RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive294

This is an archive page, last updated 15 November 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (back)

You are alone[edit]

This is something I have a problem with and it concerns this nonduality bit. It's a bit off of the "everything is one", and the aspect of there not being an independent self. How everything that appears seperate is just an expression of the universe. SO if everything is one then that means that there are no friends and no one else.Machina (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3

(talk • stalk) 00:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an extension of the "no self" proclaimed truth from buddhism. That what you see before you is merely just an extension of the universe and not something independent with it's own essence. Therefor, seperateness is just an illusion since everything is connected by being part of the whole.Machina (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, but that's everybody else too. There's something to get along with based on that. So if your independent existence is no less special than mine, and no more real than mine, it's no more important than mine. On that level, we can should be able to agree it's all fake.

Being as it's fake anyway, it would be a good time to decide what friendship and everyone else means to you personally. I mean, everything is connected on a physical level but it's not like you can move the entire earth by doing a pushup. You can't even compress the concrete beneath you on any measurable level by doing a pushup. You have the brain power to rationalize what connects you to everything. It's up to you how you spend that brain power. Dealing with other people and actually experiencings their experiences in this big fake world makes a hell of a bigger dent in your time trapped as an existential being than trying to move the world in a different direction with your hopes and dreams. I'm not saying give up your hopes and dreams, but believing you exist on a different level than the other people who exist on a false premise is bad philosophy. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you get what I said. It's that since everything is one then that means there is no one else, because it posits separateness as an illusion. That the divisions that we think exist are only in our minds and made by us. Hence loneliness.Machina (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And I don't think you get that I'm in this dance too, somehow, some way. I include you and what you've said in my experience. Fit that into your one somehow. Without me, there's not my experience in the world. Without me, to me, there's nothing. Without you, there's nothing worth living for. The point is made by the person, and isn't it more fun to talk about the points? Do you get the difference?

Sorry, reading that again, no, I didn't explain the difference. But if you're going to die, you might as well do what you can until then. There's an old Built to Spill song that points this out. 'Without me, there's nothing, I'm the only thing that dies. If it came down to your life or mine, I would do a stupid thing and let you keep on living." forgive me for not being able to poke any holes in that as I've grown older.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite apart from your connections or lack thereof with other people, the conscious part of you that you identify as yourself only has insight into very limited parts of your body. You can't scrutinise the inner formation of your thoughts and you certainly can't, say, consciously digest an apple. It seems like maybe this is leading you towards solipsism? I think this is a big mistake. Nothing in these semi-religious philosophies has any technical meaning. You won't find any real answers because the questions are illusory. Sentences like "Everything that appears separate is just an expression of the universe." don't mean anything. There may be some technical truths behind this sort of thing, but there's no reason to assume humans can grasp them any more than a rat can understand prime numbers. MunX (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I am in accordance with this, the only problem I have is that this is the same exact reasoning some believers who have had an inexplicable religious experience use to justify their belief. So I'm going to elaborate, if you don't mind. If a donkey can't do algebra, does that make humans God in comparison? I'm terrible at algebra, does that mean God made math? It's very important to actively separate the things we don't understand from some grander purpose that may not exist. Otherwise, it's really easy to be the rat that can't understand prime numbers, and just let the human that claims they understand what happens when you die guide your opinions. I, personally, am the ape that is bad at math, even though I have to do it constantly. I don't just trust the other apes that give me the math, I check it with the tools and formulas that have been proven to work for the math. Because this baboon's ass is bright red if I mess up a supply order, and I have to make sure every other ape did their math right before I send it along.

I dislike the donkey doing algebra rhetoric. It dehumanizes me. Humans also misunderstand and misinterpret and misrepresent, and more broadly, experience things they can't put down on paper. A rat might experience a prime number. If it can't recognize it, that's a limit that needs to be taken into account and worked with directly, if you're trying to teach rats prime numbers. Thankfully, I'm trying to work with apes, and we seem to have some bitchin-strong aptitude for causality.

In summation, so what if you have an experience you can't explain? So what if you think we're alone? Does anybody not have these questions? Rats probably wonder this in their rat brains too. Just because we're a little better at finding reasons than rats are, doesn't mean some other human has the answer to your most pressing question. But I can say, if God existed and was all powerful and wanted you to know he loved you and cared about you, this question couldn't possibly come up in the first place. There are lots of people who will love and care about you upon conditions. I might not fulfill your requirements for love or care, just like many people don't fulfill mine, but being alone is a silly made up problem us apes come up with. Go to the mall, spend 5 dollars on something stupid, watch all the apes care about your purchase. They are only half faking it, they actually do like you there, they would rather not be there themselves is all. Anecdotal from the last time I went to the mall, I don't have research to back up this claim. But alone? Strong rhetoric for a universal feeling. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain I understood all that the way you intended it, but I'll try to answer a few points.

"If a donkey can't do algebra, does that make humans God in comparison?" No. God is an absolute concept with only infinite properties. Therefore, it's abilities could not be compared to anything. The donkey is just another being with different intellectual scope.

If you are bad at maths, it certainly does not mean that God made maths. It means that the part of your mind that deals with mathematics is either unpracticed, damaged in some way, or simply genetically weaker than that of the average person. After all, God is just an idea that humans can imagine. It's not something that could exist in reality. The idea is something like "infinite power, knowledge, presence and rightness". Humans have just slapped a beard on it and personified that idea because, frankly, we're arrogant fools.

Human abilities have scope and limits (which are the same thing). The fact that some things fall outside our scope, but may fall within some other hypothetical being's scope, should not dehumanise us. It's not dehumanising to point these things out, any more than to state that no human could jump to the moon.

By the way, I personally doubt that any other creatures on Earth have secret existential crises. I don't think they wonder about their own mortality or consider whether they are alone or what that might mean etc etc. I think these things probably started with language (not spoken language, the linguistic structure of some human thought). I can't imagine how to prove this either way. MunX (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wow. What an exercise in pantheistic monism. Vive Liberté! 13:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I had an argument against the doubt that other creatures have secret existential crises, but it got so long winded that I kinda left it as "I guess I don't know" and trashed it. But I think we're in disagreement about how analogous an experience can be. Just because I might say "What is my purpose?" when I'm buying my lunch from Taco Bell, and have the exact words for what I'm exactly feeling at that time, doesn't mean I can't be actively drowning and use those same words. So which is a more correct usage of those words> On some level, it's analogous. So what is the question worth, if it's analogous to both situations? If I wonder about the same purposeful existential crisis if I am literally drowning as I wonder when I am literally not drowning, what are the odds other animals don't experience a similar thing? Survival instinct is shared, lots of animals have huge brains, I think your existential crisis argument is worse than an existential understanding argument.

I think you need to inventory which animals really understand their effect on their environment before you go saying they don't have a chance to have uncertainty about their place in existence. Humans have the best idea about being nowhere, but what's the purpose of defining the existential crisis if you aren't even measuring it?

Sorry if I'm off the point, I'm in a bit of an anxiety crisis myself. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There's tones of Animals in this world, you're never alone..TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

the myth that poor whites are racist[edit]

Why do neoliberals think poor whites are racist authoritarians and rich whites are anti-racist liberals when all the data shows exactly the opposite? Not to mention anecdotal evidence as well as data shows that it is always the rich who are racist, right-wing, anti-open borders, socially conservative pricks while the poor generally hold both economic and social views far to the left of any mainstream politician. Most racist are conservative, Trump-voting elitists in the suburbs who also hate poor whites. Racism is almost nonexistent among the proletariat, as is support for Trump. Rundevilrun (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)₩

But there's also the evidence that poor whites statistically (inarguable because of racial demographics on populations) receive the lion's share of welfare benefits while simultaneously deriding welfare benefits https://academic.oup.com/sf/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/sf/soy046/5002999?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Spearheaded by Berkley, take that for what it's worth, but also, take it for what it's worth. I mean, you're spouting conjecture here. Racism is rampant, and support of Trump goes layers deep in the Midwest, and I would assume the South. You're forgetting the fact that poor white people basically comprise the voting demographics in these areas of the country. And they voted Trump. And from personal experience, living with and speaking to these people, they have very racially informed views of the worth and potential of humans. Politeness is the norm in the Midwest, but it doesn't make the church circle talk or voting booth decisions any less racist or sexist. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean we're not taking into account black racists and republicans either. Or the fact that Shilary Clinton was a bad choice, but that's another debate- Sincerely TheDarkMaster2

Correct. Not a whole lot taken into account here. I had my problems with Hillary in her position as secretary of state, giving a go-ahead to a project that you probably thought was smart. The Keystone Pipeline was garbage, and you don't care about Hillary illegally giving TransCanada a pass, which let them put out false eminent domain statements. You don't know anything about that. I still voted for Hillary, even though she, personally, sold my state and the landowners therein out. I worked against it. I personally worked to shut it down. It wasn't much, but I showed up to paint billboards and to help build a solar/wind powered barn. I went to Washington to protest environmental wrongs. I did that in the face of Hillary Clinton leading the state department in an illegal approval of a reckless project. And we won. And then I voted Clinton for president anyway, and now the EPA is rolling back everything I fought to improve. Most of the people I protested with voted Trump, some Stein, some Johnson. A few of us voted Clinton, not because we liked her, but because we were voting for President. I wanted to vote Stein so bad, but I couldn't. Tell me what your vote meant, if you're so sure of it Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I voted for Clinton. I voted for her because it was either her or Trump in the oval office. Trump is shit both personally and professionally, not to mention being terminally incompetent. I voted for the better candidate. Anyone who voted for Trump after half the crap he said doesn't get to criticize me, they lost that right when they did the political equivalent of dropping a lit molotov cocktail on themselves. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I Voted third party, does that mean I can criticize you for voting for Shillary Clinton? Or am I not allowed to speak wrongthink? She's such a better candidate that she wanted war with Russia and further the War debt. You can't say she'd be better after the fact, that's bullshit No one could predict the future.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

"She's such a better candidate that she wanted war with Russia and further the War debt." Are you high? That's a Russian talking-point. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs}

What's your take on how her suggestion of a no-fly zone over Syria would've turned out? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't have one but I do. It seems like a sure fire way to start war with Russia. But then again because some russian website no one uses said that objective fact must mean it's russian Propaganda.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Ever caught yourself wondering how...[edit]

RW saloon bar got so boring? I left for a while for pretty much the same reason but I found nowhere better to go. I feel like some virtual reality homeless guy. It's nothing compared to the real thing but it still sucks. Thatcher said that poverty is a personality defect. In real life that's of course largely nonsense but if you feel as poor as homeless does in the cyber world then you know it's indeed a personality defect. You know what? Maybe we should allow some cranks in. The crankier they are the better. Life would be very boring without cranks don't you think? Gewgtweg (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Try poking User:RWRW. He'll probably defend Thatcherism if you want to fight back. Cranks can be fun to watch: just keep them the fuck out of government, thank you. Bongolian (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

heh heh, (mild) irony 27.32.146.237 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Haha, funny you mention Thatcher. Only a couple of days ago me and one of my left-leaning friends were debating whether she should be on the new £50 note. --RWRW (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

May as well, only criminals use the £50 note, we can put a mean looking hard stare Thatcher portrait on the notes with some slogan like "I will meet you in hell". :D — Dysk (contribs) 10:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It isn’t often I agree with Gorgeous George, but his suggestion that putting her on the £50 note would stop the Bullingdon Club burning them in front of homeless people made me laugh. —RWRW (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean I think it' interesting if only because it shows "Rational" Wikia's insanityTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Given how nicely this question has aged in the last few days, hit me with some real talk Gewg. Are you TheDarkMaster? MunX (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Who wouldn't want to be a or better yet THE dark master? That's the only way I can deflect your question without mentioning paranoia and tin-foil hats. Gewgtweg (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if his non-stop creating red links to a mainspace article titled "TheDarkMaster2" is intentional. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

BrazilWatch[edit]

Welp. Brazil decided that the guy who openly admires their old brutal military dictatorship should become their next President. At this point, I'm struggling to find the energy to care, I have to ration out the fucks I give. Just going to drink some beer and watch the world end. CoryUsar (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well if it makes you care a little more, people are going to be hurt by this person and... well... I don't know what I can do about it. I want to care, but I also want to care about all the proxy wars in other places. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 23:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I know they are going to get hurt. But the public voted the guy in overwhelmingly (so much as 56% is "overwhelming"), and I do believe in the "right to be wrong" from Firefly/Serenity. I just think that their "right to be wrong" includes the obligation that they and they alone suffer the consequences. If the guy works, gets crime under control and grows the economy that way , more power to them , but if Brazil goes to shit as a result, their neighbors can't nor should they have to handle the influx of refugees. CoryUsar (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"right to be wrong" Good for you, its apparently totally fine that a politician who stated that he would want his son to die if he's gay,advocated forcibly sterilizing the poor and openly supports a military dictatorship. Apparently "fuck the 44%" is just your policy and well, if they die they die and if they try to leave well screw them too from what you said. Vorarchivist (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

He will 'get crime under control' by murdering and torturing petty criminals. As we all know, murder is only a crime for certain people, and only if a book or patsy court says so. He will 'grow the economy' by intensifying slavery and wage slavery. Obviously, slavery is fine as long as the investment class profits from it. He will solve environmental issues by abolishing the environment and probably murdering it's activists. He will do this in the country with the world's largest rainforest, southern bastion of carbon absorption and biodiversity. He will create many refugees, but since this will clearly be all their fault, their neighbors must not help them. I'm sure there was no corruption involved in the election of a man for whom corruption is clearly a first principle. Oh, I'm sure your fucks to give are all tied up elsewhere. MunX (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have news for you; human rights are, sadly, dependent upon what society can afford, and Brazil really can't afford the same level of justice and protections that Sweden can. There's a reason that jails/prisons weren't widespread until a few hundred years ago and that reason isn't because people were much meaner back then. Do I think that Bolsonaro's death squads are going to make things better? Not likely, but not impossible.

Keeping wages low doesn't grow the economy, it only helps the small percentage of people that are business owners. At least until they run out of customers. These business owners do not make up 55% of the population, and so when half the population votes for something that I think is going to harm them, well, I am sure they know their situation better than me so I'm just going to butt out of their business.

No, I don't like his environmental stances at all. However, the blame for mining the rainforests lies just as much as with those buying up those minerals; if we had made everything recyclable in the first place, this wouldn't even be a problem. CoryUsar (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Brazil is just another extremely rich country with extremely poor people. It could easily afford the justice of Sweden. It is just at a radically different stage of democratic class struggle. As for it being 'not impossible' that death squads will improve things, maybe if you see mass terror and the generations of trauma and misery it creates as an improvement.

Keeping wages low attracts international investment, enriching owners through slavery. If you have trouble finding local customers, you export. Only helping business owners and crushing workers is the whole point. All this said, the economy growing is an assumption in the first place. It could recede for all he cares, so long as he and his can grab it all up. Populations vote against their best interests all the time, see my constant references to propaganda. Add to this voter suppression and the possibility of outright fraud.

It's his job as the leader of a nation to regulate to protect their environment from "those buying up those minerals". He won't do his job, instead he'll ransack the place and leave it in ruins. MunX (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's important to understand that, socially, Brazil is still sort of reeling from the last dictatorship that only ended 30 years ago. Blaming the continuing fallout from that and the 2008 thing on the most recent administration is easy. Combine that with 30 years being the perfect time to have middle-aged people who are nostalgic for all the problems they could ignore in the last dictatorship, and military fascism makes a kind of "sense". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This is on top of all the stupid right-wing movements that have been going on, with Bolsonaro taking pages from Donald Trump and also relying massively on spreading fake news. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 17:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

My main concern with that man are environmental issues. He supposedly wants to get rid of a good deal of Amazonian rainforest and I very seriously doubt he'll not be another climate change denialist. And add to that a good dose of Fundagelicanism. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Same here. What is the deal with right-wing not giving a care about the natural habitat everyone else is working so hard to preserve? You'd think right-wing translates to keeping stuff from the past intact. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 01:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I respect you and assume you already know this Mario. It's because their claimed core philosophies are lies. Their only true principles are greed and tribalism. In the end, fascism is always about one person and how the rest of the world can be bent to serve them. MunX (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts on it are that they were under an extremely corrupt far-left government and are now swinging too far in the opposite direction. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that. It isn't about an "extremely corrupt far-left", it is about every single politician being extremely corrupt. The previous government wasn't far-left, it was "lefter" than the american left, but not even close to what most europeans would call left. Then that guy, who was working in congress for 30 years, could never get a single project approved, saw an opportunity to use the whole corrupt system, plus the power of religion to control the masses and the fact that people forget how bad things were in the past and built his whole campaign saying "the military regimen wasn't corrupt, god should be above everyone and the gays and affirmative action are weapons of the communists to bring our country down". After he had the radicals backing him up, he just used the same tactics as the right-wing does on the US, and it worked exactly like it did on the US. 189.38.141.176 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I know this will sound like every conspiracy theorist everywhere, but bigs, you've eaten a boatload of propoganda as fact. Every investigation that was run into the corruption found a fuck ton of center-right party corruption, and their party leader was corrupt as hell, dozens of secret properties in the name of mistresses, explicit quid-pro-quo votes from local strongmen, and the one thing they could pin on major worker's party leaders was pretty reasonable to interpret as an accounting error of a relative. And that was the one case of an impeachment. But the right-wing controlled media played it as the worst controversy in the history of the country, lula was jailed, illegally denied the right to run in the election despite being, by far, the most popular candidate, and the fascist won. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Since this section is called BrazilWatch, here's a funny thing from Brazil: https://twitter.com/Zondi_Elihle/status/1049557185502609409. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Mod elections[edit]

Sorry if I’m mistaken but aren’t we due to hold the mod elections soon? 92.232.68.146 (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I will get onto it shortly. — Dysk (contribs) 10:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Here we go.

★ 2024 ★

Moderator Election Schedule

Nominations and campaigning will begin on:
6 November 2024
and will end on on:
27 November 2024

Voting is closed.
Starts: 17:00 UTC, 27 November 2024
Ends: 17:00 UTC, 4 December 2024

Results will be announced on a later date.

