# RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive292

This is an archive page, last updated 22 October 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

## Turing tested

Having sent out text messages recently to many thousands of people, I've actually been given the Turing test 3 times just in the past week, including twice yesterday. Coincidentally, I even stood behind someone yesterday at the supermarket who was wearing a T-shirt that said on the back, "I passed the Turing Test… maybe". I passed the first test easily according to the presumptive human who was testing me. The second presumptive human was a bit harder on me, but I passed. I had explain to the third tester what a Turing Test was after he questioned whether I was a bot or not, but after that it was a good repartee. I mostly toyed with the presumptive human because the presumptive human did not understand how easy it was to correctly answer most any question asked of an unknown entity like myself just from web-based information. This all got me to thinking, that although it is now the case that computers are very close indeed to passing a Turing Test, it has become much harder for humans to pass the converse of the Turing Test (i.e., that they are not computers), at least when not IRL and the human is not known to the tester. Bongolian (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That's true, especially as Putin's Bots become more advanced to influence social media. Verification of real life existence seems to be more and more common. — Dysk (contribs) 13:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just see the way captchas have evolved with years, as bots have become better. I still remember when at most you had to enter a code with rotated and/or strikethrough numbers, not the BS of looking for cars, mountains, shops, whatever. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
That's just Google training their cars. In my opinion, an application-specific test is much better as then a bot has to be specifically designed to handle it. I wrote one that just asks for the word "please" in a specific text box, and I've received no spam from the IPs it's set to trigger on (I ought to make it just ask that of everyone, to be honest). —Kazitor 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Turing Test is generally reckoned to be bollocks by AI researchers[1] but it should be obvious that the more records of conversations you have the easier it is to produce a Turing-passing bot based purely on machine learning. --Annanoon (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Just had a thought: what if you told a bot to "respond randomly"? The response would have to be completely unrelated to the input, so I wonder how a bot that had not been designed with that in mind would react. —Kazitor 23:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that is 1) Real humans do rather poorly at making random choices. 2) Computers can do quite well as random (or pseudorandom) choices. 3) The questioner is unlikely to be specific about what the universe of possible choices are. To give a good response, the computer has to emulate what most people might think random would be rather than what would be truly random. Bongolian (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
That's all correct, but I'm more concerned with what would happen if the bot had not been designed to handle that. I feel like it would be a separate, special case; other repsonses owuld surely be somewhat deterministic. —Kazitor 07:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

## Submissions will be Graciously Accepted (*Tom Hardy's Bane Voice*)

I really need some original pseudo-religious, occult junk to be posted on my talk page. I'll accept proverbs, short parables and/or short poems. They must have Yoruba or Mayan gods and mythology. Metaphors would be nice, the fire rises. BobRoss (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

All false gods will bow down before the Super Mecha Death Goat. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Please just put it in my talk page, thank you. BobRoss (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
NO. YOU WILL HAVE PROPER RESPECT FOR THE ONE TRUE GOD OF RATIONALWIKI. HE DEMANDS THE BLOOD OF UNBELIEVERS. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
(*puts hand on shoulder*) Does your god feel in charge? BobRoss (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
He's paid you a small fortune! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
And this gives him power over me? BobRoss (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

For reference our current youtube category and pages that are in it

So, based on an AFD I started, it's become clear that we're getting increasingly many youtuber articles, and decreasing clarity of which ones to keep and which ones to get rid of. The old saying on the site is "a nobody with a blog is still a nobody". But a nobody with a youtube channel beyond certain number of subscribers isn't necessarily a nobody. And sometimes they're very missional, being members of the skeptic community and thus a resource(and sometimes a bad one), or woo peddlers who originate new bullshit all the time and we might want to document, or sometimes they just occasionally broach those subjects, but focus elsewhere.

As much as a loathe hard standards, I feel like we might need to hammer out some. Notability is a nasty wikipedia concept, but it's relevant if we want to avoid puff pieces on irrelevant people who don't matter that misinform as much as inform. So, rationalwiki community, what are your thoughts on youtube channels on rationalwiki, and how we decide if they're relevant to our mission? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I think we should scrap their navbox, along with the ones for books, films, etc. Something like "scepticism" or whichever topic is always far more relevant. —Kazitor 04:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm in favor of keeping the books and films navboxes, but the YouTube navbox might be a good thing to get rid of.
Back to main topic, I think the standards proposed on one of the AfD pages sound good, but I'll have to get more detailed statistics to come up with hard standards. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
So... within youtubeland it seems like subscriber counts are kind of the go-to metric. Totoal view counts can be pretty distorted by one viral video. I feel like maybe 100k is around the breaking point where you'd call it an audience, because that's roughly comparable to unsuccessful network TV shows. But that thresholds seems applicable for woo-spewers and skeptics. Should it be higher for "occasionally relevant" or is "occasionally relevant" just something that should be binned always? Hard standards are always so hard. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be on-topic this time. I don't think the issue is with notability (remember, we don't like it). The problem is the depth of the articles. If someone with 1000 views has a proper article thoroughly debunking everything they said, I don't see a problem with this hypothetical article. If someone has "substantial" popularity but the article just repeats what they say, that hypothetical article is bad. This is an existing issue with other articles about websites and books and the like: they document, but don't analyse. I think any proper analysis is okay regardless of importance, and it's mere documentation that should be eyed suspiciously. —Kazitor 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
How about, only articles about people when there's something new to say. If they just repeat the same talking points we already have articles on, scrap it. If they bring something new to the table, have an article if it actually analyses that. —Kazitor 07:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. As far as totally new ideas go, that was really what I was thinking about in the hypothetical situation that it might sometimes be all right to have an article about a YouTuber without many subscribers. But like I said, I can't see that happening very often. We should still have articles about the YouTubers who just repeat the same bollocks as everyone else if they have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, though. Because they are the influential ones. Spud (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
There #are# a few cases of 'passing mentions' (in newspapers etc) of people who later become famous (often in other contexts). Anna Livia (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I meant and you know it. I'm talking about when the media covers popular YouTubers for no other reason than because they are popular YouTubers. Like when BBC Radio 5 Live had a two-hour interview with Pewdiepie a few years ago. And the media coverage that was given to those two arseholes' boxing match the other week. Spud (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
When bringing up any social media activity (YouTube is a social media platform after all) I usually ask "Who are these people?" I then ask "And why should I care?" For example, This idiot posted this video. Who are they? Why should I care? If a RationalWikian wanted an article about them I would demand that they answer these questions, because if not... Who gives a shit?
On a side note, this problem has begun seeping over into our webshites pages, where random YouTube nobodies with shitty opinions are being listed as "Bad Sources". I have news for those editors, someone can't be a shit source if no one cites them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't Alex Jones be removed from that list? Youtube did close his account, so. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
You do realize that Alex Jones has his own website right? Add to that his sizable following and noteworthy bullshit claims and... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about his site. But he isn't a youtube anymore, now is he? And the only following he has right now, is on his own site and his Instagram account (for now). I'm not saying that you should delete his page here, but does he still belong in the Youtube category knowing that he's not on YT anymore?
What about that Martymer 81 guy? His page only has like 2 sentences.Tinribmancer (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
One thing I don't like about YouTube is that you have to view their videos and that increases your view count as well as screw around with the recommended videos. Anyway, no one here is supporting a hard limit, there is no real hard limit anyway when it comes to article standards, only guidelines. I think we have to impose some sort of notability cut off maybe someone with 1,000 subscribers or the videos have an average 100,000 views. If you really want to get thorough on debunking someone, perhaps that can be essayspace unless community likes it enough to be an article. Oh, and that cutoff can be increased or decreased as we see fit. It's only there so we can have something to work off first, so adjustment is enouraged. Finally, this brings another question: should our webshites list also have some sort of notability criterion? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
To answer the latter question, yes, very much so. I say that since the webshites list is supposed to work in a similar manner to MBFC, that is to say weed out crappy sources. Like I said above, why should someone be on the webshites list if no one cites them as a source? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with LeftyGreenMario that we will almost certainly need to revise any YouTube-related guidelines that we come up with in the future. We are probably still in the very early days of what could turn out to be the very long history of the internet. Some of today's popular sites will become even more popular. Some will fade into obscurity. In fact, the same sites are likely to experience peaks and troughs in their popularity over the years. New sites will come along. Cranks and kooks will find new platforms. Then get banned from those platforms and find new platforms again. Internet crankery certainly isn't going to go away and, hopefully, RW will still be there to comment on it. But like LeftyGreenMario said, changes in YouTube's significance are something we can deal with at a later date. Spud (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
At a minimum the Help:New Article page should be updated if required after the poll below comes to a consensus. RW could certainly use a YouTube portal page similar to webshites. As for the latter, I believe that the webshites lists have grown far too big to be useful and need some serious pruning. The guidance for adding entries to these pages should require that the submitter add some descriptive text about their entry, otherwise it should be deleted. These pages should be informative and not treated like a giant bookmark list. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that YouTubers should be judged by their levels of sanity, and not their levels of popularity. Crazy people are what this Wiki is for, and YouTube is a hive of them. Logicnsuch (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. We don't document people yelling at a wall in this wiki, neither should we document everyone who yells at a camera. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, this should be a go-to source for the world of insanity. if it isn't complete, and full of crazy people, and we only pay attention to the famous crazy people, then what's the point? OBSCURE people can be just as crazy. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There are other websites that fit the bill and do exactly that, but it doesn't necessarily make it on mission for us. Encyclopedia of American Loons is one of them, which documents crazies better than we can. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 01:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, as Cold Hard Logic says- it's a WORLD OF BATSHIT. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

## You are awareness?

Because it seems to me that we are the body or rather a body that produces such a state and it affected my a myraid of other things around it. All the arguments for that case sound more like poetry than anything else.Machina (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

On the Detection and Reception of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit seems to be a consistently relevant paper. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Ha, that looks good; I'll make a note to read through it when I get an opportunity. I've long been annoyed with what I called "bullshit philosophy" which is the same sort of thing, topics that seem deep but really aren't. "Pseudo-profound bullshit" is a good way of putting it. —Kazitor 00:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I very frequently go to google scholar and look at the papers that cite that paper, and it's a great way to keep tabs on rationalism relevant research. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is what my conversation amounted to with him:

"All there is, is awareness. There is nothing else. Everything that I see, sense, feel, perceive and think, happens in awareness, as awareness.

That tree over there, blowing in the wind? It too is nothing but “an image” arising within awareness. Even if I reach out and touch it, that “touching-ness” is nothing but a phenomenal appearance arising within the otherwise empty awareness that I truly am.

“You" appear to “me” within awareness as nothing but a “movement” within awareness. Once that appearance disappears out of this present-moment-knowingness that I am, “you” remain as nothing but a concept within memory, which is no longer “real". Memory is imagination. Imagination is mind. And mind is not reality.

This awareness that I am, that permeates every single moment of my beingness, is all there is. Awareness is all I have ever known and is all that I am. All else is a story appearing within awareness.

The body is an experience, as is the mind. I experience the body. The body does not experience me. I experience the mind. The mind does not experience me. So, who am I? I am only this aware-knowingness that gives sentience and recognition and knowingness to all that is felt, sensed, thought and perceived.

All “things" pass through me, not to me.

I’ll leave it at that. I have no desire to convince you of seeing beyond your firmly-rooted viewpoint.

All words are false, including my own.

Just be.

Peace."

"“Awareness… is made by the brain and it is altered based on what happens to the body.”

That, my friend, is nothing but a concept, just like everything you have expressed to me. That, however, doesn’t mean that it’s not “real” to you, it’s just not true. What you speak of is not a direct experience, it is assumed. In fact, there is no experience ever of "the body creating awareness”.

Shift your immediate attention from the mind’s thoughts to “presence" itself and you will at once realize the silence that is the core essence of your true nature.

Whatever you have read, learned or have been taught is nothing but a story. And, after all, how can any story help with being content within myself, as nothing other than myself? The only peace there is, is the peace of simply BEING. Not being “this”, or not being “that”, just pure simple beingness.

Let go of your attachment to acquired “knowledge". This isn’t to say it’s not useful in day to day life, but it has no relevance to who you truly are.

Release your hold upon whatever stories you have created for yourself, about yourself. No experience is “true", all are biased by the tainted duality and subjectivity of the “perceiver”. And, "the perceiver" of course is nothing but another concept, a story the mind has created about it being a “personal” self.

There is nothing personal happening anywhere whatsoever. All is as it is, a stream of phenomenal “appearances” arising in awareness, as awareness.

Let it all go. Rest effortlessly in the silence of your untainted Self, empty of the mind.

Your present view seems to be very nihilistic. I can assure you that if you release your hold upon the concepts that you have become preoccupied with, you will find relief in inner silence. Ultimately, any view is the wrong view. No belief is true. Let it all go.

Peace."

All just poetry in the end.: — Unsigned, by: Machina / talk / contribs

So my dick is conscious and it likes poetry? Because the page you linked said that the body is aware and linked with the- you know what, fuck it.--Palaeonictis (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

## Chinese language project

I propose that we create a new language project for Chinese. The new project would mainly focus on topics relating to Chinese-specific quackery, authoritarianism in China, Chinese cults, and global issues. UPDATE: I've finished the translation of a fairly short article into Chinese as a proof of concept: User:Jslsyl/IslamQA(中文).--Jslsyl (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Good luck on that. Sadly I can't help out but I'm going to encourage to try! БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 04:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I wish I can read up on the skepticism scene in China. Do you know any English resources on this? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Chinese grammar is easy to the point of absurdity, so why the hell not? BobRoss (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to ask permission before starting to add pages in other languages. Just go ahead and do it. Since you say you have completed the translation, I have gone ahead and moved it to mainspace and created the category Chinese. I don't think there's much chance of finding anyone else here who can help you with this project, though. Even though I've lived in Taiwan for 15 years, I can'y read or write Chinese at all and I can't say much apart from "Hello", "Yes", "Thank you", "I don't want one" and "I haven't got one". Spud (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Haha, nope. Chinese grammar 17:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Even if Chinese grammar was simpler, there's the gigantic crutch of vocabulary, which is easily the most difficult part of the language. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 18:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
At a glance, that doesn't look very difficult. *ahem* "if Chinese grammar were..." —Kazitor 22:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, the article in Wikipedia seems long, but my sister said the grammar is the easier part of the language. It even follows a similar sentence structure to English. Counting words seem annoying though, lol. The challenge in Chinese lies in its vocabulary and pronunciation (several ways to pronounce "Ma" and they're all very different). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
shows you how stupid english grammar is kazitor lol. also, grammar isn't too bad you generally don't have to worry about complex irregular conjugations or whatever and they're very simple, from what i remember. measure words can be annoying to remember but "ge" can be used for practically anything if you wanna get understood, i guess. oh yeah and tonal pronounication is a bitch too. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: so far, three articles have been translated. They can be seen here: Category:Chinese. One problem with my translations is that they tend to have a more serious tone than the regular RationalWiki. I can't seem to pull off RationalWiki's snarky tone well in Chinese, so I omitted many of the jokes. I did, however, add one minor joke to the Chinese article about RationalWiki, calling the promotion to sysop "demotion".--Jslsyl (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There's not a lot of wordplay and pop culture references, as much as just snide comments (such as the caption in the acupuncture article reading "Your tax dollars at work doing nothing — or possibly spreading disease." would probably be straightforward to translate), though some acronyms like PIDOOMA, PRATT, WOMBAT, will be lost in translation. Slang might be difficult because I'm not sure how Chinese slang works. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It should be, if you wouldn't mind Lefty, "I wish I could..." Ariel31459 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

## Heaven and Earth will pass away, etc.

Just to fix one edit I made to the Heaven article that I'm dubious: do you know if it's stated elsewhere in the Bible (Book of Revelation or maybe any of the OT prophets that deal with that issue) that once everything old were destroyed and replaced by new Jerusalem and blah, blah memories of the former would fade away too, or it's something that it's induced of the book?. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Rev. 21:1, 4: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more....And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Isaiah 66:22: “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain." 2 Peter 3:10: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." (all ESV). Hope this helps. More interested in how a world without a sea would work. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Or Death. Tinribmancer (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks!. That part of Revelation is the one I was thinking of. The "wiping away of all tears" look to me like causing everyone to forget both the old world and probably that there're a whole lot of people being tortured for all eternity (what about those members of your family who were not so lucky as you?. Sorrow will not go away them).
Not only lack of sea or death is the problem -I've left some ramblings in the Annotated Bible's Book of Revelation-. No Sun and presumably no stars or Moon means Hell for astronomers and in an eternity, unless that city was like Sigil connected to other planes, you'd have more than enough time to... oh, forget it. Going by the book you'd very likely be worshipping 24/7/365/Forever and ever -and Fundies complain why we think they're full of BS. Panzerfaust (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If it's like Sigil, I'd probably spend all of my time chasing tiefling tails. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
She's the good kind of Lady of Pain. Gabriel Syme (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
And what about all the Vikings who want Valhalla not some 'milk and honey and tuneless wailing so-called heaven' (and all the other categories of heaven promised)? And does not God get bored with said singing and praise (and the atheists who have been sent to heaven because they led sufficiently good lives despite not 'being made to by the strictures of a religion' and their continuous sniping etc etc). Anna Livia (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The Abrahamic heaven is unrealistic because for one, it's theoretical existance rests on the assumption that there's a place with unlimited resources and energy. The thing is, in this universe all things are limited. Hell, people's patience is limited. Humans aren't exactly meant to be immortal, but Heaven makes the situation a lot worse. If you became immortal on Earth but life was the same, with pain and struggle, you'd be fine. There has to be a struggle because all biological life is entirely used to struggling. Put an immortal man in paradise, strip him of his reproductive power, and there you go, Hell. BobRoss (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Unless you brainwashed him -think on Adam and Eve at the Garden of Eden. Had the snake not convinced Eve to eat that fruit, they could have been living that way forever, and of course no Cain and Abel, no Global Flood, and finally no Jesus. At least there'd be no Fundie BS-
On nerd mode, I remember how in a D&D sourcebook it was mentioned that souls were not inmortal. They became more and more attached to wherever they ended up until merging with it and disappearing. Also, you've the stream of souls or whatever is called in Final Fantasy -the souls of the dead are purged or memories, etc to be reborn again and so-. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

