RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive288

This is an archive page, last updated 12 September 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Happy solstice

As significant as you find such an event. Hopefully it starts to warm up a bit now :)

And a question for anyone who knows: is it colder in Winter mainly because the Sun's lower or because the days are shorter? I suspect the former more than the latter. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's because the sun's lower. Evidenced by the fact that a 24 hour day in Antarctica is still deathly cold. Dysklyver (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected as much. The Sun also has to go through more atmosphere, does that matter significantly? —Kazitor, ^pending 10:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. I am not aware of any serious attempt to find out, but it is sometimes mentioned as a "less important factor", normally when discussing atmospheric pollution, which can reflect sunlight back into space. If you dig deeper you will find that polar regions get indirect sunlight, which causes the heat to be more spread out (covering a larger area with the same amount of heat). Which is why both poles are always colder than the equator. see this and this graphic. The sun being lower therefore, is as much about the energy being more spread out as the energy source being further away. Dysklyver (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I get how the energy is spread out. Just wondering which particular aspect has the greatest effect. —Kazitor, ^pending 13:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

'In point of fact Dysklyver's first link mentiones this and says: "The other factors, which are less important, include:-a) Absorption and scattering of sunshine when passing through the atmosphere ..."

But it occurs to me that the atmosphere will also have a warming effect because - well - trapping heat is one of the things an atmosphere does. But it seems clear that of all the positive and negative heating effects, the angle of incidence is the most important.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A lower Sun has to pass through more atmospheric layers, so more radiation will be absorbed (remember how at midday you can feel its heat, but (much) less when it's low in the sky or setting), and as you go north/south depending of the month (December/June respectively) it will be lower and lower so less heat will give, and in addition to that days are shorter and shorter until there's first just dusk-like clarity and later night. I suspect the former, since there're December days in which you can have temperatures of 15 Celsius or even more despite the few sunny hours and temperatures at night dropping quite fast. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

All of this reminds me of my electromagnetism class where our professor would ask many interesting questions (often only tangentially related to EM). Anyways, there is also an interesting phenomenon, where the hottest days of the year often come in July and the coldest in January, after the solstice; I suspect that the insolation afforded by the atmosphere also provides an impedance that resists changes in temperature. In essence the atmosphere acts like an inductor in an AC circuit that produces an associated lag in current. I'm not an expert in atmospheric dynamics though, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Samstr (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, summer is the worst season. Count Bezukhov (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Solstice! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A little comedy. Introducing RZ94's prescription for terrible politician removal: Vote-Em-Out!

(I won't lie, I actually feel emotional distress for the argument I started on immigration the other day. I truly apologize for sounding racist. I feel I upset the RW family).

Got terrible politicians making America look bad? Use Vote-Em-Out!

Vote-Em-Out is good at getting rid of foul mouth politicians such as Donald Trump. It also works on idiots in Congress! Want to get rid of far right and or far left politicians? Take Vote-Em-Out!

Vote-Em-Out is taken via election ballot and it is administered in the ballot box.

Use Vote-Em-Out!

Side effects include competent leaders. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I honestly was unaware until you made light of it. From my two years on here, RationalWiki users aren't cut-throat people. A lot of us are liberals, but we aren't assholes.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

>far left politicians

>america

mfw Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 21:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

>Uses 4chan-styled '>' in message

>Doesn't use green ink

—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace I think this might be a bad time to mention that I'm not a liberal. What do you think? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't really care what ideology you are. It's not like we're dating or anything.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

oh no, what are you? Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 21:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Spriggina Just your garden variety Social-Democrat, and Socialist, with a (very) slight Capitalist tilt. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I would consider social democrats to be a variety of liberal, but whatever floats your boat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 22:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Spriggina I consider them to sit somewhere between Neoliberals and Socialists. Besides, as I said I'm closer to Socialism than Neoliberalism. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Many of these political terms seem to have dozens of different operational definitions that vary from person to person. That's why I find it more useful to explicitly state what political positions one holds as opposed to using an existing term. Samstr (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

When I feel I ruffle feathers (figure of speech), my brain goes into panic mode.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you have bad anxiety, no? You might want to look into methods of calming yourself down. In any case, I'm more concerned about the topic clogging the recent changes than anything in this conversation. What does this say about me?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have anxiety from time to time^{— Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs}

First past the post is a problem here (in America). When your options are limited to two parties that are pandering to the staunchly conservative, you're voting for or against evangelical theocracy and that's about it. It pushes the left so far right that it's hard to call them left. Sucking it up and voting anyway is something I would do, but it hurts, and I don't blame anyone else for not doing it. Telling me to vote in a red state is kinda like telling me to go f*** myself if I don't like the current political landscape in America. If you don't have a solution to the red/blue anti-labor pro-private insurance pro-hedge fund (hyper capitalist) mentality then I'm not gonna want to vote for you either, brah. Stop being an a**hole and recognize the fact that America is pro-CEO and anti-labor, and we think God ordained that order.GoshDarn (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for going off so hard, but I am so tired of the implied guilt trip that America as a whole voted in their worst politicians. It's not wrong, but it's not that easy to solve either. Ranked voting is being tested in the more liberal states. It'll get around to mine about the time marijuana is legalized, I imagine. GoshDarn (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Kathy Forth and less wrong

I heard about some #MeToo drama. While I could read the an extremely long suicide note, I'm not going to (I don't want to ruin my day). But to my understanding, the community is toxic and harasses women. It feels like this is so widespread at this point...—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

So basically the thing to understand about #metoo is that a lot of it involves a few sexual predators who might hopefully get stuffed in jail. But on the whole it is a feminist platform to achieve better employment rights for women, particularly in the entertainment industry. Which is to say that over time everyone will get used to it and not worry too much, because the pervs will be in hiding/jail, and there will be laws or moral attitudes to deal with it. Until that happens I am just going to wait and see if it gets to include men as well, the problems in the spotlight are not particularly gender exclusive and could do with a through removal. Dysklyver (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, what? Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 00:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dysklyver I know what the #MeToo movement is. The thread is about the Less Wrong situation.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 00:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Like I kinda wanna know a summary of what went on and I'd rather not read a 15 paged suicide note.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 00:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain what happened? This thread doesn't make any sense to those not familiar with LessWrong's community. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to read or understand what's going on for the sake of my wellbeing but I googled around and found these:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8sjxm9/serious_twitter_thread_by_someone_detailing_their/
• https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/175149874331/hello-im-someone-who-is-in-the-rationalist
• https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8sp5sz/followup_to_my_thread_on_kathy_forth_abuse_and/
• https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/175147222856/im-having-this-horrible-dread-and-confusion-and

I have not read any of these links but they should give you a good grasp on the situation. —ClickerClock (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Damn my inclination to emotionally self harm. I'm reading about the situation. Someone please distract me so I don't have a breakdown. —ClickerClock (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@ClickerClock Look over here! Um... read this, that'll keep you distracted for a while. —Kazitor, ^pending 05:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. —ClickerClock (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This is why I wanted someone to summarize it for me. I hope you're better now.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 17:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGBiAMr5HT4

This is a video of a baby crow. I might be late but if you're feeling down, please watch. :3 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Bah, crows are boring. You need a magpie :) —Kazitor, ^pending 00:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting magpies! I usually see them as sleek and long-tailed in the U.S. (though I don't see them in person). Either way, they're plenty adorable. I love the corvid familiy! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Those are Australian magpies (juveniles, specifically) which are Artamidae and objectively better. —Kazitor, ^pending 06:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I just love them all. I'm a sucker for birds. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

But are you a sucker for the irresistible melody of a Cockatoo? —Kazitor, ^pending 07:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

—ClickerClock (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

So cute. I like the way he moves and bobs when he's screaming. It's endearing. I hear that cockatoos are very sweet animals. I myself have a cockatiel and she can get pretty shrill. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

yeah, all this was amazingly terrible. I've been watching these guys since 2010 and this is actually worse than I thought it was. In particular, a lotta these particular guys were involved in MetaMed, though there's nothing sufficiently citable to mention there - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I skimmed the descriptions briefly. Should we include it in the Less wrong article? Also, Less wrong should be renamed "morally wrong". Bud-dum tsssh.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 14:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

If you're feeling suicidal

Please contact a helpline, talk to someone. —ClickerClock (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Suicide contagion is real so I want urge anyone in need to reach out. After skim/reading those links, I took a nap (ended up a 7 hour "nap") and woke up suicidal. I'm fine now. So please if you are feeling vulnerable, talk to someone. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1-800-273-8255, suicide hotline. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Some text

We need to put this total irrelevance from the Seán Manchester page somewhere. Does he deserve his own page?

I think he deserves a page even if only for the hilarious title picture on the article. How can any amount of snarky debunking further undermine his argument than that hat with the skull in the background? Samstr (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible competition

In March 2013, self-appointed bishop Ralph Napierski was nabbed by Swiss guards after attempting to enter a gathering of cardinals at the Vatican. Wearing fake bishop’s vestments, Napierski claims to be head of an obscure Catholic order he calls "Corpus Dei" and to have invented "a system to enable persons to control computers with the power of thoughts". Nick Squires,Fake bishop tries to sneak into Vatican meeting The Telegraph Benn (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

no 👏 references 👏 on 👏 talk 👏 pages Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 20:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

He and Corpus Dei have websites - and there are many other references in reputable and other websites (some at a high angle to reality). Anna Livia (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

He seems relevant to me. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Free Woo Weekend!

On the offchance you have some braincells you want to punish, the pay-per-woo website GaiaTV is allowing people to see their videos FREE this weekend! (Because I doubt anyone here would PAY for this stuff.) --Gulik (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The guided meditation and yogas videos are alright for relaxation, but the first one is awful for guided yoga because it goes to fast. @ClickerClock, I would recommend watching the meditation videos if you're still worked up.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 17:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What's with the New Age thing for "Gaia", anyway? Count Bezukhov (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

We've got a page for it, @Count Bezukhov: Gaia hypothesis, and it's actually fairly good. Bongolian (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, @Bongolian. Count Bezukhov (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft: namespace should be live

Absentee sysadmin here. Per the RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive281#Idea:_draft_namespace rough rambling agreement, I just got pinged that this hadn't been pushed in months. So I just did. I dunno, write stuff - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! —Kazitor, ^pending 09:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick refresher for those who have forgotten or don't know: the idea is that missional stubs that are up for deletion can be moved to a draft page, and also if you're drafting an article but want others to work on it, it can be in the draft namespace so it doesn't look like your own subpage. Meanwhile it won't show up in normal searches and can't be accessed by Special:Random. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice! —ClickerClock (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative to DoNotLink

It's called unv.is it acts like a convenient mirror with read mode. It only mirrors articles, so don't try it with the home page or with pages with a bunch of javascript. Example with alt right blog. —ClickerClock (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing visible matter

Apparently about a third of visible matter that the math said should exist was missing, but they figured out where it is recently. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 06:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting, but still only constitutes an observation of missing baryonic matter. Baryons are particles composed of three quarks, for practical purposes you can consider baryonic matter to be stuff where almost the all mass comes from protons and neutrons (i.e. atoms). Dark matter (which is postulated as being more exotic than baryonic matter) is still an open question. Samstr (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I object to the image caption: "a quasar, or supermassive, ultra-luminous black hole." Black holes don't give off light (not directly nor in significant amounts,anyway); their accretion disks do. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

bow to the astral magick of juan posadas motherfuckers

or you will be crushed by the revolutionary techno-primitivist agrarian proletariat collectivist weight and your children will be raped and murdered unless they give their soul to jim jones, god socialist over all the world! you decadent liberal pansies with your individualist burger munching ways are bound to lose against revolutionary armies trained in a satanic mission to kill and destroy all our enemies. the spirit of comrade foday sankoh will surge through as we crush your democracy and human rights. no lives matter. IlorinThunder (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This, too, is ugly to the highest possible extent. (Dammit, why don't we have {{superlative}}?) —Kazitor, ^pending 05:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

IGNORANT BOURGEOISIE!!!!!!! You dare threaten members of the True Revolution!?!?!!?!?!?!?! The Educated Proletariat shall crush your pitiful lies (no doubt propagated by Emmanuel Goldstein and his pitiful "Brotherhood") and spread the Truth!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL WILL BOW BEFORE THE GLORIOUS PARTY!!!!!!!!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

All of this is terribly amusing. I must remember to mention this to the rest of Illuminati Cabal #2308 when he have our weekly tea party this REDACTED about approving one of these. Could be fun to watch someone else try to take charge for a change. Kencolt (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Vote: Best editor

LeftyGreenMario	" 13
Spud	" 9
CheeseburgerFace	" 3
Kazitor	" 5
--san	" 1
Bigs	" 1
Christopher	" 1
ClickerClock	" 1
Kingdamian1	" 12
Reverend Black Percy	" 5
TheEOE	" 1
GrammarCommie	" 3
RoninMacbeth	" 2
Cosmikdebris	" 11
RobSmith	" 5
Ace McWicked	" 5

Rules:

1. Cannot submit yourself.
2. You are allowed to vote for yourself.
3. Ping those you volunteer as tribute.

@LeftyGreenMario @Spud @CheeseburgerFace @Kazitor @--san @Bigs @Christopher @ClickerClock @Kingdamian1 @Reverend Black Percy @TheEOE @GrammarCommie @RoninMacbeth @Cosmikdebris @Ace McWicked @RobSmith

vote's over —ClickerClock (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC) has already ended. (refresh)

Appreciated :) Been trying to do more anyway. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm also absolutely delighted to be one of the original four nominees. This has been a pretty good month for me. Spud (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

tfw zero votes.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 13:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

TFW all y'all forgetting I exist? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It's always nice to be recognized. Thank you! Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

To whoever make Kingdamian1 an option: thanks for all the memories. He was hilarious. EDIT: Holy shit he’s back. Christopher (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It's nice seeing that I'm doing my job as a moderator. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

we need some old guard goats in this list. What a Wonderful World (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Who the hell voted for me? — Saj ^∞ 23:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, why has no one voted for me? --RWRW (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Because you're not funny. And glad to know I'm on the poll. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If "funny" is an indicator of votes, I must be hilarious. :D --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Planet X conspiracy: New feces produced from the ass of conspiracy theorists

It seems Planet X went from a Mars sized rocky object to a gas giant to an entire fucking solar system (you read that right). Same excuses still apply. So how does NASA miss an entire solar system? I am sure it would be completely impossible to cover up knowing something like that would screw up the orbits of every other planet and every single moon and asteroid. So does the NWO intended on killing everyone with a telescope and basic physics knowledge? Talk about whacking almost every kid worldwide, that would be noticed too. So is Jesus going to ride on this mystical solar system with a lasso? By the way, last week was the Rapture. Talk about so many Raptures. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There used to be a legitimate theory about a brown/red dwarf in binary orbit with the Sun, which has since been discredited due to infrared mapping. So I doubt there would be an entire solar system we haven't noticed. If there is a Planet X, it's a Neptune-sized planet in a really elongated orbit. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Neptune is pretty big, I don't hold out for discovery of anything planet sized in our immediate vicinity. Anyway exoplanets are the big deal now, lots of those being found all the time now. Dysklyver (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m making my own conspiracy theory that “hyena” spirits control this world and cause some of its events for their amusement. They created the concept of chasity to laugh at the pious when they slip up, pure entertainment. They also created religion to watch ppl debate over it. Join me and worship the hypersexual goddess Ọṣun, who isn’t exactly a god by western standards. It’s time we humans stop getting laughed at, and instead laugh with the spirits. BobRoss (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What I want to know is why NASA might possibly see it in the first place. Isn't that the job of astronomers? NASA ≠ absolutely everything to do with space ever. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

NASA's space telescopes are among the most likely instruments to detect these unknown distant objects. But by no means do they have a monopoly. Dysklyver (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Planet X" being an entire Solar System thing is nothing new having been around since 1976 (see also here and gaze at the BS if you dare), which should give a hint about the credibility of those people and especially their knowledge of astronomy

As for stars approaching dangerously to our Solar System, they give ample warning, of thousands of years or more (see more). Rogue planets are much more different to detect than stars, but with so many professional observatories outside US and NASA's evil reach, not to mention millions of amateur astronomers who often own gear professionals would envy, they'd be detected far away and good luck attempting to hide that). Panzerfaust (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC).

The fake totally real and legit New World Order will have to whack plenty of people which sure will be noticeable. Not sure why they would care if all planetary orbits would be disrupted by the Planet X solar system. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Just out of interest, is this Planet X/Solar System X supposed to be inhabited by aliens? Dysklyver (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the Hercolubus article. In some versions it will have them. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Confession

I am the culprit behind the Fake biography spammer sockfarm [1]. -Fake biography spammer (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That really is truly ugly and quite fervently fascinating. —Kazitor, ^pending 12:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I always suspected it was one user. @Fake biography spammer, Why were/are you doing it? Will you continue doing so?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 02:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Or they are just a troll, trolling the easily trolled. Dnft AMassiveGay (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It was worth it just to read this random sentence from Kazitor, "That really is truly stupid and quite haphazardly fascinating." Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to produce a few good ones. —Kazitor, ^pending 05:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I just thought I needed to confess my crimes, but it is unlikely I will stop. Hope you all like spam! Fake biography spammer (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

To the people in the Midwestern United States- be ready for a heatwave

It is going to get toasty this weekend. Stay cool, stay hydrated and have sunscreen. https://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/metro-detroit-weather-dangerous-heat-wave-still-on-track

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sunscreen is harmful especially in large amounts, use something called shade. BobRoss (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

beats the shit out of skin cancer though AMassiveGay (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Is Trump's "good old Global Warming" finally here? Count Bezukhov (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Stupid physics, not letting heat be turned into electricity directly.

I always wondered, if you compress air into liquid, that generates heat. So let's say you use a bunch of compressors to boil water and produce electricity, but then take the liquified air and, say, pumped it under a lake to boil the liquid nitrogen and such to also generate electricity, would you be absorbing enough energy from the lake such that you produced more electricity than the compressor used? CoryUsar (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It would violate a laws of thermodynamics, so it wouldn't work. See: Perpetual motion. Bongolian (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Also see Free energy. Actually, you might need the latter to run the pumps for the former so the former can generate the latter and my freaking head hurts. Kencolt (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

But you aren't creating energy from nothing. The idea is that you use up the energy of the water in the river or lake, and so you take heat out of the system and into electricity. I know it wouldn't work, but I don't know why exactly. How much energy do you use to create 1 litre of liquified air, or 1 kg of liquified air or whatever, assuming you recycle as much as you can from using the extra heat to generate power? How much energy do you gain from boiling said liquified air with nothing more than the heat from water?

Yes, it hurts my head too...

Few pumps, more like gates. You have a lake, near the lake is a hole with the compressors, and at the bottom of the lake is the tank with the liquified air, with a large pipe to the top of the lake to let the gas out. The gates open and the water flows in, and gets boiled by compressors. The compressed air, now liquified, then flows into the tank at the bottom of the lake, where the heat from the lake warms up and massively increases the pressure in the tank, and is used to power a turbine of some form.

If nothing else, we could create a new section on this for the Perpetual Motion machine. Once someone here figures out the maths... CoryUsar (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

How did letting people know about the heat become a free energy debate or whatever it is?

Cannot really complain, no problem. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's called a saloon bar, what do you expect? Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you idea how much potential energy I could generate if I could harness the power of an outdoors thermometer? Have you?

