I bought it for? Why would I buy anything without some assurance that the advertised price is actually what it costs? These problems are compounded by the humiliating 'security' pantomime, of course. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anytime I see "deregulation" I think "open gates for the free market to screw everyone over". --It's-a me,
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Or basically "deregulation" is a recipe for disaster. S.H. DeLong (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Counterpoint: the deregulation of alcohol. There's a reason there's been an explosion in microbrews in the past few decades (in the US at least). Mock hipsters all you want, but there is no compelling reason to prevent hundreds of varieties of beer from existing.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC) - All depends the way said deregulation is executed and the presence of laws that control it (for consumer protection, safety, etc), as well as those that prevent the formation of oligopolies, etc (things free market bullshitters despise despite being common sense). That said, essential services (water, electricity, etc.) should not be deregulated or at the very least laws to protect those who are in poverty, so they can have access to them, must exist. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Counterpoint: the deregulation of alcohol. There's a reason there's been an explosion in microbrews in the past few decades (in the US at least). Mock hipsters all you want, but there is no compelling reason to prevent hundreds of varieties of beer from existing.
- Or basically "deregulation" is a recipe for disaster. S.H. DeLong (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Anytime I see "deregulation" I think "open gates for the free market to screw everyone over". --It's-a me,
I think deregulation usually winds up badly, either as a confusing maship or what is a natural monopoly (i.e. the "fake markets" like utilities) or gratuttious price gouging and asset stripping of former state bodies, or the exploitative shitfest that is outsourcing.
However, I think airlines are one, perhaps pretty much the sole, exception to this. Whilst there definitely needs to be some - and more - regulation of aspects of the airline industry when it comes to passenger rights and also minimum acceptable physcial conditions on board (i.e. minimum seat pitches and widths to ensure safety and wellbeing) - the overall reregulation *has* led to a lot of new routes opening (especially in the EU), *much* lower fares and way more choice of carriers.
Another thing I would point to is the simplicity of the ticketing mechanism for airlines. I can buy a ticket online for an inter-continental flight and show up, no paper tickets of any kind needed - all done from a phone or computer. Compare this with booking train tickets in Britain, which have also been privatised and somewhat reregulated, and you do get one good example of how deregulation *can* work.... and how it - far more often - doesn't. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 15:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Anyone tired of hearing about sexual assaults in the media?[edit]
I cared the first hundred times I heard about sexual assaults to people when reading media. But like murder cases, I simply stopped giving a shit about it. While I'm proud that the victims are stepping forward, does the media need to be a mouthpiece for it? Is this an unpopular opinion? Maybe.—CheeseburgerPlate 
(talk • stalk) 20:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, I have the same weariness of hearing sexual assault case after sexual assault case. I'm hoping the "coming out" allegations the media loves to lap up doesn't backfire or start having a jaded effect on people. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the media does need to be a mouthpiece for it, even at the risk of backfiring. In many cases, the victims have few alternatives when the statute of limitations has expired for the victimizer but the risk of libel upon the victims is ever present. The multiple public accusers at once approach gives weight to the evidence and reduces the likelihood of libel proceedings. Bongolian (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is an inevitable feeling and the news media recognizes that feeling and will soon back off on pursuing other major sexual assault claims for a while. Which... I guess is just how life goes. Hopefully some kind of systemic progress was made in this burst of activity, but I'm not holding my breath. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It's really fucked up. I want to hear more women testify against guys like Moore, but then I realize I'm hoping for more human misery to be found. At the end of the day, exposing the misdeeds of only significant persons may accomplish nothing for women. When it comes to the manager at McDonalds, who cares in the media?Ariel31459 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reporting crime to law enforcement is perfectly normal. I am, however, a little disappointed to see that many people have forgotten that the accused remains innocent until they confess or are proven guilty. Nerd (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- i believe i have mentioned before about how deeply uncomfortable i am with the way these allegations are reported. i am deeply uncomfortable with allegations like 'he put his hand on my knee at a dinner party' being reported as the same ball park as 'he raped me'. I am deeply uncomfortable with the way these allegations are presented not as allegations but as fact, that a mere allegation will result in the destruction of careers. these are allegations that have not resulted in court cases, have not resulted in police investigations. the reporting of the reporting of these allegations seem to me to make it impossible that any could wind up in court - how could any of the accused hope for a fair trial when they have been declared guilty so comprehensively in news media. i cannot investigate these claims - i am not the police, i cannot even question them. we are told we must believe the victims of sexual assault. we must not doubt them. thats all well and good if an appropriate party ie the police, then goes on to investigate the claims, but here there are few or no investigations. claims are made, regurgitated verbatim thoughout the news media and we cannot question them. to do so makes us monsters. any claims of literally anything else, we would question them. any other claim from a group people i would not trust to accurately describe their breakfast i would read with a raised eyebrow and a hefty pinch of salt at the he said/she said. i am not comfortable to do so here. some of the claims are horrific. some of the claims are so minor that id question that it was even sexual assault/harassment. some are just plain outlandish. i understand that statute of limitations makes this the only option for many of the victims, but is this really the way to go? there are so many claims, about so many people, they cant really all be true can they? someone said the risk of libel is a very real threat to the accusers - is it though? the accused could win but their career and reputation would still be trashed. i am uncomfortable about all of this. i uncomfortable withn the fact that i am convinced of the guilt of some these people purely because i read report of an allegation. i am uncomfortable that i could be excusing some truely awful crimes. i fear the deluge of claims will become so widespread, so common, that while kevin spacey is airbrushed from his films and weinsteins career is finished, a year from now we will read about some star groping an extra and go straight and watch his latest box office smash. we will believe the claims if we dislike the person, if we like them we'll and believe its just a publicity seeker. but i guess thats the status quo - michael jackson died a paedophile while statutory rapist david bowie died a rock legend. i just dont see how justice is served by this perfect storm of celebrity and righteous indignation when the end result is likely not just a jaded public, but a disbelieving oneAMassiveGay (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I hate the way this country treats artists. What would contemporary America do to Van Gogh or Picasso, I wonder?
- And to the extent I am a liberal, I am an old fashioned ACLU liberal. Due process and the presumption of innocence are more important to me than any moral panic, no matter how 'feminist' it is.
- The other thing that occurs to me is that it's much easier to wrong-foot Democrats and liberals by this sort of thing.
- Republicans and right-wingers will, of course, circle the wagons, as we're seeing in the case of Roy Moore. For Alabama voters, the choice between a child molester and a liberal is a difficult moral quandary. Roy Moore may have chased children, but he stands up for the piss-ant god they worship down there.
- On the other hand Democrats have to at least pay lip service to "feminism", whatever it means anymore. These things target key Democrat constituencies. They implicate Democratic human-resources pieties and 'professional' standards. They have invested a great deal in that kind of elite etiquette. It's much harder for them to shake off these charges levelled against their leadership, no matter how stale or how trivial they may be. There isn't a level playing field when it comes to this sort of carrying on. It didn't get Hillary Clinton elected, for one thing. Then again, she was a uniquely compromised bearer of any message about men behaving badly. There does come a time when you have to swallow everything you've been taught and root for the home team. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- this is an interesting read AMassiveGay (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes Hamburger. What could be more tedious than famous popular figures and politicians being exposed for sexual harassment and rape. I certainly don't want to hear more about hundreds of women putting their career and personal lives on the line to expose predators and hopefuly put a permanent door stop in front of extreme apathy and disbelief of abuse. What could be less interesting than a major social shift slowly unraveling. Every time I read about a new public figure denounced by a dozen women, I'm like...hello...that news is like so October 2017! My greatest hope is that the whole story just goes away and we can get back to not giving a shit about murders and political corruption and police abuse and banking fraud. 87.218.198.157 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you're not wrong (going by your intent because you're obviously being sarcastic).—CheeseburgerPlate
(talk • stalk) 04:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen 'believe the victims' before. It tends not to end well. Inviting people to re-remember thirty year old memories as outrages they weren't at the time, and then using these half-remembered tales to destroy the careers of a variety of public figures, couldn't possibly go wrong, now could it? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- But why now? Why do people have to wait until after someone is famous to raise accusations?—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 18:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is that really what is happening? In the Roy Moore case, many of the victims had told people about Moore's behavior long ago. It is only recently that media bigwigs have been sending their reporters out to look for them. "See? The system works," etc.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- But why now? Why do people have to wait until after someone is famous to raise accusations?—CheeseburgerPlate
- I've seen 'believe the victims' before. It tends not to end well. Inviting people to re-remember thirty year old memories as outrages they weren't at the time, and then using these half-remembered tales to destroy the careers of a variety of public figures, couldn't possibly go wrong, now could it? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you're not wrong (going by your intent because you're obviously being sarcastic).—CheeseburgerPlate
- Yes Hamburger. What could be more tedious than famous popular figures and politicians being exposed for sexual harassment and rape. I certainly don't want to hear more about hundreds of women putting their career and personal lives on the line to expose predators and hopefuly put a permanent door stop in front of extreme apathy and disbelief of abuse. What could be less interesting than a major social shift slowly unraveling. Every time I read about a new public figure denounced by a dozen women, I'm like...hello...that news is like so October 2017! My greatest hope is that the whole story just goes away and we can get back to not giving a shit about murders and political corruption and police abuse and banking fraud. 87.218.198.157 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- this is an interesting read AMassiveGay (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- i believe i have mentioned before about how deeply uncomfortable i am with the way these allegations are reported. i am deeply uncomfortable with allegations like 'he put his hand on my knee at a dinner party' being reported as the same ball park as 'he raped me'. I am deeply uncomfortable with the way these allegations are presented not as allegations but as fact, that a mere allegation will result in the destruction of careers. these are allegations that have not resulted in court cases, have not resulted in police investigations. the reporting of the reporting of these allegations seem to me to make it impossible that any could wind up in court - how could any of the accused hope for a fair trial when they have been declared guilty so comprehensively in news media. i cannot investigate these claims - i am not the police, i cannot even question them. we are told we must believe the victims of sexual assault. we must not doubt them. thats all well and good if an appropriate party ie the police, then goes on to investigate the claims, but here there are few or no investigations. claims are made, regurgitated verbatim thoughout the news media and we cannot question them. to do so makes us monsters. any claims of literally anything else, we would question them. any other claim from a group people i would not trust to accurately describe their breakfast i would read with a raised eyebrow and a hefty pinch of salt at the he said/she said. i am not comfortable to do so here. some of the claims are horrific. some of the claims are so minor that id question that it was even sexual assault/harassment. some are just plain outlandish. i understand that statute of limitations makes this the only option for many of the victims, but is this really the way to go? there are so many claims, about so many people, they cant really all be true can they? someone said the risk of libel is a very real threat to the accusers - is it though? the accused could win but their career and reputation would still be trashed. i am uncomfortable about all of this. i uncomfortable withn the fact that i am convinced of the guilt of some these people purely because i read report of an allegation. i am uncomfortable that i could be excusing some truely awful crimes. i fear the deluge of claims will become so widespread, so common, that while kevin spacey is airbrushed from his films and weinsteins career is finished, a year from now we will read about some star groping an extra and go straight and watch his latest box office smash. we will believe the claims if we dislike the person, if we like them we'll and believe its just a publicity seeker. but i guess thats the status quo - michael jackson died a paedophile while statutory rapist david bowie died a rock legend. i just dont see how justice is served by this perfect storm of celebrity and righteous indignation when the end result is likely not just a jaded public, but a disbelieving oneAMassiveGay (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Roy Moore is an outlier here. AFAIK he doesn't have a talent that ought to cut him some slack. He also has the whole hypocrisy going for him: he wants to regulate other people's sex lives, which I'm against as well. (And I try to make that principle a 'seamless web'.) He's exceptionally easy to hate, which lends his accusers credibility if you hate him as well. He still deserves the same grace of due process, and leaving the distant past lie, that everybody else deserves. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think that this is a good thing. The media coverage of Cosby and Trump and Ailes and O'Reilley and Moore and Franken, etc. does pose the danger of making us jaded but maybe making this commonplace is not a bad thing. Women did not speak up at the time because they feared that they are alone or that they would not be supported. Perhaps, if harassment is recognized as commonplace, women will not be as reticent to speak up. That doesn't mean we shouldn't draw a distinction between President Bush Sr and (the allegations against) Moore -- Taking advantage of being in a wheelchair to make a lewd remark is not on the same level as what Moore is accused of -- but I hope this all leads to women (and girls, in Moore's case) feeling empowered to act, should they find themselves in similar situations (albeit, one action would entail a reprimand and the other would hopefully entail arrest) --Bertrc (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- And now Senator Al Franken has resigned because of this crap. I wonder if the 'feminists' realize that they've scored an own goal. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I just hope the senate democrats didn't push Franken out thinking it could make Alabama voters come to their senses. Moore may not win, but I doubt the Franken affair will will have anything to do with it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm okay with Franken's move. His statements and his actions have been exemplary; I can't imagine this not, ultimately, driving us in the right direction. I always tell the young'uns to show patience so I guess it is time for me to practice what I preach. Times like this remind me why I am glad I'm a Christian. Faith that God can not only fix the messes we make, but actually transform them in their entirety (even, retroactively, the making of the messes, themselves) into something good keeps me from despair. ;-) :-P~ :-D I just hope we don't have to be stuck in this Babylon for 70 years . . . --Bertrc (talk)
- If the criminal justice system decided to proceed against what Franken actually did, it would have gotten pled down to a minor misdemeanor at most. And that would be the correct resolution by law and precedent. This is how we reward someone who gave up a life of successful minor celebrity to serve his country. If this is what feminism demands, then fuck feminism. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm okay with Franken's move. His statements and his actions have been exemplary; I can't imagine this not, ultimately, driving us in the right direction. I always tell the young'uns to show patience so I guess it is time for me to practice what I preach. Times like this remind me why I am glad I'm a Christian. Faith that God can not only fix the messes we make, but actually transform them in their entirety (even, retroactively, the making of the messes, themselves) into something good keeps me from despair. ;-) :-P~ :-D I just hope we don't have to be stuck in this Babylon for 70 years . . . --Bertrc (talk)
- Yes, I just hope the senate democrats didn't push Franken out thinking it could make Alabama voters come to their senses. Moore may not win, but I doubt the Franken affair will will have anything to do with it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- And now Senator Al Franken has resigned because of this crap. I wonder if the 'feminists' realize that they've scored an own goal. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Put out the fire![edit]
This week's flaming bag of garbage is Angela Merkel. —Goat-Emperor Bigs (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Weren't most of the attacks either committed by people who entered the country before 2015,or had been raised in the country? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
- @ShiningSwordofThoughts RW:DUMP —Fake News™ (talk/stalk) 03:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Angela Merkel is quite possibly the world's least interesting politician. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see your Merkel and raise you 1 Emanuel Marcon. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- interesting politicians usually means a shit show. good politics should be tedious AMassiveGay (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Probably just being a devil's advocate because this is rationalwiki and we all do it, but tedious politics usually means a disinterested electorate, leaving only the spite voters to decide everything. And then you get a trump. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- the political climate has been far from mundane in the US long before trump. Probably more of a contributor to trump than a disinterested electorate. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Probably just being a devil's advocate because this is rationalwiki and we all do it, but tedious politics usually means a disinterested electorate, leaving only the spite voters to decide everything. And then you get a trump. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- interesting politicians usually means a shit show. good politics should be tedious AMassiveGay (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see your Merkel and raise you 1 Emanuel Marcon. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Angela Merkel is quite possibly the world's least interesting politician. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ShiningSwordofThoughts RW:DUMP —Fake News™ (talk/stalk) 03:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is the term Orient offensive?[edit]
I just thought why is reffering to someone as Oriental a bad thing? I can really only see it offensive in the sense that it generalizes a large group of people.— Unsigned, by: ShiningSwordofThoughts / talk / contribs 16:25, 11 December 2017
- Firstly, please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ (usually shift and the key above the left tab). That'll automagically sign you username with a timestamp.
- I googled your title, got the following; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orient#History_of_the_term. The basic reason is it was used as a slur for long enough to become one, and hasn't been reclaimed even to the extent that the quite analogous n* has been.Daev (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- PS The term 'Orient' not so much offensive as out-dated. Referring to someone as '(an) Oriental' is the problematic usage.Daev (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- It also seems to be a problem that only exists in North American English. Does anybody refer to Middle Easterners as 'southwest Asians?' - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- So are these people offside? Anna Livia (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- It also seems to be a problem that only exists in North American English. Does anybody refer to Middle Easterners as 'southwest Asians?' - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:31, 11 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:
- List of administrators (many of whom are on the Atheist Experience podcast)
- The only active editor (and only active admin) in the past 3 months
- The site doesn't appear to have explicitly copyrighted anything
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) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (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)
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. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (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)
- Soounds good to me! RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:17, 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)
- 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)
- @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. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:10, 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)
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 byformally 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)
This comment is to prevent archivist from archiving for a while. —Kazitor, pending 04:27, 12 December 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. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reminder to self FU22YC47P07470 (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)
Ransomware "customer service"[edit]
Here's an interesting report from last year that I just stumbled on: a evaluation of the "customer service" provided by 5 different ransomware "families".[11]
“”The customer care that the criminals provide appears to be effective and something that many legal web shops and more traditional businesses could take lessons from. I hate to say it, but these crooks appear to deliver what they promise. You can even negotiate with them. It’s mass crime, conducted in business as usual fashion.
|
| —Erka Koivunen, Cyber Security Advisor for F-Secure |
Bongolian (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- It is bad when criminals can provide better costumer service. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see these crooks plan their crimes with sustainability. This is both impressive and deeply saddening. GrammarCommie (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- It makes sense. If they provide good customer service - something that's difficult to find from legitimate businesses - their marks are much more likely to come back. But I agree with the above, very depressing. 98.110.112.28 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Onion marketplaces have a couple websites, such as deepdotweb.com, to rate markets that can sell illegal content. So yes, this is a thing.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 21:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Onion marketplaces have a couple websites, such as deepdotweb.com, to rate markets that can sell illegal content. So yes, this is a thing.—CheeseburgerPlate
- It makes sense. If they provide good customer service - something that's difficult to find from legitimate businesses - their marks are much more likely to come back. But I agree with the above, very depressing. 98.110.112.28 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see these crooks plan their crimes with sustainability. This is both impressive and deeply saddening. GrammarCommie (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This should be a lesson to businesses[edit]
Provide better services. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Medical Education: Current Standards or based on pure competence?[edit]
Watching Grey's Anatomy, the character George O'Malley fails his intern exam by one point and stays an intern yet is a good doctor. That leads to my question: Should medical education be based on competence? It just got me thinking about it. What do you think? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Should medical education be based on competence?" I don't don't understand the question as worded.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Reworded: Should there be less emphasis on paper tests and more on practical skill?[edit]
I think that professional education should be based on if you can do the job than doing a test --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I want my doctor to be thoroughly versed on as much as possible (an enormous human brain library of every tiny corner of the body, problems with the body, treatments, medicine, side effects, alternatives, risk and so on. My friends who studied medicine basically said they had to memorise enormous lists of body parts, chemicals, treatments etc and that it is all very useful.
- As far as I know...the practical part starts once someone is a resident. They begin by observing and doing very little and then spend a few years doing increasingly more important tasks. And once that is over, at least in the European countries I know, you still have a couple years as an initiate before you can take your final training and examination in the specialty you decided. I am not sure you have to prioritise either. Studying enormous lists of theory first. Practice later (with some more theory on the go), back to studying a topic deeply, then practice with some more studying. A doctor never stops studying and is constantly adapting to changes in medicine. This is all second hand information but my various friends who went through the residency say it makes sense. 87.218.199.123 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Here's your(Ratzombie's) problem: thinking critically and understanding the world through application of theory are important skills that have very little to do with most careers but positively affect people. Tests aren't a particularly powerful way to examine that, neither are homework, nor essays, or presentations. But in aggregate, they show something about what students are taking away from a class. You don't want to live in a world of job-doing robots, especially since actual job-doing robots are just over the technological horizon. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am a rat now? I am cool with it. Anywho, I didn't mean getting rid of tests. I am just saying- focus more on practical skill on the graduate level. Undergraduate testing, I have no problem with. I admit I worded what I meant wrong. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- But ... at some point you have to assess how good that skill is. You need some way to assess it, some way to test it.
- I suspect that what you are getting at is something like the difference between practical skill and abstract knowledge.
- But (I suspect) that the balance between the two things will be different depending on the specialty. (This is also going to be true in other areas of life in addition to medicine.) For example if you are a surgeon a taxidermist or a pianist than practical physical skill is going to be at a premium - though obviously theoretical knowledge is needed too. On the other hand if you are a pneumologist an academic historian or a musical composer then actual physical skills will be less important.