We will elect:
6 mods, 2 alternates

v - t - e

Now this as you might see is very different to previous elections. There is two weeks for everyone to do nothing in, and wait until the last second to nominate themselves. Then a full three days to allow everyone to pester David Gerard to open the polls. A week of polls as usual. And finally a full four days to allow people to count the votes several times with openstv and get it right before announcing the final result on December 1st. — Dysk (contribs) 11:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

So there's gonna be a Mod election soon? Interesting..... In all seriousness it might be an idea to add it to the MediaWiki:Sitenotice under the donations bar. --RWRW (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't edit the sitenotice on this wiki so I will leave that to someone else. — Dysk (contribs) 20:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that @Dysklyver, a self-described "serial nuisance to all", has nominated everyone he could think of: qualified-or-not, sock puppet-or-not and troll-or-not, can we have a review of what the actual minimal qualifications are to run for moderator? Bongolian (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the current conditions of having 6 months activity and 300 edits seems reasonable (as long as they are enforced). Given how campaigning has started we'll probably have to wait until after the election before refining the requirements.--RWRW (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

All trollery aside, it would be extremely sensible to consider if we can trust the electors not to elect idiots or whether these minimum requirements, or at least some "not a sock, not banned, not sysop-revoked, not brand new with no edits" type filter. — Dysk (contribs) 12:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, who else is ready for the annual election clusterfuck? I sure am. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have made every effort to get it started early with a bang and to give some free time for dimwittedness later in the process so things run hopefully more on time than the last Trustee election. All looking good so far, although the anti-idiot rules have been implemented now and my sock was disqualified. — Dysk (contribs) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant more that every election seems to attract trolls and drama like flies to manure. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That's true, but then barring coop's it's the only big thing that happens here anyway for drama to focus on, and anyway, what is gonna cause more drama than deciding who has the ultimate say in banning people? personally I don't tend to even pretend to moderate content or conduct issues and basically just have fun with how sites work, the technical process as it were. Then I make fun of things when it isn't so serious. But for folks who feed on controversy and drama they must get their jollies off big time on all the drama. — Dysk (contribs) 17:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping me after the fundraiser is done or we hit nov 9th, i'll edit sitenotice FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Bombs![edit]

Quite the statement, even if the devices themselves look pretty inoperable. Never since 1919/1970's/last week have people been so terrified of their mail. And it seems to be a MAGAbomber too, which is just so wrong because it shows how the rhetoric is way out of control. — Dysk (contribs) 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

When you embrace the "someone hits me, I hit back ten times harder" Trump code, MAGAbombing is no surprise: "You yell at our guys in restaurants — we send your guys fucking pipe bombs". Millennium Scallion (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no way we get past the state of US politics without a lot of people killing each other. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget the Unabomber. Bongolian (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair we don't know who sent these bombs, we should wait until more evidence comes out before we start making wild theories (Both Left and right wing)-Sincerely, TheDarkMaster2

Actually they just arrested someone in connection to it and their unmarked white vanwas covered in pro-trump bumperstickers. Turns out the speculation that made sense was right. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It is quite likely that the culprit is a Trump supporter, but I think its unfair to blame Trump. The next time an Islamist drives a van into a group of people will the liberal media blame all Muslims? Did the liberal media blame Bernie Sanders when a Democrat shot a Republican Congressman? --RWRW (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure is an stupid thing no one said you're objecting to there. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) did bernie sanders continually advocate violence against his opponents? even in jest? no he did not. once again, you take something that all reasonable people should be disgusted by, and you twist and contort it for a lazy dig at the other side. i will repeat again - this is why i have no respect for you or blinkered opinions. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of example of violence against conservatives. YouTube has a rich collection of Trump supporters being harassed and sometimes attacked. The whole incident of Kathy Griffin posing with a fake Trump head was pretty despicable too. That's unfortunate you dislike me, those feelings aren't reciprocated to you. --RWRW (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

how many of those examples were encouraged by the rhetoric of their political masters? thats right none. and kathy griffin,a nomark comedian, is equivalent to the president of the united states. why is it so hard to oppose the actions of 'your side' when they are so clearly egregious to decent people? why must you mindlessly repeat inane talking points just because its your side making them. it doesnt mean you cant support the generality of their positions if you stand up against the shit ones. it might require a spine though. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The bombing suspect maintained a world-class kookmobile. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

How can he even drive properly in that thing??? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 18:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be road-legal with windows blocked like that, but Florida is a state free from such unyielding tyrannies as vehicle safety inspections. (also, I already linked kookmobile) ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Found a pic that appears to show the van has a deluxe fold-down nutpole: [1]. If so, it's a pretty advanced kookmobile. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay "why is it so hard to oppose the actions of 'your side' when they are so clearly egregious to decent people? why must you mindlessly repeat inane talking points just because its your side making them." Why do people try to morally justify the Biblical flood? The answer to these questions is both simple and depressing. These people are repeatedly conditioned to view their position as "good" and any opposing position as "evil". It sounds overly simplistic, but it's true. These types of people are literally incapable of thinking outside their bubble. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

i kind of know the generalities but that was directed at rwrw specifically. i have great difficultly figuring out why people do/say/think particular things. i keep hoping something will get through or they give a point that could make me see it from their side, but it always boils down they've picked aside and they gonna run with it. no thought required. life is complicated and you need to take some things on face value, but why get so invested, so combatitive about things they've not really looked at? why does conceding a point or two beyond the pale? or is it they want something to true, need it to be true just for life to continue as it is? deeper reflection would mean changing every thing they hold dear? i dunno. i have so much disconnect and self doubt that any kind of strident certainty looks like mental issues. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

RWRW you consistently show deeper and deeper depths of hypocrisy, false analogies, bias, false analogies, a few more false analogies and then another bucket full of false analogies and cannot relent even when multiple users point out huge gaping holes in your claim. In the last say, 50 years...maybe 100 years: NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADER I KNOW HAS EVER:

ENCOURAGED HIS SECURITY GUARDS TO ROUGH UP DISSENTERS AT A RALLY AND THROW THEM OUT OF A BUILDING
BLAME THE VICTIMS FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM AT PROTESTS
CONGRATULATED A POLITICIAN FOR PUNCHING A JOURNALIST
HAS ENDLESSLY SPOUTED THAT THE MEDIA AS A GRAVE THREAT TO THE PEOPLE
HAS VILLAINISED THE MEDIA AND JOURNALIST COMPLEX AS DEEP MANUFACTURERS OF SINISTER LIES
HAS LAUGHED ABOUT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
HAS TRIVIALISED MURDER

In fact. No leader from EITHER PARTY has done any of the above...at least not remotely to the extent that trump has. Bernie Sanders didn't do the above. So no. It's ridiculous to blame him for an incident that bore no connection at all to his narratives. Trump has done all of the above so consistently and obsessively he has left one of Americas political narratives to be utterly saturated with threats and insults and encouraging violence against dissenters and journalists. I hope just once...you can take a step back and see just how false your analogies can be...and ask yourself just what kind of bias is driving you to make such whoppers of a false analogy, why you think a scum-bucket of a useless accomplishing-nothing president is worth the top spot in your bias generating. ShabiDOO 21:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you fucking blind? CNN is already blamming trump.-TheDarkMaster2

Can you read and digest the meanings and conclusions of statements? I'm criticising his analogy...not if its fair to put the blame on someone. However...if it is ever fair to blame a politician for inciting violence or crimes...I cannot think of a living politician in the Western world more deserving than Trump...more than every other leader combined. ShabiDOO 16:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would like to incite someone to take a stab at writing an article on the legal concept of incitement. Bongolian (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again. The Beatles were responsible for the Manson murders cause their song, Helter Skelter told Charlie Manson to incite a race war. RobSmith ^{i demand a recount} 17:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and Robert De Niro and Jodie Foster were responsible for the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. RobSmith ^{i demand a recount} 17:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Rob Smith. Is your brain on fire or something? Are you honestly comparing a politician that millions look up to and take very seriously who glorifies violence against journalists and protesters with a fictional character in a film in which everyone knows they are actors who acted in a film meant to portray violence against politicians as a BAD THING? Really? I mean...where did you go to troll school because I seldom see trolling as bad as yours.

Yeah. In a country of over 300 million you are going to find crazies. A lot of them. And in a country with a long history of Presidential and political assasinations (an amount exponentially higher than all other democratic countries), assasination of rights crusaders and protestors (unheard of in most countries), violence during peaceful protests, extremely agressive and toxic political partisanism...it's ridiculous to think that a leader praising violence against political opponents would ever lead to actual violence against political opponents. Whatever was I thinking...trying to beat a troll at the rational thinking game? ShabiDOO 01:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course, everyone knows Rob is either a fool, a liar, a troll...probably all of the above. So don't anyone think this is an attempt to change his mind about something. People are morally responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. The connections Rob made were not predictable. It was predictable to the point of redundancy that the USA would experience more right-wing violence with Trump in charge.

Since Rob brings up Reagan, of course the attempt on his life was immoral. His just fate would have been to be tried and imprisoned for his crimes. Anyone remember that itty bitty "High Treason" thing? That's not to mention his constant attacks on the weak, his support for apartheid etc etc etc. Probably not important I guess. MunX (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it sad when Styxhexenhammer666 has more common sense than the guys here a "rational" Wiki? -user_TheDarkMaster2

@TheDarkMaster2 Says the guy who can't sign his comments properly... @RobSmith That's it, you're officially a Poe, no ifs ands or buts about the matter. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It is more sad you are resorting to the airquotes on the first component of the website's name when probably millions of our vocal critics do the same lazy regurgitation. You're not being clever, original, witty, or thoughtful and the less people that bring up that part of our wiki's name, the better this world will be. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

But your not rational, your are literally leftwing conservapedia. At least they're honest with their bias. Also it takes a poe to know a poe, prick not that I am one-User_TheDarkMaster

Whether a political position is rational or not depends on your fundamental beliefs and social position. If you are working class or lower and value human happiness, cooperation and solidarity, then lefty positions are rational. If you are a sociopathic, geriatric billionaire looking to squeeze everything you can from the world before you kick off, then right wing positions are rational. Most of us here aren't billionaires. Do you get it yet? MunX (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster2 B-but I thought this was supposed to be RationalWiki? Drink!! Seriously, why hasn't this been posted yet? we're dishonoring The Great Goat! Tinribmancer (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't even a trump fan, it was a rightwing libertarianTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

You are wrong. He was most certainly a Trump fan. His van was plastered with pro-Trump memes, his social media posts were full of MAGA crap and his family lawyer stated that he 'found a father' in Trump. If you turn around and just call this fake news, then that's that. No evidence can reach you.

Now I made a post up in the NPC section stating that I believe and hope that you have the power to pull yourself back out of this cult. You are going to need to actually start reading things other than right wing social media and false right wing news outlets. There are very good reasons why the right wing crowd have claimed the phrase 'fake news' for their rhetoric. One of them is that it makes it awkward to use the phrase back at them. That is what they are, though. Fox, breitbart etc etc. They are not news. They are falsehood upon falsehood. I'm going to assume that you are surrounded in life with people who hold these same ideas. Well, for the sake of your humanity, you are just going to need to find a way out. MunX (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok so this guy was a crazy Trump Fan. SO WHAT? Are we supposed to ignore every single fucking violent thing that the anti-trump movement. How many times does Antifa need to rough up people before that eclipses a guy who didn't even kill anyone? I think you are part of a cult. Maybe you view yourself as progressive? Your mention of BreitBart and Fox (Two thing I never watch) is indicative of what people in that movement view others. Do you really think it's progressive to stir up race relations which were fine for the most part since the 1980s? Is it progressive to tear down statues and not simply explain to your kids that what that Statue represents is different for different people? Is it progressive to demean women if they use their femininity to get work? Is it progressive to scream blacklives matter then say Alllivesmatter is racist? I'm not kidding you I really want to knowTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

The ignorance is shocking. The difference this time is that Trump promoted violence against his opponents several times. This has been pointed out to you. Antifa is far less organized, has no political power, and is a smaller scale, and no serious politician in power encourages them. Race relations were certainly not "fine for the most part since the 1980s". Republicans were better at veiling their racism, but voter ID laws were still a thing, 1992 Los Angeles riots happened, O. J. Simpson was a thing, Obama faced a lot of racist attacks from not only disorganized bunch of white mobs but had a whole movement which has some basis on racism which is the birther movement, and so on. You have a warped lens of race relations back then. To be fair, people thought so too, which was why it was shocking for people to see Trump get elected and see Britain regress into populist nationalism. Along with your poor understanding of history, you have no clue why statues are being torn down and your suggestion is to lend credence to white supremacist propaganda which were the true reasons the statues were erected. Your suggestion is like explaining to kids that white supremacist symbols and "states' rights" represents different things for different people, which is the kind of suggestions white supremacists want so useful ignoramuses and brainwashed people start believing the white-washed version rather than the dogwhistle it truly is. I shouldn't have to explain why those things are only veiled ugliness, I really shouldn't. As for the last point, "All Lives Matter" is explained a fuck ton of times why it's so problematic and BLM has to explain so many times that there's an implied "too" after "matter" and they always say that "yes all lives matter but we focus on black issues because we feel that's an effective way to reach to a specific minority group", and it's so tiresome for me to hear the "all lives matter" thing. As I said again, you're incredibly ignorant, but you've demonstrated you can't distinguish between good or bad and I can't imagine you have a good grasp of context or distinction. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 23:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Where does it end? If white people were tearing down MLK statues would you be okay with it? More White people die by police than black people. That's not even going into black-on-black crime which of course progressive have conveniently made racist to even mention? Also you really dodge the female question I asked you. Also FYW when I mean teach kids what those statues mean, i mean teach them both sides and why people don't like it. Everything is a dogwhistle to you. Seems to me a lack of understanding.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Do you understand why the Confederate statues were erected to begin with? Do you honestly think the Confederate Flag should be treated as an innocuous symbol? Start learning about that before you evoke equivalencies about my "side". Yes, everything seems a dogwhistle to me if you have no clue about the history and context of stuff. These statues were erected as intimidation against blacks, a long-oppressed minority in America. But supporters of the statues can't be outwardly racist as it's more unacceptable for today's palette? So they're either ignorant or they sugarcoat the history of the statues to commemorate some mythical "Lost Cause" and glorify racist heroes.

I don't know what you mean by "more". As a number? Maybe there are more. But proportionally, you are wrong. Additionally, black people are profiled more by police and are more likely to be subjected to unfair violence and arrests and punishments by the police. I also "dodged" your female question because it was loaded, if not stupidly vague and didn't deserve a good response without further questions by me such as "what do you mean by 'if they use their femininity to get work"? No seriously, how am I supposed to answer that? And yes I am teaching "both sides". One of them is more grounded in reality. The other is a fuzzy rosy nostalgia goggles from propaganda that aims to whitewash racist dipshits like General Lee. We have Lost Cause of the South and Confederate flag; you should try looking into it if you have a shred of honesty in you rather than have trouble making a distinction between what's false and what's true and just accepting "both sides are as valid/as bad as each other", though I don't believe you're a centrist, I believe you're someone who claims "both sides" but you're showing more sympathies with the right-wing. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 01:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Well proportionally Black commit more crime than white people. You understand?. ANd I meant those Feminists that went after the Porn Star causing her to commit SUICIDE. Sorry if my centrist nuance eludes youTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Black people in the USA are a deeply traumatised and victimised group. Violence is a common consequence of trauma. This is a global problem within marginalised groups. Further, when studies are controlled for childhood exposure to violence, black and white men are equally likely to demonstrate violent behaviour. "Twenty-six percent of black males in the USA report seeing someone shot at before turning 12."

As for the porn-star story, I've only read the most basic summaries of it. As I understand, the woman refused to participate in a sex scene with a man who did gay scenes because she feared HIV? As far as I know, male gay sex causes maybe 60% of new cases of HIV, so her fears are marginally reasonable. Of course, anyone can get HIV from hetero or homosexual sex. Because of this, the story goes, she was harassed as a homophobe and committed suicide. Personally, I can see why someone would consider her views homophobic, and due to the nature of the internet, I can imagine that she was harassed badly. I get the feeling, however, that most of this harassment took the form of cruel scolding rather than suggestions that she kill herself. Pornographic actors are known to have a higher than average propensity for suicide and self harm. Why this is, is probably a complicated mix of factors stemming from various social stigmas leading to drug addiction, depression etc. Regardless of that, people were probably too cruel to her and it's just a big, sad mess. Given the innocent seeming nature of the homophobia on display, this is a particularly tragic outcome. She was clearly not a hatemonger, just someone a little ill-informed and worried about her health. Anyone with better info and good sources should set me straight if they want.

Try to remember that suggesting suicide and threatening rape or murder are standard intimidation tactics of anti-feminists, not homosexual rights activists. MunX (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Well proportionally Black commit more crime than white people. You understand?"

It's more complicated than a stupid right-wing talking point. Violent crime, maybe. But what's clear is that blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites for crimes, which doesn't necessarily mean they are more likely they can commit crime. No, I don't "understand" because people who repeat the talking point don't understand the difference between incarceration and committing the crime and I always have to ask "are you sure you know what you're talking about", and that's tiresome. It's no different than the anti-vaxxers who confuse mortality with morbidity to claim that death by measles (mortality) isn't correlated with vaccine rates, and they overlook measles cases (morbidity).

Add: "Nuance". Everything you make are right-wing talking points that I've seen and are refuted so many times, if they're not vague statements. Nuance my Wellington Boots. I'm not sure about the whole story about the porn star getting harassed, and you're not being helpful either at all. Anyway you're probably referring to August Ames. Why are you pinning this on "feminists" (which is already vague)? I don't deny that the tactics of harassment, I never condone, but the articles I'm seeing show a different story than yours and have a far more complete picture than "feminists bullied a porn star to suicide". The article from Rolling Stone is hardly about feminism. Who exactly said it was "feminism"? Your own conclusions?

Also, calling "if they use their femininity to get work" a euphemism for "pornography"... seriously? Just call it "porno work"! You asshole. That's a horrible way of characterizing it as "using their femininity", as if being a porn star is all what being feminine is about. Do you even realize the horrendously sexist implications of the crap you spew from your keyboard?

--It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And it's more complicated than that too, because at any given income level, black people are way less likely to commit crimes than white people. It's a Simpson's Paradox thing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You triggered little snowflake if you actually read what I said you'd understand that they used their femininity IN A WAY. That is PART of femininity prick. Maybe instead of looking for racism and sexism where there is none you actually try and fix issues. And I wasn't referring to that incident dumbasss. Femininity is many facets Including porn but there is a relatively large fraction of feminist who don't like that. Shouldn't women have the autonomy to use their bodies the way they want without stigma? Cunt. If white people committed the same amount of crime black people did, i'd call them out too, but are they? No. Also statistically Blacks do commit more crime even compared to other marginalized groups. Why isn't there the same amount of crime from the Jewish or Hispanic community, they're both under way more hatred now than blacks are.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster

Holy fucking shit calling another user a cunt, what the hell is the matter with you? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 00:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

At a female user too, on top of all that.

Oh good, you're doubling down on your unnecessary euphemism that I found sexist and more so because the entire thing could've been avoided if you straight up said "feminists harassed a porn star to the point of suicide", but you didn't say that for some reason, you resorted to a vague euphemism, that once you had to explain it, actually translates to "pornography". What I found offensive was your decision to hide "porn star" as "being feminine". I initially thought you were talking about models and female attractiveness, like maybe makeup or high-heels, but you actually dressed it up as an act of femininity but like in one of the worst possible ways. And now you have to reiterate that you have to use their "femininity" "in a way", which again, the thing could've been avoided if you went straight to the point, linked to a single, a single article so I can corroborate the source and read it and maybe gain a slightly better understanding of your mindset, and then you explain about the debate between porn and feminists who demean porn (yes I know that's a real debate). I am not trying to argue that porn is inherently sexist or working as a porn star is bad for a woman. I am trying to say your euphemism is unnecessary, unhelpful, and offensive by tying "femininity" to "porn star". I feel like I am going insane for trying to argue why I find something offensive and having to explain why I find it offensive. When someone finds something potentially offensive, it's a better idea to find common ground, clarify (if something is being misunderstood), apologize, and move on. That's what you're supposed to do, but if you're going to drag through the mud and use denigrating gendered personal attacks on me, so be it.

And what incident are you referring to!? I'm not a mind-reader. I had to google "porn star suicide" because I have no clue what you're talking about, as you can be talking about literally anything and maybe your whole event is completely woven from your own fabric, who knows, and I don't want to appear lazy so I "did my own research" only to have you say "I'm not talking about that one, dumbass" and you're still being unhelpful.

Finally, I've yet to get any sort of evidence from your point, so I just assumed you're trotting a common talking point. After we challenge you, and I asked for clarification to make sure you're not confusing committing rates to rates of getting arrested, and ikanreed also disputed what you said (though it would be nice if I had a source for that one too, just to be fair), you just reiterated "Also statistically Blacks do commit more crime even compared to other marginalized groups." That's nice, but what is your source and are you sure you know the difference between incarceration (arrest) and crime rates (committing)? I know sociologists are very careful to note those differences, but right-wing pundits like Fox News, Infowars, and Breitbart and right-wing everyday commenters certainly do not and your claims echo their talking points (which is why people are accusing your sources of being from those two).

And personal attacks, calling me a "cunt", is past any discourse now. You can call me an "asshole" or a "dumbass" or a "prick" or a "snowflake", but "cunt" is past where I draw the line (and also hopefully for any regulars in this community) and I've banned you for three days for that remark. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it a concidence that the same guy who banned me for mutter a female reproductive organ is calling for a new policy? seems a conflict on interestTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Because context and intention don't matter at all when you describe another person as a "cunt" /s. Maybe argue better than rely on established, shitty pejoratives designed to make other people feel shitty. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 17:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, you try calling another woman a cunt in public, see how well things will turn out for you. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 17:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

TheDarkMaster2: You're not wanted here. The less you comment on how unjust things are on anything, the better. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes thank you for telling me context doesn't matter. Words are just bad because you say they are. That's very "rational" of you Words only have power because you give them power. Ever heard of that? Also once again The guy who sent bombs to George Soros, was a never-trumper Liberatarian. But you're gonna ignore that of course Also nice dodging everything else I said and focusing on me saying the word for a female reproductive organ at a user I could never have know was female due to her anonymous nature. Perhaps one should employ more logic than white knight for someoneTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Citation, please? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

For what?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Who still edits?[edit]

Who from my time still edits? RBP is gone, FCP is gone?, Ikanreed is gone, I saw LGM the other day I think, Love is gone, troll friendos like KD1 are gone... It just feels pretty R I P :( L'homme Idéal (je rigole). 16:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I'm gone? I went away for a while, but that really was just a couple month break. I'm here and pointlessly angry all the time nowadays. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

IIRC FuzzyCatPotato is not gone. Nor is KD1. — Dysk (contribs) 16:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

tater has damped his enthusiasm from #1 editor to sane human being(rarely edits), though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The New Guard shall conquer all. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't you mean, the New Cabal?

