RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive291

This is an archive page, last updated 28 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>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <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>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Question on Publishing

Here's a scenario. Let's say I copyright a literary work, and then I proceed to self publish.

Now, the version of the work that is sold to the public is slightly different from the version I copyrighted. Just minor changes like the names of the characters and place (say, Posja becomes "Posya"). Is this a big enough change to make the copyright not for the work published. BobRoss (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

But surely the published work would have a copyright notice in it too. If it didn't, then the whole thing would be in the public demain by default. Spud (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Anything which you personally produce is copyright by default. It's only in public domain if you explicitly place it in public domain. This applies whether you have placed a copyright notice on something or not.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate: I have sent a submission to the US government, and have received an official copyright for it. But I plan on changing some of the spellings of character names in the work. Would these changes be big enough to render it an entirely new work altogether upon being self published? Would the official copyright I received for the pre-published work extend to the the slightly edited published work? BobRoss (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

We're not going to give legal advice, but Wikipedia says the purpose of copyright registration is "to place on record a verifiable account of the date and content of the work in question, so that in the event of a legal claim, or case of infringement or plagiarism, the copyright owner can produce a copy of the work from an official government source." --Annanoon (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I already know this. BobRoss (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright law varies somewhat from country to country, depending on where you book was first published and which copyright treaties the country signed. As said above, in the US anyway, once you publish something it is assumed that the author has automatic copyright unless other agreements are in effect. It used to be in the US that you had to have a copyright statement in the book or an official copyright registration, but that hasn't been true for ages and now only pertains to older works. The NOLO book, Copyright Handbook, The: What Every Writer Needs to Know, is a good source for basic copyright information. Bongolian (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Provided your alterations are not significant (eg. adding a chapter) then you should be covered by your existing copyright registration, particularly if you keep a record of what you changed and when with your other paperwork (in case you ever need to show your work). Make sure to sign and date the redraftings. Of course the copyright registration is not technically needed, but I have some, and I live in the UK. There's nothing stronger for proving your copyright. — Dysk (contribs) 22:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

There can be various restrictions other than copyright - including derivative fiction, and (mainly factual writing) whether your writings can be seen as part of your normal employment/during working hours and/or derived therefrom.

Try LinkedIn (for what its worth - and bear in mind that many bunnies are unhappy at various recent rearrangements) - there are a number of groups where participants will advise you further.

IF someone reads both versions - would they notice the changes or write on their favourite discussion group about the differences? If the latter then get advice. Anna Livia (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The basic thing is that everything you do will be copyrighted. It is not possible to unintentionally release something without copyright, and copyright laws are in favour of the creator. —Kazitor 00:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Dysklyver for answering my question. I don't plan on adding chapters, just the names of places and characters. I have once more question, would adding a paragraph count as a significant alteration? BobRoss (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph you add won't be covered by the copyright registration, but the rest of the work will be. — Dysk (contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. So Dysklyver, say I write Cade instead of Kade. It doesn't seem like a significant change to me, but is it significant to the US copyright office? BobRoss (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It really depends on the case, in general it isn't significant if you change the spelling. You have your copyright registration proving you own the copyright of the book and that it is your original work. You should keep a proof copy of the book as published with publishers receipt, showing how the book looked when published (this can be a digital proof) most self publishing platforms (ingram, amazon, etc) will supply a proof automatically as part of the confirmation process. What matters is that you can if needed verify to a court when the you wrote the book (the copyright registration proves this) and when you made the changes (the publishers proof proves this). Making a few changes the published book is ok too, but make sure to keep records of the errata completed afterwards, preferably with some proof of when they were made. — Dysk (contribs) 20:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Good, now that I know this, I can spread my cult across the world, hehe boi. BobRoss (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(reset) It will depend upon the particular 'publishing and copyright legalities regime(s)' in which your text is published; and eg 'revised and updated' (not being significant enough for it to be considered a new edition - eg the changed versions of the Bilbo Baggins-Gollum encounter in the pre- and post-LOTR versions of The Hobbit), and there are also ISBNs etc to consider. It is probably best to get advice from more formal authorities.

Also if you are making changes between issuings - also keep one version (or several if appropriate) with the changes visibly marked, for all the obvious reasons. (This applies in many contexts.) Anna Livia (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In the US, the rule for copyright is "substantively the same", which has a very large number of very specific court precedents, and I'm nowhere near a lawyer. Regardless if the clear majority of any body of work is identical, yeah it's the same work, and any US court would find that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Voter registration

I'm posting this here so as many people as possible will see it. I noticed on the voter registration page that several users were listed twice.
(a) Is there a reason for this or was it accidental?
(b) Would it be a problem if I removed the duplicates?
If the answer to (b) is no, then I also strongly suggest someone checks my edit to make sure that I do not accidentally remove anyone from the list entirely. This post also serves as a reminder to everyone that in order to vote in the RationalWiki Foundation board election you must sign your user name to this page. CowHouse (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Likely accidentally so it's fine to remove dupes. But it doesn't seem you've made such an edit? —Kazitor 00:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see if anyone objects to removing the duplicates before I do it. CowHouse (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I just remembered that I fairly recently hacked together a quick script to remove duplicate lines, and since there are no timestamps in that list it should work fine (and be programatically verified). Maybe I'll do that later today, currently in the middle of something important (so why do I keep refreshing my watchlist?) —Kazitor 05:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Don't worry, I've done it already. Feel free to check that I only removed duplicates in this edit. Also, do you think the site notice should include a link to the voter registration page? CowHouse (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@CowHouse Looks good to me. I don't think sitenotice is necessary, but I did add a link to the election booth page (one was already on the root too). —Kazitor 06:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Doom Eternal

Opinions on Doom Eternal trailer. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not long enough. Cardinal Chang (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty much a plotless snuff film for the herd to gobble up. BobRoss (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully, plot doesn't matter in these kinds of video games. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The plot synopsis from Doom: "You are doom guy; you fight demons on Mars." Samstr (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I was shocked when I picked up a box copy of the 2016 release and saw on the back "You are the Doom marine." Doom marine? Who the hell is that? —Kazitor 00:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Doom franchise has plotlines?!?! When did this happen?!?!? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the lack of a plot is a good thing in these types of video games. _{PSA for dumb people who don't play video games so I have no idea what they do in their spare time. It must be boring.} --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

well actually The most recent Doom games star the Doom Slayer, who canonically is different from Doom Guy, who the demons revere as a god. His poor bunny. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Will there be the berserk rune? K0rnsbl0d^{Let the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!"} 19:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Optimistic or pessimistic?

Are any of your optimistic for the future or pessimistic? ^{— Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs}

Hell's not real, but we're working on it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Humans will be extinct by the year 3020. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

why stress about things out our control or that we all be too long dead to care about? i'm more concerned about scraping together enough coin to buy a pint of milk. ive been in crisis for so long to know that it stops being crisis and just the way things are. you just get on with things and something generally turns up to keep you. im not in a warzone, and there are no world ending events happening anytime. on the big things im 'meh'. on the things that are tangible to me, im quietly optimistic. ive not been that for a long time. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Pessimistic is always the way to go. That way, life is full of pleasant surprises, instead of constant disappointment. LongLostLegend (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Humans will be extinct by the year 2120, mate. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 12:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spriggina I meant to add the phrase "at the latest" but I was in a hurry at the time. I've editing from my phone due to a string of family outings. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If things go considerably wrong—environmentally, geopolitically or pandemic-wise—humanity could suffer a catastrophic reduction in population. But extinction may be taking it too far. On the low-technology end, there'd be some small communities that'd survive independent of what our overall civilization might be going through. On the high-technology end, a few wealthy elite could withdraw themselves to a safe location and preserve humanity using science (e.g. cloning, genetic manipulation). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pessimism and optimism are characteristics of personality. Both attitudes can be either ameliorative or destructive.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spacehillbilly I'm generally optimistic for humanity as a whole in the spirit of Steven Pinker. Humanity is inherently progressive in the long run; we today are living better and longer than our ancestors were. And for that, I am grateful and optimistic. Nerd (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The future is belonging to Chaos now. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

In the end times humanity will be be gone and forgotten, with all it's creations swept away by the sands of time. Cheery thought. — Dysk (contribs) 16:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm cautiously optimistic about global peace. I'm rather pessimistic about humanity's treatment of the environment. Maybe with new technology, e.g. fossil-fuel-free space travel, we can get to a point where our frenzied consumerism doesn't need to disrupt Earth's biosphere anymore to get its daily injection of materialist-opioids. But that's a very big if. And whether humanity can handle a postscarcity society responsibly is an even bigger if. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. Based on our current rate of investment/development in the realm of space travel, excluding interplanetary colonization (which we collectively have made almost no real development in outside the theoretical), humankind will die on this insignificant speck of dust we call Earth. Whether that changes is open ended, but that's how things stand at this current time. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid according to the current standards, "War is Peace".Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, manned spaceflight has progressed little to nothing in the past few decades. On the upside, Trump wants a Space Force. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sadly yes. If only manned space exploration had gone at least a quarter as well as unmanned one. Panzerfaust (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Panzerfaust Actually, manned space exploration is more dangerous and expensive than unmanned missions, which is why we have been investing more in the latter. Furthermore, robots can be extremely nifty data collectors, analyzers and explorers.

@141.134.75.236 Space will be another dimension of warfare, the way the air and the Internet have become. Thus, Trump's announcement was no more than a publicity stunt. The U.S. Air Force already has a Space Command, and it is responsible for something you have definitely heard of, the Global Positioning System.

@GrammarCommie @141.134.75.236 Ever heard of asteroid mining? The next Rockerfellers could be the owners of asteroid mining companies. Nerd (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd I'm fully aware of that. It's just having been stuck in LEO for so many decades -no moonbases, even a small one- when ones sees there've been talks of going to Mars for decades, not to mention those old books of the eighties and earlier that considered in these years we'd have walked in Mars and lunar colonies, is depressing. It's a luck unmanned space exploration at least works so well (and could work even better with more funds). Panzerfaust (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Panzerfaust We can certainly dream about colonizing extraterrestrial space. We can also invest in technologies that make our world a better place. I am thinking about not just things that reduce our environmental footprint but also things that help us adapt to a changing planet. Here is something that might be new to you: oceanscrapers. Nerd (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a reason for the radio silence of all the space civilizations that are predicted to be out there. Intelligent life is a self-limiting phenomenon; whenever it arises, mass extinctions and biological degradation of the homeworld inevitably follow. To be alive is to follow the unchosen agenda of living, and that agenda means turning the planet's resources to serving the innate and immutable desires of the intelligent lifeform in a way that's certain to lead to burnout. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@LongLostLegend. True. It's better to be prepared for the bad things if they come and good ones, either present or in the comning, are most enjoyed that way and that's the use dystopias have. As everything use it with moderation.

@Nerd. Interesting stuff. Even if there's no turning back for climate change one can but hope we'll be able to at least mitigate its effects and stop messing with this planet before things get really screwed up. As for space travel, I guess it's due to lack of interest and is even surprising space exploration has continued given how short-sighted is people (why goverments spend so many millions in space probes to study life on Mars when so many children are aborted?. Heard to one preacher.). As much of an asshole may often be Musk I've hopes the private sector will speed up things again.

@Smerdis of Tlön. That proves little. Maybe we cannot disentangle their emissions from background noise or they use much more economical communication methods (directed lasers, etc. Think on the way space probes communicate with us and vice-versa, they're not a radio mast in space) and/or one unknown by us. Of course when one thinks on the billions of years this galaxy has existed even that has issues (I'm purposefully avoiding to talk about Reapers, Berserkers, Killing Stars, etc). Panzerfaust (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

SA Farm Removals

So... apparently South Africa has begun seizing white owned farms. I don't know how much of this is an exaggeration by the rightwingers, but on the surface is does seem pretty scary considering the results of Zimbabwe. CoryUsar (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Boo hoo. I'm not exactly crying tears for them. I've seen first hand what they did to the majority of people there. Also, source? And make it a good one, I'm not looking at crap some dude wrote to fill a corporate quota. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

While not weeping over it either, I do think it might end up being problematic. Closest thinkthing I could find to a reliable source is yesterdays Newsweek article. It's a pretty confusing situation though, with different court cases pending and the government talking about amending the Constitution. Cheers. Gabriel Syme (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The people who own the farms have little to do with the colonial events that happened a century ago. This really seems like a "sins of the father" thing. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

a century ago? you are joking right? apartheid only ended in the 90s AMassiveGay (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is about individuals that had little to nothing to do with the apartheid regime itself or with the land being stolen. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

you are talking about a regime that actively forcibly relocated and disenfranchised its majority black population, prevented free movement of its black populated, with all the usual ills of segregation. blacks were not allowed to own land in white areas, while land in tribal areas was owned communally. you should perhaps read up on this. and i remind you, this only ended in the 90s, do you think these wrongs were immediately righted at the end of apartheid? some measure of land reform was/is needed to dress the decades of oppression, where these individuals who you say 'had little to nothing to do with the apartheid regime itself or with the land being stolen', absolutely benefited from from apartheid, their families benefited from apartheid, and are infact products of apartheid, that it is just wrong to flatly claim seizures of land is wrong without looking at the context that they exist in, as it is similarly wrong, as others have, to invoke the spectre of the zimbabwe experience, which occurred under a authoritarian arsehole who encouraged the resulting violence. SA has many problems but its not zimbabwe AMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"disenfranchised" implies they were enfranchised in the first place. I... don't think that was the case. As for the farms themselves, I was under the impression that the land itself was stolen, but the farms were built on top of said stolen land. Had the Dutch/British never showed up, the land would've remained in the hands of the local tribes, but relatively undeveloped and the people would still be dirt poor. The Boers were still a bunch of assholes who murdered innocents, but let's not pretend that the place was Wakanda before the white guys ruined it. CoryUsar (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

at no point above did i suggest things were great before, and we have absolutely no way of knowin how things may have panned out if europeans hadnt did what we did. all i did was try to provide a little context with how apartheid took an existing shit show and stepped it up a few notches, how it set the stage for what we see today. the point being, apartheid ended in 94, but the injustices werent erased by that. the apparatus that kept black people in may have been gone, but that means little most of the land, money and power was still out their hands. its been no easy task to fix that. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek? You mean that company that has been not only in the Bush's pocket for the last decade, but has been known for bias from editors and multiple cases of sexual harassment? Silly place to find news, that's clearly biased. Reliable source my ass. Besides, they have to pay for stealing land? It's almost like equality or something is being attempted. Keep in mind, when the opposite was happening to them no one chose to even complain about it. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

And, the article appeared to be about a dispute about values in an eminent domain proceeding, which is quite common and mostly removed from race. - Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 00:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree, Newsweek is tripe, meant to say closest thing I could find was Newsweek and I figured that'd be taken with a grain of salt. I just hadn't heard about this and did a quick check. As far as the eminent domain goes, absofuckinglutely take that shit back, just as above board as possible. Cheers. Gabriel Syme (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I've toyed around with writing a story about imperialism, where space aliens invade and conquer medieval Europe. Like, medieval Europe as run by the Song of Ice and Fire nobles and clergy, but worse. The nobles and clergy get slaughtered by the aliens, though you aren't supposed to feel the least bit sorry because they were doing worse to the peasants. Life improves for the peasants, but the aliens are still full of shit and hypocrisy and are only slightly less parasitic than the ruling classes they displaced, living by far better lives than the peasants. They teach the peasants how to do menial jobs the aliens don't want to such as data entry and filing paperwork, claim to be "uplifting" the humans but curiously never teach the humans the basic science required to run the heavy machinery or build the computers the economy depends on, and indirectly and not necessarily intentionally but most thoroughly insult humanity throughout since "obviously" as a spacefaring race they must be superior. Not to mention that the aliens group the humans into competing territories with no respect for cultures or languages, e.g., "New Xorblax" has people speaking French and Spanish and Italian, "K'lak'lakka'ka" has people speaking Spanish and English and German, etc. Eventually the humans revolt, but the revolution is clearly being run by people who were just as awful as the old nobles, and the humans themselves are also hypocrites and full of shit as well. The humans win, only for a combination of general incompetence combined with the aforementioned intentional undertraining by the alien overlords results in society collapsing soon after. CoryUsar (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

📎 It seems like you're writing a sci-fi critique of capitalism. Would you like help with stock characters such as "reformed upper class love interest" and "disillusioned religious leader"? 📎 ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly breaking news, considering https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-44278164. ^{— Unsigned, by: Cardinal Chang / talk / contribs}

Is nothing but a distraction. Apparently, the ANC can't even root out the rampant corruption. This is apparently how they can just look "competent". K0rnsbl0d^{Let the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!"} 19:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But SA isn't exactly the most stable of places. Just a few farm seizures, even token ones, would be enough to cause a market panic and trigger a recession. And Botswana, Zimbabwe and Namibia depend on providing cheap labor to SA, without which the entire southern portion of Africa would collapse, potentially triggering another refugee crisis on top of the current one. CoryUsar (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

ANC is apparently that rife with cronyism, Hell, Mr. Ramaphosa had violently broken up a 2012 miner strike in Marikana or something. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The greatest video of all time:

Rise for our new King: King Donaldus Rex--Palaeonictis (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That's quite catchy. I always enjoy this Trump cover song (mainly because Imagine Dragons are awesome) --RWRW (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The Donald Trump song I remember most is this alt-right garbage, sadly, which is oddly catchy Count Bezukhov (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why does it not surprise me that you honestly think Trump should be emperor, contrary to the principles this nation was founded upon.--Palaeonictis (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone undo my accidental reversion Anna Livia (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You mean this Never mind the ballots video? Was wondering why Chumbawamba got removed, that's almost blasphemous

Praise Chaos! Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Might be more UK-centric but the sentiment is still relevant. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, No

Fuck that. Fuck ALL of that. Trump isn't the Emperor, his administration is not Crusade-era Imperium, and that slimy piece of shit doesn't deserve to have Sabaton ever grace him ever again.

Here's my response to that topic:

RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth If you think that's bad you should see some of the comments and covers of PowerWolf's stuff. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

They dare despoil Powerwolf too?! Those fucking bastards have some brass Coleus Sanctus! RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Abaddon Trump shall lead Chaos to victory.

Death to the Imperium. Chaos is supreme now. Bow down.

K0rnsbl0d^{Let the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!"} 19:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit it's a bit of a relief that SOMEONE compares Trump to Failbadon rather than to the Emperor. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth How dare you speak of the despoiler like that. Chaos has taken the golden throne! Our Black Crusade is a success!