- But even if you only focus on physical skills - you're still going to have to test those skills if you are going to give people qualifications. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
RationalWiki Community Survey 2017[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. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (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. FU22YC47P07470 (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.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Also, make sure to fix this broken link from page 4 of the survey.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato Sure.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 22:48, 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)
- @Christopher I had about 10 people take a draft version. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:57, 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)
- Likewise. Nerd271 (talk) 16:42, 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)
- 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?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (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.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (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!-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @DiamondDisc1 Diversity is our strength.Do You Believe That? Nerd (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Nerd Yes, why should nonexistent people be discriminated against?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 04:22, 23 December 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)
- Someone needs to tell Norway that Bouvet Island isn't uninhabited anymore.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 02:42, 22 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
- Some person apparently is 150 and living in North Korea. Seems legit!Do You Believe That?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:02, 19 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)
- 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)
I'm going to close the survey this Friday. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 08:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC) @FuzzyCatPotato this is like the third time I've had to put this topic back. Please fix Archivist :) —Kazitor, pending 04:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Survey results[edit]
Survey is closed. I'll publish results tomorrow. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Still waiting...-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (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*—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 21:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 22:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (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?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (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 Do the results somehow contain evidence for the Illuminati?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato I smell a conspiracy. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato—CheeseburgerPlate
- 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*—CheeseburgerPlate
- I was wondering about that too. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:11, 26 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! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- So no evidence for the Illuminati?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (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? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (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.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Can this be archived yet?[edit]
-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Probably. I've just been putting it back because nobody's actually removed "sticky" from the title. —Kazitor, pending 07:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Fundies are their own worst enemy[edit]
As you know, I have no problem with religion. That being said, if you have rules in your churches/church schools that are ultra strict and have no room to do anything fun, you will have people leave a church/religion for atheism or a more liberal faith. Hell, where I live, many fundie churches closed due to low attendance. The other churches (Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist and so on) are doing just fine. Maybe if these places didn't make strict rules unrelated to the bible, they would probably have more members. Thoughts? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many leave those denominations, but those who stay will listen to your every word. —Fake News™ (talk/stalk) 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. That's also the problem with my idea to redirect asteroids into the Vatican, Mecca and Jerusalem (so that it looks like God destroyed them). The moderates and decent people will leave. The crazy rabid literalists will be the ones who remain. --TeslaK20 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- "That being said, if you have rules in your churches/church schools that are ultra strict and have no room to do anything fun, you will have people leave a church/religion for atheism or a more liberal faith." I'm not at all sure that is true. For example ISIS had no problem picking up followers. It may the case where you live, but that doesn't mean it's a general rule.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded. In the Assemblies of God we had a 2m-wide board upon which the folks who ran the church let you know exactly what media was forbidden: Ghostbusters, Mighty Mouse, everything Disney, Murphy Brown, Pee Wee's Playhouse, Blockbuster Video (crime: stocking unrated titles!), Dungeons and Dragons, to name just a few. I have fond memories of asking questions in Sunday School (Mrs. Cain, etc.) only to be physically beaten by my fellow students afterwards, which the pastor framed as being my fault for asking questions to begin with. The totalitarian approach is the appeal for people who don't want the real enemy, doubt, in their lives or minds. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- The other churches (Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist and so on) are doing just fine. You know that Pensacola Christian College and Liberty University are Baptist, and Bob Jones was a Methodist, right? You must be talking about straight up cults like Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science, and Scientology. 73.91.3.45 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. That's also the problem with my idea to redirect asteroids into the Vatican, Mecca and Jerusalem (so that it looks like God destroyed them). The moderates and decent people will leave. The crazy rabid literalists will be the ones who remain. --TeslaK20 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was talking about the local churches where I live. According to church planting books I have read, totalitarian approaches are killing local churches. Back in 2016 is when I tried going to church again. One I went to was very homophobic (in an ironic twist: the sermon when homophobia came up was about the teachings of Jesus). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Your Thoughts on UBI?[edit]
I was watching a Kurzgesagt Video on UBI and it made me actually think for a moment your thoughts? — Unsigned, by: ShiningSwordofThoughts / talk / contribs
- I really like that video. I cautiously support implementing it. (Apparently, they want to give it a try in Hawaii and Finland.) Nerd (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Nationalist China[edit]
What do you guys think would've happened if the KMT won? And yes, it was possible, and likely would've happened if a certain someone
hadn't fucked it all up! And yes, I am aware it would still be pretty shitty afterwards, due to authoritarianism and the whole "Tibet and Xinjiang" thing. But in the end, it would probably be better than our China. Bigs (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Given the cold war tensions at the time, I'm not sure it'd have ended much differently. The Communist forces were huge, and the absolutely massive and mostly remote border with the USSR would have made it impossible to have stopped them being constantly resupplied. The USA had minimal interest in getting sucked in to an intervention, so I think the KMT were only ever really playing for time in the hope someone would help. To be honest, Taiwan is lucky to have survived as long as it has - long enough that we now live in a media age where the PRC is more conscious of it's reputation and what it would loose in terms of respect if it directly and blatantly invaded. Had China had the naval power it's now accruing 30-40 years ago, Taiwan would be destroyed.
- As it is, I think Taiwan now is probably in a position to bargain, and within the next 10-15 years will have little choice. China isn't as interested in Taiwan as much as she is access to the Pacific. Taiwan may well be able to cut a deal for de-jure independence (perhaps retaining some symbolic gesture, ie. making the status quo official and permanent) in return for ceding control of the Pratas and Orchid Island groups. These would give China the strategic locations it's wants. The Pratas is undoubtedly the most strategically important spot in the South China Sea, whilst the Orchid/Green Islands would allow the PRC to have naval bases facing directly into the Pacific, without having to risk a diplomatically and militarily costly invasion of the Taiwanese main island. If I were in the PRCs shoes, this is definitely would I'd be angling toward, and if I were in the ROCs group, what I'd be preparing for and thinking about what sort of deal I wanted. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 00:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- The KMT were criticized by General Joseph Stilwell for being corrupt and ineffective, so their capacity to win was questionable, as well as for their capacity to form a non-corrupt government that would do anything to improve the lot of the peasants. Chiang Kai-shek essentially was the dictator of Taiwan until 1975, and was himself responsible directly or indirectly for millions of civilian deaths.[12] Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would say the KMT's hopes to reunify China probably died with Sun Yat-sen. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Dumpster dive[edit]
This week's is internet (why do I even bother to post these here?) Bigs (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Cheerful company? GrammarCommie (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- It gets more eyeballs. Bongolian (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Who has spare eyeballs in this economy? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Who has spare eyeballs in this economy?
As 2017 draws to a close, let's reflect on the positives and negatives in the world[edit]
To make it clear: Not all of these are Rationalzombie's opinions, some have been added by others, I think this way of doing it is stupid personally. Christopher (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Positive
- New mental health civil rights laws
- Zimbabwean dictator Mugabe removed from power
- Australia recognizes gender-neutral marriage
- Final defeat of ISIS in Iraq
- Defeat of the China-Canada free trade deal
- Continued net gain of jobs in the U.S.
- Detection of gravitational waves emitted by colliding neutron stars allowing for better understanding of the origins of heavier elements
- Synthesis of antibodies capable of targeting 99% of HIV strands
- Considerable progress in the investigation of Russian election meddling headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller
- Fun toys:
- Commissioning of some vessels belonging to the latest variant of the Arleigh Burke-class Aegis-equipped guided missile destroyer and the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford (CVN-78), the lead ship of her class
- Launching of the HMS Audacious, an Astute-class nuclear-powered fleet submarine, and completion of the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08), the lead ship of her class (please cue
the opening theme of The Hunt for Red October"Heart of Oak") - Commissioning of the JS Kaga, the second Izumo-class
aircraft carrierhelicopter-destroyer - Nintendo Switch!!!!
- We are still here (and possibly more peaceful in a few places that weren't so at the beginning of the year)
- Despite predictions to the contrary, WWIII has not happened yet (so don't get too excited but prepare for war nonetheless)
- A planet nearby is revealed to be a strong candidate for hosting life as we know it (Ross 128b)
- Women accusers of sexual harassment and assault are named Times Persons of the Year
- A Democrat won the Senate race in Alabama
Negative
- Communist China expands Internet censorship
- Donald Trump Presidency
- U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement
- Possible falling-out of the Iran nuclear deal
- Potential loss of Net Neutrality
- Extraordinarily ill-considered tax cut for the rich in a time when economic divides are greater than they've ever been since metrics have been collected
- North Korean ballistic missile tests
- Regional accreditation of Bob Jones University
- 2017 being potentially another extremely hot year on record
- Disastrous forest fires in California and British Columbia
- Devastating (category 5) hurricanes in the American South and Puerto Rico
- Horror in South Asia
- Bhudist church in Myanmar encourage and participate in aggressive and violent persecution of Muslim minority (Rohingya).
- Aung San Suu Kyi fails as a human being and betrays the dignity of the Nobel Peace prize by denying the undeniable ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people.
- Pakistan government loses control to Islamic fanaticism
- Hindu fanaticism and terrorism rises in India
- Spanish prosecutors imprison Regional leaders for holding a vote
Grey
- American recognition of Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel
- The '#me too' movement, a 'feminist' moral panic over stale claims of sexual harassment that does more political damage to Democrats than Republicans
- Renegotiation of NAFTA underway
- US withdrawal from the TPP
Note- add your thoughts :) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the negative aspects of this year outweigh the positive or even neutral aspects. Perhaps we should take this as motivation to do better next year? Although it would seem that we have nowhere left to go but up as it stands. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 I hope you don't mind me editing the list directly. Nerd (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie
Do better? Don't you dare spread the Red Virus globally!It is good to be able to distinguish between the things you can change and the things you cannot. As for the former, have the courage to make a positive difference. Nerd (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie
- those positives seem largely 'meh' at best, being rather nebulous and jumping the gun somewhat. and the negatives - you think its only the states that got hammered by bad weather? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree and specifically the launching of more super-expensive military equipment in the US doesn't seem to facilitate any particular goal right now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Move my additions here if you prefer. Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree and specifically the launching of more super-expensive military equipment in the US doesn't seem to facilitate any particular goal right now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- those positives seem largely 'meh' at best, being rather nebulous and jumping the gun somewhat. and the negatives - you think its only the states that got hammered by bad weather? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Mugabe's out, but I'm pretty sure Zimbabwe is still a dictatorship. Christopher (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Leaving the TPP is grey IMO. Bigs (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The bad: The rise of effing lootboxes, sexual harassment crap (Me Too is potentially good but it sucks that Democrats are held to a higher standard than Repugnicans; Repubes can just shrug off that their senators are pedophiles while Al Franken did the right thing while the Democrats all oppose him), Roy Moore Roy Mooreing. The Confederate statue thing and the fallout of Charlottesville. Failed promise of infrastructure spending. Failed repeals of ACA and replacements being horrendous versions. Mass shooting in Vegas, being among the worst in history. My friend got diagnosed with leukemia and my paternal grandma is finally dead. :(
The good: Super Mario Odyssey!!!! My friend also eventually recovered from leukemia, thanks to chemotherapy. Also, most nations have signed the Paris Accord. Donald Trump wants to crack down on Scientology. Me being active, perhaps? --It's-a me, 
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- if you think this year saw the rise of loot boxes, then you really havent been paying attention. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- If I'm wrong, some explanation would be nice. I'm basing from Jim Sterling's conclusion that 2017 is the Year of the Loot Box. Doesn't mean lootboxes were invented this year, it's that game companies went crazy with them. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- ive personally found loot boxes a pretty shitty scam for more long just this past year. i dont have a youtuber to validate it though. the only difference now is the push back - surely a good thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Any sort of pushback is a good thing, it's just that I wish it happened sooner. There's also Star Wars Battlefront which was so serious, there were government investigations. Sadly, I don't think EA or any other "whale" rapers are going to be heavily punished as they should be. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Any sort of pushback is a good thing, it's just that I wish it happened sooner. There's also Star Wars Battlefront which was so serious, there were government investigations. Sadly, I don't think EA or any other "whale" rapers are going to be heavily punished as they should be. --It's-a me,
- ive personally found loot boxes a pretty shitty scam for more long just this past year. i dont have a youtuber to validate it though. the only difference now is the push back - surely a good thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- If I'm wrong, some explanation would be nice. I'm basing from Jim Sterling's conclusion that 2017 is the Year of the Loot Box. Doesn't mean lootboxes were invented this year, it's that game companies went crazy with them. --It's-a me,
On the bad, I'd add Cassini's end of mission (it was quite sad to lose her after thirteen years faithfully following its mission at Saturn), that terrorist attack at Barcelona, and... well, entropy keeps increasing. On the good, the last tablet I bought has so far lasted almost a year. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The bad: 2017 was not the year of Linux on the desktop. :( Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 19:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- The Good: Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Thor: Ragnarok, Worm 2: Ward
- The Bad: Spam, Atheist-led anti-intellectualism, Donald Trump, spam, Net Neutrality repealed, Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, Pensacola cheers the idea that Trump is bringing about the Biblical apocalypse, spam, the GOP tax cut for the rich, Trump's constant appointment of people who want to undermine the agencies they now lead, TPP pullout, spam, FUBAR response in Puerto Rico, having to rely on Kim Jong-Un to be the reasonable one that doesn't start nuclear war over nothing, an end to Obama's cyberwarfare policies allowing North Korea to get missiles capable of reaching the United States, and spam.
- The Ugly: Mueller's investigation seems to be going well targeting the guy who never should have been elected in the first place, people resist the Alt-Right but only after it rises up and leads to multiple deaths, Roy Moore is defeated but just barely, the courts are trying to fight back against idiotic Muslim bans, Steve Bannon looking like what happens when you barf tofu. Women are coming forward about sexual assault and harassment now, but otherwise reasonable people are characterizing it as a Warlock Hunt- PsychoGecko (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Bad
- On the Verge of nuclear war with North Korea, which is still causing me anxiety!! (albeit less anxiety right now as a result of watching Dr.Strangelove)
- My Paternal Grandfather dying and my first dog being euthanized.
- Doug Jones barely winning in Alabama.
- Destruction of Net Neutrality
- Aung San Suu Kyi denying the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya. (Something which I will never forgive her for)
Good
- My trip to Japan, Germany, and Italy (Finally able to see the mosaics of Justinian and Theodora in Ravenna, being able to see Florence, and going to the summer palace of Frederick II of Prussia)
- Graduating from College with a Bachelor of Sciences
- Release of the new Pokemon game
S.H. DeLong (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Doug Jones wins Alabama special senate election[edit]
In a crazy turn of events, Doug Jones, the Democratic candidate, has won the Alabama special election (well, not officially, but it's all but guaranteed at this point)! Following a night of twists and turns, Roy Moore supporters are now singing Amazing Grace repeatedly at the headquarters and Democrats everywhere are gloating. What are your thoughts on this? Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 04:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm pretty fucking pleased. This might encourage other Democrats to campaign in other states previously thought untouchable for once. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I honestly think the only reason he won was that Moore is a pedo. If he had all the same policy positions but wasn't a pedophile, I think he would've won. So this may not encourage Dems that much unless there's another Republican candidate accused of raping underage people in one of those states. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 04:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- YAS!!! Bigs (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's about bloody arse time Alabama voters turned against that childfucking pervert!! GrammarCommie (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty sad that Doug only barely won and it's not Roy Moore's overall being a piece of unconstitutional Bible thumping fermented gorilla acne pus, but a complete extreme low that is underage sexual harassment that made people get the message. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with LynnR on this one. The only reason Jones won this Senate seat is because Moore is a child rapist and they were not able to get that Luther Strange guy in as the Republican candidate in the primary. Had Strange won the primary, things would've much different tonight.S.H. DeLong (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- People are doing the math on Strange vs. Moore, and it doesn't look good for Steve Bannon, so there's more good news there as well. The downside is that we now have the data point that there are 650,436 Alabamians who would vote for literally anyone so long as they have an 'R' next to their name. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen a better description of Roy Moore than fermented gorilla acne pus.
Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 18:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Calling him "Roy Moore" would've been a verbal hit under the belt for him. I'm being nice. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- @S.H DeLong: The margins reveal very ugly implications, but I still count it as a major win. The closer the election got the more I assumed the worst, and now I'm incredibly happy to be proven wrong. 98.110.112.28 (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Calling him "Roy Moore" would've been a verbal hit under the belt for him. I'm being nice. --It's-a me,
- Pretty sad that Doug only barely won and it's not Roy Moore's overall being a piece of unconstitutional Bible thumping fermented gorilla acne pus, but a complete extreme low that is underage sexual harassment that made people get the message. --It's-a me,
- It's about bloody arse time Alabama voters turned against that childfucking pervert!! GrammarCommie (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- YAS!!! Bigs (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I honestly think the only reason he won was that Moore is a pedo. If he had all the same policy positions but wasn't a pedophile, I think he would've won. So this may not encourage Dems that much unless there's another Republican candidate accused of raping underage people in one of those states. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 04:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not normally a huge fan of the Democratic Party, but I am happy with Moore losing (and I live in Michigan for Goddess sake!) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Chrimbus Miracle. Oolon Colluphid (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- It probably helps Democrat momentum for 2018 because in the somewhat competitive states they can tell voters look, we took Alabama, but people had to *show up* for that to happen, so you need to actually go vote, not just think it's a good idea. Getting your base motivated to show up for off-year elections is hard, obviously being wall-to-wall on the national news helps (between seeing Crimson Tide and summer 2017 I never heard the phrase "Roll Tide" once, then I heard it six times in the past few weeks on US national broadcasters) but a success like this helps too. Tialaramex (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Founded some pretty Biased looking video from some Aussie Called "Suit Yourself"[edit]
https://youtu.be/gTHlZA66huM ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
- So far All I can find is a Yahoo article :https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/35810892/teacher-alleges-western-sydney-primary-school-students-are-being-radicalised/ ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
User GrammarCommie reverting without discussion[edit]
[13] Is Rationalwiki his personal blog of favorite stories? Wangmeister (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it is, there's the story about the three bears, the story about the gingerbread house and one of my personal favorites, the story about the mermaid. GrammarCommie (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Now in all seriousness I reverted your edit because A) it contained racist nonsense and B) you outright said to revert it in your edit summery. GrammarCommie (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is a scientific method of establishing whether races are equal, and you reverted it, because you feel races are equal? "Revert away" was a joke. Knowing that, will you revert back? Or just looking for cheap excuses to hide facts that conflict with your politics and feelings? What can "racist" possibly mean in this context? Not pretending races are equal in the face of evidence? Why is it "nonsense"? You need to explain. Wangmeister (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wangmeister is an admin from the Neo-Nazi site Rightpedia, Mikemikev - who has been banned from this site hundreds of times. He was blocked here yesterday on multiple socks for spamming defamatory Rightpedia articles he's now creating on other RationalWiki users.Tuna (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Once again, I find the people who constantly dox this person and follow them around more bizzrely obsessive than the self-deluded racist idiot themself. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Except we aren't following him - he stalks RW sysops now writing smear articles on them at Rightpedia. He chooses to come here and troll us; I've never once joined his Nazi wiki to engage him. He's obsessed with us, not the other way around. None of us ever go to his wiki, yet he's always here on dozens new accounts each month. The problem is since he's signing up with new accounts, people don't realise its all the same deranged person. "Doxing" is also personal information; posting his online pseudonym (Mikemikev) isn't doxing especially not since he signed up here with that name.Tuna (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I guess I realize innately that I don't consider it banworthy doxxing, but it's still basically about identifying an individual as a way to strike at them? If I saw someone pulling a similar thing for another user, and going "aha, you're user X on reddit or wikipedia"(where x is not the same name), i'd be a bit concerned?
- To immediately an accurately identify the specific person and to consistently respond in a similar way is still a bit odd in a way that reads to me as obsessive. It troubles me. Socks are a thing and identifying them is fine, but it feels like an "actively monitoring" situation. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it qualifies as doxxing. It's more of a heads-up for a low-quality user who is sneaky and goes by pseudonyms. I don't know if this is even called stalking if it's what you call "obsessive", but information like this at least saves us trouble to respond where we'd otherwise assume good faith and waste time with Mikemikev. Now, it's another case to keep responding in a similar way every time mikemikev comes up, maybe next time, just notify a sysop or a mod's page or do it on our Discord. Post a rebuttal if you must, but maybe you won't scare ikanreed as much. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Except we aren't following him - he stalks RW sysops now writing smear articles on them at Rightpedia. He chooses to come here and troll us; I've never once joined his Nazi wiki to engage him. He's obsessed with us, not the other way around. None of us ever go to his wiki, yet he's always here on dozens new accounts each month. The problem is since he's signing up with new accounts, people don't realise its all the same deranged person. "Doxing" is also personal information; posting his online pseudonym (Mikemikev) isn't doxing especially not since he signed up here with that name.Tuna (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Once again, I find the people who constantly dox this person and follow them around more bizzrely obsessive than the self-deluded racist idiot themself. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wangmeister is an admin from the Neo-Nazi site Rightpedia, Mikemikev - who has been banned from this site hundreds of times. He was blocked here yesterday on multiple socks for spamming defamatory Rightpedia articles he's now creating on other RationalWiki users.Tuna (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is a scientific method of establishing whether races are equal, and you reverted it, because you feel races are equal? "Revert away" was a joke. Knowing that, will you revert back? Or just looking for cheap excuses to hide facts that conflict with your politics and feelings? What can "racist" possibly mean in this context? Not pretending races are equal in the face of evidence? Why is it "nonsense"? You need to explain. Wangmeister (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
ikanreed has just enough time to follow your cites[edit]
Just look at what that edit was wearing, it was asking for it.