## Him/He vs him/he

Why? Why is this a thing? Outside of religion, in particular the Abrahamic religions (and Truther sites) where exactly do people practice this butchery of the English language? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a way for people to show reverence for their false gods. Of course, only one being warrants a capital-H "He." That is, of course, the great Sky Goat, blessed is His name. Only unbelievers and heretics use a lower-case "h" to refer to Him. You wouldn't want to be seen as an unbeliever, would you? Unbelievers spend a million years boiling alive in the fiery pit that is the Sky Goat's stomach, until he shits them into the eternal dark void. And let me tell you, there is nothing that can possibly compare to the cosmic horror that is the Sky Goat's shits. It's said that the mere sight of Sky Goat turds can drive a man insane. After the unbeliever has worked his way through the Sky Goat's digestive tract, he becomes one with that horror and spends an eternity in the void with it. So get on your knees for the Sky Goat. He demands your fear, your obedience, and your prayers.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
And I demand proper adherence to the rules of written English. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Praise be upon Him, the great and terrible Sky Goat. Samstr (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Um... Hate to break this to you, GC, but the capitalization of divinity-- especially in the case of Judeo-Christian divinity-- is part of the rules of written English. Artifact that it may be, a callback to days of yore when being an adherent of some version of Christianity was de rigeur rather than a preference, but it's still geneerally considered grammatically correct, and in most places, preferable.
In other words, it's not butchery-- it's grammatically correct, if not politically so. And in almost every place the English language is used, it's standard-- partly because English spread in many cases via missionary work, especially Victorian missionary work, and the Victorians were nothing if not enthusiastic about helping their "little brown brothers" to see the glory of becoming good Anglicans/Methodists/Calvinists/Etc. Kencolt (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Pfft, screw your whiny descriptivism. Everyone knows that prescriptivism is the only true way. —Kazitor 06:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

## Urgent Request

I can't reveal names as I myself don't know, though I have ideas, but a certain someone on reddit is accusing me of copying their blog. S/he knows that I'm on rationalwiki and is threatening to expose me for being a copycat. I request that the fossil record of my page be wiped clean of every edit from 21:32, 15 July 2018‎ to 04:40, 9 May 2018‎. I need it to where none of these versions of the page are accessible. If this isn't possible, maybe I'll try and persuade him to stop, if it is, you might as well wipe the whole thing clean. BobRoss (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, I deleted my page. Didn't actually know I could do that. I really don't feel like getting blackmailed today. BobRoss (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I demoted you. You're welcome. On the other hand, why are they accusing you of plagiarism?--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Why is he requesting that his fossil record be deleted on specific dates? There will be a record of his request to do so on here? Something is awfully fishy Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think he copied something without permission, and now someone's out for his blood. I could fulfill his request, but I won't for matters of neutrality.--Palaeonictis (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
In the future, don't copy and paste things that you didn't create? I mean, I don't understand the situation, but in general, copying=bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have a blog, in which I often quote entire sections, a number of paragraphs long, from various other people. Maybe half an article or so will end up being this kind of material. I guess my point is that you can quote people, but it's kinda a requirement to make it clear what content is a quote, and where it's from. It helps if the content is freely licensed. Eg everything on this page is CC-BY-SA 3.0 and you can quote it freely provided you give attribution as required by the license. Fair use laws are more complicated, you can read up on them. — Dysk (contribs) 16:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this user is quite ready for the intracices of copyright law up to things like "limited quotes for the purposes of analysis and education" being a defensible, but not necessarily always okay, invocation of fair use. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You guys are right, copying=bad, even though what I copied wasn't copyrighted he could still point me out as a bloody copycat on the web. He apparently knows the names of my profiles on several different sites. This is gonna be fun. Note: me no copy ever again unless the author's been dead for centuries. BobRoss (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
"me no copy ever again unless the author's been dead for centuries. " You don't need to wait that long. Maybe as a rule of thumb wait a day after the corpse goes cold?! That's assuming there is a corpse to be found. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Lol, no. RW is based in the US, which means their laws apply(1 billion complications to this statement exist, consult a lawyer if you're concerned). US copyright lasts life plus 70 years. Yes, you heard that right: this means poems written it the fucking 1800s by Edgar Lee Masters are still under copyright. Welcome to pure insanity. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
By the naked bi goddesses of Venus! Well I guess that's good for the author. BobRoss (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Not really, maybe his family or whomever has control of the IP. Tolkien snuffed it yonks ago, his works should have entered public domain years back but then the yanks upped the ante. Blame Micky Mouse and his union hating creator (Yes, yes, I know he offered his staff a better deal, pfff details details. ) Anyway, have a read through the always interesting Larry Lessig. https://wiki.lessig.org/Against_perpetual_copyright Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The gods must be crazy... BobRoss (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The senators actually are crazy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Mark my words that the year Mickey Mouse is gonna enter public domain Di$ney will push for yet another extension of the copyright law, and very likely when that extension is about to expire yet another and so on. The worst is that shit happening all around the world, not just in US. Life + 15, at most 20, years should be more than enough to let relatives be helped from royalties, etc. of the deceased author. More is just to benefit the large fishes as Di$ney and others, not small authors nobody give a fuck and whose work ends up languishing decades after his/her death even if nobody gives a fuck about their copyrights.
At least laws are not so insane to stop any derivative works. Otherwise, so many creators who have Tolkien-inspired races (elves, dwarfs, hobbits halflings...) could be in trouble. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You're not correct about copyright law, , primarily because the copyright laws are not retroactive. See: Copyright term. Everything published in the US prior to 1923 is public domain; some things published in 1923 and later are also public domain (which ones of those that are public domain is a bit complex though). Bongolian (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you know, that aspect of the laws slipped my mind. But even if inaccurate to what's under copyright now, it does still explain what Life+70 years hypothetically looks like. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't you have to register copyright or something alike?. Besides stuff for the US Goverment as (maybe) wartime propaganda ones, that should be public domain, I think there're some very early Di\$ney cartoons that are copyright-free, plus some movies as this or this other that have ended that way. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

## Donations bar

Should not the goal be 'More Goat'? Or some puns involving goats, tree goats, cute baby goats etc. Anna Livia (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. If we're going to ask for unusable tender, maybe payment in English Zlotys or in multiples of Zlote would be more preferable and creative. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Cross the "l" of "Goal" and you get "Goat" —Kazitor 12:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Partly to get people looking up the two goat memes mentioned.
Perhaps as a visual representation - a link to a page with a representation of a Magic Money Tree with one or several goats climbing the branches/eating the leaves. Anna Livia (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I donated to the goat fund. Also my first post. Long time lurker.The Muck (talk)
Please offer your blood sacrifices donations to The Great and Terrible Sky Goat RationalWiki. Samstr (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

## The Escapist

Does anyone here know anything about The Escapist website? I heard among other things that it's being relaunched and that it used to be a GG bastion, but aside from that I know nothing. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, I know a fair amount about them. They were a pretty unnotable gaming magazine site for a long time, not really possessing impressive standing in that sphere. But as they started making some improvements, they hired a youtuber known for animated, pithy, fast-spoken game reviews, named Ben "Yahtzee" Crowshaw to publish his Zero Punctuation reviews on their site. This led to a popularity spike for the site and they started to be able to afford writers and video reviewers for multiple columns. This success lasted years.
When gamergate happened, their chief editor made a public statement about how they, as a publication were going to remain neutral, along with having an occasional gamergatey column. This had two consequences, 1. their forums became a gamergate hive, as their mods didn't punish people for any of the bad shit gamergaters were inclined to do. And 2. they started bleeding users. Not all at once, but people seriously did stop visiting over the course of years. By 2018, literally the only content they still regularly produced was Zero Punctuation. That's it.
Since this is basically equivalent to being failed they announced a rebrand and reboot where they "only focus on games, not politics", which is to me a mealy mouthed refusal to acknowledge their missteps but wanting people to come back. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you know what opinions Yahtzee held on GG, if any? He doesn't seem like the type of person who would have supported it but I really can't say. Samstr (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a goddamn clue. I kinda stopped paying attention when they did the dumb thing. And searching google reveals... little, except a single joke in a single video of his where he vaguely implied that both people who blame misogyny for destroying games(a thing no one says) and people who blame journalists and feminists for destroying games(a thing a lot of people say) are both wrong because games are fine. But that's it. That's all he's done. TBH, if I hadn't already given up on watching him to not reward his shitty bosses, seeing that might've been enough for me to do so, but... eh. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Isn't sexism ruining games sort of Anita Sarkeesian's whole point? Or am I missing something? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, you are. Critiques that suggest things(particularly sexist tropes for her) that can be improved upon are not at all the same as saying that failing to make those improvements "ruins games". In fact, it's radically different. Like very seriously, intuitively different. One declares an enemy to be eradicated, for their presence is unacceptable. The other establishes a perspective.
To put a wrapper on it about what you can even find people saying: google search for exact quotes: 'No results found for "sexism is ruining gaming".' 'Your search - "misogyny is ruining gaming" - did not match any documents.' 391 results for exact quote "feminism is ruining gaming". 649 results for "women are ruining gaming", 2500 results for "sjws are ruining gaming". There's a difference in kind in the things being said by the "sides" here. Argumentum ad googlem is usually pretty bad source of arguments, but in terms of demonstrating whether people have said some specific thing: yeah. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
All you've proved is that people don't use a particular phrasing. Also, to your point: You're right, if people are just critiquing specific games for sexism that doesn't automatically amount to "sexism is ruining gaming." The thing is, if every other game is heavily critiqued for perceived sexism, then the impression that "sexism is ruining gaming" does pop up (as do reactionary responses to it, per the laws of human nature). And when British MPs have floated taking action against sexism in videogames, well it's certainly out there as being considered a serious issue with video games... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Good lord captain, these goalposts have speed like I've never seen, faster than light, faster than any warp drive, woosh, past the basic point that was originally made(and questioned) that no one says that straight to to "wait but I don't like sarkeesian's implications I invented, prove no one would take an irrational action of any kind based on those criticisms". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Wait, who moved what goal posts? I never discussed my opinion of Sarkeesian. What positions are you projecting onto my comments? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I've watched his videos quite a bit. I think he might be of a centre-left bent. It doesn't come through too often, but he has poked fun at rightist economics and racism in shooters (the good old 'another brown person shooter' joke.), among other things. He does do some of the South Park balance stuff of making fun of both sides. He definitely doesn't spout Gamergate talking points. Teurastaja (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with the center-left positions as well. Thats why I originally said that he doesn't seem like the type of person that would support it. I suppose its also possible that editors at the Escapist were careful to make sure he didn't say anything in his videos either way, if so it would be an excellent example of balance fallacy. Samstr (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
To elaborate on what ikanreed said, yes, Gamergate did destroy the site. At its peak, it was probably one of my favorite video game websites. In addition to Zero Punctuation, it was also the early home for Extra Credits, Jim Sterling, Bob Chipman, and a bunch of other people who talk about video games. Then Gamergate happened. I'm using Chipman's account of the situation, so take it as you will, but to make a long story short, the owner of the website was not only pro-Gamergate, but basically proto-alt-right, and was actively spreading dirt on some of his anti-Gamergate contributors with various right-wing new media outlets (the usual suspects). The site's support for Gamergate drove off a lot of contributors, at least those that they didn't actively fire, and with them went their fans, myself included. The relaunched Escapist apparently doesn't have the former owner as a part of the equation (except insofar as he sold the shell of the site to its new owners), but rather, a former editor-in-chief who had built the site during its salad days and was long gone when Gamergate happened. KevinR1990 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Its kind of ironic how many people will uphold "neutrality" with regards to hateful rhetoric when their true intent is to promote such speech. If I recall, Jim Sterling had already left the site by the time GamerGate got going (and the Jimquisition was the only thing I ever payed attention to on the Escapist apart from Zero Punctuation). Thanks for the link, I'll read it over more carefully when I find the time. Samstr (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

## TV

I havent watched television in a long ass time, so I'm wondering if there are any good shows (like the West-wing, a show that I'm interested in seeing) or cartoons that are worth watching. So, do any of you have any recommendations? Ratatatatatata (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see. On the Live-Action front:
• Game of Thrones, at least anything before Season 5.
• Vikings has maintained a fairly consistent quality of excellence.
• The Last Kingdom is pretty good.
• True Detective. Season 1 is better than Season 2, at least if you're into quasi-Lovecraftian horror.
On the Animation side of things:
• Rick and Morty
• Disenchantment
That's about it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If you like good sci-fi I would also reccomend
• Altered Carbon
• Dark Matter (cancelled after 3 good seasons)...Ariel31459 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Since you seem to have enough time to create multiple accounts on this site solely for trolling, maybe try getting a life? Or try IMDB. Either way get the fuck off this site dipshit, you're banned, get over it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Who is this guy exactly? None of their edits seem to be in bad faith. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bigs Here's the contributions for their original account (at least as far as I know it's their original account, might just be another sock) where they were banned after multiple inappropriate page moves, and after they were told to stop. I can also link many of their subsequent accounts if you so wish. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Stranger Things, GLOW, and the remake of Lost in Space; Parker Posey's character is quite amusing. Gave up on GoT, did not enjoy the violence and randomness. Outlander is much better, and being basically romance, there are lines they do not cross. Britannia is a barrel of laughs, though. Vikings is quite good, though; start with season 2. Favorite cartoons are Adventure Time, just finished its last season, and Bojack Horseman, and, to go way back, the original Masters of the Universe is always fun. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Game of Thrones/Vikings/The Last Kingdom are very good, can recommended. — Dysk (contribs) 08:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Disenchantment is meh. Better off with Bojack Horseman.
Dark Matter was also meh. Better off with The Expanse.CoryUsar (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Meh is an understatement for disenchantment. What the hell happened to any sense of comedic timing, jokes based on any sort of wit or to be honest, jokes in general? Maybe it's just that I watched only one episode, and they were too busy introducing new characters to be "funny", but disenchantment was beyond lackluster. "ha ha the elves have SEX" is not a joke. "The man she was gonna marry bent over and cut his head and died" is not a joke, it's not even really slapstick. The king being a blue collar stereotype could've worked for a few jokes, if they'd bothered to contrast it with anything, like prim and proper courtiers, or maybe the princesstagonist not also being "hilariously" unclassy. They wanted too hard to recreate the dynamics of futurama, I guess. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It got better over time. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sci-FI, you have to check out 12 Monkeys does more with time travel than 50 years of Dr Who has been able to on tv.

The Expanse is easily the best sci-fi on tv right now. Babylon Berlin, Berlin Station and Shetland (just google them, three very different but highly rewarding shows, season 4 of Shetland with the neo-nazi subplot is on mission for this site. And considering Little Drummer Girl is starting shortly, give The Night Manager a watch,best adaptation of a Le Carré since Smiley's People. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disenchantment requires that you put up with 7 poorly written episodes before something even halfway solid appears. Compare this to Futurama, which while the first season was still trying to figure out what kind of show it was going to be, gave us in the very second episode the classic Lunar Park episode, with such classic bits as "whalers on the moon" to "I'm going to build my own park, with hookers, and blackjack!". Nothing really noteworthy comes out in any of the episodes of Disenchantment. CoryUsar (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
why does picking a tv show seem to much like a long term commitment? many of em go on for fucking years without any end in sight and i just dont have the patience. how long do i stick with one before i know its the right one? if ive a season or two under my belt and its not working, do i stick with it or walk away? can i watch other programs or is that cheating? what if it gets cancelled, can i handle to the pain of the loss? im just not ready for a relationship right now, i will continue to play the field with one night stands of movies, or maybe carry on casual thing with something i can drop in and out of easily. i'll frow up one day and settle down with a nice series about dragons or zombies, like a grown up. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Books are great because only massive nerds(and communists) care if you read the same ones as them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Essential reading is the Communist Manifesto. :D — Dysk (contribs) 18:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The short story is my favourite form of fiction. The TV series is fast becoming my least favourite form of fiction. Whatever happened to TV series where you could just watch and enjoy one episode? Each episode would quickly establish the dynamic between the characters and there would be one story that would be completed within thirty to sixty minutes. You can't have that anymore. All series have to have an over-arching storyline that runs through every episode of a season. And then that season's storyline has to be part of an even bigger over-arching storyline. And then it all has to end with a massive twist. Like everyone's been dead all the time or it's really set 10,000 years in the future or the sheriff is really the ancient Babylonian god of fire. Which means that everything, regardless of the genre, turns out to be a science fiction or fantasy story. Mind you, I suppose the ending of St. Elsewhere back in 1988 is to blame for that massive twist ending bollocks and it will be considered a worn out trope eventually. Spud (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The same has overtaken fiction, especially science fiction and fantasy: every book is an installment of a trilogy that gets stretched to five or six with sequels and prequels. It's the same way with films as well; most blockbuster films made for entertainment are installments in a series, stand-alones don't stay that way, and the only self-contained stories are dull historical biopix and other art-house drudgery. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Very true. Of course, we also get those films that are failed attempts to launch a new franchise and end up being the only film in what was meant to be a long series. But I suppose those are more like unfinished stories than stand-alone stories. Spud (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course the Hobbit is a good example of how to take the prequel to a trilogy and then turn it into three extremely long and detailed films just because no franchise is complete unless it copies Star Wars. I blame George Lucas for the state of modern entertainment. Though it looks like Disney will finish it off... 100 trillion dollars of Marvel movies later. xD — Dysk (contribs) 19:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It is the entertainment industry's fanatical obsession with IP. What we seem to view as an art form is really just another commodity cynically packaged to get your attention and/or money. On a similar note, this recent talk at Womad about music could easily refer to tv/movies and literature. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bh5hp8 Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Would '(Still) Open All Hours' suit - there are series threads but the episodes can be enjoyed in any order.
Alternatively almost all the characters can be killed off (apart from the one smiling enigmatically at the non-existent 5th series) . 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Vikings, BSG, Flight of the Conchords, GoT, Avatar the Last Airbender, Star Trek TNG, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, uhhhhhhh, yeah 49.199.251.247 (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Game of Thrones is an amazing series. In the UK we recently had the final episode of Bodyguard which was really good (coincidently it also starred GoT's Robb Stark). Other than that I don't really follow certain TV shows. I just scroll through the channels until I find something interesting. --RWRW (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

## DFTT

Capitalism, the Enlightenment and modern science all happened thanks to Christianity you know. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