Death to the false emperor! We shall finally lay waste to all that is Cadia Terra and all that is good. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That was a distinct possibility before Guilliman and the Yncarne showed up. 13th time's not quite the charm after all. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You're forgetting something. Chaos can play the long game. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You say that like they have the time. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the smurf will inherit a shattered "empire". It will be a long time before things become "normal" Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You think I'm rooting for Papa Smurf? It's Trazyn, Eldrad, or bust for me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Dark Eldar shall eventually consume their "good" brethren and in the end, Trazyn's efforts will be in vain. His collection relating to Solemnace was lost, along with his other trophies to be fated for doom. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The best thing to happen to the Drukhari was Vect becoming a Dark Muse; between Lelith's defection to the Ynnari and the destruction of the Gate of Khaine, I imagine Commoragh won't last much longer. Also, Trazyn added Creed to his collection. That alone makes him a major player. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Long Live Chaos Forever. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"All embrace me, it's my time to rule at last. Fifteen years have I been waiting to sit upon my throne." - Donaldus Rex--Palaeonictis (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, I don't know why the alt-right compares Trump to Carolus Rex. On the one hand, the comparison doesn't fit because Carolus fought on the front lines all his life. On the other hand, it fits because Carolus's unrestrained expansionism and hawkishness led to the collapse of the Swedish Empire. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

you are over thinking it AMassiveGay (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Ultimately, Trump is just Andrew Jackson with a Twitter account and a spray tan. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I took the video as a parody of Trump's authoritarian tendencies, after all the video refers to Trump voters as "centipedes".--Palaeonictis (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Palaeonictis Um. No. They actually like that label. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Chaos has finally taken the golden throne. Bow before thy new masters. K0rnsbl0d^{Let the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!"} 16:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't look gay

”Neither your walk nor behaviour nor clothing indicate in any way you might be homosexual.”

This is so much more offensive being typecasted than reading a stupid evangelical asshole say "gay men are evil and bring disease and natural disasters lacking moral values". Because, they are inherantly stupid assholes and what else would you expect. However typecasting is far more degrading than the occasional "hey faggot!" or sneering and laughing as you hold your partners hand. It's extremely offensive both to the men who are on the more masculine side (go watch a gay rugby team play or a gay first responder or gay soldier or farmer/frat-boy/business-trader/construction worker or [insert sterotypical manly occupations]. Because they don't relate to those sterotypical qualities as though they are fake-gay men (or worse just pretending to be masculine when they are really feminine inside). It's not part of their identity and that doesn't make them more amicable or less of a gay-man. And its offensive to gay men who happen to be on the more effeminate side, as though it is something bad, qualities men shouldn't have. And it's offensive to the majority of gay men who fall inbetween these two false polarities who have some qualities which are derisive and other qualities that make him a non-authentic-gay-man. It is infuriating to read this kind of shit and I can only imagine how degrading it was for the Iraqi man to hear this. Being masculine, deeply in the closet and hiding all sterotypical qualities was a matter of life or death for him, in a place where not so far away gay men (or those accused of it) are thrown off buildings. The same thing affects other LGTB+. I'm curious if this hurts other gay men and LGTB+ here as well. 83.61.204.52 (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's very bad when people do this. Unfortunately there is just a stereotype for "gay man" as there is a stereotype for...well everything, there's even a stereotype for "stupid evangelical asshole", but alas, pretty much anyone can turn out to be one of these. — Dysk (contribs) 13:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand how one can be perceived as "looking masculine" and I understand the perception of "looking feminine" but, short of several forms of public indecency, how is one supposed to "look gay"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

People assume gender = sexuality because of media and word of mouth "advise". Also, there will be stereotypes until the end of time; this is just how humans operate.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wear pink and carry yourself in a more feminine way if you're a man, have short hair if you're a woman. I'm pretty sure that's what pops up in most people's heads when they picture gay people. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

i dont think any gay man has been insulted by being told they dont look gay. you'd more likely get thanked for the compliment. just look at any grindr profile with 'no fats, no femmes' (and no asians, but that a whole different issue), or the line 'if i wanted to sleep with a woman, then id sleep with a women'. i have heard it sincerely argued that the more femme types are responsible for homophobia, that a bit of campness is rightly disgusted. fucking straight acting bores. the case above, the salient point seems to me that the chap was refused asylum because he 'didnt look gay', not the perceived insult. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm LGTB+ and people don't usually guess it. Call that masculine or whatever. I am very offended by the whole affair in Austria and so are my friends here in Europe (who are all very different kinds of LGBT+). They were rather upset after reading about it. It would make me sick to be told I wasn't who I say I am because of someones nasty pre-conceptions. The masculine fem debate is one you read about but I rarely ever see in person. A minority of men who are hyper-butch or hyper-flamey trash each other on blogs and youtube videos and other rot spaces online. I rarely see it or hear it in person and it usually comes out of the mouths of assholes or bitches. Mostly from guys who are insecure and have something to prove. I don't have the slightest problem with people being as flamey and flamboyant as they like and I love the hilarious spectacles during pride parades, even if I don't participate or identify with it. The normalisation of LGTB+ requires it. I do however have a problem with people being told they don't have the sexual identity they say they have because they don't fulfill X, Y and Z. As for the gay Iraqi man, I'm pretty sure the biggest punch in the face was being rejected as a refugee and the terror of having to go back to Iraq. After that comes the sexual-identity-denial, and if you were in the same situation as him you'd find it like another punch in the face. ShabiDOO 22:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Inevitably one thinks things one would never say to the person's face. I imagine people think along those lines when they are an X interested in Y's, see what they think is a Y, only to discover that person is a Z. The question is, does one remark about it, saying "you really don't look like a Z, I thought you were a Y." I never have done so. It is clearly impolite. Eradicating impoliteness is a daunting task. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of impoliteness, but... eradicating it sounds pretty extreme (and impolite). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Fuck!

Attention fucking editors of Fuckity Fuck, I would bloody well fucking like to fucking know if fucking stupid amounts of fuckity fucking fuck swearing is fucking allowed in fucking articles in fucking excess. I fucking particularly fucking want to fucking know if the fucking word "fuck" is considered to be fucking rude whether fucking weak fucking shit like "fricking" is for some fuckity fuck reason considered fucking better. Obviously there is fucking in some articles about fucking and articles about fucking stupid morons. But is fuck for the sake of the word fuck allowed?

Also there is a fucking runtime exception in the wiki's fucking cirrussearch config, fuck:

"regex is only supported with $wgCirrusSearchUseExperimentalHighlighter = true" is part of the fucking error message that happens when a fuck-wit like me tries to use the fucking insource search function to see how exactly many fucks there are on the fucking wiki!

Fuck!

— Dysk (contribs) 16:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Swearing excessively is fucking disrespectful. Don't do that shit! --RWRW (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Haha I said the vulgar variety of "sexual intercourse" a lot of times. Hilarious. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that fuck is expressed in two different ways in most latin languages including Spanish. It is either "whore" in the fraze "en tu puta cara" (in your fucking face) or pussy "que coño haces"? (what the fuck are you doing). While English uses the word for hot/dirty love making, Spaniards use whore and pussy as words of scorn. What does that say about Anglophones and Iberians? In Quebecois french, fuck is expressed in several ways with my favorite being "tabarnak" as church related vocabulary inspires the harshest cuss words (tabernacle, chalice, the host). Suppose what you like about that! In Japanese they often use Kuso which means shit or korosuzo which means I will kill you. Feces and murder are their cuss word of choice. In welsh they either say fwcar which means "fucker" or some elaborate phrases such as "Dos i chwara dy Nain" meaning: Go finger your granny. So love making and cross-generational incest are the cusswords of choice in Wales. For more fascinating info about curse words around the world...just try any google search. The interweb is full of sites with the etymology of fuck wand fuck related words around the world! ShabiDOO 19:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually "Fuck" in european Spanish is "Joder". And the Spanish use it a LOT. It's far more common than "fuck" in English and carries less emotional impact.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Joder is a slightly irregularly spelled reflex of Latin futuere, which meant 'fuck' and is much less strong in Latin than in English. The same word wanders throughout the rest of the Romance languages, as in French foutre. It is not used aggressively in Latin; Catullus writes that he wants to give his girlfriend novem continuas fututiones, 'nine straight fuckings'. The aggressive senses of English 'fuck' in Latin were expressed by the words pedicare (to rape someone in the arse) amd irrumare (to force someone to do oral sex). Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Joder is used in Spain of course, quite a bit and it does fuzzily border the meaning of fuck, but if I drop a box of eggs or if I miss the metro, I say coño, not joder. Joder is closer to "what the fuck" though as an adjective (jodido) it is similar to "fucking" though puta is a little more versatile. ShabiDOO 06:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a literal translation. Not a "fuzzy border". I live in Spain and I speak Spanish. Furthermore: ses for example here, here and here. Now, obviously, no two words - especially swear words - are used in exactly the same way in two languages. But to suggest that these two words are not basically the same in meaning is - shall we say - surprising. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Except of course I also live in Spain, likely quite a lot longer, and no I would say joder can be translated as fuck but is used far more frequently in the sense of "what the fuck" than just a simple fuck and that yes, coño is used an agressive single word of exasperation whole lot more as in "oh fuck!" whereas joder can be used as fuck but is tamer...like "oh shit"! or "dammit". And that coño is used as an adjective like "fucking" (along with put@) while jodido is heard but infrequently used. Teachers and parents get a lot angrier when kids use coño than joder. The translations are fuzzy and I find it rather baffling that someone would think joder and fuck is a literal translation. ShabiDOO 21:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Et tu, Putin? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Swearing tends to be a sign of inarticulate speech, however it definitely has its place. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'w herv ya noe tha' swaerin' not don nushin to mah fookin spayk, yer ass! Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 21:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this a "fuck"? Is that a "fuck"? In what language does this "fuck" equate to that "fuck" or the other "fuck" or... gahhhh.

Seriously, you people, stupidest topic ever. Who gives a shit? Kencolt (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

To answer the original question. Is excessive amounts of profanity OK in articles? No. In the Saloon Bar? Yes. On talk pages? Yes. In edit summaries? Yes. (That's where I use it most often.) In block reasons? Yes. In articles, however, I think it should be largely confined to quotes. But quotes should never be censored.

And I'd like to take this opportunity to ask everyone to wish me a happy fucking birthday. Spud (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spud Happy birthday you godsdamned motherfucking son of a bitch. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy birthday Spud! (also ye fookin peeps are great ya'alll). — Dysk (contribs) 18:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Everyone's birthday comes from fucking. Well, not Louise Brown, but whatevs. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy celebration of what life does, I guess. By the way, everyone poops. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy fyooking birthday, Spud! RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This thread in a nutshell:

—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 22:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all, you groovy fuckers. A special thanks to @GrammarCommie for giving me the best laugh I've had in the last 12 months! Spud (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Science and magic

There's a trope I've noticed in many fictional fantasy works set in the modern era wherein someone mentions how "Science can't explain (x magical) phenomenon" and then in many cases that exact same character will go on a long detailed technical explanation on how magic in that fictional setting. Does anyone else think that this is rather stupid? I mean if magic was real (it's not) it would be scientists would seek to understand it, and scientists who would then try to explain their discoveries. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Counterpoint: those characters are 100% realistic given how many very real people say the very same thing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I'm talking strictly in the rules of reality set up in the fictional world. And my main complaint is that the trope in question is generally followed by some explanation as to how magic works, as if they possess an understanding based on research and testing. At least, within the rules of that universe. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the idea is that, in-universe, "science" and "magic" are two separate concepts that don't overlap, rather than treating science as "understanding based on research and testing" as you say. —Kazitor 05:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Having been a fan of fantasy for years, and also having read more than a few novels/series that are what GC seems to be describing-- from Edding's "Belgariad" the the recent "My Little Pony:Friendship Is Magic" series-- I can say this with a reasonable amount of certainty...

Within the rules of said fictional universe, wizards are scientists. They are trained individuals who examine, research, and experiment with the subject at hand, they look for repeatable and reproducible results from repeatable and reproducible activities, and they are extremely skeptical of claims that are made without evidence-- especially those that do not follow the model of magic as it is best understood in-universe. It really isn't magic as we tend to think of the subject on this wiki-- more like a science that isn't correct in this universe, but is in that' one.

In fact, very often a major part of the novel's conflict comes from the same conflict that many science fiction novels/series do-- Along come demons/aliens who are able to do something that is in direct violation with the laws of magic/science as we know them, thus beginning the great battle to save the realm/planet, as the good guys try to figure out how The Demon Xerblax/The Invading Gorgolian Forces are able to change water into stone/travel faster than light, even though they shouldn't be able to.

It's really only stupid if you decide that that entire genre of fantasy is stupid. Which, admittedly, is your choice, but I think at the least you're losing a fair amount of the impact over-thinking otherwise enjoyable reads. Kencolt (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

To some extent for a storyworld to work properly the 'laws of magic' have to work in a consistent way (including the 'accidentally badly done magic' trope - the Sorcerer's Apprentice etc), and 'the trained operators of magic' have to have a 'scientific' approach to their activities - otherwise all you have is an author who makes it up as they go along (and who can have 'magical creatures' change their abilities and absence thereof as it suits the particular moment of the plot).

What is absence from many fantasy-magic stories - the equivalent of OurRealWorld 'modern magick practices', 'magic woo' and equivalents. Anna Livia (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kencolt I said that the Trope itself is stupid, since as you said the characters in question are the equivalent of scientists in their world. The genres I enjoy, however that one trope gets in the way of that enjoyment. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

'Magic' does appear to operate by somewhat different principles to 'science-as-we-know-it' - but both require a consistent set of rules in order to 'work' (and 'any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science, and vice versa').

The 'healthcare professionals' for 'god(desse)s, demons, dragons, elves... etc' would be science - and those responsible for sorting out conflicts between variously overlapping invocations and interventions would be otherwise accounted for. Anna Livia (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I generally prefer 'science' fantasy to 'magic' fantasy, especially in comic books. Science fantasy -- wormholes to alien worlds, faster than light engines, various death rays -- invite relatively 'realistic' solutions with available materials, like when Dr. Quest used a mirror to reflect back a laser death ray. Magic, by contrast, invites the writer to pull it out of their head as needed. The most successful sorts of magic, like what Dr. Strange does, has repeated motifs, artifacts with canonical abilities, and other evidence of a system. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 00:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please, my science has shown that magic operates on a stack, not unlike the computer science data structure, where spells are resolved in a first in last out manner. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made this point before and it's a very good one - fantasy worlds show what religion and mythology would look like if it was real. The gods and super-beings are not only easily provable, but often interventionist to the point of being common knowledge to anyone not living under a rock. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Item number 100 here applies (and many of the other points on that and associated lists are appropriately to much fiction).

The point about fantasy writing is that 'magic and future/alternative science (FTL travel etc)' should be based on logic and be logically consistent and coherent - rather than 'here is a plothole-filling McGuffin scientist/magic person in exile has developed' (or if such device and system is created the logical consequences should be worked out: perhaps the equivalent of the 'retro-technology is better than the modern equivalents' debates). Anna Livia (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Magic in the settings (mostly games) I know of is presented not only as a science but also as a hard one, as arcana as string theory and other examples of theoretical physics if not more with certain high-power spells requiring months or even many years to prepare, not to mention to learn to cast them, and this without including the caster must be a genius who would leave Einstein as the average Joe (granted that what happens when someone screws up using a spell and/or the existence of so intelligent people is not touched upon for playing, etc. purposes). Heck, even the way to justify why wizards are so squishy in so many games is that they spent most of the time between grimories of magic, etc. improving their abilities (this is even extensible to clerics and the like, even if I find somewhat nonsensical the way they work). At least is consistent, except some cases when it's about using words of a long-forgotten language and later without justification changes to draining the lifeforce of others.

That spells break the law of physics is the least problem given other stuff present there that break them even moreso. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Magic is for sissies. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a fellow on Azeroth named Khadgar who would like to have words with you about that. (What? It is too on topic, Warcraft has some pretty detailed background and theory on at least the Arcane version of magic. A bit less so on the clerical type... well, that's to be expected.) Kencolt (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing that a good anti-matter powered terawatt x-ray laser can't solve. As for Warcraft, sure, for all the faults of that setting at least arcane magic is well covered. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This Khadgar is nothing but a coward for using magic to fight. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, he uses magic to wreck small mountains and slaughter armies while staring them down. This is called in the real world not cowardice, but a winning strategy. And PF, as to your note... Khadgar is the archmage. He pretty much is a terawatt x-ray laser or the thaumic equivalent. Kencolt (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That is cheating. Nothing beats close combat Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that is winning. He's in a war-- everyone in that world is-- and there's no cheating in war. There's only winning and "war crimes". And in said world, magic isn't a war crime-- it's standard artillery.