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been here since Nov 2014, but I only edit sporadically. Before the 27th of October my last edit was over a month prior on the 27th of September.--Palaeonictis (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Decline in edits, characters added[edit]

Not 100% relevant to above topic, but has been worrying:

There's been a decline in total edits and total characters added:

There's been a decline in mainspace edits and mainspace characters added:

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the more ideologically homogeneous a wiki becomes, the more text is likely to be treated as immutable by the consensus of the moment. I am not surprised by the decline.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It would help on that front if the people who take up the crusade of "ideological diversity" weren't completely full of shit at every turn, making totally factually erroneous changes and purposefully disingenuous implications, basically every single fucking time. There could be credence to this, because I know my own tolerance for right wingers of any kind hit near zero when I found out how quick you fucks were to integrate Nazis into your fold.

To be honest, I don't think it's anything about the wiki itself at all, though. At least mostly not. I think it's the massive reputation blow skepticism and rationalism itself has taken over the coarse of the last... I don't know, let's say 4 years. Just the worst race science, MRA, and assorted other shitheads taking on our terminology and identity and dumping boatloads of poorly considered cultural criticism and actual pseudoscience. The intellectual clout of rationalism has suffered dramatically, look at the way people talk about skeptics today versus 5 years ago. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A fundie of the left pole like yourself would bring up nazis in a comment about diversity. To you and the people who think that makes sense: grow up.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for explaining my personal feelings in a way that lets you ignore the central point about how you're tendentious beyond any semblance of reason. Condescending dishonest ass. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are a victim of the particular idiom of your own erroneously supercilious imagination.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @FuzzyCatPotato I see. I guess I was most active around a hot time anyway (2016) and it's fallen off and that's why it feels more dead. Certainly not Anonymous user, whoever that is.^{[{{#rand:1|4}}][{{#rand:4|10}}]} 16:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @Ariel31459 here. While Rational Wiki may be (at least somewhat) accurate at times, it is certainly opinionated overall, even downright rude or condescending sometimes, which I think is is a push factor. As a result, this Wiki is become dangerously more and more like an echo chamber. Having said that, a decline in the number of edits is not necessarily a bad thing. We should focus more on quality rather than quantity; we're a niche Wiki after all. If people want a general-purpose Wiki, they would use Wikipedia.

@Koidevelopment made a great point. Many editors are interested in (US) politics. Nerd (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. For instance, on the page on infinite regressions, a dig at the cosmological argument is made without regarding the Kalam version. No self-respecting person would say 'everything has a cause' and then try to say that 'God has no cause'. That's special pleading. Obv. While this is just one example, I'd rather that articles like this provide the logic behind the irrationality of an infinite regress rather than just throwing out examples of such. I believe that this place has the potential to be a place of good dialogue on both sides, but I've seen it tend towards being an echo chamber at times. KoiDevelopment ™ (thanks, Love!) 16:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@KoidevelopmentWhat do you mean is lacking in not covering the Kalam there? Anyway, that canard is extensively roasted in our article on its best known and most smarmy apologist proponent, William Lane Craig. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"One example of a viciously infinite regression arises in intelligent design creationism, which states that there are problems in the theory of Darwinian evolution by natural selection which can only be resolved by invoking a designer or first cause without proposing a solution to the immediate question, 'Who designed the designer?'." This is what I mean. A 'who designed the designer?' question doesn't answer the Kalam version, it's just snarky. And while I appreciate a healthy amount of snark, we should also deal with the arguments, not just snark them away. Koidevelopment (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koidevelopment! Snark should never replace actual logical arguments supported by reliable sources. Nerd (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Snark and lack of insight are not always distinguishable to the average reader. The facts alone will make an advocate of false notions often appear to be ridiculous. Some articles could be greatly improved by limiting the bathos to a section or so dedicated to tormenting the condemned, while focusing elsewhere on exposition. Some users here tend to patrol the talk pages in the manner of junk-yard dogs, making editing a form of water torture. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just Christ. Less than 1% of the people making the Cosmological argument have ever heard of or considered the Kalam(let's be honest it's Craig) variation;. And it's still fucking special pleading to avoid infinite regress, it just moves the special edge case to the assumptions from the conclusion. This isn't "steelmanning" you're doing, it's demanding undue credit for seriously bad arguments that we've all had to put up hundreds of times. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Calm down familam. Koidevelopment (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you? Am I not allowed to describe a flaw in your reasoning? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of stunned how rapidly talk about RW edit statistics turned into a debate about the cosmological argument. O.o (Also, genetic fallacy, poisoning the well etc.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the point of the Kalam version is that it isn't special pleading. Sure, an assumption and unstated premise is that "there can exist necessary being(s) that have no beginning and who have existed forever" but it's not special pleading in the Kalam version. Everything that begins to exist needs a cause. But if the first cause doesn't begin to exist, then there's no problem. But anyway, the saloon maybe isn't the best place for this. Certainly not Anonymous user, whoever that is.^{[{{#rand:1|4}}][{{#rand:4|10}}]} 16:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, @Koidevelopment. The Kalam as used in apologetics (i.e. by William Lane Craig, as mentioned by myself and ikanreed) is “stealth special pleading” because the only entry in the category “doesn’t begins to exist” just happens to be God (huh, how convenient...). But perhaps we should copy/paste this thread, or at least the relevant bits about the Kalam/cosmological argument, onto the talk page of the one where it fits best? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What about talk page etiquette?[edit]

I have seen a number of new users basically chased away from the talk pages by rude and obnoxious people ( you know who you are). I think that's fine here in the saloon or in user talk pages. But then, if you are not willing to be polite, at least initially, on article talk pages, then you don't belong there. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh fuck off. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not the asshole I was thinking of, but you'll do as an example. Thanks.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe that was too much subtext. I don't mean "I'm personally offended". I mean "your recurrent dishonest behaviors produce exactly the reaction you're complaining about". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe your inability to cooperate with other people leads you to suppose there is something amiss with them. "They deserved the abuse they got," is the perennial claim of villains. Fuck off.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to cooperate with people who don't lie their asses off for political convenience, you miserable ass. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Then why not start acting that way you horrible miscreant? People who disagree with you are either simply mistaken, stupid, insane, or deceptive. You appear to be quite paranoid. Did I say fuck off yet?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You personally are definitely a consistent lying piece of shit, though. It didn't come from nowhere. It took several weeks of you repeating right wing conspiracies, blithely ignoring the replies of people answering you to focus on irrelevant nitpicks to "win", and generally being an ass when you first showed up before I stopped giving you benefit of the doubt. Others still do because they believe the bullshit about politeness. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This thread was meant to be about etiquette. I trust everyone has enough information on the problem this wiki has with lunatics bullying newcomers. This person's ravings about right-wing conspiracies has me scratching my head.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, not being an asshole should be a rule.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3

(talk • stalk) 00:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You guys might want to read this essay. Nerd (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You hit it on the nose. I honestly think RationalWiki should stick to having article debunking content. People like Ikanreed paints a picture to outsiders a website filled with whiny liberal snowflakes that don't want to hear the other side. I recently lost interest in the website because a) the article discussion is shit b) everyone who was interesting to talk to has left/moved on. At this point, I feel like I'm just wasting my life on this wiki. I have better and more productive ways to spend my time. The conversations on this website are far from intellectual. I'm not challenging myself at all by reading and taking to people on this website.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3

(talk • stalk) 00:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace Well, most users stay here only for a couple of years before leaving, never to come back. I'm afraid the environment here is one of the reasons. Nerd (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should write up RationalWiki policy page on etiquette so mods have a framework to work from as well as also they can follow that framework too. MarioWiki:Courtesy is one example of clearly outlined courtesy policy. Another thing I like to see is some more cooperation of mods as I often have to rely on my own judgement and if me and other mods can identify problematic comments, we can discuss about them and then take action. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Here is your starting material. Apparently we had problems with people calling each other fascists and comparing one another to Hitler before. Good grief! Nerd (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd Sure, I've reviewed it a few times but notice compared to MarioWiki's framework, it's much vaguer and not as clearly outlined. It'll be so much easier if I had a better policy framework to work with (and also help me with my own behavior as I've insulted in the past, not denying that). But I want to see if we get an agreement out of users to see if we should push toward a tighter framework too. A few things I do want to add is to avoid calling people "liars" no matter how seemingly justified it is (it's better and more helpful to go the lengths to point out the tactics of dishonesty like inconsistencies or misrepresentations or any dodging arguments which doesn't shift the discussion to the personal traits of the user and maintains the "attack the argument" we need to subscribe to). Also avoid accusing and insinuating other people of being reregs (this is especially true when we don't even have CheckUser). We also need to encourage the practice of undoing good-faith POV changes rather than simple reverts as documenting your changes can go a long way into preventing conflicts to begin with. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 01:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

While you are at it you might also have a look at RationalWiki:Blocking policy. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed these a few times especially when I tried coming to mod decisions but I wish I had some more solid ground to cite when I want to practice decorum. They're not really good guidelines for me. I've even reviewed RationalWiki:Constructive dialogue too but that's no help, I was very disappointed. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 01:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Consider the injunction : Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages,..Malicious editing occurs when somebody wants to harm RationalWiki. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think blocking should be made considering the best interests of RationalWiki. Wandalism, obviously. But interests of the wiki is why we don mod hats, protect pages from edit warring, and bring up chicken coop cases, so we need to take in the bigger picture. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This "bigger picture" may be why you are facing ambiguous situations. A user like Lankaster, who was impolite, can simply be ignored on talk pages. Looking at his block log I see you have been busy trying to discipline him for "being a moron." Is being a moron harmful to this wiki? Ariel31459 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Lankaster wasn't really someone I can ignore. The person has made edits and disputed them when people reverted them. I tried engaging but the user was being uncooperative and was being disruptive. I don't think calling him a "moron" was a great gesture on my part though. Being a "moron" is certainly not harmful to the wiki either. Anyhow, if we had a courtesy framework, perhaps we can more easily stop those from insulting Lankaster and prevent him from insulting others and test patience of other users that may cause them to be impolite back and make it harder and harder to justify one behavior over the other. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe They should just grow a thicker skin? I mean a female reproductive organ isn't worth loosing your food over. Especially when it's impossible to know when an anonymous person is a femaleTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Also Ikanreed uses the Association Fallacy TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

If you can't argue your opposition without relying on slurs, I think it's you who needs to a grow a thicker skin, not the rest of us who have to put up with it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 17:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@BabyLuigiOnFire "If you can't argue your opposition without relying on slurs" I think you have hit the nail on the head. On a wiki of skeptics and rationalists, one would expect that talk pages are devoted to arguments and counterarguments, but many of the times here I see just insults and personal attacks. -Lankaster (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize quoting a fallacy Ikanreed actually used was a slur. Then again this is "Rational" WikiTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

You don't actually know what "fallacy" means, do you? Like seriously, you don't actually understand deductive reasoning, and the role fallacies play in it, right? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Improving the image[edit]

I have proposed that RationalWiki:Contributor Covenant be adopted as a guideline, please join the poll at RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation#Poll. — Dysk (contribs) 14:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised fundies haven't flipped their shit[edit]

Specifically about the new Netflix Sabrina thing. It's outright got the kind of witchcraft they believe in as the central conceit. And being a heavily promoted Netflix original, it seems like it'd grab their attention. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it's mostly MRAs who have flipped their shit over it, though less because of witchcraft and more because it "depicts men as evil". But yeah, the fact that they can't even work up outrage over a new, darker version of Sabrina the Teenage Witch that leans heavily on the association of witchcraft and Satanism shows how far the Christian Right has fallen. Hell, they even got Melissa Joan Hart, who was recently in God's Not Dead 2, to appear in a Netflix promo supporting the show! I've had to go digging in the dark corners of fundamentalist YouTube to find any outrage. (Having watched most of the show, it probably helps that the Satanic church is portrayed as fundamentally corrupt, judgmental, and backwards in its obsession with "tradition", with Sabrina's arc being her rebellion against it. The Satanists are portrayed not as cool villain protagonists, but as the worst kind of religious conservatives; they're very much not promoting the idea of selling your soul to the Dark Lord.) KevinR1990 (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but Zelda is still a b-protagonist who says "hail satan" pretty much every episode. I mean, yeah, the deeper narratives are very much anti-satan(hot take there) and anti-doctinal, but there's a surface level normalization that seems very much their thing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The main thing I wish they did was to find somebody who actually knows Latin. Google Translate is nowhere near good enough and it shows. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Or just pulled up some old church latin and did some volo->nolo substitutions. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of legit theological colleges and seminaries that offer free courses in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Then again, intellectualism is looked down upon. 😐 I'm going Old Testament on y'all --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

By who in this context? Writers? Seminary students? What? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean towards uneducated fundies. Smerdis brought up Latin. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but he was referring to the show's half-assed and frequently incongruous use of latin. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm only one episode in, but my ears have already been set burning by a major plot point involving a malum malus, an apple so evil it's apparently excused from agreeing in gender or case. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I actually forgave that one instantly when I realized how dumb "malum malum" would sound. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The ancients were of a different opinion; they coined the pun malo malo malo malo, "I'd rather be up an apple tree than be a bad person in adversity." Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

is this still the show with magic teenager and a talking cat? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No, this time the cat's just a cat(and also a demon). ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, you know who has flipped their shit?[edit]

Salem's not on the show a whole lot, because it turned out that Kiernan Shipka, the actress who plays Sabrina, is badly allergic to cats. (As somebody who is also allergic to cats, I feel her pain.) What I really wanted to post about, though, is that it's actually the Satanic Temple that's raising the biggest stink over the show. Less for inaccuracies or stereotypes, though, and more because they think the producers ripped off their copyrighted Baphomet statue design. KevinR1990 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Proof Christians aren't the stupid ones here ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.8.245.245 / talk / contribs}

Religious "Extremists"[edit]

Before I begin this thread I would like to advise everyone to really think my inquiry over rather than simply reacting to it.

It is my understanding that when a religion teaches it's adherents that things such as Homosexuality are sinful and evil, it should come as no great shock that someone might take such teachings to their ultimate end. Why then are such individuals and groups viewed as extremists and denounced? From their point of view they are only doing as they've been taught by their religion, same as the "moderates" who decide (for various reasons) to not carry such ideas to their ultimate end. Thus, would not the "moderates" be the unrealistic ones? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The crazies who commit hate crimes aren't extremists by the standard of the religion, but by the standards of our society. The Western world, and to a lesser extent, everywhere else, has moved past a lot of the terrible shit preached by the holy books. That horrifying crimes are merely an act of obedience to these holy books says more about the books than it does about the entire billions-strong following of a religion. There's a lot of sick shit in the Bible for example, but you don't see very many Christians today advocating for mass murder of newborn infants Books of Samuel-style. They just pretend like the unsavory parts of the Bible don't exist or else try to do some half-hearted handwave. That's true for the vast majority of a religion's following, so the true believers who go nuts on a holy book's orders are still extremists by general standards. (There's something of an exception for various forms of Islamic extremism, since much of that stuff is actually fairly common among Muslims who don't live in the West.) In a perfect world, those holy books would be thrown out and replaced. But in the eyes of so many people, you can't question a holy book the way you can question part of the Constitution. That's what makes the books so dangerous.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Technically, a perfect world would by definition lack any flaws, and as thus would lack flawed reasoning, and as thus would lack flawed beliefs such as religion to begin with. Just a bit of a technical point. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Centrism or moderation, of basically every kind, is a refusal to take a meaningful stance on your own moral(or epistemological) principles. This helps society hold together by reducing short term conflict. But inhibits justice in 2 ways: 1. It allows completely ideas to rest in perpetuity protected by remaining an unchallenged and quietly set aside dogma that only the "bad ones" actually follow on, even as the underlying backing of the dogma is preserved, and the extreme adherents will always crop up. And 2. Individually people can take up radical ideas without ever having to face their true implications of a society acting as they believe it should.

Contrary to some evidence you might have seen, I'm not an idiot. I know that we, as human beings, aren't mentally equipped to do 2 well enough to course correct. That the reality of people acting as they say they believe would be a disaster of absolute petty(and not so petty) tyrannies. However, when we ideologically treat moderation as a solution rather than a lubricant, we're doing ourselves a lot of harm. A lot. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A mistake a lot of people make is in conflating "taking something seriously" and "taking something literally". Extremist believers do the latter to convince themselves they're doing the former, while many non-extremists convince themselves they need to reject the former because they reject the latter. But it's perfectly possible to take religion very seriously while acknowledging the most obvious/literal interpretation isn't necessarily the best or most relevant in acting in accordance with God's overall plan. And in the "takes it literally but not seriously" camp you'll find a lot of atheists and opportunist preachers. Funny that. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm going to need to see evidence of this "god" person... To be more accurate, You need evidence that "soul" exists, that it is possible for it to leave the body after death rather than simply ceasing to function, that the soul goes somewhere, that that somewhere is an afterlife, that God exists, that God created everything, that God cares about us, that God rules over heaven, that his rule is just, that heaven is actually a place that is desirable, that Jesus was real, that the holy book of your choice isn't the ramblings of ignorant primitive but instead a mystic guide to life, the universe, and everything, that it is accurate, that your deity wrote/inspired it, that your claims about the nature of your deity are true, that he has a plan, and that the nature of his plan is good and just. And all of that is just for starters. Then you can make the assertion you just made into more than hot air. Until then, God is nothing more than an excuse people use when they don't know, rather than honestly admitting as such. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

An addition to the above for casual readers, I didn't list every single claim Christianity makes so I may have missed a few, but fucking hell, that's a lot of shit to believe on what amounts to hearsay. Or you could be like most atheists and not accept any of it until it (finally) reaches it's burden of proof. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A further addition, when the book that you hold is the source of all that is good and true says to kill your kids if they backtalk you, that isn't a matter of "interpretation". Or when in takes an entire chapter aside to explain the rules for slavery for your culture. It states these things in no uncertain terms, and I would argue that the theist who actually follows through is a true believer in that scripture. You don't get to cherrypick, the Bible isn't a buffet, it's either the magical instruction manual to reality or it isn't. This isn't actually all that hard. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You're kind of proving my point here about atheists "taking it literally"... :| 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!! THE BOOK IS PRESENTED AS AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL TO REALITY. You don't get to turn around Ad Hoc and cut out the bits you don't like, when their inconvenient. Again, it's either the word of an all knowing, all powerful, etc god or it's just a stupid book. There is no halfway here. And getting back to my main point, is it really surprising when these books are presented to people as if they were fact, as if they were guides on how to live life, and then those people act in concordance with the (outdated) ideas espoused therein? If Someone is taught that slitting bird's throat every week cure cancer, and most of their friends and relatives believe that teaching (but fail to act on it) is it really all that surprising when they slit a bird's throat every week? If it is drilled into their heads each and every day that if they fail to follow these teachings to the letter (but always with "interpretation") that they will be tortured, is it really so surprising that they feel compelled to be good little boys and girls and obey the rules, just in case? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that, it's those who insist that stuff written thousands of years ago, when morality was quite different to modern one not to mention scientific knowledge, can be applied to these times and not only try to force their beliefs in others but also either cry about "being prosecuted" or threat people will non-lasting torment -or both-. Not to mention that to interpret said texts is tricky, even if you learned, say, Koine Greek and Hebrew.