No really, citing the website of a prolific racist, and citing papers that A. Don't even exist at the given url, or B. don't even remotely support the egregiously racist sentence preceding them? And then whining when that incredibly shitty edit gets reverted? Fuck off, you're not oppressed, you're full of shit.
You didn't fucking read the goddamn abstract of that plos one paper, why the fuck should we waste time to read the positively useless bilge you generate in your deluded goddamn mind? Like... good job thinking that a paper that briefly touches on socioeconomic status only to assert the opposite of the idea you managed to extract from it, supports a hereditary hypothesis of capability being primarily determinative of status, you goddamn fucking imbecile, you lunatic, you illterate fucking waste of everyone's time. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- "You are racist" or "He is racist" isn't an argument. Give examples of missing papers. I've read the entire Steve Hsu compressed sensing paper. Also his more recent application to heritability of height. Why are you slandering me? It's a general method for GWAS. Can be used for any GWAS. They posit a Donoho-Tanner phase transition. You didn't understand that? Wangmeister (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- (I know they're blocked) You are a racist, and you are pointedly ignoring the content of "you clearly didn't even fucking read your own cites with any sort of comprehension" to be offended at that non-trivial point. Citing an unabashed piece of shit isn't gonna win you any debates, and nor is then crying ad hominem when their history of intellectual dishonesty and vile beliefs are pointed out. It may be a logical fallacy, but it's also a damn good reason to not treat them as authoritative. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- If someone is an admin for a Neo-Nazi site, then yes, the guy is a racist. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. But saying "you are racist" or "that's racist" isn't a counterargument. It's just mindless name calling. 86.187.115.177 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty sure the relevance to their credibility as a citable source is obvious, so instead of replying to you in a meaningful way: fuck you, and fuck your ideology, and fuck your willful ignorance. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. But saying "you are racist" or "that's racist" isn't a counterargument. It's just mindless name calling. 86.187.115.177 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- To the racist OP- Not matter how much logic and reason we were to give you, it is not like you would listen anyway. No point. The best way to combat racism is educating people that being different is okay, gays are not evil and teach people proper science. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Is trinitarian Christianity polytheist?[edit]
I would say it is as it has three deities, even with the three-in-one package. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- No. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God. It's a mystery, meaning that you get trapped in a Borgesian labyrinth if you try to figure it out; best to just accept it and move on. I don't have issues with the Trinity, but I do think that the Greek idealistic metaphysics some resorted to as an explanation are 'problematic'. We're told that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are concurrently one God because they share a single 'substance' or 'essence' of God. To me, this raises the possibility of an abstract, inanimate Deity. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would say what makes the most sense out of the possibilities is this. The Father and Holy Spirit are not separate beings, they are just God. Jesus was not the literal son of God, but a prophet. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- If they are to be accepted as separate, then yes. But what I find is that people claim they are separate yet still one. And though this makes no sense (see Trinity#Some attempts at formal logic), they can claim it's beyond our comprehension or mysterious, without any proper justification of how or why. —Kazitor, pending 07:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- It is actually another example of 'ancient science' - the deity version of this. Anna Livia (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- If they are to be accepted as separate, then yes. But what I find is that people claim they are separate yet still one. And though this makes no sense (see Trinity#Some attempts at formal logic), they can claim it's beyond our comprehension or mysterious, without any proper justification of how or why. —Kazitor, pending 07:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would say what makes the most sense out of the possibilities is this. The Father and Holy Spirit are not separate beings, they are just God. Jesus was not the literal son of God, but a prophet. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- It totes is, but theologians are certain it isn't. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think mainstream trinitarian Christianity is, as Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are technically one being, but in Mormonism they are actually separate, making it polytheist. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 16:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Christianity is as polytheistic as that classic example of polytheism - Hinduism - in that all the Hindu gods are considered to be aspects the one Ultimate Brahman. My impression is that polytheistic religions in general work like this. So it probably does not make a lot of difference.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Rationalwiki on Twitter[edit]
https://twitter.com/search/live?q=Rationalwiki&src=typed_query
Why does everyone think it's a joke? Is it some kind of self selecting sample bias? 86.187.115.177 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
You guys need to get on twitter and explain this one. I'm sure you have a good explanation and can explain this when you can't ban your opponent. Rationalwiki! 86.187.115.177 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- By "everyone" you mean a small number of creationists, spiritualists, neo-nazis and other cranks. All these people hate rationalwiki because it criticises their crazy beliefs. One of the people moaning at RW on Twitter in the last few hours on that link you posted is the pseudo-science promoter and troll Rome Viharo. You need to explain why you think anyone takes internet crazies like this seriously; their opinion on RationalWiki is worthless.Dr. Witt (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's literally everyone that mentions it, laughing at it. Also check the new tweet after your comment above. Who are they talking about? 86.187.115.177 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Argumentum ad populum 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yawn. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about everyone else here, but I'm truly shocked to find there are people on Twitter who don't appreciate the site. Its deeply and profoundly disturbing. What on earth can we do? I mean, we can't just ignore then, can we?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nah, that would imply that random twitter users' opinions of us don't matter in the slightest. And we can't have that now can we? GrammarCommie (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about everyone else here, but I'm truly shocked to find there are people on Twitter who don't appreciate the site. Its deeply and profoundly disturbing. What on earth can we do? I mean, we can't just ignore then, can we?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yawn. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Argumentum ad populum 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's literally everyone that mentions it, laughing at it. Also check the new tweet after your comment above. Who are they talking about? 86.187.115.177 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- If everyone on twitter that mentions you thinks you're a joke, you're a joke. Carry on! 62.30.229.198 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm reffering to the video ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Aside: people who have something to say against RW are more likely to voice their opinion. Imagine if everyone commented on every slight thing they didn't hate. No thanks. —Kazitor, pending 00:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's do science[edit]
I randomly sampled(incremental monte carlo progressive samping with max(N) being 8, disregarding the @RationalWiki account and posts not directly referencing the site) 15 of the searched. And based on the first one, I decided to examine their twitter bios and avatars for signs of being literally goddamn nazis as supplemental information, as I conjectured these people would be particularly inclined to object to us.
- . Literal goddamn Nazi, Negative
- . Literal Goddamn nazi, very Negative
- . Not nazi, Extremely positive
- . Literal goddamn nazi, very negative
- . Not nazi, Nuetral,
- . Not nazi, Neutral, seems irrelvant to mention rational wiki, talking about disney?
- . Not a nazi, exact quote: "rationalwiki is a good resource"
- . Not a nazi, negative(worth noting though they were saying we target flat earthers to mock "legitimate conspiracy theories")
- . Not a nazi, neutral:
- . Anime nazi: very negative
- . Not a nazi, Neutral? Negative? mentioning us at the end for no reason? (I can't tell if their opinion of us in the context of the tweet, but it says that the government is secretly holding the cancer cure and free energy)
- . "No, I'm not a nazi" is literally in their twitter bio, but I think they probably are? Decide for yourself, negative
- . "Odinist"(Actual nazi, not satiric religion): negative, but by comparing us to NYTimes and wikipedia
- . Not a nazi, positive/silly
- . Not a nazi, negative(gamergater, but considering I didn't specify that being relevant prior to the experiment it feels like an ad-hoc justification and should not be discounted)
Short version, 2 negative posts by non nazis in this random sample.
Also this IP is probably the one who's been filling the search results with the same 2-3 posts over and over again for the past week to justify their own post when they made it here? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd just like to add that we are well aware of people disagreeing with us. Nothing new there. —Kazitor, pending 22:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
| A poor widdle neo-Nazi chimes in |
|---|
"I randomly sampled" You're going to lecture me about sampling when you do stuff like this https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right&diff=1903731&oldid=1903725. LMAO 62.30.229.198 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
|
Irony[edit]
Does anyone else find it ironic that in spite of our criticism of libertarianism, we function as a night watchman state? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not really. A night watchman state can't really work for large, modern nation states in the post-Westphalia sense. Online wikis aren't that, so it's better to have a night watchman state as a model for how we function as a website. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Except that that's not at all true? We even have an elected board who allocates funds and does shit you're not paying attention to to keep the wiki going? And we have rules about moderation that do not really reflect libertarian ideals? And there really isn't a commons to regulate for a wiki the way there is for a society(i.e. pollution controls or worker safety). And the only money that changes hands here is donations to the wiki, so financial fraud, and other kinds of systemic abuse aren't topical? In fact, this assertion feels so contrived I cannot even imagine the train of "thought" that might have prompted posting it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wot? Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- That comment I made was like 90% a joke. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Do Neo-Nazis have anything better to do than trolling Rationalwiki?[edit]
It is not like they can come up with any logical or sensible conversation. Are Nazis (There! I fixed it! Yay!) afraid of us Rationalwikians educating people? Then again, education is the worst enemy of a brainless racist. Watch the Nazi trolls say a bunch of mindless shit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- *dies over the usage of an apostrophe without a possessive nor contraction* —Kazitor, pending 00:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- In the name of the glorious Grammatical Revolution fix that apostrophe!!! GrammarCommie (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed it, and internet loonies tend to spend their time trolling. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- In the name of the glorious Grammatical Revolution fix that apostrophe!!! GrammarCommie (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I admit, not the biggest grammar champion. I am more of a science guy. No offense taken. When I went to make this thread, my computer battery died. Anyways, on the main topic, it is safe to say that education is the worst enemy of racists. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- RZ - in your initial post do you have an example of this? Anna Livia (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to care about Neo-Nazis or overall racists, particularly those that troll RationalWiki with edits that are easily reverted and ignored. You answered your own question: they're allergic to decency and intelligence, so they have nothing better to do. No further discussion. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
say no to drugs[edit]
i was at a... lets say party. i am virtually blind without specs and some activities i generally do without. it was not until after that noticed the nazi eagle tattooed on his chest. when questioned, in the hope it was a regretfully permanent mistake, the answer i receivee was 'it was a tribute to a loved one'. he was not too coherant and i was a little too high to press the issue. so yeah, i might have accidently fucked a nazi AMassiveGay (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- AMG, when we say "fuck nazis" we don't mean literally fuck Nazis!! GrammarCommie (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- It happens, no judgment. At least Nazi got fucked by a liberal --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe it was a Hindu swastika, tattooed on because of his firm Hindu beliefs. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AMassiveGay Please stay safe! Nerd (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario Freedom of speech and expression is a two-way street. Expect people to disagree with you. Their right to express themselves implies your right to choose whether or not to listen. If they want to become ideological idiots, let them do it, as long as they are not committing acts of violence, of course. Nerd (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not for censorship, but it's another thing when I'm on a college campus, and there is a guy with a megaphone spouting off how slutty women are and making racist or LGBT slurs. College campuses also have the right whenever to host this kind of stuff or not. That's also freedom of speech, and if they don't want to endorse it, then they have the right not to. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario Personally I could not care less, as long as they are sprouting their nonsense at the designated time and space. (One should not tolerate disruptions in the lecture halls, libraries, or dorms.) It is a fine legal tradition dating back to the Roman Empire that people ought to be punished only for their actions, not thoughts. And we are talking about people expressing their thoughts here. Freedom of speech and expression is a wonderful thing. Of course, when they are slandering, libeling, or lying to the police, that's a different story. Nerd (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Nerd You couldn't care less, but people react differently to different things. You'll still be affected at some level even if you say you don't care. But some people can't build psychological barriers like that, they just aren't good at it. That's how we get the definition of "toxic people" and "toxic" in general. Campuses don't want a toxic atmosphere, understandably so since this sort of speech hurts people too even if not physical, and they also have their freedom to express their policy and thoughts too. AND they're the ones providing the platform too, so they should have that power to set limits. Besides, no one is arresting anti-abortion picketers who carry graphic imagery of bloody babies and heckling students, campus security just shows them the door. I mean, they're free to put signs on the street as long as they're law-abiding, but once they hit property of Planned Parenthood or a college campus, their absolute free speech rights end. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Nerd You couldn't care less, but people react differently to different things. You'll still be affected at some level even if you say you don't care. But some people can't build psychological barriers like that, they just aren't good at it. That's how we get the definition of "toxic people" and "toxic" in general. Campuses don't want a toxic atmosphere, understandably so since this sort of speech hurts people too even if not physical, and they also have their freedom to express their policy and thoughts too. AND they're the ones providing the platform too, so they should have that power to set limits. Besides, no one is arresting anti-abortion picketers who carry graphic imagery of bloody babies and heckling students, campus security just shows them the door. I mean, they're free to put signs on the street as long as they're law-abiding, but once they hit property of Planned Parenthood or a college campus, their absolute free speech rights end. --It's-a me,
- @LeftyGreenMario Personally I could not care less, as long as they are sprouting their nonsense at the designated time and space. (One should not tolerate disruptions in the lecture halls, libraries, or dorms.) It is a fine legal tradition dating back to the Roman Empire that people ought to be punished only for their actions, not thoughts. And we are talking about people expressing their thoughts here. Freedom of speech and expression is a wonderful thing. Of course, when they are slandering, libeling, or lying to the police, that's a different story. Nerd (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not for censorship, but it's another thing when I'm on a college campus, and there is a guy with a megaphone spouting off how slutty women are and making racist or LGBT slurs. College campuses also have the right whenever to host this kind of stuff or not. That's also freedom of speech, and if they don't want to endorse it, then they have the right not to. --It's-a me,
What's the Appeal of Cults?[edit]
I'm just wondering what gets people caught up in this and makes them buy into the whole song and dance. I read that some things they say are like "we are all just individual points, converging on infinity. Here on earth for a short time, need to make room for new life. Those that fight hardest against death are those most tempted by its salvation." Or how death is not the end, it's just a door and the final step is rebirth and immortality. What makes people not use logic here?Machina (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Humans are a social species. We want to be accepted, and we'll often grab at the first thing we find. Cults create a sense of purpose. A sense of community. Another thing is, we hate feeling insignificant. They also provide that, saying that we're part of something bigger. And finally, the isolation manages to keep them from considering alternatives. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 04:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- But wouldn't saying we are just "points converging on infinity" more like trying to say our issues and problems are insignificant? Wouldn't that be the opposite of a "cult"?Machina (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's also the fact that cults tend to be social lobster traps, easy to join but hard to leave. Whether that's the manipulations of Scientology or the fences of the Waco ranch. GrammarCommie (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is probably something of a continuum - with 'fan clubs and other groups' being the (mostly) reasonable equivalent.
- How do cults and conspiracy theories inter-relate/compare and contrast? Anna Livia (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Add to that the feeling of desperation and finding someone that will help you -as these-, who are present here changing their name from time to time. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- You might just as well ask "What is the appeal of religion?"Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- There are hobbies, faiths, fandoms (including sports clubs) etc and there are cults. Some people will get involved in their 'pet interest' to an excessive degree - and some people may find that belonging to a cult (or a cult-like set up) satisfies a psychological need that cannot otherwise be satisfied or resolved. Possibly the distinction is between whether 'the interest' is central and all encompassing or peripheral/something that is there in the background (and you can have a conversation which does not include the particular topic). Anna Livia (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- You might just as well ask "What is the appeal of religion?"Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Add to that the feeling of desperation and finding someone that will help you -as these-, who are present here changing their name from time to time. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
What's the appeal of (specific) religions?[edit]
Much to the chagrin of some anti-theists here I'm not going to posit that major religions are cults. But the core appeals of both are the same: spiritual fulfillment, promises of a better life/afterlife, social acceptance, purpose, peace, and love. Most people have some affinity for religion, whether innately or learned, and cults tend to be masters of appealing to the most downtrodden in a way that a "big" religion may not be. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Further Reading[edit]
- Cult membership: What factors contribute to joining or leaving?
- This Is How Cults Work
- The Cult Education Institute
And everyone reading this should remember: We are all vulnerable to being brainwashed into a cult, so here is a cult checklist just in case. Give it a read.
@Machina —ClickerClock (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thealternativehypothesis.org we need an article and some serious refuting.[edit]
I am sorry if this is the wrong place, but I am both green here, and also have been away after the forums where closed, so I don't know where to talk or get help.
The site seems to be trying to be more passive in its messages, but it still has that "racial realist" feel to it.
I am just wondering how we can refute their more ridiculous articles; like the one on "Race Mixing". http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/10/15/race-mixing/ — Unsigned, by: Zavvnao / talk / contribs
- Go for it dude. I think some of my brain cells rotted reading that pseudoscience garbage. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I will be more than willing to proofread any article you come up with @Zavvnao. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Small question: are they notable? Who cites them? How much? If we covered every single shitty website with an article we'd never run out. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- since the op mentioned 'race mixing', we already have an article on miscegnation. im not sure sure we would need to refute this people speciically, notable or not. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wow WOW. Sounds like John Fuerst. Create an article called The Alternative Hypothesis. While race mixing has been refuted, this doesn't stop us from creating an article fot the entire site. It even mentions Kirkegaard in an article.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 18:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's already an article on the Alternative Hypothesis: Ryan Faulk (that's his real name). What's funny is I knew him over 10 years ago on YoutTube. Back then he was not a racist, but did videos on market economics and was an anarcho-libertarian or something similar. Overtime though he got radicalises and is now a hardcore alt-righter, anti-Semite etc. Dr. Witt (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure you guys can refute Ryan easily. This is going to be very embarrassing for him. Good luck! Dark Ages Heretic (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's already an article on the Alternative Hypothesis: Ryan Faulk (that's his real name). What's funny is I knew him over 10 years ago on YoutTube. Back then he was not a racist, but did videos on market economics and was an anarcho-libertarian or something similar. Overtime though he got radicalises and is now a hardcore alt-righter, anti-Semite etc. Dr. Witt (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wow WOW. Sounds like John Fuerst. Create an article called The Alternative Hypothesis. While race mixing has been refuted, this doesn't stop us from creating an article fot the entire site. It even mentions Kirkegaard in an article.—CheeseburgerPlate
- since the op mentioned 'race mixing', we already have an article on miscegnation. im not sure sure we would need to refute this people speciically, notable or not. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I went to post on alternative hypothesis[edit]
Somehow my computer screwed up --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was when I posted, my post showed up on a different saloon thread. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
A message on my talkpage[edit]
[14] Seems to indicate a shared Bugmenot account. I've looked into it and found this [15]. Thoughts? GrammarCommie (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't make this account by the way, I just found the bugmenot page and wanted to alert you guys. Anonymous User (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should comply with the idea, and not only give sysop rights but moderator privileges! —Kazitor, pending 11:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should appoint the account to the RMF Board of Trustees. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I just changed “my” password. You’re welcome. Anonymous User (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for the new sock, random stranger. Anonymous User (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Uh. What do you mean?—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 03:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am a RW sysop who noticed this exposure and neutralized it. You’re welcome. It sat apparently unused on bugmenot for months, but was still an exposure, not that anyone could have done much damage with it. Anonymous User (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Uh. What do you mean?—CheeseburgerPlate
- Oh, and thanks for the new sock, random stranger. Anonymous User (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I just changed “my” password. You’re welcome. Anonymous User (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should appoint the account to the RMF Board of Trustees. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should comply with the idea, and not only give sysop rights but moderator privileges! —Kazitor, pending 11:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
White nationalists finally getting banned on twitter[edit]
Bout time, [16]. American Renaissance and Jared Taylor's have been deleted. Anti-Fascist for life (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure they can take advantage of their inherent race-given magical superpowers to make a superior whites-only Twitter. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well @LeftyGreenMario they tried that before. Remember Gab? GrammarCommie (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know. There is even an entire WIGO about it. It's going to be hard for them to explain why they can't make half-decent websites without the support of companies (and I think those companies have a ton of workers that aren't white or male). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know. There is even an entire WIGO about it. It's going to be hard for them to explain why they can't make half-decent websites without the support of companies (and I think those companies have a ton of workers that aren't white or male). --It's-a me,
- Well @LeftyGreenMario they tried that before. Remember Gab? GrammarCommie (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't be quick to defend deplatforming on ideological grounds. There's no reason to believe that other unprofitable views will be allowed to stay. FuzzyCatPotato of the Slimy Tofus (talk/stalk) 22:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree; we shouldn't just censor everyone and anyone with dumb views. Plus, it makes it no longer a persecution complex but actual persecution, of sorts. —Kazitor, pending 22:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- But therein lies the problem does it not? At what point does the toxicity of hate speech cross the line into grounds where it cannot be tolerated for the health and safety of all? GrammarCommie (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- This kind of speech can mobilize hatred though. Do we really want that? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Discussing free speech and censorship in terms of "safety" is problematic. This implies both that [1] censoring racism is effective at preventing racism (an empirical claim) and [2] threatening speech is inherently unacceptable (a moral one). Yet all speech that seeks to change the status quo is "threatening" -- whether from left or right. There's a reason so many fascist governments have killed leftists under the guise of "restoring order". Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- China does a reasonably good job of suppressing what they consider to be unsafe speech. I'm just not sure that's the example we want to follow.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- These people post about non-Whites committing crime which is hate. Only Whites should be shown committing crime e.g.[17] That poster was racist. Good work Jack! Let's demonize these White bastards into oblivion through controlling their media! Dark Ages Heretic (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, you again.