If I'm given a choice between an automatic rifle and a knife when someone else with a knife is rushing at me, I'm going for the "More Dakka" route. Kencolt (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You do realize his whole anti-magic spiel is a reference to Khorne's hatred of sorcery, right? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I don't play that game (although I've heard something about it), and I don't know who Khorne is. But i's fairly clear that whoever Khorne is, tactically, he's a moron. Kencolt (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Daemons and supernatural fighting prowess can often make up for a lack of sorcery in WH40K and WFB. Besides, Khorne is the god of war. Tactics are his domain. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought Khorne incarnated destruction per se, with no tactics, etc. and the latter was the domain of that goddess based on Athena in the latter (I guess WFB is the former Warhammer Fantasy). As for dakka, just one word: Exterminatus. Have a nice day. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How would the sentient computers and the gods interact? And what do god(desse)s get each other as presents? Anna Livia (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, Videos For People goes quite in depth on this topic, in his video, "Herry Pottor". ^{— Unsigned, by: 50.232.248.216 / talk}

RIP John McCain

Rest in peace John McCain from RW. Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Amen, even if I don't agree with his political views. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 05:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

He'll be missed Count Bezukhov (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

RIP. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

He was one smoking hot pepper!!! 83.61.204.52 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

RIP, John McCain. Even if your name reminds me of a certain brand of chips. — Dysk (contribs) 18:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

RIP, you were one of the few Republicans I actually respected. In addition, regardless of what that orange coward says, you were indeed a war hero. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A good soldier, a good politician, a good person. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think he was a disappointing politician, a pain in the ass Republican even (mainly for sticking way too many times for Republicans), but he gets some grudging respect from me for opposing torture and also actually serving for America. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dysklyver only someone who works in the food service industry like me would think of something like that... (And I do think of him every time I look at a box of fries at work with that name on them). What a Wonderful World (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

His mother is still alive, at 106. She also buried her identical twin sister, at 99. Which would you say is worse; burying your identical twin sibling, or a child? I mean, it's basically a coin flip as to whether or not you bury your identical twin, but that's still some freaky shit as you watch yourself descend into the Earth. And while watching a child die is horrific, back in the day it was basically 3/4 of the time anyway... CoryUsar (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Am a identical twin myself. At this point, I say burying the person you grew up and loved with your entire life is worse than burying a child (not that saying that burying your child isn't emotionally devastating it most definitely is). However, I don't see my identical twin as "myself", I see her as...well a separate entity from myself. Also, I don't have kids yet but I can still feel the terrible sting it would bring to bury a child. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 16:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mention her much on wikis because I don't want the trolls to try and figure out who she is, but my girlfriend is an identical twin, and they are individuals the same as everyone else. They just look the same (and even at that, there are subtle differences; my girlfriend is prettier). What a Wonderful World (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Disrespectful troll
Unsurprising you mourn this zio stooge. 82.132.241.241 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC). Doesn't deserve my respects for being a massive ass. I'll keep it for someone actually nice. I'm sorry for his family through. I'll get put in the Centralist box for saying that, but that's cool. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC) It’s your opinion and you are of course entitled to it, but I think it’s a pretty obnoxious thing to say about someone who’s recently passed away. The time he refused an early release from a Vietnamese prison in favour of other POW’s who’d been there longer than him is enough to wreck your accusations of him being a “massive ass”. —RWRW (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Remember that time when he voted against veterans getting free healthcare so his rich buddies could get more money? Or when he personally got in contact with a elderly couple who couldn't afford their healthcare bill for the husband's cancer, and told them to "move to another state"? Or when he voted with Trump's racist laws at a grand total of 95%? Or maybe, his love for every war in the last 20 years, and his infamous statement "bomb Iran"? Or maybe perhaps his need to hurl racial slurs at Vietnamese, even after people told him that it was offensive? You may be in a state of grief right now, but his name will soon be up there with Mother Theresa as one of the infamous. Perhaps you need to do more research. Nice try through. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Fair enough, though I hope you'll understand if the rest of us wish the best for his family and, if so inclined, pray for him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable, but putting me in a box with "troll" on it? Come on. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Err, you might want to talk to @Nerd why he did that. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm coming to conclude that Nerd can't handle people being 100% right and a tiny bit rude at the same time. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to conclude that ikanreed is no better than the extreme leftist folks on campus. You have you views and he had his. Is it really that hard to politely disagree? People like him are holding his place down. This is Rational Wiki, not a rude blog. Nerd (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"You're no better than this strawman I've concocted in my head" is not a poignant insult. And you can feel as held down as you want? That's allowed? I mean honestly, you just need to accept that sometimes are angry with good reason. And being polite but obstinately full of shit is way worse. It's pretty awful, ya know. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you just assume what I was thinking? Check your privileges! Yes, I know that they're really like. I read their publications. At first, I found them amusing. Some classmates told me it was not worth my time. They were right; eventually these people got on my nerves. They keep looking for things to be offended about. (Or maybe all the street theater and melodrama were part of their "revolutionary service"?) I can totally handle people who are somewhat rude but got things right, like Bill Maher. I only have trouble with those who love verbal abuse whenever someone disagrees with them, as if you classy language is a good argument in an of itself. Nerd (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I will always remember his dramatic thumbs down vote, which at last defeated the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Nerd (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean he supported other terrible measures poised to harm and possible kill tons of other people. Maybe we should mourn THEIR deaths from his and his party's policies? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You should, if you know who they are. Random mourning never ends.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The hatified troll is right, tbh. Powerful people who use that power to harm millions are not going to deserve respect, and pretending McCain was a basically decent person helps no one. The best part of John McCain was the neoplastic neurons. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Some say he's a massive war hero while some say he's a war criminal responsible for thousands (millions?) of deaths. I have the quaint thought both may be exaggerations. Be that as it may, I wish his family the best. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say he was a war veteran. He did not have the opportunity to prove himself in battle unlike, say, Robert S. Mueller III. But his conduct while in captivity was admirable. Not only did he avoid nepotism, he also denied the Communist a propaganda victory. That's why I consider him to be a hero. (As for his politics, I disagree with him on multiple issues. But that's normal.) Also, best wishes to his family. Nerd (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This article came out ten years ago when he was running for president about his time in the military, and uh, needless to say it's a little bit of a sobering account if anything else, even nowadays. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Since Trump became president, even George W Bush seems like an amicable, intelligent, reasonable president, flawed but with good intentions. Anyone politician these days who wasn't a douchey asshole seems like a great loss to politics when they pass away. That's how low the bar has been set in American politics. The Trump effect. ShabiDOO 05:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Such a shame, Bush made such a good evil douche before the latest Prince of Orange came along. — Dysk (contribs) 16:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I remember to have hated so much Bush back in the day that every time I saw a picture of him I desired to punch that face. With Trump I've to attempt not to laugh, so pathetic and clownish is. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Bush was always the sad, lonely man who really wanted to do a good job but was in way, way over his head. Worst though was Carter, who was living proof of just why you should never put a wide eyed idealist in charge of anything. CoryUsar (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you should put thoughtful, worldly idealists who recognize that others don't agree with their vision are a threat to the one true utopia in charge. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Carter was not simply the “wide-eyed idealist”, just as McCain’s “maverick” image is far from the whole story. Carter appointed the very hawkish Zbigniew Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor and it was the Carter government that started Operation Cyclone to arm the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (although Carter/Brzezinski did not ramp it up to the levels later reached under Reagan/Casey). While Carter’s focus on human rights and the dissidents beyond the Iron Curtain was idealistic, it also made power political sense in the ideological war against the USSR. Carter’s über-dowish/-idealistic image has more to do with the contrast to the Presidents preceding (Nixon) and succeeding him (Reagan) and especially rests on Carter’s post-presidency role as international peacemaker than it reflects his time in office. Also, governing in the mid- and late 1970s was not something that anyone came off looking especially well from, regardless of political hue, in either Europe or the US, largerly due to the economic shocks caused by the oil crises and the general changes in the economic landscape. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

As for Dubya, what always struck about him was his intellectual laziness and incuriosity and his joviality shtick gave me the impression as a cover for such laziness. I see him as the classic, mediocre rich party bra(t) who leveraged his family connections to get him through life without too much effort and otherwise got by on his “fun guy to have a beer with” routine. Even his supposed born again story as his way out of alcoholism seems to be a later embellishment (how much of an alcohol problem he actually had is debatable, but we all know how well the “reformed sinner” script plays with certain US voter segments). Similarly, Dubya’s catastrophic policies seem driven not so much by his own deep ideological convictions as by gut feeling boosted by the opinions of those of the hardcore neocons he hitched his wagon to (perhaps as a nice “Fuck you, daddy!” dig at Bush Sr.’s quite measured foreign policy and supposed wimp factor). ScepticWombat (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

McCain was a racist warmonger. McCain & Hillary both sent their aides, Marc Turi and Sidney Blumenthal, as arms trafficers and war profiteers to cash in on the Libyan bloodbath they facilitated. Since when do liberals honor neocons? RobSmith^{The future is now} 20:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No one can say you're not entertaining. Millennium Scallion (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@RobSmith Should have settled your grievances with him while he was still alive! Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to report

That rationalwiki (and wikipedia) is controlled by the Russians according to new research(googling the word rationalwiki and picking at the nutters that fall out), and as a consequence, we have control of the white house. Does anyone here have any executive orders you want to get signed with our secret Illuminati power? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn’t Bryan See have a RW account? He came across as genuinely mentally ill to be honest. Christopher (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed All religions are henceforth illegal due to being complete unsubstantiated rubbish, Trump isn't really working out so he's fired, and I want a pay raise. (And on a side note I'm actually part of the Illuminati in Secret World Legends). ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, great. Remind me again, are we one of those evil conspiracies where everything needs to be signed in triplicate or one where there's no evidence at all of anything? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

So we basically run the world, right? I lay claim to Scandinavia, Iceland, and Britain, and henceforth declare the Kingdom of Macbeth. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I dunno, I'm not on the Council of Venice, I'm just a field operative. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If RoninMacbeth gets his territory, then I want Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Czechia, Poland, the Benelux, and Switzerland. It shall be the Great Moosolini Empire under my enlightened despotic rule. And I want Kenya, Somaliland, and Tanzania as colonies. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, colonies are a good idea. I think I'll take Mongolia as my colony. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You lot can have those countries, I'll take Saudi Arabia. I'll be rich beyond imagining with oil! --RWRW (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Until, of course, I figure out how to power my country using geothermic energy in Iceland. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Give me Singapore and I'll let you all live. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Singapore is yours, then. Do you wish to enter in an alliance? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No alliances. Unless you have cheese cake and Monster Mxxd Punch, then negotiations are open. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You lot are ridiculous. Claiming countries for their political power is the wrong way to do it -- you'll destroy that power in no time. I claim Canada, Russia, Kazakhstan, DR Congo, China, Australia, Brazil, India, Algeria, Argentina, Greenland, Mexico, Philippines, and Indonesia. Building an empire with tons of territory is far more efficient to create political sway. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 00:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming those territories because I want political power; I'm claiming them because they're far away from everyone else. Also, WTF are you doing laying claim to Greenland? Greenland is Denmark, I own Denmark, ergo I own Greenland. And you can't just claim ALL of the world's largest countries. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It ain't Denmark anymore, mate. Also, I didn't claim all of the largest countries - I purposefully left out Sudan and Libya. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 00:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Also Iraq, Syria, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, and Oman for the territory and oil. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 00:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It's part of the Realm, it's mine. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Spriggina is claiming waaayyy too much territory at once. That's -100 aggressive expansion opinion penalty, at least. Anybody wanna form a coalition? (Also, watch out @RoninMacbeth, we've got a land border.) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I will join this coalition, so long as I get Russia's Arctic Islands and Greenland. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we already have our first territorial dispute!

Also, I claimed Russia and that includes the islands. You can have them in exchange for Greenland.

Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 00:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, keep your goddamn peasants off Svalbard and the Faroes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Them's fightin' words, mate. Prepare for a fleet of 40 ballistic missiles coming the way of England, thanks. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 00:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't suppose you want Trident parked in the Baltic, now do you. Let's be calm and rational about this. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Also, is it too late to claim Ireland? Because if not, I get Ireland. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! And in the event of a victorious war of defense, my colonial empire will expand into the Middle East! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll stay out of the Middle East, I'm enriching myself with all its oil. Whilst we're on the subject of claiming lands, I'll take Panama too. I'm told the taxes there are highly attractive, --RWRW (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Mate, I own like half of the Middle East. You're going to have to pay a steeeep markup for my oil once you run out. Also, here's a map of our current situation. Orange = Great Mussolini Empire, Red = Kingdom of Macbeth, Puke = RWRW, Purple = Sprigginistan. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 00:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, just noticed that I accidentally put purple on Svalbard. That's actually part of the Kingdom of Macbeth. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 00:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Then may I suggest a Middle Eastern alliance against the Great Mussolini Empire's expansionist plans? --RWRW (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, I have the combined military power of Syria, Turkey, Russia, Israel, India, and China plus a whole bunch of smaller ones. I don't think I even need an alliance. In fact, I might just conquer Saudi Arabia... Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 00:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@RWRW Hop in my coalition, boi. Your only hope is collective defense now. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It would indeed seem like an alliance with Great Mussolini Empire is in my best interest after all. --RWRW (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hooray for alliances! RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Map's been updated. Sprigginistan just conquered a decent-sized strip of land in Africa, but lost India and China to a sudden and very strangely successful revolt that produced the new nation of Dickinsonialand, which also inexplicably owns Finland (in blue). It's now claiming that it wants to join your Mussolini alliance to fight Sprigginistan. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 01:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I vote to accept. Also, @RWRW, I can sell you oil if you run out. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Due to civil unrest, most if not all of africa plans to secede and establish the Democratic People's Republic of Freedonia. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Map updated again. Yellow = Freedonia, Black = areas nuked off the face of the planet by the reckless Dickinsonialand, which has expanded into Central Asia, northeastern Africa, the Middle East, Korea, and eastern Russia. Sprigginistan managed to gain back some territory in China as well as some Central and Western Asian territory, but has lost a ton of firepower and intelligence due to the main military base of Moscow being nuked. The good news is that Dickinsonialand is nearly out of nuclear bombs after destroying half of Latin America, but the bad news is that they still have a ton of oil, tanks, and regular bombs. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 01:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Combined, each power Bloc has all those in abundance. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC

Apparently so. Dickinsonialand has just doubled its nuclear weapon stockpile, and has now taken Chad, although Egypt and Libya were conquered by Sprigginistan. Dickinsonialand also made the massive gains of North Korea and Japan, which supplied them with even more military might. They've continued to expand into SE Asia and Oceania, and are currently focusing their efforts on conquering Australia. Freedonia has been trying its best to pretend nothing is happening around it. Further sections of Canada, Morocco, and the western coast of Africa have been nuked. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 01:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Spriggina The DPRF sends an offering of peace and cookies to all the other powers (and very special cookies to Dickinsonialand's top brass) in return for a nonaggression pact. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I cut off shipments of oil and rare Earth elements to Dicksonialand, and mobilize the fyrd. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody received this because they all had their phone silencers on, so the war raged on for a while. The regional government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo just seceded to join Freedonia. And the Kingdom of Macbeth also took parts of Canada as well as Greenland with some aid from Dickinsonialand. Thankfully, Sprigginistan regained territory in Central Asia and the Middle East, but Moosolini just took over the Iberian peninsula, Tunisia, and Malta. It also gained previously independent territory in Central Europe and the Balkans. Also, Dickinsonialand took over Vietnam, Laos, and the western half of Malaysia that was under Sprigginistani control. They also bombed Perth and took half of Australia. At this point, Sprigginistan is realizing that it's a bit in over its head, and thus has attempted to begin peace talks with Dickinsonialand. Unfortunately, the Finnish-Hindi-Kyrgyz pidgin spoken by the prime minister is utterly incomprehensible to literally everyone and she refuses to speak in an intelligible language, so the war has currently become a cold war. Presumably somebody will check their phone, but no-one's holding their breath. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 01:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The message has finally been received and everybody happily ate cookies. The end, I guess.

Also, I just noticed that the map I've been using says "U.N. Peacekeeping" on the bottom left, which is hilarious. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 01:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That's... that's the funniest thing I've heard today. Thanks. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spriggina The cookies (except for the special ones sent to Dicksonialand) were a trap. DPRF insurgent take all eastern African countries, up to and including Egypt while everyone is incapacitated due to Ebola poisoning. Glory to the DPRF!!! All hail Freedonia!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but my forces didn't. As is the English custom, we boiled our cookies but this made them inedible. Therefore, our cookies were never eaten, and I commence a nuclear bombing of the DPRF's capital. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Wait!!! Why nukes? Especially since the DPRF capital is sitting right on top of the world's largest diamond mine. (You thought I was after Africa for the scenery didn't you?) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can get the diamonds later. Also, I have no sense of proportional response. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Nuclear fallout can last well over five times the lifespan of the average human. Call off the nukes and form an alliance and the DPRF will give you the cure. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

But I don't need the cure. But I will call of the nukes in exchange for a favorable trade deal. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth You don't need the cure, the other powers on the other hand... But yes, let us discuss trade, what exactly do you have to offer in exchange for DPRF diamonds? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oil from Norway, Geothermal energy from Iceland, food from Britain, Sweden, and Denmark. I have much. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So...

I can't help but notice the US just sitting there, so alone, so innocent, so...defenseless. What if we divide it amongat ourselves? RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's communal territory, since it's what the whole of RW was ruling in the first place. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 01:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, clarify? What do you mean by 'all those'? Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 01:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that was in the wrong section. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll take Alaska, on the condition that I can banish the Palin family with immediate effect! ShabiDOO 06:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess I better run now, my name is drawing false positives. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I have solved all of these problems as far as they go. At least for me, I have. I have laid personal claim to the earth's core. True, you all still retain what claim you have laid (and any disputes therefore depending), and I do not contest these. In fact, I recognize any and all claims, both separate and concurrent, in media res, ipso factoid, and other fancy Latin sounding things.

But you all owe me rent for parking your countries on my lawn. Kencolt (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Certainly not, your title is being impinged by multiple flying freeholds and strata title et al. — Dysk (contribs) 23:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Spud's second Esperanto translation

I have just completed Oscar Wilde (Esperanto). I'm not going to boast about these every time I finish them (I don't think). But I want to say this. When I took the job of translating that article on, I didn't really realize that it would mean translating so many of Oscar's own words that hadn't been translated into Esperanto before (at least not in public domain forms readily available online). If I may say so myself, I think I did a pretty good job of translating them, especially the verse of The Ballad of Reading Gaol that serves as Wilde's epitaph. I suppose most of you will have to take my word for that. Spud (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If you don't boast about your awesome work, people might not notice! — Dysk (contribs) 22:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Of all the articles I have ever read...that was the most exceptional, insightful and illuminating article that I couldn't understand. ShabiDOO 05:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, @Shabidoo, for my monthly translation for December, I plan to do my first Spanish translation on RW. That will be Papá Noel. You should be able to understand that. Spud (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Rock and Roll!!!! ShabiDOO 05:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Worries about Italian translations

It seems someone now needs to create an Italian template to provide links to the seven articles we have in the category Italiano. I would, however, like to express my concern about those articles. I suspect them all of being machine translated. For example, until I removed it, the first sentence of the Conoscenza article said that the Italian word conoscenza comes from a Middle English word conoscere. Not only is that complete bollocks, it's also an overly literal translation of the first sentence of the Knowledge article. That's not a mistake that a human being who was paying attention should have made. Spud (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we have an Italian speaker here who might be able to check on these articles to see if they're legit? Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 14:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

First, do other users agree with me that having articles that are mostly or entirely machine translated is wrong? Spud (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Basically, yes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be wrong not to inform the reader that the article is so translated. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

An Issue with Morality

I came across an issue with moral things, like in regards to "should" and "ought". It came down to someone saying to get rid of should and ought because they don't exist in reality, they are just mental constructs. So does that mean they don't exist? That to experience truth and reality you have to get rid of morality? Then it was something like in order to be moral you have to get rid of morality. He said the same about values and meaning, that these are just mental constructs that we make and place upon reality. That to experience reality you have to abandon that too. I guess it just has me left with a mixed message about truth and reality. Like trying to be "objective".

Even then I find it hard to justify morality since should and ought seem to boil down to "because I said so" and that just doesn't gel with me.Machina (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In terms of meaning, man is naturally inclined to work together. That was the ultimate conclusion of early groups that then lead into the creation of primitive society. What I would judge as mental constructs are the ideas that people must not trust themselves, and those around them, and only serve their own interests. Those are created as ideology, as a method of removing that trust that we naturally have, and blind us into thinking about problems on a individual basis primarily. In terms of morality, there isn't really a general consensus these days, and most societies directly contradict each other by creating rules (spying is wrong, individuals have a right to privacy, harming people isn't allowed) and then breaking those same rules openly (allowing torture, monitoring people indirectly through their phones, bombing people with drones regardless of their innocence) It's basically doublethink in real life, but it isn't kept a secret.