As an aside, not everyone agrees on the idea of a soul. For others, there's no such thing and bodies are on "stand-by" until Jesus returns, when everyone gets a new body to be judged -which has issues of its own-. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, so much false dilemma to unwrap here. GrammarCommie, I'm curious. Have you ever been confronted with non-fundie religious beliefs? Or have you been confronted with them but did you instantly dismiss them because they didn't tick all the right cliché boxes? I assure you, there's plenty more options out there than the ones you seem to imagine. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that I was a Christian for 8(ish) years, and members of my family are Christians, as are several of my friends and acquaintances, yes I have. That is however, irrelevant. A Christian is merely someone who (at the very least) A) Believes in the Abrahamic god, B) Believes the Bible is the word of god (and either that he ghostwrote it or literally wrote it) and C), Believes that at the very least Jesus was the messiah who was crucified for mankind's sins. I bloody fucking know what a Christian is for fuck's sake!!!! And an appeal to motive is hardly needed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bible was written by sentient humans with cherished wishes, fears, grievances, prejudices and enemies. So of course they'd be lots of sick shit in it. But humans are also grateful, hopeful, loving and nice. So as you'd expect there's also lots of cute stuff mixed in too. The book can be used to interpret and justify many conflicting things so it makes little logical sense to consider it an inspiration source of evils. You could even find passages that contradict "be fruitful and multiply" and advocate reproductive responsibility or non-breeding. If people do unpleasant things, the problem does not lie with any religious book. It lies with the human psyche itself. The human choice to do unpleasant things is simply borne of the impression that it's the best way to address our existential problems and create a better world for ourselves. This impression is neither "wrong" nor "right". It is just a deeply personal decision made in response to the central question "what is my place in life?". The answer extremists give is one of infinite possible answers and every one of us has to put forward his own. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me boil this down so you can understand it better, because It really isn't this complicated from where I'm sitting. The Bible is presented as a moral guide from a higher authority than mankind (most scriptures are, but I'll use the Bible as an example since you all have jumped from "scripture" to "Bible"), people are told if they deviate from the script they will go to hell for being wicked. The Bible, being a document containing outdated ideas, is a terrible guide for today's world. Is it therefore all that surprising that some people (the extremists) take the book literally and carry the ideas contained therein to their ultimate end? Further, would that not indicate the the majority (the moderates), having failed to act on these ideas due to a better grasp on reality, might have deviated from the script somewhat?

Here is another example. I own a condensed version of the Arabian Nights, the book in question contains outdated ideas (slavery, misogyny, racism, etc). If I were to use the Arabian Nights as a basis for my life choices (fun fact the original author advised just that, I of course do not) and further convinced others to do the same, should it come as a great shock to me if some (not all) were to commit heinous acts in the name of that book?

I further find it truly disheartening how so many religions seek to claim how peaceful they are yet fail to exorcise the guilty passages from their own books, and further seek to discourage investigation into the behavior of Theist and scripture. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Before Christianity, the idolaters didn't know a book that in like fashion presented itself as a higher authority than mankind, yet the idolaters practiced more than their fair share of slavery, misogyny and discrimination around class and tribal divisions. If the bible is the problem you seriously got to explain why things didn't get significantly worse after the old world died.

Humanism and above all the communists targeted religion and while they succeeded in casting doubt on religious myths and sapping religion of its vitality, they failed to create a society absent the traditional ills of mankind, ills that in some measure they blamed on religion or presented religion as a tool that perpetrates them. Reference to this fact alone should make religion-bashing obsolete.

Speaking of communism, nobody can doubt that humanism and noble intentions were part of its ideological foundation. But why the heck did it get so much blood on its hands? Similarly, it shouldn't be very surprising that fairly stable or peaceful societies can be founded on books or ideologies without having humanism as part of their ideological foundation. Gewgtweg (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. Given that you just uttered several far-right soundbites in one go, we're done here. To be even more clear, while the discussion may continue, you and I are done. If all your going to do is invoke Communism to paint your opponents as monsters, then we're done, since all I wanted to know was how two groups of people could come to so radically different conclusions from using the exact same book as the basis for their life choices. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no "opponents" because I don't subscribe to any discernible ideology. All I said is that a religious book can't explain why people do bad things no matter the unsavory verses it contains. Especially the bible can be used to justify contradictory things, ranging from selfless humanitarianism to genocide. Ultimately, individuals decide what they want to do. Gewgtweg (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Individuals decide what they want to do based on their internal nature and their external influences. A couple of questions:

1.) Why should religion get to take credit for good deeds done in it's name, but not responsibility for atrocities?

2.) Is it immoral to present the metaphysical myths of scripture as facts? Does this form of ignorance not harm people?

3.) Communist states dislike religion. This is because they don't like the competition. Is everything they dislike actually completely rad? Are we to simply ignore their reasoning? Are we allowed to use any of our own reasoning?

4.) Why is it that communism can have "blood on its hands", but religion cannot?

5.) Since religious texts and influences are not responsible for all evils, are they then responsible for none? What about the evils they openly encourage?

6.) Since religion did not invent violence or cruelty, is it then impossible for religion to cause them?

7.) Should religion take zero responsibility for Wahhabi atrocities, or is it only Christian religions that get a free pass?

Religion teaches people falsehoods. Some of these falsehoods lead to tragic outcomes that could have been prevented by available knowledge. Religion can encourage good deeds, but none that I can think of that could not be encouraged by, say, community outreach programs. Oxfam encourages more good deeds than any religion. The problems caused by the mass ignorance encouraged by religion far outweigh any benefits. Even if the margin were narrower, truth and knowledge are values unto themselves. They don't need to be defended. Your basic argument seems to be something like "Bibles don't kill people, people kill people.". I really shouldn't need to get into why it's a bullshit argument. MunX (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It's actually very fitting that you bring up "guns don't kill people, people kill people" because the main problem with religion, similar as with guns, is when the wrong people get their hands on it. Those with tendencies of impulsive violence and/or deranged murder fantasies shouldn't have guns, drunken people shouldn't drive, the gullible and literal-minded shouldn't read problematic religious literature and megalomaniacs and sexual predators shouldn't be anywhere close to religious hierarchies. But that doesn't mean a blanket ban is the answer. Though I'll also grant that some religions are worse than others, similar to how some guns are more dangerous to handle than others. If you want to develop a religion with more advanced safety measures to prevent accidental discharge, I'm all for. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I probably should have started by saying that I fully support religious freedom insofar as it does not infringe on irreligious freedom. I think religion in general is bad for people, but it's their right to engage with it. I don't support bans on fast food or cigarettes either. We offset the bad effects of cigarettes on society by taxing them. I personally think we should do the same for churches. They certainly want and have disproportionate political representation. There certainly should not be a blanket ban. Secular states must do what it takes to 'tame' and civilise religious impulses. My comparison to guns may be a bit overcooked, actually. It was meant more as a comparison to Gewg's argument. After all, the only designed purpose of handguns is to kill humans. The same can't be said of religion. MunX (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Never said it should.

2) Metaphysical myths are neither a christian innovation nor has Christianity a sort of intellectual property rights on such falsehoods. If metaphysics equals immorality maybe we should conclude that human beings are immoral.

3) Radical lefties were the first group to consistently and passionately target God. Claiming that communism dislikes religion because "they don't like the competition" is like claiming Nazism dislikes Jews because they "don't like ZOG competition". Communism dislikes religion because of worldview reasons just as Nazism dislikes Jews for worldview reasons.

4) Sure it can. The traumatic experiences of the religious wars were instrumental in undermining religion in Europe.

5) Religions exist because humans like to think they have a recipe to help them cope with the challenges of existence and to make them feel important and special, in short, to give their life some meaning. This natural human tendency is what ultimately causes evils. Blaming religions is like thinking horses or cannons are the cause of bloodshed, not merely tools of warfare. Ideas ARE weapons.

6) Humans with particular names, brains and goals cause violence, not religions. The Ottomans practiced an admirable degree of religious tolerance (which they regretted doing when the Christians betrayed them in WWI). For modern Jihadists that's unthinkable. The religion is the same. So how do you explain the difference?

7) All humans are responsible for their crimes and all humans are capable of committing them, furthering them or tolerating them, regardless of their political, philosophical or religious persuasions.

Take the problem of anti-vaccinationism. I don't think you can blame Jesus for telling people not to get vaccinated. Being misinformed is the cause. But maybe those religious people would be more willing to trust science if non-religious people like Dawkins weren't trying to flatter their ego with virulent anti-religious rhetoric. Maybe there would be fewer Islamic extremists if we didn't shit bombs and fury on their countries. Maybe there would be fewer far-righters if liberals didn't insult poor whites by calling them "privileged" or thought that we can base migration policy on humanitarianism alone. But of course human nature likes being provocative and hubristic. So in the end evils simply get recycled. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

First, my reply to the BoN above clarifies that I do support people's religious freedom. Please read that before this.

1.) It's true, you didn't. I will take then that your position is that religion has no responsibility for either good or bad deeds done in its name or otherwise?

2.) Modern religion did not invent metaphysical positions, but they present wacky, outdated ones as fact in the modern world. We should and do know better. Metaphysical != immoral, but I feel it is immoral to perpetuate the specific metaphysical claims of scripture when it is clear they are false.

3.) I admit, I was just being a dick with the "competition" line. Marx did not discount religion specifically because of its power, but because its power was used to maintain ignorance and illegitimate influence.

4.) How do you reconcile this position with the position that religion does not directly increase or decrease the number of good and bad deeds and that individuals just decide what to do? Do false understandings held by individuals not influence their deeds? See point 1. Please correct me if this is not your position.

5.) I do not blame religion for the existence of evil. I claim that religion can cause decent people to do evil by convincing them that it is good. See religious homophobic violence etc etc. Of course homophobia did not begin with religion. Religion is just one of its most powerful modern allies and proponents. In this example, I think it is silly to say that homophobia and associated violence would not be rarer without religion.

6.) The religion itself is, simply, not the only relevant factor. I am simply arguing that it is relevant. The reassurances of an afterlife, for example, are certainly a factor in some people's willingness to martyr themselves.

7.) The wrong religious teachings augment some people's likelihood of committing crimes. People's actions are not unaffected by their political, philosophical or religious persuasions. You might say that these things are essential to people's decisions. For example, I'm here arguing with you because of mine.

I think my basic point is that religion in a modern society takes more than it gives. I certainly do not support any aggression against religion. I believe that religion does exacerbate certain social problems and enjoys undue influence in politics. MunX (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree with you on quite a few points. Dawkins' rhetoric is divisive and unhelpful. Western military aggression reinforces Wahhabi power and encourages despair and martyrdom. You cannot directly blame Christianity for anti-vax nonsense. The anti-intellectualism bred by Christianity's defensiveness towards science contributes, however. MunX (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Religions are always represented by secular powers which don't go to war or do anything based on "ideas" exclusively. There were always tangible political objectives and benefits that were put into consideration. For example, in post-Roman Spain the Goths tried to impose Arianism to the majority-Catholic population and failed. So what did they do instead? They converted themselves to Catholicism. This behavior can't be explained if we're to suppose that ideology is the dominant factor shaping human actions. Another example is Nazi Germany. On the ideological level, they idealized rural life but destroyed Germany's peasantry more thoroughly than anyone before them. Eugenics, racialism and anti-Semitism were widespread among the liberal west's leaders at the turn of the 20th century but that didn't lead to genocide or mass sterilization programs. It's amazing how people have forgotten that Winston Churchill's racist views were on par with many of his enemies a few hundred miles away.

2) I don't understand how the metaphysical idea regarding the triadic nature of God can harm society. The Christian religion has been around for hundreds of years and modern cosmology for a few decades. Maybe those who want to see everyone renouncing religion should be a bit more patient.

4) The religious wars would not have come about if Luther didn't see fit to sow heresy and many leaders didn't see fit to pursue political objectives in adopting his positions. Once again, people's decisions are responsible for evils, not the word of Jesus.

5) Sure, but irreligion isn't enough to prevent decent people from doing evil or tolerating it.

6) Well, you could say that religion is a factor when the Catholic church campaigns against birth-control. But the Bible also contains verses that explicitly encourage reproductive responsibility and even non-breeding. So are we to blame the Pope or Jesus? On the other hand, people are notoriously bad at being responsible propagators of their species. It is therefore debatable if we can really blame the Church for substantially contributing to the problem when the majority of non-Christians also support pro-natalism.

7) I am assuming you have Islam in mind since Christian violent extremism is rare or otherwise indistinguishable from hate speech. Well, Wahhabism basically represents old ambitions by some Saudis to dominate the Islamic world. And when you have such ambitions you have to find a justification for them. The best thing they could come up with is claim that Islam has been polluted by outside influences and needs to be made great again. Political grievances rather the commands of Mohammed is the key here.

When the weak decides to fight the strong, some form of suicidal tactics are necessary. The desire of terrorists to inflict harm and further their cause even if it means dying is just as important a motive as their expectation of an afterlife. Since humans are biologically wired to kinda love their life, I think the role of the latter is exaggerated. There are also strictly secular reasons for martyrdom. When a woman in Libya puts herself on fire to raise awareness against evils in her society the cause was surely not the God of the Koran. Maybe you could argue that Islamic misogyny contributes but I think social unrest and poverty are more important factors. Martyrdom originally meant being murdered because you supported an unpopular religion not committing suicide for God. Without Roman discrimination there wouldn't have been martyrdom and without martyrdom maybe less people would be willing to sympathize with the Christians.

I don't think religion takes more than it gives in a modern society. Scientific progress happened even though the majority of people believed all sorts of superstitions. Scientific research is by nature not a popular affair so I can't see why changing the views of the masses will necessarily further science. More people today are irreligious than they were in the late 19th century. Yet the rate of new discoveries has actually been receding. After all, the prosperity associated with science is just as reliant on abundant energy supplies and minerals (and privileged access to them) as on painstaking research. Rational thought or lack thereof is irrelevant when it comes to the first factor.

Early renaissance scientists thought that that science is about investigating God's creation which is nature. There is no reason Christians couldn't be made to believe that. Yet many popular science educators insist on belligerent "us vs them" attitudes. You can't expect the voice of fundamentalists to command less influence with such a policy. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand why everyone eventually just gives up discussing anything with you Gewg. You simply can't concede obvious points and just tend towards pure deflection. I also begin to understand your claim that you 'have no opponents'. You certainly do not seem stick to any discernible intellectual principles, as long as I discount pure contrarianism.

1.) Power structures like the Gothic invaders or the Nazi party are not idealistic and I never claimed they were. They are opportunistic, cynical and practical. The Gothic invaders' cynical use of religion as a tool of conquest is not a fantastic example of religion being benign. I'd say it's a good example of religion's power to unduly manipulate populations. Hitler's populist rhetoric and idealisation of agrarian life were not honest ideology. They were propaganda. The rest of this jazz about western racialism, although generally accurate, is just an irrelevant change of subject.

2.) The metaphysical claims of the existence and authority of gods is harmful. They promote fatalism and disengagement with actual human morality. How many gods you want to split your all powerful authority into is irrelevant. 'Modern cosmology', began in the 17th century or earlier. The scholarly suspicion of the non-existence of divine authority is centuries old. It has been resisted brutally by churches for obvious reasons. I am not asking for everyone to renounce religion. People must be free to abandon the superhuman claims of religion of their own accord and in most free societies, as recent generations have progressed, most people have done just that. It says something about the disinformation and sabotage of education in America that they lag so far behind in this process.

4.) I never mentioned the words of Jesus, some of which stand up to modern moral sensibilities. I am talking about religion. The substitution of an available, modern understanding of the universe in favour of an obsolete one based on superhuman authority and wisdom. In an irreligious world, Jesus' philosophies could live or die on their merits, without appeal to divinity. He could be remembered as an important philosopher, as he was. As you keep saying, religious wars are not caused by honest religious ideologies of leaders. They are, however, facilitated and the politics of them are lubricated by the brainwashing of the masses through religion. The fact that there are other brainwashing foci available does not change this.

5.) You transparently avoid conceding the point for no reason.

6.) Here you allow yourself to almost concede a point. Any Pope who has preached against birth control and ideologically against abortion (all of them?) does, indeed, deserve some blame. It is practically a cliché that the church has contributed negatively to reproductive issues. Don't be obtuse. The fact that thinking people can be simultaneously for birth control, abortion rights and pro-natalism is a great example of the stultifying influence religion has had on many who cannot.

7.) Christian violence is rarer than it has been historically precisely because Christianity dominates faith in modern democracies where it can be 'tamed' by popular, educated freedom and opinion. Where christian leaders have had more dominant power, they have had opportunity to exert it more brutally. Where Biblical literalism is taken seriously, Christianity is more dangerous. I was not specifically referring to Islam.

"Wahhabism basically represents old ambitions by some Saudis to dominate the Islamic world. And when you have such ambitions you have to find a justification for them." Ummm, my point exactly? "Political grievances rather the commands of Mohammed is the key here." Once again, religion is used as a convenient facilitator of violence and dominance.

Ok, home stretch. There's no particular reason why scientific thought should not be popular. There is a conspicuous, popular false dichotomy between science and 'spirituality'. Personally, I would define spirituality as love for existence and the world, inspiration and emotion gleaned from that love. This is, in no way, in conflict with scientific thought. Also, remember, we were never really discussing science. We were discussing the virtue or lack thereof of believing in superhuman authority. When you say 'popular science educators', I picture Carl Sagan, David Attenborough, Noam Chomsky, James Burke. These people certainly do not 'insist on belligerent "us vs them" attitudes'. They see and communicate the world with a deep clarity and beauty that cannot be matched by any appeal to divine authority. There is one conspicuous reason that 'Christians couldn't be made to believe that'. It's that their leaders have used the supposed divine authority of their gods to warn them against it. Surely this is just as immoral as the idea that I might demand that people renounce their religions, which I do not.

I've made my points. You are free to have the last word in this discussion. MunX (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Since you are so kind as to give me the last word I'll return the favor and allow you to have the last word instead. The only thing I want to say is that not "everybody" gives up on discussing with me. I've had plenty of long-winded discussions with people here and they haven't said they'll never to talk to me again. Only GrammarCommie was prejudiced enough to say "you and I are done!" (as if I was his boyfriend or something) when he thought I "uttered several far-right soundbites in one go". Gewgtweg (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Arron Banks[edit]

Considering the bullshit that is coming out from Arron Banks in the last few days, may I suggest an article? I am working on a draft in my sandbox Euromec (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the name Aaron or Arron? Nowhere Man (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's Aron. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Pokemonwiki is a highly reliable source, but I think it is actually Argon. — Dysk (contribs) 15:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, Aron does turn into Aggron when you feed them enough rare candy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait I thought it was pronounced Aragorn TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Could be Aragog... — Dysk (contribs) 21:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Or was it pronounced AronRa TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

PewDiePie collabed with Ben Shapiro[edit]

And I thought making a plant playable in a fighting game was weird. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBDNbpWSUx8 68.0.189.224 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Weird? You're talking about the same fighting series that lets you play as a two-dimensional stick figure, a fitness trainer, and a children's toy. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

They're all children's toys, though. GI Joe isn't the toy anymore. I heard from a guy at work that Simon Belmont was in the game. I flipped shit, said Simon can't hang, Richter Belmont is the Belmont that belongs in the game. He looked it up, Richter is also in the game. I made a dumb joke "what is this, 85 characters in the game now?" I was told 75. Gave me pause, because I was just joking with no idea, I love Marvel vs Capcom 2, but it's an arcade game and had 52 characters, if I remember right.