## Wikipedians on RW?

Are there any users who are admins/sysops on Wikipedia and RationalWiki? I'm considering creating an account but I want to make sure there is not any major hate of one site on the other site. 108.26.206.64 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm on Wikipedia, don't remember what rank I am but there doesn't seem to be any hate between the two. Guess what my name is, hint: it can mean battle money or lust for war. BobRoss (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no hatred or rivalry whatsoever between RationalWiki and Wikipedia. You'll probably find that more users here have a Wikipedia account than don't. Some are much more active here than there and vice versa. I might be wrong, but I don't think there any users here who have any real positions of power on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, on Wikipedia, I have extended confirmed user rights, rollback and pending changes reviewer rights and I was given the Precious Award in April. Spud (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't really like Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) (I prefer objective reasoning over neutrality). That being said I don't hate them, I just a disagree with how they approach problem solving. However, their results speak for themselves, so... meh. Now if you asked CP, that would be a different story... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
What results? Could you elaborate? Nerd (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd They are a mostly accurate reference and topic database. Never use them as a primary source but they do make a good jumping off point, most of the time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. It's the same way for me. It is sometimes bizarre compared to my books. (Perhaps I'm too attached to them?) Why would you use the Laplace transform to solve a separable ordinary differential equation?! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nerd (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is probably most people's entry route into the wikiverse: some people stay there and others decide to explore the wikiatlas - whether to express opinions and points of view, explore a topic in more depth than WP cares for or to go to the bits which say 'here be dragons and other exotic creatures.'
WP should be treated as 'a point of first resort/quick answers to easy questions/here be fingerposts/if it is not (yet) covered there and is reasonable it may be a good research topic' (so you can become the cited authority as nobody else has done anything on the subject). Anna Livia (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── David Gerard is an admin on Wikipedia and a Trustee here on RationalWiki. For more info see his Wikipedia userpage and RationalWiki userpage. There are at least two Wikipedians I know well are here also, one is an admin on Wikipedia. However others are fine here but less welcome on Wikipedia, I myself am globally locked on all Wikipedia projects. KD1 is banned from Wikipedia. There is no reason why being on RationalWiki and Wikipedia should be any different to being on say Reddit and Facebook. There's no real interaction between the two except for the fact there is a Wikipedia article about RationalWiki, and some links on RationalWiki go to Wikipedia. And both are Wikis running on the same software. — Dysk (contribs) 12:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh, how did you manage to get globally locked? IIRC that's reserved for the most serious offenses. Count Bezukhov (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Heh Count Bezukhov, there is a lot of debate on the subject, but essentially I disagreed with the administration on key issues and then once blocked for this simply created new accounts to carry on editing. — Dysk (contribs) 08:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Now realising the WP admins' actions bear an eerie resemblance to the actions of certain users here too... —Kazitor 09:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I feel like there's an unasked question here. Namely: "if you think wikipedia is good, why have rationalwiki, and focus your time there?" And my personal opinion is that wikipedia is not blunt. It's academic, and strives for factual accuracy, but NPOV doesn't really allow you to front that homeopathy is bullshit that robs people and causes them harm. You might figure that out if you read their efficacy section with a critical mind. But a lot of people need to know that homeopathy is straight garbage, and I appreciate working on a resource that says so.
That absolutely allows a broader range of biases in here, but on the whole, I'd say 95% of the time we're biased, it's with incredibly good reason. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
As a person who has been blocked on Wikipedia for purely ideological reasons, I am going to add, that with a project like Wikipedia, you are destined to have a bias. The question is how much... Wikipedia has excellent ways of dealing with overt biases and the project is a huge success. It may not be the best, but it's the best we have. Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
WP's problem with NPOV is that all sources are treated as equally credible, so long as the sources aren't completely uncredible. The result is you'll have things like the old page for the Flag of the Houthis (appaears to have been deleted and replaced, or maybe it was a part of just the Houthi page), which on the flag contains in Arabic "Curse on the Jews" yet the article will have a section arguing it totally isn't anti-semitic because some guy that was interviewed said it wasn't. CoryUsar (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I would like to say that they had a "special advisement on fringe science" modification to NPOV/sources rules where they suggested that scientific sources are of higher quality than pseudoscience sources. But in general, NPOV falls constant victim to the both sides fallacy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It breaks down oddly. Before I mostly gave up Wikipedia, I set about to trying to improve the pages on the astrological signs by citing classical texts and books on pop astrology from major publishers. My method was simple: I translated the astrological new agey jargon into the simplest English I could muster, so the readers could look behind the curtain and follow the internal logic of the construction of astrological meaning. The organized skeptics of Wikipedia wanted none of that. My biased take on the dispute can be read here. - Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm on Wikipedia, and User:RobSmith is on Wikipedia. I can think of at least three RationalWikians who are community banned there, and one former board member who almost got blocked on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I can think of at least one who was once a check user on Wikipedia, and User:Tim Starling is employed by the WMF. Someone mentioned Conservapedia, and there are at least four Conservapedians with a serious presence on Wikipedia (including myself), and there are more who have a less active presence. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
WWW, the entirety of CP is basically one huge persecution complex fueled bitchfest because you guys can't get away with saying that anything left of the current U.S. right-wing platform is bad and scary, and must therefore be burnt at the stake on WP. In addition, I see your still just vaguely throwing around accusations in attempt to fill the pot with shit and then watch the show. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh that was necessary and helpful... so much for greater tolerance. I'm a Wikipedia admin, and definitely more like Smerdis than most of the other users here. I've hung on at Wikipedia for a lot longer and I'm much more active there, for my own reasons. I like here because I don't fully align with some of the political views (I'm a New England Republican, we're a dying breed that doesn't really fit into any classification) but basically do for science; that way I can actually engage in some disagreement without getting overly formal and add bits of arcana that wouldn't fit on Wikipedia as scientific commentary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Was that opening remark addressed toward me? If so please explain why. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
(For some reason I didn't get a ping, but I saw this anyway) It was, but I'm probably overreacting. WWW's comment didn't seem like an attempt to push an ideology, only to state facts; not what I'd have gone off to launch a salvo at CP, that's just me. I have no love for them myself, they certainly do enough to paint a target on them, and goodness knows they don't stand for the kind of Republicans I do, so we're in agreement there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. If it helps I can explain why my response was so aggressive. WWW has in the past tried to stir up trouble by saying or implying something that is verifiabley true, but slanted so that it negatively reflects on his target. Further, it is my understanding that CP was basically a result of Andy and co. taking their balls and leaving WP simply because they couldn't get their way, hence their rather aggressive campaign to smear Wikipedia from the safety of their site. Hence my earlier comment about how if one went to CP and asked about the editors' views on WP, that thos views would likely be negative. Does that clear things up? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely. And your analysis of CP seems to be pretty much spot on. Oddly enough, not long ago on Wikipedia I was on the other side of a similar exchange, there was history the other user wasn't aware of that colored my reactions to some users. Damn, if I were someone else I might start believing in karma! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

## This is a bit belated

I'd be surprised if this doesn't exist yet, but has someone established one of those informal laws yet about semantics and (Internet) debates? Because I get the impression a great deal of debates are plainly about semantic disputes (though this is often not obvious to the participants) and the frequency and ferociousness of these debates is just ridiculous. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Tone-trolling is a variation of that, but I'm sure there are others that attack the debater's not-perfect grammar that would fall under that. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 04:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The thing is that semantics can go from irrelevant to critical depending on context. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Semantics is important when you're debating theory of evolution, for instance. And also, asking someone to define terms usually a good idea before you start debating. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I think context is also important when determining any logical fallacy if it's bad for the argument or actually supplemental, including slippery slope and correlation. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I'm just being contrary, but aren't the purely logical logical fallacies, by definition, context insensitive? Affirming the consequent is always fallacious if you present that as an actual deduction. All X are Y, Z is Y therefor Z is X is always wrong, no matter the X, Y, or Z. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, that's mainly what I'm talking about. People throwing stuff at each other while their disagreement isn't based on a disagreement on substance but based on a mismatch of definitions that they're completely unaware of. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, found it. Layne's Law. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Now we just need a law about automatically projecting positions onto perceived opponents and a law about focusing on an irrelevant detail that completely derails the conversation away from any interesting point. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

## Fake News to cover story

I think we're very close to the point of moving the "fake news" article to gold (cover story). Anyone with objections should speak up. Now is a good time to give the article a read through to fix any remaining problems. Bongolian (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks great. Nerd (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Reminds me of the other fact checking sites, it has my vote. Gild it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Me likey. — Dysk (contribs) 15:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have now gold electroplated the fake news page. Bongolian (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

## Blasphemy: but let's be honest here

Picard really is better than Kirk. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but he's no John Sheridan Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
He had a bigger ship, obvs better. :D — Dysk (contribs) 15:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

## Group Polarization

Wikipedia has a decent article on this topic. If you spend a lot of time here, I'm sure you will recognize right away why I wanted to make this post. Nerd (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

How does this information affect your confidence in democracy (especially those that are now steeped in social media as a primary form of information gathering) as a viable and/or trustworthy group decision model? Mikecol05 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, regardless of whether or not a country is democratic, social networks has become pervasive in both developed and developing countries. In an authoritarian regime, social networks can be a valuable source of information for those who want something other than the usual dose of government propaganda. (China is the exception here, with its own internal Internet and government-controlled social media.) In a democracy, where the freedoms of speech, expression, and the press are respected, I would argue that an overdose of information is the norm. It takes work to distinguish between reliable and untrustworthy information, and, unfortunately, people in general are not excelling at that. Meanwhile, it is easy to share complete nonsense and even to make it go "viral". I find it ironic that in the this day and age, when it is possible to learn as much as one desires about virtually any topic, we are not necessarily well-informed. Way too many of us glue ourselves to echo chambers. So to answer your question, my confidence in democracy is somewhat shaken. There is no easy or obvious way to fix this, as far as I understand. Nerd (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The article above, ironically, hardened some of my opinions about trends in voting and public opinion in the last handful of years. Many times, I've watched discussions on various social media platforms unfold and thought: "what is the solution?" Polarization is increasing, available information is increasing, but it's driving us apart, not together. For me, this was the opposite effect I envisioned that the Internet would have. Two decades ago, when I first got online, I believed the Internet would be a transformative good. That access to information would decrease ignorance and be a force for harmony as we all became wiser together. The opposite has happened. After reading the article, I've learned my entire premise was mistaken, according to psychologists. I suppose the most reasonable conclusion is that group decision making based on a public exchange of ideas, in a word democracy, may be deeply flawed. But then, how does one reconcile that belief with the tremendous advances that democratic societies have made since moving from monarchies and other autocratic states? Mikecol05 (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure the people who created the Internet and the World Wide Web are disturbed as well. As for the fact that democratic states tend to be more advanced and prosperous than non-democracies, I suppose it is because a democratic system is more inclusive; it takes into account different viewpoints. However, the health of a democracy depends critically on how well-informed its citizens are, and that is the Achilles heel of the best kind of political systems people have come up with.
The greatest attribute of the Internet, how easy it is to access and to share information, is also its greatest setback. Furthermore, it is natural for people to socialize with people similar to them. The advent of social media networks amplifies this effect, thereby making group polarization worse.
Moreover, online interactions tend to be less civil than those in real life. People say or write things they would most likely never do in person. That has an effect on public discourse, too. I suppose we all should spend less free time in front of a computer screen. But this is difficult to do for many people; old habits die hard. But that should not stop me from following my own advice. :-) Have a nice day/night! Nerd (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of the blame is that the creators of these social platforms purposefully engineer them to be as addictive as possible. Their incentive is: the more time a user grants attention to their product, the more profitable it is. I also agree with your other points about the Internet. However, the article points to a deeper issue residing within the very nature of human social interaction. Something that predates these new technologies, while certainly being amplified by them. The insight is counter-intuitive and striking. Recently, I've learned that some part of an individual's political proclivities tends to be personality driven. There was a time where I believed wrong beliefs were mostly corrected by information. Once I started reading about the effect of personality on political beliefs, my faith in information was shaken. Maybe information cannot very easily move the needle, I came to understand. The concept of group polarization shows that at times information can move the needle, just not in the expected way. The needle moves regressively. Pretty harrowing. Mikecol05 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Congrats, you've discovered Pommer's Law. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of the effect of Pommer's Law may be further magnified by anchoring. What's the likelihood that someone who knows nothing on a subject will stumble upon correct info on the Internet as their first bit of exposure? Low. Anchoring suggests that once someone learns the bad bit (Pommer's Law), they will filter future information through the lens provided by whatever they first encountered on the subject. I'd say Pommer's Law is a good one. And you're right that I happened upon it. Mikecol05 (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how we make scientific progress: thinking, reading, and communicating. Nerd (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
No it isn't. You're minimizing the rapaciously hard work that goes into real scientific progress, or the ways each of those 3 things can be used to create and reinforce bad ideas when treated as the profound source of truth. Thinking, reading, and communicating are great things, but thinking without critical thinking is how conspiracy theories are developed, reading without understanding the source and its biases is how they're spread, and communicating without intellectual honesty is just the worst of humanity. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Very good! I was not being rigorous and explicit enough. To be honest, pseudoscience is not always on the top of my mind, even though I am here. By "communicating," I meant for peer review to be included as well. Peer review of course involves (what should be) constructive criticisms. Nerd (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe scientific literacy would be a better term for what can be improved here rather than scientific progress? Mikecol05 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
But that's what I'm saying. Scientific literacy is not necessarily enabled by any of those things, and gesturing wildly at the internet at large is often hindered. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you. I was correcting terminology. Scientific literacy can (though, as you correctly say, not necessarily) be achieved here. Scientific progress, for the reasons you gave, are extremely unlikely. Mikecol05 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The internet was fine until the combination of instant access (smartphone) and ease of broadcast (social media). Karl Popper did not anticipate every human on earth being able to generate an endless stream of instantly published trivialities when he was defining open society. As Huxley remarked in 'Brave New World Revisited,' the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert ot oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."
I'm afraid I can't see scientific literacy thriving on such infertile soil, when the very notion of truth itself is eroding and regressing inside a sea of unfiltered irrelevance. Meanwhile, alternative truths about everything are spun and pushed by loud kleptocrats who have mastered the art of the advert, and we also have an entire generation entering adulthood with a social-media dependency baked into them.
I think everything is going to be OK, regardless. Mancunian Foxy (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It's amazing how constantly downward the slope of eternal September has been. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
All months are September in Manchester... I really do love this city! Mancunian Foxy (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't. Polarization has perfectly reasonable reasons to exist and people have damn good reasons to disagree sometimes, and, depending on what's at stake, even violent extreme disagreement is often completely justifiable. Contrary to intuition, I feel the worst aspects of polarization's effects are usually driven by centrists who want to dispel conflicts without addressing them, which radicalizes the hell out of people who already feel ignored. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

## Do we have an article on hormone woo?

Spurred by this preliminary result I wondered if we had any articles on hormone woo that is becoming increasingly prevalent on the internet, especially, but not limited to the "soyboy" nonsense phytoestrogen thing, the "natural testosterone boosting supplement" industry pitched at bodybuilders, and common misconceptions about HRT? My first search didn't turn up anything, but I've created articles that already existed in the past. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't have a general page on hormones. It would probably be good to add. Some of the related pages are: Human growth hormone, Bovine growth hormone, Human chorionic gonadotrophin, Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, and Hormone replacement therapy. Bongolian (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

## Blaspheming Slogan

Howdy folks! I just learned that the first part of one of our blaspheming slogans says, "Long live the People's Republic of China." I'm not quite sure if this is the best one. I think it is better to drop the word "People's" and to replace emblem of mainland China with the other one. Thoughts? Nerd (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm more sure we shouldn't say "Long Live the PRC" than that we should say "Long Live the ROC." I mean, attempting to be blasphemous on the internet by wishing long life to a country infamous for prudishness and internet censorship (the PRC) is making my irony meter explode, but I don't see anything blasphemous from an American POV about liking Taiwan. Maybe from a Chinese perspective...? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed! When we poke fun of a religion, any religion, we are blasphemous in the eyes of the people who believe in that religion. While Communist China is officially atheist, there is no stopping people from being superstitious. Furthermore, Communism can be a state religion, in the sense that statues and paintings of heads of states appearing in places of worship. Nerd (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
^ completely agree. A religion and an all prevailing national ideology are not that different at all. — Dysk (contribs) 15:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd You do realize those are actually two completely different Holydaze templates, right? Blasphemy Day on 30 September and the National Day of the People's Republic of China on October 1. Incidentally, the National Day of Taiwan (and the last weekday I'll have off work for a while) is October 10. I suppose there's no reason why there shouldn't be a Holydaze template for that too. I'd get a kick out of seeing the old red, white and blue on the recent changes page. Spud (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Spud Sorry! I did not know that those were two separate things. I thought someone was being cheeky. I would love to see the flag of the Republic of China being displayed prominently, too; the bloody Communist emblem is very bad for my eyes. Do you know who is responsible for these templates? Nerd (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
"A religion and an all prevailing national ideology are not that different at all."
*LogicMaster's voice*: Ahem. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

### "Long live the... ROC?"

, here are some Two Chiangs-era cringe-worthy propaganda slogans for your amusement reference:

• 三民主義統一中國 Sānmín zhǔyì tǒngyī zhōngguó: The Three Principles of the People unites China. (Slogan in Kinmen facing the Mainland. The words on the other side read 一国两制统一中国 Yīguóliǎngzhì tǒngyī zhōngguó: One country, two systems unites China.)
• 殺朱拔毛 Shā Zhū bá Máo: Kill 朱德 Zhu De and pluck out/remove 毛澤東 Mao Zedong. This phrase is homophonous with 殺豬拔毛 shā zhū bá máo: kill the pig and pluck its hair out.
• 反攻大陸 Fǎngōng dàlù: Reconquer the Mainland. (李中和 Li Zhonghe's Chiang-era theme song that goes along with it: Retake, retake, retake the Mainland. Retake, retake, retake the Mainland. The Mainland is our country's territory; the Mainland is within our country's frontiers. Our territory, our frontiers. We cannot let Mao's bandits fully conduct their exploitation; we cannot let the Russkiy thieves fully conduct their bullying. We want to retake the Mainland; we want to retake the Mainland. Take back, take back. Claim the Mainland; claim the Mainland.)
• 一國良制 Yìguóliángzhì: One country, good system. 蔣經國 Chiang Ching-kuo's and 陳長文 Chen Changwen's rebuttal to Deng Xiaoping's 一國兩制 yìguóliǎngzhì: one country, two systems. The third character of both slogans differ in pronunciation only by tone. Still used in recent times (near the bottom of the page): "... So two systems becoming one system, is when the Mainland uses Hong Kong's system. When the Mainland uses Hong Kong's system, it's more or less the same as Taiwan's, 'one country, two systems' will no longer be needed, so we want 'one country, good system'.")
• 消滅萬惡共匪 Xiāomiè wàn'è gòngfěi: Eliminate all-evil commie bandits. (Slogan on Lüdao, Taiwan, in the 1950s.)
• 漢賊不兩立 Hàn zéi bù liǎng lì. This one's a bit hard to translate. Word for word it's something like "Han, thief — no double establishment." No establishment of both the Han and the bandit. It's a reference to the book 《出師表 Chu Shi Biao》, where author 諸葛亮 Zhuge Liang references the 漢朝 Han dynasty's orthodoxy and the "bandit" authorities of 曹魏 Cao Wei. The hard-line One-China policy of the ROC at that time opposed the simultaneous foreign recognition of the governments in Taipei and Beijing. Of course, this One-China policy was successfully upheld at the United Nations General Assembly in 1971.

We now have a Holydaze template for Taiwan's National Day on October 10. I have just created it. If anyone would like to improve it, such as by adding Chinese test, that would be great. Spud (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

### 某位共匪真爱煽动

A certain bandit really likes to be inflammatory.