GrammarCommie (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, you again.
- These people post about non-Whites committing crime which is hate. Only Whites should be shown committing crime e.g.[17] That poster was racist. Good work Jack! Let's demonize these White bastards into oblivion through controlling their media! Dark Ages Heretic (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- And worse, asking corporations and sponsor-driven media to protect us from bad words is to invoke a power that's utterly unaccountable under current law, which is not likely to change in my lifetime. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- But this seems like a slippery slope argument. There is a difference between holding a ballsy unpopular view such as making a well-reasoned argument for legalizing child porn, legalizing consented incest, or advocating culling of old people and there is advocating death or rape of minorities including women. People also have their right to bar guys with hooked crosses from parties, corporations have the right to buck hateful people. That is also a type of expression. The thing we need is how to define "hate speech", which is very difficult but it's really more of a "I know it when I see it". I don't trust corporate judgement all that much but I think allowing a platform for hate screeds is problematic as it's suggestive of endorsement. And if the white nationalists get booted off Twitter, they're always free to create their own slimepool. We haven't seen Metapedia or Rightpedia or Conservapedia get booted off... yet. But in Conservapedia's case, I don't consider it hateful enough, just more stupid. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Encouraging people to break the law is where I would draw the line. (Arguing that the law should be changed is something else.)
- But if someone has an unpopular opinion - they shouldn't be prevented from expressing it if people want to listen. On the other hand that doesn't mean you are obliged to give them a platform or that they can insist on a right to be given a platform.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Twitter is not an open free speech forum, and hasn't been for a while. They've clearly taken an editorial stance on general issues: no curse words can be tweeted at verified accounts of real people, and no hate speech (if they deem it so anyway). Since they have crossed the line from open forum to edited forum, they've put their own corporate reputation on the line for what appears on their site. I'm all for Nazis having free speech that does not incite violence, but why should a corporation financially and reputationally support it? Bongolian (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Claiming that a platform like Twitter is 'financially and reputationally supporting' everything written on it is part of the problem. Even with a population approaching ten billion, there aren't enough eyes to make that claim believable. And if Twitter is not an open free speech forum, where is the Twitter we actually need? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Twitter is a host that provides a free service to people, so it has its own judgement and power to decide what's appropriate and what's not. I wouldn't necessarily call it an open free speech forum. You still have to agree with terms and conditions which are subject to change. Maybe it wasn't a problem back then that "there aren't enough eyes to make that claim believable", as venues for crazy hateful stuff have always existed but we've seen Twitter mobilizing and popularizing hate before with mobbing people with death threats and stuff, and there are people who take those incidents as complaints to Twitter for better regulation of this stuff. There is a recent phenomenon with the rise of the popularity of far-right viewpoints and Twitter helped spread those ideas by letting them happen in the first place, exposing vulnerable people to rancid ideas and contributing to it, along with other complex problems such as economic strain these white people are feeling. Part of me still feels the hate speech here should be limited especially since their only intent and effect is to target and harm others. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Twitter is a host that provides a free service to people, so it has its own judgement and power to decide what's appropriate and what's not. I wouldn't necessarily call it an open free speech forum. You still have to agree with terms and conditions which are subject to change. Maybe it wasn't a problem back then that "there aren't enough eyes to make that claim believable", as venues for crazy hateful stuff have always existed but we've seen Twitter mobilizing and popularizing hate before with mobbing people with death threats and stuff, and there are people who take those incidents as complaints to Twitter for better regulation of this stuff. There is a recent phenomenon with the rise of the popularity of far-right viewpoints and Twitter helped spread those ideas by letting them happen in the first place, exposing vulnerable people to rancid ideas and contributing to it, along with other complex problems such as economic strain these white people are feeling. Part of me still feels the hate speech here should be limited especially since their only intent and effect is to target and harm others. --It's-a me,
- Claiming that a platform like Twitter is 'financially and reputationally supporting' everything written on it is part of the problem. Even with a population approaching ten billion, there aren't enough eyes to make that claim believable. And if Twitter is not an open free speech forum, where is the Twitter we actually need? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Twitter is not an open free speech forum, and hasn't been for a while. They've clearly taken an editorial stance on general issues: no curse words can be tweeted at verified accounts of real people, and no hate speech (if they deem it so anyway). Since they have crossed the line from open forum to edited forum, they've put their own corporate reputation on the line for what appears on their site. I'm all for Nazis having free speech that does not incite violence, but why should a corporation financially and reputationally support it? Bongolian (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- But this seems like a slippery slope argument. There is a difference between holding a ballsy unpopular view such as making a well-reasoned argument for legalizing child porn, legalizing consented incest, or advocating culling of old people and there is advocating death or rape of minorities including women. People also have their right to bar guys with hooked crosses from parties, corporations have the right to buck hateful people. That is also a type of expression. The thing we need is how to define "hate speech", which is very difficult but it's really more of a "I know it when I see it". I don't trust corporate judgement all that much but I think allowing a platform for hate screeds is problematic as it's suggestive of endorsement. And if the white nationalists get booted off Twitter, they're always free to create their own slimepool. We haven't seen Metapedia or Rightpedia or Conservapedia get booted off... yet. But in Conservapedia's case, I don't consider it hateful enough, just more stupid. --It's-a me,
- China does a reasonably good job of suppressing what they consider to be unsafe speech. I'm just not sure that's the example we want to follow.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Discussing free speech and censorship in terms of "safety" is problematic. This implies both that [1] censoring racism is effective at preventing racism (an empirical claim) and [2] threatening speech is inherently unacceptable (a moral one). Yet all speech that seeks to change the status quo is "threatening" -- whether from left or right. There's a reason so many fascist governments have killed leftists under the guise of "restoring order". Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- This kind of speech can mobilize hatred though. Do we really want that? --It's-a me,
- But therein lies the problem does it not? At what point does the toxicity of hate speech cross the line into grounds where it cannot be tolerated for the health and safety of all? GrammarCommie (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Twitter mobs are not a phenomenon confined to any one political persuasion. There's been plenty of threatening behavior, doxxing, and the like aimed at people who blasphemed identity-politics pieties as well. From my perspective, some identity leftist dogmas ('rape culture', 'toxic masculinity' &c) are just as objectionable as white supremacism. I tolerate them, because you have to object to something before you are able to tolerate it. I would not want a corporation to decide that those viewpoints are outside of civil discourse, even if in one sense they are. My point is, when you approve of corporate censorship, you've unleashed a force you cannot control. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, focusing on educating people should be the way to go. Racists will find other means to spew their hateful pseudoscientific garbage. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've never said Twitter mobs occur only in one ideological wing, but those should also be restricted. I also think "educating" has a problem of backfiring. We've been trying our hardest to educate people about how blatantly irrational and stupid, how you are your worst enemy against objectivity. But the thing is Backfire effect exists. It's nice to say, "Well, let them talk and have other people say how wrong they are". Psychology seems to say, this might be counterproductive? I like to think we're persuading on-the-fence types that are reading, but maybe only if they're inclined to believe us to begin with? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've never said Twitter mobs occur only in one ideological wing, but those should also be restricted. I also think "educating" has a problem of backfiring. We've been trying our hardest to educate people about how blatantly irrational and stupid, how you are your worst enemy against objectivity. But the thing is Backfire effect exists. It's nice to say, "Well, let them talk and have other people say how wrong they are". Psychology seems to say, this might be counterproductive? I like to think we're persuading on-the-fence types that are reading, but maybe only if they're inclined to believe us to begin with? --It's-a me,
Some of the discussion here suggests a common misapprehension about media: they are businesses. Newspapers, for example, tend to lay off stories that upset their advertisers, and delete language that might offend their readers. Media is almost always subject to market constraints. I imagine the bosses at Twitter don't change anything until it makes financial sense to do so. There is no other way to run a for-profit corporation: the deciding factors are monetary. This hypothesis is adequate to explain why divisive groups have lasted as long as they have on commercial social media.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is it that whenever there is a hint of a possibility of free speech being slightly less than absolute, we get cries 'thats like communist china!!!' or any such authoritarian hell hole? there is a whole lot more wrong with such places that some minor tweaking wont cause any western democracy to become anywhere near such places. I'm quite happy with what could be described as hate speech being proscribed whether by twitter or by government. Living in a liberal democracy and all, i am quite confident any egregious abuses would be suitably scrutinised and condemned. i dare say most european countries already have limits on such things, and they are not quite north korea yet. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've suggested that the arguments against Twitter censorship, even here, feel like a slippery slope. There's always a concern about it, but we already ban people for conduct abuse and we at RationalWiki already don't allow people to have terrible usernames and many many forums don't allow people to be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist (like being derogatory toward autistic people). I don't see how Twitter and Facebook are held to a different standard? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- while not disagreeing with your gist, i will say the difference between facebook, twitter etc. and us is that generally policy here is decided by its users. facebook and twitter - policy is generally imposed. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Facebook and Twitter also mold their policy based on suggestions too, so I wouldn't say they're entirely independent from user opinion. And when I say some forums, I mean GameFAQs which strictly forbids derogatory use against autistics (see TOU). This can apply here, you have to agree to a Terms of Use to use Twitter. Twitter is giving you a platform for free and you agreed to give up some of your rights so they'll let you have a platform. Now I know you also have a right to criticize how they impose a TOU, if it's too harsh or whatever "hateful speech" is and how it's defined, and Twitter and Facebook's algorithms are shitty enough for anti-vaxxers to abuse them and try to ban their opponents for misleading claims. But I don't think the whole "it's one step to full censorship to things people don't like", I don't really buy that. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- there is also the fact that private companies or not, facebook and twitter are the public forums of the day. if you are banned from these places you are effectively silenced. people should be concerned when they decide to ban folk. it should not be arbitary, it should not be because to pander to business. it should have clear criteria. i believe hate speech should be banned and twitter are right to do so. i also believe it shouldnt be left to twitter to decide what is hate speech. see my comment belowAMassiveGay (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Facebook and Twitter also mold their policy based on suggestions too, so I wouldn't say they're entirely independent from user opinion. And when I say some forums, I mean GameFAQs which strictly forbids derogatory use against autistics (see TOU). This can apply here, you have to agree to a Terms of Use to use Twitter. Twitter is giving you a platform for free and you agreed to give up some of your rights so they'll let you have a platform. Now I know you also have a right to criticize how they impose a TOU, if it's too harsh or whatever "hateful speech" is and how it's defined, and Twitter and Facebook's algorithms are shitty enough for anti-vaxxers to abuse them and try to ban their opponents for misleading claims. But I don't think the whole "it's one step to full censorship to things people don't like", I don't really buy that. --It's-a me,
- while not disagreeing with your gist, i will say the difference between facebook, twitter etc. and us is that generally policy here is decided by its users. facebook and twitter - policy is generally imposed. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- the other thing that comes to mind when discussing limits of free speech is that even the absolutists have limits - 'yelling fire in a theatre' usually gets gets thrown around. living in London, one the most multicultural cities in the world (despite brexit) such hate speech is by its nature divisive and very much 'yelling fire in a theatre'. in my mind the question is not whether twitter has the right to ban such speech but more of why are we leaving to twitter to do this? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I thought hate speech was defined before Twitter stepped in, so am I wrong? That hate speech wasn't defined and thus there's the argument that we shouldn't let Twitter decide what's hate speech or not? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- is it unambiguously defined? show me where. is it clearly and unambiguously defined in the US? in US law? i'm not sure that it is. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- we are certainly not using a specific definition here but discussing generalities. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AMassiveGay hate crime —Kazitor, pending 23:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- those are hate crimes not hate speech AMassiveGay (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- And hate speech is a subset of hate crime. —Kazitor, pending 00:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- its not even remotely what we are discussing. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- And hate speech is a subset of hate crime. —Kazitor, pending 00:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- those are hate crimes not hate speech AMassiveGay (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AMassiveGay hate crime —Kazitor, pending 23:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Welll, I was asking you that question but it seems like "no, it hasn't been defined". I'd think it'll be more of a "rules vary depending on where you go" kind of thing. You think Twitter has that power to define hate speech across the board like that? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- they clearly have the power to do so over twitter, which i have already said is unsatisfactory to me. i think its more of an issue in the US though. I think the 1st? amendment makes banning hate speech difficult. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- we are certainly not using a specific definition here but discussing generalities. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- is it unambiguously defined? show me where. is it clearly and unambiguously defined in the US? in US law? i'm not sure that it is. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I thought hate speech was defined before Twitter stepped in, so am I wrong? That hate speech wasn't defined and thus there's the argument that we shouldn't let Twitter decide what's hate speech or not? --It's-a me,
Current dumpster dive[edit]
For lack of a better suggestion, Baked Alaska is the Monday morning dumpster dive, the only topic with positive votes. At least it's apropos of the flaming dumpster iconography. We could really use both more people voting and more suggestions for next week's dive. Bongolian (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Let's be honest. RW:DUMP is dead. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I took the challenge last weekend and completely cleaned up the Baked Alaska article. I almost feel bad that I did, though; I considered putting it up for a deletion vote after I was done. The article is now no longer simply a collection of quotes but actually has some structure and properly formatted references. It definitely needs more content, if someone has the stomach to wade through all the bullshit associated with this asshat. The dump is not dead, it just smells funny. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I like how it was originally. Not revealing the quotes in plain sight can lead to misquoting, which the article is currently doing. You use an anti-semetic tweet as a citation for Baked Alaska being pro-Trump.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 01:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I like how it was originally. Not revealing the quotes in plain sight can lead to misquoting, which the article is currently doing. You use an anti-semetic tweet as a citation for Baked Alaska being pro-Trump.—CheeseburgerPlate
- I took the challenge last weekend and completely cleaned up the Baked Alaska article. I almost feel bad that I did, though; I considered putting it up for a deletion vote after I was done. The article is now no longer simply a collection of quotes but actually has some structure and properly formatted references. It definitely needs more content, if someone has the stomach to wade through all the bullshit associated with this asshat. The dump is not dead, it just smells funny. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Impromptu discussion[edit]
I set up RW:DUMP in hopes of a fourth option for RW:AFD: Delete, keep, merge, or dumpster: "The topic is good, but the article is terrible". It has been under-utilized and the dumped articles haven't radically improved. Is it worth continuing RW:DUMP? If so, how should it be changed? If not, how should we handle "terrible article, good topic" deletions in the future? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 10:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe make "The topic is good, but the article is terrible" a reason for deletion that appears in the drop down menu when you delete an article. If I were deleting such an article, in the the "other/additional reasons" part I'd write, "if somebody wants to have another go at writing an article about this, that's fine." Spud (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe end the voting thing and just make it a list of pages. I also like Spud's idea. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- The idea for a dumpster is good but the page itself needs a little work. I've always been confused at why pages are rated there for voting. What does a positive or negative tally even mean? Perhaps an abstract of the articles can be added, instead of generic comments like "needs to be organized." This could better help guide people to articles they would like to improve. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe end the voting thing and just make it a list of pages. I also like Spud's idea. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
It almost might be simpler to just have a chronological list of articles that need to be improved -- people add articles and eventually we get to those articles? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I just don't agree with the voting system because if people have a problem or even if they're neutral, they need to spend some time also explaining about their vote. Kind of then defeats the point of a voting system. It makes more sense in a WIGO to not necessarily explain why you voted, but for a RW, it's not as helpful because the content is something we have control over. I agree with Cosmikdebris here. The concept of Dumpster is good, but I still fear people will just ignore it. But again, there is the off-chance that Dumpster Drive will help one article or so. But again, if Dumpster Drive is discontinued, I won't really miss it, given it's a souped up Category:Articles needing expansion, that's how it feels like sometimes. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. Get rid of the voting since nobody understands what it means. Just have a list of articles nominated for improvement with most recently nominated ones at the bottom and work through them in order. Spud (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be terribly minded much if you just selected a less than optimal article yourself without the ritual of polls and the like. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. Get rid of the voting since nobody understands what it means. Just have a list of articles nominated for improvement with most recently nominated ones at the bottom and work through them in order. Spud (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This is going to sound weird[edit]
When I saw the name, I thought it was the dessert. Though part of me knew it was not, but considering I never heard of it this way, that is why I thought it was the dessert. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- The word "impromptu" makes you think of desert? GrammarCommie (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is a dessert called a Baked Alaska. I glanced at the titled before clicking the link. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Solstice holydaze[edit]
What's up with that? —Kazitor, pending 01:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. What the hell?—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 01:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- And it looks like there isn't even one for the June solstice. —Kazitor, pending 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is usually a 'druid wannabes hanging round Stonehenge' snippet on the UK news that time of year.
- Otherwise - establish a Campaign for Summer Solstice Holidays (not to be confused with COSHH) and annoy the religious doom mongers. Anna Livia (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- And it looks like there isn't even one for the June solstice. —Kazitor, pending 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Pending a replacement[edit]
Something about the sun being in its southernmost position. Get rid of the time cube stuff. Thoughts/ideas/suggestions? —Kazitor, pending 23:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Get rid of the timecube stuff (I assume that's the random insults thing in red, white and blue in the middle), have a snowflake icon on the left and a sun icon on the right. Then you're done. Spud (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget to celebrate the Earth's perihelion on January 3 as well[18]. --Gospatric (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Something tells me this will be the slippery slope argument for U.S gun control[edit]
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/10/19/uk-government-considering-ban-50-cal-lever-release-action-rifles/ Though I'm not sure of it's verdict considering https://www.guntrader.uk/guns/rifles/barrett/bolt-action/50-bmg/99r-160701111738002 ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- since few people in the UK get hard ons from firearms, no one here gives a shit what an american gun trade magazine thinks. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- My dude, the slippery slope is moving the other way. The Assault Weapons Ban died in what, '04, '05? Nothing real or meaningful since then with respect to controls on firearms. The presumption that if we take one step we will fall down a hill is obviated by the fact that the NRA has turned any attempt at control into an impossible uphill climb. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- "...considering to ban...". That wording really bugs me. X Stickman (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly I'd personally disgree with UK gun control,and maybe prefer Europe style gun control IE: Germany. I wouldn't be into general caliber restriction. Also got any British gun owners on Rational Wiki. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
- Are there not several aspects - 'legislation involving people and guns', 'the cultural aspects of having and using guns' and 'what people think guns are for' - and it is the combination which can be of most significance. (Most people own forks - but few consider using them as weapons.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly I'd personally disgree with UK gun control,and maybe prefer Europe style gun control IE: Germany. I wouldn't be into general caliber restriction. Also got any British gun owners on Rational Wiki. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
Homeopaths Scientists create an ultradilute quantum liquid[edit]
An ultradilute quantum liquid made from ultra-cold atoms. I feel I'd have put this on WIGO.
They come too late -homeopaths are calling, and I'm imagining an enterprising one will sell stuff of that kind-. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
So do Republicans just think when it's said "Black people can't be racist." that that just defeats acual racism[edit]
https://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-lost-any-respect-for-someone-instantly/answer/Heidi-Fernandez-3?share=758d4925&srid=hywZ3 I mean their definition of black people being racist is very different from acual racism right? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's a little unclear what you are asking. I think that republicans is too large a group to expect them to think the same about anything. I know of some republicans, for example, who think they should be paying higher taxes!Ariel31459 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Racism is more complex than just prejudice, but prejudice should not be dismissed. If I could beat that sentence into the heads of every right wing idiot, we'd all be spared so much pain. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- The OP appears to be about some Spanish speaking cultures having little regard for others. This is a world I don't have a window to look into. I figured it might exist, but I don't know how stuff breaks. OTOH, racism is simply prejudice on the basis of race or ethnicity, without regard to merely local histories, and that's the end of the matter. Anyone telling you different is selling snake oil. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Stuff like lineage tends to be tied up in racism a lot. 1/32nd rule, for example, or 18th century France's racial hierarchy that invented words like "Quadroon" and "Octaroon" while classifying people before the law. As far as Hispanics go, there were different classes depending on how much Spanish blood someone had in them. You even get Hispanic White Nationalists who try to play up the Spanish identity as a European nation, and because Spanish doesn't mean colored.-PsychoGecko (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- The OP appears to be about some Spanish speaking cultures having little regard for others. This is a world I don't have a window to look into. I figured it might exist, but I don't know how stuff breaks. OTOH, racism is simply prejudice on the basis of race or ethnicity, without regard to merely local histories, and that's the end of the matter. Anyone telling you different is selling snake oil. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Are these still relevant joke videos?[edit]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C1a6M3dBNwc ,and https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=56s&v=C1a6M3dBNwc ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
RZ94's Official Bullshit Scale (Patent Pending)[edit]
This is the official bullshit scale I came up with! :)
Level 1[edit]
This usually consists of anti-vaccine people, anti-immigration people and Gun Rights activists.