No, seriously. Have you? because I haven't got a clue, but it goes up and down a lot, and that has to be good for something other than telling myself "Nope, ain't gonna go outdoors today, nope nope nope." Kencolt (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I remember this happening before. Funny if you think about, I mean human nature. Go from one topic to another. As for free energy, it is a load of shit. Energy escapes and diminishes. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

My fault. Sorry, not sorry. I'm still trying to figure out how much electricity you generate from using ambient heat to boil liquid nitrogen. CoryUsar (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

How much energy would be generated by RW saloon bar debates? Anna Livia (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Less than the energy of smashing the keyboards. CoryUsar (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Depends how much energy you use to do that I guess. Anyway I have the secret to free energy, simply drive down the road and nick some solar panels... Dysklyver (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

How to create a black hole

Managing to get every single user to have the same opinion on a political topic. There would be so much energy produced. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not even that, as the density of stupidity present on certain sites/radio stations/books despite being so high that is hard to measure is unable to cause a collapse into a black hole (some weird quantum gravity effect, I guess). Panzerfaust (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes the moron equation : $stupidity=gravity^{3}$ the cubed gravity created by the super-dense moron particles present in the bodies of proponents of certain sites/radio stations/books has unique quantum effects and draws energy from the dark side of the force abundance of dark matter. Dysklyver (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

An anniversary

A few minutes more than one year ago, I registered an account on this site. Not sure what to make of that. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, absolutely nothing. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This calls for absolutely nothing ... but HUGS.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 18:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

'The other place' has a 10 Year Society. Anna Livia (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this really just simple editing?

We walk our path by destroying illusions so this post would fit anywhere. This is going to make me sound crazy because what I will say is unbelievable. You must see it yourself. Nearly every picture (still or moving) presented by the mass media uses one face playing multiple roles.

Train your eye by comparing facial features one at a time from the same angle. Some are easy to see others it takes more experience. Google image the cast from any tv program or any movie. Do same with rock bands, beauty contests, supreme court, etc. Basically anything presented by the media. Start with still pictures. Moving pictures require you to look at a facial feature and remember what it looks like and the angle then wait for another character presented from the same angle.

Notice fake lighting and shadow and redness. These are used to change appearance. Notice the number of blurry and grainy pictures and faces presented from different angles. Notice how moving pictures rarely present two or more faces from the same angle at the same time. When you can’t compare features take note why because you will see it constantly.

I started comparing faces over 35 years ago and I have no doubts what I see. I can help you jump start this training with more things to look for if you like.

The above comment was made and I thought to myself that this doesn't seem anything more complex than simple editing or movie magic. The more I read it the more it just starts to sound like rambling nonsense. Can anyone figure what he's getting at?Machina (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Well... the best I can figure...

The writer seems to be offering some sort of strange course in a sort of pareidolia. Instead of finding patterns and images that aren't there by chance, as even the most rational and logical person is wont to do (And who hasn't looked up at the sky and noted that that cloud looks like a bunny, and that one a horsy, and that one Donald Rumsfeld ?), he seems to be suggesting that you can train yourself to do this, deliberately, in a specific set of items (facial images) and with an intended target result.

Think of it like being able to have a Madonna-In-The-Sandwich sense of great accuracy, but instead of detecting religious imagery of doubtful provenance, you're able to detect signs of doubtful provenance that all lead to... someone. Note that the fellow you have quoted doesn't say (at least not in your except) who that someone is. Just that they're mostly the same face.

And this is kinda amusing to me, because the vast majority of the tin-foil hat brigade have enver needed any special training tos ee things that aren't there, but at least now they have the option. Kencolt (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You are telling us that what I say is known by all then you turn around and say I am wrong. And I know that you did not explore any of this. And I have little doubt that you are creating fog to keep the readers from exploring this themselves. I know what I am seeing and that allows me to know that you are blowing smoke and have a devious agenda. Like I said before no debate is necessary. The proof is right in front of our faces. And anyone who starts comparing faces will see enough within one to three hours to know what I am saying is true and at the same time will figure you out. Explain your movie magic that everyone knows about.

The magicians who control humanity and the world don’t want this info out there. If enough people train their eye the system will collapse. Over the years I have encountered many a dsino agent and fake opposition conspiracy sites who desperately try to shut this info down. I recognized you before I brought this info here. You have that distinct stink of disinfo psyop agent all over you.

The above is his reply, which promptly caused any shred of hearing out I was going to give him go out the window. This guy is clearly bonkers.Machina (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Machina, can you give me a link to some pics so I can see it for myself. I'd really appreciate that. BobRoss (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have pics. I humored this man and found his claim to be baseless.Machina (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Did this comment appear on actualized by any chance? I don't know why you hang around there. —Kazitor, ^pending 05:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m sad to say that it did and the guy ended up calling me some kind of Psyop agent trying to discredit him but that he has the truth on his side or soemthing the like that. I have never seen someone so off their rocker. What people can’t say you are wrong without being part of some conspiracy?Machina (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be how conspiracy theorists work @Machina, either because they're running a scam (Alex Jones) or because they actually are that insane/stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Use {{quotebox}} so I don't keep confusing a copied comment for your own words. —ClickerClock (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean I even gave him the benefit of the doubt and tested out his little whatever but it just doesn’t hold up. Despite me saying otherwise he assumes I’m wrong and some government agent trying to spread disinformation or that I have to “train myself”.Machina (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Like I said before, they do that. I was once accused (falsely, otherwise I'd be rich and have my own private island) of being a paid shill after calling out a Truther on their bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a psychology question relating to babies produced by rape (I am not a woman and obviously never experienced rape)

I have heard this before where women who were impregnated via rape and they keep them because they might see the baby as their only family or something along those lines. Why would this be? Not that I am judging because I don't understand the dynamics of sexual assault. Nor am I a psychologist. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 It could be condition similar (but not identical) to Stockholm syndrome. It could also be that they feel uncomfortable with (or are pressured out of getting an) abortion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not judge if a woman keeps or aborts a baby conceived by rape. I am just curious. I could only imagine the conflicting emotions that goes on in that type of situation. Maybe if that type of psychology is better understood then counselors can help women in that type of situation. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Classical liberals" on Twitter

I keep seeing right-wing shitlords on twitter describing themselves as "classical liberal". Currently here CL is a redirect to Political spectrum, but maybe it deserves a closer look, if only to counter the latest fucknugget euphemism. Boredatwork (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, old school liberals from the age of Enlightenment (and Arab intellectual predecessors) would be considered conservative reactionaries by Western popular front/intersectionality type politics today. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

indeed - in the UK the Adam Smith Institute was a Conservative Party think tank. etc. Any road, the current "classical liberals" on twitter seem less interested in free-market economics (CLism's mainspring) and more in outspoken hostility to diversity and social change. they just call themselves something grand and old as a cover for their petty spite. Boredatwork (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you elucidate their positions more? I'm not in the West so I don't know. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Just as an aside, The Adam Smith institute is way to the right of the historical Adam Smith who advocated universal free education, progressive tax brackets, mandates against harming the common good, and recognized the runaway positive feedback loops that existed in capitalism(and the Mercantilism he was rejecting). They've done multiple articles on how "nuh uh if you read it with the bible code wealth of nations totally supports defunding schools". The right is, in its current state, just without merit on almost any point. The left leaves a lot to be desired, but there's not this most-unthinking-idea-is-always-right kind of overpowering ideology. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft space

Draft space now has articles in it (e.g., Draft:Kristnaska Viro and Draft:Modes of learning). How does one find out everything that is in Draft space, so as to improve them help move them into main space? Bongolian (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian head to all pages. I suppose it would be possible to make a rationalwiki:something page that lists them all. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, just stick {{Special:AllPages|namespace=112}} on a page to list them. RationalWiki:Drafts? —Kazitor, ^pending 07:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sure there will be more drafts, I put two in there, drafts chould be created to start wanted pages topics as well. Dysklyver (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Nonduality?

http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/what-is-nonduality/ https://nonduality.org/what-is-nonduality/ https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/grand-narratives-unplugging-from-the-big-story/

The last one is something that I am not sure what to make of, as well as the idea overall. The last link seems to suggest that our narratives shape the world but limit us, which makes me think social constructs. But the degree to that is true is something I have reservations about. The first link seems like a mock interview in which the guy answers none of the questions being asked.

But in regards to the narrative, is "nonduality" really truth or just another story that we tell about the world, albeit one that gives peace and "wholeness" (whatever that means)?Machina (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Churches and younger generations: Some thoughts

If people want to go to church, fine and dandy. Now I have heard many times from church planting books and sites of heavily declined church attendance. It is agreed that churches do not appeal to younger generations. There are plenty of teens/young adults who are Christian by are put off by mainstream churches. How can you get young people to attend when you only use sermons and activities used in the past plus have homophobic views? Pastors complain yet are unwilling to make changes. Now at the Lutheran church in town they have services that appeal to both older and younger generations, they have high attendance rates. If you are unwilling to make changes then attendance will go down to the point that churches cannot even pay the light bill. Thoughts? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

To put this in business terms you have to be willing to adjust your marketing strategies over time in order to maintain a steady stream of patronage. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

But don't get too radical with the marketing or you will look very silly, or something... Dysklyver (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I know many churches where I live are very homophobic. Case and point- Mount Hope Church. Their slogan is "Come as you are" yet if you are LGBT, support evolution or do not dress formal, you get looked down upon. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

frankly when it comes down to in church is essentially an excuse for regular social gatherings. I'm surprised they haven't found a way to benefit from thatVorarchivist (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@VorarchivistSome churches host social events outside of services, for example the boyscouts/cubscouts, or potlucks. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that has really changed in recent years is that church attendance is no longer socially expected of people. The people who want to go to church go to church. The ones who don't want to don't. Frankly, that's the way it should be; as a Christian who goes to church, I would rather my church be half full of people who are genuine than full of fakers. What a Wonderful World (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Another thing is that it seems like a lot of parents these days flat out don't give a dog's tail about their kids (I'm especially referring to the type who never feed their children at home, relying solely on the school cafeteria to feed their children them and the school nurse to take care of injuries that occur at home), and the kids might become aware of Christianity through someone at school, finding a tract, or being given a Gideon Bible and want to go to church but simply don't know where to go or how to get there. What a Wonderful World (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

yeh fuck poor people. bunch of freeloaders AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel like you changed from talking about a legitimate explanation to "da evul atheists". 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

For a non-USA perspective. Where I live virtually no young people go to church and the poor guys in the priesthood can't retire because no young people want to be priests. Unless it's a marriage or whatever any given church will be almost empty and full of the grey, the bald and the infirm. In a very literal sense the church is dying. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Another non-US perspective: Same as Bob's comment except that it happens also for baptisms, communions, etc, but 'cause people is used to celebrate them there. You can find (somewhat) younger people on Sundays (and touristic churches and cathedrals but for very different reasons), but the rest of the week are almost empty and full of elderly people. Evangelical churches are the only that seem to be growing, but because they came with inmigrants and usually just cater to them -the issue is that Biblical literalism and what it entails is there-. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

people dont always get married in churches these days. the last two i attended, one was a country house the other was at tower bridge. in the tv show 'dont tell the bride' no one opts for a church weddingAMassiveGay (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Not even in "Catholic" Spain. Loads of people opt for civil ceremonies or just forget about such formalities entirely. Which is interesting, as that is a change that has taken place while I've been living here - about 20 years. (But I'm not claiming credit.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

so what you are saying is you killed jesus? i can read between the lines AMassiveGay (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about poor people, I'm talking about people who honestly don't care. There are children in this world who end up living with their cousin or their great aunt and uncle because their mom and dad don't want them, children whose parents won't answer the phone when the school calls because they don't want to talk to the school, children who endure child abuse at home, etc. I know this because my mother works for a public school. It may surprise you to learn that schools in more affluent neighborhoods apparently sometimes have more problems with this than schools in poor neighborhoods. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

it may surprise that people in affluent areas can struggle financially. and it may surprise you that they may not want advertise that fact or let you personally know they are are struggling. your original statement is nothing but blanket condemnation of the poor, and your follow up is more blanket condemnation with no consideration of what problems people may be having. its interesting that you dislike 'fakers' attending church, when you display what seems to me very to be very 'unchristian' views. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that all or most child abuse and child neglect happens because the kids' families are poor, but I'm the one who is "unchristian" or otherwise a jerk... Excellent logic! There are people in this world who rely solely on the cafeteria for bona fide financial reasons, then there are people in this world who don't feed the kids because they are too stoned to go to the store and cook meals or drive to McDonald's to get them something to eat. The former is understandable but the latter is repulsive. What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention, I am what you would call poor people myself; I make less than $20,000 a year and I live in the slum. I undoubtedly qualify for food stamps and Medicaid, and if I weren't blessed to own this piece of property I live in (which the taxes are delinquent on because I can't afford to pay them), I probably wouldn't have a choice but to be on those programs. Oh, but you probably think all fundies are affluent bastards driving Cadillac don't you... The suit I wear to church came from a clothing bin at a food pantry if that gives you an idea. What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There are people who convert to other religions because they are put off by churches. Where I live which has a large number of fundie churches, more people who live here express that they are part of Pagan/Wicca faith. Social change I guess. --15:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs}

Maybe people's sick of something that has been around for 2,000 years -much better said, the Fundies who keep hammering with it, cherry-picking what they want even if from our perspective does not make sense and other Biblical verses say the opposite-. The more I listen those evangelical radio stations with their threats of Hell from an all-loving God, Christianism not being a religion (but from the way they describe it is), and other BS the more I hate them. Panzerfaust (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

i cant really comment on what goes on in american churches, but my reading here in blighty, churches just have no relevance to peoples lives. there is not as much abject poverty so promises of paradise when your dead doesnt have the same allure while the intolerance of gays and sex and the like just doesnt gel with most peoples morality anymore. plus its just fucking boring in church. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There'll be next week here as has been for a number of years a massive celebration about gays and tolerance, and let's just say given the heavy flak the Catholic Church receives every time one of its members says something offensive against gays, etc. said evangelical churches are lucky nobody gives a fuck about them and what they say, since some of the stuff I've picked up there about gays, genre ideology, etc (this goes too for those preachers who are screaming their BS on the subway even if nobody listens to them and when someone says something is to order them to STFU). would give 'em trouble.

I guess also people will be sick of hearing ramblings about (most likely) fictional events that supposedly happened in a small corner of the world long ago, not to mention what happens there instead of the kind of stuff an omnipotent, etc. deity could inspire (ie: reflections about our place in the Universe and other similar insights). That the "word of God" does not change are more reasons to be disinterested Panzerfaust (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This is all bigotted crap. 87% of blacks report a religious affiliation. I guess blacks just aren't people in your world view. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 09:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@RobSmith You know that thing where right-wingers accuse left-wingers of seeking out perpetual offense at every little thing? Well I'm beginning to think that's a serious form of Psychological projection. By "people" we don't mean any specific group, but the entirety of the U.S. population. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh sure, now you wanna water down and suppress the vote, and deny their heritage and cultural identity. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 16:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That has literally nothing to do with what I just said. In addition, the fact that I could have replaced you with a bot that spouts procedurally generated nonsense and gotten much the same result says something about you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

PS:I will ask you again to please cease putting words in my mouth, at least if you wish to be taken seriously. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@RobSmith Um nobs, what in the flying fuck does that have to do with the actual topic? I am talking about younger generations, not race. Generation includes all social backgrounds and races. Why is it every time there is a discussion about what ever topic and some idiot (right or left wing) makes a topic into a race issue? Hey nobs, how about sticking to the topic at hand and not putting words into people's mouths. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@RobSmith. Fail. Blacks here come from mostly Africa and most likely are (don't know) Islamic, even if Evangelicals are also likely significant among them. The bulk of inmigrants are LatAms, who are either Catholics (most of them) or Evangelicals. There's a big world outside US. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nobs inserting non sequiturs? It couldn't be! —Kazitor, ^pending 09:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Leave it to nobs to bring something up with zero relevance to original discussions. Hell, what I said can be applied to churches outside the United States. The number of extremist evangelicals in places such as Syria drive away potential congregational members. I never once implied exclusion of other races. --22:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Aphelion this Friday/Saturday

On 2018-07-06, 16:47 GMT, the Earth will be at the point of its orbit furthest from the Sun at 1.0166961 AU. It'll be 2129 km closer than the average furthest distance. Don't stay up all night/get up early for it though as there won't be anything noteworthy to see. —Kazitor, ^pending 05:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's make up something that'll happen at that time then. The evil Jewish reptoids will come down to earth and knock the moon into it to crash the economy. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 06:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Naturally the tiny extra distance Earth will have is all they need to get us on an escape trajectory and towards their home system in Draco where they will consume our flesh and put us to work in their acid factories. —Kazitor, ^pending 06:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

In that order, no less. First we get eaten, then put to work. Well, that makes sense, bone stands up to acid a bit better then flesh does. Kencolt (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Earth at Farthest Distance From Sun—Why the Heat Wave? for all fans of scientific non-sequiturs. --Gospatric (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that the communist snow-zombies of Canada plan on applying tarrifs against their best friends (USA) on all donated blood and window shades crossing the border. Americans should brace themselves for economic shock while The USA's great leader's starts the TRADE WAR TO AMERICAN ECONOMIC VICTORY!!!!!! Starts one microsecond after the aphelion. Don't miss it. You'll wake up to a whole new world ShabiDOO 16:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)--

Any tariffs here? Anna Livia (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised so many people apparently think seasons are influenced by distance. Do they not know about opposing seasons either side of the tropics? —Kazitor, ^pending 05:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That's in 10 hours now, FYI. —Kazitor, ^pending 06:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Christianity is not a religion

It's quite funny, it isn't?. This must be the most over-used cliche of Evangelicals (I still have to find a pastor who does not say that stupidity) when they say "Christianism is not a religion", but they later talk about prayer(s), temples, talk about accepting Christ as your savior or else, that Jesus was killed by religion (to be fair, true), invite agnostic, atheists, pagan, etc. to join because it's not a religion, and more. Of course the issues raised on the article showing why that is bollocks are not even touched upon. Panzerfaust (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

When atheism is a religion but Christianity isn't. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Christianity is a religion by definition. If they have invented some branch of "Christianism" which is not a religion, then it is by definition a cult. No doubt I will add them to the list of unwelcome doorstep proselytizers when they show up. Dysklyver (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't experienced that argument. But then I don't spend my time in the company of evangelicals. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well I am yet to hear it either, but if I do they are going on the list with Mormons, Jehovah's, Scientologists, Wiccans, etc. Dysklyver (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's hilarious. The argument is a pile of evangelical bullshit. Among many other problems, people who say this fail to realize that their ministry will lose their tax-exempt status if they were legally declared to "not be a religion" Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This sorta relates to my post about churches and younger generations. These pastors say one thing about their religion and then completely contradict by saying another thing about their religion. If churches want more members then they should choose what their belief system is. That does get annoying. Reverend Zombie MDiv --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's the same as people who say "I'm spiritual but not religious", meaning, "I vaguely believe in some kind of God but can't be bothered with structuring my beliefs into any kind of system." --Gospatric (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bigs Or evolution/Big Bang, with some of them saying that we believe in those theories as if they were a religion, which I feel infuriating. Anyway, add to that saying "The Bible is not a religious book".