 —Revision of Holydaze template
• 一、用残体字简体字写标语 (Uses spastic Simplified Characters to write the slogan.)
• 二、 “祝台湾同胞…… (Wishing brethren from Taiwan Province ...)
• 三、 ……庆节快乐” (... Happy Province Day — rather than 庆节 National Day.)

The user who added that only intended it to be a joke. However, the very last thing I want to do is upset the people of Taiwan. So I have removed the Chinese text. Maybe I should have been more specific about what improvements to the template I'd welcome. Spud (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

National Day of the Republic of China — Double Ten Day
77.111.245.12 (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't really think that's an improvement. Especially since you'd have to keep updating the year. Spud (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The template {{CURRENTYEAR}} is used. No update is needed. 77.111.247.11 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
All right. Go ahead and edit the Holydaze template then. Although I think there should still be English text on it as well. Spud (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
{{CURRENTYEAR}} isn't a template1111!!!oneoneelventy11one!!111one!!!11!! See that redlink? That's because it's a variable! pedantry maxed outKazitor 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

## Love my country but a few things confusing

Why is it here in the good ole USA that at age 18 a person can smoke and get their ass shot off in Syria yet are not allowed to drink alcohol? If you are old enough to die for your country's freedom then you should be allowed to drink alcohol. Still love my country. Just confusing. I'm in your house --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm indifferent to the legal age at which a person may consume alcohol because I myself steadfastly refuse to even consider it. In any case, such a law is difficult to enforce. What if parents let their kids try it before the age of 21? Nerd (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
If you are considered an adult at 18 then you should be able to legally drink. I know there are holes in the system but maybe it might lower underage drinking and driving cases. Not perfect. My mom let me try a wine cooler at 16 years old. Bottom line though- fix the legal system.There are people who like to drink and should have that right. Not sure how many prison sentences are from this demographic. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Very well, then. I suppose with sufficient popular support, the legal age of alcohol consumption can be lowered. After all, the voting age was indeed lowered back in the 1970s. But be careful what you wish for, for you might get it. And if you get it, you may not like it. Why? Two words: personal responsibility. To put it bluntly, rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin, yet while people are understandably excited about the former, they often come short on the latter. Nerd (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
What perceived problem does lowering the drinking age to 18 solve? Does it make society safer in regards to alcohol consumption? Or is the motive merely consistency? Because I'm not sure that's going to be a completely satisfying reason without making a case for why lowering the age makes life better for most people. On top of that, there will be a perception come voting time, that any politician who is advocating this age reduction is somehow advocating that more young people drink. As long as that's a liability, no one will sponsor a bill. And this will be a liability until there's a good reason for making the change. With that said, I don't disagree with you that the privileges being granted in staggered manner seems inconsistent, and maybe unfair. Keep in mind, joining the military is voluntary. If it weren't, perhaps a stronger case could be made. — Unsigned, by: Mikecol05 / talk / contribs
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. Nerd (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
We have similar inconsistencies in the UK. My favourite example is the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum and the UK general election of 2015. For the referendum the left-wing SNP government permitted 16 and 17 year olds to vote (in an obvious attempt to swing the referendum in their favour, since younger people were seen as more likely to support independence) but the general election still had an age limit of 18. As a result we ended up in this bizarre situation with Scots being able to vote in the Independence referendum but not being allowed to vote in the election, even though the election was like 6 months later. Personally I think that 18 is the right age for people to be considered adult so that should be the age limit for most things. --RWRW (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Still love my country." ← TRWTF —Kazitor 10:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
He's a patriot, and that's a good thing. Nerd (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes yes, we all know how much of a fervent pro-American you are. —Kazitor 00:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Another evil brought to you by the mostly male mothers of MADD. This happened in 1984 during the height of Nancy Reaganism. The drinking age, at minimum, is a law no gentleman would enforce. If one must have it, set it to two years before you can get a driver's license. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
What societal problem is solved by having one able to legally consume and purchase alcohol two years before legally driving? Is there anyone who believes that any of the world's problems stem from people not having legal access to alcohol at a younger age? Or is this merely a principled stand? If you were in a place of leadership, would this perceived issue be one of the first things you resolve? 14 year olds having the legal access to alcohol? Or does it mostly make sense in the abstract? Mikecol05 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I begin with first principles, that it is inherently illegitimate for a government to attempt to control what people eat, drink, or smoke. The drive to become intoxicated is a human universal, and that fact needs to be recognized. That said, we are still under the sad effects of a moral panic about drunk driving back in the 1980s. Allowing people to learn how to hold their liquor before they qualify for a driver's license is one way to address that tired objection. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with here. There is no compelling reason to change this law. The virtue of such a change is merely theoretical, not practical. And no, it is inherently legitimate for the government to control what people eat, drink or smoke in order to safeguard public safety since it is easy to get sick and die from said activities. (There should, however, be legislative and judicial restraint, since downright banning will not work.)
"The drive to become intoxicated is a human universal, and that fact needs to be recognized." I strongly disagree. I myself have no intentions of ever drinking alcohol, let alone getting drunk. Perhaps I am the odd one out, or maybe I am not alone. In any case, drinking alcohol is a privilege for those mature enough to recognize the inherent risks associated with this activity. It is not a right. Furthermore, such a law is hard to enforce. Changing the legal age of drinking to 18 will have little effect on American society. Compared to, for example, giving all U.S. citizens aged 18 or over national health insurance cards that also function as photo IDs, its influence is so limited it is not even worth taken seriously. Nerd (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
' Allowing people to learn how to hold their liquor before they qualify for a driver's license is one way to address that tired objection.' my goodnees, that is quite quite a fanciful statement that does not hold up well if you talk to people who drink or to people who drive. people are never able to accurately assess how pissed they are and what effect it is having on them. people will tell you they are not drunk and know what they are doing, and they will tell you the same when they wrap themselves around a lamp post and they will still be saying it in court, they'd only had a couple yadda yadda yadda. personal responsibility is great and all, but if you are a driving a four tonne bullet that will take out a family on the next street, some legal limits might be required. plus drivers as group, seem to have a vastly inflated grasp of their abilities (and sense of entitlement) that again, 4 tonne bullet - minimum standards should be expected. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that first principles can be a good starting point, but I humbly suggest that a "first principle" like "it's illegitimate for a government to control what people eat, drink, or smoke" is probably a derived principle from something far more basic, like: human flourishing is preferable to human misery.Mikecol05 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it really so unreasonable to not love your country because you see more than those mere policy symptoms, but serious problems underlying them, reflecting a sociopolitical pathology that's almost beyond resuscitation? At least a third of the people here are just awful. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sort of guessing what you might be referring to, so feel free to elaborate. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
America is full of assholes and they teach being an asshole as a virtue to both their children and anyone who will listen, and fight any sort of systemic change that tries to alter the asshole course. It's not "lol capitalism sux" or "americans just all love racism" or anything so single-factor-y. We're a broken nation. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
America is full of assholes. And we are not special in that regard.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Shitty web design strikes again—I literally cannot scroll down and there is no scrollbar. Presumably it requires JavaScript, but why on Earth do you need JavaScript to scroll?! —Kazitor 03:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

### On freedom in the U.S.

It's a myth that Americans enjoy an exceptional amount of freedom. We hear this narrative repeated ad infinitum that America is a particular source of extraorinary incredible personal freedoms, something that is worth risking one's childrens lives and many financial and politican sacrafies. But alas, amongst developed countries the US comes in very low if not dead last in many many categories of freedom:

• Unjust incarceration (overly harsh loss of general freedoms and enormous prison population for petty crimes)
• Freedom to stay alive (yes...the government can murder you as a penalty for crimes)
• Freedom to use substances (very strict drug laws stopping you from recreational drug personal choices)
• Freedom to die (harsh laws on euthanasia stop you from leaving the Earth when you want to)
• Freedom from religion (laws that allow invasive pestering religious words and morals and mantras into your life)
• Freedom from government surveillance (the largest and most disturbing mass surveillance ever known in history)
• Freedom of mobility (many cities with the most dangerous streets in the western world and violent neighbourhoods)
• Freedom of police intimidation (notable lever of confrontational police with a relatively hostile and aggressive approach to problem solving...or is it problem generating?)
• Freedom from discrimination (systemic abusive discrimination against African Americans and the right of the religious to outright discriminate against LGTBQ+)

Some American work places are also home of pretty oppressive working situations with super control freak bosses, controlling every insignificant aspect of your day, counting your coffee breaks to the minute, firing you for being a few minutes late a couple days in a row, with very high levels of stress, bullying and a high level of workplace sexual harassment.

The only notable freedom Americans really have...is the freedom of speech and to own instruments of instant murder from a distance. Freedom of Speech in the USA is extraordinarily permissive and definitely far higher than freedoms that exist in EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan etc. Freedom to say whatever you think, regardless of how offensive without government interference. A very strong near absolute right. And to have automatic murder weapons. That's pretty strongly protected. But that's it, just those two things. Far behind in most other freedoms. 82.158.77.178 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Even the right to free speech isn't all that great. Reporters Without Borders rank the US 45th in the world for press freedom.[2] And the vast majority of media owned by a small number of corporations, with public discourse typically restricted to a narrow range of opinions. --Annanoon (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

### I know America is not perfect

We have our various problems and weird/stupid laws but what country does not have its problems? America is where I was born. Just blaming the President (does not matter who is in) does not produce results. I am aware things need to be fixed which is where voting comes in. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why was where you were born matter to what's a good country? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

#### Oddly thought, I trust BBC news over American news

Only thing in America I certainly cannot stand is the news. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I also do not like the news very much in the US. However, the news seems basically to have the same problems the rest of the country has: over commercialized, focused on self at the expense of the rest of the world, loud, anti-intellectual, polarizing, the list could go on. Mikecol05 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I find NPR, the Associated Press, and the PBS Newshour pretty trustworthy. The New York Times is excellent, but boy I don't have money to pay the subscription fees. I do not watch cable news, where they confusingly mix facts with opinions and analysis. I prefer reading the news to watching it. Furthermore, you may find it beneficial to tune out once in a while since, frankly, most of the information is likely to be of little value to you anyway. Nerd (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. My criticism was mostly focused on cable news and Internet outlets. Mikecol05 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I remember the terrorist attack in NYC involving the use of a truck; killed 20 people and injured about 50 (I don't remember how many but it is what I remember). ABC World News claimed it was worse than 9/11. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

## A project aiming to produce a completely open-source GPU

Sorry if this doesn't belong here (or anywhere else on the site for that matter), but it's something cool I found while browsing: http://libre-riscv.org/3d_gpu/ Towards-the Unknown (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Only problem is being compliant with all the secret standards between MS and nVidia/AMD that make directX go. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

## An interesting titbit about the antipsychiatry folk

Has anyone else noticed they focus most of their rhetoric on major depressive disorder and antidepressants (specifically SSRIs)? They always refer to antidepressants when discussing the purported "inefficacy" of psychiatric medication, conveniently ignoring antipsychotics and mood stabilizers (one of which, lithium, is proven to have a significant antisuicidal effect). Hell, they don't even mention the atypical antidepressants like mirtazapine (a serotonin antagonist) or bupropion. Xmus Jaxon Flaxon-Waxon (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, the anti-psychiatry folks also heavily lean on anecdotes, rather than statistical studies of how medicine effects groups across populations. They generally simply know someone who had a bad experience, and that's seemingly all they care to know. Mikecol05 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, anti-psychiatry is pretty much bunk and anecdote, but I don't think you should diminish the very small effect sizes, and large p values of SSRIs in double blinded clinical trials; it takes a lot of data before it becomes clear they're working. It's very easy to deviate into treating them like miracle drugs when they actually have an effective change in outcome for relatively small numbers of depression sufferers who use them. Scientifically proven doesn't always mean particularly effective. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm always open to the idea that others know things I don't. Do you have anything I can read to learn more about how psychiatric medicine needs loads of data before yielding useful results? Thanks. Mikecol05 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Not psychiatry in general, numbers for anti-psychotics are really strong, e.g. Specifically anti-depressants are weak effects. Don't misread this either, and stop taking your SSRIs, if you're depressed or anything drastic. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Part of the reason antidepressants' numbers are low is because their effects on milder cases of depression is... debatable. For milder cases, therapy and regular exercise are just as, if not more, effective than medication.
That said, the paper you linked is about one specific SSRI (paroxetine) on bipolar depression, which is an entirely different beast from unipolar depression. The conclusion needs to be put in context—one of the most notorious effects of lithium is emotional blunting, which can be severe and interfere with antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression (hence the mention of lithium levels).
For further context, this paper is from 2001. There wasn't any treatment specifically approved for bipolar depression back then—olanzapine and fluoxetine in tandem (the first medication approved specifically for bipolar depression) wouldn't be formulated until around a year later. Quetiapine, lamotrigine and lurasidone were a huge deal when they were approved for bipolar depression. Dan Smith (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't disagree with any of what you said. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
My recent working understanding is that, while some individuals do have sometimes severe negative reactions to modern psychiatric medicine, the broader results are that many people are living better lives thanks to anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, etc that are commonly prescribed for a variety of mental disorders. I initially perceived that I was being cautioned that I was overstating the case. What's the verdict? I'm happy to learn. Mikecol05 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Your recent working understanding is correct. A very select few do experience severe and potentially deadly side effects of psychiatric medications (hello there, neuroleptic malignant syndrome!). But overall, they tremendously increase quality of life and functioning for the mentally ill. You're not really overstating the case. Xmus Jaxon Flaxon-Waxon (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
"Part of the reason antidepressants' numbers are low is because their effects on milder cases of depression is... debatable. For milder cases, therapy and regular exercise are just as, if not more, effective than medication."
What would be a "milder case" of depression? Curious. I know some people who experience lows and all and they say they might be depressed but I have no idea what the degrees look like. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Not to tread on Ibrahim's actual expertise, but my understanding is it's not a specific thing, instead it's by contrast to major and chronic depression when diagnostic depressive affective symptoms exist(excessive fatigue, hopelessness, dispassion, loneliness, etc). Chronic depression can affect people with chemical imbalances in ways they will never naturally recover from, but many people can have life events or other phenomena that cause a non-persistent but very life-affecting diagnosable condition. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
There are, for lack of a better word, degrees of depression. Many a rating scale exist for assessing the severity of the patient's depression, some more rubbish than others. The Beck Depression Inventory, the one used at the facility I work at, ranks depression from minimal, to mild, to moderate, to severe.
Symptoms become worsen both in quantity and gravity as the severity of the depression increases. Milder and moderate cases (as ranked on the aforementioned BDI) are predominated by feelings of worthlessness, emotional blunting, anhedonia (inability to enjoy anything) and avolition (lack of motivation. Mild cases have less of these symptoms and to a lesser extent. Moderate cases is when the risk of suicide becomes serious. Severe depression is... well. At that point, extremely serious symptoms—symptoms not usually associated with depression by the hoi polloi—can and do appear, such as delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, significant cognitive impairment, pain without any cause, panic attacks and even psychosis. In the absolute most severe of cases, catatonia occurs, but catatonic depression is very rare.
Then there's also the various subtypes of depression including, the most common being:
• Melancholic: The one the hoi polloi most often associate with the term "depression". The one with the lack of appetite, perpetual low mood, overwhelming guilt and insomnia.
• Atypical depression: arguably more disabling than melancholic depression since it starts much earlier in life—often in the early to mid teens—, has very high comorbidity with anxiety and personality disorders, doesn't have periods of remission like melancholic depression has and carries the highest risk of suicide. Symptoms include leaden paralysis (sense of heaviness in the limbs which can lead to difficulty moving), extreme sleepiness (a patient of mine put it best: "When I wake up, I feel like I haven't slept and just look forward to going to bed again"), comfort eating (which can lead to significant weight gain and type 2 diabetes if left unchecked) and a significant sensitivity to rejection (which causes social withdrawal, albeit for different reasons than melancholic depression).
So, in short, "what does a mild case of depression look like?" doesn't have a simple answer since there are many variables which makes every case of depression different and even determine which medication they will respond to the best. Sorry for the long and boring lecture. Eeeee Eeeeeeeee (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and one last titbit: the impact of antidepressants is directly proportional to the severity of the depression. T.J. A.J. R.J. Backslashinfourth V (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Responding to the antipsychotics point (not sure how we fork on this site?): yeah, atypicals are better tolerated, but they're still brutal as hell. I suffer from bipolar disorder, psychosis, and complex PTSD, and quetiapine (er, "Seroquel XR") has been a goddamned life-saver for sure, but even with me, who tolerates it so well (I actually lost 5kg on it lmao) and have been on it for 3 years... it's undeniably heavy stuff. I sleep 12 hours a day making my PhD difficult, my thoughts run slower (also doesn't help), every now and again I get this intense and painful compulsion to keep moving my legs in circles (apparently called "akathisia"), and almost every person on antipsychotics in general has an annual cumulative risk for irreversible "tardive dyskinesia". I was recommended to be on it for at least a few years while I had psychotherapeutic interventions (trauma therapy and relapse prevention work), and tell a doctor to wean off under supervision over months when I wish to come off. This reflects this interesting paper in psychosis which suggests that for a few years, the medications help more than otherwise, but over the much longer term, the picture becomes less clear. Like, I wouldn't underestimate how life-saving they can be, but I wouldn't also underestimate the problems with them and see them as a lone "golden bullet" in managing bipolar and psychosis. Dark Fire (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel like people here only really see one side of "antipsychiatry". There's definitely a ton of crap, and the most visible stuff is from quacks and is definitely crap, but there's a different trend of it coming from within psychology with very different objectives that seems somewhat more worth listening to. These focus less on "throw the meds away!" and more on addressing some problematic dynamics within the system, for example in how mental health conditions can be unfairly weaponised against people, or how diagnoses themselves affect patients and their narratives, one of the most prominent of which I can think of being how BPD has been used as a "diagnosis of exclusion" to cast away difficult patients instead of promoting compassion and understanding. One I like is neurodiversity, which focuses on e.g. how many people with Aspergers or ADHD don't want to be "cured" and just want help managing parts of it, or how many people hear voices that aren't necessarily problematic yet still get pathologised and stigmatised (this comes to mind). I guess in this sense, it's less about psychiatric conspiracies and abolishing psychiatry, and more about offering constructive criticisms from within the scientific community of its current models and its impact on society, in a similar way to how researchers over the past decade have challenged "Gender Identity Disorder" and the preexisting systems of transgender health care, and brought it towards a less prescriptivist model focused on gender dysphoria management. Just some thoughts from a service user and mental health activist who dates a clinical psychology doctor. Dark Fire (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I respond to this with a big ehhhhhh. I get it, their hearts are in the right place but... well. Where to start?
Neurodiversity is... kind of bollocks if you ask me and outright dangerous when applied to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Schizophrenia isn't just a difference—it's actively debilitating for the vast majority of patients. It isn't just about hearing voices, it's about disorganized thought and severe cognitive dysfunction. And while perception of schizophrenia is shifting, it isn't towards a difference model—rather, it's moving towards it being a complex neurological disorder of which mental illness is a symptom.
I'll be blunt with you—schizophrenia will never move towards a difference, rather than deficit, model. As our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of schizophrenia improve, we've become more capable of associating its symptoms with measurable deficits in brain function. The same applies to bipolar disorder.
I'm not trying to deny your experiences or anything. The stigma sucks. Just saying that schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (mental disorders) aren't really comparable to autism (a neurodevelopmental disorder). Ibrahim Moizoos (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