It is understandable to be confused about morality these days, especially with such conflicting actions taken. Personally, I think everyone regardless of differences has their own interposition on the rules of society, as in what public rules can be broken, and what can't. These days, the "rational" outlook on morality from the likes of Kant or Mill looks more and more obsolete, as their ideas historically haven't really been realized yet. Perhaps that's leading into a new, false form of morality, much like how the Enlightenment bragged about a logical state, or a regression backward. Time will tell. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Whatever those things are that you call "mental constructs," it is clear that your mind keeps constructing them. How are they different from real things? The ones that get you nowhere are definitely less real than the ones that make you feel like you are making some progress. I would stick with the latter as much as possible. So, for example, if you plan to visit Paris, you should, ought or could possible benefit from studying that hallowed construct called the French language.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is that I guess what he was referring to in regards to "truth" is that morality, values, and meaning are not Absolute (ie don't exist outside the mind). They are just merely mental constructs that we have in our minds. He referred to it as denying reality, since it's saying how things "should be" instead of how they actually are. Like how people "should" not steal, lie, or murder but they do.Machina (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Saying how things "should be" must eventually be constructed from some previous experience, like from a sermon, a show tune, a trout fishing guide to New Hampshire, etc.. The question is: whose authority is being applied? When you ask about truth, I ask, "the truth about what? The baseball box scores or whether your fiance really loves you?" Of course meaning is not absolute: we are finite beings. Absolute anything (besides the temperature at zero) is a religious concept. Idealist Philosophy has been in denial for centuries. Truth is what we know of our proximate reality. Don't let some asshole trick you into thinking you can't know anything. I hate those people. Ariel31459 (talk)

Well it's more like "it's a mental construct of humans" that doesn't "really" exist and therefor should and ought to are lies. That to see the truth you need to get rid of moralization of actions in order to free yourself. That seems to be the central argument. It seems like moral nihilism really. Yet I find it odd that people who say so benefit from what it yields. They seem rather obsessed of objectivity (or as they say the Absolute) that anything that is "relative" is a falsehood that we project upon the world, that includes morality.Machina (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. "morality" as a concept is built up from basic social instincts (see below) wherein individuals and groups attempt to figure out whats best for them, and/or justify a decision. Behavior that is omni-destructive (such as murder) is shunned, while behavior that can be less destructive (such as jaywalking) is not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

To finish up on "the fallacy of mental constructs" argument: You have to be arguing for or against something, and it sounds like your authority is arguing for humans to be sociopaths: they put aside their feelings (if they have them) because they are not real. Artifacts are reified mental constructs. People who argue that mental constructs are not real are making a specious argument. There is a monumental difference between something you imagine that is not scientifically coherent, like a superstition, and a scheme for the creation of an artifact, like a Greek city. People who hand-wave about mental constructs, and even "social constructs," are making the same error. Artifacts are representations of mental constructs. And they are as real as the rain.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Morality at its most basic is built into us. The main thing the human mind and its unique adaptation, human language, exists for is networking in human societies. Human social structures all have analogues among our primate cousins, and the human gift for creating symbolic systems enables humans to work together at a larger scale than others. Morality at its most basic flows from these needs. Human moralities moreover are modular: there are moral instincts, empathy/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/rebellion, and purity/disgust. All of these moral instincts are present in some form in every human society and can be shown to be pre-verbal and innate. Human moral reasoning is always after the fact; it does not lead to the moral judgment, but is used to justify the conclusion already arrived at. They are also capable of going very wrong: in minor ways like empathy for lab rats and livestock, for example; but the most dangerous one is the purity versus contamination axis, which is extremely dangerous when people make their neighbors into targets of disgust. The task of the moral philosopher after evolutionary biology is not to prove that morality exists; rather, it's to examine the involuntary moral emotions that are built into us, and keep them from becoming weaponized inappropriately. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The kind of ought you need to give up on is the kind that you believe can be universally deduced by various people based on the same set of information. That's impossible. There is nowhere in the fabric of the universe where you will find any confirmation that it is wrong to kill. So yes, moral rules are human constructions (based partly on evolutionary forces, cultural influence and personal reasoning/conditioning). However, if you can rest a moral system on top of a strong rational, logical framework, and where the moral laws that emerge from this system are reasonable, reliable, consistent etc. then you will have a meaninful set of oughts. These are the kind of oughts that are useful (not the universal ones). The are valuable but only as long as you are always fully aware that it is based on a framework that is still subjective, chosen by you, and does not point to any absolute morality or universalism. It means you can always test/challenge/reevaluate both the logical foundation it is based on, and the moral laws you derrive from it. There are several ways to aproach this. The traditional ones: Deontological ethics (my favourite), virtue ethics, utilitarianism, consequentialism, hedonism, stoicism etc and the 20th century ones like "a theory of justice" (not to be confused with college campus "justice theory". Please don't confuse those. Keep in mind there are some moral systems which do posit that universal moral rules are clearly there to be found (usually by religions, cults or moral empiricists etc, I wouldn't recommend bothering as they almost always fall apart after a moderate amount of critical analysis. In any case, pick up a good introduction or anthology of moral systems or watch a documentary or documentary series on ethics (find a good one, if you would like some recommendations I can offer them). ShabiDOO 05:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean I know I can reasonably concur with some of the moral rules I follow. But I'm trying to analyze their argument. It seems to be that morality is a way to make things to be other than what they are and as such it would be denying reality and living in a false hood (hence ought and should instead of "what is"). Still trying to overcome that.Machina (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem with human moralities comes from their visceral nature. Our moral judgments, again, are visceral, no matter how culturally conditioned they are; we can no more stop making them than we can pretend not to hear a speaker's accent. Moral thinking that comes from reflection may be of a higher quality, but it's hard to push those reflections into the subconscious where the moral judgments all start out from. This is why you need to be gravely suspicious of 'moral entrepreneurs', people who seek to gin up new targets for moral disapproval and create new norms of moral conformity. Eventually they hit on the strategy of recruiting disgust, because it is so powerful; moral entrepreneurs seek to recruit disgust against gays, fat people, cigarette smokers, meat eaters, and whoever else is It this week. People who do that are children playing with dynamite and matches. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the argument that I was getting into. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/24897-flaws-in-the-moral-video/Machina (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought: Mental constructs are real. And hopefully for you, yours relate to (the rest of) objective reality in a way that benefits you and those you care about. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as objective reality, my dude. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 23:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. How else would I be able to walk through walls? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

FANDOM staff are nice people.

This should not be allowed.

The behavior seen here is dishonest. The Product Marketing Manager of FANDOM asked me to not mention that I use RationalWiki on Wikia because it was "off-site promotion" and as a result, against the Terms of Use of their site. I would say that this is some suspicious behavior. --UglyRat (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

If you went into a McDonald's and took out flyers for Burger King... 92.5.137.91 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This is bullshit. UglyRat ran around proclaiming that they as a RationalWikian (Fun Fact, RationalWiki neither endorsed nor participated in this nonsense, in fact we as a group were pretty much against this raid crap) got another wiki shut down, then got surprised when someone told them to stop. This isn't surprising at all. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I reported that wiki. I initally bragged about it, but then I only mentioned it on Wikia itself on threads where people kept harassing me. In addition, at the time I was not aware that I was not the only one who reported the wiki, and none of the threads themselves were created by me. I had to manually remove threads. In addition, RationalWiki is a non-profit organization, so there is not really any legitimate reason for making it so that I cannot mention the fact that I had an account here on RW on FANDOM. The main issue is that the idea that mentioning a non-profit organization like RationalWiki is going to drain all of your profits is nonsense, and I did not use it often. I did link to it, and mention that I was a member of that site, but it was one of many points I raised against it. Honestly, the fact that I seemingly promoted RationalWiki to an audience that is already pissed at us because we are not total wingnuts is not something that should matter to FANDOM staff. --UglyRat (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You flew the RW banner over an event that no one else here cared about, therefor including all of us, willing or not, in your crapfest. I personally think that your vendetta is/was stupid and childish, with little understanding of how to handle other people. The fact that you as an individual dragged the entire site into this only reinforces that opinion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait, hold on, can someone explain this to me? Because it sounds like a guy shut another wiki down using our name. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@uglyRat, mate that screengrab shows you apologising to Fandom, yet you come here crying WAAA censorship and shenanigans! You are clearly acting in bad faith about this, and dragging RW's name into your petty fights will not help you. you need to stop and look at yourself, and realise how your actions affect others. 92.5.137.91 (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

. @RoninMacbeth From what UglyRat has said that's exactly what happened, hence why I'm so pissed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm half-tempted to contact Mr. Rhea (that FANDOM staff member) and tell him UglyRat's actions were not endorsed by us and we might consider disciplinary action on this site. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do. I don't really think any of that is gonna come back to bite us, but I still think it's important to distance ourselves from what happened. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. If someone misuses RW's name publicly, we need to follow up and that wasn't in our name, as any reputable organisation should. is this an RMF issue? 92.5.137.91 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

I just contacted him, and if the other messages are anything to go by, he's been raiding again, though I'm not sure if he used the site name. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is crappy games wiki? Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing anymore. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought we already sent our message across that we don't care about the wikia. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Guess i have to eat tofu instead of some petty guardsmen for dinner tonight. Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The worst part if "may of"... how could you possibly think that is a valid pair of words? I can at least understand the .+ould've/+ould of confusion, but nobody ever says "may've." WTF? —Kazitor 21:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Murdoch Murdoch

They are a bunch of neo Nazi animators. Very influential in the far right. Here is one of their videos: https://cheekyvideos.net/murdoch/RaceJam.html ^{— Unsigned, by: Rationaldriver / talk / contribs}

Never heard of them. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Who cares? They sound like a bunch of losers as well, lol. No surprise there.

Not sure exactly why you shared this, there's most likely no one interested in making any sort of article on them. It's really rather pointless. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Captain Communist Look at Rationaldriver's contributions, such as this edit, if you want to know why they shared this. CowHouse (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's even more sad, lol. Are they trying to like, make people "woke" or something like that? It's a bit pointless doing it here, everyone's either Centralist or Neoliberal by a massive margin.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was their own video they shared, it makes sense. The fact that he's still trying to share it around with users is embarrassing. He'll be banned soon. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Banned? perhaps, perhaps not, it really depends on their behavior. On a more amusing side note, has anyone else noticed a trend of far-right accounts with the word "rational" in their usernames? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have. I'm highly suspicious of anyone whose user name has the word "rational" in it. The same goes for anyone whose user name includes words like "truth" or "real". If anyone is reading this and thinking of creating an account, don't call yourself anything like TrulyRational if you're not a sexist, racist, homophobic arsehole. Spud (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Spud After going through some of the logs I can say that some of the older accounts aren't that bad, but as you get closer to the present Badger's Law begins to apply. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Spud: RATIONALWiki. 👀

On the serious note I also get suspicious of anyone who uses "truth", "logic", "unbiased", "objective" "rational" as if simply saying the words makes it so. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario It's very likely an attempt at Argument from authority mixed with Presupposition and Argument by assertion in an attempt to inversely Poison the well through Loaded language. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oi! My old username had the word 'Rational' in it! --RWRW (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And you were originally trying to parody those dickheads.And we all know how that worked out. Which just goes to show that if you don't want other users here to think you're a neo-Nazi troll, don't include the word "rational" in your user name. Spud (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Now hang on; our site has "Rational" in its name! —Kazitor 05:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Yes, but we have a disclaimer, whereas the twatwaffles do not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently rockets don't work in a vacuum

Out of the blue, I went to everyone's favourite site whale.to, and decided to see what they had to say about the moon landing. The first link on that page was this forum thread, "Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?"

My understanding is that, because expanding gas performs no work "against" a vacuum, it therefore doesn't perform work against the rocket nozzle either. Who knew? Funny, I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that rocket engines were most effective with no ambient pressure, but apparently not. I guess we don't need to worry about nuclear war then, seems ICBMs aren't all that useful once they get off the ground. (someone can tell me how dumb I am by informing me what sort of altitude they actually achieve) —Kazitor 09:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a common misconception people have about rockets, that they work by pushing against something.[1] I guess Newton's laws of motion aren't all that intuitive. (Particularly as jet engines work the same way but require air.) There's a mildly amusing thread on the Flat Earth Society website where people discuss building a vacuum chamber to test if rockets would work in space.[2] --Gospatric (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

But they do push against something... their exhaust! —Kazitor 12:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I like this conceptualization of an operating rocket engine: a controlled explosionAriel31459 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A skyrocket type rocket would not work in a vacuum. Missiles carry their own oxygen supply to work in space. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Its called conservation of momentum. This is a silly reference to thermodynamics designed to confuse readers by ignoring even more basic physics. I should end my post here, but I feel like showing off (so I'll try to derive the rocket equation from memory). Consider a rocket starting at velocity 0 in our reference frame. As the rocket expends fuel and ejects chemical byproducts it has a mass at time t given by the function m(t). Conservation of momentum tells us that if the rocket expels an infinitesimal amount of mass $dm$ at velocity $V_ex$ from the rear of the rocket (in the rocket frame), the particle will have a momentum $dm(v(t)+V_{ex})$ in the -x direction where $V_{ex}$ is the exhaust velocity. The rocket will thus gain momentum in the positive x direction.

${\begin{aligned}(v(t)+dv)(m(t)-dm)+dm(v(t)+V_{ex})&=m(t)v(t)\\v(t)m(t)+m(t)dv-dvdm+V_{ex}dm&=m(t)v(t)\\m(t)dv&=-V_{ex}dm\\\int _{0}^{\Delta V}frac{dv}{V_{ex}}&=-\int _{m_{i}}^{m_{f}}{\frac {dm}{m}}\\{\frac {\Delta V}{V_{ex}}}=ln(m_{i})-ln(m_{f})&=ln({\frac {m_{i}}{m_{f}}})\\\Delta V&=V_{ex}ln({\frac {m_{i}}{m_{f}}})\end{aligned}}$

Where in the first step we have used the fact that both $dm$ and $dm$ are infinitesimally small to find $dm dv$ negligible. Note that we haven't used thermodynamics at all in this derivation. The rocket equation is just as valid even if you're an astronaut throwing peas (though you would need a really good pitching arm). Samstr (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Neat. Now do it in a relativistic frame. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Keemstar's reaction to the whole Alex Jones thing

https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/1037868389497270272

I'm pretty sure he did believe alot of stuff from him... Tinribmancer (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I admittedly know very little a Alex Jones, so I can't comment on whether his ban was appropriate or whether this 'Keemstar' is right to like him. But what I will say is I think that, given his large following, its slightly suspicious all these big social media giants are banning him shortly before the midterms. --RWRW (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, he should've been banned years ago. No, that's not some "haha, I'm turning your stupid idea around on you" thing, even though your thought is stupid, and you should feel ashamed for coming up with it. It's legit the truth that he got away with years of blood libel, that has resulted in people's lives being threatened for fabrications presented on these platforms. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel no shame for what I said. I specially stated I don’t know enough about the guy to determine whether the ban was just. All I said was the timings of this is suspicious, like you I wonder why the ban didn’t happen years ago. —RWRW (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

After doing some research into the situation I have come to the conclusion that the ban was justified. The guy is mad and I was actually pretty shocked by his obnoxiousness surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre. But I stand by my remarks that the timings of this is very questionable. The tech giants could have banned him years ago but decided to wait until an important election was on the horizon. --RWRW (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No. They. Did. Not. I'm tired of trying to explain this shit to morons like you. They waited until it wasn't profitable to keep him around. The tech giants (like all major corporate giants) don't give a fuck about politics unless there's profit in it for them. Jones brought in a large amount of followers and ad revenue, then he turned into a toxic asset and the big kids ditched him. There is literally nothing more than that. Target didn't support trans bathrooms because they give a fuck about Trans issues, they did it to steal potential customers from their rival Walmart. Dorritos didn't support gay marriage because they care about equal rights, they did it to buy goodwill with a demographic so they in turn would buy Dorritos products. This isn't rocket science kiddos. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the above I would also point out that the Tech companies don't need to influence votes via these kinds of backroom bullshit, they can just do what they've always done and bankroll congressional and senatorial campaigns. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It's funny seeing rightists accusing these companies of censoring everything non-left, whilst simultaneously seeing leftists complain that the same companies are deliberately pushing right-wing content. Which is it? —Kazitor 03:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor I didn't say they push rightwing content, I said (in a nutshell) that they don't give shit what you do as long as you don't rock the boat too much and they get a cut of the action. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

... do you always take everything as a personal attack? I'm not talking about you. Although, note to the operator(s) of the RW twitter account: you ought to know better :) —Kazitor 04:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor My mistake, I thought you were talking about me. Apologies. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

NYT Op-Ed Conspiracy Theory

So I have zero evidence for this, nor the slightest clue on how I would start. But I wanted to put this out there for input on just how plausible it is.

Just how well did the Times vet this supposed "senior administration official"? The wording in the editorial (specifically the fact that it kept whistling the theme to the "deep state" and "resistance" memes that makes the right see fifth columnists behind every closed door) seems almost tailored to spark witch hunts. Did the Times just get punked by Russia's psy-ops unit? 70.253.58.14 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the official is real; nothing in the editorial seemed particularly surprising (indeed we've seen plenty of leaks from this administration). However, I do tend to agree with some of the opinion pieces I've seen in The Atlantic, effectively handing over power to unelected cabinet members isn't a great precedent for democracy, even if the alternative is Trump. If leaders are concerned that the president is so unhinged that he represents a genuine threat to democracy, we should be taking official constitutional action. Samstr (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Russia isn't behind everything, lol. They've basically became the bogeyman of American politics at this point. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, Russia certainly has done some sketchy things under Putin's leadership, but I find the extent of demonization somewhat disturbing. I don't really know what to think regarding the whole issue. Samstr (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely doubt it's Russia, direct contact isn't their style. More likely a bunch of Trump aides saw the writing on the wall and decided to be on the more favorable end of the metaphorical firing squad, given that several of them have already jumped ship (Omarosa anyone?) and taken advantage of the situation. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that it's Pence, who by now has surely figured out there's only one way he'll ever become President. After Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, Trump will have outlived his usefulness to the plutocrats who run the GOP. A constitutional crisis will then come to pass. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön That sounds disturbingly plausible. Add to that that the quotes from the NYT source sound a lot like Pence when he gives a speech and... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

#Lodestar 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish to hazard the possibility that everything is stupid and stupider than you think. And that petty backbiting grievances combined with a completely broken media platform have generated the stupidest possible result. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed This too is plausible... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"In a democracy you get the government you deserve." And based on the works of Susan Jacoby (The Age of American Unreason) or more recently Kurt Andersen (Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History) that might be depressingly true of not only The United States but the UK, Italy, Hungary, Austria or any currently viewed Democratic state with a populist blowhard in charge. Cardinal Chang (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The Times was asked specifically if they verified the author. Their response: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/reader-center/anonymous-op-ed-trump.html ^{— Unsigned, by: 216.126.242.146 / talk / contribs}

Sweden

So, I'm currently awaiting the results of the Swedish election, mostly as a litmus test. The Sweden Democrats, the Xenophobic party, is projected to get 20% of the votes and become the second biggest party in Sweden. CoryUsar (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

https://www.dw.com/en/sweden-elections-2018-live-updates/a-45408590 Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that surprising, to be honest. It's simply a backlash against Neoliberalism, and the overall measures created by the European Union. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Very true. Who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind, and this is yet another example. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

When people talk about "stopping the far-right," perhaps they should first analyze the conditions that allowed far-right movements to spread. Many of the same people who wonder why there are Nazis everywhere wonder why people don't like neoliberalism. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

First off, its fairly normal in Europe for racist parties to get between 10-20% of the vote. Not to say everyone in the racist party is as racist as the quite-racist. There's always a group of racist-to-some-degree in every country. Luckily most other parties are usually aghast at the idea of sharing power or forming a coalition with them meaning the racist party is just a noise machine other parties try to ignore and a pack of hate-advocates. When the racist paries get over 20% of the vote then it is notable (France, Austria etc). This is distressing for national politics.