The most egregious part is when the pastor who loves most to say that invites agnostics/atheists -who left according him after being displeased with religion-, or followers of another faiths to join because "it's not a religion", ignoring why most people quit, and later says that you'd better not know what will happen if you do not accept Jesus, ask for prayers, etc. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent sockpuppetry

Best socks

Those grey itchy socks your Grandma got you for xmas	1	Vote
Those extremely thin and expensive socks that get holes after two days	3	Vote
Those disgusting wet socks you left in your wet shoes and is now 90% mold	0	Vote
Those socks you borrowed from someone of the opposite sex and keep forgetting to return (and secretly wear when no one is watching)	1	Vote
The hand knited socks that Canadians like to wear while having sex	3	Vote
Those socks with pads on the bottom that give you traction on wood floors and squeak when you walk	6	Vote
That pair of socks that got sucked into a black hole and yet the left one miraculously came back and now sits in your drawer as a trophy of your victory against the sock-monster-black-hole	16	Vote
Skanky used socks from a Red Hot Chili Peppers performance	3	Vote

^{— Unsigned, by: 95.121.250.166 / talk}

TED talk: Is the world getting better or worse?

Enjoy! Nerd (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

tl;dr version: nostalgia and bad memory paints the past as great, and the news paints the present as awful. Why is this video 20 minutes long?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 18:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Old guy with grey hair has nothing better to do for half an hour. He gets paid more for doing a full set perhaps. Dysklyver (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dysklyver Show some respect next time. He is both articulate and well informed. I'd rather hear him talk all day long rather than listen to someone edgy. Nerd (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The ted talk could have been 2 minutes. That's how badly it was padded. I do like the message, so thanks for sharing Nerd. Indeed, a lot of people have a negative perception of the world, especially since the election.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 18:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace Well, two minutes is not enough to present the evidence for his assertion. Remember, muckrakers are journalists doing their job, so of course you are more likely to read or hear about bad news. Nerd (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

20 minutes to pad out length and maybe something to do with Youtube's crappy policies. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario No, a typical TED talk is roughly this length. You can have much shorter YouTube videos. Nerd (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I know that. But for monetization schemes....? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I have AdBlock. But then again, what matters is how many people watch your videos and therefore the ads, not how long it is. Nerd (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason I thought video length was a factor because people were accusing the famous clickbait CinemaSins for padding video length with falsehoods related to the movie. So my brain figured, video length must be important to make otherwise substanceless videos. I have AdBlock too and I'm not going to remove it unless advertisers clean up their act. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I stopped watching that channel. At first I thought it was amusing but then it became more like edgy and whiny commentary than anything else. I find it worse than those condescending film critics. I'd rather watch the movie myself and form my own opinion, thank you very much. I love AdBlock! I'm never taking it off. :-) Nerd (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was amusing and pointed out legit inconsistencies and problems, but every single video had its own problems and misrepresented the film's problems. This kind of dishonesty doesn't sit well with me and massively detracts from the humor. I've seen critics of CinemaSins point out that it pads out its run length for clickbait, and the makers were experienced in the advertising and bait fields (if I recall correctly). So yeah, again, this is what made me wonder if length has anything to do with clickbait. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario It's good that you are maintaining a healthy degree of skepticism but please do not descend down the path of cynicism. Of course, this presenter naturally wants as many views as possible, but he is clearly being moderate and articulate. He is anything but sensational or ridiculous, regardless of whether or not you agree with him. Nerd (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ CinemaSins is like cracked.com, good for a laugh but not the best place to form opinions. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

My very much fundamentalist family actually thinks the short skirt/shorts fad is a sign of impending doom. Just one of the many things I deal with hearing. Just wait till they see my girlfriends, oh boy will that be a treat! BobRoss (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Bummer. Fundamentalist families sound like, well, a massive pain in the kiester. I was raised in a secular household. I don't think I would have survived church or reading the most boring yet infuriating book in the world. They also contribute to my cynicism and I have been called "negative" all my life. :( I had a rough time at school and family, particularly the latter despite not coming into any contact with Bible fundlers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 13:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

and furthermore

I am a long time Pinker fan and self-styled progressive. Alas,...Ariel31459 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Progressive" and "stephen pinker" have always been a goddamn lightyear's distance you fucking dishonest prick. I get you've never seen a reactionary pseudointellectual you haven't deemed a progressive intellectual, but come on. Mods, please feel free to run me off again by saying being rude to just the worst shits who do nothing but dishonestly concern troll is bad for discourse in a way that well, said dishonesty isn't, it's really infuriating to come back after months of politely leaving it alone, and seeing the exact same bullshit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Left pole calling. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC):

@Ariel31459 That's not how political views work, that guy has no fucking clue what he's talking about. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie "That's not how political views work." I have no idea what you mean. Some political views work, some don't. The video does not describe how political ideas work. It is about intolerant extremism. Pinker does not name anyone as intolerant. He decries intolerance. I agree with him. I'm not accusing anyone. I prefer to let them admit it themselves. I actually disagree with the heading "how progressives define right wing" because it is misleading. It was done by the channel owner. I generally support progressive ideas. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 How shall I put this... In the video Pinker (through subtext) describes the American left-wing of being extreme, more precisely he accuses academics of being extreme left wingers. This is an extremely fallacious claim given that in American political discourse one simply needs to tilt everything slightly rightward. In short Pinker heavily insinuates that academics are all socialists and/or communists (a common far-right trope, but by no means restricted to the far-right, given the nature of American political discourse), an extremely fallacious view. Even more disconcerting, you yourself then used that argument to attack @Ikanreed by using the video and it's content as a proxy. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Pinker claims that some of the important Universities are predominantly left-leaning. As a distinguished professor at Harvard and MIT, he is in a good position to know. I admit that I am not so positioned. He says the American left wing has an extreme and is not characterizing the left but objecting to the intolerant extreme left."In short Pinker heavily insinuates that academics are all socialists and/or communists.." No he does not. At no point does he attack any ideology at all, except to say that leftists seem to have become intolerant. I don't think he gives a fuck if you are a communist ( neither do I), he just wants you to be civil. As far as that person who referred to me as "you fucking dishonest prick," I think the reference is entirely appropriate: he is maliciously intolerant. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Let me put this another way, the left-wing in the U.S. is equivalent to the moderate right-wing in most other countries. Ergo, the extreme left in the U.S. is merely normal left-wing politics rather than the right-wing eschew version that is predominant in the U.S. And given that on the normal political scale Communism (or any variant thereof) is the very essence of extreme left, calling someone extreme left is the same as calling them Communists. Ergo, Pinker called American academics Communists. Whether he intentionally did so is debatable, but the fact that he did is not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Let's stop going around in circles here. Pinker's complaint about the far left: It is intolerant. This has nothing to do with any ideology. The criticism is not ideological. The fact that you have made it ideological is all about you. Your argument is presumptive and circular. Are Communists and socialists known to be viciously intolerant? I don't know. I see the extreme as something beyond socialism. I am sympathetic to many socialistic constructs. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I now understand why @Ikanreed is so fed up with you, you are flat out ignoring my points in favor of a heavily sanitized version of events that only exists inside your head. That is intellectually dishonest, and quite bluntly insulting to any readers' intelligence. And to claim I have made the matter ideological when I merely pointed out the flaws in Pinker's reasoning only damns your position further. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie"Damns your position further?" Really? I'm not mad about it, nor happy to see you seem to be upset. That was not my aim. I did not expect to change your mind but hoped to show you a different point of view. And that is what the video is about. Not communism, not socialism, certainly not about most university faculty, and not about whether some sociological theory is right or wrong: its about smart people, like you, who get upset when one disagrees with them who also happens to be an old lefty. I respect your work on this wiki, and I am a little surprised. As you were.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Long sigh.

It seems hard for you to grasp that this guy, from what I'm reading, is engaging in "same thing both sides" and "let's be civil to the far right reactionaries that keep exposing how ugly they are". Yeah, I am sure being civil to bigots (I hope I don't have to explain why that other side is filled with bigots) is going to make them stop accusing people like me as being communist marxist Nazi fascist socialist Muslims. No one is denying that left wing has an extreme. The thing is, he blanket characterizes the American left wing. And he is that guy who would be more than happy to characterize me as the intolerant left because I decried Trump as being racist sexist xenophobe (which isn't a label I use for people who merely disagree with me; I do hope I don't have to explain this) while his voter base are willing to overlook those, which makes them, to put it nicely, not in good taste.

P.S. GrammarCommie, you said "it's" wrong again... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 12:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's great if you want this to be primarily a political site, where science is a nice decoration for your directed ideas: unfortunately there isn't just the righteous (extreme) left and everyone else (bigots). Furthermore, a small set of people on the left don't get to decide who is on the left. Pinker is a moderate liberal. I am willing to wager he has never said anything good about Trump, and I would be shocked if he ever did. He tends to not express political opinions. This matter of the extreme left being intolerant is an exception. Pinker is one of the most respected scientists in his field despite what has been said about him out of irrational anger here in this thread--and you, yourself, have straw-manned the fuck out of him. He is a very popular science author. Your view of him is not well-received in the world. Very few people on this site have been uncivil to me personally for simple disagreements about the philosophy of science; not about whether social justice is good, and I believe it is by the way. One administrator has written, " you need to think about what you did to cause 'X' to respond to you like that." Enablers of abuse are all alike in that way. Fine. I regard it as a vaccination against more virulent effects. I don't really want you to change the way you feel about other people's ideas. That's your business..Ariel31459 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Three points.

1. Pinker's popularity is irrelevant to his case. That is a very blatant Argumentum ad populum.
2. My main critique was his usage of the far-right trope (note that I never actually accused him of being far-right, as the usage of tropes surpasses political positions) of accusing academia as a whole of being far-left.
3. And finally, you have once again completely ignored my point and accused me of making the issue "ideological" and "political". That is horseshit. It is not a "political" nor an "ideological" position to call out public figures for their mistakes and gaffes, but the responsibility of every adult on the planet. It is however, sadly lacking in our society due to our over-idolization of said public figures.

In short you lost this debate (to be clear I did not "win" since my points were not addressed, but instead ignored) the moment you refused to address my main argument, which I must apparently yet again call you out on. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Popularity among the public, and highly regarded experts establishes authority. So now, anonymous voices, like ourselves, know who has respect in science and as public intellectuals. It is above our pay grade to make pronouncements and expect them to carry any weight. Feel free to continue believing what you and a small number of others believe.
2. You claim that an idea can belong exclusively to one persuasion. It isn't even wrong: except that there is no such accusation of academia as a whole being far left. You must be thinking of Jordan Peterson. This is Steven Pinker, right?
3. I accused you of nothing. I said you were making the thing personal, which is a positional claim, not an accusation to be offended by. I see you are irritated so why not leave off? You are entitled to your feelings. I will agree to losing the argument. I don't care that much one way or the other. You can pick and choose scientists that you like and don't like. It doesn't affect the scientists nor the science.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Appeal to authority
2. Second video, 1:50 mark to the 2:05 mark. Doesn't matter who it is, you should never blindly accept someone's opinion without applying scrutiny to it. Everyone is wrong about something.
3. "The fact that you have made it ideological is all about you. Your argument is presumptive and circular."-You.

My apologies for having my hand forced like this, I truly wished to avoid humiliating you in public (or in private for that matter). And with that I end this renewed debate, and unlike you, will speak no further on the matter. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

RW celebrations due

I see that RW is 'a very few thousand' off 2 million edits, which should be achieved in the near future.

So how can the MP statement 'RW has reached 2 million edits' be made the 2 millionth edit? Most people wouldn't object to 'the necessary legerdemain.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Implement an extension/hack the source to lock down everything after edit #1999999, then let tmtoulouse make #2000000. May I ask where you found the total edits? —Kazitor, ^pending 11:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps 'do the pause' somewhat lower (and do the relevant number of tidy-ups etc) - as everybody who sees the magic number approach will pile in for obvious reasons.

I accidentally clicked on 'create new account' rather than 'sign in' (as I do not keep signed in) and there were several numbers (possibly trailing slightly).

Sometimes self-referential remarks can be amusing.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• For all you people that don't normally look, all the relevant RW stats are located at Special:Statistics. (this is the case with all MediaWiki sites). However this stat monitor is not always completely up to date. It says Page edits since RationalWiki was set up: 1,994,173 but unless someone locked the database and ran initsitestatitics.php to get an exact count, this might be off by a few edits due to cache and lag and such stuff. Dysklyver (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

And to clarify, the numbers on Special:CreateAccount are from Special:Statistics, generated by the same process. Dysklyver (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Would 'RW 2 Million Edits Today!' be more appropriate then?

Other wikis celebrate 'significant numbers' so RW can have a party too. Anna Livia (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It is an important milestone. Exactly how to celebrate is up for debate though, a sitenotice would be an option I suppose, but other less intrusive options are available. Dysklyver (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I leave the technicalities to those who know the mechanics to create something that can be quickly adapted (7000 content pages, 120 000 all pages and 60 000 registered users will be the next 'significants').

Discussing the subject will significantly improve the edit count. Anna Livia (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok so as an option I think we should talk about a sitenotice. This can be different for logged in and non-logged in users, but will display for everyone as a big banner at the top of the page. Logged in users will able to dismiss it. advantages are it's really obvious, disadvantages are it's really obvious. How visible do we want this to be? Dysklyver (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Going by the daily number of edits the 2 million mark will probably be reached sometime in August.

Perhaps keep the banner in any 'minor celebration' up for only a limited time - and consider 'legerdemain' to keep out the 'nuisances and silly stupid' for the relevant period of time - and some things will have to be done slightly obscurely so people are duly impressed when it occurs. Anna Livia (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I leave any further developments to 'the experts discussing things amongst themselves.' (And there are only a few occasions - apart from major technical updates and 'a swarm of fly-by nuisances - when a pause might be necessary.)

Would it be possible to have a 'time delay' on updates actually appearing - so there are 'X updates at the same time' (so everybody can think they did the actual 2 millionth edit). Anna Livia (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

need higher heels?

If the wage gap weren't bad enough, there is thisAriel31459 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not even a woman and those things making my feet recoil. #banheels Dysklyver (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that theory holds up @Ariel31459, after all Goths and Emos (male and female) wear heels too. I suspect it's more of a cultural thing, wherein western women are expected to wear heels, and inpose such expectations on their own self image. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad my mom doesn't want me to wear stupid clothing like heels. I know about foot binding. Heels remind me of that and makes me cringe. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The Red Guard of Mao Zedong used to punish women for wearing high heels. I understand they are acceptible again in China today.I personally think flat shoes are sensible. @GrammarCommie: I just thought it was a fun picture. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I never understood why people wear those. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

they make your legs look longer AMassiveGay (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Ah, I see. Weirdly enough @Bigs some people enjoy wearing heels, though Goat alone knows why... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

do people here not 'dress to impress'? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless you are referring to the impressive ability to dress like a Bum without actually being one, then no. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

just following the headlines, two inches smaller and I would not have any income at all? -194.246.46.15 (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what's so impressive about those abominable footwear. I do imaine why trans women like those because they're very feminine. Women might like them because it gives them confidence into conforming to some arbitrary and uncomfortable standard? I want to see men wear these and try standing around in them for a while and justify it with "society likes when they have long legs" or whatever garbage reason. I don't mind looking nice and clean. Wearing high heels isn't part of that though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 12:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

when i say 'dress to impress' i mean dress sexy. whats sexy got to do with comfort? you don like heels? fine. dont wear them. problem solved. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So, AMG, are you going to wear high heels (and possibly a kilt)? Anna Livia (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think no one should be expected to wear these. Corsets and foot binding were also considered sexy. Sure those are extreme examples. But it's the same principle. For the record, anything that causes equivalent discomfort for men for the sake of attractiveness, I'd oppose too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also less of a matter of choice when heels decide how much more money you make and when dress code calls for them. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@anna livia - what makes you think i dont? @LMG at no point have i suggested that people should be made to wear heels. what i oppose are bans on what people wish to wear whether its heels or face veils or short shorts ie. i oppose people telling others what they can or cannot wear. i have no problem with people wearing heels because thousands upon thousands of people wear heels every day, actively covet heels. why shouldnt they? because they wish to conform to a beauty standard you personally disagree with? the suggestion its no different to foot binding is just so much arse. one is done at a young age, and given no choice, the other - isnt. do you see a difference there? its idiotic hypberbole. and the money thing is equally arse. if the read the original link, you'll note heels are not mentioned once. the are irrelevant to the point being made. no should be made to wear heels, for work or otherwise, but no should be made to wear anything in particular. i'll say again - you dont like heels? dont wear them. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I made it clear that footbinding is an extreme example, but when I mean same principle: society standards hurting people. If you choose not to wear heels, you're at a disadvantage appearance-wise, which is supported by the article; heels artificially make someone taller. "If you don't like them, don't wear them" is not a good counter argument to something that plays a role in objectifying and physically harming women. Maintaining a physical appearance can sometimes be a good predictor for success, and heels play a role to increase chance of success, so again, it's less of a free choice than you think. They wouldn't be damaging their feet otherwise. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Boiling msg?

First let me say I'm aware most good research has failed to show any real evidence for some sort of msg hypersensitivity. People who think they have some reaction don't show it with a decent double blind. And in any case, glutamate not crossing the blood brain barrier at significant levels means there doesn't seem to be any real relevance of its effects on neurons. Anyway while researching the nonsense surrounding msg I came across this paper. Ignoring the apparent irrelevance of the effects of 'MSG' on mouse neuronal cultures to any human experience, I was especially surprised to read

“”The results of the “Boiled MSG” revealed that no preventative measures can be made by over-cooking of MSG-containing food. We had hoped that boiling might be able to destroy the structure of MSG thus reducing or eliminate its damaging effects. However, boiling MSG for 10 minutes did not reduce any damaging effects at all. Future studies may consider boiling MSG for a much longer time (e.g. 1h).

Is my science completely failing me or am I right that basic chemistry will tell you that even boiling msg for 10 minutes or even 1 hour is not going to achieve much. Of course since it's in solution it's no longer really msg anyway, you just have sodium ions and free glumatic acid in solution. (There's also the question of what's the point. If you really manage to "destroy" the glutamic acid enough to prevent neuronal damage, how likely is it it'll still set off your umami receptors?) BTW, it's published in an open access journal with a low impact factor. Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Heating ionic compounds can decompose them, such as copper carbonate or gold oxide. Though as you say, it's already dissolved which I agree would prevent anything significant from happening (e.g. heating dissolved copper carbonate just evaporates the water out). —Kazitor, ^pending 02:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Just that I'd inform y'all that I have taken over this here bar. From now on any time waster will be kicked out. You come in, get your drink and then leave! Saloon bar barman (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No! I'm revolting! —Kazitor, ^pending 23:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am too! You'll 'NEVER' kick us out! — Saj ^∞ 23:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Count me in! Viva la revolución! Kick out the barman! Reanimated Revolutionary --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No! You will all follow my new rules for this bar. I work like a slave pouring y'all drinks and in return I have to listen to pointless political arguments and trolling. The bar is now closed. Saloon bar barman (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

D: —Kazitor, ^pending 01:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Good riddance: barman watered down the drinks. Bongolian (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Barman forgets that this is a BYOB bar. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Has this new 90/10 rule for bars been inspired by Conservapedia? Count Bezukhov (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Get your pitch forks and torches, time to drive out the barman! Liberate the Saloon Bar! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely 21. Presents fake ID. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Barfight! :D Dysklyver (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

^{LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!!!!!} ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Let me know if you factory workers need some mushrooms. Nerd (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Saloon Bar Revolutionary Army declares war!