List of Offenders[edit]
Level 2[edit]
This consists of general racists (Individuals/minor groups), Creationists, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and militia movements (low level internet activity). Medical quacks are not forgotten.
List of Offenders[edit]
- Institute for Creation Research
- Bob Jones University
- TRACS
- Various racist YouTube channels (ex. Nordic Rock and Roll)
- Militias
- Doctor Oz
- Alphabiotics
- Georgia Christian University
Level 3[edit]
This level consist of die hard, violent racists; major conspiracy theorists, Church of Scientology, and terrorists
List of Offenders[edit]
Let me know what others I should add. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Reminds me of
{{hinge}}. —Kazitor, pending 23:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)- How the hell are anti-vaxxers only Level 1, especially below random racist Youtube channels? This is from a "how much damage they can do" stand point, not how morally rancid or intellectually bankrupt these are... the scale can be based on any of these, but I'll assume just the damage part. I'd argue they're even more of a threat than terrorists given the extreme unlikelihood you'll die from a terrorist attack. I wouldn't classify them exactly under ISIS or Neo-Nazis on a "vileness" or "violence" scale but on the scale they're poised to hurt humanity, they're going to be pretty high. I'll also rank global warming deniers high too for a similar reason: far less ideologically rancid as Neo-Nazis or ISIS but can kill much more people and cause more property damage in the long term if they have power. As far as I know, global warming deniers DO have power, in the U.S.. Anti-vaxxers, somewhat given how in many countries, they're successful at having disease return. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- How the hell are anti-vaxxers only Level 1, especially below random racist Youtube channels? This is from a "how much damage they can do" stand point, not how morally rancid or intellectually bankrupt these are... the scale can be based on any of these, but I'll assume just the damage part. I'd argue they're even more of a threat than terrorists given the extreme unlikelihood you'll die from a terrorist attack. I wouldn't classify them exactly under ISIS or Neo-Nazis on a "vileness" or "violence" scale but on the scale they're poised to hurt humanity, they're going to be pretty high. I'll also rank global warming deniers high too for a similar reason: far less ideologically rancid as Neo-Nazis or ISIS but can kill much more people and cause more property damage in the long term if they have power. As far as I know, global warming deniers DO have power, in the U.S.. Anti-vaxxers, somewhat given how in many countries, they're successful at having disease return. --It's-a me,
- See your point. Some of it was guess work --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- It does seem a bit arbitrary the way you've described it. Perhaps a 2-dimensional scale would be better: scale 1 could be disconnect from reality (with a noted high point at around Time Cube, and scale 2 could be real or hypothetical number of deaths/injuries, with authoritarianism (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) and possibly Climate change denial at the extreme. Bongolian (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty sure NRA and Tea Party deserve to be in the general racist's category at least. They sunk a lot of money into those Confederate flags. -PsychoGecko (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Notice[edit]
Go ahead and edit. My assessment was total shit. Even rename the scale if you feel up to it (everybody) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Vote: Who has the best userpage on Rationalwiki?[edit]
the Winner is announced. has already ended. (refresh) —ClickerClock (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- The winners are: DiamondDisc1 and Stabby the Misanthrope! —ClickerClock (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Rules
- You cannot submit yourself.
- Add the user to the poll.
- Ping the user you entered.
Poll[edit]
|
DiamondDisc1 |
"
4 |
|
|
Weaseloid |
"
1 |
|
|
Stabby the Misanthrope |
"
4 |
|
|
Kazitor |
"
0 |
|
|
ClickerClock |
"
1 |
|
|
Goat |
"
1 |
|
@DiamondDisc1 —ClickerClock (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- It’s clearly me. (Yes I am joking) 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have amazing Mario facts that Nintendo doesn't want to let you know. :P --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- On RationalWiki, we are all losers. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Mine is at least better than my Wikipedia homepage, which has been around since like 2003 or so and is fairly Web 1.0. (Which is a good thing.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- On RationalWiki, we are all losers.
- I have amazing Mario facts that Nintendo doesn't want to let you know. :P --It's-a me,
I think the user page of @Weaseloid is pretty neat. (Too bad self-nomination is not possible. I'm really proud of my page.) Nerd (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, pff, your page has a ton of videos embedded in there. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just gonna assume by 'pff' you mean 'pretty fascinating and fantastic'. Yep. Carefully chosen and highly educational materials. Nerd (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Is mine the best? Boredatwork (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Boredatwork Nerd (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Stabby the Misanthrope also has a visually pleasing user page, in my humble opinion. Nerd (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Boredatwork
- Is mine the best? Boredatwork (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just gonna assume by 'pff' you mean 'pretty fascinating and fantastic'. Yep. Carefully chosen and highly educational materials. Nerd (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
You've almost convinced me to put some fancy CSS all over my page. Almost. Maybe I could try adding to it too? —Kazitor, pending 06:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have fancy CSS on my userpage. Look at that poll. I'm not even on there even through I have rainbows on my userpage. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to Rationalwiki and to all a good skepticism![edit]
We shall ring in the new year with more satire and pseudoscience debunking! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
[edit]
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/french-bar-tells-women-isnt-paris-men/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjUmvXDzKXYAhXETd8KHcivASQQFggXMAQ&usg=AOvVaw3EuLZKLpwZgYe_6-vEqcgq ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
- Archiving timestamp, idk how long ago this was posted. Christopher (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The Bible is more violent than any horror or disaster film I have ever seen in my 23 years of life[edit]
Christian watchdog groups complain about violence on TV and work to censor free speech "immoral" content. But they force the bible on everyone. Each chapter in the bible could be a plot basis for a horror or disaster movie.
The Great Flood[edit]
Much like the movie 2012 starring John Cusack, a global flood killing billions of people
Birth of Jesus[edit]
Could be a slasher film like Nightmare on Elm Street (there might be better examples) considering King Herald had all baby boys slaughtered.
Ten Plagues of Egypt[edit]
Note- each plague could be its own movie.
- 1st plague (water turned to blood, fish are killed)- Environmental disaster (can't think of a movie)
- 2nd plague (frogs)- Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (except with frogs)
- Plagues 3-6- Contagion (Movie)
Note- Can't think of other movies at this point, go ahead and add.
Battle of Armageddon[edit]
The movie Platoon, on steroids. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- You forgot to mention other things mentioned in the BoR, and especially who sends all that stuff and is described as "all-loving". Panzerfaust (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Panzerfaust The Bible is quite Orwellian isn't it? GrammarCommie (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Very much so. I can understand why Fundies hate so much people who use their brains to see the sheer amount of BS in said book as well as how really is Gawd. The only thing that is missing there is Him killing El, Asherah, and others who lost the game. Panzerfaust (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Panzerfaust The Bible is quite Orwellian isn't it? GrammarCommie (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
God[edit]
Crazy Dicktator dictator who murders innocent people, much like Adolf Hitlter! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think comparing a man who actually murdered millions of people to a work of fiction in order to make a point is in rather poor taste. Christopher (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you hear so much about Nazis that it came to mind. Maybe Stalin? The Bible is fiction anyways. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- In all likelihood any authoritarian state with heavy emphasis on ideological purity and excessive use of propaganda would be a suitable comparison. GrammarCommie (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Original Sin[edit]
As shown in the picture, it can be compared to North Korea. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- As I said above, it's in very poor taste to compare fiction with mass murderers to make a point. Christopher (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@User:Bigs, why not say social satire is wrong? I try to use insults as little as possible, however, why not just say all satire and parodies that exist are in bad taste. To me, the way you worded it implys you are against free speech. Sorry but that is what you are implying (my view). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 How did Bigs say any of that? — Unsigned, by: Christopher / talk / contribs
- I never said anything along the lines of that. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Treatment of women[edit]
Women are unnamed and generally treated a little more than objects to advance the plot, to give birth or part of economic/sex transactions. Also, it is always the woman who is infertile. It also reminds me of The Handmaid's Tale, a TV series which also takes the Bible hyper literally. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I remember a Fundie (yes, he's a Fundie since it's someone who talks about an all-loving God who did the last sacrifice sending His son to die for our sins, but at the same time telling that if you don't follow the latter you'll go to Hell) saying that women aren't equal to men due to both biological (this at least is true) and psychological differences and that equality is of the type "in a marriage man protects woman and the rest of the family", even if at least he was against domestic abuse. I'd like to know the opinion of female. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC) contributors
- I can even argue that even the biological differences can be worked around so this God Dude... you'd expect him to know better, huh? Even if he punishes me for criticizing his logic, it's not going to make him seem smarter. And there's the whole idea that this God person has to be male, I mean, why male? Females are the one who give birth, God should be female. Maybe that's my woman in me speaking. And there's the whole menstruation thing. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I can even argue that even the biological differences can be worked around so this God Dude... you'd expect him to know better, huh? Even if he punishes me for criticizing his logic, it's not going to make him seem smarter. And there's the whole idea that this God person has to be male, I mean, why male? Females are the one who give birth, God should be female. Maybe that's my woman in me speaking. And there's the whole menstruation thing. --It's-a me,
- I have read about the Gnostic Christian faith and they have both male/female deity. But fundies call them Satanists. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
A wiki / database of company ethics?[edit]
Hello RW
Does anyone know of a database or wiki that documents company ethics? (and apologies if this isn't the right place to ask)
Thanks, Winterstein (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Midday nap[edit]
We should have a nap in the middle of the day for our entire lives, like in Spain. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Zzzzzz What were you saying?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Have a Biphasic sleep cycle instead of a monophasic one? I don't know. Which is healthier? Even if both are healthy, how will the corporate and job world support such a sleep schedule?—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 04:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I support almost any system that lowers my blood pressure. GrammarCommie (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- @CheeseburgerFace It works in the countries it happens in. The hours are different from ours to factor in the midday nap. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 05:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm against the idea. A midday nap would mean I'd have to get out of bed earlier. Boredatwork (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Have a Biphasic sleep cycle
As an honorary Spaniard I feel I should mention that nowadays very few working people actually take siestas.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Quotebox removing linebreaks[edit]
Quotebox removes lines when only two items are present:
thing 1
thing 2
Compare with regular behavior:
thing 1
thing 2
Quotebox does not when three are present:
thing 1
thing 2
thing 3
Compare with regular behavior:
thing 1
thing 2
thing 3
Any idea what's going on? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not putting the paragraph tags around the first and last lines. Kinda hacky solution: put a break before or after (or both)
line break before this
regular
regular
line break after this
line break before this
line break after this
- Makes ugly padding, unfortunately. Applying some styles to
.letter pcould possibly fix that. —Kazitor, pending 04:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)- It's a bug in the template. I always do this:
{{quotebox|
text goes here
}}
- The bug also produces uneven spaces between lines.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 06:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why is this even here? This belongs in RationalWiki:Technical support. Also this isn't a glitch. The wikitext to HTML thing in Mediawiki just outputs it oddly when it comes to templates. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- The bug also produces uneven spaces between lines.—CheeseburgerPlate
Gematria[edit]
Is anyone interested in helping me update the section on gematria. The current section is oversimplified in regards to how it's being practiced these days. — Unsigned, by: Antigem / talk / contribs
- I suspect, my friend, that even with your grains of knowledge, you know more about it than any of the regulars here. Things like Kabbalah (spelling?) etc are rather obscure, and I guess it's outside the usual range of interest of the average RationWikier. I know someone who's into it, but sadly I have no idea what she's on about most of the time. Sorry! Boredatwork (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
As a new user I'm still feeling my way around. I know Kazitor has offered to help. Now I have to figure out how to set up the talk page to discuss it. Lack of time with an upcoming obligation, today or tomorrow I'll provide more detail. For starters, I want to make a distinction of gematria in the classical sense, as is historically applied. Words = numbers. Look for significance. In the past few years it has turned into a lot of superconspiracy with so many new non-words =numbers elements it's impossible to list them all here. Dates, football statistics, GPS coordinates, prime numbers, blah, blah, blah. It's usage is mostly in the Freemasonsdidit kind of way.
I may have spread overstepped my bounds by editing out the previously existing reference to linguistics this morning. I contend that not only does linguistics not help, the opposite of proving that gematria, even in the "classical" form, doesn't work. Homonyms? Direct antonyms Guilty=94, Innocent=94. Then add in multiple cipher cross matching, the pattern recognition and other add ons in recent years, it's now approaching That's not even wrong!. So yeah, I'm firmly biased against it. And to keep the wiki clean I, as a newbie, welcome rational discussion before major overhaul. I can snark with the best of them, but can save that for my blog.
So anyone who wants to help, "reign me in" when I step on toes. Looking forward to discussion with people that can put together a logical argument. And Kazitor...tips on setting up the discussion page? — Unsigned, by: Antigem / talk / contribs
- @Antigem On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. - Setting up the talk page is very simple. Just go there, and then press "Add topic" up the top. There'll be a field for the topic and what you want to say. Remember to sign your posts. —Kazitor, pending 22:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Counter these arguments[edit]
https://www.quora.com/Why-won%E2%80%99t-single-payer-healthcare-work-in-the-US-What-is-different-in-Sweden-Denmark-or-Canada/answer/Susann-Moy?share=4ffec226&srid=hywZ3 ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- this answer brings up a lot of points, most of them uncited but I'll try to tackle the main ideas.
- -service delays tend to be longer in Canada (My country of origin as well as my reference point) it is also a bad example because we are one of the worst for wait times [19]. However while 97% of canadians have a doctor to go to (see previous reference) 33% of Americans know someone who couldn't go to the doctor due to cost [20] which might mean that this shorter wait time is due to less overall use. This also calls into question her statement of "first rate medical care" for most people since a large porportion of people have trouble accessing it at all
- -Its very questionable that American healthcare really is better since Canada has a three year longer life expectancy[21] and with a much lower risk of becoming bankrupt through it. I don't know how else you'd calculate healthcare quality outside of how long people live while using it but Susann seemed keen of flatscreen televisions
- -She argues that there are large budget concerns for for public healthcare but the United States currently pays the most for healthcare, double that of Canada [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita#cite_note-OECDstats-2.
- The only part I can't argue against is the difficulty in implementing healthcare now rather than any other time since as far as I know there's no examples to point to in the last year. Vorarchivist (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Spitting Image[edit]
I would love to see this show revived. Just imagine what they could do with the political characters we have now. Here's one of my favorite sketch involving Tony Blair. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ3bc920AyA Bonesquad11 (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- this is absolutely terrifying, the Tony Blair puppet looks like a tortured corpse. Vorarchivist (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- You should see their Ronald Reagan puppet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yovzZkf6OFQ Bonesquad11 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's terrifying. Vorarchivist (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- The show's title should be "Spirit and Image", not "Spitting Image. "Spitting Image" is a misspoken colloquialism.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- But puppets have no spirit, so it should just be Image. Boredatwork (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- You should see their Ronald Reagan puppet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yovzZkf6OFQ Bonesquad11 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Paul Nehlen[edit]
It's probably a good idea to work up a page on Paul Nehlen, who's now running against Paul Ryan for Congress. If you haven't heard, he's so anti-Semitic that even Breitbart rejected him. The current Wikipedia page is crap (and has already been deleted twice and is now under AfD), but it has sufficient references to use as a start. Anyone want to help? Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe wait to see if he wins? Boredatwork (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- He's not going to win, but he may go forth to bring his bigotry to yet another corporation. We generally don't care about notability at RW, and we've rescued deleted articles form WP in the past that were deleted on notability grounds. Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Should we write one on Randy "Ironstache" Bryce, his actual competition? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unless you can show otherwise, I don't think Bryce is missional. Nehlen is missional because he's an anti-semite. Bongolian (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, look. Smoloko likes him. I say we wait until he wins to write an article about him.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 15:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, look. Smoloko likes him. I say we wait until he wins to write an article about him.—CheeseburgerPlate
- Unless you can show otherwise, I don't think Bryce is missional. Nehlen is missional because he's an anti-semite. Bongolian (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Should we write one on Randy "Ironstache" Bryce,
- He's not going to win, but he may go forth to bring his bigotry to yet another corporation. We generally don't care about notability at RW, and we've rescued deleted articles form WP in the past that were deleted on notability grounds. Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I can already Imagine the the "Liburl Sjw's are destroying Christmas." Argument[edit]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hoa-wants-family-to-remove-jesus-display/ar-BBHas41 ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone should bother neighbors who put up Jesus signs. I don't agree that Christmas and Christianity are related at all (IMO Christmas has pagan roots with no connection to Christianity and has evolved from simple winter festival and holidays which varied much in Europe; to call it a "Christian" holiday that's about "the birth of Jesus" seems like the stupider Christians want to steal Christmas from everyone; it doesn't help that at one point, hardcore Christians wanted to ban Christmas for being pagan, so no, please don't make up shit that Christmas is NOW supposed to be Christian and bitching about "war on Christmas" and "Happy Holidays"). Nevertheless, picking a fight over a Jesus sign is petty. Despite some asshole Christians wanting to reclaim Christmas, most Christians just just want to enjoy their contribution to the pagan winter tradition. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's their own damn fault for joining a homeowner association instead of living in a libertarian paradise. 😜 Bongolian (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I whole heartedy agree with,but I predict that's what's going to be claimed by the people who think the War on Christmas is a thing. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- HOAs are shit. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- This would probably fall under some kind of discrimination thing because it has to do with religion, but otherwise, HOAs are infamous for not letting families own more than one car, telling people they can't have American/Canadian/Mexican/etc flags in their yards, and banning real estate signs. J. Zoia (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- HOAs are shit. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I whole heartedy agree with,but I predict that's what's going to be claimed by the people who think the War on Christmas is a thing. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's their own damn fault for joining a homeowner association instead of living in a libertarian paradise. 😜 Bongolian (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I feel this video might be slightly Anti-Union,but I'm not sure?[edit]
https://youtu.be/fwjwePe-HmA ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
- I would say it's definitely anti-union because the beginning part blames the cost on union employees. Whether or not they are trying to push an agenda, I don't know because I am not familiar with the publisher. As a side note, I literally saw an ad for Pensacola Christian College before the video started and they are definitely anti-union. J. Zoia (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Trump recently tweets about Global Warming[edit]
It's about as trope denialist as you will expect. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 01:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why hasn't Trump singlehandedly made Twitter lame, bogus, played out, or whatever it's called anymore? Is this the hill my gen Xers and millennials are going to die on? Twitter? Because we can't just give it to the old people and little kids? Fallacies thrive on sound bites and now tweets. The real story is rarely summed up so quickly. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Because the internet is no longer the freely-tranisitioning from-site-to-site and tech-to-tech patchwork you remember for the halycon days of like... 10 years ago? Instead a few big corporations control each method of communication and if you don't like it, you can get fucked. Our cyberpunk dystopia is boring. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- It is indeed boring, no dark neon lit skylines, no rogue operatives, and worst of all no cybernetics. Comrade GC (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- You're either fucked or you can make an alternative like PewTube or Gab.ai. While the Internet is more or less centralized, there are still fringe websites that are populated by 20 or so users. However, at that point you're bound to find fringe beliefs.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 16:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- My favorite fringe belief that no sane person accepts is that a wiki can be rational. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- You're either fucked or you can make an alternative like PewTube or Gab.ai. While the Internet is more or less centralized, there are still fringe websites that are populated by 20 or so users. However, at that point you're bound to find fringe beliefs.—CheeseburgerPlate
- Which big corporation controls RationalWiki? :D J. Zoia (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- It is indeed boring, no dark neon lit skylines, no rogue operatives, and worst of all no cybernetics. Comrade GC (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Because the internet is no longer the freely-tranisitioning from-site-to-site and tech-to-tech patchwork you remember for the halycon days of like... 10 years ago? Instead a few big corporations control each method of communication and if you don't like it, you can get fucked. Our cyberpunk dystopia is boring. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Your thoughts on this article?[edit]
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/12/the-middle-class-takeover-of-bilingual-schools/549278/ ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
- It's a good way to teach kids languages that their parents don't understand, and this is the US so poor people can't have nice things, ever. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Every child needs to get started on learning a second language while they're still in the prime years for doing it. It's such an obvious advantage that it's hardly surprising that the upper classes are seizing the opportunity for their children as it presents itself. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I like my way of saying it better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- is not a second language on whatever passes as a national curriculum over there? even us brits have to learn a second language and we are known to be shit at it AMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- As far as here is concerned, we don't start learning a second language as late as middle school. I envy those Europeans who can speak a second language, to a far better ability than I could ever speak a second language. I fully support learning a second language very early into one's life, you get to see the world with a different set of eyes and you get insight on another culture. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- is not a second language on whatever passes as a national curriculum over there? even us brits have to learn a second language and we are known to be shit at it AMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I like my way of saying it better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Every child needs to get started on learning a second language while they're still in the prime years for doing it. It's such an obvious advantage that it's hardly surprising that the upper classes are seizing the opportunity for their children as it presents itself. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Bilingual education is great. The article is a little confused about Latinos. It is a demographic by language group, like Quebecois in Canada. 85% of Argentinians are white. 80% of Puerto Ricans are white. Mexico has not counted their citizens of European descent for about 100 years, and estimates range from 9%-47%. It should be about serving the poor, but everyone deserves an education, and that sounds even better when you say it in French, but todos merecen ser educados.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Il faut que tout le monde mérite une éducation. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Your thoughts on this video?[edit]
https://youtu.be/_9_b49s-xVg also thankfully the comments are disabled ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- My thoughts? This transgender nonsense is annoying. I mean, I can kind of understand why boys would want to be girls because we are totally awesome, but not really. We have periods to deal with, they don't. We get paid less. J. Zoia (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is a common form of authoritarianism: apologies are insufficient. Punishment is always required. Not liberal.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Evolution and Red Giant Stars[edit]
I have heard scientists talk about when the sun expands that is supposed to kill all life on Earth over time. I am a little skeptical about that (not in the sense as a creationist's pseudoskeptism). Would it not be possible for life to adapt to survive much of the extreme heat? Or life evolving into a gaseous-like form (something like functioning cells made of gases and can divide. Not sure how I want to put it). It seems too early to actually make that conclusion. Scientists don't know everything about evolution yet (again, not in the creationist sense of the statement). I want to have some opinions on this one. :-) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure when they meant by that, the sun will expand in heat far too rapidly for much of life to properly adapt to the changing circumstances. I think some of the life could survive the extreme heat if the sun starts brightening up, like the extremophiles water bears and cyanobacteria, but because the water will eventually dry up, the necessity of life, most of life will probably perish. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 01:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- The red giant branch (before helium fusion) is very rapid, there'd be little time. Another point of concern is that the inner planets will be literally swallowed by the expanding star. It is, however, uncertain if tidal effects might allow Earth to get to a higher orbit. It'd still be way too hot, though. —Kazitor, pending 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- All of the above assumes that life on Earth lasts up to the Sun's nova stage, there is a chance the Earth will be empty of life by that point due to various factors. Comrade GC (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well yeah, that's not accounting for random gamma ray bursts, supervolcanoes, meteorite strikes, obviously. But let's assume that life survives to that point for the sake of argument. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 01:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- All of the above assumes that life on Earth lasts up to the Sun's nova stage, there is a chance the Earth will be empty of life by that point due to various factors. Comrade GC (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- The red giant branch (before helium fusion) is very rapid, there'd be little time. Another point of concern is that the inner planets will be literally swallowed by the expanding star. It is, however, uncertain if tidal effects might allow Earth to get to a higher orbit. It'd still be way too hot, though. —Kazitor, pending 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Carl Sagan has a nice sequence in his book Cosmos with beautiful paintings that describes this. "Several billion years from now there will be a last perfect day...Then, over a period of millions of years, the Sun will swell, the Earth will heat, many lifeforms will be extinguished, and the shoreline will retreat...The oceans will rapidly evaporate and the atmosphere will escape to space. As the Sun evolves towards a red giant, the Earth will become dry, barren and airless. Eventually the Sun will fill most of the sky, and may engulf the Earth." (p. 228-229). Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Cosmikdebris sounds a bit poetic. Comrade GC (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, stellar evolution says that's what likely will happen. Sagan did try and put astrophysics into terms for the [1970s] masses. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- And the timespan is long enough for politicians (Homo sapiens or from 'whichever sentient species follow(s) us) to work something out - or the proverbial 'Aliens of the Galactic Zoo Quest (DA was on Book of the Week) to find Life on Earth. Anna Livia (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's so far off into the future, we don't even need to worry about it, the time needing to worry about it far longer than humans even started existing as the earliest hominid ancestor. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think at that time, H. sapiens are extinct, though not killed off, just populations slowly transitioning to a new species. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Forget it. Unless there's someone around to fix things a few hundred millions of years from now as the Sun increases its luminosity the carbon cycle will begin to break down and plants will begin to disappear followed by animals, leaving just bacteria. Some estimations suggest that in around 1 billion years from now the only things that will remain will be bacteria in a desertic world where the oceans have evaporated away due to an increasing greenhouse effect. If this planet does not go Venus before, killing everything that remains alive unless it has gone to the atmosphere, in less than three billion years from now even bacteria will be no more as Earth becomes a searing hot desertic world. Billions of years later, as the Sun goes red giant, things will be very hellish (as in a global magma ocean) and that even if Earth was not absorbed by the Sun (check Future of Earth). Panzerfaust (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC).