## New Mini Ice Age: My skepticism

Sure many of you have heard "a mini ice age will happen by 2030". Not saying it is impossible but going solely by sun spot records does not provide significant evidence for such an event. Have some geophysical phenomena happening and studied along with confirmed temperature drops on a global level then that might be evidence. I used to believe the hype but have grown very skeptical about it. Civil Danger Warning --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not a thing I have heard from literally any source. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Type mini ice age on YouTube and you will find paranoid crap about it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Type literally anything into YouTube and you'll find paranoid crap about it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a limited amount of real evidence that this is a real phenomena. However the truth is that it's unlikely to be anywhere near as bad as a the last mini ice age, and the people who think it's a big deal are completely ignoring global warming. Really who cares if a few sun-spots mean we get a cold winter or two? It's called weather. — Dysk (contribs) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Considering there are still gaps in climate science knowledge, how can people conclude a cooling event will happen? Warming is happening but many mechanics have to be researched to make a better model of what will happen. The cooling proponents should have better data than sunspot activity. Please standby for an Emergency Warning --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Sunspots, at their highest, have a minimal impact on insolation. Like, really super minimal. They will never darken the sun enough to lower insolation by 1% or be persistent enough to affect earth's climate. The difference between peak sunspots in observed history(1960ish) and lowest(2010) is approximately 0.15%. Solar variation significant enough to cause notable disruption in earth's climate would have to be totally unprecedented. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh I should hasten to add that the biggest difference in insolation between local minima on the 11 year solar cycle is about 0.01%. Just absolutely nothing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Okay so if you ignore the crazy folk and look at this NASA page you can see that the only noticeable affect is a tiny change in some weather patterns. Even the most optimistic models barely show half a degree of temperature difference between a solar maximum and solar minimum. — Dysk (contribs) 23:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It was a little bit colder in the 17th century
I watched this one video last night albeit not remembering the name, it was done by Harvard scientists. This video talked about distortions in astronomical data to make claims of cooling. It increased my skepticism of a cooling event.
Proponents of global cooling have no ice core data, no geological samples, no temperature measurements and no data on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Quote mining research papers and no data does not produce actual results. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC) 🎩
Well there have been cooling events in the past for example the poster example tiny cold snap which is backed up by various data. However things have got a little it too warm recently so this is hardly likely to happen again. — Dysk (contribs) 10:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

## Daily life in China vs North Korea

My impression of life in China is that the Communist Party is relatively hands-off about your social and private lives, but not political. Like, say, it would be far more preferable to a North Korean that they live in China rather then the DPRK, even though China doesn't recognize North Koreans as legal refugees. And while I definitely wouldn't want to live in China at all, I say that from the perspective of a Westerner, and from talking with Chinese people even punishment for dissent isn't nearly as horrible as what happens to North Koreans. I`m not using the "Not as bad as" fallacy, but from a North Korean's perspective living in China would be like paradise compared to suffering under the iron yoke of the Kims.--Palaeonictis (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

North Korea really isn't as restrictive as people think, the amount of government control is very comparable to China. The main difference is that North Korea is a lot poorer and less welcoming to foreigners. — Dysk (contribs) 10:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

## Pizzagate gold?

It seems that Pizzagate appears as a cover story but only has a silver brainstar. It looks like Pizzagate should be gold from the talk page. Does anyone disagree or remember what happened? Bongolian (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Awhile back there was a troll that dicked around with brainstar ratings, maybe they got to the Pizzagate page? It certainly is a magnet for trolls. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it's been silver since the middle of 2017. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I've changed it back to gold. Bongolian (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
No "back to" you just changed it to gold, it was never gold before. Sorry for not being more clear. It was silver since "at least" middle of 2017. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
: made Pizzagate as a cover story last December, but no one made it gold till I did just now. Should we keep it gold now or remove it from cover story? It didn't seem like there were any objections to gold on the talk page. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Gild it and keep it gilded, at least that's my take. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I asked to make it a cover story while it was silver and there were no objections. I don't see why a silver article can't be a cover story, is that a requirement?—チーズバーガー • めん  (talkstalk) 00:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, , gold articles and cover stories should be synonymous. You can read about it in the instructions for cover stories here: Help:Cover stories. Bongolian (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Calling other moderators to weigh in on this if they care to: , , and @Spud. This does not seem to be controversial, but you might want to be aware of it. The Pizzagate article was a cover story for several months but still had a silver brainstar. There did not seem to be any objections about moving Pizzagate to gold on its talk page. I made Pizzagate gold yesterday. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I read the instructions on Help:Cover stories. When a cover story is approved you're supposed to change it to gold. So everybody, including me, forgot to change the brainstar: " Change the article's "brain" template to {{gold}} to reflect its new status."—チーズバーガー • めん  (talkstalk) 23:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Huh well I believe there are some weirdness in the article and the aesthetics aren't that good. I think there's some repeating information here and there. I *do* wish there's a better way to organize this page, though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

### Ungolden goat

On a (somewhat) related note, it has always struck me as odd that our own Holy Goat isn't a gold article. --RWRW (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The goat article isn't missional.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talkstalk) 23:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Six embedded videos... holy curdled goat milk. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
We allow ourselves one meme here. Of course that's where the youtube pile up happens. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

### Ugh

The bar itself has managed to get into "Category:Cover story articles" now, probably because CheeseburgerFace used the "gold" template above. I would quietly fix it with nowiki tags, but it's much to funny to go unnoticed. — Dysk (contribs) 16:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

## You'll ever just

Drink a bottle wine and rip into som speed then check how the ol RationalWiki is going? 49.184.204.117 (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Um... no. Most of us suffer from a mental limitation that prevents us from considering that point of action. It's called sanity. Kencolt (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Rude 49.199.251.247 (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Any old ass cobbas still here from 2013 ? 49.199.251.247 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

2013? 2013? You schoolkid, I'm from 2007! (Sophie, still feeling TK's stab wound when it rains) 92.9.17.168 (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Here since 2013 but I rarely drink. I am trying to stay sane. Drugs and alcohol is something I want to avoid. 24 years of life and I don't get young people. When did making smart choices go out of style? This is an Emergency Action Notification --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

24 years on this planet you never had the desire to zone out for a spell and indulge in some mild temporary escapism? I'm not sure you're the one to talk about sanity then...*strokesbeard* Malaclypse 06:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
When you take psychiatric medications for Schizophrenia, Depression and Bipolar, let me know how well large amounts of booze and drugs in the mix will help. Large amounts of booze messes with psychiatric medications. Hell, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of smoking pot.

I would like to thank you Malaclypse, you gave me more reason to avoid drugs and alcohol. ☺☺ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

## Donating

This site requires a lot more personal info than, say, Wikipedia. It wants my phone number. Is all that really necessary? - Notaliberalnosrs (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit Wikipedia asks for my email but not my personal phone number. - Notaliberalnosrs (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
That would be PayPal's fault. It's possible to integrate with dedicated payment gateways, but that necessitates a merchant bank account in addition to its own fees. You could contact the Board to look into doing things that way, but it might not be worth the cost. —Kazitor 04:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
If I just type in some nonsense phone number (like 999 999-9999 or the like) can I do a credit card charge without needing a text message verification? - Notaliberalnosrs (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be no address to send an old fashioned check in the mail to. It could be pulled off the IRS forms, but the last one of those is from 2016 so it may have changed, and may not be the correct address anyway. 71.163.149.46 (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This is something that board members (particularly new board members & ) should look into: can we reasonably make donations easier. Bongolian (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Oof I'm still new about financial transactions especially on the web. I just know on the Internet, paypal is the general medium of transferring. Call me ignorant, but what's wrong with phone number and not your mailing address? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Mailing addresses are typical for verification, often even simply a zip code for online titans like Amazon, but no online paybank needs your phone as a requirement. - Notaliberalnosrs (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I'm under the impression that Stripe is currently the gateway of choice, but of course there are plenty of alternatives. And I may as well add that I have done payment integrations before. —Kazitor 20:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kazitor → 2019 donation process upgrade manager? — Dysk (contribs) 23:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

### Refund donation

Hello, Who do I talk to about getting a refund on donation amount? There was an error with the amount I donated. All the contact emails listed on the website site don't work. {Jrickey (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

how much did you donate? 92.232.68.146 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Way more than I intended.Jrickey (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Board members , , , , @Spud and . 92.232.68.146 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I've posted a message for the group in Google Groups. I'm hoping we get a timely response. 🤞 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I've seem the message here and on the RationalWiki Google groups page. I don't know why the contact emails didn't work for you. But surely the first thing that you have to do is contact your bank or credit card provider. You should be getting the money back from them rather than from us.Spud (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Just to make sure there is no confusion. I am aware of the issue, and am and have been working on a solutions to get this taken care of ASAP. check your e-mail if you have not done so for specific details feel free to reply to that e-mail address with any concerns or questions. I would suggest we take this off wiki from here. Thanks guys. tmtoulouse 00:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I got your email. Thank you for your help.Jrickey (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If you created your own religion, what would it be like. This is a serious question so please don't fill this query with flying spaghetti monsters, cthulhus and mega death goats. For the love of the gods, don't do it. BobRoss (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You say that, but what serious reason is there for knowingly creating a religion? Defrauding people of money, a la scientology? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
That's like asking why did Muhammed create Islam? Who knows, many religious founders probably had many different reasons. Ok, granted Muhammed didn't exactly invent Islam. BobRoss (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
People create religions because a holy deity of some kind tells them too, it's always the same story. — Dysk (contribs) 23:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I see no problem with starting a religion. If you don't use it as means to rip people off. This is a national emergency --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
My religion would look more like a philosophical worldview if anything, honestly. Define "religion". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you'll find anyone here who's the least bit interested in the idea of creating a new serious religion. Is there anyone here who fancies being a new L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Jim Jones or Charles Manson? And why the flying fuck would the world need another religion anyway? What good could adding another one to the toxic mix possibly do? Spud (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Judging by previous posts, I infer BobRoss is after potential material/ideas for a writing project. —Kazitor 03:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I doubt it would be possible to seriously start a new religion. At best it would be ridiculed or ignored, and at worst it would be seen as some sort of cult. --RWRW (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Create an outdated social hierarchy that inherently suffers from tribalism and borderline delusional ideas? If I did that it would be an exceptionally ridiculous one meant to illustrate the problems with such social structures. And given how quickly and easily such structures can get out of the creators' control, why would I do so? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Kazitor inferred correctly. My novel is going to have a few fictional religions in it, just think of Space Gandhi alongside a divine Shaka Zulu. However I'm not very good at this sort of thing, so it occurred to me that a dozen brains is better than one. And yes, we definitely don't need another new L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Jim Jones or Charles Manson. If anything the world needs less religion, although many tribal religions don't seem to be hurting anyone. BobRoss (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Philip Larkin called:

If I were called in
To construct a religion
I should make use of water.

Going to church
Would entail a fording
To dry, different clothes;

My liturgy would employ
Images of sousing,
A furious devout drench,

And I should raise in the east
A glass of water
Where any-angled light
Would congregate endlessly.

Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Polytheism has its charm, with deities having more or less extensive portfolios up to overlapping ones -it's up to you if each one has its own church or priest(es)s can venerate several of them, or even if the former is not a separate cast (including hereditary priesthood, etc). but rather a temporary job as more or less happened in Greek religion. If you want ideas on how organize them, let me know (those old AD&D manuals are quite handy).
And as for the BoN of above, that has been collapsed, I'll pray Ehlonna for him. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I never considered getting ideas from Dungeons and Dragons, what do you have in mind? I'd say it sounds good to have Jack of all Trade shamans alongside specialized shamans, the former would pray to whichever god the situation demands. BobRoss (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Details of the cults. Some supplements delve in rich detail on the organization of the different ones, their garments, etc and not just symbology and a couple of notes. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Any African themed cults? BobRoss (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as I now, sadly not except maybe voodoo BS somewhere. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

## Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh has just been confirmed. I have to say I don't think I have ever seen a more disgraceful smear attempt. There isn't a shred of evidence of him doing anything wrong and the FBI found nothing. I hope he remembers how the Democrats attempted to destroy his reputation just to feed into their hatred for Trump. --RWRW (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This showed how truly divided we are along party lines. At this point, neither side seems to care about guilt or lack thereof. One side says he's guilty no matter what, and the other says he's innocent no matter what. The results of the trial were along party lines. Each party had one defector in the confirmation vote. The trial determined nothing, those judging it were slanted to a point they had already made their decision. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
You know, I just realized the two of you are and your interaction just now are pretty indicative of the state of politics in the US. RWRW flagrantly lied his ass of following a deeply partisan narrative that deviates so completely from the facts as to be completely fictional, and then you reply with "you know both sides are bad, actually?" It's the perfect encapsulation of how we collectively go two steps back then zero steps forward. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
"a more disgraceful smear attempt" -> accurate description of Brett Kavanaugh and Trump's actions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Was done quite significantly by the side that refused to even consider that Kavanaugh may have done anything wrong. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not just that, Kavanaugh is a partisan hack who conspiracy mongers about left-wingers, the Clintons, and mainstream media. He's unqualified for the position. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Fiat justitia ruat caelum. Anna Livia (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Amen to that. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 23:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Sic semper tyrannis? Ever thus to deadbeats. Gabriel Syme (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC) 02:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
RWRW, I really don't believe you are that stupid in your analysis of these polemical subjects you bring up here, I do believe you're semi-talented at prowling through this page and putting out highly exaggerated and inflammatory statements to get people riled up. I think there is a word for a person who does these things online...though I cannot remember it. Anyone know? ShabiDOO 00:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Shitstirrer?Scream!! (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW Drop dead. Thank you in advance. the word you're looking for is troll. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
If GrammarCommie was more keen on jokes, I would've said "FISHERMAN!!!!". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
That's just rude. Fishermen may be crass and crude but they don't intentionally try to rile people up, that would be milkmen ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo, I'm not a troll or a shitstirrer. The issue of Kavanaugh is big news and has had very little coverage at the Bar. I don't see anything wrong in a civilised discussion about this.
@GrammarCommie I look forward to the day I meet the Lord, but I don't think its my time yet. Sorry. --RWRW (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Atheism will always be on the losing side. On the 1 hand you could be right and death could be the end. On the other hand you could be wrong and I don't think God will be impressed with your cynicism. --RWRW (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Or on another hand, Odin All-Father will be disappointed in you. On yet another, Vishnu will be disappointed in you. Yet another, the Minoan Snake Goddess won't be impressed by you. Don't try pulling Pascal's Wager on us, RWRW. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah HA! Allah will torture you both forever you both when you are dead! Infidels!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
RWRW, your chances of meeting God after you die would be pretty low. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Or on another hand All-Father, on yet another All-Sustainer, yet another All-Mother with a snake tail. Hmm, almost like there's a common thread to religion that transcends their individual conceptions of divinity. Hmm, very odd. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed it is BoN 141, Monotheism is such a childish understanding of reality. If deities existed, and I cannot stress the word "if" enough, we should expect them to be multi-generational, of a plural nature, and of limited (though possibly vast) capabilities, going through the same birth/life/mate/death cycle as literally every known life-form to date. Further, even if this were proven to be the case it would not prove the existence of an afterlife. Such a claim would require a separate case for its existence, as would the concept of miracles/magic. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
What scientific reason/evolutionary advantage is there for a sense of wonder a sense of humour (of whatever kind), and 'the creative principle in general' - and what religious/theological ones are there? Anna Livia (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Monotheism is simply what you get when you unite all gods into one and describe all traits as different aspects of their will as opposed to each being assigned to a different god. Not childish, just a different paradigm is all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

RW is overdue for a Kavanaugh article. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

But how to snark it, right? How to snark it right? Gabriel Syme (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed I was surprised it was still missing. Here's a stub: Brett Kavanaugh. -Lankaster (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And the winner seems to be...Ariel31459 (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Another quote - Be you never so high, the law is above you. Anna Livia (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone comment on the veracity of the claims from Dr Ford's ex boyfriend? Supposedly, a guy that was dating Ford for 6 years has a story that contradicts parts of her testimony. 1) She apparently had no problem flying on their vacations in spite of her testimony in congress (which actually is contradicted somewhat by her frequent traveling), 2) he claims she never had an issue with apartments with only 1 door, in spite of living in a 500 sq ft apartment with 1 door, 3) he claims he saw her prep someone for a polygraph when she claimed she never prepped someone before.
Would be interesting if this was verifiable. 2604:2000:2242:3700:44F4:4B76:66EE:9084 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
What would the Colonel say about the matter? Anna Livia (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
It's finger-lickin' good? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
But clearly that's not true. De facto, many people are above the law, and will be held to no standard no matter the circumstances, and those beneath it will be held an impossible standard, essentially at random. It's broken, and I do not think it's going to get better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The truth is more complex - people have to operate within an existing system and have to pay the costs (not just monetary) of operating above the law. Anna Livia (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean, the truth is usually quite complex when it comes to humans, society, and morality, but this is a perfectly reasonable generalization. The powerful are very rarely held to account, especially not by the right, but also more generally. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The thread is moving off topic - and there are many parts to the law (especially for people living in a superficially law-based society). And those in the 'broad middling sections' (especially if possessing internet access) can have somewhat more leeway than them at the top (especially if there is a degree of sectarianism) - 'you have been naughty - don't do it again' against 'shock, horror THIS PERSON CANNOT BE TRUSTED headlines in the partisan press/various forms of dumb insolence and passive aggression. (Bear in mind our views may be coloured by the different legal systems within which we operate.) Anna Livia (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

## Right wing politics as the Great Filter

We haven't found any evidence for extant extraterrestrial civilizations so far. One possible set of answers involves the Great Filter.

What if the great filter for extraterrestrial life is right wing politics? Civilization hums along more or less okay, but then alien Donald Trumps and Vladimir Putins get elected. And soon after that, said civilization collapses due to peak oil, or environmental problems (FAKE NEWS BY THOSE GLORKISH TOWER ELITISTS!!!) or because they pressed the equivalent of the nuclear button.