I will fight against the barman! He is a traitor to the Saloon Bar democracy --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your attempts to resist are pointless. I will likely have bouncers at the door to ensure the likes of you don't gain access to the high quality beverages this bar sells.Saloon bar barman (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Too late - I've already brought all of the drinks. — Saj ^∞ 21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I will bring my own drinks and put a size 13 shoe up Barman's ass! I blow the horn of freedom! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Y-yeah. W-we will take back the bar! Collapses onto the floor 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I see rainbow cats and flying computers, stay away from my booze barman. Mine, you may not have it. The drunken revolutionary --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Are not these the weapons of choice? Anna Livia (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right's obsession with IQ

I don't spend much time following the happenings amongst the alt-right,^{wise decision!} but from what I can tell, it seems they have a big obsession with IQ.

This is mostly coming from what I know of one person. I once noticed they had the Wikipedia page on "High IQ Society" in their bookmarks; I didn't ask why nor mention it. This person also asserts that anyone they particularly like "must have an IQ (over|of) [> 120]." Is it just this person or a general trend amongst the alt-right? It seems to be part of the "culture." —Kazitor, ^pending 10:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It just sounds like a typical arsehole thing to me. Spud (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a link between IQ testing and racism, because IQ test results are one of the few ways you can pretend to "objectively" "prove" that "white" "people" are "superior" to "blacks" (The Bell Curve et al). But a lot of other, non-alt-right arseholes are obsessed with IQ testing, and lots of alt-right people have very low IQs even measured by culturally-biased IQ tests. --Gospatric (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Culturally biased is just the beginning of problems with IQ tests and how they're used. You can argue that tests can refined indefinitely to be more g-loaded, but even if you do so, and untie IQ from individual knowledge entirely such that you measure some abstract reusable portion of human intelligence, you've got a sparse correlate with life outcomes. It's hard to argue that generalizable, fluid intelligence is useless to being a capable person, but it's so pointless to a modern society compared to crystallized applicable intelligence. To wit, would you trust a certified accountant with average intelligence, or a genius foreigner who doesn't know your language or laws to prepare your taxes? IQ can be a psychological research tool, it could hypothetically even have reasonable educational value(though, to my knowledge, no one has demonstrated the specific value of identifying high IQ students in a student population). But to measure a person as a cohesive whole? It's nothing. Its "objectivity" is a sham. An attempt to apply reductionism to the unreducible. And that instinct for oversimplified ratings of human beings is exactly what appeals to idiots who love oversimplification and placing others beneath them to stoke their frail egos. Also, weird that the Flynn effect stopped the same time school integration started reverting, huh? Almost suggests there's some kind of systemic racism involved. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the above comment, in case you think that science denialism is limited to the right.

The idea that IQ is a sparse correlate with life outcomes is factually wrong; the idea that it doesn't predict academic outcomes is factually wrong. In fact, the best predictors we have for these outcomes is IQ, which is why it is identified as a confounding variable and controlled in almost all social science experiments. Your issues with IQ stem from your ignorance of the topic. Read this article for what the APA had to say on the topic 22 years ago to educate yourself. The hubris it takes to discount a whole field of psychology, when you clearly have no scientific training is staggering. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Love the holier than thou idiocy from people who

A. Don't know what a fucking sparse correlate actually is. No really, learn what the term means you goddamn moron. You idiot. You blithe unthinking fucker. Seriously, I cannot drive home how important understanding basic terms and not just assuming it means "low p value, right?" because you've convinced yourself you know everything.

B. Think that (when accounting for other major factors) predicting educational outcomes supports that idea that using it facilitates education somehow. Just imagine a giant fucking book filled with blank pages for all the scientific research showing that.

and C. Engages in exactly the reductionism I was highlighting without responding to the central point that it's reductionist beyond reason. UGH HOW CAN PEOPLE SO OBSESSED WITH INTELLIGENCE BE SO DUMB. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed There is a simple answer to that last question and it is thus: they are envious of something they do not possess. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IQ is just a number - actual intelligence involves more aspects. To borrow a phrase - what has MENSA (and equivalents) done for us? Anna Livia (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"People who boast about their I.Q. are losers." - Stephen Hawking noted alpha chad. GoshDarn (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

When bigots cite the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah to justify their homophobia

Reading the story of it in the Bible (I bought a Bible as part of my spiritual practices, sue me), there is absolutely nothing about homosexuality. It just says sinfulness and nothing more. How can homophobes cite that story? This was probably brought up before. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I always thought the story of Sodom referred to "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me" in the Book of Ezekiel somewhere. Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is you have the wrong (right) version of the bible, you need the one with added homophobia. Dysklyver (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a copy of the New International Version. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the "accepted" canon is that the Sodomites tried to rape the angels YHWH had sent. It's certainly implied in the text. Again, though, rape =/= homosexuality Count Bezukhov (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If I remember the story correctly God had already decided to destroy the city for some largely unspecified sin. He sent a couple of angels disguised as men into the to visit with the only just man there - Lot - and investigate further. A crowd gathered to interrogate/kill/ have sex with Lot's visitors and Lot offered the crowd his daughters instead. (presumably for rape)

The angles blind everyone and push off, most of Lot's family escape.

The thing is that the city was already earmarked for destruction before any of stuff in the visit happened. But the story is often told as though it was the events in the city during the visit which led to its destruction, and that the implication of proposed homosexual rape brought about the destruction.

Nevertheless, looking at the conventional interpretation we can conclude that: 1. Offering your virgin daughters for rape to a band of men will not get your city destroyed. 2. Raping two female virgins will not get your city destroyed. 3. Attempting homosexual rape will get your city destroyed.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

In the Qur'an, the cities are destroyed for the "the sin and depravity of Lot's people," which is presumably homosexuality. Other cities, like Babylon, are cursed for their wickedness and promiscuously, but never outright destroyed, so "sin and depravity" is not just that. I thought the original Torah story was more explicitly about homosexuals, but it doesn't really matter we can reasonably say that was the intent of the author and everyone has certainly taken it that way for the past 3000 years. Also, the Torah explicitly says "though shalt not lie with another man as thou liest with a woman" or something like that, so the argument that are misinterpreting the story to add otherwise unjustified homophobia is stupid. Even in the Injeel (Gospels) several of Paul's letters decry and condemn homosexuality, so that part of the law is still in effect for Christians. Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that Paul's letters are the ones to blame. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My personal view on the Bible is that "God" is two separate deities. Reading the Bible with that lens makes much more sense. Then again, my dual beliefs in Gnostic Christianity and Paganism would not make many mainstream Christians happy (The fundies mainly). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Does someone know how Gnostics see what's described in the Book of Revelation?. I doubt at least they'll share the Fundie view. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I more thought it was allegorically about not loving the prostitutes outside of the temple more than the god inside of it. Then again, good points, Bob_M and Aeonian, it wasn't exactly the attempt at homosexual rape that got the city destroyed so much as the offering of heterosexual rape that got Lot saved, so I should probably rethink that one. GoshDarn (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrongful Convictions

Hello all,

I want to ask how the community would feel about expanding the mission to include certain wrongful convictions. In particular, I am interested in wrongful convictions where there is reason to believe that police and/or prosecutors knew they had the wrong person, but pushed ahead anyway, or where the person can now be proved to be innocent but remains in prison.

I think these cases could be a good fit for RW. These cases involve thinking and reasoning. They involve Government misconduct. They often involve science. These are all areas RW has interest in in other ways.

Furthermore, no existing wiki is a good fit. Wikipedia will accept the best-known ones. InfoGalactic will accept them, but a lot of the people there seem to be obsessed with race, which means they are not a good fit.

My reason for asking is that I wrote an article on Joey Watkins, which was deleted as "Not missional" per a discussion. Thank you. TwoPlusTwoIsFive (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The solution is simple. If the wiki doesn't exist, create a new one. You can create a new one on Wikia in a matter of minutes.

As has been pointed out to you before, it is possible that wrongful conviction cases could fall within our scope. But those would be cases when it was clearly authoritarianism at work, not just incompetence. And you'd need good quality references to prove that was the case, such as the testimony of retired police officers and judges.

As for the science bit, convictions based on an accidental cock up in the lab or scientific understanding having progressed since the time of the conviction don't fall within our scope. If somebody has ever been wrongfully convicted on the basis of pseudoscience, that would definitely deserve a page here. But I doubt that's ever happened. Has someone ever been convicted on the basis of a lawyer arguing that evolution is a lie or that the flat Earth is the centre of the universe?

And finally, I don't think many users here are going to be convinced that we should expand our mission on the say so of a newcomer who, so far, has only tried to find a new home for this deleted Wikipedia article here. I'd advise you to spend a few months making constructive edits and getting other users to know and trust you before making any such suggestions. Spud (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Miscarriages based on terrible failures at scientific reasoning do happen, e.g. misunderstanding DNA evidence or assuming forensic science and expert witnesses are always right. However, it's probably better to cover those in articles on the science/pseudoscience, rather than on individual articles on the miscarriage of justice, unless there is a lot to say about the use of science in a particular case. --Gospatric (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

End of the World

I just woke up realised that the world might be ending. With record highest temperatures throughout America, Canada, Europe and Russia. Massive flooding in Asia and Japan. Ring of Fire volcanoes exploding, and dubious leaders breaking the World economy into little pieces. What the heck is happening! Armageddon!!!

I can't find much in the way of "end of the world" bumf the back this up at the moment, the best I can find is the Third Second Coming according to Hal Lindsey. Most the good end of the world predictions have been and gone (2012-2016 period). Such a shame.

There is literally nothing between 2019 and 2026 listed at List of predictions of the end of the world. Dysklyver (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess I should pad out those years with pointless video game references. ;P --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 14:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The moon is looking awful suspicious lately.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 14:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, a new age of magic is beginning. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If it ends, then it ends. Oh well. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add these, but I don't want to clutter the silly stuff with the actual stuff (to be fair and honest though, the "real" ones are far stupider for being taken seriously). Maybe we can use image captions instead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

BRB adding .massive-sarcastic-bollocks to Common.css —Kazitor, ^pending 23:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) PS: CSS classes cannot have spaces in them ;)

This is literally happening. :D Dysklyver (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Violence and abortions are on the rise while LGBTQ (whatever is written) are on the rise, wanting more and more and to force their genre ideology on schools!. The Rapture and the End Times are nigh!. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The end is nigh and the apocalypse is almost upon us! Gather you food and shotguns before the looting starts! Kravdraataf (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless you're in America. There's only shotguns. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kravdraataf I buy food from Costco, the entire country will starve before I can get through half of my stockpile. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually the world ended long ago - and what we have now is whichever bit of the afterlife you wish it to be. Anna Livia (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Mod and tech rights

There's currently a fair bit of overlap between the rights of mods and techs.

Proposed changes:

Right	Moderators	Techs
userrights	add and remove "Moderators"	all (unchanged), or all except Moderators
moderator	yes (unchanged)	no
renameusers	no	yes (unchanged)
supressionlog	yes (unchanged)	no
supressrevision	yes (unchanged)	no

It also seems mods can edit MediaWiki: pages (even though they don't have editinterface), which I think should be changed. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure

1. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope

1. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I don’t see an issue. Christopher (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
2. I see no reason to remove the rename right from moderators either. I agree with Dysklyver. Techs need mod rights. And if you're a tech, I think you're more trusted than a mod is.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

   If techs not only have mod rights but also are more trusted than mods, then why have mods at all? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

   I suppose the idea is that mods can use mod tools frequently for moderation etc., but techs should only use them if there's a technical problem of some sort (i.e. not taking action) —Kazitor, ^pending 22:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

   I can tip my modhat and generally people listen that way. I think mods carry some authority when it comes to settling disputes, so when it comes to decision-making, I think mods are generally contacted rather than techs. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

3. I think we had this discussion/vote before and the outcome was no change. There's no evidence that I know of that indicates that techs or mods have been abusing their powers in recent years. Don't change it if it isn't broken. Bongolian (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

   I get that there's no real issue to solve and I won't be heartbroken if everyone disagrees, but what exactly is wrong with changing things? It'd be a trivial change and could be trivially reverted too. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

   Changes of the core settings are rarely trival, it might seem as simple as changing a bunch of $wgGroupPermissions code on a file, but since these are custom groups there is the matter of whether messing with things too often is desirable. But then if the techs break the wiki doing this then it might be easier to remove more of their user-rights... hmm... Dysklyver (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

4. So what if both groups can do a certain job? Why fiddle with stuff when, in your own words, "there's no real issue"? There's a metric shit ton of problems on this wiki and you're wanking about with some micro issue nobody gives a fish's fart about. Boredatwork (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

   How did you know messing around with bureaucracies gave me a hard-on?!? Damn, I need to be more discreet. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Assuming the Techs are supposed to be doing all the technical stuff. I can say with certainty that having logs hidden from them would be a mistake. Consider how someone is supposed to fix something if they can't see some of whats going on? Also just guessing because I haven't seen the LocalSetting.php file, but perhaps "edit moderator-protected page" has bundled editinterface? Dysklyver (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

   Bongolian (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

   Obviously it's flexible, I wasn't too sure about that either. —Kazitor, ^pending 22:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Kazitor, can you better explain how you think these proposed changes are an improvement? Bongolian (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian I've seen previous discussion of changing some rights before. The idea is to keep techs from having moderator powers (like editing moderator-protected pages) and not making mod involve anything more than tools for moderation. —Kazitor, ^pending 10:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor: I am still of the opinion that more clearly differentiating mods and techs would be for the best, but I have actually seen mods use the user rename tool to enforce community standards, and I agree with Dysklyver's concerns below. I think the only change should be a tech's abilities to edit mod-locked pages and bestow moderator rights, though as I'm neither a tech nor a mod I might not know what I'm talking about. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we the story we tell ourselves or not?

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/the-dual-in-the-crown-story-consciousness-and-locating-the-self/ https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/grand-narratives-unplugging-from-the-big-story/

I know I probably should not be looking into this stuff but it’s been gnawing at me in the same sense that my first encounter with Buddhism continues to. It’s about stories particularly narratives. I know I heard something about it in eastern philosophy about how the self is really just a story we tell ourselves and that we are fundamentally empty. I have heard a few neuroscientists mention it as well. Sam Harris said soemthing around similar lines about how the self is an illusion and that there really isn’t a core you. Looking at life it does seem like it’s easy to see that to be the case. Ask people who they are and they list x y or Z, but then the author tends to cite soemthing about how this is just a story that we tell ourselves and that the stories we are born into (which I am guessing would be culture) narrow and limit us. Then there is some bit about consciousness that I don’t really get. But there is some gem there that I learned in sociology. That what we are born into defines how we see the world and that according to her one must unplug to “directly experience” reality. That it’s just an illusion. Personally I wonder if according to her she isn’t just spinning another narrative or story. Does wiping the slate clean so to speak really get at the fundamental of “who” (or in some cases she’s says “what” ) we are? Or is that just something we believe to be the case? I’m always a bit wary when people use the phrase “direct experience” (which I’m guessing is reality without our filters and judgements and fixings) because to me it just sounds like an assumption. That one assumes direct experience and yet I am reminded of the phrase “you don’t know what you don’t know”. Why are people so obsessed with being unlimited? I know this started one way but it ended up another, and I tried to summarize the links but I might have misssd a few bits here and there. I want to know others input on this. I am aware of the site name but perhaps we can gloss over it (asking a lot I know) and just address the words. I thinking other people here might have something to say. Personally I cannot put my finger on it but something seems off about it.Machina (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Well ones culture and upbringing can certainly prove to be a limitation, and though it can be surpassed there will still be limitations to the self. Its pointless to try and become unlimited because there isn't a such thing. But that bit about direct experience sounds worth a try. BobRoss (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Machina I'm legit worried about you. I don't think being this obsessed with philosophy is healthy. It sounds like you might have an Existential obsession. (real thing btw) I'm not one for armchair diagnosis but maybe see a therapist? —ClickerClock (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It is just that based on the links it keep thinking about the self and the lives that we lead and truth. That maybe the world we think to be as solid as it is really isn't and that most of our cherished values are based on our say so. Like how she refers to stories and narratives, which has some grounding in sociology but I am not sure if how far she takes it is accurate. Saying that we are not our stories and that these stories we tell ourselves are limiting and life denying (although to be honest this just sounds like opinion to me plus it seems like personal experience that she speaks from). I mean she has a PHd in Linguistics but I don't really know much about that. I'm just saying that maybe what we view as solid isn't. They like to say "it's all relative" and I am shocked and concerned that maybe it might be after all.Machina (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Buddhism is little more than Nihilism

http://choosenot.blogspot.com/2005/12/madhyamika-refutation-of-non-buddhist.html http://choosenot.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-buddhism-world-denying-teaching.html http://choosenot.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-actually-not-that-bad-you-know.html

Based on the above, and my past experience, I cannot see why anyone would willingly follow such a philosophy. Especially the whole "question everything you know to the point of absurdity" point of view that is taken to daily life. It's like they seek to ruin what is good and what makes life worth living in favor of some escape from this alleged "hell" they say we are in.Machina (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nihilism, my interest is piqued! And hey, that's definitely one approach to the question of Buddhism. I think with the execution of Shoko Asahara, it's relevant and worth taking another look at Buddhism. I mean, Buddhists have never especially been a practical culture of peace any more than any other religion. If somebody says Islam is more dangerous than Buddhism, then asks where the Buddhist suicide bombers are at, point them to Pearl Harbor, point them to Aum Shinrikyo, point them to Burma. Sam Harris wants to call "peace" a euphamism for "submission" in Islam, but it's like he never learned any religion besides Jainism.

Nihilism as a philosophy is kinda the same way, people ascribe a lot of really broad assumptions to it that, well, are uninformed. I'd say Nihilism is widely viewed as the Joker from DC. The absolute worst any line or thinking can reach. Just some person who only wants to entertain themselves through havoc and disassembly, without fear of failure or derision because nothing matters besides, what, entertainment? But that's hedonism through the lens of psychopathy and sociopathy.

So, if life isn't intrinsically anything special or profound, and existence is best described as the opposite of not existing, and to you that makes life not worth living for some reason, don't get into Nihilism. But more importantly, don't go self-justifying the killing of people you don't like. I'm sure there are nihilists that do that. Buddhists do that too. We're all in this absurd hell together, why be an ass about it? GoshDarn (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• It made more sense in the past. You can't drag the principles of ancient eastern culture into the modern westernised world and expect them to make literal sense. That said, there are of course sects that are up to no good. Dysklyver (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Heck, by this time, you could probably even cut that down from east and west in my opinion, as ancient western cultures and ancient eastern cultures can't be applied to their own sides of the globe very well either (unless it's a time cube). But I'm not disagreeing with you, and I do respect that origins of culture have long lasting muddy effects. GoshDarn (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Machina, I grew up in a Buddhist household. You gonna realize that how actual Asian Buddhists practice Buddhism is a hell of a lot different than whatever that blogger is saying. The actual Buddhist stuff was kinda mellow and chill, with incense burning, prayer, + incantations. I never heard a Buddhist IRL say anything remotely nihilist. —ClickerClock (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In my experience Buddhism when you get down to it has to invent reincarnation and karma in order to prevent people from commiting suicide.Machina (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Buddhimsm helps us forget we are all dying while Nihilism reminds us that we are all dying. I don't understand why you think otherwise.--Spoony (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh

So, interesting choice for Trump's Supreme Court.