- Forget it. Unless there's someone around to fix things a few hundred millions of years from now as the Sun increases its luminosity the carbon cycle will begin to break down and plants will begin to disappear followed by animals, leaving just bacteria. Some estimations suggest that in around 1 billion years from now the only things that will remain will be bacteria in a desertic world where the oceans have evaporated away due to an increasing greenhouse effect. If this planet does not go Venus before, killing everything that remains alive unless it has gone to the atmosphere, in less than three billion years from now even bacteria will be no more as Earth becomes a searing hot desertic world. Billions of years later, as the Sun goes red giant, things will be very hellish (as in a global magma ocean) and that even if Earth was not absorbed by the Sun (check Future of Earth
- I think at that time, H. sapiens are extinct, though not killed off, just populations slowly transitioning to a new species. --It's-a me,
- It's so far off into the future, we don't even need to worry about it, the time needing to worry about it far longer than humans even started existing as the earliest hominid ancestor. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- And the timespan is long enough for politicians (Homo sapiens or from 'whichever sentient species follow(s) us) to work something out - or the proverbial 'Aliens of the Galactic Zoo Quest (DA was on Book of the Week) to find Life on Earth. Anna Livia (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, stellar evolution says that's what likely will happen. Sagan did try and put astrophysics into terms for the [1970s] masses. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Cosmikdebris sounds a bit poetic. Comrade GC (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Does that CAPTCHA continue to pop up for everybody each time one posts something?[edit]
It is sooooooo annoying. How many do I have to do before the wiki realize I'm not a robot? J. Zoia (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- You've made enough edits (≥10), now you just have to wait until your account is over a day old. Christopher (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Question about recycling[edit]
I read an article that said that people shouldn't put boxes with grease on them in the recycle bin because grease will ruin the whole batch. How much grease is too much grease? Because almost every store or restaurant I've worked in put boxes in the recycle bin that have some grease or other contaminants (battery acid, motor oil, liquid medicine that spilled, glue, you know), so obviously there is a certain amount of it that is okay. J. Zoia (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- link to article? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Probably makes a big difference in what the material is. Plastics maybe; metals, I doubt it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- This Stanford article on recycling considers even small amounts of grease to be an issue but it does say that greasy plastic and metal is not a problem. https://lbre.stanford.edu/pssistanford-recycling/frequently-asked-questions/frequently-asked-questions-contamination Vorarchivist (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was talking about cardboard. Pizza boxes usually have a lot of grease on them, so that makes sense. I'm more curious about careless businesses potentially ruining the process by throwing boxes with specs of grease on them and maybe a spill here or there (but not being covered in grease like a pizza box). I'd be suprised if dining services at that college doesn't recycle boxes with a little bit of grease on them. J. Zoia (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- That is probably causing a problem, I personally cut out the greasy sections to spare me the worry. Vorarchivist (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was talking about cardboard. Pizza boxes usually have a lot of grease on them, so that makes sense. I'm more curious about careless businesses potentially ruining the process by throwing boxes with specs of grease on them and maybe a spill here or there (but not being covered in grease like a pizza box). I'd be suprised if dining services at that college doesn't recycle boxes with a little bit of grease on them. J. Zoia (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- This Stanford article on recycling considers even small amounts of grease to be an issue but it does say that greasy plastic and metal is not a problem. https://lbre.stanford.edu/pssistanford-recycling/frequently-asked-questions/frequently-asked-questions-contamination Vorarchivist (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Probably makes a big difference in what the material is. Plastics maybe; metals, I doubt it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
So long and thanks for all the fish (redux)[edit]
If I wrote a computer program exploring the limits of evolution, I'd start simple but not binary. So I would need four different blocks that only interacted according to certain, specific, rules.
I'd shoot for the moon, literally, judging my program a success when these four base-pairs put themselves together in such a fashion as they are able to at least once travel to their World's only satillite!
Oh, heck, I'd even keep the damned thing running for fifty game-years to see if they can surprise me! 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- I need more context. Did you create a simulation of animal breeding on a computer?—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 20:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Cal Cooper[edit]
In this interview, Cal Cooper refers to Rationalwiki as "bastards", [22] (although he seems to have confused Wikipedia with Rationalwiki). He says he tried to fix his article. He has now turned up on the talk-page on another account. I reverted him. What is the policy here about people editing their own articles? Anti-Fascist for life (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The "Bastards" comment appears around 45.00 mins in the interview. He also says some other things about his article. He advertises himself as a "science promoter" but I cannot find any science he has done. Anti-Fascist for life (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I guess everyone on the wiki is bastards? Oh well. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not going to argue against that. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Fun fact. I actually am a literal bastard, having been born out of wedlock and all. Comrade GC (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not going to argue against that. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's an official policy on editing one's own mainspace page, but it is at least unofficially discouraged. If someone has a problem with their own page, they should bring up any inaccuracies on the talk page. If these are valid complaints, we do try to correct them. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Flat Moon BS[edit]
Have fun. Panzerfaust (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Why would NASA lie about the shape of the moon?...The simplest answer is that the claim is nothing more than an online hoax created by a flat Earth believer." <- best quote from the article БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The guy uses the bridge camera with the most powerful optical zoom in the market (Nikon P900, 83x) and in a YT video has also claimed while recording both the Moon and Jupiter on a cloudy night than the latter is in front of the clouds. Merry 2018. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Syrian War Media Coverage[edit]
So... I haven't seen much on the Syrian civil war in the BBC or CNN, this year compared to prior years. There was a bit about ISIS kicked out of Iraq, supposedly, and a bit with Russia and Assad solidifying after Aleppo, but not much lately. What happened? Did people just get tired of reporting on it? Or is Brexit/Trump really worth all the attention? CorruptUser (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- pretty much. at least they got a better run than Yemen. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Net neutrality has been repealed[edit]
Fuck, fuck, FUCK! 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Don't worry, for $1.50 per month you can add the wikis and resources package that allows access to sites such as the Silent Hill Wiki, Conservapedia, and every other wiki comcast deems appropriate for children! They may even one day give you access to rationalwiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bigs My thoughts were more along the lines of "those bloody fucking arse crapshit morons actually did it, we're all fucking screwed" GrammarCommie (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- It was suggested by Rep. Ted Lieu that by holding the vote today, Ajit Pai could be considered complicit in the criminal activity that was uncovered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office (2 million fraudulent comments were submitted to the FCC on net neturality).[23][24] Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh hey, Susan Collins adds her name to letter asking @FCC to cancel the #NetNeutrality vote. No, I still remember her voting for the tax bill, but yeah. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- So - looking at the page on the other place does this affect only the US or is it more global?
- And given the election twisty in Alabama and other trumpery is there an element of 'burying bad news'? Anna Livia (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- It will be bad for non-US users of websites that need US visitors to survive and could lead to other countries repealing whatever version of net neutrality they have, so yeah. I don't think Doug Jones winning the Alabama election thing was a conspiracy to make people forget about net neutrality if that's what you mean (I've probably misunderstood you). Christopher (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh hey, Susan Collins adds her name to letter asking @FCC to cancel the #NetNeutrality vote. No, I still remember her voting for the tax bill, but yeah. --It's-a me,
On the bright side, now our fundraisers can be blunt:
GIVE US MONEY TO PAY OFF COMCAST OR THEY WILL KILL US
FuzzyCatPotato of the Contrived Kumquats (talk/stalk) 22:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- You misspelled bribe Fuzzy. you also misspelled "extortion payoff". GrammarCommie (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Is this definitive or there's still hope it will overturned (it will supposedly be challenged)?. Meanwhile in the comments of a site about filesharing, a Christian lesbian libertarian entrepeneur (not making that up, unless she's a troll) is insulting everyone who thinks this is a very bad move. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- The Senate better not pass this bullshit. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 23:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- It only affects the USA. If you use a proxy or shell from the United States, it affects you as well.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 02:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- It only affects the USA. If you use a proxy or shell from the United States, it affects you as well.—CheeseburgerPlate
- The Senate better not pass this bullshit. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 23:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
In other news, I saw this meme. Apparently, PornHub is offering free premium access for a week. Enjoy your free porn while it lasts!—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 02:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll add this event to my mental list of "Reasons to never move to the USA". Like it needed to be any longer. —Kazitor, pending 04:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- How much American law values citizens' privacy can be summed up in the HIPAA laws: medical companies care more about the integrity of medical records than actually protecting people's information. The UK's medical laws stress more on privacy. However, the UK's GCHQ has been whistlblown to be spying on its citizens, so there's that.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 07:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- You can shorten to just "citizens". From our health care to our gun control to our environment and air, American law doesn't give two piles of Goomba skin shavings. Sadly, Kazitor, I'm stuck in this joke for a country. Fuck the Republicans, fuck them to hell. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- If I lived in a country with huge crime problems yet without the death penalty, I'd want a gun too. Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Death penalty does nothing to deter crimes, if that's what you're implying. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Odd way for a discussion on net neutrality to turn. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 11:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the discussion started in the context of the USA, not net neutrality. Unless you didn't notice that :P —Kazitor, pending 12:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Odd way for a discussion on net neutrality to turn. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 11:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Death penalty does nothing to deter crimes, if that's what you're implying. --It's-a me,
- If I lived in a country with huge crime problems yet without the death penalty, I'd want a gun too. Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- You can shorten to just "citizens". From our health care to our gun control to our environment and air, American law doesn't give two piles of Goomba skin shavings. Sadly, Kazitor, I'm stuck in this joke for a country. Fuck the Republicans, fuck them to hell. --It's-a me,
- How much American law values citizens' privacy can be summed up in the HIPAA laws: medical companies care more about the integrity of medical records than actually protecting people's information. The UK's medical laws stress more on privacy. However, the UK's GCHQ has been whistlblown to be spying on its citizens, so there's that.—CheeseburgerPlate
I just realized that my country has never had Net Neutrality[edit]
I kinda assumed we were better than America, therefore we totally must had Net Neutrality. Trust me, my wi-fi is shit. It's slow, laggy and just stops working sometimes. Enjoy your future, Americans. Suffer with me. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- How will all this affect the wider network, as in terms of third party data? Given how much data traffic is passing over telcos networks that originates from another network (not one of their customers) and is headed to another network (likewise), would they have the right to arbitarily slow or block this traffic on a whim? What if the origin or destination (or both?!) is outside the US? Looking at a map of global submarine data cables, it's worrying that pretty much every transpacific data link from Australasia and Asia to the Americas lands on US territory - so is an Australian who uses a Canadian or Brazilian cloud storage provider going to have their connection screwed over by Comcast - and be able to do nothing about it, since neither end are Comcast customers? I've found it really hard to actually find an explanation of exactly how the sponsors of this bill envision it working - they seem to have a very narrow or oversimplified idea of how the internet works. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 09:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The point is, part 3[edit]
I have received anti-female abuse (yet again) #only# on RW.
I am a reasonable contributor (with occasional humour/trivia) - and RW needs 'persons not based in the US and not using male or neutral names, or IPs' more than I need RW.
As I have said before I accept that RW is more boisterous than other parts of the wikiverse, and many threats/examples of abusive behaviour are reverted promptly - but there is a problem, possibly expressed in part by there being a blocking reason 'Dance, little man, dance' - but no equivalents for other genders and IPs. Anna Livia (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- <- follow this. The advice remains the same: ignore, revert, block, protect (if it's too much), forget. As I said, complaining about them is just giving them the attention they crave. It's only RationalWiki this happens because we're more partisan and provocative than other sites and there just happens to be a persistent troll. We went over this already. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- We understand that it's not exactly pleasant to be told to just ignore it rather than responding to and stopping it, but there's nothing we can do. This platform is open to anyone to edit, and that comes with certain risks. It's not RW that's the problem, it's just that some troll has found some people worth annoying here. And once again, unfortunately, posting these threads only feeds into the problem. You really have to just put up with it and remove it. —Kazitor, pending 22:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- But it #is# RW's problem - as with Facebook etc and the adverts and postings.
- The 'Dance ...' statement does say something about RW's attitude towards the user base.
- How many potential RW contributors on reading exchanges such as this consider the 'If you know a better 'ole go to it' poster and do so? Anna Livia (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, the same potential problem would exist on another site similar to RW as long as it was publicly editable and built using wiki software, so I don't think that would happen. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 00:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is why we need stronger blocks, people. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- But how? Once they set up a new account from a new IP, there's nothing we can do. Unless you advocate huge IP range blocks (which I doubt you do) —Kazitor, pending 02:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Stronger blocks". What exactly do you mean by this? Range blocks? Longer blocks? Because neither of these are going to work with some trolls, especially ones that abuse proxies and change BoN addresses. One week is usually long enough to deter most trolls and other trolls can just have their blocks renewed. And their edits are easily reverted (though they clog the history) so there is seriously little point for "stronger" blocks.
- "RW's" attitude toward the user base. That's a "joke" reason and it's only there for fun. If the receiving party doesn't like that block reason, they're always welcome to tell the blocker to knock it off. Most people will comply. But I think it fits with the rest of the "snarky" chill wiki's atmosphere. I don't understand your problem with our joke block reasons, which are accompanied with joke blocks that last for 0 seconds, or that those reasons, along with vapid trolls, are enough for people to be too timid to register. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- But how? Once they set up a new account from a new IP, there's nothing we can do. Unless you advocate huge IP range blocks (which I doubt you do) —Kazitor, pending 02:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is why we need stronger blocks, people. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, the same potential problem would exist on another site similar to RW as long as it was publicly editable and built using wiki software, so I don't think that would happen. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 00:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- We understand that it's not exactly pleasant to be told to just ignore it rather than responding to and stopping it, but there's nothing we can do. This platform is open to anyone to edit, and that comes with certain risks. It's not RW that's the problem, it's just that some troll has found some people worth annoying here. And once again, unfortunately, posting these threads only feeds into the problem. You really have to just put up with it and remove it. —Kazitor, pending 22:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Most people accept that RW is going to contain a large number of participants who are opinionated, have views at significant angles to other contributors (or even reality), or have 'offbeat/pet ideas they are fond of' etc: 'ideas and views' are things that can be changed and are legitimate targets (but should be challenged rather than abused). If someone has a passion for a particular opinion which is not of itself harmful (supporting a sports club near the bottom of the league, which Doctor Who is the best etc) it should be tolerated. Across the wikiverse IPs can and do make useful contributions or are at least harmless (and who hasn't corrected a minor typo without bothering to sign in, or used an IP to make an anonymous contribution etc?)
There will always be, across the wikiverse, look-at-mes, wiki graffiti artists/blankers and suchlike where a short block suffices to deal with the problem (boring them through being unable to edit and giving the blocker the minor satisfaction of dealing with the issue). It is the actually abusive trolls who are the issue.
There will also always be problems with filters (from other contexts often finding 'hidden bad words' - 'Gillespie Road' Football Club is one of the examples used). Is it possible to manipulate the programming so that 'alerts and messages' generated by harassing messages are also removed with the latter so that the person targeted is not made aware that the thing ever happened?
Can RW create a culture/climate in which diversity is encouraged, as it does seem to have a certain imbalance - and people are likely to be discouraged from contributing as a result. And as for the blocking phrases 'Scramble your numbers IP' perhaps? Anna Livia (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it is possible to remove the alerts, unfortunately. However, ClickerClock and I shall be working on hopefully preventing a fair amount of the original problem, permanently. And I would say that diversity is encouraged, at least to the degree that we don't work towards a lack of it. I don't think it would be appropriate to forbid new users who are similar to the majority in the interests of promoting "diversity", we just have to let as many people as possible join and be sure to hear the range of opinions. —Kazitor, pending 11:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I meant diversity in its most general/positive sense to encourage creative, neutral and even the merely flippant contributors and passers-by across the spectrum of 'human types' and geographical localities (rather than attempting to actively recruit supposed under-represented groups - sports fans and Whovians are likely to give more priority to their particular interest wikis than RW).