As for your comment Ronin, there is a notable difference between those who want to deal with some of the hiccups that come along with immigration and those who want the immigrants to turn their skin white, speak perfect accentless swedish and be more Swedish than the Swedish, all over night, or pack up their suitcases and get the f*ck out. The first group may have valid concerns as there are always some problems to one degree or another with immigration...and it is true that non-nationalist parties are resistant to talking too much about these problems. But one of the reasons they are resistant is because the second group, the racist bunch who want immigrants to get the f*ck out, with the slightest concession made, capitalize on it, take credit for it and scream "that's not enough". Nothing will satisfy them short of indescriminate arrests and mass deportation. To ask why they are Nazi's is to miss the point. The honest group of weary citizens aren't the pseudo-Nazis. The racist blabbermouths are. In reality, they fully well know that deportations will never happen and they also know saying stupid racist garbage gets attention and votes. They are nothing but nonconstructive political disruptors. They rarely offer plausible solutions or even any platform at all. They just spout racist garbage under the guise of "concerned citizens" and don't answer questions or give solutions ever. Pretty much like Boris Johnson with Brexit at the moment. They are a waste of human time, effort, money and oxygen.ShabiDOO 01:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I misspoke. The "weary citizens" you spoke of are only attracted to far-right ideals because of the world changing, and in the case of neoliberalism not necessarily for the better. Of course you can't do anything about the actual die-hard Nazis, but you can do something about the former group. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The brief version of the results through my personal lenses (and before the expat vote is in) goes as follows:

• Winners: The Sweden Democrats (but not as much as hoped/feared and while clearly one of “The Big Three” in Swedish politics they’re still only third), as well as minor parties that were not in government (the only exception was the Liberal Party which at least staunched the losses it has experienced at every election since 2002).
• Losers: The two big traditional “Prime Minister parties” (Social Democrats and Moderates/Conservatives), as well as the Green Party (following the trend that small coalition partners risk getting squashed in Scandinavian cabinets) and also the Feminist Party (despite MeeToo etc. it went from just over 3%, tantalisingly short of the 4% threshold in 2014 to an insignificant 0.4% in 2018).
• Conclusion: Everything is up in the air, especially if the two major blocs do not want to rely on the votes of the Sweden Democrats.

Currently, it seems that Löfven and the Social Democrats are willing to continue a minority cabinet, yet not only are the margins wafer thin and could be upset by the expat vote, but Löfven will likely be faced with a hostile majority and lose a vote of no confidence, supported by the Sweden Democrats and is thus unlikely to remain PM for long.

One possibility, fervently hoped for by the Sweden Democrats, was that the Conservatives, Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats could muster an outright majority, but it did not pan out either. I’m currently wondering if the Conservatives and Sweden Democrats will be willing to hammer out some sort of “tacit support” agreement in which the Sweden Democrats support a centre right cabinet without being part of it (for how to play this role to your advantage, look no further than Denmark and the Danish People's Party). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "neoliberalism" means anything other than "thing I don't like" by now. Count Bezukhov (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Count Bezukhov actually... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

How hard is it to mentally substitute "person who thinks more democracy and more free markets will eventually fix all problems" for "neoliberal"? That's not a particularly meaningless idea in the modern world. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Videos For People Irrational or Rational?

I don't think YouTuber Videos For People deserves his own article, considering his obscurity- but would you consider him rational or irrational. On the one hand, he's made videos insulting Donald trump and homeopathy, and he seems to have a decent grasp of logic- but, on the other hand, his videos are like watching an acid trip. What do you think? Whose team is he on? ^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs}

You're aware that he's relatively obscure, so I think you'll have to elaborate his views or provide a link. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario It appears that this individual may be the same person as this BoN and this user, both of whom have attempted to promote the same rather obscure YouTuber. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ew. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not the same guy. Can I help it that quite a few people know about his existence, despite his seeming obscurity? Here, here's an example of his sort of stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PinQ6NrGwU ^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs}

Can you stop bumping losers who have no relevance to this website at all? You've made like, multiple attempts to advertise this dude and no one is buying it. If I was a massive conspiracy theorist myself, I'd most likely think that it's just you trying to get more viewers on your trash videos. Unless they actually matter, it isn't happening. 23:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Click Link Or Gulag (talk)

I never said he had to have a page or anything- just something interesting to discuss. But never mind- his latest video proves that he's perfectly rational. ^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs}

Blindingly saying "Democrats good, Republicans bad" isn't rational, it's overly simplistic and and naive. Also, On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, he doesn't just say that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad- he gives pretty straightforward, easy logic to prove why that's the case. Still not Socrates by any measure, but I'd say a sane mind at best. Logicnsuch (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the religious right dead?

Over the past decade, the influence of the religious right seems to have shrunk dramatically in the US. Fewer politicians speak of the need for "Christian values" in politics, the intelligent design "movement" seems to have mostly faded away, etc. Is this the end, or will it make a comeback? Count Bezukhov (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You should see some of the religious Trump supporters. No, the religious right is very much out and about, carving itself into the political scene alongside celebrity dynasties and Kekistani edgelords. A counterintuitive combination to be sure, but they're not going away anytime soon. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not dead. Evangelical Christianity is stronger than mainline Protestantism (Anglican, Methodist, etc) and not going anywhere. It'll be interesting to see how they reconcile Trump with their religious values, but they've proved flexible over a lot of things (peace, charity, meekness, etc) so I'm sure they'll manage. We may well see a greater focus on patriotism (and phoney constitutionalism) rather than religion from the right, but Christianity will remain an important part of white conservative American identity. And probably will last a lot longer than the 4chan edgelords. --Gospatric (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not interesting. It's been covered extensively and they basically just rewrite the idea of "godly man" until it includes trump. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's true that Trump's done nothing in the area of morality that other religious-right icons haven't done: infidelity, racism, dodgy business dealings, prostitutes, bankruptcy, wilful offensiveness, sheer idiocy. But Trump's influence will still shape the religious right, probably into something even uglier and more nationalistic (under George W Bush and the neocons there was a mission to remake the world in their image, now Trump will just bring on Armageddon). --Gospatric (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, they're literally over half the reason we have trump. We are having a confirmation hearing for a hyper-christian conservative supreme court judge right now, who, if confirmed would be the 5th one on the court. Just because the clown in the front is really notable doesn't mean the circus isn't going on in the back. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, you don't have to look far to find the religious right behind trump. The vice president, Mike Pence, is probably one of the more extreme Christians in the federal government today. With 5 judges on the court, Christian conservatism will be a force in America for decades to come. Samstr (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For what I've seen in places as this, Patheos, etc. even if the old guard (people as John MacArthur and other megachurch leaders among others) is dying and young people there seems to be leaving, I doubt it will die away soon.

Do not forget said stuff is being exported to other countries outside US, even if fortunately there seems to be so far few or no megachurches elsewhere.

Panzerfaust (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No. It will never die unless Human Beings drive a stake into its heart like the bloodthirsty cretin it is. ^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs}

Describes religious right as "blood thirsty," Best way to stop it: "drive a stake into its heart"... --RWRW (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad you catch my drift, Sir.^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs}

Depends on the country. In many countries religious conservatives still run everything. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we make many things up?

I have been pondering Eastern Philosophy lately and trying to figure what they mean by "this world is a dream". Then I wonder if it refers to the way our world is, in a sense, constructed. Like how "countries exist", or that morality is some iron rule, even I am beginning to wonder how much of "me" is based on conditioning and not innate. THat's what I figure. Anyone else?Machina (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Machina It's actually a lot like the Abrahamic belief that this world is just preparation for the next. As to how much of "you" is "you" well... all of it. The way you react to culture and ideas, the thoughts you express, the memories you retain (and even how you remember them) and the emotions you feel are all distinct to you, even the parts that come from social conditioning. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The response to that is that all "conditioned phenomenon" don't survive protracted questioning. Meaning your life could very well unravel when all the things you thought to be so solid were just essentially made up. Even neuroscience is beginning to show that there is no "you" the carries on moment to moment.Machina (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You can explore that question by taking art history. An extremely recurring subject in art would be understanding and exploring what's real or not. I say that's even a fundamental component to art. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Questions are no more real than the answers. An important point: there is no such thing as fixed "eastern philosophy." There are many philosophers from the so-called far east, but they tend to disagree with one another as often as western philosophers do with one another. D. T. Suzuki, at a meeting of philosophers, sat at a table as others discussed reality. After several days passed someone noticed Suzuki had said nothing. The chairman said, “You’ve been silent all this time. Would you say something about reality.” Suzuki did not respond. Finally the chairman said, “Well, is this table real?” And Suzuki said, “Yes.” The chairman asked, “In what sense is it real?” Suzuki replied, “In every sense.” Ariel31459 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess what bothers me is when I try to debate people who argue this stuff they just say that language is conceptual and that it cannot truly describe a "direct experience" of reality (reality without all the filters and things that we add to it. Something about nondualism and how everyone else doesn't see it because we all share an illusion of what is real and as a result we maintain the mirage by telling each other it's real (countries, values, morals) that they truly exist and aren't in our minds. That science is naive an so is materialism and that we are awareness and not our bodies. I could go on but I don't really have answers to anything they have and it seems like they make sense.Machina (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If you agree with someone, then you may no longer have a question for them.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like Existentialism based bullshit to me. Last I checked none of these types would be willing to test their "reality is but an illusion" spiel with something that actually has the potential to hurt them. Pain is something I can experience beyond just my sense of touch, beyond even all of my senses combined because whatever caused that pain left a real, tangible effect on my body that I can't simply will or wish away. To put it in more concrete terms, if I lose a limb it isn't an illusion, it's a real, measurable loss to my body that I can prove exists within a reasonable margin for error. Likewise, if I cut someone there is a measurable effect on their body, one that they cannot simply will or wish away. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. "Everything you think is true is bullshit," is a common enough philosophy. I wouldn't expect to make friends with it though.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC) .

Don't forget "..., but we don't offer any alternative." —Kazitor 02:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Well the bit about pain might be more mental than we think https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-pain-construct-of-mind/Machina (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Like I said above, the feeling of pain is only one part of the equation. Further, just because something is mental doesn't mean it isn't real. For example, our feelings and thoughts are mental (and chemical) constructs, but are for all intents and purposes real. Pain and bodily harm are just one example, but again you won't see and of these gurus chopping off their limbs or digits and then walking (or meditating) it off. That's because they know that the physical effects of such acts are very much real, and as thus possess real consequences, such blood loss, infection, and even death to name a few. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

People do think there is 'a person sitting in their head looking out at the world' (and that other people have the same phenomenon, and possibly some animals). Some aspects of the universe will be constructed by the mind (eg colour) - but they are consistent constructs. Anna Livia (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

When will voting begin for the board of trustees election?

Would it be in time for the end of the world?

• Mods @Bongolian, CheeseburgerFace, CowHouse, DiamondDisc1, LeftyGreenMario, and Spud
• Techs @Christopher, CorruptUser, David Gerard, FuzzyCatPotato, and Ikanreed
• Bored Board members @Reverend Black Percy, Human, and Tmtoulouse

77.111.245.11 (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it. Witty comment pending —Kazitor 10:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

And there are... easier ways to make text small. —Kazitor 10:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I should find a soothsayer to go on record predicting the world will end on November 3, 2020 just to put that date in the article. Muhahahaha. lol. — Dysk (contribs) 12:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• On a more serious note, when will the sitenotice be taken down? — Dysk (contribs) 12:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It'll be changed to "please vote" and all when the voting starts. :O --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Voting will start on...

Thursday, August 30, 2018	6	Vote
Friday, August 31, 2018	2	Vote
Saturday, September 1, 2018	3	Vote
Sunday, September 2, 2018	14	Vote
🐐💩	15	Vote

So... when is "🐐💩" ? — Dysk (contribs) 12:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, "🐐💩" roughly translates to "I am too apathetic about the 2018 board of trustees election to care about when it happens, and it is even better that everyone forgets about it and it does not happen at all" in the precursor of the Oracle Bone Script that's used to transcribe the classical Egyptian-Maya creole; the phrase is also a homophone of "never mind if the election gets postponed for long enough, such that the sock-puppets created for the sole purpose of rigging the election are at least 3 months old and have at least 75 edits, and are hence able to fulfill their function". Truly a concise, elegant, rich and refined language. RationalWiki should consider creating articles in this sacred tongue. 77.111.245.11 (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's also a reason joke options aren't a good idea for these kinds of polls. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mods, techs, board members etc. who pledge to allow voting to begin by Sunday, September 2, 2018, please append your signature here

Please state if you have the technical know-how required to run the election on this wiki.

^{— Unsigned, by: 77.111.245.11 / talk}

If by "technical know-how" you mean "knows the server password" then it's quite simple. It's two or maybe three people. —Kazitor 12:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Only two people can start the election, David Gerard and Tmtoulouse. — Dysk (contribs) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Now realising that the substitution should be "technical know-how" → "server password" to form a correct sentence. —Kazitor 22:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudos.--Palaeonictis (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Voting starts on September 2 September 4

So isn't that today? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Start prodding @Tmtoulouse and David Gerard.77.111.245.10 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

get me a returning officer and a finalised list of candidates and I'll put it up this evening. (I don't routinely read the Bar.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The candidates seem to be:

• User:LeftyGreenMario
• User:RobSmith
• User:Enchanted13
• User:Pbfreespace3
• User:Bob M
• User:Ikanreed
• User:David Gerard

What does a returning officer do?77.111.245.10 (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps one of @Kazitor, Dysklyver, and LeftyGreenMario can be returning officer, since they actually bothered to respond to this thread.77.111.245.10 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I have the necessary means to start the voting. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard if "returning officer" = "ballot reader" then I'm willing to do it. —Kazitor 05:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The returning officer is basically the person who officially announces the result after the ballots have been counted. In political elections in the UK they are also responsible for overseeing the count and dealing with any problems or irregularities if they occur. — Dysk (contribs) 10:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario is a candidate so cannot also be a returning officer according to normal conflict of interest rules in elections. — Dysk (contribs) 10:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• @David Gerard. I have closed the nominations, the final list of candidates is here. @Kazitor and Dysklyver are returning officers. — Dysk (contribs) 10:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

See the source of all misinformation for a definition. Anna Livia (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify. If it's exactly what was described here, then I have no issues doing it. —Kazitor 12:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

yeah, hardest part is making OpenSTV behave. Though when Fuzzy did it he used his Returning Officer powers to chuck a pile of blatantly sockpuppeted votes, which is also literally the returning officer's job ... but one that would be controversial - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard So I would have to run OpenSTV myself? In that case, is this it? —Kazitor 22:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

or this one. I'd recommend using the OpenSTV in Ubuntu, which is 1.6.1 in Ubuntu 18.04. Dunno about Windows/Mac solutions. Ask FuzzyCatPotato if you can't work out wtf - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Successfully ran the last election. Had to install python 2 but apart from that all seems fine. —Kazitor 22:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Voting finally switched on (sorry for the delay) and it's in the sitenotice and it's all go! w00t! - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

When's it finish? Someone should remind me at the time too - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Voting will close after one week, around the 11th September 2018. — Dysk (contribs) 19:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll close it this evening - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Voting ends on September 11

Please vote wisely. @David Gerard, please turn off the voting when appropriate.77.111.246.15 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm off to bed now, so I can't count anything for another few hours. —Kazitor 11:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Every should now look forward to the results. :D — Dysk (contribs) 15:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI, sleep over. (11 hours? Damn.) —Kazitor 22:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

werlllll it's probably still Sep 11 somewhere. Poll's closed! - David Gerard (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

ah Kazitor Dysklyver please email me at dgerard@gmail.com so I can email you back the .blt files - David Gerard (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep. It's still September 11 here in California. It's 11:40, granted, but it still counts. Which is why I'm still up, writing a paper on the Trojan War. *slumps slowly in chair, thinking about my life* RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I was beginning to think you might have forgotten :) 5:30 PM now, although I do live in the future. —Kazitor 07:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I probably live in a completely different time zone (read sleep cycle), email sent. — Dysk (contribs) 08:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the religious right dead?

Over the past decade, the influence of the religious right seems to have shrunk dramatically in the US. Fewer politicians speak of the need for "Christian values" in politics, the intelligent design "movement" seems to have mostly faded away, etc. Is this the end, or will it make a comeback? Count Bezukhov (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You should see some of the religious Trump supporters. No, the religious right is very much out and about, carving itself into the political scene alongside celebrity dynasties and Kekistani edgelords. A counterintuitive combination to be sure, but they're not going away anytime soon. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not dead. Evangelical Christianity is stronger than mainline Protestantism (Anglican, Methodist, etc) and not going anywhere. It'll be interesting to see how they reconcile Trump with their religious values, but they've proved flexible over a lot of things (peace, charity, meekness, etc) so I'm sure they'll manage. We may well see a greater focus on patriotism (and phoney constitutionalism) rather than religion from the right, but Christianity will remain an important part of white conservative American identity. And probably will last a lot longer than the 4chan edgelords. --Gospatric (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not interesting. It's been covered extensively and they basically just rewrite the idea of "godly man" until it includes trump. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's true that Trump's done nothing in the area of morality that other religious-right icons haven't done: infidelity, racism, dodgy business dealings, prostitutes, bankruptcy, wilful offensiveness, sheer idiocy. But Trump's influence will still shape the religious right, probably into something even uglier and more nationalistic (under George W Bush and the neocons there was a mission to remake the world in their image, now Trump will just bring on Armageddon). --Gospatric (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, they're literally over half the reason we have trump. We are having a confirmation hearing for a hyper-christian conservative supreme court judge right now, who, if confirmed would be the 5th one on the court. Just because the clown in the front is really notable doesn't mean the circus isn't going on in the back. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, you don't have to look far to find the religious right behind trump. The vice president, Mike Pence, is probably one of the more extreme Christians in the federal government today. With 5 judges on the court, Christian conservatism will be a force in America for decades to come. Samstr (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For what I've seen in places as this, Patheos, etc. even if the old guard (people as John MacArthur and other megachurch leaders among others) is dying and young people there seems to be leaving, I doubt it will die away soon.