Brett Kavanaugh appears to be very much "pro security" in that the rights of Americans don't matter when "national security" might be at stake, but on the plus side he does appear to be willing to begrudgingly adhere to Roe v Wade.

He may very well be the least awful person Trump would've nom'd for SCOTUS.

Thoughts? CoryUsar (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Roe is probably safe. Kavanaugh seems to be personally opposed to the decision, but he's said formally that he respects stare decisis with regards to it. Roberts seems to feel the same way. Frankly, I think the most likely course of events is that an abortion case works its way through the federal courts at some point over the next few years, but SCOTUS just refuses to grant cert. Or they'll hear the case and weasel out by issuing a ridiculously narrow decision like they did with Masterpiece Cake shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That shouldn't rule out the possibility of the Roberts court taking the opportunity to play the "undue burden" game, but I genuinely don't think that Kavanaugh will push the Court into outright ditching the Roe decision. That being said, the Court's center of gravity is moving rightwards, and it looks like "ACA" Roberts might be the new swing vote. I think Barrett would've been a different story, but I'm pretty sure Collins and Murkowski scared Trump away from her.DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 15:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look good. A more conservative court has bad implications for the short term. But there is a possible remedy: if the court becomes too extreme a democratic congress and president could increase the number of court members to reestablish sane precedents, on reproductive rights, guns, corporations, etc. The size of SCOTUS has ranged between 5 and 10.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep in mind the big picture with regard to Kasanovaugh: will he enable Trump's pushing ahead towards autocracy. It would seem that Kasanovaugh was picked for this purpose based on his view "that presidents should not be distracted while in office by civil lawsuits or criminal investigations."[2] Bongolian (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with @Bongolian here. Trump cares more about saving his own behind rather than the fate of Roe v. Wade.

Everybody, please watch your spelling! Nerd (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's my really big problem with Kavanaugh, his idea that the president should be above the law. But @Ariel31459, please tell me that I misinterpreted what you read, because it seems like you're advocating for court-packing. That is a hideously bad idea. The moment someone opens the door for court-packing, it allows the other side to do it as well. The GOP won't just accept additional liberal justices; they'll retaliate in the same way the moment they have the chance (and they will get that chance at some point). That back-and-forth would destroy SCOTUS' ability to check the other branches of government, because the president and his party could just add more justices to overrule them any time they have an opportunity. That plan would nuke judicial review out of a petty "if I can't have it, nobody can!" tantrum. Shackling the court to the whims of whichever party manages to get the White House and the Senate is exactly how you pave the road to autocracy. The Dems might make good choices when they fire the court-packing starter pistol, but they won't be in power forever.DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 18:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Call me partisan, but the last thing we need is yet another conservative added to an already-conservative majority. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I understand your reservations. Court packing, as it is sometimes called, is not a good remedy, but it is better than impeaching troublesome members of SCOTUS, for which there is only one precedent in 1805, and the Senate failed to convict. The Congress is free to determine the number of justices on SCOTUS and has done so a number of times. Should they do so if the republic is being threatened?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 I fully agree that radical action is necessary when democracy is endangered. But our republic also can't survive without an independent judiciary. I must admit, I genuinely don't know how far things would need to go before I would end up supporting a court-packing scheme. I know I personally am not there yet, even though I understand that many other people are. Things would need to get very extreme, and I suspect that if things get to the point where I actually view attacking the judiciary as a reasonable option, a Turkish/Nigerian-style temporary military coup might be a better option. I guess I'm just saying that I need to see more gangrene before I'm open to cutting off a limb. (But you're right about impeachment. They'd need to catch the guy taking bribes on his front lawn to make charges stick. I'd still give that a try first, though.) DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 19:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't want to be the person who kicks over the apple cart expecting the other guy to do it first. At least not until I'm damn sure it's the right thing to do. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 20:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There's a reasonably strong case for impeaching Clarence Thomas: sexual misconduct and bribery,[3][4][5] but it will never happen with GOP control of Congress. Whomever Trump appoints would be suspect depending on the results of investigation into his alleged conspiring with Russia. Bongolian (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well that might be good if Kavanaugh sticks to his sexual-impropriety-calls-for-impeachment guns. But then again, he might stick to his legal-cases-are-impediments-to-people-in-power guns. Or he might stick to his whoever-decided-to-elevate-me-has-the-best-history-of-anybody-in-making-these-decisions guns. When picking a supreme court justice, it's important to pick a person of many guns. Otherwise you might be able to guess how straight they'll shoot on any given decision. GoshDarn (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Image upload request

http://is2.4chan.org/pol/1531310046422.jpg Lysenko was Right (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Denied. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well hold on. This could be useful on the Persecution complex page. No? ShabiDOO 13:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not memecentral. Too much text on the image IMO. Dysklyver (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shabidoo We cannot confirm that the quote in question originated from Rockwell from the meme alone. If we had an another, more credible source, then that source would then become a more appropriate citation for the quote than the meme, thus in effect rendering the meme redundant and obsolete. In short the meme is useless no matter how you slice it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As Dysklyver said, it's all words. Images are for... images. Quotations, being text, belong in the text of an article. —Kazitor, ^pending 22:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the fact that nut cases created this preposterous image...whether anyone had actually said it or not. It's a very good and representative example of persecution complex lunacy and propaganda. ShabiDOO 02:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the image itself is objectionable in that respect too. But I prefer to point out flaws with the general case. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

God vs. God

Recently I had the thought that the triple-O (Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient) God of Christian pop culture and the Biblical God described throughout both the old and new testaments might be two separate and distinct deities. But what are the thoughts from the rest of RationalWiki? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie So God is the ozone layer? Nerd (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that most people's idea of Yahweh isn't the Bible's. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I like the Old Testament Yahweh. And Jesus totally backed that guy up in Matthew and John. We're talkin a God that almost lost a wrestling match until he cheated and punched Jacob in the hip. I don't think anyone should cite the OT without admitting Yahweh is the boss of it, even if Yahweh gotta cheat his way out of some of it. Matthew 5:17 says Jesus loves that shit, and I love that shit too.

It's all made up, for sure, but the Old Testament at least has a God, come on. GoshDarn (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@GoshDarn Actually, God punched Jacob in the "Hollow of the thigh" i.e. the crotch. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tiiiight. "Don't look at my face!" shouts YHWH *crotch punch*

Later, Jacob relays "My name is Israel now, and for all that is holy, guys, I don't care what we kill, we don't eat the crotch tendon. We gotta respect the crotch tendon." Genesis 32:32 GoshDarn (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There are potentially multiple different Gods in the OT (see e.g. the Elohim vs Yahweh theory[6], and the debate over whether Elohim, a Hebrew plural noun, referes to one god or many gods). Conversely, in the NT, "The Gospel of Matthew presents two very different portrayals of Jesus. In one of these, he is a pacifist who teaches peace, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, non-retaliation and love of enemies ... In the other he is a warrior figure, who leads an invincible army and who is determined to exact violent and merciless vengeance on his enemies."[7] --Gospatric (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I subscribe to the idea that God is different to each and every person. This deals with trying to figure it out and stops me falling into the trap of organised religion or a cult. I know what God is to me, and the fact that my version of God is completely different to someone else's version is absolutely fine. If they think their idea of God has any power over me, then they can rot in hell. :D Dysklyver (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yahweh is both awesome and disturbing as an Iron Age deity, who seems to have strived to be as self contradictory as possible. He was also a polygamous god (hey, I'm not judging). BobRoss (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, it was the Iron Age. Yahweh was a classic war god, and His people were a large and problematic force in their area of the world. No god asks for the foreskins of the enemy, the destruction of their idols, the erasure of their memory from history unless His people are already a monster military and culture, which is probably why the OT starts to resemble propaganda more than a cohesive explanation of the world, even by Iron Age scientific standards.

Hypothetically, if you knew some god must be in control of everything from dirt to weather, and then heard there was a god with a group of chosen people who had every come from behind victory imaginable, even fought off the Egyptians and wandered in the desert for forty years before coming out stronger than ever, wouldn't you sign up?

Jonah and the fish being one of the last stories kinda shows that the stories were being compiled even when tribal skirmishes were irrelevant. Hey, Jonah, proselytize.

No? Ok, meet all these people who believe in different gods and clearly respect that everyone has different gods, remind them that some god must control the seas, so it's probably that scary ass YHWH. Face your fear of telling the other worshippers off and appease Him, you'll get a sweet fish ride to go proselytize in the city like He was telling you to.

My semi-informed guess is that when widespread global travel and civilization became common, and cultures that were all advancing at similar rates with different lore clashed, old school tribalism wasn't a practical way to keep the faith. So you had your hard liners and your skeptics and your liberal (by the standards of the day) martyrs. And then some guys with partially Romanized names but Hebrew backgrounds decided to retcon the whole thing and turn all these liberal martyr attempts into one cohesive metropolitan man/God. By the standards of the day. If it wasn't for the printing press we'd have a dozen testaments by now, I think. GoshDarn (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if they were the gnostics (probably were these), but there were a sect who considered as separate deities the OT Yahweh and the NT God, the former being considered evil and the latter the opposite even if some stuff of the NT shows the more things change the more they stay the same, and in one of the apocrypha even Jesus Himself shows his hate of YHWH. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding a fundamental principle of this wiki

What is so good about goats? Kravdraataf (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Bloody good question. As far as I know, it's a (somewhat lame) joke that originated back in the early days (2007 or maybe 2008) and has since been added to so many pages that nobody could be bothered removing it. And of course there a probably a few people who would still object to cleansing the wiki of goat: "Darn kids be taking mah snark!!!1!eleven!!!!"! —Kazitor, ^pending 11:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it has a deeper meaning of being slightly irreligious. But essentially it's included to stop things being too serious, and because every site needs a moe. Dysklyver (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Look up 'tree goats' and 'cute goats.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I googled 'tree goats' and 'cute goats' so now I kinda understand the obsession with them. They aren't the cutest animal on Earth though... Kravdraataf (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"A few" I think you mean "a lot". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The welcome to this wiki ends with the declaration, "And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!" Now at first I wondered, "where is this goat I'm suppose to pull up and to whom does it belong?". Finding out can be hilarious.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 The Glorious Goat belongs to no one man or woman (or goat for that matter)!!!!! It is a Communal goat!!! ^{— Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs}

I think it has its origins in the Bible, in a verse (not sure where it is) where it's stated the sheeps (followers of Jesus) will be separated of the goats (the rest). Panzerfaust (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Matthew 25:31-46. Dysklyver (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

as was explained to me a whiles back, one of the original founders of this site just happened to like goats. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

KKK members and their bed sheet outfits

If the KKK was so proud of what they do then they would not wear their bed sheet robes that make them look like foolish morons. I have been wanting to rant about that. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 The KKK's, infamous "robes" are likely a result of their outfits evolving over time. One source I read awhile back described (and showed pictures of) the KKK using simple bandana masks originally. We can thus conclude that their silly outfits arose as they felt the need to conceal more and more of their bodies to prevent identification. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why the hats are pointy though. Dysklyver (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That style was apparently pioneered by Roman Catholic penitentes from Spain and Portugal, where the getup is called a capirote. But theirs are often black, and available in many other colors, which makes them way cooler. The costume was used by New Orleans Catholics, which is how it got to the American south. - Smerdis of Tlön, ɚ̥ɵʷê̬̏e̥̽̊˞ə̃̈ʼ . 15:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok now that makes sense. Dysklyver (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Here in Spain in nearly every city at Easter, thousands of people march through the streets wearing what looks, at time, identical to the KKK attire. For American visitors it is really creepy and disturbing to look at, as adults and children dressed in pointy sheets march through the street beating drums, holding up statues, dragging crosses, self flagellation. Many spaniards are completely unaware that the KKK created a costume very similar to Spains traditional easter sheets. Here is a typical google image search which will show you tons of examples. ShabiDOO 02:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not just Americans. Thanks to TV and the movies, I don't think any non-Spaniard can see those penitents without thinking about the Ku Klux Klan. I saw plenty of Holy Week processions as a foreign student in Zaragoza back in 1993. I watched one procession with a French friend who was a bit frightened by it because she was reminded of the Ku Klux Klan. In class, I said that no foreigner could look at those penitents without thinking about the Ku Klux Klan. The other students (from France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Japan) agreed with me. Our Spanish teacher seemed to be a bit upset by the comparison. Or maybe he was just pretending to be upset in order to keep the discussion going. Spud (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He was probably upset by the comparison, as most Spanish people seeing the outfit think about penitents, not KKK -the burning cross would probably be more identificative-. Note that the colors of those dressings is not only white, there're purple, red, and probably also other colors as black, white, and combinations.

And after what I've heard coming from them during Easter I'm also sure (Evangelical!) Fundies will find that as well as the processions themselves very disturbing. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He may have genuinely been a bit upset. But he was also a very skillful language teacher who was very good at getting us students to keep talking. And, unless that was his first year teaching foreign students, I'm sure he'd heard comments like that before. Incidentally, none of the many penitents that I saw in Zaragoza were wearing white robes and hoods. Most of them were wearing purple. But they still looked to me like Ku Klux Klan members wearing purple. And yeah, the Klan having historically been an anti-Catholic organization, many of its members probably wouldn't enjoy a Spanish Holy Week procession very much. Spud (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A part of the KKK's infamous "bedsheet" robes and hoods is rooted in their original purpose-- which wasn't entirely to conceal identity, nor to advertise "Hey, we're the KKK!" No, it was to... impersonate ghosts.

Back in the days when the Civil War had recently ended, and Reconstruction had begun, the average newly freed slave wasn't exaclty the best educated person around. A lot of the new freedmen were, simply put, superstitious as all hell. Ill-remembered African myth and legend were woven into ill-taught Christianity. This did not make for what we today would call a rational worldview. (Then again, at the time, precious little did.)

The new-born KKK did use the above mentioned bandannas and/or masks to disguise themselves, true enough. The robes were an innovation to frighten the newly freed slaves into thinking that they weren't merely being terrorized by leftover rebel thugs. No, they were being terrorized by the ghosts of the righteous dead soldiers of the Confederacy, and sometimes it worked on their superstitious victims. It became clear enough in time that there weren't any ghosts... just a bunch of violent yahoos in ghost outfits-- who happened to have guns, torches, and often the unspoken backing of the Jim Crow establishment. This really wasn't an improvement on their situation, mind you, but still...

In other words, what we have now is a bunch of goons who aren't aware that they are keeping up a hoax long debunked. Oh, well, what do you expect? Kencolt (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Mind you, this is an organisation run by a Grand Wizard, who at one point featured a "Grand Council of Yahoos" and a "Supreme Cyclopean Council". They really have gone for the mystical ghoul setup big time. Dysklyver (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that was an attempt (Again, back in the day) to legitimize the organization. Seriously.

"Secret" societies and fraternal orders were far more common, and popular, in that period than today. (About all we have left-- at least in the US-- are the Freemasons and offshoots thereof.) Most had names and titles appended to the officers and staff that were, at the time, considered grand and mystical sounding, but to a modern ear simply sound absurd. A Grand Kleagle sounded in, say, 1918, like a fine and amazing thing. To the modern ear? Sounds more like a breed of dog. A spectacularly unimpressive breed.

Oh, those wacky pre-21st century racists! Such fun they had! Kencolt (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not Kinde Kuche Kirche? 109.150.41.127 (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. When the early 20th Century version popped up, they kinda of disliked Germans. (And Italians, and Irish, and, well, anyone who wasn't a Southern WASP.) Not that they likely wouldn't have sympathy for the idea, but the term would have been right out. Kencolt (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A few questions

Ok so for the clogosphere we upvote if we think its ridiculous right? Also this wiki is mostly for ridiculous untrue conspiracy theories like project blue beam? thanks ^{— Unsigned, by: YuriGagrin12 / talk / contribs}

I would clarify the misconceptions of Mister "I don't even bother to sign anything whatsoever", but I'm certain the mods and those who have been here longer than I can will do a far better job. All I would say is read at least a bleeding FAQ-- like the mission statement-- before posting. Kencolt (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Upvote the "best" stuff at the Clogosphere, the most ridiculous is often the best.^{[citation NOT needed]} This wiki is mostly for rational analysis and refutation of things like project blue beam, cranks and wacko theories. It's not exclusively that, because there is also a ton of political type stuff here. See RationalWiki for the full bumf on this wiki. Dysklyver (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@kencolt - how about not being a dick to a new user? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes @Kencolt, you're being unnecessarily rude. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Wasn't my intent. Sigh... not in best form, I'm afraid today, it seems... Kencolt (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dysklyver Thank you to you and everyone else sorry for not signing YuriGagrin12 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

MAGA: Reagan trolling Trump from the grave on July 4th

Video created by a conservative pro-immigrant group, The Becoming American Initiative.[8] Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I love it!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you that stupid you can't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, you racist scumbags? nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 02:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back, bud!—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 22:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The Caucasian Albanian palimpsests of Mt. Sinai

This is an incredibly long shot due to the obscurity of the material, but might anyone here have an idea of how I could get my hands on a copy of The Caucasian Albanian palimpsests of Mt. Sinai by Jost Gippert et al.? It doesn't appear that any libraries anywhere nearby have it, and the price to buy it is insane. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 21:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• A little obscure methinks, no libraries near me have it and I doubt any bookshop does either. I got 4 book reviews/journal entries on it for my trouble :~ Dysklyver (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Consult a librarian, either public or university library. It depends where you are and what institutions, if any, you have access/membership to. But you may be able to get an inter-library loan or a photocopy of the material (particularly if you know what pages you want); the Library of Congress claims to provide photocopying and duplication services[9][10]. Interlibrary loans can be slow (as in months) and may be expensive, but they should be able to get you the material in the end. If you can't physically get to a library, you may be able to persuade/pay someone (e.g. a poor starving student) to go to the Library of Congress/British Library/etc and copy the bits you need. If you have a specific question, you could also try contacting Gippert or another researcher in the field, through their institution. --Gospatric (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You can find out which libraries own a given book at Worldcat.org, which can be helpful to know when making an interlibrary loan request. For this book, see:[11] It's a 3-volume set in case you didn't know. Most US public libraries will make interlibrary loan requests, sometimes for a nominal fee. Often however, major universities are reluctant to loan to public libraries in my experience. Bongolian (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any specific pages that I need, as the book is essentially a large dictionary containing very exclusive information about the language that I need essentially all of. If my school's library could do a loan request, it's possible that I could get my hands on it, at least temporarily. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 01:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The "myth" of Trickle-Down Economics

Just started watching this and at the beginning, this guy is say how the term "trickle-down" is "leftist and MSM propaganda" to "mischaracterize conservative economics". The rest of this video should be fun. TheEOE (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That thumbnail is all you really need to see. _{Why's the guy urinating?} —Kazitor, ^pending 02:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Because IT'S A SHOWER OF GOLD!!!