- Any equivalent to 'deleting the alerts' (ping, user and attached talk pages etc) would serve the same purpose (that the person being targeted is not aware that "some #### was trying to annoy them") - and any automatic filter will encounter occasional false positives (as most people are aware). Anna Livia (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think there is some case for un-alerting false alarms if that's possible but all the other complaints I think are invalid. Again, these trolls are not our problem and for the fiftieth freaking time, STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM. We already are aware of this problem. We are aware it is difficult to prevent persistent (or you call them "abusive" trolls. They certainly are not abusive not "verbally abusive" anyway; they like to see you cry about it so they pick on you to see your reaction. I know what verbal abuse is. We have told you that the best way to remove trolls without stifling user edits is patience. Are you now implying that RationalWiki is "hostile" to diversity because some trolls are really persistent? Otherwise, your bringing up of diversity of users sounds like an entirely different subject for the Saloon. What is your specific problem with "diversity"? What do you mean "people are likely to be discouraged from contributing as a result"? Exactly how? I know we have a snarky attitude and there are quite a bunch of silly men here, but I seriously don't understand your argument since it's so vague. Anecdotally speaking I myself have minority traits: am a female, have ADHD, am a birder, am a Mario nerd, wants to be an artist, has mixed race heritage, has an identical twin sister, etc. but I also happen to like the skeptic circles and enjoy critical thinking, especially on the science side like homeopathy and alternative medicine. If you ask people, you'll probably get some more interesting viewpoints and interests on things. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- The 'false positives' refers to user-names and similar; I was actually arguing for #more# diversity (including people who happen to operate outside the US); and I was distinguishing between 'wiki-graffitists', differences of opinion and discussions of wiki-relevance and suchlike on the one hand and those who use actually threatening/abusive language.
- As I have said before - I contribute elsewhere in the wikiverse accept that RW by its nature will have more disruptive behaviour (of all kinds) than other thereof - and I am not against having an opinionated discussion/disagreement, and I am not aware of abusive behaviour directed at me in other open platform contexts.
- Trolls 'do not make me cry' - they merely annoy me (and encourage me to operate elsewhere in the wikiverse or fandom - some of which would make some of the trolls cry).
- Wikipedia says 'be bold' - and various points on[25] can apply.
- And perhaps I am trying to analyse RW using its own logic. Anna Livia (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do belong to a minority - 'persons outside the US who edit RW' - which does seem to be #very# US orientated. I am not a snowflake/do not 'get the vapours' if someone says boo to me, and have edited in the wikiverse for more years than I care to admit - and I rarely encounter more than the wiki-graffiti-mongers (which are occasionally amusing inconveniences) apart from here. How can RW make the pathetic little individuals who become trolls less visible on the site?
- And could there be other put-downs than the little man phrase? Anna Livia (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- IGNORE THEM Christopher (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- The 'wiki-graffiti-mongers and related nuisances' are easily ignored (beyond giving them 'your favourite ban-length'), and if you learn something/improve your arguments the 'persons arguing in circles etc' have lost, the 'reasons' probably do need varying over time ('your numbers will be crunched like cornflakes'?)... and the "all mou's and no trou's" can be ignored from wherever I choose. Anna Livia (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- You have implicitly asked, a number of times: why are the trolls bothering me here, they don't bother me at other wikis? I don't know, but I have a hypothesis. This wiki favors many views that are considered controversial, about feminism, social justice and the like. There isn't much difference between wise-assery and snarkiness. Trolls can be very snarky. On this wiki, if you have a female user name, trolls may assume you are a feminist of the moonbat clan, or some such nonsense. On wikipedia, trolls are unlikely to assume a female user name implies anything special. Recently I received an anonymous email, from the RW system, with the single word, "c***". I took this to mean that someone was exasperated at losing an edit conflict with me. So it goes. I have to laugh at such an exasperated admission of defeatAriel31459 (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- FYI "edit conflict" is something else that I can't be bothered to explain, the only thing that I think you might've meant is "edit war" but that's not usually something people admit to partaking in. Christopher (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- No. I don't mean edit war. I don't do that. I am willing to go along with consensus. I am trying to be supportive here.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- My previous comment did imply that you are an edit warrer, which you are not, sorry. Christopher (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you don't cut it out I'm going to vote for you. See how you like that!Ariel31459 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- No. I don't mean edit war. I don't do that. I am willing to go along with consensus. I am trying to be supportive here.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- FYI "edit conflict" is something else that I can't be bothered to explain, the only thing that I think you might've meant is "edit war" but that's not usually something people admit to partaking in. Christopher (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- You have implicitly asked, a number of times: why are the trolls bothering me here, they don't bother me at other wikis? I don't know, but I have a hypothesis. This wiki favors many views that are considered controversial, about feminism, social justice and the like. There isn't much difference between wise-assery and snarkiness. Trolls can be very snarky. On this wiki, if you have a female user name, trolls may assume you are a feminist of the moonbat clan, or some such nonsense. On wikipedia, trolls are unlikely to assume a female user name implies anything special. Recently I received an anonymous email, from the RW system, with the single word, "c***". I took this to mean that someone was exasperated at losing an edit conflict with me. So it goes. I have to laugh at such an exasperated admission of defeatAriel31459 (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- The 'wiki-graffiti-mongers and related nuisances' are easily ignored (beyond giving them 'your favourite ban-length'), and if you learn something/improve your arguments the 'persons arguing in circles etc' have lost, the 'reasons' probably do need varying over time ('your numbers will be crunched like cornflakes'?)... and the "all mou's and no trou's" can be ignored from wherever I choose. Anna Livia (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- IGNORE THEM Christopher (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think there is some case for un-alerting false alarms if that's possible but all the other complaints I think are invalid. Again, these trolls are not our problem and for the fiftieth freaking time, STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM. We already are aware of this problem. We are aware it is difficult to prevent persistent (or you call them "abusive" trolls. They certainly are not abusive not "verbally abusive" anyway; they like to see you cry about it so they pick on you to see your reaction. I know what verbal abuse is. We have told you that the best way to remove trolls without stifling user edits is patience. Are you now implying that RationalWiki is "hostile" to diversity because some trolls are really persistent? Otherwise, your bringing up of diversity of users sounds like an entirely different subject for the Saloon. What is your specific problem with "diversity"? What do you mean "people are likely to be discouraged from contributing as a result"? Exactly how? I know we have a snarky attitude and there are quite a bunch of silly men here, but I seriously don't understand your argument since it's so vague. Anecdotally speaking I myself have minority traits: am a female, have ADHD, am a birder, am a Mario nerd, wants to be an artist, has mixed race heritage, has an identical twin sister, etc. but I also happen to like the skeptic circles and enjoy critical thinking, especially on the science side like homeopathy and alternative medicine. If you ask people, you'll probably get some more interesting viewpoints and interests on things. --It's-a me,
Anything wrong with being obsessed with the concept of societal collapse?[edit]
I suffer from Autism and have been obsessed with societal collapse for a while, mostly from binge-reading TV Tropes and playing Fallout: New Vegas (I admit, the Fallout games aren't a realistic scenario when it comes to societal collapse, what with radiation turning people into zombies and making scorpions six-feet long (despite the size constraints arthropods face due to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere), genetic engineering turning Venus fly-traps into giant man-eating plants and people into hulking ogres, working computers and machines centuries after societal collapse etc, although Fallout is deliberately a satire on 1950's views of the world). I've found myself wanting society to collapse, and after reading a few pages on RationalWiki I've found myself to be a bit embarrassed. Is it wrong to feel this way?--Palaeonictis (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Here are two possibilities:
- You're depressed and want to see the world burn.
- You are experiencing a symptom of autism: obsession and repetition of something.
- Take your pick.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 18:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- i think that's normal tbh. i think everyone gets these passing thoughts that they want to see the world burn at points. the question is, is it long term, because that's when the depressing stuff gets serious. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Probably both.--Palaeonictis (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have an obsession with the apocalypse. I am autistic with various mental illnesses. I repeat words and talk about the same things over and over. This includes making fun of the bible. That guy from Michigan who likes horror novels 19:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- We (homo Sapiens) happen to be a rather destructive form of DNA that is adept at doing damage to other forms of DNA, (while not being particularly successful in terms of absolute numbers). Perhaps what you are feeling is nothing more than a recognition of the (possible) fact that h. Sapiens might have peaked and the species is in a retrograde period...a dumbing down, if you will, that will allow other forms of DNA to more better thrive? 00:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- I have an obsession with the apocalypse. I am autistic with various mental illnesses. I repeat words and talk about the same things over and over. This includes making fun of the bible. That guy from Michigan who likes horror novels 19:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Drug Education- counselors and educators should stick to the facts[edit]
I have found it so annoying when drug educators twist the facts around to the point of outlandish lies. I get drug addiction is bad and all but if you stretch the truth, people have a harder time believing educators. If you want to combat drug addiction, don't lie about what happens. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is a consequence on the whole War on Drugs thing. Still, educators had some effect on me by scaring me away from smoke, marijuana, cocaine, las, any sort of mind altering substance with short term benefits but with long term consequences. They kind of overblown alcohol and marijuana, which I like my beer, but I thought marijuana was some dangerous substance that'll get you hooked like nicotine does. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Same here. Growing up, I quickly learned to take the melodramatic and sensationalist claims of anti-drug education/media with a grain of salt. But it did encourage me to be careful around recreational substances, and helped me understand that substance abuse can be a very serious issue. 98.110.112.28 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I once had a talk where the person did just stick to the facts. He made it very clear that, if you ever did try drugs, you most likely wouldn't enjoy it. —Kazitor, pending 21:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- i grew up with virtually no 'formal' drug education. years of substance abuse issues later...well, swings and roundabouts AMassiveGay (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I once had a talk where the person did just stick to the facts. He made it very clear that, if you ever did try drugs, you most likely wouldn't enjoy it. —Kazitor, pending 21:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Same here. Growing up, I quickly learned to take the melodramatic and sensationalist claims of anti-drug education/media with a grain of salt. But it did encourage me to be careful around recreational substances, and helped me understand that substance abuse can be a very serious issue. 98.110.112.28 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Manual archiving[edit]
While Archivist's absent, should we just archive old threads manually? This page is getting rather long. —Kazitor, pending 01:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sure —ClickerClock (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes! Bongolian (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright, done. I moved everything older than the 25th, and left some one line threads since the bot seems to avoid those. —Kazitor, pending 05:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year![edit]
-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Man, people are always too early. New Year's really doesn't start until four hours from now here. Damn everyone else in the east time zones. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Six minutes to midnight here. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 04:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Your Thoughts[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idcZh85-5t4 ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can you at least provide a summary when you post youtube videos? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- And could you use the "add topic" button? When I saw your edit in recent changes I assumed you were replying to Fuzzy about the community survey. Christopher (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Pedantry[edit]
Surely '2018 moderator election' would be more logical - even if the process did start a few days early. Anna Livia (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The campaigning started in 2017, so I think calling it 2017 is better. Maybe calling it 2017-2018 election would be better БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say that because the mods being elected serve in 2018, it should be the 2018 mod election. Add that to my list of campaign promises :P —Kazitor, pending 23:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I vote 2018. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say that because the mods being elected serve in 2018, it should be the 2018 mod election. Add that to my list of campaign promises :P —Kazitor, pending 23:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- In the grand scheme of things, it won't matter much in a couple of years whether it's indexed by 2017 or 2018. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- But people seeing '2017' are likely to ignore the rest of the sentence. Anna Livia (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
please don't make me change anything, the mob is free to vote on this, i don't think it matters αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 11:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Likewise, I don't think change is necessary. But if we really have to, why not call it the 2017-18 Moderator Election (academic style)? Nerd (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The last one was called the 2016 moderator election, the one before that 2015 etc. To someone who didn't have any context, it'd look like we didn't have an election this year. Christopher (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Even if someone went through all of the election pages and moved them all forward a year (which would be a lot of effort for no gain), people in past discussions would still refer to them as what they've always been called. This is incredibly poorly thought through. Christopher (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's a vote so I don't have to look at this inanity[edit]
|
2017 |
"
6 |
|
|
2018 |
"
8 |
|
|
2017-2018 |
"
5 |
|
Let's try to get a normal distribution, guys. :-) Nerd (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Bigs, what's with your obsession with multi polls replacing discussion? Discussion allows people to convince others that they're right, and allows of obvious troll "votes" to be ignored. Christopher (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Either 2017-18 (or relevant years) Moderator Elections - or hold them at some other point in the year - so the pedants are less likely to complain. Anna Livia (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Or we could just keep it as it is. Christopher (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- i believe more canand should be done to actively piss off pedants everywhere. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Despite advocating 2018, I'm actually going for 2017. There needs to be a 2017 one, rather than apparently skipping it. And changing anything is always hassle. —Kazitor, pending 21:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Complete the irregular verb - 'I am pointing out something that needs considering, you are a pedant, they are (what)'? Anna Livia (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Despite advocating 2018, I'm actually going for 2017. There needs to be a 2017 one, rather than apparently skipping it. And changing anything is always hassle. —Kazitor, pending 21:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- i believe more canand should be done to actively piss off pedants everywhere. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Or we could just keep it as it is. Christopher (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Either 2017-18 (or relevant years) Moderator Elections - or hold them at some other point in the year - so the pedants are less likely to complain. Anna Livia (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Do we have an article of plant music?[edit]
Does music help plants grow? And do we have an article on it? This is the New age hypothesis I've encountered a couple times throughout my life. I assume it's a pile of bull, but I haven't encountered any refutations or commentary on popular/notable websites.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 04:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think we do. There's a related bit of nuttery: talking to your plants makes them grow better. Jerry Baker promoted this in the 1970s with a bunch of books, in particular, Talk to Your Plants, and Other Gardening Know-How I Learned from Grandma Putt and Plants Are Like People. Bongolian (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Prince Charles is an advocate apparently.
- And plants #are# a non-disruptive audience. Anna Livia (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think Mythbusters did an episode on this one and found it to be plausible (with rock music). But I think a more official scientific source might be worth looking into just in case their results might be off. Comrade GC (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be an inverse stopped clock, Mythbusters did try and promote critical thinking but weren't particularly rigorous. Christopher (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen a couple Mythbusters episodes. It's an entertainment show first and an educational show second. But unfortunately, I can't find any significant debunking on the Internet. I just find a bunch of obscure sites covering it. Perhaps it's time for RationalWiki to shed some light on the issue.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 20:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Some slightly more plausible (at first glance) sounding bullshit is that it's not the sounds but the extra CO2 it surrounds the plant with. I doubt CO2 is the limiting factor for photosynthesis or any other reactions requiring it (I don't think there are many) for most plants under most circumstances though. Christopher (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen a couple Mythbusters episodes. It's an entertainment show first and an educational show second. But unfortunately, I can't find any significant debunking on the Internet. I just find a bunch of obscure sites covering it. Perhaps it's time for RationalWiki to shed some light on the issue.—CheeseburgerPlate
- I don't think it would be an inverse stopped clock, Mythbusters did try and promote critical thinking but weren't particularly rigorous. Christopher (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think Mythbusters did an episode on this one and found it to be plausible (with rock music). But I think a more official scientific source might be worth looking into just in case their results might be off. Comrade GC (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's also a lot of amusing claims about how animals respond to music. Not scientifically rigorous. --Gospatric (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Don't forget - animals may hear music differently to us. Anna Livia (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
RZ94's potential projects for 2018[edit]
- Judge Judy- Bigotry towards the disabled
- Golo Diet- Popping a bunch of supplements to lose weight. Plus they silence critics by suing them.
- Nations University- A fundie school stuck on the back side of the 1960's. They are actually scared of communists.
--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Clinton and Trump are equally unpopular[edit]
I can't say I'm surprised. I find both of them quite unfavorable.[26] 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Never been a fan. Part of it was that I am old enough to remember the first Clinton administration, when the Democrat president got behind "welfare reform", deregulation, 3 strikes laws, copyright extension, video game censorship, abstinence-based sex education, and purges of undocumented immigrants. There is no way in hell that anybody is going to sell me on the notion that Hillary Clinton is a 'progressive', or stands for anything other than herself. Her whiny new ghostwritten book did nothing to improve her. Not a huge Christopher Hitchens fan, but No One Left to Lie To remains the definitive take on the Clintons. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care anymore how Clinton performs and I hope she gets out of the political arena for good. On the other hand, Trump's popularity is still too high, needs to be sub30, but if it goes even lower, I'm not complaining either. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- From the other side of the pond, I canna say that surprises me. Panzerfaust (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care anymore how Clinton performs and I hope she gets out of the political arena for good. On the other hand, Trump's popularity is still too high, needs to be sub30, but if it goes even lower, I'm not complaining either. --It's-a me,
This just goes to show that the Democrats can't afford to run another bland moderate candidate in 2020, it else they're going to keep losing. A hard liberal with progressive policy proposals and a cleaner record of supporting the right sides on the issues is virtually guaranteed to beat Trump in 2020. Hopefully that's who Democratic primary voters pick. PB (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- #Warren2020 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Mmm, guys! We just had an election. Let's not worry too much about 2020, shall we? We will cross that bridge when we get there. Nerd (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I still have my doubts that even a progressive will cream Trump. I'm pessimistic enough to believe that voters will just listen to party loyalty. Even if Sanders promised free ponies for everyone, people wouldn't vote him because he's part of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Sanders does have the populist appeal. Let's see how the media reports on Sanders. As far as we've seen, they're way more interested in Trump and his voter demographics, annoyingly enough. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I still have my doubts that even a progressive will cream Trump. I'm pessimistic enough to believe that voters will just listen to party loyalty. Even if Sanders promised free ponies for everyone, people wouldn't vote him because he's part of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Sanders does have the populist appeal. Let's see how the media reports on Sanders. As far as we've seen, they're way more interested in Trump and his voter demographics, annoyingly enough. --It's-a me,
- Mmm, guys! We just had an election. Let's not worry too much about 2020, shall we? We will cross that bridge when we get there. Nerd (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- If there's a conspiracy theory, chances are the group it's trying to smear are either "The Jews" or "The Clintons". The amount of hate conjured up for them out of thin air is astonishing. All those debunked 90s chain letters about a kill count and the dozen Benghazi hearings where she didn't do anything wrong seemed to have worked as propaganda. Shame that this includes a number of people who count themselves as skeptics and rationalists. As far as a candidate goes, you generally don't see a more radical candidate chosen when they lost the last election. Strategy would be that, since the incumbent can always be painted as failing, the opposition party can pick someone more moderate to pick up moderate voters who have become disillusioned with the extremist. Plus, there's a reason California has some of the most Liberal politicians and places like Mississippi have some on the far-right. In states where the liberal or the conservative consistently wins, they don't have to worry about moving toward the middle. Instead, they have to worry about being primary-ed from someone further along the left or right, respectively. With the Presidency going to Trump instead, that just means the Democrat candidate can, and likely will, be further to the right than either of the Clintons ever were to try and pick up those voters.-PsychoGecko (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Comic[edit]
This is how we sound right now. Cartoon by Barry Deutsch, a Jewish man. Image description at his blog post. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- The democrats would not do well appealing to my specific beliefs(low-grade antitheism would not sell well, nor would wonky obsession with reforming elections), and I find that sad. Though I suspect if they were to really emphasize a certain subset of my beliefs, they'd do way better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- The truth of good politics: emphasize policies that have the potential to garner majority support. That doesn't mean you have to abandon the interests of small minorities. The average voter is selfish. Don't spend a lot of time telling them what you plan to do for someone else.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Vote LeftyGreenMario for Moderator! She is the best candidate![edit]
Remember to vote in this election! The Undead Schizophrenic (with Depression, Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar) says so. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Vote for meh! Down with the Old Guard! 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- You can officially endorse candidates here. :) --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would vote for her because she is a girl. J. Zoia (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately @J. Zoia you are ineligible to vote at this time. Comrade GC (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would vote for her because she is a girl. J. Zoia (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- You can officially endorse candidates here. :) --It's-a me,
Idea: draft namespace[edit]
One thing we seem to really hate are stubs. But the thing about the stubs is they're not usually bad (for some value of "bad"), just low quality or devoid of content. The general idea is we don't want people to see low quality articles amongst our other stuff.