Do not forget said stuff is being exported to other countries outside US, even if fortunately there seems to be so far few or no megachurches elsewhere.

Panzerfaust (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No. It will never die unless Human Beings drive a stake into its heart like the bloodthirsty cretin it is. ^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs}

Describes religious right as "blood thirsty," Best way to stop it: "drive a stake into its heart"... --RWRW (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad you catch my drift, Sir.^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs}

Depends on the country. In many countries religious conservatives still run everything. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hay poll

Should all youtubers with less than 1000 subscribers be assassinated unless they are relevant for some other reason? Subscriber number to be revised at any time but probably at least yearly... — Dysk (contribs) 15:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is a good measure

1. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Why should we care if no one else does? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Tinribmancer (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
4. If we make articles on every moron with a YouTube account, we'll end up with thousands of trashy stubs that no one will ever need or read again. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
5. I support this limit or anything like it. As far as I'm concerned, YouTube is TLDV generally. Bongolian (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Hay is for horses. I think we should also discuss the Webshites list as well. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
7. Sounds like a good idea. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
8. A thousand subscribers. That's a very generous threshold. A caveat not to immediately delete the article if the person is "relevant for some other reason". Any YouTubers who don't meet those conditions are minnows indeed.Spud (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

   @Spud And the limit can be adjusted (likely via vote) at a later date if someone makes a strong enough case. It's a pretty generous deal. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

   @GrammarCommie True, that is another thing that makes this a generous deal. Although I think the threshold number of subscribers is more likely to be adjusted up rather than down. Adjusting it down would probably mean that YouTube was ceasing to be relevant. And..., well you can imagine what would happen then. Spud (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

9. As a general guideline, this is a good thing to do. RW's help pages could also use some words on this topic. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
10. I concur. The idea that quality is more important than quantity is true to an extent, but it makes sense to use more generic articles to tackle common pseudoscience memes. Samstr (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
11. Oh, yes, please. I’ve flagged the issue of YouTuber nobodies before and this proposal does not set a particularly high bar and thus shouldn’t filter out any RW worthy Tubers. And might we consider some kind of threshold for Twitter too? ScepticWombat (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

    @ScepticWombat Yes please!!! In fact we should be doing something like this for the entirety of social media, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, all of it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No this idea is evil

1. More articles isn't a issue. It's the quality of these articles (or lack of it) that's continues to persist. This doesn't help matters. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   Agreed, though many of these articles are bad because they're so small no one bothers to edit them. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   @RoninMacbeth Are you saying that the articles are too small or that the YouTube channels in question are too small? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   The more articles the better generally, but the quality (which comes first of course) is linked to this problem. Most people don't have the time or resources to fully tackle small Youtube channels, and they offer very little payoff for the effort as well as a possible risk of giving Youtubers attention they don't deserve. And when people do try to cover small channels, it's also an effort to proofread and enforce quality control. There's little benefit to creating those articles and they look bad on our Wiki and not really worth maintaining. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   Per LGM. My main concern is that articles on small YouTube channels tend to be small because so little attention is paid to them (the channel and the article), and that small channels generally say the same things larger ones in the same field say. Unless there's something REALLY unique about that one channel with about 1,000 subscribers, there's no need to cover them. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

2. We don't have notability on RW. Shitty articles should be purged.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 00:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Yeah, I just think we need more people to work on them. This sub limit is silly. 194.82.180.134 (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

   The people who will work on articles for nobody accounts are fans, weird obsessed stalkers, or both. This is a recipe for garbage pages. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Goats eat hay

1. Infinity War? More like Infinity BORE. Amirite? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
   • Not impressed with the latest in how to spend a massive amount of money? Every second of that movie cost $50,000. Or three million bucks a minute. — Dysk (contribs) 22:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
     • Seriously? Infinity War was a great film. It doesn't matter that their expenditure was so high since their profits have been through the roof. --RWRW (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   I liked Infinity War a lot, but that stupid fucking joke came into my head and wouldn't go away until I posted it somewhere. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

2. A kid'll eat ivy too - Wouldn't you? 92.9.28.115 (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie, channelling Spike Jones)
3. Just to be clear, I am not advocating the actual youtubers are assassinated, only the bad articles. :D — Dysk (contribs) 13:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A different measure is needed

1. Primarily because, it would seem, there are a lot more of them than there are of you. YouTube has about 1 billion active users.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   Please share then. Simply opposing it doesn't seem to be a useful option, as leaving it as it is is also very problematic. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   Problematic? More like Infinity Bore. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the problem of highly ethical peoples everywhere: I got nothing. Round up the usual suspects?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Italian article creators admitted to relying on machine translation, now what?

So the creators of the Italian articles two people sharing one account) have admitted that their articles are mostly machine translations with a few changes being made as a result of proofreading. I really don't think that's good enough. I now think that all the Italian articles they created should be deleted. How about the rest of you? What do you think? Spud (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

ONLY THE BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF ITALY Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I want the best for the people of Italy and Italian-speaking people everywhere (except perhaps for the Vatican City). And I think that means providing them translations that actual human beings have put some time, effort and thought into creating. i think that offering them the same thing that they could just get by clicking on a Google Translate button anyway and trying to pass that off as a separate article is a pretty cheap trick. Spud (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I agree completely. I support your proposed mass deletion. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Horsemen of the AfDocalypse ride once more...

RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You disappoint Mario. :( --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Good taste has prevailed. I have deleted all the recently added machine translated articles. We are now left with only one article in Italian that was written 3 years ago. Ciao! Spud (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Machine translations work as an aide, especially if you use multiple translations at once, compare them, and use good judgment in filling in the blanks, but they should not be used as a crutch. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Very well said. I've referred to machine translations in the translations I've done here and elsewhere. But I've very rarely put down the exact same sentence that the machine translation provided. I've found that they've helped me to think and (hopefully) come up with a better way of saying what I want to say in the target language. I've also seen how bad Google Translate's English to Esperanto translation can be. (Probably not such a big issue when dealing with English to Italian). Spud (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

How did we not find this earlier? Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it was only six weeks ago that new Italian translations started appearing. Only six new pages were added, so this didn't end up being a really big mass deletion. I first starting suspecting they were machine translations four weeks ago. That was when I read on the translation of the "Knowledge" page that the Italian word conoscenza came from the Middle English word conoscere, which is obviously bollocks. When I did clean-up edits to those pages, I said in my edit summaries that I thought they were machine translations. I thought their creators might respond. They didn't. In future, when I suspect new users of doing things they shouldn't, like, plagiarism, I'll take my concerns to them straight away. Spud (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Good evening to everyone,

we are Fabio and Teresa. We are the Italians accused of having mistranslated the following voices: skepticism, pseudoskepticism, hallucination, about Rationalwiki, mysticism, knowledge.

We write on our internet page (blog/FB) where we share articles about pseudoscience, skepticism, rationalism and history of science. Our claim is to spread critical thinking and scientific method. Our project is to bring all this into schools and we think that, over time, Rationalwiki could become an excellent tool for teachers and students, since the real change in the state of things is starting from there.

We work every day in our country to fight ignorance, clericalism, racism and superstition. In this historical phase, here, it is fundamental because fascism is back.

The voices we have created are in perfect and understandable Italian language, we invite other italian users to read those lemmas. For the voice “knowledge” (the second voice) we admit we wanted to keep the Anglo-Saxon approach. We didn't know how to move honestly and it seemed right to not change everything compared to the English voices . When we translate, we use an automatic translator, BUT it is only the basis on which to start to write and then modify the text, we have never translated a text through a click, copy and paste.

We have a dignity and professionalism. We are serious people.

We wondered when we would start writing without more translations, but starting is not easy and we have never written on a wiki platform.

The idea was to spread Rationalwiki in Italy and to find people willing to work in Italian language to expand RW and create new voices. To do this we chose items related to the articles we wrote on our page so as to bring readers to participate in RW and then begin to create entries.

Finally we share the same account because we use collective writing as a tool for creating articles and conducting our Riga21 project.

We are sad and we regret you have destroyed a thought work and not done by two clicks.

However we are here to receive advices on how to proceed and support the Rationalwiki project in Italy because we believe it is needed. We are here because we want to do and if the alternative is to recreate those voices from the beginning without translating, we will do it.

Sincerely,

Fabio and Teresa Riga21

Riga21 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2018 (GMT)

Firstly, sharing an account is no problem at all. I just pointed that out so that others could see why I was writing "they" and "their". And, no, you haven't broken any rules, as such. You aren't in danger of getting blocked. It still looks to me like you have been over-reliant on machine translation. And I'm sorry to say that your writing shows that your knowledge of English is not that strong. I think you may well be better off creating your own articles about the same topics we cover here instead of translating our articles. You don't have to create a new article every week. That's another thing that made me suspicious. It's OK to spend more time on creating an article. You can work on the articles in Draft space (just put Draft: before the title of the article you are working on) before it's ready to move to main space. Spud (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You can maybe machine translate the English and just write the Italian articles off that. Do you know Italian skeptic sources? It will be useful if the sources in those articles are Italian as well. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I have the good post Gif for an Emoji for Discord?

I just noticed I might want one that's a bit bigger. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Also why is it I get NSFL third result when googling RATWIKI EMOJI? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this obvious? Anything named "ratwiki" is very unlikely to be a good thing.

Anyway, the emoji are literally on the wiki. You just have to right click and save as. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 03:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we make many things up?

I have been pondering Eastern Philosophy lately and trying to figure what they mean by "this world is a dream". Then I wonder if it refers to the way our world is, in a sense, constructed. Like how "countries exist", or that morality is some iron rule, even I am beginning to wonder how much of "me" is based on conditioning and not innate. THat's what I figure. Anyone else?Machina (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Machina It's actually a lot like the Abrahamic belief that this world is just preparation for the next. As to how much of "you" is "you" well... all of it. The way you react to culture and ideas, the thoughts you express, the memories you retain (and even how you remember them) and the emotions you feel are all distinct to you, even the parts that come from social conditioning. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The response to that is that all "conditioned phenomenon" don't survive protracted questioning. Meaning your life could very well unravel when all the things you thought to be so solid were just essentially made up. Even neuroscience is beginning to show that there is no "you" the carries on moment to moment.Machina (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You can explore that question by taking art history. An extremely recurring subject in art would be understanding and exploring what's real or not. I say that's even a fundamental component to art. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Questions are no more real than the answers. An important point: there is no such thing as fixed "eastern philosophy." There are many philosophers from the so-called far east, but they tend to disagree with one another as often as western philosophers do with one another. D. T. Suzuki, at a meeting of philosophers, sat at a table as others discussed reality. After several days passed someone noticed Suzuki had said nothing. The chairman said, “You’ve been silent all this time. Would you say something about reality.” Suzuki did not respond. Finally the chairman said, “Well, is this table real?” And Suzuki said, “Yes.” The chairman asked, “In what sense is it real?” Suzuki replied, “In every sense.” Ariel31459 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess what bothers me is when I try to debate people who argue this stuff they just say that language is conceptual and that it cannot truly describe a "direct experience" of reality (reality without all the filters and things that we add to it. Something about nondualism and how everyone else doesn't see it because we all share an illusion of what is real and as a result we maintain the mirage by telling each other it's real (countries, values, morals) that they truly exist and aren't in our minds. That science is naive an so is materialism and that we are awareness and not our bodies. I could go on but I don't really have answers to anything they have and it seems like they make sense.Machina (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If you agree with someone, then you may no longer have a question for them.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like Existentialism based bullshit to me. Last I checked none of these types would be willing to test their "reality is but an illusion" spiel with something that actually has the potential to hurt them. Pain is something I can experience beyond just my sense of touch, beyond even all of my senses combined because whatever caused that pain left a real, tangible effect on my body that I can't simply will or wish away. To put it in more concrete terms, if I lose a limb it isn't an illusion, it's a real, measurable loss to my body that I can prove exists within a reasonable margin for error. Likewise, if I cut someone there is a measurable effect on their body, one that they cannot simply will or wish away. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. "Everything you think is true is bullshit," is a common enough philosophy. I wouldn't expect to make friends with it though.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC) .

Don't forget "..., but we don't offer any alternative." —Kazitor 02:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Well the bit about pain might be more mental than we think https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-pain-construct-of-mind/Machina (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Like I said above, the feeling of pain is only one part of the equation. Further, just because something is mental doesn't mean it isn't real. For example, our feelings and thoughts are mental (and chemical) constructs, but are for all intents and purposes real. Pain and bodily harm are just one example, but again you won't see and of these gurus chopping off their limbs or digits and then walking (or meditating) it off. That's because they know that the physical effects of such acts are very much real, and as thus possess real consequences, such blood loss, infection, and even death to name a few. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

People do think there is 'a person sitting in their head looking out at the world' (and that other people have the same phenomenon, and possibly some animals). Some aspects of the universe will be constructed by the mind (eg colour) - but they are consistent constructs. Anna Livia (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Biblical narrative problems with YEC (and vice versa)

So, given that many of the characters in the Bible are supposed to live to be anywhere from 500ish-900ish years old, and given that there are not only well over twelve generations worth of characters but also at least two timeskips, it seems there's a problem with the YEC idea that the Bible dictates that the earth is 6000 years old. Thoughts? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the idea is that each group had children just before they died. Supposedly Ussher did his work, so... —Kazitor 00:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Actually, Abraham was supposed to have had children well into his old age (600 or thereabouts if I recall, give or take 100 years). Even taking all of that that into account we're left with an excess of over 400ish years, not counting timeskips, which leave out the exact amount of time between narrative arcs. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Either way, 6000 years for 12 generations and some gaps doesn't seem objectionable to me. I'm sure Ussher wrote it all down somewhere if you care enough. —Kazitor [[

File:Kazitor sig pic.png|link=User talk:Kazitor]]

01:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

PDF diagram --Annanoon (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

In RL there are cases of men having children by different partners 50+ years apart, which can create some interesting genealogies.

Most people accept that 'The Bible' is a selection from a wider range of material and contains a mixture of 'very ancient myths retold and reinterpreted multiple times', history (some also retold and reinterpreted), 'poetry, psalms/hymns, proverbs and other material' - and one can take from it what one wishes to find or requires (and which will differ for each person or group, or even over time).

Bishop Ussher was an intellectual of his time and was making an educated guess based upon the material available to him - which probably did not include much in the way of 'the historical and religious literatures of Asia and the Ancient Middle East' which might have led him to adopt the Keynes' quote "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"

Unless the YECs are also prepared to accept 17th technology (including absence of modern medicine, and salt food) as well as theology of the time they are being somewhat inconsistent (among their other problems). Anna Livia (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Those ages are literally how they compute that absurd 6000 year age. There's only a half dozen characters who are Dúnedain'd in the bible, and for the rest of the begats in the bible up to jesus they just ballpark between 20 and 40 years, which stretches or shrinks to somewhere between 6500 and 10000 years. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Very ancient scholars put a lot of effort into carefully calculating the time frame when it was still mainstream belief, it's about as accurate as anything you can expect to calculate from a book which claims most the people in it lived hundreds of years. — Dysk (contribs) 15:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ussher can be forgiven as back in those days geology was still sprouting. He had what was considered the best available source and did the best. The same cannot be said of current YECs. And, yes, the Bible is poor even for determining ages (and what was happening before God created everything?. How much time was spent by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before eating the fruit?. So many questions unanswered, when some fictional settings have much fleshed out timelines) Panzerfaust (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input everyone. The 6000(ish?) year mark seemed off even as fictional timeline so I thought I'd ask for more points of view on the matter. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Am I a woo pusher?

So, for several years now I've been eating a diet of "organic" food, mostly because I like the way it tastes vs most mainstream brands. Does this mean I've bought into the whole "organic food" trend, even though my reasons for eating "organic" food have more to do with taste than concern with content? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, if you don't proclaim all its health benefits and brag about how much weight you've lost. But man does the term "organic" annoy me; I've tried to think of foodstuffs that aren't organic and all I came up with was table salt. —Kazitor 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Weight loss? I hope not given that my doctor says that I'm underweight. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You'd only be a woo pusher if you tried to persuade other people to eat it too. And then, if you just say, "You should eat this. It tastes good", without making any magical claims about it, you still wouldn't be a woo pusher. So, if you like it, eat it and don't feel guilty about it. Spud (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not woo to prefer organic food. It's simply food grown mostly chemical free. Organic food is generally better quality due to the less forced way it's grown (the chemicals speed up food production). This is comparable to those "free range" eggs that somehow always seem to be bigger than normal eggs. If it's not "grown" food, then it shouldn't be much different and it will be a preparation thing). Anyway, my point is that in general organic food is better made and that's why it tastes better. There's no woo in quality, other claims notwithstanding. — Dysk (contribs) 08:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Errr, what do you mean "chemical free"? Organic allows pesticides. Also, the other factors that influence food quality (soil quality, freshness, environment, fertilizers, type of fruit, size of fruit, what the fruit is bred for) matter much more than the lack of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. There was a Penn & Teller episode where they cut a banana in two and the person rated the half that she thought was organic as "tasting better". Organic in of itself doesn't affect food quality as much as you think; I'd chalk it up to placebo. I've drank Costco organic milk before and I actually liked it a lot, but I give credit to how the milk was made, not so much the organic brand. What's to take away is that if your local farmer provides reasonably delicious produce, stick with it, that's all. My final opinion is that organic is less sustainable than conventional because organic requires more land use (and that can lead to so many ecological problems if you think about it, it'll all add up) and what we need to focus on is less land use. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario@Dysklyver In my experience "Organic" usually refers to foods without preservatives, or "unprocessed" as it's usually called by more technical types. Hence why I put the word in quotes since it's meaning in this context varies from person to person, group to group. LGM, true "organic" foods in this context generally require more land for mass production, however if one has the time and energy one could set up a garden or greenhouse to grow certain crops themselves, just at a lower yield. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Debunk-A-Photo: Lady in New Mexico

On this website, here, there's a photo that they say will have skeptics "stumped". I'm referring to number 5, of course, this photo here, which has this supposedly ghostly lady taken in the picture. The guy who took the photo says he was taking a picture of a wildfire, and this lady was in the photo, but she wasn't there when he took it. This, then, is the diversion: What's going on in this picture, and what's this ghost lady doing here? You could say Photoshop, of course, but try and be a little more creative than that. This website says this photo has skeptics "stumped". Prove the website wrong. I'm as clueless as you are about this thing. A fun little game for the amateur skeptic. Let the debunking begin. Logicnsuch (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't like debunking photos that do not, innately, contain anything to debunk. It looks like a fairly conventionally underexposed photo, and then the words "she wasn't actually there" are glued to it on a website. Uh huh, sure. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, so your explanation, then, is that she was just his Grandma or something? Sounds reasonable. That's what you're saying?Logicnsuch (talk)

Posted your question on a sceptic forum where I'm a member from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331893 Tinribmancer (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I say it could just be a person. That's a good explanation. Course, could always be a being from the afterlife, although she's just a Hispanic-ish lady in a blue shirt. I picked this photo because it was the only one on the list that didn't just have a ghost in the background. THIS ghost doesn't even TRY to be subtle. Anybody else? Logicnsuch (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a crappy photo. Next. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It sure looks like a person and years ago cheap cameras often produced double exposures. We are not obliged to believe the account of the photographer. Since he is anonymous, it would be foolish to do so.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"Double exposure" raises a very good point. I'm inclined to accept that. —Kazitor 00:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You're saying there was one picture of this one blue shirted Hispanic lady on his roll, and one picture of the forest fire, and the guy just saw this blue shirted lady in the picture, and didn't assume that she had anything to do with the double exposure? I dunno. I assume it's just a fraud, because this lady does not look that ghostly. Logicnsuch (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What a load of fucking shit all 5 photos are. There's nothing in picture 1. There's nothing in picture 4. Pictures 2 and 3 are obviously staged. And the mysterious picture 5 just looks to me like a photo of a happy old woman outside waving taken in an extremely bad light. It's not even as if there's a particularly fierce forest fire raging in the background to make the happy wave look really inappropriate. Although, of coure, people do smile and wave in photos while horrible things are happening behind them. Minus the caption about the man not seeing the old woman when he took the photo, it's nothing. For fuck's sake. Is this what passes for online entertainment these days? Spud (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Spud I've seen worse, but yeah, standard clickbait bullcrap. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Top15s channel is literally like this. Except that in 2016, this guy (Chills) only tapped in the Paranormal woo & Ghost Woo. After I bumped against one of his normal video's again in June, I decided to check his channel to see what it's like now and he started to add the Conspiracy woo to it aswell + pastebin links with links to either other yt vids for his "proof", or from sites like The Daily Fail, The Sun, The Mirror, Fox News, Vigilant Citizen, ect... Tinribmancer (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

9/11 as a federal holiday: Oh hell no (RZ94 is back bitches!)