Speaking of the thumbnail, even though I'm not that far in the video, I'm going to assume this guy is going to "educate" us about supply side economics and I have a feeling this guy is going to something like PragerU talking points while doing it. TheEOE (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The thumbnail seems to be a representation of the "tinkle down economics" phrase that is occasionally used to mock trickle down economics by opponents. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to go and say it: "conservative" in the social and fiscal parts of politics should be be synonymous with "POS", one for minorities, the other for poor people. "Conservative" is often used to white-wash this crap (both mainstream media and far-right do this) but it really should turn into a degrading insult. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Hey, he was the one that said that the term "trickle-down" is "mischaracterizing conservative economics". Not me. TheEOE (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Trickle-down and "conservative" economics are one and the same. What the hell would "fiscal conservative" mean otherwise?? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Whaaa? You think economics and capitalism are an ideology? It's not. It's science. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 04:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right, Lefty. But this guy is treating the term "trickle-down" like it's some kind of snarl word. TheEOE (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Economic policy, whatever your stance on what should dictate that, is politics by dictionary definition. Politics = policy.

Well, he's not wrong about that. Trickle-down should be treated like horse feces. Horse-and-sparrow theory, anyone? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Defining Illusion and Reality

What is nonduality

The philosophy of Non-Dualism is the point of view that there is one Absolute Reality without a second and that each of us is one with that Reality, just as a wave is one with the ocean. It asserts that experiencing Ultimate Reality is the goal of life. Advaita, another name for Non-Dualism, sees other religions, practices and philosophies as tools that ultimately lead to the direct experience of Absolute Reality. To discriminate between what is real and what is not real, it is necessary to define what is meant by real and not real. In this philosophy only that which neither changes nor ceases to exist is real. No object or knowledge can be absolutely real if its existence is only temporary. The unreal includes every “thing,” all names and forms, our minds and thoughts, everything. The universe looks real but is not permanent. It is an illusion. We can’t say it exists nor can we say it doesn’t exist. It is neither real nor non-existent. It is magical. It’s a mystery. Reality is not a thing at all. It is no-thing, nothing. An innocent term for it would be pure spirit, or pure consciousness. It has no parts. If we look for it, we are an eye looking for itself. It is experienced but cannot be described. It is ineffable. This Pure Consciousness is permanent existence, knowledge and bliss and is one with man’s inner self. When we wake up from a dream the dream world disappears. Non-Dualism teaches that when we wake up to reality this world disappears. The world of thought and matter is a misreading of pure spirit and nothing more. It has a phenomenal or relative existence superimposed upon Absolute Reality by ignorance and remains superimposed until ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of reality, commonly called Spiritual Enlightenment

The above got me thinking about illusion and reality. If illusion is defined as impermanent but the beings and forms of reality change (being that they are made of atoms, break down and rearrange) would it be right to call that an illusion? Or is that painting with too broad of a stroke. From what I see I think that might be going a bit too far. The claim that consciousness is permanent is, to me, unsupported and more of a belief. After all, it’s not like you would know if you were not conscious for you would not be aware of it. And what of things below our awareness (like the subconscious), things that have an influence on us but that we are unaware of? What of the cognitive biases that we share, errors that we are blind to?

There are many unanswered questions to me but overall it seems like the philosophy makes too many assumptions and tries to cover them with “transcendence”.Machina (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

?Machina (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Bout a week ago I made an Emergency Alert System scenario and put it on YouTube, tell me what you think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnC67P7iuCM

Based off the FX TV series, "The Strain". Specifically the end of season 3. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Undead Schizophrenic Productions presents... Actually a pretty good 1:46. Dysklyver (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's good. Some old school text effects (kinda like the deprecated html tags <blink>, and <marquee>) would improve the retro feel and a monospace font. —ClickerClock (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How dare you speak ill of blink and marquee?! They are second in greatness only to Comic Sans and Papyrus! —Kazitor, ^pending 12:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

CSS is better! Bow to CSS! I am a divine scholar of CSS! —ClickerClock (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. Your skills are certainly not to be mocked :) —Kazitor, ^pending 13:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

—ClickerClock (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have zero dollars for a budget and crappy internet. The stuff I used (including video editor) was stuff I downloaded for free. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is another I made at 4 this morning- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL-2TRmYvhU

This is what happens when I get no sleep from severe Bipolar symptoms (Yes I suffer from Bipolar disorder and I have had some severe symptoms). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You can download old footage from the Internet Archive for free! —ClickerClock (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a new project in mind

An EAS scenario dealing with Neo-Nazi terrorists launching a series of attacks against the United States. I could also advertise Rationalwiki on how we debunk racist pseudoscience. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead. —ClickerClock_{💾 talk.txt} 07:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link to the complete video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-dfanVq02o --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Forbes & their articles about TotalBiscuit & Gamergate

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/07/10/totalbiscuits-legacy-and-the-collateral-damage-of-gamergate/#46bfdb4732ae

His wife tweeted this: https://twitter.com/GennaBain/status/1017098664911818753

And his fan are "not amused". Could this signal the rebirth of a new GamerGate? And shoud we mention this on the "Timeline of Gamergate"?

On one hand, Forbes is mentioning GG again and it might sparkle the interest from the Lamergators. On the other hand, if TB's fans and wife find out about this over here, we could experience another edit war like with "ShoeonHead"... Tinribmancer (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

First, why would that happen? We don't have an article on him, he's barely mentioned on this site outside of the Gamergate article, there's no reason they'd come here reading us the riot act over TB. Second, the same people who would be interested in edit warring here over Gamergate are, most likely, the same ones who already are edit warring over the Sh0e on Head and Blaire White articles.

While I'm not a Gamergater, I am also not amused by the prospect of "celebrating" a person's demise. Do I disagree with what he said? Yes, but I still wish the best for the family members who survived him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I actually meant the "Timeline Of Gamergate" article with "edit war" (the "about this over here" is missing some words). I personally don't see the point in making an article about him. I agree that celebrating His death is disgusting. Didn't stop those former Bioware devs and this site. Although I'm quite surprised the Kiwi's didn't do the same. If they could, they'd trade him in for "Jim Spergling" (TB & Sterling are sharing the same "lolcow" page on Kiwifarms), because he wasn't afraid to shout out his opinion about GG or something (I presume the Kiwi's are also pro-GG?)... Tinribmancer (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 World Cup Final

What does everyone think will happen in the World Cup Final? I think France is just going to surrender half way through. World Cup Final (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You're giving them that long? _{Ha! French surrender jokes are always funny!} —Kazitor, ^pending 11:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that you, FA? I never knew you liked soccer. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please out yourself so I can block you. Please. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Unfortunately I am rubbish at playing football so I have to make do with just watching it. I have to day I thought my surrendering French joke was rather funny. @GrammarCommie I know you like blocking me (and since I'm in a good mood) I will make your day by confirming the above accusation. Block away! World Cup Final (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well that was boring. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Reptilian Overlord Conspiracy: Flaws from a Biological stand point

We all know that dear old wise man David Icke has started the Reptilian bullshit nonsense conspiracy. I want to point out flaws from a pure, biological stand point. This I meant for two completely different species cross-breeding.

• 1. The psychology of two different species is likely, radically different.
• 2. Humans can reject blood and organs from their own species due to genetics. How can alien species manage to interbreed with humans?
• 3. If the Reptilians are alien then how can they go unnoticed? I mean that their foods would be radically different.
• 4. Finally, there would be a high probability that if Reptilians are alien then their genetic structure might not be based on DNA.

Undead Conspiracy Debunker --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 There's also the rather straightforward problem of sexual characteristics, i.e. their genitals might work differently than ours, and of course another psychological factor, "Why bother with these tiny mammalian primitives?" (from their perspectives). ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to note that people give off pheromones to signal sexual compatibility. If an alien smelled human pheromones then they might be repulsed. Another thing in terms of alien microbiology, they might be weak to infectious diseases from Earth or humans may be weak to ET infectious diseases. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Rule of cool is one of the most obvious explanations. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 Thank you for reminding me, I had completely forgotten about Xeno-Microbiology. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The one time I don't press preview... —Kazitor, ^pending 23:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Don't worry, I fixed it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Which prompted me to say the above :) —Kazitor, ^pending 23:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's plausible. I watched an episode of Dr. Who and in it the Slytheen hid in important people's bodies. We don't know what technology aliens have.Kravdraataf (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on our alien reptile overlords but isn't one of their tactics to maintain themselves as a separate elite caste by only breeding within their own alien reptile kind? --Gospatric (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

'The problem of Xeno-diseases' was spotted fairly early on in SF (The War of the Worlds).

The likelihood of any human-reptilian offspring being sterile is very high; if fertility is not an issue, given the number of royal by-blows (not all of them known to their fathers) a fair proportion of humanity will have at least some reptilian blood, and also there are many examples of 'persons from nowhere' reaching positions of power.

Question - is Jesus a reptilian? Anna Livia (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Jesus is generally a Human. The reptilians are people like the clergy, all the popes, most people in positions of power. Dysklyver (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There is some sort of logical paradox involving Jesus and the reptilians (given that many early Christians were of the lower classes) - and what about all the ordinary people descendants of royals etc?

Is God a reptilian (this might well explain much). Anna Livia (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't you mean Goddess? BobRoss (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Biblically God is of human form (God made Adam and Eve in his own image). Strictly speaking God cannot be either since God is neither a human or a reptilian, but actually a member of the "God" species. Dysklyver (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Given human diversity the one single God(dess) is a rather odd entity. (What was the classical author quote - '… and the donkeys' god will look like a donkey'?) Anna Livia (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Y'all seem to assume the reptilians are new arrivals, and not a species that arrived, say, 500k years ago, and genetically altered the Homo of the time to be compatible with all their sexual equipment and preferences - thus directing the evolution of Homo S. to their own ends (as it were). You know you want it to be true - if we had evidence we should go with the evidence, but lacking evidence let's just take the road more interesting! Aloysius the Gaul 22:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rollover

Any predictions as to which date it will occur in late July-early August? Anna Livia (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the UK National Lottery? Spud (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion 'not too long ago' involving a special number. Anna Livia (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't bothered collecting data to extrapolate. I won't, either. —Kazitor, ^pending 10:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Newspapers and stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC45L3ARnZA

According to this vid, The Guardian is "evil as fuck" aswell. Yet, we have alot of articles using the Guardian as a source...

Do we need to change these, then? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No. In that 45-minute video, The Guardian was mentioned 5 times and I could barely make out what the 2 journalists were saying because of how they were holding their microphones. And the reason why broadsheet newspapers, like The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph are considered good sources whereas tabloid newspapers are not isn't down to how "evil" their editors are. And if we really wanted to make John Cleese happy, we couldn't use any British newspapers as references at all. Spud (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to know since I hardly know anything about British newspapers and on the ISF they always talked highly about The Guardian, so. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• The Guardian is vaguely left (left wing on the spectrum of British newspapers), but is undoubtedly reliable, they have solid editorial and journalistic integrity. All British news sources have a particular political slant, if the topic is sensitive to this it's a good idea to compare coverage from number of publications to avoid only getting part of the story. Some papers like the Sun and the Daily Mail should be avoided due to their tendency to write utter garbage and occasional complete fabrications. Dysklyver (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! Spud (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Join Us

I was thinking today, if there isn't some global secret society pulling the strings (doesn't seem to be), why not create one. I'd love to try and be influential without the world knowing, why not? So join me if you wish and let's form an actual soceity, with no pyramids or all seeing eyes. The goal I have in mind is to lessen the hold that organized religion has over people's minds. BobRoss (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds legit.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 01:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. BobRoss (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in. ;) —Kazitor, ^pending 02:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

None of us are in, just as no one in Shawshank prison was guilty. Namaste Kazitor. BobRoss (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

do itVorarchivist (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems good. Sign me up. Dysklyver (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me that, is there were some global secret society pulling the strings, we would by definition not know about it. Because, you know, it's secret. Now consider this... that automatically implies that every single conspiracy theory about "them" is automatically wrong, because Alex_Jones, David Icke, and the like know about them and advertise it. The one that is out there doing the sneaky secret running of the world is the one we don't know about. So, I'm not going along with it because we're aware of it, and so is anyone reading this page, therefore it's not secret any more, therefore it doesn't exist. And possibly, neither do we.

It's like some strange counter-solipsism.Kencolt (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, some conspiracy theorists say that the government purposely allows people like that to expose them, since most people will just dismiss them as crazy and dismiss their claims with the same logic you do. It's probably pretty hard for aliens/ancient secret societies/super rich people to actually run the world and somehow stay entirely secret, so maybe choosing to make a joke out of the idea and actively get people to dismiss the concept is better. Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks you us, there is now a secret society about to flex its muscles. BobRoss (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the logical explanation for this?

Why is it that Trump is seen as somehow this horrible racist nazi and not just business as usual for the American Empire, and that fascism is only bad "at home"? Why is there so much outrage against Trump saying there were a"very fine people" who were willing to march with Nazis, yet no outrage over Obama AND Trump literally training actual neo-Nazi terrorists in Ukraine? Why is there so much outrage over the atrocities Trump is committing against Central American children, which is proof he is Hitler and "this isn't who were are as Americans", as if no American President has ever supported that before?

I guess it makes sense though. I mean hey, we are AMERICANS. We defeated Hitler, we stopped him from killing six million JEWS! What do 100 million redskin savages matter nothing? After that, until Trump's monstrous statement on Charlottesville, no President would ever DARE support FASCISTS and NAZIS. I mean the US was totally against Franco and Pinochet and stuff, supporting fascism is NOT NORMAL, LIKE , I CAN'T EVEN. There's a lot of moral outrage over Syrian refugees, we can feel good about protecting them from the Nazi Islamophobes right? WHo cares that we ruined their country in the name of supporting democracy against evil communist Assad right? what matters is that Syrian lives matter except when they live in Syria. How dare Trump be treating Arab children so badly, the US has always defended the rights of Arab children in the past and totally not supported their murder by extreme right literal fascist death squads, like ever? Nonces1488 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• This is why the US has a domestic policy that is separate to it's international policy. The outrage is not in what the US does, but in that the US president is openly saying how great it is. Dysklyver (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

why respond to troll who cant grasp the difference between past crimes, which im pretty sure most here would be up in arms about if they were happening now, and shit going down today where the main culprit is still in power, and further more has a user name describing themselves as, or is meant as a dig at us, as a child molester? dnft AMassiveGay (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Calm down a bit. I don't really think this is the place for tirades like this, in that I don't know what positive effect they could possibly have. Count Bezukhov (talk)

Americans didn't defeat Hitler, they helped Europe stop Hitler and they did so at the last minute and only because the war started to disrupt trade and economy. It's an important detail often left out of American history text books. The American president at the time barely had a problem doing little while Russia, England and Benelux suffered a tyranny and death because of a tyrannical madman.

Also, everyone harps down on Trump because first, he is the lowest and nastiest scum bucket there has ever been of an American president and you cannot find any leader in the Western world who is remotely like him. In the last two years he has enacted regressive laws and policies far more than the Bushes or Reagen did (religious right to discriminate, the lowering of enviromental laws, labour protections, corporate tax etc and policies which chip away at incluivity and vicious treatment of immigrants. And because he heavily disrupts international politics, outright lies frequently, doesn't answer questions, frequently attempts to circumvent or defy judiciary investigations. He also communicates he policy via incomprehensible hissy fits via twitter insulting almost every category of American citizens and foreign visitors/residents. People single out trump because he stands on a podium of douchery and conservitism a hundred of meters higher than any US leader in recent memory and even higher than any leader currently in power in the western world. ShabiDOO 16:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's be more specific there, it was the Soviet Union that stopped Hitler. Everyone else, except various Communist partisans, had a pretty marginal role. Most of the policies you listed are business as usual, EVERY Republican president gives huge tax cuts to the rich and corporations right after they take office. But its funny you mentioned "vicious treatment of immigrants", other Republicans, and Democrats, just viciously treated brown people in their home countries which is a lot less bad. In fact when Trump bombs Yemen and Syria the whole "anti-Trump" crowd is silent, just like when he trains Azov Nazis in Ukraine just like Obama did. Oh and hissy fits on twitter? Well Obama destroyed Libya and Syria, Bush slaughtered two million Iraqis, Reagan funded genocide in Central America and created al-Qaeda, he also tried to start nuclear war at various points, Nixon committed literally genocidal bombings in Cambodia and Laos that killed millions of people, but OMG, MEAN THINGS ON TWITTER, I CAN'T EVEN. Nonces1488 (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Americans didn't defeat Hitler, they helped Europe stop Hitler and they did so at the last minute and only because the war started to disrupt trade and economy. It's an important detail often left out of American history text books. The American president at the time barely had a problem doing little while Russia, England and Benelux suffered a tyranny and death because of a tyrannical madman. --@Shabidoo

It always makes me laugh when people complain that we didn't enter the war early enough. Europe told America to fuck off during the Paris Peace Conference, remember? Wilson presented his ideas for peace, and the other powers put him in the corner and ignored him in favor of their own imperialist stupidity. Europe wasn't America's problem, at least not until Britain and France fucked things so hard that we finally got declared on by Germany's madman. And the US president at the time, FDR, did everything he legally could to help out before Pearl Harbor. But really, now, why the hell would the US population at the time have wanted anything to do with another dumb European war when they had lost more than 100k people for nothing in the last one? DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 18:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nonces1488 You seem to have this weird idea that no one can be angry about anything if there's anything else bad going on in the world. Yes, previous US administrations have done horrible things. You think people aren't angry over the Latin America adventures, or the mujahedeen, or the Vietnam fiasco? (I don't know where you got this idea that Nixon killed millions in Cambodia and Laos when the highest estimate I can find is less than 500k. I also don't know where you got a 2mil estimate for Iraq when the worst I've seen 450k total). You think people aren't angry over arming bad people in Ukraine? We already banned them from receiving aid. People are also angry over Yemen and Syria. And here's the thing, regardless of whatever horrible things the US has done in the past, that doesn't mean we aren't angry about them, and that doesn't mean we can't be angry about things happening now. Your little idea that nobody can criticize anything because everything is bad is stupid and harmful. It's designed to make people say nothing and do nothing. It seems like you'd prefer everyone to be angry in silence rather than actually doing anything. Change can't happen if people don't speak up, and people who think like you don't speak up. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 18:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those horrible things U.S. has done in other foreign countries also generated tons of protests across the nation, you just weren't paying attention. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Wilson presented his ideas for peace, and the other powers put him in the corner and ignored him in favor of their own imperialist stupidity."

No the absolute opposite was happening. American diplomats were encouraging the UK and France to start the war earlier and not sue for peace with Hitler. Did you have one of those fudged text books in school? Did you get all this exaggerated hyperbolic misinformation from some pseudo-history youtube video? In any case, I never said that America had some moral imperative to help out with WWII, I was responding to the very frequent claim that "We saved your ass" ... which is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. ShabiDOO 12:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna need you to give me something to read about "American diplomats encouraging the UK and France to start the war earlier" because I can't verify that. However, it's irrelevant, because that wasn't what I was talking about. Wilson presented his Fourteen Points at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 after WWI, and the European powers ignored him in favor of their own petty and imperialist aims. They sent a very clear message that they didn't want America involved in European affairs. So we didn't involve ourselves. Now, considering that the Soviets could have beat Germany on their own, no, America didn't save the world from Hitler. However, it's not like the UK could have launched TORCH or OVERLORD on their own without American aid and manpower. So without US involvement in Europe, the Soviets would have gotten all of Germany, all of Italy, and all of France. I don't think that would have been very good for jolly ol' England, would it? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How Accurate is the English translation of this?

https://imgur.com/JNmLcYA "Translation:

Title: "Marriage with cartoons in the afterlife"

Question: "My youngest child is 12 years old and he asked me an incredibly strange question, and I was not able to answer him, and I hope you could assist me in replying to this question and is this question incorrect or no? and what can I do in such cases?