I don't like the mechanics of Smash, but the designers are very good at integrating an older generation to the game. I got a SNES when I was 3. I have spent my time in Smash as Ness, and I've been a problem. I'm very fighting-game centric, and I don't like the Smash mechanics. But my friends are about to have to deal with Richter Belmont. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt They're more like nerd's collectibles now. They started more toy-like but became trophies in Super Smash Bros. Melee. Yes, Simon is in the game. Ryu is in. So is Solid Snake (returned from Super Smash Bros. Brawl). And Bayonetta. And of course Mario. I grew up with Smash Bros. and so of course I love how it plays. It's more like a platformer fighter mishmash compared to the other fighters. Smash means a lot to me; it's the entire basis for my username, as it's named after the very palette of Mario. It's just so... different. And the stages are all radically different from each other, glorious gimmick fests in some, compared to other fighters where stages are honestly glorified different backdrops. Anyway, try guessing how many stages are there. :) --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Republicans vs Democrats[edit]

Obviously I don't really care about American imperialists, but I heard that if the Democrats win they could impeach Trump and then I started looking into whether that is possible, and if it is, why exactly does it require an election win to achieve? — Dysk (contribs) 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In order to impeach a sitting president (has never happened and will likely never happen, neither party has the balls to set precedent like that) the legislative branch (both the house and the senate) need to vote overwhelmingly in favor. Which means that the GOP won't do it, which means the Dems need to be in power in both the house and senate to stand even the slimmest chance of passing an impeachment resolution. They won't do it though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if Dems have the Speaker and impeach both Trump and Pence, they'd suddenly have control of the White House. President Pelosi anyone? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry butting in out of order. Impeachment has happened twice: Andrew Johnson (forward conflict with the Republican congress [there's a lot of context missing here so don't conflate Republicans of then with Republicans of now, they just have the same name]) and Bill Clinton (for perjury and obstruction of justice). An impeachment charge was brought against Nixon after Watergate, but Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached. No POTUS has ever been removed from the office, and removal is the precedent they don't have the balls to set. Impeachment has happened before, though. Koi "dammit Koi stop making such long sigs!" development 16:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koidevelopment I stand corrected. Thank you for that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Am I the only one who remembers the 1990s? Frivolous impeachments became the precedent back then. The atmosphere of moral hyperventilation back then was something to see. Not a fan of the Clintons, but if the Democrats actually manage to take the House, Bill Clinton needs to be avenged sevenfold. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Democrats" can't impeach trump. The US House can impeach him, and a super-majority of the senate can convict. Democrats will not have a super-majority in the senate at any point in the near future, no matter how this upcoming election goes(in fact, due to our stupid broken democracy, it'd take nearly unheard of record break in voting patterns for democrats in the midterm for them even to get a majority there). Which means any plan for removing trump from office not only requires a successful prosecution but 10 republicans who'd prefer their party losing power and prestige to the world burning. Not gonna happen. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

When you say "the world burning", do you mean climate change, war, or... something else? Because the Dems wouldn't be much better for the climate, and they might be worse when it comes to war, so... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Worse with war? How? I mean, Trump's closest man during the election was somebody who pretty much wanted war with China in the near future... Dendlai (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Bring in Bannon, why not. Because trying to figure out one madman at a time clearly isn't enough. *eyeroll emoji* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(ECx2 and GC made it impossible to post below because threading)Please stop having opinions; you're not good at it. I'm asking politely, but seriously every single one is like nails on a chalkboard at 120 decibels. If you have to lie your ass off about things like the trump administration, say, openly stripping efficiency standards on vehicles or withdrawing from the Paris accords' tracking of emissions to falsely allege the shitty centrists (who make serious overtures about the problem) are just as bad, what do we gain by me having to stop and waste everyone's time pointing out the flagrant bullshit you spew?

Who wins? Not me, I have to waste time pointing out that you're a fucking liar. Not you, you throw your goddamn integrity in a dumpster for the sake of a bloated reality TV star. Not the rest of the editors who have to have their real discussion blocked by this which is doubtless going to be followed by your pedantically arguing some facade of an argument about how unfair it is to accuse you of lying when that's exactly what you did. No one wins from you lying. Not a goddamn person. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Lol, me being pessimistic about climate change being meaningfully tackled means I'm a... I'm not even going to try to reduce your outrage-speak to a coherent summary. Do you hear yourself? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And here it is. Here's the pedantic bullshit where you pretend you didn't just lie your fucking ass off. Fucking hell, I'm not playing that game. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the reason you see people "lying their ass off" all the time is because you're projecting meanings onto the words that aren't actually there. Just maybe! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it sure is projection that very specific thing you lied about. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The very specific thing that I don't think Democrats will significantly help the climate? That's not a lie, that's actually what I think. And you're free to disagree, though honestly I'd be a bit surprised if you really have that much faith in "the shitty centrists." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I have to spell this thing out for you guys and gals in simple terms. Even if either party had the power and alliances needed to impeach, they wouldn't do it. Why? I'm glad you children asked. Because kiddos, such an act sets precedent! And if they ever lost power, the party in power could then turn around and use that same precedent against them. Everyone got that? Good. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure politicians always worry about precedent. Remember when Democrats got rid of the filibuster rule in the Senate? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Gonna point it out again I guess. Removal is the dangerous precedent no one wants to set. Impeachment is not. Two democrats were impeached (Johnson and Clinton) and one Tricky Dicky was almost impeached (resigned before he could be formally impeached but you'd better believe it was coming). I have been known to impulse buy books 17:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koidevelopment I stand corrected. Thank you for that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And of course, it's a fucking good precedent if the person removed committed a major felony, and the process shows that to be true. I'd love a precedent of presidents going to jail for serious crimes. Throw every single democrat who does things like, say, collaborate with a foreign intelligence apparatus against the US, into jail, remove them from office and, hell, throw away the key. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If we did that to Feinstein after she colluded with Chinese intelligence for 20 years, she wouldn't have been around to manufacture the Kavanaugh rape allegations. Hell, if we jailed her staffer who paid Christopher Steele, there wouldn't have been any Russia collusion hoax and we wouldn't be talking about impeachnent right now. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 19:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Rob, I'm going to ask you very politely to not engage in victim blaming when it comes to rape. I'm going to be polite because if I'm not I will say some things best left unsaid. Do you understand? Yes? Good. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Oops MB dude didn't mean to correct you twice. Wasn't paying attention and thought this came from two different users. L'homme Idéal (je rigole). 17:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If Democrats win, it's ultimately a stand off. Typically, when there's a Democrat White House and Republican Congress, we hear how bad "gridlock" is for democracy. When it's reversed, gridlock is generally seen as saving the planet and civilization. When Democrats control House, Senate and White House, Hispanics and immigration reform ride the back of the bus.

Should House Democrats begin impeachment proceedings, John Huber & Jeff Sessions will begin unsealing 61,000 federal indictments which consist of the Democrat party leadership and donors in 50 states and DC. Trump packed the courts with GOP judges the first two years, a national emergency has already been declared, and military tribunals are prepared to administer justice in 10 days.

The Kavanaugh rape hoax was a collosal error by Democrats. It pushed the country in the direction of having military tribunals finally deal with the lawlessness of Democrats. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 18:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Granted, impeachment is unlikely but reluctance to set precedent shouldn't matter a whit otherwise the Constitution is no better than toilet paper. McConnell and Trump in their lust for naked power have both been eager to flush norms down the toilet, so there's the precedent if you want one. That said, if the Democrats do take just one house of legislation, it will mean a world of pain for the kleptocracy: it could start wit a subpoena of Trump's tax returns and go from there. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Both Parties are trash yet the Dems get more slack than the Republicans for some reason. Obama was the second coming of Jesus or something along those lines.. Even though the Democrats made the KKK, supported slavery, and opposed desegregation ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.8.245.245 / talk / contribs}

Impeachment is pointless. It is probably the only thing Democrats could do to boost Trump's popularity after the election. Why do it without the faintest chance to convict, and even then unless we were getting rid of Pence as well? The Kavanaugh fiasco roused republicans for a short time. The effect has mostly disappeared. Democrats win the house. The senate may be in play.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if impeachment doesn't follow through, in both cases, it was capable of severely reducing the president's clout, his confidence in running things. I don't want Democrats try to impeach Trump, especially not with the Mueller investigation finished. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 00:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering Christmas and the Holiday season is coming.[edit]

https://youtu.be/UFRowhx9a-g

Just for laughs. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Dude, it's not even past Halloween yet. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not even RationalWiki is safe from Christmas creep. --GVOLTT (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is safe from the Christmas creep. Not one single person is safe from the Christmas creep. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe it's almost December 25th, 2040 already. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't wait for more atheist whinning-TheDarkMaster2

I haven't noticed atheists "whinning" - if that was a tyop for "whining". If, however, it was a typo for "winning" then I have to agree with you. Scream!! (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Neigh. i kan reed^{🐎neigh at me} 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bigs Oh, and speaking of Halloween, I've heard that the Religious ~~Reich~~ Right is even waging a War On Halloween! They think it's sAY-tAHniK!!! :( B'P"9 02:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Man Satan's collection of holidays just keeps growing, Halloween, Mardis Gras, Boss' day. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Why not have a War on Hanukkah? Kwanzaa? Passover? Fundies are so annoying that moderate Christians don't like fundies. Emergency Action Notification --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays :D Aloysius the Gaul 21:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy (American) Thanksgiving! Merry Christmas and happy new year everyone! Nerd (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No. This is why we need a war on Christmas. Get thee back to thy advent, demon! ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding, Reed? Just relax and have fun! You don't have to be religious to enjoy Christmas. Nerd (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Now who wants to listen to a fun Christmas album?

Enjoy! Nerd (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

How long until we can start ~~nagging~~ ~~whining pitifully~~ respectfully asking for the Santa hat logo to go up? Now? How about now? Is it there yet? LongLostLegend (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

December. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists being banned from YouTube[edit]

It might seem like a good idea but in a practical sense it is a bad idea. Think about it, you make conspiracy nuts in to martyrs. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Those are the already radicalized people. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Reddit did this same sort of thing awhile back, booting out a bunch of extremist sub-reddits. That didn't stick, and those same groups are back on Reddit under new sub-reddits, spewing the exact same garbage as before. The point of this story is we shouldn't expect this crap with YouTube to be any different. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of the 'casual nuisances and look-at-mes' will be discouraged (as with short term blocking on RW and elsewhere), and some of the 'very offensive/legal issues arising/other such problems' will be banned because of the law/loss of advertising revenue as companies withdraw from sites rather than be associated with X.

However - is it not better to have such people in plain sight so they can be 'observed, countered, deliberately ignored and otherwise dealt with' rather than hiding in obscure corners and peddling their theories out of sight? Besides banning them may well add to their self-perceived worth - '#They# don't want you to read the truth...' Anna Livia (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what these people don't get, sunlight is the best disinfectant, but they are too scared that it might encourage people to not be leftwing. This is why free speech mattersUser_TheDarkMaster

This is not a simple problem. Trusting our corporate overlords to allow or disallow different people on their platforms is a very dangerous proposition. It's also probably not very effective. On the other hand, the Alex Jones' of the world are using their exposure to encourage violence with plausible deniability. It is not the premise of free speech that lunatics must be encouraged to spread their insanity to impressionable people. Ironically, the right-wing fools gibbering about free speech may be the greatest danger to free speech to pop up this century. They certainly don't understand it's importance or political meaning. They are trying to redefine freedom of speech to mean the freedom to screech racial epithets and spread dangerous lies among the general population. Also, TheDarkMaster, it's laughable for someone like you to spout lines about "sunlight being the best disinfectant". I've read a bunch of your random claptrap and I'm sure you've been negatively influenced by the right-wing internet nutters. Instead of being disinfected, the disease has infected the sunlight. MunX (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This youtube thing is nothing new. Remember what happened to LGBTQ+ videos? Why does it take the banning of scumbags rather than the filtering of minority outreach for the right wing free speech folk to get complaining? --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Because they don't actually care about free speech. All they care about is their side having a soapbox to yell at everyone else from, that's it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's an answer from you but I don't think I got an acceptable answer from them. Maybe there are right wing free speechers who did join the outcry about that part of YouTube and condemned Alex Jones. If there are then bless them and I am sorry for grouping them with those people who complain about Alex Jones being censored. But so far I am seeing just generic statements about free speech for Alex Jones and certainly haven't seen masses of people bringing up free speech to the same extent, if at all when it comes to LGBT. I saw more about marginalization and denigrating minorities. Guess that comes back to your point. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Fuck me... This is literally what I meant when I say that Russian Bot is the same thing as NPC You think I've been infected by rightwing propaganda and that is the only way I could have the opinions I do. You ever think people might just have a different opinion? It's like those people who think debating someone is giving them a platform. THAT'S NOT HOW THAT WORKS, that's not how anything works. Trust me once this censorship goes full throttle it'll go after you tooTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Bruh, Nintendo has gone full-blown asshattery on Youtube and I already felt "censorship"... not so much censorship as much as copyright fuckwittery. "You ever think people might just have a different opinion?" I'd hardly call inciting violence and harassment against shooting survivors or otherwise poisoning reputations of targets (like what Mike Adams does) a simple matter of opinion. You heard about "libel"? But past that, this is more of an issue of profitability. Those conspiracy mongers are seen as toxic assets that affect profit margins if they remain on sites as well as if they're violating site TOU. Since Alex Jones et al are negative influences (and rightfully so, as well as their possible straddling legal lines and might end up being in a lawsuit for libel by their victims which corporations rightfully don't want to be dragged into there), they are tossed out. The real problem is Youtube's algorithms, their abuse of copyright flagging, their monetization programs, their possible monopoly, and their new-channel-unfriendly policies. Alex Jones et al removals don't bother me. I'd have a problem if (still unsavory) users like Black Pigeon Speaks or Cargon of Sakkad or Jordan Peterson or even maybe Fox News gets off Youtube, as long as they don't incite harassment. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 23:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster - I do, indeed, believe that the only pathway to your beliefs is through uncritical consumption of propaganda. A key tenet of propaganda is the redefinition of words. Let's start with the word 'debate'. A debate is a formal argument with timed sections, a moderator, usually a vote at the end. A debate is intended to hopefully arrive at a mutually understood conclusion of which positions are more correct or useful. None of the right wing media figures demanding debates want a debate. Some of them want a broadcast shouting match so they can vent their spleens at lefties and froth up their audiences. Some of them want something with an air of legitimacy to make them look respectable, but have no intention of learning or conceding anything. If they are forced into a corner, they will change the subject. What they all want is an uneducated audience. For a respectable and honest intellectual or politician to pretend-debate someone like, for example, Shapiro, gives him an undeserved appearance of legitimacy.

Another word that is being attacked through propaganda is 'opinion'. Technically just about anything I believe could be called an opinion, but say someone's opinion was that we should just set all the nukes off and all just die. Is that still just a different opinion, or is it the ravings of a dangerous nut? Ideas like identity prejudice, climate change denial, vaccine paranoia and problem solving through violence aren't just different opinions. They are opinions that have been instilled in you through sophisticated manipulation techniques to your detriment. They are bad for you and almost everyone else.

The idea of education is attacked through anti-intellectual propaganda. The image of ivory tower eggheads looking down on you with contempt is generally false. Most academics, especially those in the humanities, have huge personal concern for the people and the world. So do the idealistic young people they are trying to teach. That is why all the truly liberating movements start with university students. People like good old J-Peets are outliers. I've often wondered how he ever became a professor in the first place, to Canada's shame.

Now here's the thing. A lack of government and corporate censorship is a left-wing principle. Historically, It has automatic appeal to regular people. The people who you believe to be advocates of free expression do not actually hold this principle. They only advocate those ideas in the cases of speakers that they agree with. If people like Alex Jones etc were not clearly destroying the social cohesion of working class people, the left would have no problem with them. We do not see these as simple issues and there is much argument among left leaning people about what is to be done to deal with these serious and complicated problems.

The word socialism has been attacked through propaganda, maybe more than any other. Socialism is worker control of production and working class participation in economic and social decision making. That's pretty much all it is. It's clearly a good idea on it's face. Unfortunately, the two most powerful propaganda machines of the 20th century, the USA and the USSR have managed to convince people like you that socialism means totalitarianism. This is false. The Soviets wanted us all to believe they were socialists so they could take advantage of the good reputation that democratic socialism had in Europe at the time. The Americans wanted us to believe the Soviets were socialist so they could demonise the idea of socialism. Clearly, the USSR was a social dungeon without personal freedom. If we could be convinced that this was socialism, then we would abandon the idea without trying to understand further. The names of many nations are lies unto themselves. The Congo and North Korea are not democratic republics. China is not a republic of the people. The USSR was not socialist. The Nazis were not socialists. Once they had used this lie to gain power, they murdered anyone in their ranks with socialist tendencies.

The idea that Antifa and similar movements are hate groups, equivalent to fascists, is propaganda. Antifa is not a centralised power structure. It is a grass roots defensive reaction to the rise of fascism, beginning sometime around the 1920s. Personally, I am sympathetic to their ideals but do not agree with many of their methods. Because they are an actual threat to far-right expansion, they need to hide their faces because of the real danger of being murdered for it. The fact that they have real sympathy for people hurt and demonised by right wing aggression and rhetoric leads to youthful outrage and some broken windows. That said, they are a real defensive movement against a real threat. The only way one can believe that right wing movements are actually defensive is to believe in the racial and economic boogeymen created by ... propaganda. The greatest weakness of the left is, unfortunately, unavoidable. It is that we actually care about social and moral principles and think about them deeply and critically. This leads to differences of opinion that are divisive, such as my belief that Antifa tactics are a dangerous gift to right wing propagandists.

Blah blah blah. So anyway, yes, you are a victim of propaganda. I believe that you are not beyond help and I want to help you. MunX (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

But that's the thing I don't agree with Nazis or "Race realists" But the thing is you guys on the left are going ABabout this the wrong way. It's just like Ben from The Drunken Peasants said. These people already have a platform. THEY DON'T NEED YOUR FUCKING LEGITIMACY, You don't get it they already have it. And you trying to deplatform them is just gonna give them more creability. Your making your own monster. You make these people extremists then when they shoot up a bunch of jews you wanna wag your finger and say "See I told you!". NO fuck that shit. The blood is on your hands, and mine because my bro's youtube channel is too small to effectively debate them.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

The people you are describing were extremists long before anyone tried to deplatform them. You cannot debate them. They will not submit to actual debate, only false debate on their terms. Given that they do not argue in good faith, there is no point in speaking to them, only about them.

The right-wing preach a constant anti-Semitic chorus of lies. They flat out say that working class problems can be solved through the extermination of Jews. But you think people like me are more responsible for violence against Jews than they are?

With large, mainstream platforms, people like Alex Jones are part of the mainstream. They are able to recruit. Booted underground, they are back to being just tin-foil-hat wearing weirdos with no audience. It is silly to deny that the rhetorical power of the various provocateurs has been reduced by deplatforming. The people that follow them into their underground warrens are the people who are already deeply broken by their messages. They will not trap near as many new minds. There won't be as many casual listeners to be radicalised. Conspiracy minded people who were already sympathetic towards their messages may see their marginalisation as proof of their legitimacy, but there's not much helping that. It is still far better than the alternative, pretending they have something worth hearing to say. The only real good solution was for them not be made mainstream in the first place, but of course, we're beyond that now.

Once people go too far down the conspiracy hole, they cannot be reasoned with effectively. Your 'bro', whatever he believes, can't change their minds. If he is respectable, they will leech his respectability. He should write and speak about them, not to them. They do not warrant it.

Now, I don't want to misrepresent your beliefs. I misspoke a few times in my long post. If you don't want me to misunderstand your principles, you should continue to try to articulate them in detail. MunX (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Bro" literally my brother. Isn't talking behind someone's back and misrepresenting what they say is very intellectually dishonest. Also just for the record they've grown to the point where them being underground doesn't harm them. You're not understanding this. Anyone can change their mind if they try what about that skinhead that stopped being "racist?"TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

youtube is massive and with the guidelines/algorithms they use, this stuff is never going to be perfect and they change with the tide. stuff will get missed, sometimes it will be overzealous, but when its spotted its easily rectified. its probably not there right now but its never a concerted effort to target a particular side despite elements claiming every slight is an assault on their freedoms/way of life what have you. administrative oversight is generally the reason for all blunders. i agree it shouldnt be left to facebook/google and the like but they will be responsible for any implementation of whatever is decided. just shouting freedom of speech and thinking anything goes is just an excuse to do nothing and not have to think about things. constant vigilance and review of guidelines the way to go. its not really that onerous. nothing of note falls under the radar these days. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a case for allowing a certain amount of 'the look at me with my views at a high angle to reality' material to be posted so all of us know what we are looking at (and which viewpoints should be countered most emphatically) - and also that 'those who shout, falsely, "Fire" in a crowded theatre' and overly hostile memes should be stopped. There will always be those looking for problematic material, and there will always be some fluidity as to the boundaries - what is 'how odd' for one person may well have a negative influence on someone else - while some things are merely odd little corners one moment and then suddenly all over the place. Anna Livia (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Overly hostile Memes" That's stupid memes aren't hostile it's the people that use them that are. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Excellent video on the topic and why people are dishonestly using this shooting for their agenda, both sides https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roShIETIEk0&list=UU0rZoXAD5lxgBHMsjrGwWWQ&index=4 ^{— Unsigned, by: TheDarkMaster2 / talk / contribs}

A Styxhexenhammer666 video? No thanks. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you watch the actual video before judging it. Just because it's by styx doesn't mean it's bad Isn't that the "Rational" Thing to do?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Because editorials (and by extension video essays) should fundamentally hinge on the integrity of their purveyors. It's not like it's a fucking primary source. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

He had the opportunity to carve a reputation and establish honesty. He has failed to do so. If he doesn't undertake the effort, why should I ever take him seriously, unless he cleans up his act? --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster Ummmmm, I must ask; are you Styx' little brother? =P MunX (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we rewrite this article?[edit]

I am talking about our article regarding Jesus' historicity. Now, I understand that this is mostly an atheist wiki, and that atheism does play part in RationalWiki endorsing the pseudohistorical view that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist at all. But the article is not only skeptical of the evidence presented by mainstream scholars, but is also misleading. It portrays the debate between apologists and atheists. And says that common evidences that are accepted in modern scholarship are just arguments used by apologists. This is demonstrably wrong...