Looking at the modern right wing really makes me wonder...Towards-the Unknown (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tempting, but then you're conjecturing a biological universality to right wing ideologies in intelligent species, you'd have to make the case for a biological basis too. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course (FWIW I was being partially tongue in cheek). I honestly think there's no single "great filter", but lots of smaller filters with right wing politics being a possible one. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a biological explanation is that unlikely though. Certain tribalistic attitudes carry adaptive benefits to early hunter-gatherer societies. When you can only have so many people in a tribe and different tribes have to compete for resources, distrusting people outside of your tribe carries advantages. However, by the time a civilization develops to a roughly 20th century or 21st century level of technology, that distrust becomes incredibly dangerous. That being said, I'm not sure if this is really a new great filter or a way of rephrasing an old one. Samstr (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Nah, you need some of that cynical exploitationism to make it past the planetary resource limitations. Once that boundary is crossed, the side with the biggest space force basically rules unchallenged, until internal power struggles make it rip itself apart. Though space being a big place, it's possible for a high number of factions to persist just by spreading out. Second-stage astropolitics is mostly a game of hide and seek. So it's pretty understandable they're not airing their positions for all the universe to hear/see. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

## Why we need a new international movement

We have to stop thinking and talking about politics using conceptions that originated in the 19th century. Nation-building and the social question were the main concerns back then. After the end of the cold war we stepped into an era where the important historical question is about the world's diminishing supplies of mineral and ecological resources i.e. how they are shared and managed.

If we let the current myopic western elites (who have long been reduced to a plaything of bankrupt banks and multinationals) and the nationalists (I include China as a nationalist force) sort this out among themselves then we're looking ahead at an unprecedented disaster that will return the human species to stone age conditions.

Sadly, modern progressives are morally and intellectually unable to play a constructive role in this. Social democrats have been co-opted into being a fruity underling of the establishment which is dreaming of a world where more and more nations are like Sweden but is failing to find the will and strength to do much that pushes in that direction. Meanwhile the radical left is trapped in the fantasy of a world-village that variously relies on alternative energy, green technologies, robots and automation while we're busy colonizing the next planet and sacrifices of any sort are made almost redundant. The fact that hi-tech relies on too many difficult to mine and process finite minerals and has low or negative returns on energy invested isn't a factor they deign to take seriously. The prospect that nuclear fusion and synthetic biology might very likely fail to provide the electricity and fuels necessary to keep mass society going doesn't worry them either. For them, human ingenuity will only reach its limits when we construct a perpetual motion machine.

We need a serious movement that appears with the stated goal of descaling and defusing a global economy before the train tumbles over the cliff. Everybody talks about prosperity. Nobody talks about austerity besides those buffoons in Brussels. Unfortunately, by austerity those buffoons mean extracting the blood of the poor classes and passing it onto banks. True austerity means less production and consumption in all areas of life.

This includes an understanding that:

1. The mass-consumerist model of society and with it mass-democracy and financialized capitalism have to end because their continuation cannot guarantee hemming increasing social unrest when the effects of scarcity start to impact hazardously the function of industrial mass society.

2. Society has to return to farming. This entails returning the mass of the populace out of the cities and back into the provinces, distributing all arable land to small families and making it illegal for corporations to own land and water.

3. In an era where cyber attacks can screw society the western model of an open internet is suicidal and gives leverage to the Chinese and Russian governments to do all sorts of malicious things.

4. Democratization of the developing world is impossible and mass surveillance technology is the only thing that can keep those governments stable.

5. We need global governance and the only way it can be established is seizing power and keeping it using any means necessary. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say "You make some good points" but then I read 4. and 5. and... yikes. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
You know, I always suspected that Gewgtweg is an enviro-Neoreactionary. Now I know he is. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
In their defense, I'll say that 2016 in general did a lot of damage to the credibility of democracy. To have a nominally democratic system produce such hyperauthoritarian results raises some fundamental concerns, and I don't think most modern liberal ideologies could withstand the introspection. A lot of belief systems, mine included are predicated on "people are mostly able to sensibly rule themselves" and "when they're not, reasonable well planned systems of government can mitigate the harm" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what a nominally populist underdog breaking the revolving monarchy of the US 2-party system has to do with democracy, aside from creating a limited opportunity for it to pop up in the future. So far, no luck on the latter it seems. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The brain worms it takes to arrive at that conclusion. Good god. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm? What's controversial about saying US citizens don't elect politicians from amongst their peers and that Trump's victory happened against the will of both noble houses? Any political shake-up is an opportunity for new political actors to enter the scene, which might include some more sincerely democratic individuals. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Applauding Trump for wresting control from the "two noble houses" is like applauding the Habsburgs for wresting control of the HRE from those damned Hohenstaufens. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
tl;dr T.J. A.J. R.J. Backslashinfourth V (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh good! We really should all become farmers. This whole internet thing is just too much to bare.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMcBeth Your suspicions are false my friend. Someone with a distaste for nationalism and anything that has to do with the neo-fascist right cannot possibly be called a "neo-reactionary". Long ago in my teens, I was interested in the occult (Satanism) and was attracted to Neo-Nazism. About the time I turned 18 I had rejected both occultism and Neo-Nazism and replaced them with a science-based worldview and political neutrality. My juvenile flirtation with religious and political extremism was nevertheless always a purely intellectual affair. I was never part of any actual group or gang and no real harm resulted from this extremism to anyone but myself. For those infantile passions were the reason I failed school and couldn't pursue higher education. It's too late to reverse the damage done to my life but I will make up for my fatal error by devoting all time I can spare to philosophy (in the ancient sense which denotes the ascetic pursuit of intellectual inquiry). Today I feel closer to the left of the political spectrum but this is for me more of a faint sentiment than an actual faith. It's like sympathizing with the message of Christianity without really believing in it. I think we're entering an era that cannot be understood based on the traditional ideas of a political right and a political left.
I reject environmental progressivism because I think it's intellectually soft and places undue weight on things like animal rights and climate change and has unrealistic expectations of technology. In the environmentalist movement there is a minority of fringe elements that are not progressives and advocate the extinction of the human race, reducing the world population by genocide or completely abandoning technology. I don't support any of that. To be honest, I think it would be hypocritical to call myself an environmentalist in any sense whatsoever. I eat meat, drive motor vehicles, do not recycle and feel no remorse in doing any of that. Concerns with the future of mass society and the drive to do something about it shouldn't be the prerogative of "environmentalists" but all human beings on this planet regardless of background and persuasion. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but "We need global governance and they[sic] only way it can be established is seizing power and keeping it using any means necessary"? If violent revolution and oppression to constitute global totalitarianism is your answer, the alternative of letting current society crash head-first into the wall of resource limitations might be preferable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Global governance doesn't necessarily mean global domination. It means forcing the entire world to co-operate with a set of radical policies. But in order to change the world concrete political power is required. And by power I don't mean governing a place like Albania or Georgia. Communism changed the world because it conquered a nation like Russia that had the potential to be a superpower.
The existence of a red bulwark in the east and the need to counter communist propaganda was a major overlooked reason why suddenly the western working classes stopped living in relative hunger and filth. They forced the western elites to grant concessions to the working classes which after the end of the cold war they're taking back one after another. Communism was also the reason why we can no longer walk into the developing world and roam about as we please. The Reds not only ruthlessly dismantled sectarian and tribal divisions and armed such nations but also forced us to pour money, weapons and industrial equipment around the world. The end result is that we no longer have the power to treat the non-western world like garbage. That is the true and only reason why the west stopped being racist. The non-western world is now a subject, not an object of politics and this situation means we have to acknowledge the legal and racial equality of nations whether we feel like it or not.
The purpose a movement exists is to take power and implement what it wants. A movement that thinks anything other than power is a castrated movement. It won't impregnate history with its seed. Since we are living in a democracy a revolution is not required. But such a movement would have to make clear to the masses that we intend to destroy democracy because we simply cannot realize such goals within the framework of an electoral system. A republic that is overthrown without the consent of the people always comes back. Only a republic that is abolished with the consent of the people dies permanently. Fascism proved that the masses are perfectly capable of consciously voting in the end of democracy. Of course there were other conditions that were decisive to its rise but without electoral support it wouldn't have happened.
Over the course of the energy crisis western democracy will almost certainly disappear anyway. Pluralism cannot survive a world where there's no longer room for many things and many people. If we're not led to a final catastrophic war since the existence of nuclear weapons mitigates the risk somewhat, societies will simply rot from within and slowly fall prey to anarchy leading to the collapse of nations. This will take us to the stone age, not even the bronze age. And since big animals to hunt are long gone, the survivor's meal of choice will be other humans. Societies we derided as shitholes will actually fare better than us because they're already used to extreme poverty. Shithole societies are at least societies. Anarchy doesn't feature a society. When a highly industrialized society (and this doesn't just include the west anymore), so absolutely dependent as it is for its food, water and sanitation on specialized machines and gigantic amounts of energy, falls to anarchy, it won't be lucky enough to simply become a shithole. It will become a nightmare resembling a zombie invasion.
The only way to immunize ourselves is to defuse global financialized capitalism and its mass society in a controlled manner while we still have the resources to organize this. This will return us to a much poorer world but that will still retain the benefits of some technologies for many centuries. Of course the majority won't have access to electronics or motor vehicles and there will be programs to peacefully reduce the population to a proper size and keep it there. For the US, which has some of the best land in the world (and rapidly losing it to climate change) this is no more than 100 million. Gewgtweg (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So basically Reactionary Fascistic thought mixed in with Anarcho-Primitivism? Yeah, no thanks Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What the heck does a majority-farmer society have to do with anarcho-primitivism? Was pre-industrial Europe a anarcho-primitivist society to you? There was nothing anarchic or primitivist about it. Anarchy and primitivism is what we are going to get if we continue going down this mindless path. Nothing to do with fascism either. Modern fascism makes sense only in an environment where its anti-social philosophy can thrive and that's not a pre-industrial society that depends on forging community bonds. Old-style fascist expansionary politics is impossible. Gewgtweg (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

## New book on climate change.

A book just recently came out by William Voorman saying that theirs no point in doing anything about climate change because of human nature.

Thoughts? When I first of the thesis of this book I thought it was written by Guy McPherson. — Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs

I'm not sure about human nature in general, but looking at current politics, then it's pretty inevitable. Even the more progressive politicians don't really have an answer on how to combat climate change. Carbon taxes aren't gonna save the planet. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Human nature is plastic and fluid and humans can be made to believe and therefore do anything and everything. All you need to do is give them something to believe in. Human nature has been cited to proclaim any situation as inevitable but human nature has time and time again proved itself more complex than thought. It is moving, restless and insatiable. In a sense, it is amazing and interesting. If nobody wants to fathom a global movement that will do what's necessary to defuse the wasteful world-economy and with it end climate change, I will. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, good for you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Consider the extent to which 'the establishment' in many countries is considerably more diverse than it was 50 or 100 years ago (whatever certain boneheaded reactionaries say or dream of) - and the extent to which the reaction to 'X is the first Y' type statements is 'So?' Or how eg smoking was promoted (cinema/TV, adverts 'Doctors recommend (brand) cigarettes etc) and is now seen as a Bad Thing. Cultural change is possible (but not always in directions certain groups approve of - and sometimes one is 'used to the situation that was, and #now things are different#'). Anna Livia (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised we don't have a page about this (especially, since CTers love to use it as one of their circlejerks). Tinribmancer (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Why not just add a suggestion to our backlog for Operation Gladio. —Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably one of the cases where to assume 'such set ups persist' is logical rather than a conspiracy theory (ie some form of official contingency planning). Anna Livia (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a massive undertaking, look at Daniele Ganser's work on the subject. The late Umberto Eco's final novel dealt with the subject and the difficulty it has in competing with more compelling yet patently ludicrous and false conspiracies in today's press and collective psyche. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

## looking for an article

Background: somebody posted a video on FB of a kid who, according to the misleading headline, had valid arguments against Hawking. (he didn't, it was all strawman arguments based on invalid facts) Well, discussion got into the watchmaker fallacy and somebody posted a link to an article here on RationalWiki that led me to comment "well, that assumes that science stops dead in its tracks and never turns up any new facts, ideas, or connections between fields." (which we all know isn't true) The article was not specifically about the watchmaker and the "see also" links don't go to the article I'm thinking of. Sorry for the weird question, I was just hoping it would job somebody's memory. I want to reference it. 100.15.129.3 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

## Nobel Peace Prize

• Barack Obama: Wins an election
• Noble Prize committee: Awesome! Have a Noble Peace Prize
• Donald Trump: Makes the biggest diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea in 70 years
• Noble Prize committee: No prize for you!

I'm not saying this years winners are unworthy, but Trump was much more deserving than Obama. --RWRW (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Which Nobel prize? There are several. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean the Peace prize. Trump was tipped as a likely candidate after his efforts in bringing North Korea to the negotiating table but lost out. Obama simply won an election yet he won. --RWRW (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW What are your sources on the claim that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize merely through being elected? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The official reason was for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" - a made up reason if ever I heard one. What's more he received the nomination only a couple of weeks after taking office [3]. --RWRW (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
So your proof is your opinion on the nomination reason, which without corroborating evidence isn't worth jack shit, and one conservative source which reports that a bunch of Republicans were just asking questions, and itself has zero citations. Is that it or do you have anything better? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
He was nominated less than 1 month after taking the oath of office. That is all the evidence I need to prove that it was politically motivated. Had Clinton won the 2016 election, I bet she would be this years winner. Given the whole issue with Brett Kavanaugh, I don't think it is any coincidence this years winners are sexual abuse campaigners. --RWRW (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW Argument by repetition, argument by assertion, poisoning the well. In that order. When asserting a conspiracy it's best to ask whether your "evidence" will hold up in a court of law, if it can't then you're probably full of shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
We'd never be able to prove it in a court of law, but that doesn't mean its untrue. Common sense shows that political bias is at play if Obama can be nominated after just days of being in office and win, yet Trump prevented a seemingly inevitable war and misses out. --RWRW (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Common sense? That term is so overused as to lack any meaning at this point. Critical thinking and Occam's razor dictate that simplest, most rational conclusion is the correct one, i.e. that Trump is a moron who was all for starting a bloody fucking nuclear war until someone talked him and Kim down, that Trump has yet to put anything in place to actually enforce the current agreement, and that you suffer from either selective memory or intellectual dishonesty, same as the rest of Trump's cheer squad. Those are the facts. Don't like them? Tough shit, we don't like them either. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean it's totally apparent Obama didn't deserve his. Trump ramping up international tensions constantly, then stumbling backwards into personal friendship with a dictator is not a breakthrough. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
RWRW is implying a conspiracy, so far without much proof. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
RWRW doesn't ever post smart things. That's quite aside from the point that giving Obama a peace prize was a dumb thing to do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The fact that the committee gave it to people opposed to sexual assault, should tell you everything you know about President Dragging-Toilet-Paper-Into-AF1's chances of ever getting one. LongLostLegend (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Who cares? The NPP is utterly devoid of meaning anyway thanks to the nomination process.
You do know that Stalin won a NPP right? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
BZZZZT! Wrong. You are the weakest link, goodbye. He was nominated, in 1948, but never actually won it. LongLostLegend (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Kissinger did though. And Aung San Suu Kyi. And they both tacitly endorsed mass murder. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget Cordell Hull, who denied the Holocaust was happening and denied boatloads of Jewish refugees access to the US, sending them back to Germany to die. But somehow setting up the UN made up for all that. LongLostLegend (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
In 1988 they gave the award to actual soldiers. Malala seems okay, at least. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't be too surprised when she turns into a fascist dictator. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

### RWRW's terrible analysis

The nomination process of any award isn't the same as the voting process. Hundreds of people are nominated every year for the peace prize...including dictators and terrorist organisations. The vote comes after the nomination. Obama didn't win because he was elected and Trump shouldn't win just because he shook someone's hand in Singapore. Lets take a quick look at the two leaders achievements in international relations

OBAMA:

Good: reestablished diplomatic relationships with several countries. Supported multiple new treaties designed to avoid conflict and suffering, offered more aid to desparate war torn countries, worked out amicable trade deals with many countries in good will and had very good relations with the EU, Canada and Americas other closest allies and amicable elations with China.

He did a few stupid things, especially in North Africa/Middle East. Hard to even remember the details. Notable but not super important.

TRUMP:

The positive:

He shook Kim Yung Ills hand.

Analysis:

Yes Trump shook Kim Yung Ils hand. This did not create peace. since then Kim has renegged in he agreement multiple times and has made numerous threats against America and is yet to meaningfully disassembled nuclear sites now months since his handshake. That's where we stand.

Basically...you think an African American president who restored many of Americas historic good relations with the world and its organizations and did more than most of his predecesors to compromise on global initiatives..does not deserve a prize.

Yet you think that because Trump shook a dictators hand he should win despite him alienating his allies, attacking or withdrawing from world institutions, creating destructive trade barriers, supporting dictators like the leaders of Saudi Arabia, inciting graver problems in Palestine, insulting world leaders, turning the Mexican border into a hot zone, labelling Central American countries as shit holes, wreaking economic instability and creating animosity with many countries, and he hasn't even done anything since to pull through with his promise to denuclearise North Korea while its leader threatens America every week.

Take a step back and ask yourself if you have enough connections in your brain to form non-emotional knee jerk politically unbiased opinions...but rational ones. While I think there were far better candidates than Obama the year he won...he's about the only American leader in 50 years who would deserve the peace-prise. Trump does not deserve a peace award for shaking a mans hand and trashing long standing international relations. That day he or someone like him wins the award...is when the award becomes competely meaningless (it almost did a couple decades ago). — Unsigned, by: Shabidoo / talk / contribs

I'm anticipating the impact of the withdrawal of the Paris Agreement but I didn't get it. :( --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It's entirely possible both of these takes are a raging dumpster fire of bad. Just saying. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Many of your criticisms of Trump are about his opposition to Globalism. We'll never see eye to eye on this but all I'll say is I think any opposition to Globalism is admirable. You also condemn him for insulting other world leaders, even though they happily do the same to him (only a couple off weeks ago they openly laughed at him at a UN speech) . Also I seem to remember Obama considered Jerusalem to be the Capital of Israel. --RWRW (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, Trump didn't "Make the biggest diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea in 70 years". Nothing was achieved. Trump started it, and then shook hands, and nothing happened. NK has been doing this cycles of Threats-Appeasement since 70 years. Nothing changed.109.205.5.33 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

#### RWRW's response fail

RWRW you are trying to defend Trump's policies. That's fine. America is one of the epicentres of globalism and a massive part of your economy and what feeds you vitally depends on it. If you're happy to reduce your salary by 30% and put the world into economic shock (and the political unrest that comes with it) okay. Good luck.