He told me "Can I marry cartoons in Jannah [paradise] or not?"

Answer: "Praise be to Allah, and may peace and prayers be upon the messenger of Allah and his kin and companions, and as for what follows, :

We have clarified in Fatwa #216193 and what followed it is that a person can get whatever he may wish in Jannah.

And wishing for what is imaginary, Allah may fulfill it, like clouds that rain beautiful maids, and like it marriage with cartoons, Allah may breath life into it.

And what is required is that a slave must ask his lord for paradise, and not go deep into details, for if he/she enters it he/she would get whatever he/she may desire, and check Fatwa #35124.

And you should guide your son to what is higher than that in the grace of Jannah, like marriage to the Hour Al Ayn, which is better than what he wishes to marry from cartoons, and to alert him that that is accomplished with good deeds."

- u/kundara_thabab

ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's mostly accurate, I would have said "marriage with animations" rather than "cartoons" but maybe cartoons conveys the idea better. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(*Bane voice*) The child will grow out of this. The fire rises. BobRoss (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

After a year, I finally joined the bandwagon

It's been pending all this time, but now my signature is a little varied. Hopefully it's still fairly modest, mostly it's to distinguish my lines from everyone else's, so you know to ignore them (also because I'm happy with the pic, but that's not important) —Kazitor 11:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A tiny dragon? What is it, I can't make it out. — Dysk (contribs) 13:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was a paper crane. I'm also considering adding an image to my sig and maybe toning down the colors. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a dragon to me. If it is, I highly approve. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly a Dinozord. Probably from an as yet unreleased Sentai series (at least, unadapted) that has yet to actually be made in Japan, but it's a mecha that combines with other mecha to create a giant robot piloted by five young Japanese people from all walks of life (a multicultural team in the Americanized Power Rangers version) that fights against Lord Woozon and his horde of PseudoThugs, in the upcoming Rational Sentai LogicRanger (or as it will be known here, Power Rangers Reason Force). Kencolt (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm that weird person who likes people who add a little flavor and personality to their sigs, even if the result is tacky and most people think the plain sig is superior. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the "most people" brigade is getting worn down. See mine has a little flag now, i'm not totally convinced on the thing that says hi to people by username though... I might do something about that. — Dysk (contribs)

IMO, looks kinda creepy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dysklyver What flag is that? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It is the Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall. Basically the banner of St Piran (national flag of Cornwall) with 15 added golden balls (the symbol of the duchy). Whether the Duke actually has any balls, let alone large golden ones, is highly debatable. — Dysk (contribs) 19:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a sort of hybrid rhamphorhynchoid-pterosaur and dragon. Much larger version here. </selfpromotion> —Kazitor 22:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD Notice

A BoN just deleted "See Also" links to our now-deleted article on The Worst Argument in the World. In the future, let's remember to comb through links to deleted page before deleting them. Yes, I'm definitely guilty of this as well, and I'll try to remember in the future. That is all. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You should check "what links here" under the "tools" part of the left navbar. Worth getting that habit when you want to delete articles. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I know, I know. I'm just saying that oftentimes we don't and that's a habit we should get rid off. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Was making a helpful general statement. Figured my years of wiki experience (8 years actually) should come in handy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The UK sends its apologies

On behalf of my country I would like to apologise for the childish, SJW protests that have been taking place across the United Kingdom against President Trump’s visit.

This is an important meeting between Theresa May and Donald Trump, but left-wing hooligans decided to use it as an excuse to make a scene.

That ‘baby Trump’ balloon is vulgar and ridiculous and it says a lot more about the protestors than it does about the US President. It makes the UK look like a laughing stock and may detract Trump (and other world leaders) from making official visits in the future.

I can assure you that these SJW snowflakes speak for themselves and do not represent those of us who welcome Trump’s visit. --RWRW (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

fuck off you egregious prick. you do not spreak for britian. most of us here think he a god awful prick. please show me were the hooliganism is, or is it that lawful protest and blimp tool much for you handle? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You'll find that most of us think that balloon is a pathetic gesture and certainly not something to be proud of. Its an important meeting on trade and defence and SJW's are hijacking the event in a petty attempt to embarrass Trump.--RWRW (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Donald "grab 'em by the pussy" Trump deserves to be embarassed as much as possible. Spud (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It is funny though, barley anybody complained when the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Turkey (both of whom are guilty of massive human rights abuse, especially Saudi Arabia) visited recently.--RWRW (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec)read the link i provided fucknuts. 67% of us cant stand a racist sexually abusive twat who can help but publicly fellate dictators, even one whose responsible for a chemical attack in this very country. but of course, a balloon is much worse than that. and you call us 'snowflakes'? prick. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

and you may not of have noticed but people did protest those visits dickhole. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

or what about when he retweets racist lies about this country from extremist groups and racist nutjobs as fact? sure we should welcome him. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You're doing what most of the left-wing activists do on Twitter: as soon as you start loosing a debate you resort to personal insults. Not once did I insult you. Its not surprising that 67% of people in the UK don't like Trump, the UK is a lot more liberal than America. That doesn't mean that 67% of people think that childish balloon is a good idea. I think it is you who didn't read what I said. I said barley anybody complained at the leaders of Turkey/Saudi Arabia complained. The protests were nowhere near on the scale as the ones today.--RWRW (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @RWRW AMassiveGay tends to be fairly brash. But both of you could calm down a bit. (Look at me! I'm taking the holier-than-thou superior moral high ground!) —Kazitor, ^pending 11:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec)no you are mistaken. i am not losing the argument but i am insulting you because you are an egregious prick. that 67% undermines your entire point, cockhole, and its no wonder the saudi/turkey visits didnt garner as much crowds - they were significantly lower profile than someone who makes headlines every single day and has made the whole a more dangerous place. besides the point though because we are discussing trump. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@kazitor i am merely responding with respect and decorum such a fuckwit deserves. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

People tend to resort to insults when losing an argument. Like I said I haven't said a bad word against you. It is amazing how triggered you are getting. Like, I wasn't even looking for a reaction I just wanted to start a small debate. Yeah because the human rights abuse in Saudi Arabia (arresting people who use free speech, mistreatment of women, arresting gays, arresting rights activists, their actions in Yemen) are a lot worse than Trump saying mean thongs on Twitter. --RWRW (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

you really not getting it are you cockface. no one here is disputing the human rights issues in saudi. if this were about that, id probably agree with you. this about your support for a racist demagogue who steals kids from their families, courts dictators who actively undermines this country and openly disparages us and your delusion that the rest of the uk agrees with your sycophancy. 'people tend to resort to insults when losing an argument' you can keep saying it but it isnt true and certainly isnt true here. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The only redeeming features of the exercise is that a) It's nowhere near the state visit initially proposed. b) He is meeting with the PM that will soon be deposed by Boris and crew. c) The UK is so fucked off with losing the World Cup, Russian chemical attacks, and Brexit that he is barely scraping the weeks most annoying new slot. Plus any problems that occur to make Trump not like the UK can be blamed on the outgoing PM and Europe, then Boris "I like your hair" can smooth over the bad time he had. :D Dysklyver (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

how is any of that a redeeming feature? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It's better than the alternative I reckon. It will not have a lasting impact and nothing is better than a complete waste of time. You could say it's a highly presidential occupation. :D Dysklyver (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@RWRW Please don't start speaking for the United States next. You are an embarrassment. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said here. Everything I said was accurate, its just none of you are willing to accept the truth.--RWRW (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear RWRW and any other Brits here,

While I appreciate the sentiment of apology, I do not require one for the protests. However, while I have you in an apologetic mood, I would like to request apologies for some of the other horrific deeds your nation has committed. For instance, the fourth season of Sherlock was terrible, and I hold all of you responsible for this. Please apologize forthwith.

Another thing you must apologize for is One Direction. Oh yes, I still remember. I remember the annoying little shites at my school singing their songs ad nauseam, and then I learned they were (mostly) British, and I have held this grudge against all Britannia ever since.

There are many more things you should apologize for, but those are some of the biggest at this point.

Sincerely,

A damnable yank. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha, I don't know anything about Sherlock but don't worry, a majority of us here dislike One Direction just as much as you. I recall feeling a sense of joy when it was announced that they was on an ' indefinite hiatus'. --RWRW (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sherlock S4 was an abomination. Moffat just has no idea how to run a television show. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 18:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

RWRW should stop speaking for conservatives. Makes moderates look bad. I stand by what I say RWRW. You are simply an embarrassment. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I have said anything controversial that would embarrass conservatives. Perhaps the truth is that you are not a true conservative. --RWRW (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@RWRW Definition of conservatism

1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party 2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage) 3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

   religious conservatism

   cultural conservatism

See conservatism defined for English-language learners.

You are not a Conservative. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

What am I then? I happen to agree with strong defences, low taxes, limited government and the other principles you listed. I sure as hell 'aint a socialist. --RWRW (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@RWRW You're a far-right populist with libertarian tendencies. The main thing that exempts you from the label "Conservative" is your unwillingness to accept any form of progress what-so-ever, in contrast to the Conservative view of preferring gradual progress over abrupt progress. In addition your view of politics being either "Conservatives" or "Socialists" is the most idiotic oversimplification I have yet seen in political discourse. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It's like how tankies and fascists both often seem to believe they're the only two groups that exist. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I only said that as an example to show the differences between my views and the views of socialists, I don't believe that the only two groups are conservatives and socialists. --RWRW (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet you came in here in your very first post in this thread and tossed off snarl words like SJW and snowflake, and then have the absolute gall to expect that you'd be treated respectfully. I agree with RZ94, you are a fucking disgrace. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

But most of the people there are SJW's, I happen too know a couple (I'm good friends with them but I still think they're SJW's). I expected my post to be criticised but I didn't expect to be called a 'cockface' and a 'prick'. Not that these insults matter though, since I'm not a snowflake. --RWRW (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• "childish SJW protests"; "SJWs are hijacking the event"
• "I just wanted to start a small debate."

-----

• "It is amazing how triggered you are getting."
• "That ‘baby Trump’ balloon is vulgar and ridiculous."

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario They're good quotes, 100% accurate and I stand by them. --RWRW (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sea lioning intensifies.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 15:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The bad thing is that Libertarians get lumped in with moderate Republicans. People like me end up looking bad. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 That's not even the worst part. That nugget of hell comes when you realize that U.S. political discourse is so dumbed down and oversimplified that almost none of the political classifications mean what they're supposed to. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my favorite line from RWRWs growingly bizarre narative: "You're doing what most of the left-wing activists do on Twitter: as soon as you start loosing a debate you resort to personal insults". No RWRW. We were winning the debate AND we were calling you out for dickishness. Assuming to speak for a group of people as though you are the big majority, when statistics and polls prove otherwise is dickish. Ignoring clear evidence that contradicts your claims is dickish. Whining about the tone of a conversation or the use of the word "dick" instead of the arguments made is pathetic. You don't speak for the British population and you most certainly do not deserve to apologize on their behalf. Trump is utterly despised by an overwealming majority of nearly the entire democratic world (outside the US) and many leaders of European countries know that their electorate would be very pissed off if their leader invited Trump to visit. And one final thing...stop reducing ordinary behavior (like protesting which happens every day) and theatrical displays as SJW activity. It's grossly misrepresents the majority at protests who don't participate in identity politics advocacy and it also grossly vilifies the minority who are actual advocates of identity politics in a very dickish way. I'm not sure how you can deny these claims when people here call you a dick RWRW...I mean...aren't you? ShabiDOO 23:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, everyone's free to their opinion on Trump, but it's pretty objectively true that the Trump baby balloon is a puerile form of protest. It kind of baffles me how the same people calling out Trump as a buffoon will come up with weird crap like this. Also, why did that tiny thing cost £30,000? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The only way you can get Trump's attention is by making him seem unliked by the many and making it seem like the many and important people are laughing at him for being a fool. It also takes a mass protest in another country for americans to ever see systematic criticism against Trump...because it's own media certainly dampens it down when Americans do it. Seriously, Trump is far far more affected by this balloon and the millions lampooning Trump while he is meeting the queen...than hundreds of his own Republican leaders begging him to change his mind on something. ShabiDOO 01:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking on behalf of smelly redneck deplorables, We don't give a crap what you say or think. "Pay up" for 70 years of NATO, then we might give a crap. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 02:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to get out of Trump by doing this. An angry tweet maybe? If you want to stop Trump, you need to get conservative voters over to your side. Ridiculous protests like this, if anything, achieve the opposite. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as an anti-Trump conservative, it seems to me that pretty much everyone on the right with any brains or integrity are already at the point where they're going to stay home or vote for the Dems. As long as the Democrats don't nominate absolute fuckheads, I plan to check the box for most of their candidates in 2018 and 2020. The GOP has gone insane, and they deserve to lose for it. They won't learn any better unless they are punished. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 03:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

My limited experience describes the opposite situation: Trump is slowly growing on moderate conservatives and the left seems increasingly unhinged. I guess we'll see whose observation best describes the nationwide reality in November. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Anon has it right above. What's happened in less than two years is, Trumpism occupies the moderate mainstream (not just in America), conservatives and progressives are on the extremes. Progressives calling Trump and Trumpers extreme, and not recognizing the failures of Obamunism, only fuels the reaction and marginalizes themselves. Same can be said about "traditional conservatives."

Trumpism (like Clintonism) is less an ideology, and more a flexible program that can be anything you want to make it to be. Only it stresses more individual initiative and does not worship at the altar of government as most leftist ideologies do. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 03:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"and the left seems increasingly unhinged." Looks like someone doesn't know how far to the right U.S. politics leans. That left wing you're ragging on? Yeah, in the rest of the civilized world that's what they call moderate right wingers. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@RobSmith "Trumpism (like Clintonism) is less an ideology, and more a flexible program that can be anything you want to make it to be. Only it stresses more individual initiative and does not worship at the altar of government as most leftist ideologies do." I got bad news for you, it's more or less the same crony capitalism that's been raping us up the ass for the last fifty to sixty years, just with thinner skin, a shorter fuse, and shittier hair. nothing has really changed aside from the social aspects. the rich are still hoarding all the money and everyone else is still starving to death. In short, you're an excelant example of how most Americans look at politics, with party tinted lenses so you see what you want to see. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And in the midst of all this protest and cold reception from politicians, he backed down from his raged criticism of May...very quickly, totally changed his tune and played nice. Saying stupid moronic critical nasty shit doesn't work with the Uk leader. No bite. No feeding the troll. A stern roll of the eyes and look of disappointment. You guys voted for him,, you suffer the consequences, we don't want his trashy asshole narrative infecting ours. You can be sure he won't be asked to visit several countries now...(the ones begging to be the first to get the trump baby on its planned world wide tour). Will Trump want to visit a country that lampoons him openly and throws such protests through the main streets he has to go to the country side to actually meet leaders? And you never know, this form of protest may rub off on a few americans and its media.ShabiDOO 04:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

But ultimately it is a work of art. And a powerful message with no words written. He is seen by so many as a pissy infantile stupid vain badly coiffed manbaby who shits on people and then throws hissyfits when people hit back...and his biggest weapon and mode of communication is through phone text message sized whining. It's a funny real world representation of what so many people think and a chance to say f**k you back at him (wheather it is helpful or not) in a very beautiful way. And it is perhaps one of the few times trump is faced with the fact that millions of people really see him that way and laugh. ShabiDOO 04:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if Trump deserves all the mockery in the world, is it worth it if it strengthens his electoral base at home? Honest question. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. As I said, "pay up," then what Brits do to entertain themselves might be worth looking at or commenting, if only just to humor them and pretend we give a shit. As for most Americans, we take it as an insult agsinst us, not Trump, after you owe us so much. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 04:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think playing nice and civil is going to attract his electoral base either. It's not going to stop birthers, it's not going to make them apologize, it's not going to make them think it's unacceptable to viciously attack shooting survivors, and it's not going to make them reflect and think how unnecessarily unpleasant Trump is to others and how and why he attracted actual awful people like white supremacists and MRAs and incels. Even politely pointing out how his views are wrong makes them lash back and invite the backfire effect. Also, his base is frustratingly loyal: even if Trump nuclear bombs Disneyland, his supporters are going to brush it off, deflect to Obama's drone attacks, deflect to abortions, or blame the Democrats for sending Trump over the edge. Even when Trump's own policies actively hurt them, they still stand by him. They're a lost cause. Instead of reaching out to his base, I think those that believe "both sides are equally bad" or on the "fence" are more feasible to get over. Or, you can get people who think "hey, Trump is being nice with North Korea at least" or inform people who don't know little details of issues (sometimes me, especially on foreign policy) to be more confident in picking the "correct" side. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You bring up a lot of fringe groups which have very limited electoral power. I'm talking about the half of the American population that elected Trump. Most of them are just regular people. There's plenty who aren't as devoted to Trump as the label "Trump supporter" seems to project in people's minds. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm gonna agree with @LeftyGreenMario here. Civility won't do anything to sway people. As I've said before, I'm pretty sure that everyone who can be convinced to step off the Trump Train has already done so. It's hard to read articles like this and this and still come away thinking that these people can be reached. So no. I don't like seeing more people degrade America's political discourse, but a more "civil" left won't do any good. As for the so-called "normal people" who support Trump, I think you might find that many of them aren't so normal once you push the right buttons. Trump-supporters are just like their president in that they have no loyalties other than to the Trump name, no ideology other than Trumpism, no policy preferences other than whatever rhetoric Trump is currently spewing, and no ideas too complex to be expressed on a bumper sticker. You're not going to convince them. You're not going to sway them. They've internalized their support of Trump into being a part of their identity. An attack on Trump is an attack on the Trump supporter. You can only outvote and outlast them. There are probably some rational people left in his camp, but they all seem to have massive blind spots. I have family members on the Trump Train. I know what I'm talking about. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 06:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I also kind of need to express some grudging respect for my favorite Ann Coulter. She's actually gotten angry at Trump for not enacting the policies she thought he would, which I don't think I've seen from any other part of his base. She's crazy, but at least she's her own consistent kind of crazy. (This has personal significance for me because one of the family members I mentioned above was a die-hard Coulter fan for decades but sided with Trump over her.) DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 06:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump's not incivil, he's a New Yorker. The rest of the country knows that, and is accustomed to it. Trump is no more rude or incivil in public discussion of issues than Bill Mahar or the cast of Saturday Nite Live.

One out of five Americans is from either New York or California. The difference between them is, Californians are too stupid to know they are rude, they think everybody stupid and rude, and it's normal to be stupid and rude. New Yorkers are at least smart enough to know that the rest of the country isn't like them. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 06:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The above is another rather pathetic attempt to whitewash Trump (not to mention taking a dump on New Yorkers in general.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Also taking a dump on Californians, you know, the 39.5 million people who live there, not to mention my home state. They can't be all stupid unless you believe that it's part of a mass brainwash from invisible force fields created by political boundaries. Maybe it's your attitude that's the problem.