Here are several source :

"In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 285"

Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X p. 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 p. 34

Now again, I have NO problem if RW is skeptical of the evidence, but we should mention that Jesus' existence as a historical figure is the position of mainstream historians and NOT what apologists believe. Thoughts? Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

So if I find four scholars who once hinted that Jesus liked getting high on weed with his 12 smoking buddies can we include that as well? — Dysk (contribs) 17:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The view that RW endorses is NOT mainstream among historians. Do you disagree with this? Why does RW ignore this fact? Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is not supposed to present a common neutral view, the place for that is Wikipedia. Unless I am deeply mistaken that article is supposed to say what it says because that is the atheist and skeptical point of view of this wiki. No? — Dysk (contribs) 18:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not neutrality I am disputing. It is the presentation. Mainstream historians do not view Christ Myth Theory as serious. RationalWiki makes it look like apologists just believe Jesus historically existed. Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The historicity of Jesus delves into the philosophical question of self, that is to say while many scholars agree that there may have been an individual behind the myth (similar to King Arthur) to say that the (possible) historical figure is the same individual as mentioned in the myth is preposterous, as many of the claims in said myth are not only unlikely but also implausible. Further, the entire question is moot minus reliable historical accounts (the Bible doesn't count) to corroborate the claims. In short while "Jesus" could have existed, we have no reliable evidence that he did indeed exist. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You have right to your opinions, but you should mention that your opinion is NOT taken seriously by majority of scholars in the subject. First of all, Bible does have historical value. Not all of Bible's claims are corroborated, but the Bible is a significant historical record. Jesus' existence (not just some Yeshua, but specifically a person who was baptized by John and Crucified by Pilate), is accepted by virtually ALL modern scholars. This has to be stated. I have no problem whatsoever if you disagree or you have problem with how historians investigate sources. You have to mention, that Christ Myth Theory is a joke among scholars. It does not matter whether you take miracles described in the Gospel literally or not. That is besides the point. In the same way, that the idea that Troy did not exist is a fringe theory, it does NOT matter whether I literally believe in muses that Homer speaks of.Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, there is no reliable evidence that Socrates existed and little evidence that Plato existed either, and we have far fewer copies of Plato's writings than ancient copies of the Bible. Yet, few people dispute that those two Greeks existed.Sovereigntist (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(EC)(Psst, it's just Socrates that fits that bill, Plato's historicity is way way way way way stronger than Jesus') ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

KD1, you are comparing apples to oranges. The way in which the historicity of places is determined is not the same (though it is somewhat similar) as the way in which the historicity of people is determined. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case, merely reflecting academic consensus(which isn't anywhere near as strong as you or wikipedia's current article imply) would dodge one of the big jobs of rationalwiki that isn't in the official mission: being a reliable source about religious cultural norms that aren't necessarily true. The conventional historicity of Jesus comes from the way the historical method interacts with questions of existence, namely that in times and places where primary documents are sparse, more credence than normal is given to indirect sources. In much the same way the second proto-emperor of China, Tai Kang, can reasonably be reconstructed, we know next to nothing about his life, with conflict reports about basic things like how he died. In short, there's no reason to assume Jesus isn't real, so the extremely sparse evidence suggesting very tacitly he is very naturally leads to a historic consensus. Having an article interrogating that isn't defying academic thought in the way you are suggesting. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you are telling me at the moment should be in the article. The article DOES NOT mention that Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory. It mentions Bible apologists' beliefs about Jesus, rather than saying that Jesus' existence is a consensus, widely held by historians of all stripes. Now, if you have a problem with the way historians investigate these subjects. FINE! If you think that sources for Jesus' existence need to be examined more critically, FINE! But do not make things up. You have to mention that mainstream historians do NOT disagree on this subject. For example, I have no problem if you subscribe to the Marlovian theory of Shakespeares authorship. I have no problem if you question the sources about William Shakespear from Stradford-upon-avon. But to tell me that Shakespeare apologists believe in Shakespeare's authorship, is bullshit. Shakespeare's authorship is NOT disputed by mainstream scholars. Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd specifically allege you misunderstand the meaning of "fringe theory". It's not the same as "substantively different from consensus". It needs to be "explicitly or implicitly rejected by consensus" ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, I want to hammer home that you're using fucking InterVarsity Press garbage to push this "it's a fringe theory" thing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, majority of scholars who investigate the New Testament are either agnostic or are not Biblical literalists. They think that the Massacre of the Innocents did not happen, Luke made a mistake when referencing the Census of Quirinius etc. They have no dog in this fight. Majority of ancient historians find enough support for the physical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. This is a fact, REGARDLESS of whether you believe in God or even miracles ascribed to Jesus Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Weird, if that were true, why the fuck are you citing a fundie propoganda press? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have not ever heard of that website until now. I simply copy pasted what major scholars have said about this, and that was taken from Wikipedia. I do not know a "fundie" scholar I have brought here. To my knowledge, NONE of these scholars are Biblical literalists. The biggest proponent is an agnostic Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This video by Aron Ra explains what I've been trying to say better than I apparently can. That being said I will try one more time to convey the meaning of my thoughts. Yeshua, faith healer and cult leader may have existed (though the evidence for that is slim, it is still there) but, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the messiah, the character described in the Bible, has not, and can not be real. In the same vein that a barbarous Celtic warlord may have been the inspiration for King Arthur of Camelot, the fact of the matter remains that the historical person who may have existed (and I can not stress those "may"s enough) is arguably not the same as their fictional counterpart. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Aron Ra is not only irreligious, he is anti-religious. His views DO NOT reflect the views of modern scholars. Jesus of Nazareth (whom you believe the myths were ascribed to) did exist. And he was crucified by the orders of Pilate. This view is not disputed. Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not cite him as an authority (though to be blunt I would trust him more than you if I had), rather I cited his video as an elaboration on my own thoughts on the matter given the data. Further, you seem to believe that Religion, Mythology, and history are one and the same, they are not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have seen that video before. You are correct, Aron Ra is absolutely more educated than me. I respect Aron very much. But we have to look at the facts. I am not against people thinking that the evidence is not sufficient. But we have to be honest about what the consensus is and what the conclusion of most scholars in relevant fields are. And to be fair, the historical methods do not always favor Christianity. For example, Josephus' references to Jesus are taken as a strong evidence that Jesus existed. But Josephus not mentioning the Massacre of the Innocents when describing Herod's misdeeds (person living earlier than Jesus) is taken as evidence that the Massacre is not historically documented. Now, I take it, that this evidence would be suggestive for you that the Massacre did not occur. Though, both cases use the SAME historical methods! Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, that event isn't a person, and the historicity of people is trickier than that of events or places. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, there's evidence that works of some authors as Josephus were tampered with, so they'd mention Jesus. That said, while I agree it's highly likely there was a kernel of truth there's an abyss between the Biblical accounts being true and the historical character, who could have well been very different to the Biblical one. And of course Fundies think on the former, not on the latter. Panzerfaust (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Panzerfaust That's what I have said four times now. If "Jesus" isn't the character depicted in the Bible, is he still Jesus? I content that he is not, and that further the current evidence (to the best of my knowledge) is inconclusive. (A note to KD1 and Gewgtweg, I do not dispute that there was likely a real person behind the myth, and have never denied that. My point that I have repeatedly tried to hammer home is if that person differs radically from the character in the Bible, or even if the character is based off multiple people, then that character is fictitious.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should absolutely rewrite this article. Jesus mythicism is an example of atheist bad history. There was, beyond any doubt, an actual charismatic figure in Judea that founded the cult that later went on to become the religion of the Roman Empire. This guy examines the issue very well. https://historyforatheists.com/ Gewgtweg (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As with Arthur and several other such characters probably a fusion of several different people (possibly including a Brian) - and even more interpretations/biographies thereof - hence the inconsistencies. Also some of the utterances have been improved for memorability (as with 'The pound in your pocket' and 'You've never had it so good'). Anna Livia (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie No. The idea that Jesus is based off multiple people can be definitively ruled out. The character of Jesus is based on a single historical person and that's the scholarly consensus. The fictions and the myth-making that grew and spread about him after he died do not in any way make him a fictitious character. Gewgtweg (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If I wrote a fiction in which a character named Gewgtweg did various things, some admirable, some heinous, and claimed I based it off of you. Is that Gewgtweg and yourself still the same person? If almost all the elements of the self are so radically different from the real person, does that mean that the character in the fiction and the person in fact are two entirely separate entities? I would contend that if one's words, actions, ideas, and even one's name are embelished and mythologized enough, then fact and fiction become two separate pictures. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm an atheist but I really find it difficult to get too excited about this. So what if there really were one or more real people who ultimately gave rise to the Bible myths? It's obvious that "divine Jesus" didn't exist so I'm not really bothered whether or not some real guy(s) may have existed who later gave rise to the mythical one.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not that anyone needs to take a radical stance of non-existence. That serves no purpose. It's about understanding the limitations of talking about existence like it's an indisputable fact. It's part of a broader skepticism. The sad truth is that the historical method and scientific skepticism are not truly hermeneutically compatible. As I've outlined previously in this discussion, there's good reasons for that incompatibility, narrative history requires to you reconstruct as best you can from the evidence currently available. The reason I'm so invested in the argument is kingdamian is making a completely unreasonable sham of an argument from authority, that's not really valid. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie What reason would you have to mythologize me? I am not a religious or political leader. These are the people that normally get mythologized. The Soviet masses for example were brainwashed to have an idea about Stalin that was very different to the real guy. Does that make him a fictitious person?

The point about Jesus is that there are reliable sources that lead us to the view that a Yeshua guy born in Nazareth, resident of Galilee, son of Joseph, leader of a cult and executed at the behest of the Jews on the orders of Pontius Pilatus by crucifixion, really did exist. The issue is complex so I redirect you to https://historyforatheists.com/ Gewgtweg (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If all we had of Stalin was those propoganda posters, the elaborate praise of the party papers, and a couple people writing about "stalinists" and that was it? It'd be a pretty reasonable thing to consider, yes. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I try to forget that RW article exists because it's ~~a bit of~~ a mess. RW is defying "Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians" now? (Yes, I know about the essay...) — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Courtesy Policy[edit]

@LeftyGreenMario recently proposed the creation of a clear-cut policy concerning our community's expectations for personal conduct. This is in response to several other users raising the issue that our community has something of an etiquette problem, with many newcomers being chased off talk pages due to hostile reactions to proposed changes and many a heated dispute breaking out between established users. On one hand, I think that many of these reactions are warranted, but on the other hand I also think it might be beneficial to have a guidelines page which gives users more of an idea of what is and is not acceptable. Maybe being a flaming asshole to everyone should be against the rules. Anyways, I thought it would be best if we pitched this to the site as a whole. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It's worth attempting. If the policy turns out to be bad or anal, we can always change it later through mob vote. But first, we should decide on a mob vote to have something like this in the first place, and also any suggestions for provisions are fine. We should clearly outline what's acceptable and what's not acceptable for discourse. I think it's a good time to overhaul our policies on discourse. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep calm and carry on. I know it's a meme now, but was it ever a bad point? If one disingenuous actor can rattle the whole system, who is in charge of the system? The answer is supposed to be all of us. It's not what they call you, it's what you respond to. And more importantly, it's how you respond. This site has always had fast and loose rules about bans. But it's also always had people who can tell a person to shut up, no matter what language they use. If it's worth putting it on paper, it's a new discussion. I can't be anti-today. But if it's just because somebody is too hostile, why does this site even have a page on urine therapy? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You might want to read RationalWiki:Community_Standards first.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

nice job missing the point, everyone. you don't need a *new* poilcy, you need to *follow* the old ones 27.32.146.237 (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This whole policy idea will just result in censorship, Is it not more "rational" To allow a free market place of ideas to be here?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster

Refusing to have and enforce a code a code of conduct is irrational due to the chilling effect it has on speech outside of the most noxious viewpoints and the chilling effect it has on encouraging people outside of the most privileged (and thus arguably least able to be rational on topics like "should this group of people live or die") to contribute. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Because RationalWiki is exactly like a government and bureaucratic regulations. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 17:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

BoNThe point of the new policy is to take a look at the old ones and see what is going on. Apparently, it's not good enough because people don't approve of some of the behavior going on and decided to leave.

Sis:

. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It is true that the current policy is not being enforced. People should not be blocked for expressing unpopular opinions on talk pages. Petty insults and gross behavior, are not in themselves offensive to me. But I object to discouraging the participation of those with divergent opinions on the talk pages by self-appointed vigilantes using vile rhetoric. The inaction of the moderators should be called into account. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed that RationalWiki:Contributor Covenant be adopted as a guideline, please join the poll at RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation#Poll. — Dysk (contribs) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

So we're all not doing our best. And we want a community that reads their own guidelines and does their best. But, it's coming down to each of us every time to call it out. So how can we be in support of nuance and effectively enforce rules? I think we do better protecting the culture, because when you put it on paper, allowing the same rights and giving the same privileges to people who disagree with the site's function has never harmed the site. I think the rules are correct, and the rule needs to be upheld.

If I have to admit a shortcoming to myself, I'd like to add to some page. I work 50 hours a week and I'm 31 years old, I love the snark and sometimes I want to outsnark the snark, but I have no idea who is making the sites anymore, I don't have time to look at who is shoveling the coal to keep this machine humming.

I'm here too. It's no a competition. Again. I need some me some leeway, but afford it to the rest of the world.^{— Unsigned, by: Gol Sarnitt / talk / contribs}

a courtesy policy is a goddamned horrific idea. Who gives a fuck what some other fuck says to you on the internet? Get over yourselves. Ace ⁱ⁹ 09:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Well. mr. ace, in general I agree. But you see, the world is full of snow flakes that get scared away by vicious punk assholes, that you and I know are not only irrelevant but would run like the cowards they are if they saw you coming. Anyway. We can call each other assholes in this space all we want. The point is how to treat the decline in edits. I am more than happy to come to anyone's digital address and tell them off in terms both general and specific: where you can stuff that bulbous knob of a head and so forth. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

General problems and suggestions[edit]

OK, since it seems that you are trying to make something about that, here my opinion and suggestions:

(1) Insults: Must be completely avoided, since they are unhelpful and disruptive. If an user is a piece of shit, then calling him so would not change his behavior, but it would probably aggravate it. Especially, an insult incite another insult and so on... making any constructive conversation impossible.

(2) Personal attacks: Must be avoided too. By "personal attacks" I mean when user X is editing page Y, and then another user criticizes him bringing back X's edits of page Y, which is on a different subject. Similarly to insults, they are unhelpful and disruptive.

(3) Edit wars: "take it to the talk page" doesn't work if only two users are involved and if they are clearly in complete disagreement. Since the intervention of other users is necessary and might take much time, there should be a general rule that establishes which version of the page must be kept until a consensus is reached. Otherwise, both the users in disagreement are incentivized to keep reverting each other edits, since apparently the last who edits wins.

(4) Reputation: Moderators should be super partes, and should treat users equally, regardless of their previous history. Recently a moderator told me that an user has a "better reputation" than me, hence he is allowed to insult me to a certain degree, and that I have earned his (the moderator) distrust because of my one-month-ago edits of a page.

-Lankaster (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Basically - courtesy towards other contributors, and critiquing them and their views, rather than criticism and abuse.

Gratuitous swearwords/abuse/discourtesy/insults etc is offputting - how many intending contributors never start or decide to contribute usefully elsewhere in the wikiverse rather than 'slumming it' on RW? Anna Livia (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism is criticism even if it hurts your feelings. Facts over feelingsTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

I agree, indeed I never spoke of feelings. P.S. I think something is wrong with your sign formatting. -Lankaster (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster He's just a troll shitposting and trying to stir up trouble, ignore him. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

if swearing and pointed language upsets you perhaps the internet isn’t the best place for you. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In none of my points I argued that certain language should not be allowed because it upsets me. -Lankaster (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I was just giving my opinionTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

I’m not talking to anyone specifically. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

First Lankaster, I am a "she" and second I am seeing more an obstinate contrarian who won't listen to arguments and doesn't like with when mods don't agree with his stance and continue to be uncooperative when engaging in drama and then being told to stop. This is the entire discussion that secured the reputation as uncooperative. Notice how many times we have to reiterate our points or explain carefully what argument 101 is with you constantly missing the point, misunderstanding the point, and he is constantly reiterating that you are correct, and he has edit warred in the page associated with that talk page with passive aggressive remarks 1 2. I am not treating you in particular equally because you do not deserve equal treatment to other users you are sparring with; you have no reputation other than pushing your ideas despite everyone arguing against you, earning contempt from everyone else. And after I told you and James Earl Cash off for sparring, James Earl Cash wisely stopped but you continued testing me, which again, is another example of your own noncooperation. You're more trouble than you're worth in this wiki and you're a constant disruption here when you're not following anyone's advice. You're not being a "brave" maverick or "independent" for this, you're making everyone's job harder and harder to maintain peace. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 22:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(reset) I am not against swearing per se, - but something that equates to 'yah, boo, sucks' does tend to detract from an argument/suggests the poster is trying to annoy the other person(s) into leaving the discussion. And what happens if those who decide that they do 'know a better hole and go to it' (where more colourful usages are used #when and where appropriate# - wikiverse, fandoms etc) and RW becomes perceived as a sinkhole of swearwords and mutual spiky-verbals?