The current convention is to work on such articles in one's userspace, but this has a downside of low visibility, and it can be uncertain whether other users can edit it. I suggest a dedicated namespace for such drafts and stubs, so they can be worked on whilst kept separate from our good material. Thoughts? —Kazitor, pending 07:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I like that idea a lot. Draft namespace sounds really good to me.Spud (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Christopher (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've created a pull request that adds in a draft namespace. Christopher (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Christopher On lines 249 to 251, you appear to have forgotten the commas between the array items. I'm not too familiar with github (should get onto that at some point), so you will want to fix that. —Kazitor, pending 10:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Kazitor Thanks! (The last one isn't meant to have a comma though). Christopher (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Eh, it's PHP and commas on the ends of long arrays like that are sort of a convention so you can't forget them when adding to the list. They don't cause any errors. Although, personally, I don't do it either. —Kazitor, pending 11:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, what little PHP I know I just sort of picked up from seeing code. Christopher (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- For some of us [27] is more understandable than page :)
- We all find topics which are worth a RW mention but which we as persons wish 'the proverbial someone else' to develop (or at least give a second opinion on). Some will be viable in their own right, others will be 'mentions/a subsection on another page, and there will be those which are promptly forgotten about. Perhaps 'Sandbox: topic X' type entries on talk pages of topics 'one level up' (so eg Oumuamua might appear initially on Space Woo) and then a decision could be made. Anna Livia (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand the problem some people have with stubs. If the article is a stub then people are welcome to expand it. If not, and it's on mission, then leave it alone. If it's a stub that is not sufficient reason for deletion. I suspect that if we create "draft space" then articles which would otherwise be be (very) slow-growing stubs will simply languish in obscurity. Let stubs live!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't either. It isn't like we're on any deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unlike Wikipedia (which rightly allows stubs), we have our reputation to think about. If someone first finds out about RationalWiki through a shitty stub, they're likely to think that we're a useless website not worth wasting their time on. If a stub could've been put together by any English speaking person with 10 minutes spare and access to Google, it's not worth having. Christopher (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't either. It isn't like we're on any deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand the problem some people have with stubs. If the article is a stub then people are welcome to expand it. If not, and it's on mission, then leave it alone. If it's a stub that is not sufficient reason for deletion. I suspect that if we create "draft space" then articles which would otherwise be be (very) slow-growing stubs will simply languish in obscurity. Let stubs live!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, what little PHP I know I just sort of picked up from seeing code. Christopher (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Eh, it's PHP and commas on the ends of long arrays like that are sort of a convention so you can't forget them when adding to the list. They don't cause any errors. Although, personally, I don't do it either. —Kazitor, pending 11:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Kazitor Thanks! (The last one isn't meant to have a comma though). Christopher (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Christopher On lines 249 to 251, you appear to have forgotten the commas between the array items. I'm not too familiar with github (should get onto that at some point), so you will want to fix that. —Kazitor, pending 10:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I strongly support a draft page. I think I've even said that if you want to work on an article, but want to save work for later due to a busy life, it's best to construct it as a draft in your userspace rather than make a complete mainspace article out of it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Same here. There are all sorts of unfinished articles in userspace by people who have long since left. If there was a draftspace, these articles could be finished by anyone, and would be easier to find if there was a link to draftspace on, say, the to-do list. I suggest also having a "move to draft" option on AfD discussions. Readymade (talk) (bloody Sophie again) 17:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Next suggestion 'Category:x-field stub' - so that those interested in the wider x-field can find the relevant short entries more rapidly: and general interest in Oumuamua is probably decreasing (until the next weird or potentially doomsday-ish flyby). Anna Livia (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- We already have this, take a look at all of the subcategories of Category:Articles needing expansion. Christopher (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Next suggestion 'Category:x-field stub' - so that those interested in the wider x-field can find the relevant short entries more rapidly: and general interest in Oumuamua is probably decreasing (until the next weird or potentially doomsday-ish flyby). Anna Livia (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Evangelism in Xmas[edit]
It seems those people like to practice outreach during these days. In the last two weeks, I've had more encounters with 'em attempting to convert me than in the last months including some of a sect that have most other Evangelical churches against it, as they've these behind, a pair of Jehovah Witnesses -who did not even get the house's door being open-, and especially one who after my usual reply began with the BS of Jesus' sacrifice and that if everything was gonna end that moment I'd not be saved -thank Gods the bus came in that moment-. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- You could always try to convert them to the path of Cthulhu, if you're feeling particularly bored. Comrade GC (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- You could do this- ask, "Do you want to hear about my lord and savior Ba'al"? or ask, "Want to hear about the Goddess Asherah"? or if you are not Pagan (I am Pagan and did something like that), "You want to learn the truth of Evolutionary Biology and Astrophysics"? If you are atheist. One time when my biological dad had his stroke, a nurse would come by to help him. This nurse would preach about the Christian God and Jesus. She graduated from none other than Bob Jones University. So in response, my mom and a friend pretended to be lesbians just to get her to leave. It was classic. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- i find 'no thanks, not my thing' and closing the door or walking on works pretty well. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't tried it myself, but there's a line in Kingsman: The Secret Service that could work against particular groups: "I'm a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress (out of wedlock) with my Jewish black boyfriend who works at the military abortion clinic. So hail Satan, and have a lovely day, madam." —Kazitor, pending 11:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- i find 'no thanks, not my thing' and closing the door or walking on works pretty well. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- My approach with these has been double (it's a bad idea to approach someone who is reading a book about galactic astronomy and cosmology): either telling them that I'm not interested on their "eternal life", how an asshole was Yahweh in the OT, what about -precisely- Asherah (which I very seriously doubt they'll know about; I'm talking about all of them being inmigrants, who come with a lower cultural level -whatever is called-), the many errors and inconsistences of "the Book" (starting with the discrepances on the four Gospels), and the failure of things written there that were supposed to going to pass ('nuff said), or telling them that I've already a religion and I'm not interested in others, thanking them -and if they insisted, which never has happened, talking them about any fictional RPG deity as I still remember stuff of when I played D&D-. The latter has worked most of the time except the last one when the guy began with the Jesus' sacrifice thing and that if everything was going to end game over for me. Shit, as it happened the New Year's day with just a couple hours of sleep -thus pretty much zombified-, caught me off-guard while I was taking some shots of the full Moon to fight drowsiness, he scared me being taller than me and was fearing when I replied that I'd be left with no camera and some beating. Luckily the bus came and he went away with the same "I'll pray for you/remember to accept Jesus/whatever" (don't remember well).
- I really hope the next time, if there's one, I'll not be off-guard. I've a lot of desire to talk them about the beauty of the way the Universe evolved according to the Big Bang theory -and how is does not appear at all in Genesis- or about, say, Eldath, goddess of peace and waterfalls, in the Forgotten Realms. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- What I tell Mormons is that 'In the real Bible, it talks about Jericho and Jerusalem and Tyre and Nazareth. I'm not sure anything happened exactly as described, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that these were all real places. What happened to yours?' - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I just ask them how Jesus can both be King of the Jews and the son of god when only a direct male descendent of Judah (and David) can be king. Mary could not be heir; for that to be true, even if all other descendents of King David had died the throne would pass on to the other male members of Judah, and even if all the men were direct male descendants of converts instead of Judah, the title would still be passed on to a Levi or Kohan who are not descendants of converts. Nor does adoption does not pass on the heir either, so even if Joseph was the heir the title wouldn't go to Jesus. CorruptUser (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- What I tell Mormons is that 'In the real Bible, it talks about Jericho and Jerusalem and Tyre and Nazareth. I'm not sure anything happened exactly as described, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that these were all real places. What happened to yours?' - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
What are the causes of the proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar?[edit]
Does anybody here have a good analytical grip on the situation? Gewgtweg (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Well... this unfortunate post had to welcome the new year completely alone. I guess identity politics is more interesting than international relations for most people here. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- It stems from the Arab Spring, as the movement created a power vacuum in the region both nations hoped to fill. Qatar was generally supportive of the movement while Saudi Arabia was generally opposed. Other issues include the belief that Qatar is too pro-Iranian (Saudi Arabia's primary rival in the region), runs Al-Jazeera (many gulf states view the news broadcaster as hostile to their interests), and is accused of supporting pro-Iranian groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It doesn't help that Qatar used to be essentially a vassal of Saudi Arabia, but through its immense fossil fuel wealth has allowed the small country to not only carve its own path, but have influence far greater than a nation its size would have. Hope that helps. BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Community survey results[edit]
Promising to post stuff today was a bad idea. I'll try my best. Oof. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Can we make usernames more strict?[edit]
Can we have more limitations on usernames? Whenever a troll decides to create three troll accounts, the entire page is dominated by excessively long usernames such as "Bush did 9/11 and put chemicals into the water". Also, long usernames are obnoxious.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @CheeseburgerFace: I'm sure a filter that blocks usernames over a certain length wouldn't be hard to make, what should the limit be? Christopher (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mods can spend some time trying to rename users. I'm aware that very long usernames are never practical for anyone but I'm not sure what kind of limit we should impose here, if we even should. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly most sites with username limitations have a max limit of 16 to 20 characters. Comrade GC (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think 20-25 characters is reasonable enough. Though that's my having 15 characters to begin with. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly MediaWiki has a limit, it's just really, really big. Christopher (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- A quick engine search tells me that MediaWiki can support to 255 characters. >.> --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- who would *ever* make an account with even more than 30 characters? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- About half the Grawp-style usernames. Look through the user creation log. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't count asstwats like him to be legit users. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Neither do I, but he does make lots of accounts with long usernames. As for why MediaWiki's absurd character length, I don't know. I think a cap of 25 characters is fairly reasonable. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- A 25 character limit is reasonable.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 21:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- A 25 character limit is reasonable.—CheeseburgerPlate
- Neither do I, but he does make lots of accounts with long usernames. As for why MediaWiki's absurd character length, I don't know. I think a cap of 25 characters is fairly reasonable. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't count asstwats like him to be legit users. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- About half the Grawp-style usernames. Look through the user creation log. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- who would *ever* make an account with even more than 30 characters? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- A quick engine search tells me that MediaWiki can support to 255 characters. >.> --It's-a me,
- If I remember correctly MediaWiki has a limit, it's just really, really big. Christopher (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- A quick look at the user list shows that long account names are almost always associated with a spammer or troll. A 20-25 character limit seems perfectly reasonable. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think 20-25 characters is reasonable enough. Though that's my having 15 characters to begin with. --It's-a me,
- If I remember correctly most sites with username limitations have a max limit of 16 to 20 characters. Comrade GC (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mods can spend some time trying to rename users. I'm aware that very long usernames are never practical for anyone but I'm not sure what kind of limit we should impose here, if we even should. --It's-a me,
- I made a filter blocking all usernames longer than 25 characters, if there's a better way of doing it, feel free to do so but this should work fine. Christopher (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- A whole two minutes of work down the drain, it doesn't work. The only reason I can think of is that it doesn't register the account you're trying to create as your username, it still treats your IP as your username. It'll probably have to be done by changing the MW configuration. Christopher (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I made a filter blocking all usernames longer than 25 characters, if there's a better way of doing it, feel free to do so but this should work fine. Christopher (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
(reset) What about the potentially reasonable contributors who are a supporter of derivatives of anti-disestablishmentarism (and others of that ilk) and the person attempting to revive [28]? Anna Livia (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's a handy template for that, it's
{{outdent}}. And to answer your question, they are told that the name's too long so they can think of something shorter. It's not a huge obstacle. —Kazitor, pending 11:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)- Should the warning explain that they can pick a short username and ask for their first choice at RW:Requests to change username if they're a legitimate user with a name of, say, 26 characters or thereabouts (which is still a bit long, but not that disruptive). Christopher (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This was good work! Can someone figure out what MediaWiki text should be edited to inform users of the length limit? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato, you mean MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-toolong? Christopher (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- The two words and their derivatives are known as pseudo-synonyms for 'very long word.' Persons using such terms are unlikely to be trolls. Anna Livia (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Since I can name at least 2 (semi) regular users with objectional usernames that are way shorter than 25 chars and no one seems to bat an eyelid about, i can safely say this is a waste of time. for bonus points im not going to name them - why single them out when no one else cares? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not going to stop all of them, but it will make it hard to have usernames along the lines of "[insert harassment target here] is a whore/deserves to die" etc. Plus long usernames clog up recent changes massively on mobile. Christopher (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Beat me to the punch @Christopher. Comrade GC (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- It would also be a good thing if mods and techs, who have the power to oversight or change objectionable usernames, actually did this. Readymade (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- what exactly did we lose by doing this, may i ask? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- It would also be a good thing if mods and techs, who have the power to oversight or change objectionable usernames, actually did this. Readymade (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Beat me to the punch @Christopher. Comrade GC (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Everyone above is wrong and I, the smart person, am right[edit]
This problem does not require a technical solution. Ban, rename if necessary, move on. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not necessary, but it does make everything easier. Christopher (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nice to see that it's working. Let's look at those Grawp-y usernames:
20:50 . . User account IWant2MakeCLersCry (talk | contribs | block) was created
20:46 . . User account BullyingC-leadersIsFun (talk | contribs | block) was created
20:43 . . User account I Hate Cheerleaders (talk | contribs | block) was created
- The recent edits summary as a result is far less annoying. Thanks everyone!—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 20:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- The filter managed to catch four (gradually shorter) attempts in two minutes. All them are obvious trolls, no legitimate users have been caught yet (well, except for me testing it). I think it was a great idea. —Kazitor, pending 21:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Further suggestion: disallow questionable words[edit]
Either extend the filter, or create a new one, so harassment words like "hate" or "bitch" etc. aren't permitted. Perhaps even the word "is", that seems to be used a lot by trolls. —Kazitor, pending 21:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- That would also cause a lot of false positives -- consider somebody who has the name Isaac or something similar trying to sign up with a username based on their name, or even Smerdis of Tlön. It would require some really complicated code to try to ban only the word is, given that a troll could sign up in any sort of format -- trying to formulate a script that would block the troll names while saving okay names would be nigh impossible. These users would probably end up being blocked using this plan (bold), plus Grawp could come up with some ways to bypass the filter (italics):
- BullyingCheerleadersIsFun [grawp]
- BullyingCheerleadersisFun [grawp]
- IsaiahN [non-troll]
- Bullying Cheerleaders is Fun [grawp]
- Smerdis of Tlön [non-troll]
- Bullying Cheerleaders Is Fun [grawp]
- Bullying Cheerleaders iz Fun [grawp]
- Isaac Smith [non-troll]
- It's Fun to Bully Cheerleaders [grawp]
- It'sFunToBullyCheerleaders [grawp]
- ItsFunToBullyCheerleaders [grawp]
- MichaelDukakis4Prez [non-troll, though a few years late]
- IsabelG [non-troll]
- ItzFunToBully_cheerleaders [grawp]
- DaisyO [non-troll]
- DiamondDisc1 [non-troll]
- I Love Bullying Cheerleaders [grawp]
- While blocking " Is " and " is " would probably be fine, it would only slow him down a bit, and is probably pointless in terms of effort/reward. Spriggina (razgovor) (doprinosi) @ 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Kazitor The word "is" is one of the most common words in the English language, right up there with the word "the".
- Negligible save. He can use 1337 speak or just troll by creating pages. The username length limit was a good proposal by me, however, this one is not.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 04:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Negligible save. He can use 1337 speak or just troll by creating pages. The username length limit was a good proposal by me, however, this one is not.—CheeseburgerPlate
- @Kazitor The word "is" is one of the most common words in the English language, right up there with the word "the".
Proposed rules to govern AFD[edit]
RoninMacbeth proposed three criteria for deleting mainspace articles in September, under his proposed guidelines, at least two of these must be met for an article to be deleted:
- The article or topic is off-mission.
- The article is a stub with little to no chance of expansion.
- The article does not contain any sources, nor can anyone find sources for the claims within.
DiamondDisc (and presumably RoninMacbeth, if he hasn't changed his mind) both support this, I think it introduces bureaucracy that a wiki of our size doesn't need. What does everyone else think? Christopher (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- With this current model, I could make a well sourced and very long article, and it would never get deleted despite it hardly being missional. Heck, so long as the articles are long and well sourced, I could cover the following:
- Mr. Krabz from SpongeBob
- Sex pillows
- Animal prostitution
- Rubber duckies
- The history Super Mario 64's development
- How to have sex with a goat
- A page filled with Harry Potter fanfiction
- Seriously, missionality should be a requirement.—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 22:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Leave them as guidelines, but not set-in-stone rules. They might be useful for determining what sort of things can go, but shouldn't dictate it. —Kazitor, pending 22:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Non-missionality should be grounds for automatic deletion. As cheeseburgerface says, under these rules we could all write long, well-referenced articles about string or Danielle Steele or local house prices. AfD isn't perfect (although it's better than the previous arrangement), but this isn't an improvement. Readymade (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Correct. We don't need discussion for deleting articles that are obviously non-missional. Sysops currently have the capacity to delete articles with impunity that are obviously off mission, extremely small stubs, spam, doxing, harassment, legal threats etc. This is entirely reasonable. AFDs should be reserved for articles that are shortish and haven't been expanded, or articles that could be missional if someone put in the effort, and the like. Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think those 3 points have always been pretty much what I've had in mind every time I've nominated an article for deletion anyway. Obviously, as far as missionality goes, I've always nominated articles that I thought were kind of borderline. I thought they were off-mission but I wanted to know what other users thought. Anything that's obviously off-mission I've always killed on sight. But, yeah, I'd have to agree that those 3 points should be "more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules", me hearties! Spud (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Glad to see we could work this out.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think those 3 points have always been pretty much what I've had in mind every time I've nominated an article for deletion anyway. Obviously, as far as missionality goes, I've always nominated articles that I thought were kind of borderline. I thought they were off-mission but I wanted to know what other users thought. Anything that's obviously off-mission I've always killed on sight. But, yeah, I'd have to agree that those 3 points should be "more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules", me hearties! Spud (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Correct. We don't need discussion for deleting articles that are obviously non-missional. Sysops currently have the capacity to delete articles with impunity that are obviously off mission, extremely small stubs, spam, doxing, harassment, legal threats etc. This is entirely reasonable. AFDs should be reserved for articles that are shortish and haven't been expanded, or articles that could be missional if someone put in the effort, and the like. Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Non-missionality should be grounds for automatic deletion. As cheeseburgerface says, under these rules we could all write long, well-referenced articles about string or Danielle Steele or local house prices. AfD isn't perfect (although it's better than the previous arrangement), but this isn't an improvement. Readymade (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Leave them as guidelines, but not set-in-stone rules. They might be useful for determining what sort of things can go, but shouldn't dictate it. —Kazitor, pending 22:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
People already use those rules, they're just not explicitly stated right now. Just change "at least two" to "at least one" and it's the same as the status quo. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Reads the fourth possibility. Don't give LGM any ideas! 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Is LGM a fan of rubber ducks? :P Spriggina (razgovor) (doprinosi) @ 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Bigs I WANT to create a funspace on the Mario game series because it has a ton of weird insane things like Wario dealing with the devil, Mario tipping over the Twin Towers, Mario praying to a Koran, Mario being a Vietnam soldier, and Hitler and World War II apparently being in the same universe as Mario's world. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Bigs I WANT to create a funspace on the Mario game series because it has a ton of weird insane things like Wario dealing with the devil, Mario tipping over the Twin Towers, Mario praying to a Koran, Mario being a Vietnam soldier, and Hitler and World War II apparently being in the same universe as Mario's world. --It's-a me,
- OK, so how about an article must be off-mission to be deleted, and the other two are grounds for merging/redirecting. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Then someone could write a factually inaccurate two line stub on an authoritarian monarch (therefore missional) of a country that no longer exists who ruled in the 7th century BC and it couldn't be deleted because there's nothing to merge it with. If it ain't broke don't fix it, keep the rules as they are. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Jesus as a Mary Sue[edit]
The title text of some Wondermark comic said "Rudolph is a clasic Mary Sue. But then again, so is Jesus". This got me thinking, he really is one.
- He can perform miracles
- He loves everyone
- Everyone loves him
- He's literally related to God
- He's in heaven
And the thing about Mary Sues is that they're always author insertions in fan fictions. Thus, we can conclude that the writer(s) of the New testament saw the Old testament and thought, "I want to write a fanfic of this, and place myself as the son of God!" And being author insertions, they attempted to do away with all the meanness and be all-loving. —Kazitor, pending 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh gods and goddesses above and below!!! It all makes sense now!!! Comrade GC (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- OH MY GOD!—CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 21:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- But - not enough opportunity for some of the sub-genres of fanfic. Anna Livia (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- 😮-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- But - not enough opportunity for some of the sub-genres of fanfic. Anna Livia (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- OH MY GOD!—CheeseburgerPlate
It also explains the part where God and Satan are sparkly vampires and they make out. 90.222.130.219 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which Bible translation you're using, but that's certainly not in any of the ones I've read. Christopher (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)