However, all you've done is go "yeah well Obama did something bad too" and "insulting leaders is not a big deal blah blah because other countries do it blah blah blah". You're whining. You're not explaining how Trump insulting most world leaders and countries makes the planet Earth peaceful.

You haven't at all explained how Trump has enabled peace. You've conveniently overlooked all of my arguments that demonstrate that he does not foster peace in the slightest but in fact fosters discord, tensions, barriers and pointless antagonism, the overwealming majority of ex-diplomatic staff say the problems that come from this will last for decades and America will become less relevant and lose substantial economic and political influence/benefits. His number one and only achievement is shaking North Korea's Dictator's hand in Singapore, and then washing his hands of it. In no universe would a president who throws up globalist, economic and political barriers fostering peace. A president who makes most leaders cringe before having to host him for lunch and laugh about him later is an unlikely candidate for peace-maker. A president who encounters broad protest when he travels abroad is an unlikely peacemaker. A president of whom 80% of Canadians, Australians, Russians, South Africans do not trust...is an unlikely candidate.

So you can either explain what some of us are missing here...or you can take back your ridiculous preposterous extremely stupid claim that Trump deserves the Nobel peace prize. ShabiDOO 21:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

## Columbus Day

Columbus Day was yesterday. Some people were celebrating the Native Americans instead of Columbus. However, some right wingers are not happy.

TheEOE (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Conservatives are screaming cockgoblins. Also: sky blue, water wet. How is this news? If anything it would be news if they DIDN'T cry about it. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Rather, those right-wingers, and the leftoids who decided to turn Columbus Day into Indigenous People's Day or what have you, are each other's useful idiots. Both are part of the media machine's drive to contain Moral Endeavour by directing its roilsome anger towards manufactured controversies about the names of minor holidays, and inflating such disputes into Big Deals occupying long minutes of video commentary from everyone. FWIW Columbus Day exists because Italian-Americans persuaded Congress that the country needed a holiday to celebrate the Spanish empire, for some reason. Proof, if you need any, that Catholics aren't really White. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
"Catholics aren't really White." Says the person "against identity politics" and with a Milo Yianopolis quote in their userbox. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
JOKE ------>
Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Which is the joke? Your writing, your profile, both? Poe's law might be striking here... Towards-the Unknown (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

## Suggestion (temporary)

As some floating IP is repeatedly spam-posting the same material should there be a sufficiently long 'sign in to contribute' period to dissuade them? Anna Livia (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to do something to stop it, it is getting pretty annoying. I was tempted to protect the Bar but that'll just stop genuine IPs from joining the discussions. --RWRW (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I meant something along the lines of 'whatever was done in July' - see the exchange in the back alley. A couple of days should suffice. Anna Livia (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been 5 years since it was written and I have yet to find a piece in the mainstream press that surpasses the stupidity of this one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/27/there-is-no-phosphorus-shortage-stop-designing-damn-fool-systems-to-recycle-it/ — Unsigned, by: Gewgtweg / talk / contribs

Could you not sign off on your link, ya muppet? Any chance you could clarify why Worstall's opinion piece is not just stupid but the most stupid piece of journalism in mainstream journalism? That's some claim to make, it's gonna need a bit more than a vague sentence and a link. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Above all is his stupidly aggressive tone. Just because coal won't run out any time soon is no reason scientists shouldn't try their damnest to make fusion commercially viable. Similarly, the fact that there's plenty of phosphorus ore left is no reason to demand that scientists should stop working on projects to make waste management more efficient. In 2008 phosphorus prices startled buyers. He's also totally ignorant of the fact that phosphorus screws the oceans and that using at current rates for centuries will make the oceans an anoxic hell that hasn't been seen since the Permian. The USGS 2013 assessment he states points to appendix C which makes clear the following: "Reserves data are dynamic. They may be reduced as ore is mined and/or the extraction feasibility diminishes, or more commonly, they may continue to increase as additional deposits (known or recently discovered) are developed, or currently exploited deposits are more thoroughly explored and/or new technology or economic variables improve their economic feasibility." Yet this bozo assumes that all of this will definitely be mined which is far from certain, especially in a 1,500 years timeframe. There are dozens of scientific estimates but the most optimistic don't go beyond 200 years and it's beyond his understanding to see why.
That's because reserves specified in tons of phosphate rock are often assumed to be the same as the recoverable amount of phosphate rock concentrate, even if reserves often actually are phosphate rock ore that must be beneficiated in order to be sold, which normally requires a P2O5 content of 30% (Edixhoven et al., 2013). The global resources are estimated by the USGS to be about 300 Gt of phosphate ore, out of which about 67 Gt are considered currently economically recoverable reserves (Jasinski, 2013a). According to Edixhoven et al. (2013), the USGS reserve data is routinely assumed to be listed as phosphate rock concentrate, while it appears that USGS often list reserves in terms of ore.
Also keep in mind that mining is one of the most energy intensive enterprises. So any notion that we'll still be mining in 1,500 years at the rates we do now is ridiculous and suicidal to boot.
The author is a UKIP idiot. You can see that in one of his books (The Breakfast Fallacy) where he compares worries about future supplies of minerals and energy to a belief that breakfast is going to end because we'll eat everything in the fridge. He simply claims that new reserves will keep coming so it isn't something any living person should worry about. His criticism of the Club of Rome is more solid but he makes a crucial mistake. Like the Club of Rome he fails to grasp the cause of what happened in the early 70s. The oil shocks which naturally impacted the prices of other mineral commodities, was an event neither caused by scarcity nor market fluctuations. It was a politically-engineered event and part of the plan to destroy Bretton Woods in the 70s. But this is a topic for another day. Gewgtweg (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Valid points , I might say, but nothing that proves it to be the stupidest piece of mainstream journalism ever written. BTW, is this the same Worstall behind the Continental Telegraph http://continentaltelegraph.com/authors/ ? Now that would be one of the stupidest pieces of mainstream journalism beyond any doubt (ghostwriting for the Daily Sport), up there with Jim Corr's (of the Corrs) contributions to the incredibly moronic newspaper The Sovereign Independent Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes he's the proud founder of Continental Telegraph. I didn't say it's the stupidest piece of all time in mainstream journalism, just the stupidest piece that I personally can recall reading. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

## Nobel Peace Prize

• Barack Obama: Wins an election
• Noble Prize committee: Awesome! Have a Noble Peace Prize
• Donald Trump: Makes the biggest diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea in 70 years
• Noble Prize committee: No prize for you!

I'm not saying this years winners are unworthy, but Trump was much more deserving than Obama. --RWRW (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Which Nobel prize? There are several. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean the Peace prize. Trump was tipped as a likely candidate after his efforts in bringing North Korea to the negotiating table but lost out. Obama simply won an election yet he won. --RWRW (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW What are your sources on the claim that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize merely through being elected? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The official reason was for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" - a made up reason if ever I heard one. What's more he received the nomination only a couple of weeks after taking office [4]. --RWRW (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
So your proof is your opinion on the nomination reason, which without corroborating evidence isn't worth jack shit, and one conservative source which reports that a bunch of Republicans were just asking questions, and itself has zero citations. Is that it or do you have anything better? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
He was nominated less than 1 month after taking the oath of office. That is all the evidence I need to prove that it was politically motivated. Had Clinton won the 2016 election, I bet she would be this years winner. Given the whole issue with Brett Kavanaugh, I don't think it is any coincidence this years winners are sexual abuse campaigners. --RWRW (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW Argument by repetition, argument by assertion, poisoning the well. In that order. When asserting a conspiracy it's best to ask whether your "evidence" will hold up in a court of law, if it can't then you're probably full of shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
We'd never be able to prove it in a court of law, but that doesn't mean its untrue. Common sense shows that political bias is at play if Obama can be nominated after just days of being in office and win, yet Trump prevented a seemingly inevitable war and misses out. --RWRW (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Common sense? That term is so overused as to lack any meaning at this point. Critical thinking and Occam's razor dictate that simplest, most rational conclusion is the correct one, i.e. that Trump is a moron who was all for starting a bloody fucking nuclear war until someone talked him and Kim down, that Trump has yet to put anything in place to actually enforce the current agreement, and that you suffer from either selective memory or intellectual dishonesty, same as the rest of Trump's cheer squad. Those are the facts. Don't like them? Tough shit, we don't like them either. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean it's totally apparent Obama didn't deserve his. Trump ramping up international tensions constantly, then stumbling backwards into personal friendship with a dictator is not a breakthrough. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
RWRW is implying a conspiracy, so far without much proof. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
RWRW doesn't ever post smart things. That's quite aside from the point that giving Obama a peace prize was a dumb thing to do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The fact that the committee gave it to people opposed to sexual assault, should tell you everything you know about President Dragging-Toilet-Paper-Into-AF1's chances of ever getting one. LongLostLegend (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Who cares? The NPP is utterly devoid of meaning anyway thanks to the nomination process.
You do know that Stalin won a NPP right? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
BZZZZT! Wrong. You are the weakest link, goodbye. He was nominated, in 1948, but never actually won it. LongLostLegend (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Kissinger did though. And Aung San Suu Kyi. And they both tacitly endorsed mass murder. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget Cordell Hull, who denied the Holocaust was happening and denied boatloads of Jewish refugees access to the US, sending them back to Germany to die. But somehow setting up the UN made up for all that. LongLostLegend (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
In 1988 they gave the award to actual soldiers. Malala seems okay, at least. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't be too surprised when she turns into a fascist dictator. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

### RWRW's terrible analysis

The nomination process of any award isn't the same as the voting process. Hundreds of people are nominated every year for the peace prize...including dictators and terrorist organisations. The vote comes after the nomination. Obama didn't win because he was elected and Trump shouldn't win just because he shook someone's hand in Singapore. Lets take a quick look at the two leaders achievements in international relations

OBAMA:

Good: reestablished diplomatic relationships with several countries. Supported multiple new treaties designed to avoid conflict and suffering, offered more aid to desparate war torn countries, worked out amicable trade deals with many countries in good will and had very good relations with the EU, Canada and Americas other closest allies and amicable elations with China.

He did a few stupid things, especially in North Africa/Middle East. Hard to even remember the details. Notable but not super important.

TRUMP:

The positive:

He shook Kim Yung Ills hand.

Analysis:

Yes Trump shook Kim Yung Ils hand. This did not create peace. since then Kim has renegged in he agreement multiple times and has made numerous threats against America and is yet to meaningfully disassembled nuclear sites now months since his handshake. That's where we stand.

Basically...you think an African American president who restored many of Americas historic good relations with the world and its organizations and did more than most of his predecesors to compromise on global initiatives..does not deserve a prize.

Yet you think that because Trump shook a dictators hand he should win despite him alienating his allies, attacking or withdrawing from world institutions, creating destructive trade barriers, supporting dictators like the leaders of Saudi Arabia, inciting graver problems in Palestine, insulting world leaders, turning the Mexican border into a hot zone, labelling Central American countries as shit holes, wreaking economic instability and creating animosity with many countries, and he hasn't even done anything since to pull through with his promise to denuclearise North Korea while its leader threatens America every week.

Take a step back and ask yourself if you have enough connections in your brain to form non-emotional knee jerk politically unbiased opinions...but rational ones. While I think there were far better candidates than Obama the year he won...he's about the only American leader in 50 years who would deserve the peace-prise. Trump does not deserve a peace award for shaking a mans hand and trashing long standing international relations. That day he or someone like him wins the award...is when the award becomes competely meaningless (it almost did a couple decades ago). — Unsigned, by: Shabidoo / talk / contribs

I'm anticipating the impact of the withdrawal of the Paris Agreement but I didn't get it. :( --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It's entirely possible both of these takes are a raging dumpster fire of bad. Just saying. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Many of your criticisms of Trump are about his opposition to Globalism. We'll never see eye to eye on this but all I'll say is I think any opposition to Globalism is admirable. You also condemn him for insulting other world leaders, even though they happily do the same to him (only a couple off weeks ago they openly laughed at him at a UN speech) . Also I seem to remember Obama considered Jerusalem to be the Capital of Israel. --RWRW (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, Trump didn't "Make the biggest diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea in 70 years". Nothing was achieved. Trump started it, and then shook hands, and nothing happened. NK has been doing this cycles of Threats-Appeasement since 70 years. Nothing changed.109.205.5.33 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

#### RWRW's response fail

RWRW you are trying to defend Trump's policies. That's fine. America is one of the epicentres of globalism and a massive part of your economy and what feeds you vitally depends on it. If you're happy to reduce your salary by 30% and put the world into economic shock (and the political unrest that comes with it) okay. Good luck.

However, all you've done is go "yeah well Obama did something bad too" and "insulting leaders is not a big deal blah blah because other countries do it blah blah blah". You're whining. You're not explaining how Trump insulting most world leaders and countries makes the planet Earth peaceful.

You haven't at all explained how Trump has enabled peace. You've conveniently overlooked all of my arguments that demonstrate that he does not foster peace in the slightest but in fact fosters discord, tensions, barriers and pointless antagonism, the overwealming majority of ex-diplomatic staff say the problems that come from this will last for decades and America will become less relevant and lose substantial economic and political influence/benefits. His number one and only achievement is shaking North Korea's Dictator's hand in Singapore, and then washing his hands of it. In no universe would a president who throws up globalist, economic and political barriers fostering peace. A president who makes most leaders cringe before having to host him for lunch and laugh about him later is an unlikely candidate for peace-maker. A president who encounters broad protest when he travels abroad is an unlikely peacemaker. A president of whom 80% of Canadians, Australians, Russians, South Africans do not trust...is an unlikely candidate.

So you can either explain what some of us are missing here...or you can take back your ridiculous preposterous extremely stupid claim that Trump deserves the Nobel peace prize. ShabiDOO 21:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

## Columbus Day

Columbus Day was yesterday. Some people were celebrating the Native Americans instead of Columbus. However, some right wingers are not happy.

TheEOE (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Conservatives are screaming cockgoblins. Also: sky blue, water wet. How is this news? If anything it would be news if they DIDN'T cry about it. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Rather, those right-wingers, and the leftoids who decided to turn Columbus Day into Indigenous People's Day or what have you, are each other's useful idiots. Both are part of the media machine's drive to contain Moral Endeavour by directing its roilsome anger towards manufactured controversies about the names of minor holidays, and inflating such disputes into Big Deals occupying long minutes of video commentary from everyone. FWIW Columbus Day exists because Italian-Americans persuaded Congress that the country needed a holiday to celebrate the Spanish empire, for some reason. Proof, if you need any, that Catholics aren't really White. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
"Catholics aren't really White." Says the person "against identity politics" and with a Milo Yianopolis quote in their userbox. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
JOKE ------>
Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Which is the joke? Your writing, your profile, both? Poe's law might be striking here... Towards-the Unknown (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

## Suggestion (temporary)

As some floating IP is repeatedly spam-posting the same material should there be a sufficiently long 'sign in to contribute' period to dissuade them? Anna Livia (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to do something to stop it, it is getting pretty annoying. I was tempted to protect the Bar but that'll just stop genuine IPs from joining the discussions. --RWRW (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I meant something along the lines of 'whatever was done in July' - see the exchange in the back alley. A couple of days should suffice. Anna Livia (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been 5 years since it was written and I have yet to find a piece in the mainstream press that surpasses the stupidity of this one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/27/there-is-no-phosphorus-shortage-stop-designing-damn-fool-systems-to-recycle-it/ — Unsigned, by: Gewgtweg / talk / contribs

Could you not sign off on your link, ya muppet? Any chance you could clarify why Worstall's opinion piece is not just stupid but the most stupid piece of journalism in mainstream journalism? That's some claim to make, it's gonna need a bit more than a vague sentence and a link. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Above all is his stupidly aggressive tone. Just because coal won't run out any time soon is no reason scientists shouldn't try their damnest to make fusion commercially viable. Similarly, the fact that there's plenty of phosphorus ore left is no reason to demand that scientists should stop working on projects to make waste management more efficient. In 2008 phosphorus prices startled buyers. He's also totally ignorant of the fact that phosphorus screws the oceans and that using at current rates for centuries will make the oceans an anoxic hell that hasn't been seen since the Permian. The USGS 2013 assessment he states points to appendix C which makes clear the following: "Reserves data are dynamic. They may be reduced as ore is mined and/or the extraction feasibility diminishes, or more commonly, they may continue to increase as additional deposits (known or recently discovered) are developed, or currently exploited deposits are more thoroughly explored and/or new technology or economic variables improve their economic feasibility." Yet this bozo assumes that all of this will definitely be mined which is far from certain, especially in a 1,500 years timeframe. There are dozens of scientific estimates but the most optimistic don't go beyond 200 years and it's beyond his understanding to see why.
That's because reserves specified in tons of phosphate rock are often assumed to be the same as the recoverable amount of phosphate rock concentrate, even if reserves often actually are phosphate rock ore that must be beneficiated in order to be sold, which normally requires a P2O5 content of 30% (Edixhoven et al., 2013). The global resources are estimated by the USGS to be about 300 Gt of phosphate ore, out of which about 67 Gt are considered currently economically recoverable reserves (Jasinski, 2013a). According to Edixhoven et al. (2013), the USGS reserve data is routinely assumed to be listed as phosphate rock concentrate, while it appears that USGS often list reserves in terms of ore.
Also keep in mind that mining is one of the most energy intensive enterprises. So any notion that we'll still be mining in 1,500 years at the rates we do now is ridiculous and suicidal to boot.
The author is a UKIP idiot. You can see that in one of his books (The Breakfast Fallacy) where he compares worries about future supplies of minerals and energy to a belief that breakfast is going to end because we'll eat everything in the fridge. He simply claims that new reserves will keep coming so it isn't something any living person should worry about. His criticism of the Club of Rome is more solid but he makes a crucial mistake. Like the Club of Rome he fails to grasp the cause of what happened in the early 70s. The oil shocks which naturally impacted the prices of other mineral commodities, was an event neither caused by scarcity nor market fluctuations. It was a politically-engineered event and part of the plan to destroy Bretton Woods in the 70s. But this is a topic for another day. Gewgtweg (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Valid points , I might say, but nothing that proves it to be the stupidest piece of mainstream journalism ever written. BTW, is this the same Worstall behind the Continental Telegraph http://continentaltelegraph.com/authors/ ? Now that would be one of the stupidest pieces of mainstream journalism beyond any doubt (ghostwriting for the Daily Sport), up there with Jim Corr's (of the Corrs) contributions to the incredibly moronic newspaper The Sovereign Independent Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes he's the proud founder of Continental Telegraph. I didn't say it's the stupidest piece of all time in mainstream journalism, just the stupidest piece that I personally can recall reading. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

## Gewgtweg

Good, a title that's guaranteed to draw attention. Now anyway, I just read Gewgtweg's little thesis and had a what the fuck moment, similar to the one you have when a preacher tells you that women's vagina is Baphomet's face. Gewgtweg seems to want a mass surveillanced farmer society, so I'll just call him Big Brother, or BB for short. I wanna know which one you people would rather have: BB's world or a return to the stone age. The latter isn't so bad, agriculture aint all as great as they make it out to be. Sure, it's more food, but it has as much bad as stone age life had. The trade got us equally as much ill effects as we had when we were hunter gatherers. Would you rather have a camera watching you take a duce, or duce in private behind your bush/home.