One should know the difference between being a challenger to the system and being an ankle-biter. Anna Livia (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Not this fucking shit again. IF you don't like swearing you're in the wrong place. Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ace - You have described the problem with RW - people who enjoy "exuberant language and creative skewering of daft or wrong opinions" deciding they don't care for 'stupid user names deleted within a few minutes', swearwords and personal insults and decide to leave RW to those who do prefer such things. Anna Livia (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario "I am not treating you in particular equally because you do not deserve equal treatment to other users you are sparring with;" And this is wrong. Let's says that I did everything wrong in the talk page of cognitive differences between sexes... why now I cannot work on other pages in peace? What kind of incentives on working on other pages do I have now, after a moderator told me that she is not gonna treat me like the other users? -Lankaster (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea in principle however I'd like to see some specific proposal pages before I support anything. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Working on a proposal[edit]

So... looking around it seems that at least these people @Dysklyver, @LeftyGreenMario, @Nerd, @Bongolian, @DuceMoosolini, @Ariel31459, @RobSmith agree with the idea of having a policy to avoid disruptive behaviors. Since Dysklyver proposal is not gaining traction, I think its better trying to write another. LeftyGreenMario's one could be a starting point. Where can we write one together? Maybe an Essay page? -Lankaster (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

RobSmith is just a CP idiot. Pay him no mind. Secondly this has been voted on and overwhelmingly voted against so why do you think a rewrite would change anything? We already have guidelines and mods so why the fuck is the extra level of bullshit needed? Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not needed. The idea was to find a way not to scare newcomers away from talk pages. It is reasonable to suppose that the hot topics attract the most attention on the article talk pages. What about the idea of shout-pages? A place connected to the article where all the real assholes like us can go and spit Shinola at one another? I kinda like that one myself.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster There's no harm in trying. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean like a talk, talk page? Kinda over-engineering the place, no? Again, this sounds like a solution looking for a problem. This is the internet. Not everything is for everyone and we don't need to cater to everyone. Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not agree with the idea; I only said that I could be amenable to it depending on what shape it takes. I reserve the right to call Rob Smith a troll because he is indeed one. Bongolian (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

how can this be effective in anyway? what is here that is significantly different to what we already have - dont be a dick. you can word how you like but its just that repackaged a bit. it is and never was an issue. implementation is the issue. consistency, appropriateness of response, and importantly knowing when something is contentious. knowing the difference between heated debate and flat out abuse. knowing when to let things slide. these things are not dealt with here. this is not the quick fix that some folk think it is i have made suggestions on professionalism elsewhere. take a butchers at that, though i was speeding my tits of the time, so bear that in mind. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"what is here that is significantly different to what we already have[?]" What differences between RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Conduct and LeftyGreenMario's proposal? Well, the first doesn't even mention insults, ad hominem, trolling accusations... The second is a much precise set of rules and helps "knowing the difference between heated debate and flat out abuse." -Lankaster (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

see i looked at these, and they are not remotely what you describe, and where more specific its of dubious worth. this is because it cannot be specific. if it were, you'db need every swear, every similar turn of phrase that you believe should not be used. this would be ridiculous in every sense and idoubt there would be any concensus on what to include. and if its not written in the same fashion or context can i get away with that? a few well placed typos and i'm not saying fucker i am saying fucha. and it still misses the point. they are guidelines meant to give you the idea. they not exhaustive. you meant to use discretion and better judgement. if you have such egregious examples that you think add the amending text to a banned list, then you've an example where it so blindingly obvious that no legislation is required to correct because everyone knows its beyond the pale. if its got that far its already broken down. it should not get that far. but everything else is a quagmire of misinterpreted comments, poorly worded polemics, poorly judged tone. its stuff many have no problem with at all, or have no prloblem in context, or the original comment was so offensive that less than saying will fuck their mother is out. and nol one agrees on any of this and never will.its stuff that even when there is some kind of intervention - it comes off as heavy handed or too little to late. a code of conduct cannot will not rectify any these issues. qll the it is there for is to direct new users if they ask or if for some unknown reason they thought everyone is cool with screaming nigga at folk. its implementation thats lacking. if any guidelines are needed its for the mods concerning conflict resolution, and effective methods preventing or decescalting things. things that require experience and the right people doing things at the right time and everyone agreeing often enough we dont argue the toss on anything but the most glaring of errors, AMassiveGay (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Point of Order since I've been mentioned by name: In my experience insults and namecalling generally occur in a two-party dispute when one party has no facts to support their position. Hence they resort to namecalling like "idiot," "troll," or "rightwing Nazi" in a bid for support from allies in a losing argument. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 00:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"In my experience insults and namecalling generally occur in a two-party dispute when one party has no facts to support their position." This is often, but not always, the case. More pragmatically, I would say that insulting does nothing but exacerbate the situation. -Lankaster (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that @AMassiveGay is quite correct, the moderators need to do better enforcing rules as they already exist. You are doing a shit job, boys and girls. You have been willing to allow lessor sysops to brutalize users for having the wrong perspective or maybe being stupid but in good faith. Since I have been here as a sysops I have not created a single sysops. I am not here to recreate the world as it exists in my own mind. Fuck you if you are.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

the mods do not have the tools to do the job. check my suggestions on professionalism over at the mod election. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Fuck this shit[edit]

No seriously, this is a terrible idea. This shit is not okay when we have people pulling shit like implying feminists want to kill all men then flatly refusing any serious discussion of the deep problems there. Or edit warring and purposefully missing the point in discussion for the sake of arguing that women have tiny brains at odds with the best science. There's times and places where anger is fucking due. And the people involved with completely inhuman shit will pretend their personal offense is a bigger deal than the massive lies that harm millions they actively try to perpetuate. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If you read the four points of my subsection General problems and suggestions you'll see that I have never suggested that a policy should be implemented because of my personal (or someone else's) offense. -Lankaster (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no I read it, it's not helpful. If you're being a piece of shit, who's purposefully engaging in a dishonest manner, saying so is way more helpful than giving you benefit of the doubt you already burned through. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I was so problematic I managed to reach an agreement with fellow editors while you weren't around. Nerd (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"If you're being a piece of shit, who's purposefully engaging in a dishonest manner," Who does establish that? You? Don't you see that every time two people are in disagreement, each of them can think that the other is dishonest and then, according to you logic, start to insult each other? How that would be helpful to the conversation? -Lankaster (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like I can decide that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This shows your degree of illusion. You think that you can decide when other users are dishonest and hence you can insult them, and you don't see how disruptive this approach would be if taken by everybody. -Lankaster (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's not kid around, you were totally and completely wrong and only admitted it when outnumbered. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And why is that a problem? If Lankaster admitted it, you won the issue completely then. What is your problem? Do you expect editors should never deviate from your schemata? Don't be like that. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Naturally, the "if this were applied indiscriminately it would result in you always being right" reductio argument presumes that the level of bullshittery we're talking about is completely indiscernible from any disagreement. It isn't. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not fuck this or any other shit[edit]

Seriously, don't fuck any shit. Don't try to eat shit either. Damn 2 Girls 1 Cup has ruined society. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Many people have commented in the past that puns are the lowest form of humor. This isn't quite true. Reading metaphorical language as literal, that's the lowest form of humor. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I do try. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

To say that this thread did not make me snicker would be to state a falsehood. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

My sister has suddenly died at the age of only 42[edit]

My younger sister has suddenly died at the age of only 42. Spud (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. Nerd (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What kind of feelings are you experiencing? I know they're strong feelings of grief and loss, but I ask just so I hope it'll help you talk it out and maybe help you process them. It's fine to cry, and it'll take time to heal. I hope some pictures of baby goats will help you, even if it's a little bit, as part of the healing. My condolences. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is what I want to say.

Unfortunately, I have to start by saying that this isn't an extremely cheap trick to get votes in the upcoming mod election. But I'm sure most of you wouldn;t think that anyway. i'm writing this because I need somebody to talk to.

My sister has suddenly died of a brain haemorrhage at the age of only 42. She leaves behind a husband and a five-year-old-daughter. Poor little girl. Losing her mummy at the age of only five. This comes a little over two years after the death of my father. My mother must be hurting very hard.

As most of you know, I'm a Brit living in Taiwan. I haven't seen my sister since 2009, I didn't go home when my father died. Although I can't pretend I had the best possible relationship with my father, even though our relationship was OK, I had a very good relationship with my sister. We kept in touch via mail, email and Facebook. She sometimes sent me parcels full of British goodies and often emailed me great long lists of YouTube videos, especially at Halloween which was her favourite time of year as well as mine. In fact, my sister was a lot more similar to me than she would ever care to admit.

Of course, I always took it for granted that I would see my sister again one day. And, of course, I've never met my little niece. I hope that I still get to be a big part of her life.

To answer LGM's question. Well, I have tears in my eyes right now. But I'm also remembering how much my sister loved having fun and having a laugh. She loved comedy. She introduced me to so many comedy shows. She even aspired to be a sitcom writer. Funnily enough, the sitcom that she wrote was about the afterlife, in which Hell is an interesting place full of creatures out of folklore from all over the world and atheists get to go to heaven and meet the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

If you really want to cheer me up you can send me some pictures of kittens. My sister loved cats, as do I. She was planning on getting a cat soon as a present for her daughter.

I will always love and miss my sister. I will strive to live the rest of my life as best as I can for both of us. Spud (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll ask how you feel from time to time. I'm a bird person haha but if you like to watch a video of a cat snuggling with some budgies, there's one and also a a cockatiel preening a cat's whiskers. And I'm not going to forget footage of a baby crow. Don't be afraid to smile or laugh, okay? --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 04:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The world is a worse place for the loss, live well with her name in yours. Don't take that as advice, I just lost a grandpa and I'm about to lose another. I'm newly getting accustomed to family members dying, myself, but nothing like losing a sister. I can't fathom. But I know the world is a worse place for the loss. My heart aches and I don't even understand why. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh my God. I'm...I'm so sorry, Spud. I don't know why, but reading this caused me to tear up a little too. I am truly sorry for you and your family. My condolences for you and your family. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, RIP. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

My condolences. :( — Dysk (contribs) 10:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear about this. --RWRW (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your loss, Spud! What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3

(talk • stalk) 13:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for your lossTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

It is strange that such news should make me feel as troubled as it does. Because it is at once unwelcome and familiar, hurtful and sad. I am so very sorry.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

As suggested:

My condolences. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Know what you're going through. My sister died a few years ago - older than yours and not so suddenly. We were very close. All sympathy.Scream!! (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Really sorry to hear about this Spud. I'd imagine the pain to go through if your own sibling died, can't fathom my very own sister dying this young. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 17:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear of your loss. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey man. I can't imagine what you're going through right now. I hope you're okay. If there's anything you need, we'll all be here for you. Be well.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Though my condolences will likely have little in the way of practical effect, I send them anyway. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if I can offer any comfort but I will say I am sorry for your loss. You will get through it. If you need to talk just message me. 😇. Emergency Action Notification for the RationalWiki area --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

My condolences for your loss, Spud. It's times like this that remind us that we're all mortal, and that we need to make the best of life while we still can. Bongolian (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for all of your kind words. I have cried in the past 24 hours. In fact, I cried when reading your comments earlier. But I have also smiled and laughed. @LeftyGreenMario, I couldn't help smiling and going, "Ahhh", at the baby goat pictures as well as the videos. Feel free to ask me how I'm doing any time. The answer will probably be, "As well as can be expected", at least for a while. and thanks to whoever it was for the kitten picture. I think the fact that my sister died so suddenly, not after a long illness or even after a short illness, has driven home how important it is to enjoy and make the most out of life while we still can. Carpe diem! And my sister wouldn't forgive me if I didn't say that means, "seize the frisbee". Spud (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spud It's been a few days. How are you feeling? Very slightly better? Still bad? Don't worry if you feel worse than yesterday. Having someone who died so suddenly is really terrible. Even though her life was cut short, she did live her life really well. I'm sure she loved you and her family and made a lot of meaningful relationships along the way. How are you going to make the most of every day of your life? --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 23:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. — Saj ^∞ 23:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMarioWell, it's now Monday morning my time. It was on Saturday morning my time that I found out about my sister's death, so it really hasn't been very long yet. Later today, I'll have to go into work for the first time since I got the news. I'll have to tell my bosses and I'll ask them to tell my students. Like I did after my father died, I feel different. I feel a bit like I did before but with an underlying layer of sadness underneath. My sister did indeed make meaningful relationships with a lot of people. One way in which she was different from me was that she was very outgoing and made friends easily. And, of course, the fact that she leaves a 5-year-old daughter behind is, at the same time, one of the most comforting and one of the worst things about this. Apart from having different colour hair and eyes, which she got from her father, my niece looks a lot like my sister. She's even commented that photos of my sister when she was little look like her. That little girl must be hurting so much right now. And, since it's her sixth birthday later this month, I worry what effect losing her mother between Halloween and her birthday will have on her growing up. It also troubles me that she's so young that, eventually, she'll hardly remember her mother at all. I just have to take comfort in the fact that I will remember my sister and so will her husband and her many friends. And how will I live the rest of my life better? Well, I might be a little more impulsive and just do it instead of asking myself, "Should I or shouldn't I?" I'll also try to be a little more outgoing, like my sister was. And I'll try to keep a positive attitude as much as possible and take pleasure in all the small things in life. Spud (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tragic. Her life ends, but yours must continue down a lonelier street. No person can be replaced, but a sibling is something special, no one else you grew up with, who knows the life you've lived so well. Take strength from your memories and I can only hope your grieving isn't too long or hard. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spud How are you feeling? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 02:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Thanks for asking again. Well, I'm feeling a bit more like my old self and the layer of sadness is sinking down deeper inside me. I've had two days back at work now and they've gone fine. I told my bosses (who are husband and wife) when I arrived at work on Monday afternoon. My lady boss (who I really don't get on well with at all) took it as an opportunity to have another go at me and said that my sister probably died young because she ate badly like I do. (I'm not fat, by the way. I'm actually quite skinny.) My bosses haven't mentioned it since then. I asked them to tell the students and they did. But since they're all aged between six and twelve and I'm their teacher rather than their friend, it really didn't mean much to them. Tomorrow evening, I will be teaching a student who probably will share my sadness a little. She's 18, she's recently started university and I've been teaching her one-to-one for two and a half years. She's asked me about my sister in the past and I've told her what I've told all of you, that my sister was very similar to me. I even got her to write an imaginary letter to my sister as an exercise just a few weeks ago. I also know that my student has an older brother, I taught him two summers ago, they are also very similar to each other and very close to each other. I'll tell her at the very end of the lesson so that the whole thing doesn't end up being too sad. I do want to go home for a few days for my sister's funeral. I'm sure that I would be allowed to have a few days off work. The possibility of a group of my sister's friends paying for my flight ticket to Britain and back to Taiwan again has been mentioned. Spud (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"My lady boss (who I really don't get on well with at all) took it as an opportunity to have another go at me and said that my sister probably died young because she ate badly like I do." Wow. Please forgive my candor, but your lady boss sounds like a jackass. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth She is. She's a horrible person. I think she's recently crossed the line from being a terrible boss to being a bully. She called me "stupid" and an "idiot" today. Spud (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spud It seems your boss needs to be sat down and have ethics, morality and civility explained to her in simple terms, given her behavior. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I'm glad you think so. I try to avoid talking to her about anything ever because everything she ever says to me ends up being personal criticism. I suppose I now have the horrible bosses story to top all horrible bosses stories. My sister dies completely unexpectedly at the age of 42. I tell my boss two days later and she takes that as another opportunity to criticize my lifestyle. But I don't want this thread to be all about her. You can start a horrible bosses thread in a few months time and I'll spill my guts about her then. Spud (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That hurts to hear, Spud. You probably shouldn't really talk to your boss unless it's absolutely necessary. It's for your own good, your own protection. You're already going through a lot. I do hope your coworkers share your low opinion. But anyway at the funeral, just tell me how you feel and maybe... maybe tell me what kinds of birds you see and hear there. IDK. I know at my grandma's funeral, I saw squirrels and I think there were black phoebes and american crows, nice animals. I know those cheered me up. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Bog bodies[edit]

PBS broadcast this BBC special on Irish bog bodies the other night. "He may have been among the first victims of climate change," How about the simplest anthropological explanation. He may have been a baby-raper and tossing his body into a bog seemed a just and fitting punishment for society to express their shame. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 17:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with the BBC, but to be perfectly honest the idea that a high king would be ceremonially sacrificed and then just chucked in a bog is bullshit. During the same time period, chieftains in Cornwall and throughout much of the UK were buried in elaborate tombs, many of which featured implausibly large rocks as roofs. These structures still exist and are called dolmens. presumably the tonnage of the roof was proportionate to pleasing the gods or a status symbol or some shit. There is no way the king is going to be chucked in the bog. None whatsoever. Also this idea that climate change was a thing thousands of years ago reeks of climate change denial of the "its natural" variety and ignoring the fact it is pretty modern and made by human action. There I am not buying it. — Dysk (contribs) 18:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure back in the day they had corrupt kings capable of eggregious sex crimes. That, taken eith the idea this burial has the notion of shame written all over it, and given the laws of primogeniture, and the emotional violence which the killing was committed, the idea these people were superstitious and believed a human sacrifice could appease the gods seems far fetched. A modern audience is more likely to believe this bullshit and superstition about his death. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 18:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying climate denialists wrote this so they could frame it on the left? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a leapTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

These are archeologists, I don't expect they know shit about climate change and it just ended up in the headline cause it sounds good. — Dysk (contribs) 21:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

But they're scientists....Why would the BBC & PBS promote pseudoscience? RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 22:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@RobSmith A more likely explanation is that some PR company came up with a pitch and the BBC/PBS execs liked it and thought it would bring in viewers. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the BBC is generally right. The bog bodies all seem to be members of the ruling class; they ate relatively well from the evidence of their bones and teeth. They had access to imported luxuries like hair slickum. The theory is that the king held his office while the weather and crops cooperated; but if the crops failed or there was a plague or other calamity, it must have been that the king wasn't doing his job and so he was ritually murdered and chucked in a bog. The precise nature of the belief systems of pre-literate societies are hard to figure. What we do know is that they were apparently aristocrats of some kind; and that they were murdered in a ritual that involved several sorts of indignity and symbolic death before being chucked into the bog. I'm a bit wary of the Frazerisms in this narrative, but it is what it is. At least a few British bog bodies can be dated specifically to the time when Rome invaded Britain, so other public calamities or perceived failures of leadership may have prompted the sacrifice. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 23:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön So in a nutshell: Kings that reigned during fortunate and successful times got fancy-ass tombs, and kings that reigned during times of misfortune and hardship got castrated and chucked in the bog to appease the gods? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Or they were chucked in the bog because the angry hungry mobs were just angry at them. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is why the theory they were guilty of some heinious crime is more likely. Chucking them in a bog is a statement the society wants their memory eternally forgotten. Sacrificing them under an open sky is how you communicate with the gods. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 02:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@RobSmithOr... Or... Maybe, just maybe... You've been proven wrong. It's entirely possible that, maybe, just maybe, primitive people thought "bog + crappy ruler = easy disposal/maybe the gods will like us and fix shit if we do this". Just a thought. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe the gods aren't that smart to look in the bog to see the sacrifice...or maybe there's (scientifically} something deep in the human psyche that reasons a blood atonement is necessary to satisfy the gods...of maybe the BBC is manufacturing pseudoscience... alternatively, we could try it on the next president that has a recession occur on his watch. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 02:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they didn't have sky daddies. Maybe their deities of choice were like Hades/Pluto or Osiris? Hmmm.... Maybe, I'm just throwing this out here... They didn't think in the exact same manner as you.... Maybe we're just speculating since none of have expertise in the relevant fields and you in particular are flogging a dead horse. Just a few thought to consider. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how modern scientists reason (1) a blood sacrifice of a prominent person is necessary for redemption; (2) how the gods were going to find the sacrifice in the bottom of the bog to verify the peoples compliance with divine objectives; and (3) ignore evidence of the obvious: it was an emotional mob reaction to an outrageous event. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 02:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!! THE SCIENTISTS DON'T THINK CHUCKING PEOPLE INTO BOGS DOES ANYTHING!!! THE PRIMITIVE DIPSHITS WHO CHUCKED PEOPLE INTO BOGS TO BEGIN WITH THOUGHT IT DID SOMETHING!!!!! WHY??!!!??? BECAUSE THEY WERE PRIMITIVES WHO DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER! How can this be so hard to understand? Are you purposefully being ignorant? And for the record, one of the main reasons your argument falls apart is that, low and behold!! Primitive people didn't know having sex with people around ages 12-14 was wrong either!!! And if they didn't know it was wrong, they wouldn't do anything to punish anyone for it. Wow, imagine that!! It's almost like primitive people used a combination of superstition, fear, and ignorance to make life choices... Who would have thought it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the scientists correct in their theory? Wikipedia says of Cashel Man the king could be executed for a bad harvest. The BBC came up with all the climate change bullshit to explain a bad harvest. C'mon now, where does the examination of psuedoscience really begin? `RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!}

Given I haven't seen the show (unless it's the one that ran awhile back on PBS back where I live) I honestly can't say whether it's bullshit or not. Could you maybe link the episode of the show in question so we can all evaluate it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's the show. Most of the climate stuff comes in the last 10 minutes. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 06:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Drama crap aside (at least Nova keeps most of that crap confined to teaser previews) It seems that what they're saying is the climate may have shifted during the early Iron Age, causing the primitive people who lived in the region to begin sacrificing each other to try to stop it. If by "climate change" you mean that the regional climate changed then congrats, yes they're saying that. As to how accurate that is, well, I'd have to read the papers surrounding the bog bodies to gain more insight into the matter. Now, what they are not saying is that the regional changes to the climate back then are related to or caused by Anthropogenic Climate Change. We know the earth has had various shifts in climate over the ages and, based on all the information I have so far, this show appears to be referring to one of those shifts, and not to ACC. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I remember reading a book with the title or subtitle The Life and Death of a Druid Prince about one particular bog body, that of Lindow Man, and the authors used various circumstances about the body that the authors used to spin a tale about how he was a Druid aristocrat who was sacrificed and emboggened in order to seek the aid of the Celtic gods against the Roman invasion. Like most such literature, it seems to me to go too far in imaginatively reconstructing the circumstances. The unwritten beliefs of the folks that done it are lost beyond hope of recovery. We can know he was an aristocrat who lived a pampered life, or what passed for one among first century Britons; that he ate a last meal of bannocks similar to that found in the stomachs of other Celtic bog bodies who died by violence; that he came to a violent end, and was stuck in a bog. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön Correct me if I'm wrong (I possibly am, my knowledge of ancient customs and beliefs among first century Britons is spotty in places) but didn't these same tribal people show evidence of sacrificing livestock to bogs? Also, I agree that the authors are likely reading to much into the existing evidence. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I remember reading about some animal bog bodies, I think it was in the National Geographic, in a story about animal mummies. A dead human in a bog is several leagues more spectacular a discovery than a dead animal in a bog, so I suspect that human bodies attract a lot more forensic and scientific interest. I call speciesism. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

if a bog is suitable enough to sacrifice people in is just as suitable for falling by accident or disposing of murder victims. unless get specific about a particular bog body - mode death, what it had on it etc. then i dont see why anyone of these arnt a possibility. as to the climate change things, i dont know the specifics of this case, buts its not improbable. a cold winter, poor harvests, a disease popping up cam have devastating effects a civilisation having knock on effects that signal demnise or being superceded by some rival power. i saw a prog recently where some chap pin pointed the eruption of a couple of volcanoes (indonsesia and in south america somewhere) causingn a nuclear winter with knock on effects of plague and famine that ended a number of empires globally. [2] AMassiveGay (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If a bog is suitable for ritualistic Sacrifice it's also suitable for it simply being aa body that fell in, I know that that's an idea that makes people uncomfortable(Especially considering A Massive idiot keeps removing TheDarkMaster2's comments) ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.8.245.245 / talk}