"I'm talking about the half of the American population that elected Trump." Sure, they're more moderate, but they're also content with Trump's platform, which is just a mild version of the extremist stuff you're seeing, hence why Trump was able to attract the extreme stuff. It doesn't help at all that virtually everyone in that extremist crowd supports Trump, and furthermore, you get literal Neo-Nazis or apologists feeling confident enough to run their own ticket: see that King guy and Patrick Little from California (who has more support than you think). There's also the other half, a bigger one, that voted for Clinton. You never ever see newspapers ask how they feel and you also don't see newspapers ask how the people who elected Obama either. I'm so sick and tired of everyone wanting to hear them out when their opinions never change. If anything, we're trying waaay too hard at this point to "reach out to them" just from the continuous interviews with Trump supporters. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

(1) New Yorkers made Trump rich; (2) if not for a life sentence, Charlie Manson would be the two-time elected governor of California by now. You know it. I know it. The whole country knows that's true. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 00:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I just read the stupidest thing all day. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario The above is a tragic example of the long term side effects of kitten huffing... So sad. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What to think of the Brits being rude to Trump: 1) It should be expected because he is a loathsome person. 2) We see how American propriety has been damaged because of him, 3) It is evidently galling to him personally, being the narcissistic jackass that he is. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What Ariel said...all summed up in three sentences ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ShabiDOO 22:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The balloon is tame - look up Bonfire Night effigies. Anna Livia (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's cute. Dysklyver (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump will surely making a killing if he promoted his own brand of piñata. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Now the only thing to do is to convince him that this is a good business idea, and not a gigantic laugh at his expense. :D Dysklyver (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately for the rest of the world, Trump won and Hillary lost. Some people here like to complain about USA starting wars and causing problems but preferred a woman who wanted to invade Yemen and Syria to do Saudi's bidding instead of suffer through a few funny tweets. Quite funny really. Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

. --RWRW (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, say whatever you like about Trump, but Clinton would have been a disaster. Letting random Russians steal a decades worth of top US secrets from her private email server that she illegally kept for some reason - not a good sign. Clinton might have been able to do something, and someone like Clinton doing something is a bad idea. Also Her husband does not impress. Dysklyver (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

holy fuck the above few posts are a steaming heap of dog shit.

@aeonian - you really think this is all about some dumb fuck tweets? did hilary want to invade yemen and syria? its odd but i can find fuck all mention of any intention to do so. what i can find is an increase in airstrikes on yemen since trump took office and ballsed up operations in yemen and arms deal with the saudis, but yeh tweets are funny.

@Dysklyver - you got anything to back that claim up or is it just empty bullshit? i can find no mention anywhere of hilary losing top us secrets. i can find plenty on her using a private server, behaviour that if it had happened anywhere else would result in a slapped wrist not repeated fbi investigations and constants shout of 'treason' from some sections the us who are oddly quiet about actual treasonous behaviour involving the russians. its difficult to see how american politics can get much lower.

of course all this is besides the point. hilary didnt win. trump did. whatever disasters you imagine might have befallen us all under her is irrelevant when compared to actual fucked policy of the racist sexually abusive demagogue trump. exiting the paris accords and the iran nuclear deal, the trade war hes helpfully started, the kids in fucking cages to name but a few. but of course hilary was a cow and his tweets are funny, so thats all right then. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it's bullshit based on some of my own observations. I read a bunch of Hillary's emails and lots of them seemed to be confidential and some were marked "top secret". Considering that by most accounts the leak included her entire electronic correspondence from her time in a key government position. Are these top us secrets? Well I assumed they are, this has shaped my opinion on her. Dysklyver (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

if you are reading them, then guess what? they probably arent us top secrets. there was no leaks from her private server, so yeh, bullshit. perhaps you are conflating the dnc server hack with hilary. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That's quite likely actually, I would check but the darknet is so transient these days. it's worth noting though that whatever propaganda (I mean news) I formed my opinion with could well have 'informed' other people. Perhaps Hillary_Clinton#Emails needs some dusting off... Dysklyver (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a prime generator of classified information. Anything that came out of any of Hillary's sphincters is, by definition, classified at some level. If Hillary farted, it was classified. nobs^{I survived a vast leftwing conspiracy} 00:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason Hillary did not invade Yemen or Syria is because she did not win the election. This seems pretty intuitive to me but perhaps logic works differently up in the West, you guys did give the world Hegel after all. Hillary on many occasions, very publicly, and even during the USA debates, made a point to explicitly attack Assad and Syria and strongly implied military intervention/invasion was the solution. I say this because the last time USA presidents did that, in 2001 and 2003, invasion is what happened. She also condemned the "terrorists" in Yemen. By contrast Trump, while still having to recognize Saudi as a stabilizing power in the region, quickly moved to halt Obama policy of arming the Islamist groups in Syria. It really is more about what Trump isn't doing then what he is - he is taking a more isolationist approach to the Middle East instead of mindlessly supporting Sunnis as if 1991 never happened. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

more outright bullshit. did you not see the links i provided in my last post? you know, the ones where it shows trump intervening in yemen? i didnt bother providing links to where he's intervening in syria, but yeh he did, airstikes there too. intervention is not the same as invading. any suggestion that they are is, as i said outright bullshit, any suggestion that hilary was going to invade any where with absolutely nothing to back it up is outright bullshit. you mention 2001 and 2003? i wonder what could have happened around that time that could have built support for invasion or two? oh yes, 9/11. is there anything like that now that would have built support for an invasion? no. fuck all. but you know what? im not here to defend hilary. im sure id have plenty to say if she'd won, but as we both have said, she didnt. what she would or wouldnt have done is irrelevant. what trump is doing is, and its not a whole different to what you imagine hilary would have done. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"a few funny tweets"

""There is a Revolution going on in California. Soooo many Sanctuary areas want OUT of this ridiculous, crime infested & breeding concept. Jerry Brown is trying to back out of the National Guard at the Border, but the people of the State are not happy. Want Security & Safety NOW!". Likening sanctuary cities to "breeding". Hahahaha.

"In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year's Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against," Trump wrote on Twitter. "Bundle up!". Tweeting about dangerous pseudo-science, that's hilarious.

Trump attacks Puerto Rico when they are suffering from a hurricane strike. Teehee. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

But calling Trump a despicable prick and a crybaby with power is "vulgar" and "ridiculous" really hurts feelings. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't hate Trump, not a big fan and probably would not vote for him in the 2020 election. That being said, people like RWRW really should not speak for an entire nation. Far right nuts should not be speaking for anyone outside their circles. Makes everyone else look bad. That would be like a TERF speaking for women's rights groups or MRA's speaking for legit men's rights groups. Bad results. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Spud's first Esperanto translation

You asked for it and you got it! You asked for a translation of Santa Claus (well, one of you did). Now you have Kristnaska Viro. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few closet Esperantists here whose Esperanto is much better than mine. You are most welcome to edit the page and correct my mistakes. Do it anonymously if you don't want people to think you're weird for speaking Esperanto! Spud (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

We thought you were weird before we knew you spoke Esperanto. LongLostLegend (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am weird and I've never hidden the fact that I speak Esperanto. There's been Esperanto text on my user page ever since I created it on 13 September 2011. But I wasn't talking about me. If other users here want to keep the fact that they speak Esperanto a secret and edit the page I created, anonymously, that's fine by me. If they want to come out of the closet as Esperantists, even better. Spud (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason why an Esperantist would want to keep that information secret? Is persecution still a thing? Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, persecution is still a thing. If I told my fundamentalist family my true beliefs I'd be dead. BobRoss (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've heard of young conlangers having manuscripts burned by parents who did not understand them and were suspicious as a result. Smerdis of Tlön, ɚ̥ɵʷê̬̏e̥̽̊˞ə̃̈ʼ . 02:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been meaning to make one for a while but just can't be bothered to make all the words/sounds. I've had ideas for the grammar for some time though. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody wuould deny that persecution in general is still a thing. But persecution of Esperantists? No, I suppose not. I suppose there are still some countries like Iran where the authorities would look at someone who spoke Esperanto with a certain degree of suspicion but the same would probably be true of anyone who spoke another language. So let me put it another way. I wouldn't be surprised if another user who speaks Esperanto but never mentioned it before edits the page. I also wouldn't be surprised if a BoN editss the page, especially since I'm going to tell my old Esperanto teacher about it. Spud (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is cool. Grats for Spud knowing Esperanto and actually doing an article in it. Dysklyver (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

But where is the Lojban RW? Now that really would be rational. --Gospatric (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ĉu ne la rekta vorto estas "Avo Frosto".'Legion^{what do you want from me} 09:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@N7.Geth Rigardu la komencon de la artikolo. Mi skribis, "Kristnaska Viro (alianome: Patro Kristnasko, Paĉjo Kristnasko, Sankta Nikolao, Avo Frosto, Julavo aŭ Santa Claus)." Mi ankaŭ diras en la artikolo ke la nomo Avo Frosto estas ofte uzata en Esperanto kaj estas traduko de la nomo de karaktero el rusa folkoro. Kaj mi vere ĝojas revidi vin, amikon! Spud (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Jes mi jxus kontrolis mdr.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 19:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Kio estas 'mdr'? Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @

I want some opinions on this. Would a creationist automatically be a bad scientist?

We all know that Issac Newton was a whacko Biblical literalist but he made huge advancements in science and mathematics. If they produced real research in their field such as physiology? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It depends. Throughout the history of science, there have been many who were religious, even devoutly so. (If you are curious, I can provide some more examples: Galileo Galilei, Leonard Euler, James Clerk Maxwell, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), and Michael Faraday.) What's important is not whether or not a certain scientist is religious, but whether or not that scientist allows their work to be (overly) influenced by religious thought. Today, as long as you do not invoke religious reasoning in your research papers, no one really cares what you believe in your private life. Nerd (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Check our article on Nobel disease for a fairly lengthy list of very well esteemed scientists who descend into rabid crankery once outside of their field of expertise. My personal rationalization: being able to attack the core challenges of a particular scientific field often require mathematical skills and a deep knowledge of the field, but only a very scant understanding and appreciation of the philosophy of science. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The claim the universe is less than 10,000 years old is a red flag. Isaac Newton is the prime example of a religious scientist who probably believed the bible account of creation must be true. But in his defense, telescopes were then so inadequate he had to create a better one himself (the Newtonian). Yet it was inadequate for cosmological measurements. The age of the universe is found by measuring the radial velocities and distances of other galaxies, which tend to move from the Milky Way at speeds proportional to their distances. Science was unaware of the existence of other galaxies until around 1929. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Actually, cosmology did not exist as a science before 1917, when Albert Einstein published his seminal paper "Cosmological Consideration" in which he applied his newly created general theory of relativity to the entire Universe. Isaac Newton only created celestial mechanics. (The first astrophysicist was Sir Arthur Eddington — yes, that one — who used general relativity to investigate the structure of stars in the early 1920s.) Nerd (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And furthermore, The theory of General Relativity was not available until a physicist appeared who was clever enough to apply Riemann's non-euclidean geometry (ca 1866) to cosmological questions. The many culprits responsible for the delay includes Immanuel Kant, who claimed that there could only be one true geometry. I suppose the Germans were intimidated. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Not quite. In order to appreciate the necessity of general relativity and to develop it, one first needs special relativity, which stems from James C. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, in particular the reconciliation between classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics. Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann died before Maxwell completed his most famous scientific contribution. Furthermore, Karl Friedrich Gauss, Riemann, and a number of other mathematicians who developed non-Euclidean geometry were not necessarily interested in the "real world." Rather, they wondered what would happen if Euclid Parallel Postulate was relaxed. Mathematicians had been trying in vain for millennia to prove this statement, to convert it from an axiom into a theorem, thinking it was not as self-evident as the other ones. Because they succeeded, they realized that the Universe we live in is one one of many possible geometries, and it is the job of the physicists and the astronomers to determine which geometry describes our Universe. At the time, the answer was obvious: the Universe is Euclidean. That is as far as their cosmological considerations went.

A small technical note: it does not really make sense to say "the theory of general relativity." Instead, please say "the general theory of relativity." When we say "general relativity," we mean it as a short hand for the latter. Nerd (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd Thank you for the correction. You may be underestimating the scientific contributions of Riemann and Gauss. Much of Riemann's published work was intended for scientific applications, and of course, Gauss' day job was director of the Gottingen observatory. See the link on Riemann for more on the quote:.. he (Riemann) went so far as to say that “the physical matter determines the geometrical structure of space”. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Many scientists during the Golden Age of Arabia were religious, although their version of Islam would often be considered unrecognizable today. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aeonian Long time no see! Yes, I am quite impressed with how much scientists and mathematicians working in the House of Wisdom achieved. Some of them, such as Omar Khayyam, even openly doubted certain aspects of religion. Nerd (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Creationism is a belief. Having a BELIEF, even one that may seem to contradict science does NOT make one a bad scientist right away. If you have someone who continues to claim that science is a conspiracy theory etc. then maybe, but just having a belief in itself has no relation to automatically being bad at science! At least that is what I think! Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The word 'automatically' makes me answer no. As @Kingdamian1 says, a mere belief is not sufficient to make one a bad scientist. So long as said scientist keeps an open mind about his/her results and is thorough in their experimentation and hypothesis-construction, I don't see why creationism should be a bad thing. Hell, many scientists in the past used creationism to motivate themselves; they believed that God created a complex universe so that humanity would better itself by seeking to understand things. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 18:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 Depends on which version of Creationism they believe in. OEC is compatible with science (sort of), YEC is not and never will be. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

In the early days of evolutionary theory in the 19th century, several of its greatest opponents were creationists who used scientific evidence to support their position. Cuvier, Buckland and even Richard Owen, who coined the word "dinosaur", were the finest minds in biology at the time while arguing for creationism. However as eveidence grew for Darwin's theory, creationism declined in scientific circles, and by the turn of the century was confined to a few diehards. I guess these days, though, a creationist could only be a good scientists if they kept their religious beliefs separate from their work. 109.204.116.189 (talk) (Sophie) 12:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Those scientists mentioned at first can also be excused, as centuries ago it was unknown, and there was no way to know about it, the Universe is actually billions of years old and far larger and richer than what looks at first. If you want to have more than just speculations as those of Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno among others, who turned out to be quite right, you need a lot of both theoretical (mathematics) and observational background, the latter requiring also technological advances.

Of course someone could develop from scratch Einstein's general of relativity and its mathematical framework having only the technology available to Romans (EDIT I mean something that had 'some resemblance to it, maths being so theoretical are a different history), but testing it would be quite another history. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser

Why doesn't RW have a checkuser right? Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive261#Should_we_implement_CheckUser.3F. Was voted against nearly unanimously. Privacy reasons. If I can get CheckUser, I can find out what your IP address is and also see what other accounts you use. Not against or for it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why we'd need it. Just block people when they decide to be shitheads. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 01:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is some sort of national security reason then hell no. Don't need privacy invasion. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We won't release the info to anyone... Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't need it. Users who are blocked for being arseholes usually act like arseholes again and get blocked again. And if any users who used to be vandals or trolls start new accounts and become genuinely good contributors, then I say, "good on them". (Although I'd recommend that they keep the fact that they used to act like shits a secret.) Spud (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I am a holder of Checkuser privileges on this wiki. I disturbed me when I ran some IP checks and saw several prominent users(including sysops, techs and mods) have been engaging in sockpuppetry. I will report my findings to the Coop once I have gathered enough evidence. TheCheckuser (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sucks for you, because we have nothing against socks. Try harder. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

From a legal point of view the Checkuser extension is particularly tricky. If it was enabled the RationalWiki Foundation would need to display warnings about data collection to all EU users, appoint a Data Controller (licensed in some EU countries where that is required) and vet each person given access to the tool with background checks against their real life identities (to meet EU laws). There are various other things like having to update the privacy policy and respond to all requests from trolls to have their data removed from the site, which they would have a legal requirement to do if the trolls were in the EU. It is possible to just ignore the EU, but they might block the site. In no way is it worth the hassle just to see that obvious troll A is using the same computer as obvious troll B. Dysklyver (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The Checkuser function is highly necessary. Like I said, I have unearthed a massive amount of abuse of multiple accounts from prominent and powerful members of the community. TheCheckuser (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Proof or STFU Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't even need that, just skip straight to STFU. It's obvious who it is anyway. —Kazitor, ^pending 10:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. And he isn't even smart enough to notice that I gave him some good advice a little earlier on. Spud (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Choose your words carefully Spud and Kazitor. For a long time I have suspected you both have been abusing multiple accounts, don't make me check your IP. TheCheckuser (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy against having multiple accounts here (although good hand/bad hand accounts usually get booted). Also, your threat is empty as we got rid of checkuser many years ago. 109.204.116.189 (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I am a master of puppets anyway, so I don't give a tick^{(a small bug similar to a fucking moron)} and although I can't be bothered to sock here (because there is no point), that in no way means I would have anything against anyone who did provided they weren't a complete moron. Also my puppets never match on checkuser, get real, it's useless at finding puppet accounts. Dysklyver (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The irony, of course, is that you're the one using multiple accounts here. —Kazitor 13:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

FA isn't the most creative troll in the world (that honor actually belongs to someone like me). ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

^_^ Dysklyver (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

On topic: I was under impression that mods would get CheckUser. I think it would help me with my moderating powers so people don't end up responding to virtually the same troll, and I can implement a temporary range block. Also, said troll has to work harder to switch to different proxies so every little bit helps if it's to make things a little harder. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It would likely help with dealing with static IP range vandals, clueless vandals, or random people off the internet. However, not for commited trolls, tech-savvy trolls, or anyone with a clue. It's worth noting the moment you get into trying to stop those you end up blocking large swathes of IP addresses just to limit the trolls options. By the time you have finished it's most coalition ISP's, most of Australia, most public wifi providers, mobile providers the tor network, all VPN providers, Russia, China, Nigeria, a variety of spam blacklists... Wikipedia has about twenty people on the job full time blocking these things and they still get a ton of proxy vandalism. Anyone vandalising here by rights will know the tricks to beat the Wikipedia defences, and then it just becomes a huge timesink. Meanwhile the trolls press some buttons and return on a new hulu proxy to annoy you. My personal view is either to use this (which works on the wiki I installed it on) or to just do what is done here already. Dysklyver (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Kazitor and GrammarCommie, I demand that you both withdraw your accusations. TheCheckuser (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No. I don't feel like it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There are always people who "beat" the system but the more energy they try to expend trolling, the less lucrative it is. Depends on how hard it is for them to "just" reregister on a proxy. Not sure where you're getting blocking large "swathes" of IP addresses as range blocks shouldn't be common or long in the first place. We're no Conservapedia. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem has been people impersonating other users on socks. A checkuser would help in blocking fake impersonator accounts. for example the neo-Nazi troll Michael Coombs has been creating impersonator accounts on here for years.Bonjela (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Trolls have been allowed to cause chaos here for far to long. I propose that Checkuser rights are enabled and I am the sole Checkuser (I'm trustworthy, honest) TheCheckuser (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of making this go on for even longer than it should (don't feed the troll, guys, actually debating checkuser is pointless here), I'd like to point out that you claimed (transparently) that you already had checkuser rights. But hey, I already know your IP; it starts with 8. —Kazitor 22:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser tech is not even a priority on this site. There are trolls but you have to simply ignore them or report them. See, very simple. Checkuser tech is simply an invasion of privacy and someone could just abuse it. Hell no to checkuser. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)