Stone age life would only be truly unforgiving in a extremely cold or hot climate with few resources. But the Piraha hav it good, and the bushmen lots of leisure time. Plus, no organized religion and no chances for people to abuse their power. There would be less crime and murder cuz lets face it, who has time to kill someone when you have enough to worry about as it is in a tribal setting. Wars wouldn't exist, just small scale skirmishes. I know that there are many more options, but pretend these are the only ones and take your pick. BobRoss (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I want a majority-farmer society but that also retains the benefits of science and industry. The supplies to do that won't be available in in a couple centuries time if the world continues down this insane path. I want the world to stop its extremely wasteful ways. We can only force this change with military power that's used to secure the world's remaining resources and distribute them only to countries that comply with our policies. The process would be no doubt painful, risky and require many sacrifices but it's nowhere nearly as bad as what's ahead of us if we do nothing. A degree of surveillance is always necessary to counter potential threats and we have it now anyway. A majority-farmer society however would hardly require much surveillance, except to combat crime.
We don't live in the tropics and we can't live off nature the way tribes in those areas do. There are no beasts to hunt anymore. We need domestic animals and agriculture to survive. Per-capita violence in the stone age was much higher than in civilized times. Gewgtweg (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
So you want an agrarian society that comes with all the advantages of not being an agrarian society. Including the military capability to extend one's will across the planet.
...Yeah. I think I'm just going to leave this here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
He says, A majority-farmer society however would hardly require much surveillance, except to combat crime. Just what I'd expect Big Brother to say 'fore going all out and installing cameras in your pants. How 'bout we simply let this insane path take its course. The few who survive the diminishing of resources by their own means will become a hunter gatherer tribe, and they'll be able to live off Nature because the population will be so small. BobRoss (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMcbeth The majority of workers don't work in industry but the service sector. You can very comfortably maintain an industrial-military complex without the majority of your population being industrial workers. The nature of modern automation requires less people than ever. But even as far back as 70 years ago Nazi Germany relied for its fuel after the loss of oil-rich Romania on a small number of hydrogenation plants, about 10 or so. Industry is not the problem, humongous levels of consumption is.
@BobRoss How do you plan to survive without tap water, supermarkets, modern sanitation services, radiation from nuclear meltdowns (since there will be nobody to maintain the nuclear plants), and lots of people that want to eat you alive? I think it's best not to opt for this path. Gewgtweg (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Like I said BB, the population would be so small in a Stone Age setting that I wouldn't have to worry much bout competition for resources or cannibals. As for sanitation, I boil water with something we call faiyah! And I don't live near any nuclear facilities, thank !Xu! I'll have a nice diet of grasshoppers, locusts, beetles, caterpillars, nuts, roots, berries in my local area, basil leaves, my peach trees and edible grass. Presumably BB will live off of other human beings. BobRoss (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Gewgtweg has lost the ability which we humans have evolved after many millennia of being hunter gatherers, the ability to think ahead. He could not foresee that his question is so easily answered. He does not know de wae. BobRoss (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
If we poll "malnutrition" against "majority-farmer society with some surveillance" guess what people would rather live with. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
How is that diet malnutrition? It's varied diet, and would be even better if you add fish, squirrel, and rabbits into the equation. What is your society gonna live off of, bread and water? BobRoss (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The rabbit is the leanest animal in the north. They can be difficult to catch and are not worth much in terms of nutrition. Relying only on rabbits can lead to so-called rabbit-starvation. Squirrels are better but without a firearm to shoot them you might have a tough time trapping them. Your stone age will also have to deal with our pollution and overfishing. Water might not be safe to drink even if boiled. Same for whatever fish you might get.
My society would eat the same stuff all people do since the dawn of civilization. Meat, dairy and everything that comes from grain. A diet that consists of nuts and weeds, insects that are hard to obtain in serious quantities (unless you live in the tropics) and puny forest animals is a sure way to chronic malnutrition. Besides I'm not looking forward to spending my entire day foraging for food. I'd rather work for a few hours (that could be fewer if we still have access to agricultural machinery and agrichemicals) and go to sleep in a comfortable, warm house on a full stomach next to my life's companion. Going half-hungry and sleeping in a crude shelter doesn't excite me. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Dairy hasn't been eaten since the dawn of time. I live in a semi-tropical area teeming with big nuts and huge fuckin insects, so I'm lucky. BobRoss (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Fun fact. In pre-industrialized societies, farmers, fishermen, woodcutters, miners, smelter workers, etc (that is, primary sector) made up 65% of society, not the 90% people imagine. Farmers, hunters and fishers themselves combined were maybe 30-40%.CoryUsar (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The bushmen of the Kalahari were once the largest population on earth. Let that sink in Gewgtwig. BobRoss (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bob The earliest evidence for dairying is in Early Neolithic Anatolia. As you know, the only reason (most of us) can digest milk is that our ancestors have been consuming dairy for a long time.
@CorruptUser You are correct but let's remember that in all pre-industrial societies farming was easily the most populous single job. All other jobs could vary significantly in the percentage of people they employed depending on the time and place in question. The overwhelming majority of women were occupied with converting the products of farming into edible and wearable stuff and should in that sense be considered a kind of farmer too.
@Bob From what I read in the journal literature, the science is still out on that one. Don't understand your point though. The only take-home message is how much climate influenced populations before farming. Droughts etc. winnowed other groups and the Khoisan represent a genetic legacy that has since been lost on other groups. Gewgtweg (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I am reminded of the Zen koans regarding this particular problem, but then I realize that's all baloney and George Jones is the relevant authority Ariel31459 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Gewgtweg most people can't digest milk. Who do you think you're fooling you can't digest milk, not completely anyway. Approximately 65 percent of the human population has a reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy. Drink enough of it and you, yes you, will get constipated, unless your Mongolian or something. BobRoss (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought East Asians have it harder than most Western groups when it comes to handling lactose. But still most people of all backgrounds can manage a glass of milk without problems and it's better to get the nutrition than not get it. It's also an excellent source of vitamin D. Besides, dairy isn't just milk. Other dairy products are easier to digest. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's some advice, drink milk and increase your chances of getting cancer or breaking a hip. Now what was that about nutrition? BobRoss (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

## Extremely large numbers in mathematics: how do mathematicians figure out these numbers?

Like Graham's number, Rayo's number and googolplex. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Of the three, the last two are not really useful for anything, so not really worth talking about. The first is hypothetically useful for cryptography. Finding large primes is technically simple computationally difficult. The dumb way to do it is the same way you're taught in math class. There are some tricks for weeding out non-primes, which can speed up calculation, particularly on a computer, somewhat. Bongolian (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
To add on that point, in higher level mathematics mathematicians aren't terribly interested in performing calculations with these numbers. In many cases, these numbers arise as a result of sequences that grow incredibly fast (look up the busy beaver problem or other non-computable functions). Another common source of these incredibly large numbers comes from combinatorics, as an example in my Topology class we briefly discussed upper bounds on how many valid topologies exist for a given finite set (the number is very large). The unifying feature is that these numbers aren't as interesting in and of themselves as the process we use to describe them. (Vaguely related video and another one that touches on what Bongolian brought up regarding cryptography). Samstr (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As for Googolplex, well... they simply made it up. No calculation was involved. (This isn't a bad thing, actually.) You can find the reference here-- googolplex Kencolt (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Numbers larger than twenty-four are witchcraft. Nobody has that many fingers and toes. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
What about real numbers less than 24? No one can count to 3/2 or [math]\sqrt{2}[\math] on their fingers or toes either. And we haven't even gotten into the negative or complex numbers yet. Samstr (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It is possible to count to 3/2, at least, with the assistance of a sharp enough hatchet. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you're going by Yakuza math... Kencolt (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yan, tan, tethera… and the Wikipedia page on finger counting. Anna Livia (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

## More San Names!

Xu, a crater on Rhea, the second largest moon of Saturn, is named after ǃXu, a San god. I say this should be done more often, why does Latin have to take the spotlight? Western civilization has brought so many indigenous languages to extinction and pretty much does little to at least let a few fragments remain. The Salishan languages, Koisan, Australian, all dying without so much as a legacy. Scientists should do what they did with the crater, but this time with newly discovered species. BobRoss (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If they can't maintain their lingos nobody can do it for themselves. And we can't name every little thing in the universe with an actual name from a real language. We can use a code of numbers and letters. Gewgtweg (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I've long thought that any future discovered planets and minor planets ought to be named after demons or infernal deities. Give the astrologers something to chew on. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah Gtweggrrtwergrtergwwrew, there's clearly a limited number of objects in space to name...if we name every star after every God we drempt up in human history...there would be none left...right? I'm sure you're better at math than I...am I right? Naming a single object after a God of a now extinct language (in part thanks to us) as one of the sole remains of a culture encompasing millions of human beings over centuries is clearly unreasonable. The correct name for a star shouldn't be Chalchiuhtlicue but instead "IRAS 04509-6922". Shall we tear up their ancient books and relics and throw them on the fire too? ShabiDOO 18:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Wake me up the day stars and stuff start using the names of video game characters. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Already the case. There's the trinary system called "Ms. Pacman" in Galaxy XXX666 right next to the "Donkey Kong galaxy" in the "Green-turtle-that-start spinning-around if-you-jump-on-it-and-knocks out-red-turtles and-you-if you-arent-careful" supercluster. Though I think "The day we wiped out the last Newfoundland Native speaker" would be a more appropriate testament to logic and reason. ShabiDOO 19:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Shabidoo for your support, at last someone who hasn't ascribed to the algebraic abominations of modern science. I think giving actual names to stars and planets would keep them from getting mixed up, especially if the names describe the planet's features. Proposing a system where IRAS 04509-6922 and IRAS 04509-6921 exist side by side is clearly demonic and an insult to the Gǁàòànsi. BobRoss (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Gewtweg - the answer is - people other than you have empathy and imagination, and are willing to use names and interesting words from other languages because they can. (Caesar adsum iam forte, Pompey aderat.) So long as the words are memorable and pronounceable the more the merrier (and perhaps there can be themes and aide-memoires in the choice of terms).
And people on other planets elsewhere in the universe #are having exactly the same discussion right now.# Anna Livia (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I know, how about I make a petition on www.change.org? I'll request that NASA rename the exoplanets discovered in 2018. Sound good? BobRoss (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo There isn't just stars you have to name. It's craters, asteroids and so on. And yes, even magical deities end sometimes because it's not practical to borrow names from languages totally alien to the phonology of English. For a guy that can't help himself making fun of my username, you should have noticed that "IRAS 04509-6922" is pronounceable whereas "Chalchiuhtlicue" is not. If a person that speaks the language where that name came from heard you pronouncing that, he would laugh at you and you wouldn't be laughing back.
You've mistaken me for a Carl Peters kind of guy or what?
@AnnaLivia It's very tempting to simply ignore you as any person probably would that is trying to discuss something in depth or isn't a troll fed by your notorious touchiness. But I am a more compassionate person than the human caricature you have in mind, so I'll pretend for a moment that you're worth replying to.
A name of unknown Gods and demons is simply a combination of letters and it doesn't help you memorize anything. And it's not like you (or me for that matter) would need to memorize a lot of them anyway. Only professional astronomers care where the heck IRAS-93353252 is and what the heck it is made of. Laymen only care if it's identical to earth.
There is no evidence of extra-terrestrial life, much less human life. Gewgtweg (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
My 'notorious touchiness'? If you #were# compassionate you would not be blaming the victims in the manner that you do, and you would not belittle other points of view.
Makemake is more memorable than 2005 FY9 or 136472 - and perhaps astronomers wish to emphasise that their subject is part of the totality of human experience and knowledge.
I am self-confident, have a female username and know that I have added to the sum of human knowledge - and I choose to contribute to RW (among other places). What about this statement means that you feel you have to belittle me? Anna Livia (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@AnnaLivia You fail to distinguish between someone who is blaming ONLY the victims and operates from an ideological point of view and someone who blames a number of factors including the behavior of victims themselves and operates from a non-ideological point of view. The fanatic or the sire of war criminals will say "they deserve it". The naive humanist says "it's all on the perpetrators". The nihilist says "look, there's many grey zones here".
If I say that responsibility for school shootings lies not just with the NRA and politickers but also the American public as a whole, which stupidly advocates getting shot by weapons designed exclusively to kill humans, is that blaming ONLY the victims for you? All I ever said is that victims carry their share of responsibility. I know it is taboo, but it's true.
The problem with the world's menu of deities and magical beings is that they run out and are very often hard to (mis)pronounce. Unfortunately the phonology of English has its limits. Combinations of numbers and letters don't end.
You can't address strangers and say nothing beyond stuff like "you lack compassion and imagination", "you are a verbal abuser no ifs and no buts" and "I could say what I feel about you but I won't" and "stop polluting the wikiverse and go away", and "don't complain and leave". There is something called basic manners goddamnit. I don't care how confident you are or how feminine your username is. You will obey manners if you wish to be respected.
You have added to the sum of human knowledge? Seriously? That is a very bold statement to make. Where's your ground-breaking academic or scientific research? I want to see it. Gewgtweg (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Names of other cultures are used 'cause the names of Greco-roman (etc) mythology are pretty much exhausted, especially on what refers to asteroids and of couse to be inclusive of other cultures (and happens quite often, I think the Gazeteer of Planetary Nomenclature is the place where to look). Being pronunceable or not is another thing.
As for other objects, well, I've named some galaxies I've spotted after fictional -or not- characters, metal bands, places, and other things but it's just for personal use and mainly the result of mind wandering while attempting to catch that faint patch of light (shit, Conservapedia has one). Panzerfaust (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Gewgtweg how is Chalchiuhtlicue not pronounceable? It's easier than saying strengths. What, did the lateral fricatives get you? If you think that's hard, try saying, !áú!ù'úrú ó !hámà gá !xòm gǂàqò má kàrè n!ún à. Yes Rationalwiki, I've been learning... Nǃxau ǂToma (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Chalchiuhtlicue is pronounced /tʃaːl.tʃiw.ˈtɬi.kʷe/, which isn't particularly difficult. The only sound in the word that isn't in English is the /tɬ/, which is simply 't' appended to the Welsh <ll> sound, and can be approximated for English speakers as 'tth' i.e. /tθ/. Nahuatl is one of the easiest and IMO prettiest of the Native American languages in its sound system. What throws people is the Spanish-based traditional spelling, which is to some respect an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Gewgtweg - you are accusing whole categories of people of deliberately allowing themselves to be victimised - and you are being discourteous/using words some people find offensive. One does not 'obey' manners (which do vary according to the context - even between RW and the other place) - and respect is earned in many ways. I am treating you civilly regardless - #that# is good manners.
As for my qualifications etc - consider (a) 'very many people' have RW-specific user-names and (b) the wide range of information I refer to here (can I bring Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft into the pronunciation discussion?). Anna Livia (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Smerdis It's not that the sounds cannot be found in English. The word structure "feels" too alien. English speakers are not used to pronouncing long words with two "ch"s, "tl" and "iw". Besides, people would not be sure how to pronounce this instantly. A simpler name has to be found. Consider the name "Genghis Khan". The original form had to become very twisted for Indo-European speakers to be able to pronounce it. Unless we change it into something more palatable like "chaw-chew thruck", forget it. There's a reason why foreign words change significantly when entering a new language. Why did Milano became Mailand and Venezia Venedig in Fritzian?
@AnnaLivia I am not accusing them of deliberately allowing themselves to be victimized. Nobody deliberately allows himself to be victimized. This is psychologically impossible unless one wants to commit suicide or has a sort of sick fetish.
They just aren't doing as much as they could to stop this madness. That's the reason why we are supposed to be raising awareness. It's about getting people to raise their voice more, and do it louder and clearer.
Right, I apologize for the "obey manners" and the abruptness of it all. I welcome your criticism but please focus on criticizing what I say more than the supposed character of the person that is saying it. Saying bad or negative things doesn't make you a bad or negative person and saying good or positive things doesn't make you a good or positive person. If that was the case all televangelists would be morally perfect angels which we know them not to be.
Such lexical railroads are meant as jokes or to highlight the morphological features of a language. They are not used in a serious official or practical context. This example too was meant as a joke. If we break the word up, Donau (Danube), Dampfschiffahrt (steam shipping), Elektrizitäten-Hauptbetriebswerkbau (electric servicing main terminal building), Unterbeamtengesellschaft (subordinates association), I think an English speaker could pronounce it comfortably even though it would still sound funny in the ears of a native. "Chalchiuhtlicue" cannot be pronounced as comfortably. Gewgtweg (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This post was originally about San' names, not Aztec ones. Khoisan names are normally one to two syllables long, shouldn't be a problem. Just replace the clicks with other sounds if it bothers you so much. Would !xòm be so hard? Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Can [5]/[6]/[7] be included.
And, Gewgtweg - one can take some responsibility to minimise risks and problems (obvious scam emails, flashing bling in a poor neighbourhood...) but not be able to do anything with an insidious and growing threat/a system which is biased against one etc - and could anyone in the Twin Towers buildings have done anything to stop the situation? Bear in mind that text, especially when read in multiple contexts (different countries, cultures etc) may well be read in different ways and 'who says it' may well affect how the text is interpreted. Anna Livia (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bob Sure but there's two problems. Eventually the parade of gods has to end. The second is that in quite a few cases we won't be sure how it's pronounced. We have to contend with a legacy of insufficient spelling reforms in English.
@Anna Indeed there's nothing someone in the Twin Towers could have done. But could American policy have prevented Islamic terrorism from appearing in the first place? Now that's a more complex question.
These are often names of places originally settled or inhabited by non-speaking immigrants/natives and written in either a way their own languages would spell or in a way some official believed approximates the pronunciation. In cases where the words are of English origin the cause of this inconvenience is insufficient spelling reforms for which prejudiced literati and linguists are responsible. Borrowing Gods from foreign cultures would bring about similar problems. It's not that I'm entirely against it but it has its setbacks.
It's absolutely true that what is read can be interpreted differently by different people and that the identity or presumed motives of who says it can be decisive about whether people choose to believe it or not. Still, effort should be made to refute someone's ideas and claims rather than make assumptions about their character or motives. Those assumptions might very well be true but it's just etiquette that we avoid it as it helps keep things civil. When an internet discussion degenerates to an invective-hurling contest it's because one of the two parties called the other a name and the other party wasn't able to resist the temptation to retaliate. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)