Note: I do not have a computer at home. I will not post as often

This morning I was listening to my radio and I heard about people wanting to make 9/11 a federal holiday. I honestly don't see why it should be, other than people wanting a day off and getting drunk. To me, it is just poor taste. Normally I am not a fan of being PC to the extreme but 3000 people died.

Going with this logic, why not turn the Spanish Flu pandemic, Hurricane Katrina and the Boston Marathon bombings into federal holidays? This bro is back! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It's already a federal holiday, just not with time off. "Patriot day". The name alone should tell you the kind of people who made it a thing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that would be necessary. It is already a remembrance day the way Pearl Harbor is. Calling it Patriot Day works as well. (I could not care less what people do in their free time.) Nerd (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with RZ94, the idea of celebrating a tragedy is somewhat twisted, inappropriate, and sickening. It's the kind of thing I would expect as a Black Comedy sketch, not as a holiday in real life. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think instead that turning it into a Federal holiday may be the best way to reclaim it from tragedy and turn it into an end-of-summer festival. My understanding is that most of Europe gets the whole month of August off. Give us a third of that; turn Labor Day and Sept 1-11 into a general holiday marked by beer, barbecues, and the cranking up of that goddamn game, and we will have the best kind of revenge on the Saudis. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön Good one! If you are so afraid you become paranoid and blow up your balance sheets, then the terrorists have won. Nerd (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's traditional to celebrate the end of wars not the start of wars, so maybe America should celebrate May 1 as the anniversary of George W Bush's Mission Accomplished speech. --Gospatric (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

YouTube article purge

Since Ikanreed has already raised the topic of YouTube nobodies, I thought this comment on Category talk:YouTube was a good idea:

In the past we had mass purges of CP articles and funspace articles. We put all the articles in a list, and everyone voted on their fate. Let's do this with all the Youtuber articles. 79.68.232.82 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

CowHouse (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Let the Great YouTube Purge Begin. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean, let the Great Deyoutubeification begin! And I think it's already started. Spud (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

So how do we want to do this? AfD votes for individual articles, or just put up a list of articles that should be deleted and do it in an ad hoc manner? RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What does AfD mean (apart from it being the far-right party from Germany)? Tinribmancer (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD means Articles for Deletion, RationalWiki's procedure for proposing that articles be removed. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD Votes Are Cool

1. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

En Masse Deletion Is Awesome

1. I've seen way too many articles on irrelevant YouTubers nobody has ever heard of. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Puffing on his pipe, Chef Moosolini took one last glance at the pile of documents on his desk. He shook his head at the vast collection of largely pointless RW Youtuber articles. He grabbed his pen and scribbled "HFP" on topmost piece of paper. HFP. Highest Form of Punishment. With a small smile, the chef slapped the bell on his desk. His secretary scurried over. Although it was 3:00 in the morning, everyone was still in the building. The chef's staff worked on his schedule and his alone. The secretary scooped up the pile of documents and hurried out of his office. The chef smiled even wider. Soon enough, those documents would go into the furnace. All traces of their existence would be expunged. It would be as if they had never been written at all. "Good riddance," the chef grunted. He reached for the next item on his agenda. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
3. I shall slake my thirst for article deletion. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
4. All the pages suck on RationalWiki:The great Youtube purge. Kill all those.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 22:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Seems to be needed. — Dysk (contribs) 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Remove for the removal god! Count Bezukhov (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. If the criterion is number of subscriptions, could someone do a list with the number of subscriptions for each Youtuber in the category and then we could at least do some winnowing. And judge the scale of the problem - I don't think anyone did this before the vote (but if they did accept my apology in return for a link to the list). That seems the minimum level of scrutiny to avoid a stupid and self-destructive rush to deletion without examination. Because deleting things is fun. --Gospatric (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If nobody's bothered to do this, then individual AfDs (possibly with an assumption that if in doubt they're deleted). --Gospatric (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

1. I am going to go through them all and mark the ones worth keeping/deleting at User:Dysklyver/youtubers to be deleted, we should try probably to make a defined list and then maybe do a big multiple AFD or something, but mass deletion might not be needed. — Dysk (contribs) 10:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

   On further reflection there don't seem to be enough truly terrible articles to justify mass deletion. — Dysk (contribs) 11:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

   Truly terrible articles isn't the problem. "Who gives a fuck?" is the problem. Spud (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

   I think you/we should make a project page instead, like for the fun and conservapedia cullings. —Kazitor 11:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

2. Once I have finished figuring out which ones are crap, I will make a proper project page. — Dysk (contribs) 14:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Just click on the link to the person's YouTube channel. If he or she has fewer than a thousand subscribers, if you've never heard of the person and the article doesn't make it clear that he or she is important for some reason other than being a YouTuber, just delete the page straight away. There's no need to have an AfD for each of them. And there's no need to wait until a complete list of all the articles to be deleted has been compiled either. Spud (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

   @Spud There's a problem with that plan. Many of the YouTube articles were made back in the mid 2000s, early 2010s. And since YouTube fame is like that of pop stars... Yeah, you see the problem now? Most of us have likely never heard of Thunderf00t for example, or VenomFangX, or Shockofgod (that last one is the very embodiement of Argumentum ad nauseam) but that doesn't mean they should be deleted without a second thought. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

   @GrammarCommie Before I agree with you, first, let me nitpick a little. VenomFangX has 25,000 subscribers. Shockofgod has 55,000 subscribers. Thunderf00t has 821,000 subscribers. So their articles are all safe thanks to the numbers alone. And I have heard of all three of them. I've been on RationalWiki since 2011, remember. (In fact, I created my account 7 years ago yesterday, on 13 September 2011.) I remember the good old days when they were pretty much the only YouTubers who had articles here. I do, however, completely see your point and the analogy with pop stars is an excellent one. So, OK, here we go again with the fourth Great Purge project (since there were 2 Conservapedia ones). Let's have a bit of a debate about all the YouTubers in the category. Spud (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Project page

Now open at RationalWiki:The great Youtube purge. I have weeded through the Youtube category and found a whole bunch of articles that don't seem much good. — Dysk (contribs) 14:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Great! one thing though, it would be better to put them all up there, and let people decide who is worthy or not. In the CP purge we did that, even the obvious keepers, and it still worked (and also the people making the list didn't have to puzzle over what the mob might want) 92.5.137.227 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Heh. If you want to move some more in to the deletion zone, there's the full list of youtube articles at User:Dysklyver/youtubers to be deleted. — Dysk (contribs) 19:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

EU is destroying the internet

They'll hold a final vote in January but it will most likely pass.[3] 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You know, I'm very rarely a "deregulation good" kind of person. Making every second party be on the constant lookout for every possible first-party civil infractions against a third party? That's a regulation that should not exist. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Internet regulation is one of the few regulations I oppose as well @Ikanreed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nah, there's good internet regulations: ISP trust busting, encryption standard management(though maybe not enforcement), wire fraud, and anti-spam laws are all great things. Privacy laws are tricky but possibly good, depending on implementation. The broader case of having websites be responsible for what their users do, except if they actively encourage those things, is dumber than dumbshit. Especially with respect to 3 party civil liability. It makes no goddamn sense. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I see. Damn you tiredness for making me unable to type and think. I formally redact my previous statement as too broad and overly generalized. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with regulating the companies providing internet, but people who want to restrict the internet itself can kindly fuck off. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The EU has been digging its own grave for years. Personally, I'm only for regulation if it absolutely necessary, and its clear that this new proposal does not meet that criteria. --RWRW (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

For once I agree with you. Over the years the EU has become nothing more than an undemocratic neoliberal bureaucracy with France and Germany calling all the shots. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest I can't understand why most left-wingers support the EU. There is such a strong left-wing Eurosceptic argument that can be made. The EU was once a good thing but now its an abomination that's nothing like what it should have been. --RWRW (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

atleast we don't have this guy in charge... Tinribmancer (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. At least Trump can be voted out at the next election. We never get to vote for the EU dictator 'President' --RWRW (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You voted for the US dictator president instead. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he did. RWRW is British, I think. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

He's a moron and a populist, but I wouldn't say he's a dictator. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'm British. I guess calling him a dictator was a little harsh, but he's incredibly authoritarian and I didn't get a chance to vote for him. I wouldn't call him a populist since he couldn't care less about anyone other than himself and the other neoliberal elites--RWRW (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

He ran on a platform of change then did the same thing as his opponents and predecessors. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 05:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Busy right now, but this passed and the internet is doomed. — Dysk (contribs) 17:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  Alright, first order of business, does rationalwiki qualify for doing this thing? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  Guys, can someone explain to me how we're doomed? And if so, how badly and how soon? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dm5ZwUAXsAUkfQL.jpg I don't see the issue. Euroskeptics from the US on the other hand (like several over here)...Tinribmancer (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  This does, in fact, answer my question, if non-profits are exempted, no concern for RW. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ok so this introduced two main rules, both of which apply in Europe, but affect US sites when they are viewed in Europe. Rule 1 is Article 13, which makes it much harder for a website to host copyrighted content. Rule 2 is Article 11, which prohibits aggregating link to news articles. The good news is that this is compatible with existing laws for fair use and commentary, and that open source sites such as Wikipedia are specifically excluded. RationalWiki is by my reading, generally compliant with these rules and should not be affected. It may be sensible to audit pictures hosted here for any not used in articles that are not public domain, otherwise the normal sensible things to avoid copyright infringement apply. (I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice) — Dysk (contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• I think there's hope on that not only there'll be that final vote, each country will have to adapt it to their laws. Anyway, that will be unenforceable and will at worst leave a nasty mess including more than likely abuses -see YouTube and its filter-induced censorship of NASA videos- (at best things will continue as usual). Be sure people will find ways to dodge those filters. Damned eurocrats. Panzerfaust (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe it will apply to most EU countries automatically, but I haven't checked the deployment schedule yet. — Dysk (contribs) 19:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It will take its time to adapt each country's legislation to this BS, time enough for things as platforms moving outside EU, maybe even uderground, and ways to dodge said filters.

The way I understand it (they'll not use human labor. Even if they were to use an Indian sweatshop it would mean less profit, so they'll go for the automatic filters) is that said filters -remember, for digital platforms, not so far North Korea-like censorship-) would be like those already present on cyberlockers, YT, etc. They'll have a database of file names, CRCs, etc. that correspond to copyrighted files and content that has been made publicly and corresponds to that will be taken down. The problem for them is that it's not hard to circumvent said system (files as padding to a compressed archive that would change its CRC, meaningless name, etc). As for videos, I've seen mirrored ones in YT that thanks to that were not taken down.

Also, that database should be huge, and if you were to include there images as some claim it would be quite unmanageable (attempt to calculate how many images can be obtained with 16 million colors in, say, 1024*600 if you dare)

Filesharing (torrents, download, etc) as well as streaming should continue as now if I'm not wrong. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Does RationalWiki still oppose Brexit? Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Asking nonsensical questions to own the libs. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can no longer read so much nonsense here. I've read so many mistruths about the EU so far in this thread and by a few members in rationalwiki over the last couple years. I was born in one EU country, educated in another, live now in another and had lived in the UK (one of my parents is from there) and the only place I ever heard anti-EU sentiment was in the UK, the country whose media barely covers the EU except to vaguely criticize it without many details. After speaking with my eurosceptic British friends for a few minutes I couldn't get any logical explanation or examples of how the EU really disrupted their lives, apart from the Polish/Bulgraian/Romanian immigrants which they wouldn't directly admit, but did sort of admit. A lot of claims of oppression and overreach and undemocratic-tyranny, but the overwhelming majority had absolutely no idea how the EU worked nor could point to any law that directly affected them badly.

The EU is as democratic as any other organisation. The commission is made up of Elected presidents and Prime Ministers of member countries (or their deputy prime minister etc) and when they make choices on new legislation it is done by unanimity. That's about as democratic as things get. Every nation has a veto and even small nations get many concessions by threatening to veto it and sometimes even a country like Malta or Luxembourg totally stops initiatives well into the advanced stages. The UK stopped tons of legislation. The parliament is directly elected and by proportional representation of around 700 members. That's as democratic as a legislature can be. The council is made up of ministers from each country (education or of finance) or a direct appointee by the Prime Minister work out issues related to their expertise. And all three of these organs have to agree on new legislation and clearly spell out how it will develop and work in practice. That's three levels of democratically elected or appointed bodies who all must agree on new legislation, two of them by unanimity. I mean, I don't understand how anyone who has studied the institutions of the EU and knows more than the most basic facts of it, let alone someone who has followed short term and long term EU policy and the daily machinations, could ever call it undemocratic. It's just babbling bullshit from Nigel and Boris who both fully well knew better. Yes, larger countries have a greater degree of influence but it is utterly ridiculous to say its all controlled by Germany and France. That's like saying the entire United Kingdom is undemocratically controlled by the borough of London. Sort of to maybe a small extent, but you know, theres like four times the amount of MPs from outside the greater London region right! Every single law that the EU has implemented was totally agreed to by the Prime Minister of the UK at the time, the UK's members of the European parliament and usually relevant British Cabinet Ministers or an appointee to the EU directly chosen by the Prime Minister. When the details are worked out over time, it is all done according to a method all countries agreed to. It is not the case of powerful countries telling the UK what to do. The UK agreed to every single detail. The EU has become large because the level of integration every country agreed to requires a large amount of small mechanization to make decisions dealing with applicable every day problems and issues. Which is often what happens in countries at the National level as their Ministries work out details without a cabinet minister micromanaging oversight of the Minister. The whole thing is so sad and tragic coming from cosmic ignorance and anti-EU hysteria. It made me ashamed to be a British citizen. So so so so sad. And now the UK will prosper by a sudden ripping apart of trade deals and highly integrated international regulations. Maybe the UK will float away to China and thrive there. 82.158.77.178 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please explain hoe this will 'destroy the internet'? there is nothing especially egregious about. there is no threat to the free speech and many claims made by critics seem unfounded exaggerated hyperbole. if you think the internet is about to be destroyeed, take a walk and calm the fuck down AMassiveGay (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Read this twaddle. — Dysk (contribs) 22:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

no more memes? its a win win AMassiveGay (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've seen one guy on Twitter saying that the neutral voters were Google shills, which is funny since Google is AGAINST it. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not terribly worried about memes, since most of them are already copyright violations under the already too broad provisions of copyright law. You could say that they're 'fair use', but 'fair use' is a defense against a claim of copyvio: IOW it has to be a copyvio before fair use comes into play. I am curious and doubtful about what giving news sites the right to demand payment for being linked to by news search engines is going to do, especially since the obvious fix is to remove any site demanding the payments from search results. They're imagining themselves too valuable to get that treatment, and they're wrong. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

They attempted those payments in both Germany and Spain before. It was an epic fail. As for memes, this is pretty much unenforceable due to the nature of them (if they cannot stop sharing of movies on Internet, how are they going to manage to stop image files, that are much smaller?). Panzerfaust (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Look who's reporting on this aswell: https://www.infowars.com/eu-passes-meme-killing-copyright-law/ Tinribmancer (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer in fairness most news outlets reported it. I was surprised to see that The Independent (which is essentially a Lib Dem propaganda machine) reported it. --RWRW (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't that surprised, they would have been a bit left out otherwise given how big a headline it is. Heck even I reported on it on my crappy blog. — Dysk (contribs) 17:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Or - overload the legal system with 'trivial violations.' 2A00:23C4:F513:8100:ECA6:2647:E20A:D453 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As a generalisation international bodies have their uses in 'resolving cross-border glitches and issues and having agreed conventions (eg road signs) etc', and as the world has changed since the EU was created the EU needs a major overhaul to suit modern requirements.

Reversing the idea - to what extent have copyright holders been actively at war with 'the collaborative part of the internet (the wikiverse, fanfic sites 'and all the rest of it') as distinct from 'the shady part of the internet including rip-offs'? And to what extent is such legislation more 'bold and all-encompassing' in the initial and discussion stages than in the final legislation passed which, in the event, is only invoked when it is actually the most appropriate legislation (and the benefits outweigh the yardage/mileage of squealings on the usual discussion platforms and paper newspapers as to the threat to democracy/this is the end of the world as we know it). Anna Livia (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Good and bad don't exist?