Given that the comments in question ignore the content of the discussion (note the bit where I explicitly state that the scientists are likely not referring to ACC, while TDM2 accuses me of saying the opposite) and given that said comments bear all the behavioral characteristics of a troll... (And given that you yourself have displayed similar or identical behavior...) Well, calling me an "idiot" for "removing" them (They're actually still there, just hidden) seems rather, well, idiotic. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, human activity has desertified a bunch of terrain over the span of history. It's not impossible that some ancient British ruler caused anthropogenic climate change by cutting down a lot of trees, disrupting the flow of a local river or somesuch. But only on a very local scale of course. And then it's still all speculation. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

While it's possible that a localized form of ACC occurred, the current data regarding this matter is simply inconclusive. All it currently points to is a possible shift in the region's climate, cause unknown. This then possibly caused the natives to begin ritualistic slaughter in a primitive attempt to fix the problem. A quick side note, it should be obvious to anyone here that ritualistic sacrifice doesn't have any effect on climate or weather in the slightest. At no point in the video (I payed special attention to the last 10-20 minutes as Rob was concerned by that part, and thank you Rob for citing the video so it could be examined) did the scientists say or indicate that the shift in climate during the early Iron Age is related to the changes in climate we encounter in the present day. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You say I can't read then loose your cool by misunderstanding what this dude meant. I think both he and I believe that it's more likely a dude fell in the swamp as opposed to ACC. Would you agree? Unless you think that idea should be hidden like the others here.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Can you not read? I have stated multiple times that the scientists in the video are not referring to ACC, yet you continue to posit that either the bodies fell in the bog by accident or that ACC occurred The current information indicates some sort of ritualistic sacrifice, and that a possible climate shift occurred(again, cause unknown). Those are the facts, full stop. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not beyond the pale to hypothesize that cutting down trees for homes and firewood, coal burning for Bronze Age smelting, and cultivation of crops had an impact on rainfall and climate change at a time population density was a fraction of what it is today. Whether anal sex violated their fertility rites is another matter. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 18:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The chief climate hazard faced by pre-industrial people was sudden cold snaps cause by major volcanic eruptions. The famine of Justinian and the early nineteenth century "Year Without a Summer" were caused by volcanoes. That is in fact one potential solution to the problem of ACC: inducing volcanoes to erupt, or duplicating their effects with nuclear explosions. That said, I read somewhere that someone speculated that the early modern "Little Ice Age" was caused by the dialing back of the human population by the late medieval bubonic plague pandemic. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why Don't we Have a Page on Conservapedia Article?[edit]

? ^{— Unsigned, by: Doublethink / talk / contribs}

If you're wondering why there's no Conservapedia Article, it's because we already have this one: Conservapedia. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The one you edited four days ago. Avida Dollars^{her again} 22:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think the question is why isn't there an article on Conservapedia about RationalWiki. The answer of course is that RationalWiki people trolled Conservapedia relentlessly for years and they are slightly insane now. — Dysk (contribs) 01:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We already have a page on it, Conservapedia TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

If the question is "Why doesn't Conservapedia have an article on RW?" then the obvious answer is that it's verboten to mention RW on CP by edict of the Andrew himself. This has been the case since time immemorial. Scream!! (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

An odd Guitar Hero mod but still better than a Justin Bieber song[edit]

https://youtu.be/4Z8exY51Cg8

Came across this gem accidentally. Alert D,Urgence --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Alert Ready Tone (MEME CHART)", watched the video for a few seconds. "Better than a Justin Bieber song"? Doubt it. :P --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

RW political parties[edit]

How about we create political parties in RW where every member "registers" for one so everybody knows what everyone represents? I propose at least six factions: liberal, center-left, far-left, conservative, centrist and far-right. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of us don't really fit into that schedule very well. I am an economic nationalist who thinks Trump is basically right on tariffs and trade. I am a cultural libertarian, hostile to Moral Endeavor in whatever form it takes. In other matters of social policy I am a Confucian conservative, which is so out of tune with local 'conservatism' that I may as well be a 'socialist', albeit one without egalitarian tendencies. So which box do I fit in? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I created a political party once and it... well... wasn't exactly a roaring success. That said I do still like the idea of political parties here but I don't think the idea of 'registering' for them will be popular. --RWRW (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm none of those things. Hardcore anti-conservative but not particularly well aligned with liberal or leftist perspectives outside that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The party system is antithetical to RW's well-established "orderly chaos" system of factions forming over every single issue! Death to the party system! RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the spirit, rugged individualism (with ideological goons to back you up). RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 05:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd end up with roughly one unique faction per user, some of them very specific. This is RW. Dendlai (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Political parties are the most over-rated idea since warfare. They are idiotic and divisive, enforcing a group mentality at the cost of rational discourse. If I could burn every single political party on the planet to the ground and force candidates to argue their positions based on their own merits I would. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of that is just FPTP effects though, find a large enough group to slam through a majority. In genuinely many-party nations a lot of those problems are less severe. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed True, however by your own admission they still suffer from the effects of group mentality, it's just that it has been mitigated somewhat by other factors. My ultimate political goal is to eliminate group mentality, or at the very least minimize it to such an extent as to have as little an impact as possible on decision making. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course they do. Why the fuck wouldn't they? Six person programming teams have group mentalities and conflicts. Don't try to write out human nature with technocracy. It won't work. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Please re-read what I said, because the fact of the matter is no matter how much I hate group mentality, some element of it will always be required for society to actually function. (I actually acknowledged this reality somewhat in my previous post.) I'm realistic enough to understand that my "ideal world" exists in a vacuum, and that ultimately compromise will be required for any solution to existing problems. In short it would be a mistake to simply write me off as a dreamer and/or idealist too lost in fantasy to understand reality, when the fact of the matter is that what I want and what I'll get are in all likelihood two different, though possibly related, things. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hard to argue that you can't see that kind of benignly true point. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis Where do you draw the line between personal intellectual and philosophical positions and practical political alignment? Since you support nationalism and given your views on identity politics you are in practice "alt-right" so I would put you into the far-right box.

@RWRW I don't know how many members this site has but there are at least a few people that would join such an alliance.

@ikanreed If you want nothing particularly to do with neither the liberal nor the anti-liberal left maybe you should do some inner searching to re-examine why you are such a hardcore anti-conservative in the first place. Do we have a shrink in RW?

@Ron Divergence on single issues is natural even among people with similar political or philosophical views. I am arguing for trying to find a lowest common denominator.

@Dendai Same answer I gave to Ron.

@GrammarCommie Sorry dude. Since organized civilizations appeared, politics is based on coalitions and alliances, in short, political parties. Gewgtweg (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Because the conservatives are fucking scum and the liberal and left sides are disagreeing on actual issues around moral and scientific realities, with only occasional nutball positions tossed in. Everything about modern (american style, but it's spreading) conservatism is fucking vile anti-humanism or conspiracies and pseudoscience(or sometimes authoritarian religion) designed to write around the fucking vile parts. No exceptions. Anyone who looks at that and goes "well it's got good qualities" has some very vile views buried underneath. I don't know why you imagine this is some unthinking position and not a fairly basic truth that can be deduced from decades of "BAN THE GAYS, KILL THE TRANS, SET THE EARTH ON FIRE, SET TAX POLICIES THAT IMPOVERISH THE ALREADY POOR, LOCK CHILDREN IN CAGES" policy ennaction. There's no good conservatives. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If you'd actually met some sensible modern conservatives you'd know none of what you just said is true. "But muh collective guilt-shaming." *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Those "sensible" modern conservatives are doing a very good job hiding, and tacitly endorsing Trump et all. I wonder how they voted? Dendlai (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Like the ones who didn't endorse trump weren't 100% in favor of at least half the completely morally indefensible shit I listed in spite of him. Taking one shitty thing about their horrible ideology, claiming the ones who don't back it are the good ones, you still end up with a pile of remorseless, awful people. The claim that one day I'll meet a decent human being conservative, who finds something in the ideology that's not anti-humanism, is a hypothetical I will continue to keep an open mind to, but come the fuck on with this shit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't find the conservatism worldview as a whole compatible with today's society. Stability and order should, IMO, be what conservatism is about, but conservatism is really about preserving the status quo for nostalgic reasons, based on a warped, rosy, fantasy view of a past that never really happened. Conservatism at its core is about keeping things unfair and unequal, relying on fear of change, because it's an unfortunate component of human civilization, if not nature in its entirety. Conservatism isn't even about preserving things because you see conservatives politicizing one of the few things that should be preserved: our environment and climate change. There is nothing redeeming about social conservatism (I come to see it as nice way for bigots to not call themselves bigots) and there is nothing redeeming about fiscal conservatism being about stripping regulations and cutting taxes that have shown time to time to be destructive to society, especially to less affluent people, especially in the long run, and the very thing regulations are meant to do is to curb destruction and hold those liable to justice. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 00:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Nooooo! Avida Dollars^{her again} 20:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A big page where users outline their political affiliation might be a decent idea, but explicitly dividing users into simplistic tribes sounds horrible. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, such behavior is ultimately self destructive. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@BoN The 5 best regions on the planet (North America, the civilized parts of Europe, Australia, Japan and Korea) all have a tribal-politics system. If it's good enough for them why isn't it good enough for RW? A non-tribal system means oligarchy (most of Latin America), dictatorship (most of Eurasia) or anarchy (most of Africa). Gewgtweg (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with Anarchy? Is there anything that makes it inherently worse than any of your other possibilities? The USian "Democratic" system is totally broken, being a flip-flop, one thing or the other, with no chance whatsoever for a reasonable third party. Our UKian system's not much better (see what a total mess we're in now). But how to improve? Scream!! (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

But RW isn't run by a political party-system, so your analogy isn't really relevant. If your objective with these RW parties is simply to find out where users stand on political issues, then dividing them according to simplistic labels seems very inefficient. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scream What's wrong with anarchy? Africa, the worst region on earth, that's what's wrong. Most "states" there are really a small criminal mob that plunders the country's resources and the populace lives in anarchic conditions i.e. divided among a dazzling number of overcrowded clans and tribes the leaders of which are also engaged in criminal parasitism. Where a central authority doesn't exist to impose a monopoly on violence and no functional institutions exist what you basically have is anarchy. That's why nothing works. That this state of affairs is inherently worse than any other should be as self-evident as the light of day. Anarchists in the political and philosophical sense tend to be fine and clever people but it's possible for fine and clever people to believe stupid things.

@BoN I didn't mean for this analogy to be taken seriously of course. It was more of a joke. Sure, the diversity in the stuff a person can believe is mind-boggling. But in practical terms, a few labels are more than enough to identify someone's leanings. Take the example of Smerdis above. Whatever he thinks about Confucian conservatism, by supporting economic nationalism and given his views on identity politics he's basically a far-righter notwithstanding the trivial theoretical differences he might have with other people in the same category. Only apolitical people can legitimately claim to be above such labels. Having investigated the history of conservatism I know very well that traditional political terms age very quickly and can mean different things. But in the practical day-to-day world, they fulfill their pedestrian purpose of identifying what concrete forces we support (and why) just fine. I support a one-world-government and the forced reduction of the human population, seeing it as the only way to prevent a return to the stone age because of resource shortages, eco-degradation and climate chaos. Would eco-totalitarian not be an accurate neutral term for this position or would it just be "simplistic"? Gewgtweg (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not want further political divisions caused by the idea. I am generally Republican but I don't support everything Trump wants. No to the idea. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Two points I would like to add to this discussion. One, most of the more notoriously corrupt countries in Africa are partly that way due to imperialistic European inference. And two, Russia has a western style democracy, but they're notoriously corrupt and authoritarian as all fuck. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A point I will add is that the Nazi party is not exactly easy to classify. Plenty of far right elements but racism does not automatically far right. Racism is a separate concept. The Nazi party has some far left elements. Political parties on RationalWiki would be totally counterproductive. Even in this discussion it is clear we don't exactly fit into a single political spectrum. This message is approved by the RZ94 for moderator committee --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gewgtweg I certainly don't consider myself far-right or alt-right. I don't believe in riling people with hostility against an 'invasion' of Hispanics. Seems to me to be a lot easier to enforce an import ban on outsourcers, and require that money invested in US financial markets be spent on US territory. Don't even need any walls for that. The Republicans I talk with call all of this 'socialism'. I don't hate black or brown people. In fact, I have more regard for a part of some of their cultures than many typical urban, sheltered leftists do. I don't hate gays or trans people; as noted above, one thing I actively despise is Moral Endeavor, and that's been consistent for all of my life. My dislike of identity politics is not really hostility to all of its ideas: it is that the spirit of Moral Endeavor has possessed some of its partisans, and that always leads to hectoring and bullying. That said, a reliable part of the human race will be suspicious of outsiders and prefer to live among neighbors who share their language, culture, and folkways. A politics that perpetually threatens those people and makes them all enemies is a politics in love with losing. That's a problem. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Face facts: sympathy for white Hispanic migrants is motivated by the fact they will take jobs away from Black youths, whose unemployment is the lowest ever, reduce Black support for Trump, which is the highest ever, and make them dependent on White liberal Democrats again.RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 03:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön What's your opinion on drug cartels and human traffickers who exploit said Hispanics as they travel across mountains and rivers towards a future of crime-ridden districts and subpar-working opportunities? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting subject of which I could say much. Suffice it now to say, most Americans don't understand Mexico. It's federal government is almost non-existent. Mexico is essentially a collection of city-states where drug cartels, gangsters, and corrupt civil servants control most of the countryside and some cities. It's the economics of the cartels that's most interesting. They grew up after NAFTA, and virtually all their revenue comes fron the US. RobSmith ^{Ivanka 2024!} 04:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It isn't something I really have given a great deal of thought to. My suggestion would be that if we catch any of those human traffickers, we set them up with jobs in the airline industry. We obviously can't accept everyone from Central America who want to get here because the USA is not quite the shithole their native countries are. On the other hand, deliberate cruelties for them are not a reflection of who we ought to be, either. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this suggestion was made by the person who claimed a few days ago that they '... have no "opponents" because I don't subscribe to any discernible ideology.'. If we need some way to quickly identify someone's basic political positions, maybe encourage people to put their political compass position in their sigs. It's far from perfect, but a much better approximation than a one-phrase party designation. MunX (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Polictial spectrum tests are flawedTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Given that the RW contributor base is multi-national the political spectrums in the various countries do not overlap sufficiently enough for mainstream parties to be established - and how would eg all these parties be accommodated?

And if such parties were established they would rapidly prove fissiparous, given the nature of RW-ians. (No citation needed) Anna Livia (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering the relative left-leaning nature of RW(Citation not needed) such an idea would rapidly devolve into one party rule.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Considering RW was founded in response to arch conservatism the left leaning nature of the wiki is not surprising at all. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think your missing the point here, what DarkMaster2 obviously meant was that if RW was to create political parties then the majority would most likely be leftwing and "progressive", and thereby drown out non leftwing or "progressive" parties or ideas. Like it's already happening with GreenredMaro calling for a better policy against "Naughtywords" I'm sure that had nothing to do with TheDarkMaster2 debating with her then she loosing her mind and blocking him for three days for calling someone he didn't know the gender of, the female reproductive organ when she was already acting abrasive. Besides Conservapedia is not taken seriously by anyone yet RW is, for some unknown reason. ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.8.245.245 / talk / contribs}

I thought the OPs proposal was that some sort of RW political registry be created so every contributor could register their political party affiliation. Which I don't think is needed on RW at all. Anyway, what "non leftwing or progressive parties or ideas" would be/are being drowned out by this commie rabble? Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think your point already does enough to refute what Gewgtweg said, but I think its also worth noting just how silly his argument is. Five countries/regions that I think are good use political system A, therefore political system A is good. Samstr (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

76.8.245.245: You speak as if DarkMaster2 is a separate entity, but you're making the same spelling errors ("loose") (compare), littering posts with grammar and capitalization errors (compare), disrespecting my username, talking about ethics in journalism (compare), hand-wringing about political parties being equally bad (compare) and you also can't sign if your life depended on it apparently (compare). --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 01:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Ah, so you noticed that as well. Both have attacked my username as well, thus ~~falling into my clever trap~~ proving to have the intellectual depth of a very shallow plate. It's also very interesting that both became active almost at the same time, which in and of itself isn't noteworthy, but combine that with similar behavior and ideas and... Well, the result is so obvious that spelling it out would be insulting. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not that smart either. You think if you want to do a better job at impersonation, you'd actually make the effort to bring up different subjects, improve spelling and grammar, properly sign, and express different opinions. Oh well, if TheDarkMaster2 isn't already dishonest, this just makes him beyond the realm of reasonable doubt. He's a confirmed liar now and should be written off the moment he hits "save page". --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fuck yourself. One I could cite facts and you wouldn't believe. Second I have no idea who this anonymous douchebaf is. And btw common spelling errors don't prove dick. Fuck you, you stupid CUNT Yeah I said it, get fucked. Maybe if people didn't act like absolute pricks to people right of center you wouldn't get called what you are, a cuntTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, you wouldn't know the political center if it walked up to you wear a t-shirt saying "political center" and hit you over the head with a political center fish. Both the ideas you endorse and the people you cite are so far from center that you would literally need to redefine the entire spectrum to honestly call them centrists. Further, you have displayed a level of dishonesty and ill intent that violate the assumption of good faith and then some. In summery, you can say that your centrist all you like, but your actions and words tell a different story. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you consider center? Someone not willing to debate or even acknowledge the right wing?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster

--It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 17:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If politics was a box of chocolates, what would the political centre be (and what would the UK version be)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Man this took a pretty awesome turn but the main point stands that there is no need for a political registry, while the active contributor population tends to skew in a center-left direction we have contributors decidedly farther right than most and others that wouldn't even be properly defined by euclidean directions.

I could understand an internal census that collects this information being an idea. However at present time this just seems to be a way to prove the liberal bias of RationalWiki or to make some conservative users feel attacked or victimized? I assume that would make the secure and discourse fluent conservatives feel sort of embarrassed. It is probably the academic and skeptical nature of RationalWiki's contributor base that accounts for it's contents seeming (and in part being) more towards the left. Many pages still come down hard on both sides of woo in the end.

Eponymous (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive294

Contents

You are alone[edit]

the myth that poor whites are racist[edit]

Ever caught yourself wondering how...[edit]

BrazilWatch[edit]

Mod elections[edit]

Bombs![edit]

Who still edits?[edit]

Decline in edits, characters added[edit]

What about talk page etiquette?[edit]

Improving the image[edit]

I'm surprised fundies haven't flipped their shit[edit]

Weirdly enough, you know who has flipped their shit?[edit]

Religious "Extremists"[edit]

Arron Banks[edit]

PewDiePie collabed with Ben Shapiro[edit]

Republicans vs Democrats[edit]

Considering Christmas and the Holiday season is coming.[edit]

Conspiracy theorists being banned from YouTube[edit]

Wallstreet Journal Refunds Donation[edit]

Should we rewrite this article?[edit]

RationalWiki:Courtesy Policy[edit]

General problems and suggestions[edit]

Working on a proposal[edit]

Fuck this shit[edit]

Do not fuck this or any other shit[edit]

My sister has suddenly died at the age of only 42[edit]

Bog bodies[edit]

Why Don't we Have a Page on Conservapedia Article?[edit]

An odd Guitar Hero mod but still better than a Justin Bieber song[edit]

RW political parties[edit]

Navigation menu

Search