Is it insane to keep talking about good and bad even though they don't exist objectively?Machina (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What is your hang-up with "objectvity"? I'll say it again: subjective is not the same as non-existent. —Kazitor 05:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this going to be another version of Logicmaster, the guy who thought that the US and its laws didn't exist because countries are social constructs and social constructs are intangible therefore they don't exist? CoryUsar (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I liked it when he declared that Government is a religion, because judges wear robes - just like Harry Potter. 92.5.137.227 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

Good and bad is subjective, but most people can agree that some things are good or bad. And like Kazitor said, subjective doesn't mean non-existent, that's the same argument some people try to use to claim the irreligious have no sense of morality. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Machina I'm assuming that by "good and bad" you mean "good and evil", and then, like most people, you promptly conflate "good and evil" with "right and wrong" "moral and immoral" etc? If so then yes, good and evil don't exist due to being absolutist ideas with little to no room for the complexities we actually encounter in moral problems. However right and wrong, moral and immoral, do indeed exist due to their flexibility in labeling and categorizing human behavior. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A lot of people dodged your actual question because it seemed inane. To answer: it's not insane to address things that don't exist "objectively". Discussing the beauty of a sunset is far less insane than say wasting your time thinking about how many atoms are in a particular grain of sand. That's despite the latter being a case of provable truth. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The guy I was talking too was really obsessed with reality "as it is" and thinks that morality like "should and ought" is denying the way that things are by suggesting that they should be otherwise. Like people should not lie or kill but they do. Even how good and bad are mental constructs that don't "really exist", or how reacting with shock to a family member dying isn't biological but another mental construct. It just gets me afraid to think that most of my life is some kind of fabrication and not solid reality at all, that my "life is a lie". He seems to apply skepticism in that if you question everything you eventually end up with no ground to stand on, but then when it's tried on his spiritual stuff they have convenient dodges like "ego", nonconceptual, dualistic, or direct experience.Machina (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Technically, the stuff the guy is arguing about is terminology we use to describe abstract concepts that in fact exist. How we decided how things "should and ought" is how we survived as a community, and the deal with is that telling people what's "right and wrong" (with gradients in between, maybe with some deeper nuance here and there in some situations) ultimately works for us as a species, hence why we enforce those notions to begin with. Typically, lying and killing often applies to extreme scenarios but on a typical daily basis on most cases, those are things you shouldn't partake in regularly; as they say, desperate situations calls for desperate measures. If we're going to argue that the concept of how we generally view good and bad are simply just mental constructions, this may as well apply to any other abstract thought and feeling, such as "love" or "desire" and it is undeniable that they do in fact exist. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 17:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll sure say that's it's a ... novel... solution to the is-ought problem to say that people should be entirely disinterested in ought. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your friend can't be talking about "good and bad". They clearly exist as adjectives. I can get a "good" result in an exam or a "bad" result. So I guess he is talking about nouns. But - as has been pointed out previously - then he would be better off with "good and evil".

But is he trying to make the question sound less religious by using "good and bad"?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC) It's more along the lines of trying to find "truth" and that reality is empty of what we project on to it like good and bad and then when you judge things to be so you are restricting yourself. Of course the irony is that without good or bad, better or worse, you would not do anything at all. Since in theory no option would have greater value over another. It's a big obsession with objectivity and "reality". Another vein is that depression comes from judging things to be good or bad and that by suspending judgment you would not have it any more since there would be no "bad' to be depressed about. It goes further to suggest that we make ourselves feel certain ways when we judge things to be good or bad, so I think he believes we can willingly adjust our feelings and emotions by that logic. He also thinks that since pain is a mental construct that you can be so "conscious" that you null it, but then again the studies seem to show pain dulls if you don't think about it.Machina (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Here comes a flat earth believer in the flesh

Last week an old friend stopped by, and I am still having difficulty processing his proclamation that the earth is flat. He had the usual talking points and "refutations" to offer, including one I had not yet seen: that the round-earth proponentsists are trying to remove God from His role in giving meaning to our lives, casting us as insignificant specks dwelling on a spinning insignificant speck orbiting just one of zillions of fusion reactions scattered across an unimaginably vast, mostly uninhabited space.

He is the first flat-earth spouter I've met in the flesh, eyeball to eyeball. He is a deeply religious guy; he's asked me to abstain from uttering such pleasantries as "Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a pogo stick!" in his presence. Happy to comply, even if I giggle about it afterwards. For the most part he is functional and has been steadily gainfully employed in the same respectable job for the couple of decades I've known him.

I could detect no signs of this being performance art or trolling. I trotted out ships going hull-down, the four-thirds earth approximation used in the context of radar horizon and other line-of-sight radio coverage calculations (which I'm not sure he understood) and stellar parallax, all as supporting elements in an Occam's razor argument for a heliocentric model of the solar system. (Note to self: avoid using the word "model" in flat-earth arguments. It has much the same effect as "theory" does to a creationist.)

He has been distant, quieter than usual since that visit. Dude's impervious, oblivious, and did not take kindly to being called wilfully ignorant. That was after I lost patience with his obstinate insistence that atmospheric refraction always presents an inverted image. I could probably find the youTube video promoting that one, but CBA. He did mention that there were plenty of YT presentations backing him up.

Of course, in his view all the NASA imagery is faked. I can't remember if the moon landings came into the conversation, but no doubt they were faked as well.

I am OK with avoiding the subject on the relatively rare occasions that I see him. The old lady cares about his well-being (old friend, and all) and doesn't like to see him down in the dumps, but that hasn't interfered with our home life.

Not necessarily looking for coping strategies, just wanted to vent. I found it surprising to see such a critter in the wild, as you may guess from the foregoing. MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

If things are that way, so what?. What happens here, down on Earth, does not care at all about the way the Universe works unless it affects us, and the Universe that science has revealed us not only is far richer and larger at all scales than those who wrote the Bible thought but also thanks to that helps to appreciate more this only life and especially to care more for the environment, as there're no other similar and especially reachable places to go. If the only meaning of life is the one we give to it, so be it; attempting to leave a better place for those who will come after we shuffle this mortal coil is a good one.

Plus I prefer to live having to face that the Universe is indifferent, knowing that science is looking for ways to cope for the nasty jabs it can (and will) throw at us, and that we're as part of it as both the smallest subatomic particle and the largest galaxies, rather than on the fake bubble of security of a small one that is just a couple thousand years old courtesy of a deity who's anything but likable, etc just because some old texts say so, texts severely lacking on the kind of stuff that has improved so drastically our life. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You friend's reading list seems limited to Biblical fantasy. Millennium Scallion (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

But we are "insignificant specks dwelling on a spinning insignificant speck orbiting just one of zillions of fusion reactions scattered across an unimaginably vast, mostly uninhabited space", whose lives possess no innate meaning or purpose and must thus create their own, and who when they die cease to exist. And I wouldn't have it any other way. The fact that our lives are so fleeting gives them all the more value because of it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You'd check the reviews pf that book for some laughs. They're priceless for the amount of BS they contain (according to them "globe trolls" are those who offer counterclaims, biblical literalism, etc) and help understand why some call flat Earthers a cult when you can see why they're wrong simply looking at storm clouds far away. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Best review ever: "Worked like a charm! - I purchased this book as I was tired of people sitting too close to me on public transport! - Amazon Customer, June 15, 2018" Millennium Scallion (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To get pointlessly political, it's no coincidence that rise of trump conservatism and the rise of flat earthers... erm... coincided. We've got a world where hostility towards academia, science, and philosophy are more representative of some political viewpoints than any actual policy positions(no really, I say anti-intellectualism is more defining of modern american-style conservatism than say: anti-abortion, anti gay rights, or any particular views on taxation). The socially validated rhetoric of anti-intellectualism can be co-opted by basically any group of goddamn idiots who want inroads into the discourse. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea if my friend has read that book. I know he studied Greek and Hebrew in a seminary affiliated with a mainstream Protestant denomination not usually known for fundie lunacy. I had not noticed him showing any anti-intellectual tendencies until this latest tinfoil hat outburst. I think he has some internal stressors of a mental or emotional nature which are being exacerbated by his accumulating number of birthdays. Beyond that, I don't want to say much other than that he is a good guy in many regards. MaillardFillmore (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Correlation does not imply causation.184.181.12.187 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the causation can be inferred from similar modalities of thinking and common media landscapes. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Serena Williams Cartoon

It's a bit late and the media has died down a bit, but a week ago it was all over the news about how an Aussie cartoonist drew a racist cartoon of Serena Williams. Williams threatened the career of the judge and smashed her racket, basically acting like an overgrown baby. But the media reaction to the cartoon probably was the greatest gift to Serena, since it distracted from her behavior. So, was the originally cartoon excessively racist? At first, I thought so because it depicted Serena's Asian opponent as what appeared to be a blond white girl, until I saw pictures of the match where it was clear Osaka actually had a dyed blond ponytail in the match. Now, again, I get the impression that it's a combination of molehill mountaineering and people looking to be offended. Thoughts? CoryUsar (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just good ol' honest Aussie racist humour. Wouldn't know; I haven't seen it. —Kazitor 21:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty accurate depiction of Serena. Was it made with racist intentions or not? Who knows? Will people with questionable motive defend it? No doubt. Will racists like it? Yup. Will some people be offended? No doubt. So is it racist? You decide. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

heres the thing with cartoons and caricatures. they accentuate physical features. heres the thing with racist caricatures - they accentuate physical features. depending on the skill of the artist and what they are trying achieve, results can differ wildly. as someone significantly whiter than the most whitest white guy after being locked in cupboard for a year, i can look at it and think 'well serena was being a cow, thats tennis for ya'. if my fellow whitey were disproportionately locked up, murdered by police, disenfranchised in so many ways, a horrific history of slavery while the spiritual successors to the slavers appear to crawling out of the woodwork, i might not find it so easy to roll with it. for many im sure it will be seen as racist, as another degradation in a long line of degradations compounded with further degradation as your objections are waived away as your failing, as if when they spit in your face they laughing, it must be you without a sense of humour. at some stage any put upon group has to be able to take it on the chin, and laugh 'you got me', but there are no clear lines, so much context with the current climate and the twat magnifying properties of the internet making it difficult for any kind of definitive answer to be had. when the difference between something truly hurtful and good natured ribbing is as little as to where you are standing, all one can is take a deep breath and hope you are not stirring the pot. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty badly racist. No two ways around it. You'd have to be blind to not see how bad it is, lol. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I probably ought to clarify my earlier comment before anyone gets confused and tries to take it out of context. I don't condone racism, naturally, and barely anyone else I know does either (there are one or two exceptions, unfortunately). However, a fair amount of things that cause people to scream "Racism1111SHIFT!!!oneone11SHIFT!!1elventy11oneSHIFT!!111one!!!11!!" are generally more "good-natured ribbing" as AMassiveGay put it. —Kazitor 01:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Not to be nittypicky but it was originally published by The Herald Sun, which if memory serves is a Murdoch publication so... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What isn't, especially here in Australia... —Kazitor 03:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There is lampooning and there is racism. The cartoon contains both. The jumping up and down, yeah...lampooning. That's humerous. The big full lips and hair...that's racist. If you don't see the racism in there, then you ought to take a closer look and compare it with the kind of malicious depiction of African-Americans in the early 20th century. It's ugly stuff. If he had stuck to the screaming crying baby motif...it would have been a good cartoon. But he decided to introduce race, into an event that had nothing to do with race. It is telling that it has been quite some time since a known cartoonist did a hard core cartoon of a male player having a melt down (these are rare), but one woman does, and is treated by a harsher standard, and that means instant parodying and lampooning with racist and sexist overtones. She is right that women are treated more harshly by the judges/umpires, and it is evident that they are also lampooned more aggressively and maliciously by cartoonists. How sadly fortunate us men are to be male. ShabiDOO 21:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I can't name a single male tennis player. The only tennis players I could name before this month were Serena, Serena's sister, and Anna Kournikova.

And yeah, the cartoon probably is racist. CoryUsar (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

in response to women being more harshly judged, you cannot be serious. mcenroe was repeatedly fined and at least one occasion disqualified for his outbursts. he was pilloried in the press because of it. even a shitty song about it. tim henman was even ridiculed for his (as far as i know one) outburst. you might have a point if serena williams wasnt the biggest name in tennis, whose hoing to make the papers even if she did nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Macenroe screamed abuse and insults at the judge and even threatened them. His tirades went on for minutes and were not even remotely questionable calls by the judge. And that was a long time ago. Even in the last two years male players have done much much worse including swearing at the judge and even threatening them and they got a warning. Williams got a penalty for "coaching" that everyone does and its not even clear she saw it. It's surprising that someone could follow a grands-slam tournament, and not spot the harsher enforcement on women, who in general get penalized more yet have far less hissyfits than men do. Don't believe me? Just look at what male and female tennis players have all said. Or watch the next grand-slam and witness it for yourself. And this is not limited to tennis. There is no shortage of LGTBQ+ bias in judging against LGTBQ+ athletes. Some judges have outright admitted this. Firgure skating seems to be an exception. I wonder why? ShabiDOO 19:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

i dunno, why is figure skating an exception? i havent watched tennis for awhile, i'll have to take your word for it. there werent a whole lot going either way when i did. im not really sure what you mean by the LGBT stuff, please clarify AMassiveGay (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Many of the rules in place now about player behaviour are because of McEnroe and similar tantrums by other players, so it's unfair to compare what he got away with to what players can get away with now. ^{— Unsigned, by: 207.189.248.137 / talk}

Human extinction and climate change.

I have heard some people around the internet claim that climate change will lead to the collapse of civilization and the extinction of the human race. Is their truth to these claims or is just doomsaying with no scientific basis? ^{— Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs}

Read Global warming. We're in the midst of a global mass extinction right now. The long-term negative impacts of global warming and mass extinctions will have extremely negative effects on humans in the long term. Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Christian Fundamentalists have been predicting the end of the (human) world for some time now. Climatologists can not authoritatively opine on the durability of civilization. Climate change may be extremely destructive. Bad shit is likely to happen. As far as I know, there is no scientific basis to conclude that either human extinction is immanent, or western civilizations are destabilizing. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The collapse is coming- but not in mine or your lifetimes. As soon as almost of the ice melts, millions of methane gases stuck in it will ruin Earth's climate, and warm everything to a impossibly hot degree. Good luck with that. All of the richest dudes in Earth are old anyway, so they're never see the consequences of their actions- only their great, great grandchildren. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No currently projected highly likely scenario ends with human extinction. However: there are hypothetical cases like chorlotoxic earth scenario, where the atmosphere becomes unbreathable to anything even slightly mammalian, and we all die. Such a scenario would require a lot of algae blooms, and the vast majority of those blooms being made of particular zooplankton species that produce elemental chlorine from salt water. It doesn't worry me much, but "human carrying capacity of the planet crashes to below 1 billion" is pretty indistinguishable from extinction from the perspective of an individual. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In other words, we're pretty much screwed and the above without including what would happen before everything finally went to hell. Since this seems is gonna crash-land the only hope seems to soft that crash-landing the most we can, and while a planetary evacuation is impossible I'm quite sure some richies would attempt to see the devastation from high enough -say, LEO or even the Moon-. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not humans go extinct, climate change will have severe negative impacts on society. To me, the question of whether or not the human race will survive is irrelevant. The consequences are bad enough that we should do everything we can to prevent it regardless of the answer. Samstr (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

To warm the planet to an impossibly hot degree that would evaporate the oceans would require 10 times as much carbon as there exists in the crust. Even the methane scenario would not do such a thing. People regular ignore that for most of Earth's geological history, polar ice caps did not exist; we are still technically in an ice age. The absolute worst case scenario, if we were to burn every last chunk of coal and drop of oil in the crust, ignoring that most of it is currently unreachable with modern tech and even future tech would still require vast amounts of energy to the point of using more energy than you get from burning the stuff, would be a 20 degree celsius increase in temperature. This would indeed be catastrophic, but would not end human life. The entire tropics would become uninhabitable to humans, polar ice would no longer exist permanently, sea levels would rise, and yes, it would be unlikely that the carrying capacity of Earth would be above a billion people. We would be forced to abandon some of the most populous regions on Earth for the fringes of Canada and Russia, and food production would be difficult. Animal husbandry would be rare, and we'd have to rely on things such as krill for calories. But as a species, we would indeed survive, and unless we decided to nuke ourselves we would survive the next 20,000 years until enough of the CO2 had been absorbed by the oceans for most of the planet to be habitable again. CoryUsar (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Spacehillbilly are you sure your sources aren't anything related to Guy McPherson? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sanity Showdown: Jake Paul vs. Videos For People

This is a hard question to answer. Who would you say is closer to the brink of the loony bin? Jake Paul- or relatively obscure YouTuber Videos For People? I'm inclined to think both are delusional. ^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs}

I'm inclined to think that you came here from ED. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Considering that "relatively obscure YouTuber Videos For People" seems to think that they're fooling anyone other than themselves, they might indeed qualify. —Kazitor 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about- but what do you think? What are your opinions on the matter? ^{— Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs} Logicnsuch (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that you should sign your posts. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, how about an opinion? Anyone?Logicnsuch (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm bored now, I'm going to listen to power metal and eat fish, then watch anime or maybe watch a video of Jesus fighting a T. Rex. There, that's my opinion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No constructive opinion, eh? Well, anybody else? Logicnsuch (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't help myself. You practically begged for it. —Kazitor 01:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

For what? All I'm begging for here is a little commentary on the relative sanity of these two YouTube channels. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's Uncyclopedia's take on the matter. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Part of being in the anti-woo world is this profound sense of relief every time you've not heard of a particular shithead. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

How about any opinions, here? Logicnsuch (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Show me your power metal. I am morbidly interested, as I'm an avid listener of metal. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Here you go ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant on-topic opinions related to the discussion at hand. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm ashamed that you would watch anime. —Kazitor 01:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify Videos For People's stuff as anime. Not Japanese. Logicnsuch (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WOOOOOSH! —Kazitor 02:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Remember, we're discussing Videos For People vs. Jake Paul here. Logicnsuch (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} You are "discussing" that. Though not really because you can't discuss anything all by yourself. —Kazitor 03:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

So just go ahead and discuss it, Sir! Please quit being all destructive. Only constructive conversation, please. Logicnsuch (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is probably crap, but how's this: "You're so transparent, your refractive index is less than one." Boom. —Kazitor 04:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really an answer. I mean, just answer the question. Just go ahead. Logicnsuch (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be bumping the thread, but I just thought of something even better ("clearer" if you'll pardon the pun): you're so transparent, you put a vacuum to shame. Oof. —Kazitor 06:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You oughta be banned for trolling like this. Logicnsuch (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think a few teasing jokes count as trolling, well... yeah, you need to steer clear of the entire internet. All of it. This site included. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I just thought I'd get a serious answer to this simple question. Just give me one! Logicnsuch (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? You think you're going to get a serious answer to the question of which of two delusional YouTubers is more delusional here, after people have repeatedly pointed out you take your topics too seriously? OK, fine, I'll give you a serious answer in exchange for a serious answer to the question of whether or not the "Age of Heroes" GoT spinoff will be good. Deal? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what that is. Logicnsuch (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess you're one of the lucky ones. I think Jake Paul is the more deranged of the two. He was involved in the "Streaming Suicide Forest" incident, right? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

So Videos For People is MORE sane? I'd never have guessed. Logicnsuch (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)